Nội dung

An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 VIETNAMESE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS ERROR-RELATED ISSUES IN EFL WRITING CLASSES Duong Thi Diem Phuc1 1 An Giang University Information: Received: 13/12/2016 Accepted: 13/03/2017 Published: 06/2017 Keywords: Teacher correction, peer correction and self- correction with teachers’ help ABSTRACT This study aimed to (1) investigate EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students' attitudes towards written error, error correction, teacher correction, peer correction and self-correction with teachers’ help; (2) find out what type of correction students perceived as the most favorable and effective type to improve their writing accuracy and writing performance. Data was obtained from a questionnaire and a follow-up interview on the issues above. There were forty seven English major seniors at An Giang university participating in this study. The results demonstrate that these participants regard written errors in a positive way as a natural part of their language learning. Errors help them to improve their knowledge and their language awareness. They strongly support error correction for its effectiveness in enhancing their writing accuracy and writing performance. The majority of the participants, however, do not expect all errors in their writing to be corrected. This descriptive study also reveal that participants favor peer and self-correction with teachers’ help more than teacher correction for the aspiration of being more autonomous in their own learning. will satisfy learners’ needs and improve teaching effectiveness. 1. INTRODUCTION Results from the studies of Brown (1994), Byram (2000), Bidin & Juscoff (2009), Ellis (1994), Masgoret & Gardner (2003), Saracaloglu (2006) indicate that there is a relationship between learners’ attitudes and their second language acquisition and their language success. Thus, comprehending learners’ attitudes towards learning should be a focus in order to satisfy learners’ needs through pedagogical practices, especially in teaching Writing. In addition, errors and correction are two indispensable factors in learning a language. Getting insights into learners’ attitudes towards errors, correction and types of error correction would be important because this 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Definitions of the terms The terms teacher correction, peer correction and self-correction are defined in different perspectives of linguists and language educators. However, in the current study, teacher correction is presented as teacher’s direct or indirect responses to learners’ errors consisting of supplying the correct forms of the errors and giving comments (Chaudron, 1977; Lightbrown & Spada, 1999; Macmillan English online dictionary, 2008). Peer correction is an activity in which ‘learners assess each other’s performance’ (Richards & Schmidt, 2013, 245). 90 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 Meanwhile, self-correction means learners selfcorrect their errors after the teacher has pointed them out (Macmillan English online dictionary, 2008). Hayet (2006) found that learners would like their teachers to address all errors in their writing because they believe that a good writing should have as fewer errors as possible. 2.2 Learners’ attitudes towards errors and correction 2.3 Learners’ attitudes towards teacher correction, peer correction and selfcorrection with teacher’s help Research about learners’ attitudes towards written errors is limited. Up to now the writer has found only one article by Kavaliauskiene (2003) investigating Correction and self-correction of writing assignments at Tertiary level. Participants were 43 second - year students at the Law University of Lithuania. This article reported that after 110 hours having involved in a writing class and practiced self-correcting their assignments, these participants answered a questionnaire with two multiple choice statements indicating their attitudes towards teacher correction and selfcorrection. They also participated in a follow-up interview. Kavaliauskiene (2003) found out that those participants were afraid of making errors because they did not want to get low grades. They also thought that errors were the evidence of their limited language competence so they were scared of “losing face” when their teachers and their friends noticed their errors. Compared to peer correction and self-correction with teacher’s help, teacher correction is considered the most favorable method as presented in Chandler (2003), Diab (2005), Kavaliauskiene (2003) and Hayet (2006). The main reason why learners prefer teacher correction is its effectiveness in improving their accuracy and facilitating learners’ recognition on the correct form of the errors (Chandler, 2003; Kavaliauskiene, 2003). Another reason derives from learners’ disbelief on their peers (Hayet, 2006). Most of the participants in those studies explained that they were not satisfied with peer correction due to their friends’ limited competence. Peer correction and self - correction, in contrast, are regarded more beneficial than teacher correction illustrated in Chandler (2003), Ferris and Robots (2001), Komura (1999), Kavaliauskiene (2003), Hayet (2006), Rennie (2000) and especially Ferris’ survey (2003) on four studies of Leki (1991). Those authors clarify that peer and self - feedback can help to enhance learners’ writing accuracy, their language awareness and learning autonomy better