Abstract

The present study aimed to address the extent to which faulty members and students at the department of English language at Najran University practice using the ways of written corrective feedback. The questionnaire, as the main study instrument was used to collect data while the descriptive analytical approach was used to analyze these collected data. Findings revealed that the direct way of correction, i.e., the identification of student’s errors by underlining or circling and then telling them how to correct such errors without allowing them the chance to figure out what the corrections are, was the most practiced way of written corrective feedback. Using Arabic, as it was students’ mother tongue, to show them their errors and then explain to them how to correct these errors was the second practiced way. Indirect correction like for example correcting student’s errors through writing in the margin that there was an error without giving them the correct answer was the least used way, as indicated by faculty members. Nevertheless, correcting students’ errors by coding the exact error in the text without giving them the correct answer was the least used way from students’ viewpoint. Moreover, findings showed that both faculty members and students were in favor of the comprehensive not the selective way of correction.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.