1

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES &

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

------------------------------

BÙ I THỊ TRÂM

COMMON WRITTEN ERRORS COMMITTED BY FIRST YEAR

STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

TEACHER EDUCATION, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)

SUPERVISOR: NGUYEN TUAN ANH, M.A

Hanoi, May, 2010

2

ACCEPTANCE

I hereby state that I: Bui Thi Tram, class 061E4, being a candidate

for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirement of the

College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation paper

deposited in the library.

In term of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper

deposited in the library should be accessible for the purpose of study and

research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the

librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper.

Signature

Bui Thi Tram

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to give my sincere thanks and

profound gratefulness to my supervisor, Mr. Nguyen Tuan Anh, M.A for

his enthusiastic support as well as his invaluable guidance, which assumed

determining factors in the completion of my research paper. Besides, the

birth of this research paper derives greatly from the constant supporting and

continual encouragement from my family and my friends. I would also be

grateful to the teachers of Division 1 for their unconditional co-operation in

my questionnaire survey.

4

ABSTRACT

Exploring and detecting errors produced by EFL (English as a

Foreign Language) learners attract scholar's concern greatly. However,

errors produced by learners from different geographical territories and

areas are by no means the same. Therefore, the researcher would like to

conduct a study on "Common written errors committed by first year

students at FELTE, ULIS, VNU Hanoi" to explore further into the most

frequently encountered types of written errors made by freshmen and the

very causes to these. In this study, 231 students' writing samples as well as

10 teachers in charge of teaching writing skills to first year students were

involved in the study. The results gained from the analysis of students'

writing samples and teachers' questionnaire have revealed six common

errors made by first year students and five actual causes to these categories

of errors. Suggested techniques on how to deal with students' errors are also

included to earn the study practical implications.

5

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Error Vs Mistakes.................................................................................. 9

Figure 2: Stages of learning past simple of a child............................................. 11

Figure 3: Different paragraph pattern in different languages ............................. 12

Table 1: Samples collected from each kind of test ............................................. 41

Table 2.1: Written errors of first year students at ED, HULIS as

synthesized from document analysis...................................................................42

Table 2.2: Written errors of first year students at ED, HULIS as

synthesized from teachers' questionnaire............................................................43

Figure 4: Written errors of first year students at ED, HULIS…………….44

Table 3: Components of grammar errors ............................................................45

Figure 5: Components of grammar errors........................................................... 46

Table 4: Typical examples of common grammar errors..................................... 47

Table 6: Typical example of expression errors................................................... 48

Table 7: Written errors belonging to general items ............................................ 49

Figure 7: Written errors belonging to general items........................................... 50

Table 8: Examples of expression errors.............................................................. 51

Table 9: Common written errors related to syntax .............................................52

Table 10: Typical examples of common syntax errors.......................................53

Table 11: Components of mechanics errors........................................................54

Figure 9: Components of mechanics Errors........................................................ 55

Table 12: Examples of common mechanics errors .............................................56

Table 13: Typical examples of lexical Items ...................................................... 57

Table 14: Common written Errors of first year main-stream students at

English Department, HULIS............................................................................... 58

6

Table 15: Teachers' rating the significance of causes to students' common

written errors ....................................................................................................... 58

Table 16: The popularity of each kind of causes to students' common

written errors ....................................................................................................... 60

Figure 10: The popularity of each kind of causes to students' common

written errors ....................................................................................................... 61

Figure 11: Pair work and group work in peer correction.................................... 66

Figure 12: Error Maze......................................................................................... 67

Table 17: Collocation practice table ................................................................... 68

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements……………………..………………………………….i

Abstract…………………………………...……...………………………...ii

List of figures and tables…………………………...……………………...iii

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1. Problem statement and rationale for the study............................................... 1

