CRITICAL REVIEW

In referring to a journal article entitled A Study of Students and Teachers’ Preferences

and Attitudes Towards Correction of Classroom Written Errors in Saudi EFL Context by
Arafat Hamouda, this research paper aims at identifying the difficulties encountered by
teachers and students during the feedback process at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia.

Summary

Providing feedback on L2 writing is part of a writing teacher’s job. Effective feedback

helps students to write better but unclear and confusing feedback might demotivate them and

impede their skill development to become accomplished students-writers. The nature of this

study is to investigate Saudi EFL students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards

written error corrections. The terms of preference and attitudes used in this study are

particularly within psychology, a construct which is not directly measurable and observable.

They are explanatory variables which facilitate understanding of human behaviour. Unlike

easily identifiable physical features, such as hair colour, psychological constructs refer to a

person’s tendencies to behave or feel a certain way. Psychological construct simply refers to

a general characteristic that be observed or measured directly. Perhaps in this study, the

researcher would investigate the students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards

written error corrections.

As teachers are considered the authorities in the classroom, students are sometimes

not given a chance to choose what type of feedback that they prefer. In this study, the

researcher clearly stated the problem that by far, what had been neglected in the previous

studies were the preferences and attitudes of the students and teachers towards error

correction. Therefore the study decided to find out the ways through which students preferred

to be corrected, hoping that such information can help teachers, in general and Saudi EFL

1
teachers, in particular, to be more effective in their career. Motivated by this concern, the

impetus of this research arises from two questions namely 1) What are the students and

teachers’ preferences regarding written error corrections in EFL class? and 2) What are the

difficulties of the teachers in providing feedback and of the students in revising the papers

after receiving their teacher’s written feedback?

A survey design devised a set of questionnaire among 200 undergraduate native

Arabic-speaking students ranged between 18 to 19 years of age from the Preparatory Year

Program in Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. Along with the students, the study also

involved 20 nonnative-speaking EFL teachers ranged 30 to 45 years old to participate in the

research. They were from different nationalities and they taught all the students who

participate in the study. In Preparatory Year Program, writing was the main course and the

students were taught Effective Academic Writing (ENG:14).

The findings suggested that most students and teachers have positive attitudes towards

written error correction. However, the most significant finding was the revelation that the

students preferred teacher correction to peer and self-correction. Despite the students’ favour,

giving peer and individual feedback would be a challenge to the writing teacher due to time

and effort consuming. Therefore some suggestions were provided for teachers to manage this

challenge expeditiously.

Article Position

Learning English as a foreign language creates issues and challenges in its acquisition

due to the different language properties, rules and features. This contributes to the students’

mother-tongue interference where the foreign language learners might be influenced by their

2
first language roles which can be either positive or negative. Hence, learning a foreign

language is a gradual process. Davies & Pearse (2002) stated that errors are inevitable part of

the learning process. While Lavery (2001) mentioned that through students’ errors those

teachers can see which parts of learning are needed for improvement, what the students are

struggling to master, what concepts they have misunderstood and what extra work they might

need.

Despite a number of studies conducted to investigate the importance of feedback and

its effects on students’ writing (Lee, 2005; Noora, 2006), very few researchers investigate

students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards error correction (Katayama, 2007).

This study thus attempts to address this gap by first investigating university students and

teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards feedback on the English language writing, and

then investigate teachers’ difficulties in providing feedback to the students. The research was

set out to contribute towards writing improvement by students as they get their preferred

feedback.

Katayama (2007) believed that differences in students’ learning styles affect the

learning environment by either supporting or inhibiting their intentional cognition and active

engagement. Therefore it is crucial for teachers to discover what kind of feedback the

students prefer most in the instructional practices because the fact that students are expected

to be highly motivated in doing things that they prefer. As such, Wang (2010) suggested that

teachers should find out what their students think and feel about what and how they want to

learn (p.140). After the teachers are aware of the students’ learning styles and types of

feedback that helps the students, I rather believe that the discovery will be insightful to help

teachers enhance their teaching methods (Leki, 1991) and at the same time, help to produce

3
top-notch writers. Rather than adhering to just being language teachers, it is hoped that they

will become actual writing teachers who train the students of all the required writing skills

and strategies.

Research Methodology

Because of the nature of this study that investigated students’ preferences of their

writing feedback, it raises the need for a quantitative approach through a questionnaire

survey. To corroborate the data, the questionnaire was distributed to a huge sample of 220

purposely to see how the students and teachers feel and react to error written correction. The

questionnaire items extracted from instruments used in previous studies (Ferris, 2003;

Hyland, 2003; Lee, 2005; Radecki and Swales, 1988) and the researcher modified and added

items to make the questionnaire suitable for the participants. The questionnaire was divided

into two major parts. Part one consisted of 51 items which deals with students and teachers

preferences for written error correction. Part two comprised two open-ended questions to find

out the difficulty of the teachers in providing feedback and of the students in revising the

papers after receiving their teachers’ written feedback. As the study investigated both

teachers and students, there were two versions of questionnaire; one for students and one for

teachers. However, the two versions do not differ significantly.