than teacher correction. In addition, they feel more comfortable when discussing and correcting their errors with their friends (Wang, 2008) While the students in the research above were afraid of making errors, numerous students in other studies strongly believe correction is an essential part of their learning because it encourages them to learn and improve their writing performance. For instance, Ferris (2004), in her article debating to Truscott’s (1996) “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes” affirmed that learners welcomed correction of their errors because this motivated them to study more. Similarly, Leki (1991) investigated preferences to error correction of 100 English as Second Language College students. These participants stated that they liked error correction because they wanted to write well. In conclusion, the reviewed literature shows that there have not been any studies on learners’ attitudes towards errors, error correction and types of error correction in Vietnamese context. Therefore, this is a justification for why this study is conducted. In addition, there are also contrasting results among previous studies as discussed above so that the researcher wanted to find out the Regarding the quantity of errors which should be corrected, studies by Diab (2005), Leki (1991) and 91 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 similarities, differences and novelty of this issue compared to the previous ones. 2) What type of error correction do participants perceive as the most favorable and effective type to improve their accuracy in writing? 3. METHODS 3.1 Participants 3.2.1 Questionnaire The participants involved in the study were all English major seniors at An Giang University, a public university in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Participants were 47 students including 6 males and 41 females. Their average age is M = 22.5. In order to gain more insights into the issue, I purposefully chose these seniors because they have had four years experiencing different kinds of error correction (e.g. teacher correction, peer correction and self - correction with teachers’ help). Thanks to such a long time of receiving the benefits and coping with the limitations of these correction treatments, the participants might have a strong comparison and clear attitude towards written errors, error correction and the effects of each type of error correction. Since there have not been any adequate questionnaires suitable for this study, the researcher had to design this questionnaire based on theoretical assumptions and empirical studies on error-related issues in EFL writing classes of Bartram & Walt (1991), Chandler (2003), Choon (1993), Harmer (2001), Hashimoto (2004), Hubbard et al. (1983), Kavaliauskiené (2003), Katayama (2006), Scrivener (2005), Truscott (1996), Tsui (1995) and Wan (2007). This questionnaire aims to collect information on learners’ attitudes towards written errors, error correction and three types of correction. The questionnaire comprised 25 questions. Each question included a statement about learners’ attitude towards written errors, error correction or a certain type of error correction followed by a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree). All items were categorized into three clusters including written errors, error correction and three types of error correction – teacher correction, peer correction and self - correction with teacher’s help. Table 1 below summarizes items of each cluster in the questionnaire. 3.2 Research instruments Two types of instruments (the questionnaire and the interview) are used to find out the answers for the following research questions: 1) What are participants’ attitudes towards written errors, error correction and types of error correction? Table 1. Summary of the questionnaire Clusters Items Learners’ attitudes towards errors 1, 4, 7, 12, 17, 20, 22, 25 Positive attitudes 1, 4, 7, 20, 22 Negative attitudes 12, 17, 25 Learners’ attitudes towards error correction 2, 6, 8, 10, 13 Supportive attitudes 6 Resistive attitudes 2, 8, 10, 13 Learners’ attitudes towards types of error correction 3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 Teacher correction 5, 11, 14, 19, Peer correction 9, 18, 21, 24 Self - correction with teacher’s help 3, 15, 16, 23 92 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 3.2.2 The interview researcher gave careful instructions on each item of the questionnaire before participants began to answer the questionnaire. When some participants had difficulty in understanding a certain item in the questionnaire, the researcher explained it to them. The participants had 25 minutes to complete the questionnaire. After that the researcher collected these questionnaires. The researcher interviewed conveniently three male and three female participants out of the 47 participants who answered the questionnaire. The interviews aimed to gain insight into participants’ ideas of making errors and correction as well as to investigate the type of error correction they perceived as the most favorable and effective type to improve their writing accuracy. There were six questions in the interview question list focusing on the participants’ attitudes to written errors, correction, and ways of correction as well as their expectation to improve the quality of error correction. Interview data were used to further explain the results of the questionnaire. 