1.2. Aims of the study ........................................................................................... 2

1.3. Significance of the study................................................................................ 3

1.4. Scope of the study .......................................................................................... 3

1.5. Organization of the study............................................................................... 3

Chapter 2 literature review

2.1. Written errors and related theoretical issues.................................................. 5

2.1.1. Definition of errors...................................................................................... 5

2.1.2. Mistakes Vs Errors...................................................................................... 6

2.1.3. The role of "errors" in English Language Teaching ................................... 9

2.1.4. Classification of written errors in English Language Teaching ............... 11

2.1.4.1. Inter-lingual errors ................................................................................. 12

2.1.4.2. Intra-lingual errors ................................................................................. 13

2.1.4.3. Developmental errors ............................................................................. 14

2.1.5. Causes of written errors in the field of English Language Teaching ....... 15

2.1.5.1. Mother tongue interference.................................................................... 15

2.1.5.2. Overgeneralization ................................................................................. 16

2.1.5.3. Ignorance of rule restrictions ................................................................. 17

2.1.5.4. Incomplete application of rules.............................................................. 18

8

2.1.5.5. False concepts hypothesized .................................................................. 18

2.2. Error correction ............................................................................................ 19

2.2.1. Different views concerning written error correction ................................ 19

2.2.2. Teacher role in written error correction .................................................... 20

2.2.3. Techniques in error correction .................................................................. 21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1. Participants................................................................................................... 23

3.2. Data collection instruments.......................................................................... 24

3.2.1. Document analysis .................................................................................... 25

3.2.2. Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 26

3.3. Data collection procedure ............................................................................ 27

3.4. Data analysis methods.................................................................................. 30

3.5. Data analysis procedures.............................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Research question 1...................................................................................... 32

4. 2. Research question 2..................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Peer-correction ............................................................................................. 61

5.2. Teacher correction........................................................................................ 62

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

6.1. Main findings ............................................................................................... 69

6.2. Limitations of the study ............................................................................... 70

References

Appendices

9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Problem statement and rationale for the study

For most language educators, the very goal of language education

lies in the mastery of communicative competence which embodies not only

speaking skills but also writing skills, for writing is an indispensable means

to communicate with ones that are not present at the moment of speaking.

Thus, it is of no surprise that writing skill is claimed to encompass internal

speech (La Brant, 1946). Writing is even considered imperative as it has a

close link to speaking abilities (Sperling, 1996).

However, it is worth noting that writing in a second language is by

no means an easy task. A number of researches have shown that English as

a Foreign Language learners write differently from native English speakers

(Hinkel, 2002). Learners are to be adventurous enough with the target

language to produce their own pieces of writings. As a result of such a

risky undertaking, learners' deficiency in using the language would be

shown through the written errors committed. In the light of the process

approach to writing teaching and learning, learners' errors represent no

interference with the target language but a positive factor which facilitates

the learning process and a valuable indicator of learner strategies (Corder,

1967). Hence, learners' written errors should be taken into serious

consideration and paid adequate attention to.

At the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE),

Hanoi University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Viet

Nam National University, the teaching of writing skills has long been

considered vital; thus, it has been integrated into the syllabus along with the

other three skills namely speaking skills, listening skills and reading skills.

The four-year writing syllabus in the FELTE employs the ascending level

of proficiency introduced by the British Council ranging from Preliminary

10

English Test (PET) to Certificate in Advanced English (CAE).

Accordingly, first year students at the faculty are expected to achieve the

level of PET proficiency in writing skills. Despite the fact that analyzing

those fresh men's written errors would contribute greatly to their learning

process, this area of research has been paid little attention to. Thus, the

researcher would like to conduct a study on "Common written errors

committed by first year students at the Faculty of English Language

Teacher Education (FELTE), University of Foreign Languages and

International Studies, Viet Nam National University-Hanoi " to have a

closer look into this field.

1.2. Aims of the study

First and foremost, this study is to investigate further into the types

of writing errors made by first year students, and basing on the findings

elicited from the research, suggestions as well as recommendations would

be proposed so that they can serve as practical implications for teachers

along with afterward studies. In general, the study is to address the two

following questions:

1. What are the common written errors committed by first year

students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE),

Hanoi University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Viet

Nam National University, Hanoi?

2. What are the causes to common written errors made by first year

students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE),

Hanoi University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Viet

Nam National University?

11

1.3. Significance of the study

On conducting the research paper, the researcher is in a hope to

review the theoretical issues related to the research problem and present

practical findings in the research setting. Furthermore, this study is also

expected to offer a panorama on the research setting to serve later

researchers on conducting successive studies.

1.4. Scope of the study

As its title suggests, the study focuses on "Common written errors

conducted by first year students at the Faculty of English Language

Teacher Education, Hanoi University of Foreign Languages and

International Studies, Viet Nam National University". Nevertheless, the

researcher has no intention of including the fast-track class in the

investigation but the main stream students only. This is due to the fact that

students in the fast-track class are obliged to meet tougher requirements

than the mainstream freshmen. The involvement of the fast tract students

would result in a variance, which would affect the reliability of the study.

