英语论文网

w-up interviews with the students. Once the students completed the questionnaire, 23 of them were interviewed individually by one of the researchers. The follow-up interview was semi-structured such that similar questions were asked from the students but both the students and the researcher/interviewer were free to deviate from the pre-set plan. The interview enquired the same questions as the ones in the student’s questionnaire followed by some questions trying to elicit the reasons that the learners thought would account for their opinions expressed in the survey.

Follow-up interviews with the Teachers. Of the teachers who completed the teacher’s survey, 13 were asked to participate in an interview with one of the researchers. In practice, the interviews were less structured than the ones with the learners. In effect, the teachers’ interviews were friendly conversations in which the researcher/interviewer tried to ask the teachers to tell their approach to error correction, to express their personal beliefs in this regard, to express what they think about related research findings, and state what they think should be teachers’ classroom practice in relation to error correction. The main pivots on which all the above-mentioned data collection instruments revolved were the pragmatic necessity of error feedback and the discussion of comprehensiveness (or selectiveness) of error correction in L2 writing.
Procedure

To collect learners’ and teachers’ ideas, attitudes and opinions about error correction in L2 writing, two sets of instruments (questionnaire and interview) were used. The student’s survey had 25 items and the students were asked to complete it in 20 minutes in the first session of their course [2] . The time limit was not strict and the students were informed that they could take more time if they liked. In practice, it did not take more than 20 minutes for any of the respondents to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to four classes of advanced learners. Out of the 56 students, 23 were interviewed. Each interview took about 12 minutes on average, but there were cases when an interview lasted for almost 20 minutes. In fact, the interviews were to form part of the speaking scores of the students and were done on the last session of the courses, 9 weeks after the students answered to the questionnaire.

The teachers completed their questionnaire individually. On average, it did not take more than 10 minutes for the teachers to complete the survey. From the 20 teachers who answered to the questionnaire, 13 were asked to have an interview. The interviews normally took about 15 minutes unless the teachers felt that they wanted to explain certain issues more. The data from the questionnaires and interview recordings were then analyzed to find the recurring patterns of students’ and teachers’ wants and attitudes.
Analysis

The student’s survey was a 25-item questionnaire which embedded items that concerned the purposes of the present study. The analysis of the student’s questionnaire mostly involved descriptive statistics. The analysis of the teacher’s survey was also descriptive. As far as the interviews were concerned, effort was made to find similar patterns in the reasons that the respondents gave to explain their choices in the survey. The interviews with the students were not much complex compared to those with teachers. Of signific