英语论文网

with the Self-Determination Theory (Dickinson, 1995), autonomy can help facilitate better learning. Noels, Clément, and Pelletier’s (2001) contention that teachers can change students’ motivation by utilizing ways that foster students’ autonomy seems to be in the same line of approach. According to them, the perception of freedom of choice is linked to self-determined forms of motivation. Dickinson, therefore, seems quite persuasive in maintaining that due to internalization of the locus of control, learners who are intrinsically motivated are expected to be “more effective” (p. 73). Yet, Vandergrift (2005) quite rightly admits that the preference of granting (too much) autonomy to learners “early in the learning process” (p. 85) may be met with some objection. Generally, as might be expected, proficient learners of a foreign language can enjoy more autonomy in making decisions in learning. As Cotterall (2000) suggests promotion of learner autonomy is predicated upon development of students’ learning awareness. In a word, the more proficient they are, the more autonomy they can enjoy.

Taking the factors for developing autonomy in students as the point of reference (see Lee, 1998), one can hardly deny the importance of learner choice in autonomous learning. As one can argue, and quite plausibly indeed, in order to become autonomous, students should be granted autonomy in making decisions in learning which involves “setting objectives, defining contents and progressions, selecting methods and techniques, monitoring the procedure, and evaluating the outcome of learning” (p. 283). At least with regard to advanced learners of English, until researchers can propose what can be considered more than their “best guesses” (Ferris, 2004, p. 59), teachers should rely on what their students want and believe is best for them. Also, as Guénette (2007) posits, the issue of proficiency levels is one of the parameters that may account for the conflicting results of the written corrective feedback studies. He seems convincing in warning that “the overall proficiency level of the students must be considered before deciding when and how to provide error feedback.” (p. 43)

There is now a considerable body of research to reveal that students want error feedback in L2 writing, and they want their errors be corrected (Chandler, 2003; Ferris et al., 2000; Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Radecki & Swales, 1988). The findings of the present study also support this and as Ferris (2004) suggests, unless teachers are sure that error feedback does not help students and may in fact harm them, “it is unethical to withhold it from their students” (p. 51), since this is what students want and think works best for them. Even Ferris, who does not seem to like to be considered as an ardent supporter of the idea, acknowledges that “L2 writing students’ strongly stated desires for error feedback could not so easily be dismissed or ignored” (2004, p. 50). In the case of the present study, what is important is that the participants are proficient learners of English and this can lend credibility to their opinion as to what works best for them.

Concerning the comprehensiveness of error correction, by putting the results from student’s and teacher’s surveys and interviews together, it can be concluded that overall, proficient L2 learners want comprehensive error feedback and believe that they benefit from it and this is w