Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Participants’ preferences of error correction techniques

From: EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China

WCF techniques Mean ratingsa p value
1st-year students (N = 21) 2nd-year students (N = 23) 3rd-year students (N = 20) Total average One-way ANOVA
(a) Underlining the error without correcting it 3.90 3.52 3.80 3.73 .359
(b) Underlining the error and then directing you to a source for information 3.86 3.61 3.20 3.56 .131
(c) Indicating the type of error without locating or correcting it 3.57 3.61 3.65 3.61 .996
(d) Locating the error (e.g., by underlying it) and also indicating the type of error 4.43 4.09 3.85 4.12 .033
(e) Underlining the error and then correcting it 3.90 3.65 4.20 3.91 .246
(f) Correcting the error and then providing an explanation for the correction 4.19 4.09 4.00 4.09 .856
(g) Simply indicating that you have an error in the sentence by putting a cross next to it without locating or correcting the error 3.10 2.74 3.00 2.94 .576
(h) Asking my classmate(s) to correct the errors 3.52 3.96 3.70 3.73 .399
  1. aVery useless = 1; useless = 2; neither useful or useless = 3; useful = 4; very useful = 5