3.3.2 Administering the interview To get insight into the research issues, individual interview was informally administered to six students. Each of them answered six questions related to 3 main clusters on learners’ attitudes towards: (1) written errors, (2) correction and (3) three types of correction. Each interview was about 15 minutes. The answers were used for qualitative data analysis. During the interview time, the researcher recorded and took notes of the participants’ responses. 3.3 Procedure of data collection To collect the data on participants’ attitudes towards these research issues, the questionnaires were administered to 47 English major seniors. Moreover, six participants were involved in the interviews. 4. RESULTS 4.1 Participants’ attitudes towards written errors, correction and three types of correction 3.3.1 Administering the questionnaire Using the results of some previous studies like Chandler (2003), Ferris (2003), Hayet (2006), Kavaliauskiene (2003) as a sound basis, the researcher hypothesized that learners had negative attitudes towards written errors and that they strongly supported error correction. They might, in addition, prefer teachers to deal with their errors than their peers. In order to test these assumptions, quantitative data from the questionnaire were collected. The researcher came to the participants’ classroom and delivered the questionnaires. To ensure the validity of the data collected, the The data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed by using the Statistics Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for the data analysis. The 5point scale was coded from 1 for strongly disagree to 5 as strongly agree. The reliability analysis showed that reliability coefficient of the questionnaire is acceptable (α = .7056). Participants’ attitudes towards written errors, error correction and types of error correction were analyzed with the Descriptive Statistic Test. Table 2 below presents the results of the descriptive test. Table 2. Mean Performance of Participants’ Attitudes towards Written Errors, Error Correction and Three Types of Correction General Mean N Min. Max. Mean SD 47 3.24 4.44 3.89 .27 93 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 Comparison of participants’ viewpoints on teacher correction, peer correction and self-correction with teacher’s help The mean score of the questionnaire shown in table 4.1 is M = 3.89. This mean is higher than the accepted score of the whole study (M = 3.0) - the average score of the 5-point attitude scale. It indicates that participants generally hold highly positive attitudes towards written errors, correction and three types of correction. To analyze participants’ viewpoints towards teacher correction, peer correction and selfcorrection with teacher’s help, the researcher used Descriptive Statistic Test. Table 3 below which shows the results of this test. Table 3. Mean Performance of Participants’ Attitudes towards Three Types of Correction Types of error correction N Min. Max. Mean (M) SD Teacher correction 47 2.50 4.50 3.47 .52 Peer correction 47 3.25 5.00 4.12 .39 Self-correction with teacher’s help 47 3.00 5.00 4.04 .51 Average Mean 47 3.17 4.50 3.88 .29 As shown in Table 4.2, participants’ attitudes towards the three types of error correction for their writing were quite positive. The average mean score of all of these correction treatments (M = 3.88) is higher than the accepted score (M =3.0), the average mean of 5-point attitude scale. Moreover, while most participants favored peer and self-correction with teacher’s help, some participants did not greatly appraise their teachers to correct their writing, illustrated by Min. = 2.5. In addition, the mean score of peer correction (M = 4.12) is slightly higher than which self - correction employs (M = 4.04) and the mean score of teacher correction (M = 3.47) is much lower than the two formers. It can be concluded that participants generally favored teacher correction, peer correction and self-correction with teacher’s help. However, they perceived peer correction and selfcorrection with teachers’ help more effective than teacher correction, which can be illustrated as in the figure 1 below. Participants' attitudes 4.2 Mean scores 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 Teacher Peer Self Types of error correction The figure 1. Comparison of participants’ attitudes towards three types of correction 94 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 In brief, quantitative data shows that participants in this study positively evaluated errors. They approved of error correction in their writing. Most students appreciated their teachers, their classmates or themselves involved in the correction process, and their most favorable and effective type of correction was peer correction. “To language learners, it’s usual to make errors. If they can correct these errors, their writing will be better.” “We can learn from the errors and avoid making them again” 4.2.2 Participants’ correction 4.2 Insights into participants’ attitudes towards written errors, error correction and three types of error correction attitudes towards error The results revealed that all of the six interviewees strongly supported error correction. They emphasized, This section presents data from interview to get insights into participants’ attitudes towards errorrelated issues in EFL writing classes. General results from the interview showed that all six participants had positive attitudes towards written errors. They also strongly supported error correction, and half of the interviews favored