This study attempted to investigate the innovative ways of learner wrillen errorrncorrection by comparing it with the actual practice in ELT classes. The investigationrnwas made to see whether the practice of learner written error correction goes inrncongruity with the innovative ways of doing so.rnFocusing at Gondar University, the study employed a descriptive survey method.rnMoreover, the subjects of the study were 18 instructors and 90 Graduatin g students ofrnthe 2008109 academic year. In order to collect the necessary data for the research,rnquestionnaires were designed and administered to both the instructors and thernstudents. In addition to this, students' compositions which were corrected andrncommented by th e instructors were used as another source of data.rnThe findings of th e study revealed that the practice of learner wrillen error correctionrnis not innovative . Moreover, the task of giving correction to learner wrillen errors isrnnot the instructors' regular classroom concern. Nor they have a systematic way ofrnproviding correction to learners' wrillen errors. The instructors quite dominantly usernteacher correction while other types of correction are employed very rarely. Theyrnalso use few indirect techniques of correction than the direct ones. The study alsornindicated that th e instructors focus more on grammar and form rather than meaningrnwhen correcting students' composition. What is more, most of the instructors'rncomments are criticisms rather than praises.rnBased on the findings obtained., some recommendations were made . Some of themrninclude: Instructors should be aware of the theoretical framework of providingrncorrection in an innovative manner; they should be noted that correction is an aspectrnof teaching; they should employ the different techniques of correction in a balancedrnmanner; they should be provided with some orientations so that they could dorncorrection in an innovative way when responding to their students' composition, etc.