The present study aimed at finding out which feedback technique(s) to studentrnwritten errors is/are more effective in helping learners improve their proficiency inrnwritten English. In other words, it attempted to explore and describe the process ofrnlearning EFL through learner self-correction of written errors with and without teacherrnclues and direct teacher correction.rnTo do this, a classroom of thirty two Freshman students of AAU were groupedrninto experimental and control groups based on their scores of the first semester Flenrn101A Examination. The experimental group received feedback types that let them selfcorrectrntheir written errors. The control group received direct teacher correction onrntheir writing tasks.rnThe following instruments were employed to collect data. These were: a pre-testrnand a post-test, nine classroom tasks that were given to students for writing,rnquestionnaires that were administered to members of each group, and interviews werernconducted with samples from each group.rnErrors omitted and opinions given by research subjects on the type of treatmentsrnused were collected and analyzed. Comparisons were made to see differences betweenrntreatment types and error categories. Means, standard deviations and t-tests wererncalculated to find out any significant differences between groups and among errorrncategories affected by each treatment.rnvirnThe results obtained showed that self-correction techniques are more effectivernin helping students learn than the techniques where the teacher gives direct correction.rnIt is recommended, therefore. that teachers should frequently use feedback types thatrnhelp students to self-correct their written errors. Teacher training programmes shouldrninclude topics on the use of students focused error treatment where the teacherrnpredominantly plays the role of a facilitator. It is only when the students totally fail tornunderstand and correct their errors that direct feedback is appropriate.