and highly appreciated self- correction with teacher’s help. “Of course, I want my errors to be corrected”. The main reason for their support was that they sometimes could not recognize the errors by themselves. With the help of their teachers or friends, their knowledge would be improved and they would learn from their corrected errors. The corrected errors, moreover, foster these participants’ writing performance and learning confidence. For example, participant D asserted, 4.2.1 Participants’ opinions of making errors All of the participants had positive attitudes towards making errors in terms of three aspects: the significant roles of the error in language learning, its contribution to the participants’ language awareness and language knowledge development. These participants actually considered errors as a natural part of their second language acquisition. Thus, making errors is not negative, but normal. For instance, participant A stated, “….because I will notice these errors. Sometimes, I cannot recognize the errors in my writing. If my teacher or my friends correct my errors, my knowledge will be better and I can learn from these errors”. Other respondents added, “…..my next writing will be better and I will be more confident to write subsequent tasks”. “I think every learner makes errors in his/her writing” 4.2.3 Participants’ attitudes towards favorable correction methods Moreover, all of the interviewees agreed that making errors was useful because the corrected forms of errors could help learners enhance their accuracy and their language knowledge. They could learn from their errors if these errors were corrected. Then they would remember and might not make such errors again. Their writing could be enhanced thanks to the corrected errors. As C and E respectively explained, Of the three types of correction: teacher correction, peer correction and self-correction with teacher’s help, the last was the most favorable. In fact, three out of six interviewees (50%) favored selfcorrection with teacher’s help, one interviewee (16.7%) was interested in both peer correction and self - correction with teacher’s help and the other two interviewees (33.4%) liked teacher correction. their Particularly, all three participants choosing selfcorrection with teacher’ help said that teachers would revise their learners’ correction because the 95 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 participants thought applying this correction method along with teacher’ revision would not only foster learners’ learning autonomy but also reinforce their knowledge. For example B said, Reasons for the participants’ positive attitudes towards errors in this study could be explained as the participants’ high appreciation of the important and contributed roles of errors in language learning. Most of the participants regarded errors as a natural aspect of language learning because errors are evidence of their progress, a sign of their awareness on the language and a part of their interlanguage. Actually, 72.3% of the participants agreed that errors were a sign of a learner’s achievement in learning because he was trying something new. These participants confirmed that errors helped them to enhance their knowledge because they were aware of their errors; they could learn from these errors and they helped them to study better. Finally, the questionnaire results also demonstrated that 76.6% of these participants agreed that target language errors were caused by the influence of their mother tongue. Therefore, the participants were not against written errors because errors were not bad at all and making errors was usual. Errors could help them become aware of the language and enhance their knowledge. “Teachers should let learners correct their errors by themselves after they point it out. After that if the learners don’t know how to correct these errors they can meet their teachers, and the learners can check their correction again. These learners will improve their learning autonomy as well as strengthen their knowledge again”. 5. DISCUSSION & IMPLICATION 5.1 Discussion of the results 5.1.1 Participants’ attitudes towards written errors The results from Descriptive Statistic Test and One Sample t-Test (M = 3.89) revealed that the majority of the participants positively evaluated written errors. In comparison to the negative attitudes towards errors in the research of Choon (1993), Kavaliauskiene (2003), Maicusi & Lopez (2000) and TESL Newsletter (2008), the findings of this current study were quite different. While the attitudes presented in the research above considered errors as teachers and learners’ ineffective teaching and learning, most of the participants did not agree. They thought that making errors was not negative but normal because “every learner makes errors in their learning”. Furthermore, according to negative attitudes, errors are regarded as harmful and should be eradicated but the results from this study demonstrated that 95.3% of these participants were against this notion. Besides, 70.6% of the participants in the current study did not agree that errors were an evidence of their weakness in learning. That opposites the results in the study of Kavaliauskiene (2003) which indicated that his participants were afraid of making mistakes and thought that errors were evidence of their limited competence. 