英语论文网

ere were times when considering one criterion they provide feedback on all the relevant errors, and yet at other times they simply decide to ignore some errors and leave them as they are.

Three teachers also emphasized the importance of the aim of the course in general, and the focus of each session in particular. They also described this focused approach to error correction as selective. By the same token, this group was also inconsistent in their practice. When asked “With regard to a certain focus, do you correct all the errors related to that focus or you prefer to be selective?” two of them said, “well, it depends” and one said “Sometimes I think that it is better to select some and other times all errors should be corrected”.

All the teachers interviewed admitted that their knowledge about error correction in writing was insufficient and that they did not know much about research findings in this connection. Only three teachers had studied one or two research articles on error correction/feedback in L2 writing, and 10 teachers had not in fact studied an article on this issue. All but one of the teachers were uncertain about the best and ideal way of error correction in writing [4] . Yet most of them presumed that their approach to error correction has worked. The only teacher who claimed to know the best and ideal way error correction described the approach as “indirect teacher feedback ? direct peer feedback ? revision by the student writer”.

Discussions and Conclusions

The present study is a two-fold effort first in the hope of proposing a compromise between those who assert that error correction in L2 writing is beneficial for the learners (e.g., Ferris, 1999) and those who maintain that error correction is detrimental and should be abolished (e.g., Truscott, 1996). Second, and equally as important, it is an attempt to address the question of comprehensiveness/selectiveness of error correction in L2 writing.

In effect, the debates have yet remained unresolved, and meanwhile teachers are left confused as to what to do in their classes. Considering the inconsistent findings of the research studies conducted so far, what the present study took in perspective was the beliefs, ideas, desires and opinions of the main stakeholders. Now that as Ferris (2003) argues, the research base on the “big question”– does error feedback help L2 student writers? – is inadequate and even “contradictory” (Guénette, 2007, p. 40), and “We are far from arriving at any conclusions about error correction in L2 writing classes” (Ferris, 2004, p. 56), why not ask the question from those for whom the whole research is carried out?

Truscott (1996), however, is correct to suggest that students may not always be the best judges of what they need. Yet, this may be a more reasonable speculation for beginners than for advanced adults. In fact, the logic of the argument that advanced adult learners are proficient enough to know what is best for them can be defied only with great difficulty. Everyone agrees that not all students are able to decide what is best for them no matter how old they are. Yet, it is not implausible to assume that regarding adult students, the more advanced and proficient they are, the more control they can assume on their learning and the more autonomy they should be granted over the instruction they receive.

In harmony