A Study of Students’ and Teachers’ Preferences and Attitudes towards Correction of Classroom Written Errors in Iranian EFL Context

Leila Hajian, Ali Akbar Khomeijani Farahani, Masomeh Ahmadi Shirazi


Written error correction may be the most widely used method for responding to student writing. Although there are various studies investigating error correction, there are little researches considering teachers’ and students’ preferences towards written error correction. The present study investigates students’ and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Iranian EFL context by using questionnaire. In this study, 80 students and 12 teachers were asked to answer the questionnaire. Then data were collected and analyzed by descriptive method. The findings from teachers and students show positive attitudes towards written error correction. Although the results of this study demonstrate teachers and students have some common preferences related to written error correction, there are some important discrepancies. For example; students prefer all error be corrected, but teachers prefer selecting some. However, students prefer teachers’ correction rather than peer or self-correction. This study considers a number of difficulties regarding students and teachers in written error correction processes with some suggestions. This study shows many teachers might believe written error correction takes a lot of time and effort to give comments. This study indicates many students does not have any problems in rewriting their paper after getting feedback. It might be one main positive point to improve their writing and it might give them self-confidence.



Error correction, teacher feedback, preferences.

Full Text:



Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K., (2007). Research Methods in Education, Routledge.

Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL university students’ preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing TESLvReporter, 38, 27-51. From https: //ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/TESL/article/view File/3809/3555.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. New Jersey:Mahwah. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 50-51.

Gulcat, Z., & Ozagac, O. (2004). Correcting and giving feedback to writing. Retrieved Dec. 12, 2008. From https://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/teachers.

Halimi, S.S. (2008). Indonesian teachers’ and students’ preferences for error correction. Wacana, 10 (1), 50-71.

Hamouda, A.(2011). A study of students and teachers preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written error in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4 (3), 128-141. From https://www.ccsenet.org/efl. doi:10.5539/efl.v4n3p128. ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750.

Hyland, K. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217-230. From https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00021-6, DOI: 10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00021-6.

Katayama, A.(2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9 (4), 290-306. From https://www.asian-efl- journal.com/Dec-2007-ak.php

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216-237. .

Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: what do students think? TESL Canada

Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 22 (2). From https://www.teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/veiw/84.

Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign

Language Annals, 24, 203-218.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.R. Richie, & T.J.

Bhatia, (Ed.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Noora, A. (2006). Iranian Non-English Majors’ Language Learning Preferences: The Role of Language Institutes.

Developing Teach. From https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/site-map.php.

Oladejo, J.A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learner’s preference. TESL Canada Journal, 10 (2), 71-89.From


Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J.M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.

Riazi,A., & Riasati, M. (2007). Language Learning Style Rreferences: A Student’s Case Study of Shiraz EFL Institutes. Asian EFL Journal.

Schwartz, B.D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.

Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be more effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1 (3), 217-233.

Stannard, J. (2008). A new direction in feedback. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2008. From https://www.hltmag.co.uk/dec08/mart04.htm

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46 (2), 327-369.

Wang, P. (2010). Dealing with English majors written errors in Chinese universities. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 194-205. From https://www.academypublisher.com/ojs/index.php/jltr/article/view File/1797. ISSN 1798-4769.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.287


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.