The questionnaire was given to 22 teachers during the second half of the 2008-2009

spring semester, and only 20 of them returned the completed questionnaires. Whereas, the

matching student version of questionnaire was distributed to 200 undergraduate students

enrolled in the two classes of English Writing language at the Preparatory Year Program in

Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. The survey findings from students’ results were

accumulated and compared to the teachers’ responses discussed in this study. The questions

4
in the questionnaire were quantified by a Likert-scale of 1 to 2 (1 = Disagree, 2 = Agree). The

reliability of the first part was determined using Cronbach’s alpha (.90). The analysis was

then presented in quantitative descriptions using tables.

This study did not mention the type of sampling used for the research. Most probably

the researcher chose probability sampling type which was cluster random sampling. The

population of the study was appropriate to the research as they were aligned with the research

questions. Meanwhile, the questionnaire was suitable instrument for a quantitative research.

Findings and Implication

The frequency for each item of the students and teachers questionnaire was quantified

and presented in percentages and their responses for each Likert scale statement in the

questionnaires were combined and presented in eight columns of how students and teachers’

views towards correction of classroom written errors. The survey findings for each item were

then explained in detail as shown in the tables.

A) Students and teachers’ preferences regarding written error corrections in EFL class

Based on the analysis on students and teachers’ preferences towards written feedback,

the table was divided into four stages of writing process namely (1) prewriting stage; (2)

drafting stage; (3) revising stage; and (4) evaluating stage. The result showed that all the

teachers preferred to provide feedback during more than one stage of writing process.

Homogeneously, all students also preferred the same way like their teachers. From the

findings, only a small number of teachers chose to give feedback in the prewriting stage as

they thought it would kill their students’ excitement to rewrite the essay when they received

their paper with full of error corrections. Similarly, the students also agreed that they do not

5
like their first draft of writing to be overcorrected as it would demotivate them to flesh out the

ideas and to write more creatively on their own ways. Prewriting stage is just a rough draft

and the students managed to revise their writing paper even though with less feedback from

their teachers.

Many students shared their opinions that they do not like teachers to interfere in both

drafting and revising stages. In these stages, it is normal that students feel more comfortable

to get help and feedback from their peers rather than teachers giving them other workloads to

restructure their ambiguous sentences and elaborate more points. Not surprisingly, more than

two third of the students preferred to turned to their teachers in the final stage for support.

Unlike teachers, they prefer to give feedback during these two stages as they thought giving

feedback during drafting and revising process were important to guide the students to write a

better essay. Since corrections on composition made after the process has finished, they seem

not to be helpful in improving students’ writing (Stanley, 2003). Nonetheless, the feedback in

the evaluating stage could help the students to improve in the next writing assignments. As a

whole, the students preferred to get feedback at the final stage of writing. The students would

like to receive feedback in their final draft as to avoid same mistakes in the next writing tasks.

The findings of using red-ink pen in giving feedback showed that both students and

teachers favoured a coloured pen rather than just a pencil. In Saudi Arabia, they believed that

he red pen symbolises the teachers. By correcting the students’ writing with coloured pen,

they can easily spot their mistakes than the comments by pencil. Both teachers and students

agreed that red means corrections or comments and the teachers had already gotten used of

red-ink pen to do error corrections. However, the comments in pencil were much more

reader-friendly, relatively tentative, and open to negotiation (Kate, 2010).

6
 When asked how much feedback should have given by teachers on students’ writings,

most of the students agreed that teachers should correct all the mistakes but the findings

showed that almost half of the teachers only selected some errors to be corrected. The reason

why teachers do not prefer to correct all errors, Katayama (2007) mentioned in his study that

correcting all errors for students may lead to the bad impact on the students’ self-awareness

as they only copied what have been corrected by the teacher into the new paper without much

effort to think of their errors. The percentage also showed that undoubtedly, none of the

teachers corrected any mistakes existing in the students’ writing. It showed that it is by

nature, teachers would correct at least a few errors when marking their students’ writing

paper, regardless time and effort consuming just for the sake of their students.

Concerning who should correct learners’ errors, majority of the students prefer teachers

do the corrections and this finding is consistent with the results of Radecki and Swales’

(1988) studies. A small number of students would not mind if they peers corrected their

errors and the finding goes in accordance with Oladejo’s (1993) study of perceptions on self-

and peer-correction among students. Whereas, Diab (2005) indicated that students would be

gladly correct themselves without external intervention and this study was supported by the

finding which stated the teachers’ awareness of students’ preference on self-correction.

