IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v3y2010i4p168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Error Correction vs. Error Detection on Iranian Pre-Intermediate EFL Learners' Writing Achievement

Author

Listed:
  • Razie Abedi
  • Mehdi Latifi
  • Ahmad moinzadeh

Abstract

This study tries to answer some ever-existent questions in writing fields regarding approaching the most effective ways to give feedback to students' errors in writing by comparing the effect of error correction and error detection on the improvement of students' writing ability. In order to achieve this goal, 60 pre-intermediate English learners were randomly divided into two groups- the first one was Direct Feedback Group, receiving feedback on their writing through error correction (DFG) and the other one was Indirect Feedback Group (IFG), receiving feedback in their writing through error detection along with the codes. The learners were taking English classes in a private English center and were supposed to self-correct and hand in their writings when received indirect error feedback. The results suggested that error detection along with the codes led to better improvement in the learners’ writing than the error correction treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Razie Abedi & Mehdi Latifi & Ahmad moinzadeh, 2010. "The Effect of Error Correction vs. Error Detection on Iranian Pre-Intermediate EFL Learners' Writing Achievement," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 3(4), pages 168-168, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:3:y:2010:i:4:p:168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/37025/20729
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/37025
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sahail M. Asassfeh, 2013. "Corrective Feedback (CF) and English-Major EFL Learners’ Ability in Grammatical Error Detection and Correction," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(8), pages 1-85, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:3:y:2010:i:4:p:168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.