Besides, on account of the deadline for submission of this research

paper, the researcher cannot involve the investigation of freshmen's writing

samples expanding for the period of their first year. Instead, the researcher

would like to focus on error-detection of students' samples produced during

their first semester.

1.5. Organization of the study

The research paper consists of six chapters. Each chapter is set to

deal with a specific aim. Particularly, chapter 1 states the reason, the

significance as well as the scope of the study. Chapter 2 focuses on

reviewing and clarifying theoretical background related to the issue

12

researched. Chapter 3 presents the setting of the study and how the

research is carried out. Chapter 4 is a justification and clarification of the

data gained from data collection. Accordingly, chapter 5 proposes the

researcher's recommendations on the research problem basing on her own

thoughts as well as her adaptation of relevant reference books. In the last

place, chapter 6 summarizes the main findings of the research and poses a

critical overview on the limitations of the research paper.

13

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Written errors and related theoretical issues

2.1.1. Definition of errors

Throughout the history of English Language Teaching, a number of

definitions of errors have been proposed by experts. Basically, these

definitions may share the same meaning; yet there is much to be considered

in terms of their differences.

Some scholars are in favor of defining errors basing on their degree

of frequency. Cunningworth (1987, p.87) sees errors as "systematic

deviation from the norms of the language being learned". This can be

interpreted as the repeated violation against the rules and the standards of

the language being learned, excluded from the language that has not been

learned. Nevertheless, the definition itself is problematic, for the concept

"learned" is just relative. Students may not learn the language in class but

they may have learned it somewhere outside the class. It is also probable

that students learned the language but they may have forgotten it. Thus, it

would be difficult for language teachers to decide whether students have or

have not learned the language.

On the other hand, other scholars identify the term "errors" with

regard to students' inability to correct these errors by themselves. Edge

(1997, p.18) defines "errors" in a simple way as followed "If a student

cannot self-correct a mistake in his or her own English, but the teacher

thinks that the class is familiar with the correct form, we shall call that sort

of mistake an error." Edge's definition has one trait in common with that of

Cunning; that is, certain parts of the language being learned are

14

problematic to students. Thus, they make errors unconsciously, which

accounts for their incapacity to self-correct.

In the meantime, some experts combine both of the two dimensions

above when mentioning the notion of "errors". Corder (1967: 22) regards

"errors" as the "systematic and regular deviant form of language produced

by second language learners at competence level due to linguistic reason."

Accordingly, second language learners repeatedly produce deviant forms of

language because of their deficient competence of selective items of the

target language but not because of their carelessness or lack of attention,

etc.

In the light of the aforementioned definitions, the researcher would

like to employ the third view by Corder as it proves to be the most

comprehensive. According to Corder, an error is characterized with two

features namely systematic deviancy and learner's deficiency to self-

correct. These two features can be considered criteria to determine whether

students have conducted an error or not.

2.1.2. Mistakes Vs Errors

It is vital that a clear distinction between mistakes and errors be

presented as this is much concerned with error correction, or what to be

corrected in language teaching to be specific.

Basically, there exist two widespread trends of view related to the

differentiation between errors and mistakes. One states that mistakes are a

cover term for errors whilst the other claims the opposite.

Lee (1990), an advocate of the later perspective, sees "errors" from

two different points of view namely psycholinguistics/ or Native speaker

speech and Applied linguistics/ or English Language Teaching (ELT). As

for the former, the term "errors" refers "more to what is known as a

"mistake", or "a slip of the tongue" in spontaneous speech or writing,

15

attributable to the malfunctioning of the brain." (Crystal in Lee 1990, p.18).

With a view of the later, the notion of errors appears to differ remarkably

from that in psycholinguistics. In the field of ELT, errors would be

characterized by the deviation in the norm of language due to second

language learner's competence whereas mistakes bear a more similar

meaning to the term "errors" used in psycholinguistics. Figure 1 below, as

proposed by Lee (1990) would offer an obvious graphic representation of

this:

Figure 1: Error Vs Mistakes

Error(Umbrella term)

Linguistics/PsycholinguisticsNative speaker speech

Applied Linguistics/ Second Learner Speech

Mistakes belonging to performance

Error belonging to competence

Mistakes belonging to performance

Characteristics:- slips of the tongue- lapses of memory

- speech condition from physical or mental state

- assumed to have speaker knowledge of

langue system- self-corrected/ self-

monitored?- monitored by others?

