Introduction 2

Actuality of the course work.Both teachers and students consider error correction important in second language (L2) teaching and learning. In a study by Lee (2004), teachers and students preferred comprehensive error feedback and students, in particular, relied on error correction provided by their teachers. Similarly, ninth to twelfth grade students and teachers in Warsaw high schools supported the need for error correction in L2 teaching (Zawadzka, 1989). ²In another study, ESL freshman students enrolled in writing classes wanted their compositions to be error-free and wanted their teachers to correct all of their mistakes (Leki, 1991). Hendrickson (1980) also indicated that error correction benefits adults who learn L2 in the classroom Despite the importance of error correction, research in this area has mostly focused on whether teachers should correct errors in students’ writing and how they should correct them. The issues of who corrects errors, which errors should be corrected, and how they should be corrected and the efficacy of students’ error correcting in L2 writing classes has been the subject of much controversy and the existing research base is incomplete and inconsistent. There is also a great deal of discussion about the best way to approach issues of accuracy and error correction in ESL composition (Ferris, 1999; Ferris, 2004; Truscott, 1996). For example, results of two studies by Chandler (2003) showed that direct correction and simple underlining of errors were significantly superior in reducing long-term error than just describing the type of error, even when the errors are underlined. Direct correction produced accurate revisions and the students preferred it because it is faster and easier than writing several drafts. However, students indicated that they learnt more from self-correction. Simple underlining of errors on the first draft took less teacher time. Self-correction and underlining of errors were found to be viable methods depending on the objectives of error correction. Chandler’s studies were critiqued by Truscott (2004), who argued that their findings did not provide evidence that error correction is beneficial in L2 writing. Truscott added that Chandler’s claims are simply speculations. In the absence of suitable students’ comparison groups, it is reasonable to suppose that correction is not helpful across all groups in Chandler's study 1, where L2 writing students performed better with correction plus revision than with correction alone, and across writing assignments in Chandler's study 2, where students’ writing practice should have produced larger gains over time in holistic ratings. Such inconsistencies among findings in the error correction research, Wen (1999) pointed out, are attributed to variables of students' proficiency level, cognitive style, motivation, attitudes, clarity and how feedback is given. A review of prior research studies showed that error correction in written assignments has several shortcomings. First, correcting writing errors by providing the correct forms and structures is time-consuming for the teacher and may hinder the writing skill development by the students (Hendrickson, 1980). Secondly, error correction in writing is complicated due to the number of papers and assignments teachers have to correct and the presence of multiple problems such as spelling and grammar that inhibit students’ ability to express themselves (Taniguchi, 1990). Thirdly, EFL writing classes, especially large ones, often present bored, unappreciated teachers who are exhausted from endless corrections of writing errors, and from students who feel frustrated and unappreciated for their correction efforts. The students’ need to write freely is suppressed by restrictions imposed on them such as overused, artificial writing topics and writing formulas that seem to be irrelevant to the students’ personal needs and interests (Steed, 2000). In addition, many EFL teachers at the College of Languages and Translation (COLT), at King Saud University (KSU), in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia spend a lot of time marking students’ written assignments and correcting students’ spelling, grammatical, punctuation, organization and idea generation errors in detail. The more students make mistakes, the more meticulously they mark and correct those mistakes. Despite their meticulous error correction, students continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Teachers’ correction of written assignments does not seem to be effective in reducing students’ errors and enhancing their ability to write correctly and effectively. Therefore, the present study proposes a model for correcting students’ errors effectively. This model de-emphasizes error correction of writing assignments by the instructor out of class (at home). ³In this model, the students work on their writing assignments or part of them in class. While working on written exercises and writing their paragraphs, the instructor monitors their work and provides individual help. She does not correct each and every error in the students’ compositions. Rather, she gives communicative feedback that focuses on meaning and highlights only errors related to rules or skills under study. Feedback is provided on the presence and location of errors, but no correct forms are given. Self-editing and peer-editing are encouraged and initiated by a series of instructor’s prompt. In out-of-class practice, the students are encouraged to write for communication and not to worry about spelling, grammatical, punctuation or capitalization mistakes. The study also reports the factors that lead to EFL freshman students’ improvement in writing skills using the proposed approach and will help instructors at COLT deliver pedagogically sound error-correction and feedback in writing classrooms.