When asking about the forms of paper-marking techniques, both students and teachers

preferred underlining the error and writing comments at the end of the essay. From the

finding of the types of feedback, both students and teachers favoured negative feedback to

positive one. Surprisingly, the students chose to receive constructive criticism rather than

simple platitudes (Hyland, 2003). They believed that such feedback could help them to be

7
aware of their errors instead of getting the good general feedback. Concerning the feeling

towards the given feedback, majority of the students responded that they enjoyed the

teacher’s comments on their writing paper. They believed that teachers’ feedback helps them

to come to their sense what to avoid or correct and where to improve in the next writing

tasks. By doing so, they triggered to work even harder to improve their writing.

B) The difficulties of the teachers in providing feedback and of the students in revising

the papers after receiving their teacher’s written feedback

Responding to the second research question, there was no surprise that time constraint

and having too many papers to mark were the major difficulties faced by the teachers when

providing feedback to their students’ writing. The finding was supported by Leki (1991) who,

in his study stated that responding to and commenting on students writing consumes the

largest proportion of our time. Other than that, having too many students’ writing papers to

be marked may force the teachers to just read through the writing without giving enough

feedback that the students demanded from them. Moreover, students’ attitudes towards

teachers’ feedback may also cause teachers to feel discourage to correct the errors as the

students normally care more about their grade and simply discard the paper afterwards (Leki,

1991). Also, the teachers claimed that their students did not understand the feedback written

by them as mentioned by Stannard (2008) the space provided was too narrow to write a long

and detailed feedback; hence the students could not grasp what their teachers were trying to

say.

Similarly, students found it was difficult to revise their writing papers after getting

written feedback from their teachers. The findings showed that the students feared of making

other new mistakes as they did not really understand what they were correcting (Stannard,

8
2008). A number of students were quite confident to rewrite their papers after getting

feedback since they could take advantages of teachers’ feedback. Whereas, minority of the

students still claimed that they faced difficulties to rewrite their papers even after receiving

the teacher’s written feedback. As a whole, the students found that they misunderstood the

teachers’ written feedback when revising their papers which caused them to ignore all the

comments given. The finding showed that misunderstanding could also lead to feelings of

confusion and frustration as well as action and indifference on behalf of the students

(Williams, 2003). The fact that teachers’ written feedback is not always helpful when it was

unclear and vague (Cohen and Cavalcanti, 1990) and not all the feedback given were

accepted by the students.

From the data analysis, the teachers claimed that time and effort consuming were the

major difficulties they had faced every time they marked their students’ writing paper. Whist,

the students confessed that they were afraid they make other new mistakes after revising their

papers. Their lack of knowledge and false interpretations may lead to not appreciating the

written feedback given by their teachers.

In my personal opinion, the researcher had successfully established the need of the

research. The results have revealed the students and teachers’ most preferences and their

beliefs about what constitutes effective feedback to writing. There were various discrepancies

between teachers and students’ preference for error correction and paper-marking techniques,

as well as differences in beliefs among themselves. Unavoidably, teachers often cannot

correct all the errors the students make. Despite the strongly positive attitudes towards

teacher correction that the students expressed, it was not feasible for the teachers to spend

much of the instruction time dealing with students’ error in writing. Although the sample of

9
this study consists of 220 participants, I could not find any generalisation drawn for this

study. Perhaps the study sample was not a large one. Despite this drawback, it is undeniable

that the findings of this study provide useful information that may contribute to our

understanding of students’ perception and attitude of classroom error correction.

Future Directions

Future research projects in a similar area may wish to address the following

recommendations: Since it investigated 200 undergraduate students in one university, it

would be ideal to have a bigger number of university and schools (especially secondary

schools) to participate so that students ‘preferences can be discussed in a wider perspective.

This research has contributed in the EFL writing feedback in Saudi Arabia. It has become a

significant issue and each research project contributes insightful findings. Thus, the findings

discussed in this study is hoped to be useful in ESL writing feedback in Malaysian schools

context, especially to help inform the teachers in providing appropriate, clear and detailed

written feedback to their students. As English language has always become a killer subject to

be a mandatory subject to pass in SPM effective year 2020, teachers play an important role to

produce students with effective writing skills. These skills will benefit them not only in

school, but also when they enter the university and later, at their workplace.

10
REFERENCES

Arafat Hamouda. (2011). A Study of Students and Teachers' Preferences and Attitudes
towards Correction of Classroom Written Errors in Saudi EFL Context. English Language
Teaching, 4,3, 128-141.

Baghzou, S. (2011). The effects of content feedback on students’ writing. Ankara

Universitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakultesi Dergisi 51,2, 169-180.
http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/26/1661/17733.pdf

Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing Teachers to Respond to Student Writing. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 16,3, 165-193. http://comphacker.org/pdfs/431/ferrisresponse.pdf.

Katayama, A. (2007 ). Japanese EFL Students’ Preferences toward Correction of Classroom

Oral Errors. Volume 9. Issue 4 Article 19. http://jalt-
publications.org/archive/proceedings/2006/E117.pdf.

Williams, J, G. (2003). Providing Feedback on ESL Students’ Written Assignments.

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Williams-Feedback.html.

11