Written Error Feedback from Perception to Practice: A Feedback on Feedback

[...]to standardize and therefore better ensure the validity of the error correction task, the correction task was double-checked and scrutinized for any possible misfit in determining standard number and category of potential errors. Care was taken not to plunge too soon in implementing correction task (time trap). [...]one session before the final exam, they marked a 2- line, 5-paragraph sample composition from one of the participating students at advanced levels (due to their higher ability to write more) and answered 4 enclosed questions of the error correction task, not to mention, students at beginning levels were only able to write a short one-paragraph writing due to their low level of language proficiency, thus a lesser umber of errors could possibly occur and teachers could not have been seriously challenged and therefore reveal their error correction behaviors. Result of the internal consistency test fell into good. range of 0.82. for the teacher questionnaire and 0.87. for the student questionnaire. [...]to standardize and therefore better ensure the validity of the error correction task, the task was double-checked and scrutinized for any possible misfit in determining standard number and category of potential errors. [...]a context of unawareness and mismatch between EFL learners and instructors can well diminish the positive and pedagogical influences of second and foreign language writing research. [...]they called for more students' participation and cooperation as that is the best way to share the burden and more actively engage students in the correction process which they suggested could be the best way of error correction.