5.1.2 Participants’ correction attitudes towards error The results from the questionnaire and the interview demonstrated that nearly 100% of participants approved of error correction, which is similar to the study results of Ferris’ (2004) and Leki’s (1991). One of the main reasons why the participants expected error correction might derive from their desire to improve writing performance. These participants explained that they did not have an ability to recognize all of the errors in their writing, so if their errors were corrected, they noticed the corrected errors and knew the correct forms of these errors; and then their writing would be improved. Moreover, the data from the interview proved that all participants supported error correction because they felt more confident in writing their next tasks. Participants’ attitudes towards the amount of errors corrected 96 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 Both quantitative and qualitative data analysis indicated that almost all participants did not expect all errors in their writing to be corrected, in fact they prefer selective error correction (a method in which only some important errors are corrected or pointed out by teacher’s or peer’s correction, Truscott, 2001). This result is quite different from the study conducted by Diab (2005), Hayet (2006) and Leki (1991). These authors discovered that many participants in their studies preferred teachers to deal with all of their written errors because they thought that good writing should have as fewer errors as possible. However, participants in this current study resisted on correcting all of their errors because they expected to be involved more in the correction process, to find out and correct the minor errors by themselves. Then, they could reduce their reliance on their teachers and enhance their learning autonomy. The participants’ attitudes towards these types of correction are generally positive although they also found various advantages and disadvantages of each type. Among the three error correction methods, the participants preferred peer correction and self - correction with teacher’s help rather than teacher correction and perceived the two former methods as being more effective than the later. Participants’ attitudes toward peer correction and self-correction with teachers’ help The results showed that peer correction was the most favorable and effective correction method. However, the mean score of peer correction from the questionnaire (M = 4.12) was marginally higher than self –correction with teacher’s help (M = 4.04) while the mean score of teacher correction only reached 3.47. It can be concluded that the participants preferred peer or self- correction with teacher’s help. Nevertheless, another remarkable finding from the interviews revealed controversial opinions on the number of errors teachers should correct or point out in their students’ writing. Two participants were afraid that so many errors corrected or pointed out by their teachers could make them stressed and ashamed as well as could de-motivate their learning. Others were worried that teachers did not have time to correct or to point out all learners’ errors; or teachers over-evaluated learners’ competence and they let the participants find and correct minor errors by themselves. Consequently, this correction method caused learners to misunderstand that the uncorrected errors were the accurate ones; as a result they continued to make these errors again and again. Generally, it seems that the reason for these controversial opinions may derive from teachers’ unclear explanation before dealing with the participants’ errors; or teachers did not explain the purpose of their correction; or they did not instruct learners how to cope with their correction well. The findings above illustrated an opposite result from the previous studies of Chandler (2003), Ferris (2003), Hayet (2006) and Kavaliauskiene (2003), which demonstrated that most of the participants in these studies favored teacher correction. Otherwise, another result of the current study indicated that the participants considered peer and self-correction more beneficial than teacher correction. An explanation for this notion derived from their achievement in writing performance, the progress of their language accuracy and their expectation of reducing their reliance on teachers. In addition, these participants felt more comfortable with peer correction process because they felt free in discussing errors with their friends. This result is corresponding to Wang’s study (2008). However, both peer and self-correction with teachers’ help share a common disadvantage. In fact, in some cases the participants disbelieved in the errors corrected by their friends or by themselves. This opinion was also verified in Hayet’s study (2006). In addition, the participants revealed that they sometimes did not know how to 5.1.3 Participants’ attitudes towards teacher correction, peer correction and selfcorrection with teacher’s help 97 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 correct their grammatical errors which were pointed out by their teachers. They also did not know whether their correction and their friends’ correction were accurate or not. the research issues. First of all, theoretical assumptions and empirical studies of Bidin & Juscoff (2009), Brown (1994), Byram (2000), Ellis (1994), and Saracaloglu (2006) illustrated learners’ positive attitudes towards language and language learning, which helps enhance their language acquisition and success. Therefore, learners’ positive attitudes towards written errors can prevent them from their fear of making mistakes. Moreover, this attitude can help students overcome this fear to improve their writing performance. In order to maintain learners’ positive attitudes towards errors, it is better for teachers not to grade the first draft of learners’ writing task because one of the reasons for being scared of making mistakes is being “down-graded” (Kavaliauskiene, 2003). Participants’ attitudes towards teacher correction Similar to the findings of Hayet’s study (2006), the results in this research reveals that the most obvious benefit of teacher correction is participants’ beliefs in their teachers’ correction. Indeed, the participants were satisfied with the errors corrected by their teachers because they highly appreciated their teachers’ knowledge. Besides, these participants discovered that teacher correction facilitated learners’ comprehension on the corrected errors, and they believed in their teacher’s correction more than what they had from peer or self-correction with teachers’ help. It was similar to the learners’ ideas in Chandler’s study (2003) in which those learners affirmed that teacher correction was the easiest way to recognize the corrected errors. The participants in the current study essentially clarified that they almost identified the corrected errors with no trouble because the teachers supplied the right forms of the language so that they did not need to worry about or find out these accurate forms. Teacher correction, moreover, should be accompanied with some positive comments to encourage learners and reduce their stress on making errors, and avoid using red pen to correct their errors because a sea of red pen may demotivate learner’s learning motivation (Truscott, 2001). Besides, peer correction would be more effective if students are guided through the correction process with a checklist. Meanwhile if teachers wish to use learners’ self-correction with teacher’s help, they should clarify the shown errors (Chandler, 2003) and correct only serious errors along with asking learners to self-correct a certain type of their errors. These strategies are really helpful in fostering learners’ writing competence. Finally, the researcher has learnt that to prevent learners’ confusion from their peer correction, it should be combined with correction assessment checklist and the purpose of selective error correction techniques should be explained to the learners clearly before starting the correction processes. In summary, the findings of this study revealed that the participants’ attitudes towards written errors, error correction and types of error correction were positive. These participants approved of correcting their written errors because the correction helped them to achieve their language accuracy and their writing performance. Almost all participants supported error correction but they would not prefer their teachers to deal with all of their errors. These participants expected all subjects (teachers, peers and themselves) to correct their errors although peer correction and self-correction with teachers’ help were considered more favorable and more effective than teacher correction. 5.3 Limitation of the study Although the study could reach to the aims of the research, it still had one limitation. Indeed, there was a small number of the population restricted in 5.2 Implication Based on the results and discussion above, the researcher suggests some implications related to 98 An Giang University Journal of Science – 2017, Vol. 5 (2), 93 – 99 English major seniors so it is hard to conclude for a wide range of students at An Giang University. do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 49-62 6. CONCLUSION Hayet, B. (2006). Students’ attitudes towards correcting their errors and mistakes. Retrieved January 7, 2009 from http://theses.univbatna.html. In conclusion, this study found that the participants valued the significant roles of errors in their language acquisition. They considered that making errors was a normal part of the learning process and appreciated the function of error correction in improving their knowledge. Moreover, the participants approved of the correction for their errors, especially selective error correction. They also perceived peer correction and self-correction with teachers’ help more effective than teacher correction. The findings, furthermore, revealed that learners wanted to improve their writing performance but avoided relying on their teachers. Kavaliauskiene, G. (2003). Correction and SelfCorrection of Written Assignment at Tertiary Level. Journal of Language and Learning. Vol.1, No 2, 2003. ISSN 1740-4983. Richards, J, C. & Schmidt, R. (2013). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (4th Ed.). New York. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46:2, 327-369. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from http://www.hss.nthu.edu.tw. REFERENCES Chandler, D. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 12: 267296 Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 27.2 (June 2001): 93-108 Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL university students' preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 1: 27-51. Wang, P. (2008). Exploring Errors in Target Language Learning and Use: Practice Meets Theory. CCSE English Language Teaching. Vo.1, No 2. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from www.ccsenet.org/journal.html. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The Grammar Correction Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where 99