Characteristics:- slips of the tongue- lapses of memory

- speech condition from physical/mental state

- made by Native speaker only

- speaker knowledge of langue system

- can be self-corrected/ self-monitored

- rarely corrected by others

Characteristics:- speaker

knowledge of language in

question- monitored/ corrected by

others

16

Edge (1997) presents a contrasting view to Lee's. He does not put it

straightforward what a mistake is, yet the concept is gradually built up

during his presentation. He considers "mistakes" a broad term involving

mistakes of form and mistakes of meaning. The former contains three sub-

types which are slips, errors and attempts. In accordance with this

taxonomy, Edge (1997: 20) provides simple definitions of each type.

" If the teacher think that the student can self-correct a mistake,

we call that mistake a slip.

…If a student cannot self-correct a mistake in his or her own

English, but the teacher thinks that the class is familiar with the

correct form, we shall call that sort of mistake an error.

…When the teacher knows that the students have not yet learned

the language necessary to express what they want to say, we shall

call their mistakes attempts."

In general, Edge regards all the deviation that leads to

misunderstanding and that contradicts to standard rules of English as

"mistakes"; and "error" is a corresponding sub-type of mistakes. By the

same token, Rebat (2008, p.23) demonstrates a clear-cut borderline

between errors and mistakes: "mistakes are those parts of conversations and

compositions that are deviated from the selected norms of mature language

performance". A mistake is produced at either the competence level or at

the performance level. Technically, mistakes at competence level are

referred as errors and those at performance level are known as mistakes.

To sum up, no matter how varied these schools of thoughts are, they

are by nature the same in the sense that a mistake is caused by non-

linguistic reasons such as fatigue, lack of attention, carelessness, haste or

some other "physical defects" while an error is systematically caused by

linguistic reasons. Thus, it is the error that should be the focus of attention

in the field of language teaching rather than mistake.

17

2.1.3. The role of "errors" in English Language Teaching

Generally speaking, views towards the role of "errors" in English

Language Teaching have shifted considerably within the past few decades.

Traditional views hold that errors are to be avoided at any expense and they

are negative manifestation of learner's performance. Audiolingualists

claims that a great effort should be made to prevent learner's errors.

Advocates of modern language teaching approaches like Communicative

Language Teaching, on the other hand, see error as an indispensable part of

the learning process which proves that real learning is taking place and that

error is an indication of learner's efforts in producing the language (Corder,

1967 and Brown, 1980). Corder (1967) also argues that errors are the most

important source of information revealing that learners are organizing

knowledge available to them to produce the language at a particular point

of time. Edge (1997) is also in line with this school of thought. He regards

errors as necessary learning steps which are evident for the fact that

students are learning the language successfully. By the same token,

Bartram, M & Walton, R (2001, p.11) see errors as "an

inescapable…natural part of language learning" and that they are "part of

the learning process: not the wrong turning on the road of mature language

use but actually part of the road itself." These two scholars consider the

process of learning a second language similar to that of a baby learning his

mother tongue. They illustrate their argument with an example of stages of

learning past simple of a child as shown in Figure 2. At stage 1, the child

is attempting to talk about a past action without any knowledge about the

past tense. At stage 2, he knows that verbs in past tense should carry "-ed"

but he overgeneralizes the rule and adds "-ed" to every verb to form its past

tense form. It is at this stage that an error occurs. However, this error is

one stage in the line of language development of the child, which proves

18

that the child is learning the language. Thus, there is no point in over-

worrying about the error that he has conducted.

Figure 2: Stages of learning past simple of a child

In particular, errors benefit both the learner and the teacher. As for

the former, errors could assume the role of stimuli to facilitate learning and

assist students with achieving writing fluency (Lyons and Heasley, 1992).

With respect to the later, errors serve as an invaluable implication of what

strategies used by learners and an indication of what they have learnt or

have not (Doff, 1989 and Crystal, 1980). In short, there has been a shift in

the view concerning the importance of errors in the field of English

Language Teaching from a negative to positive spectrum. It can be

concluded that errors are by no means to be avoided at any expense.

Daddy go work yesterday

I don't know anything about the

past simple

Daddy goed work yesterday

I know something about the

past simple

Daddy went work

yesterday

I know everything

about the past simple

Stage 1 Stage 3Stage 2

19

2.1.4. Classification of written errors in English Language Teaching

Scholars have not reached a consensus concerning the categorization

of written errors in the field of English Language Teaching. Each expert

proposes a different criterion to classify written errors.

Burt and Kiparsky (1974: 74) suggest the two terms "global and local

errors" to indicate a hierarchy among categories of errors:

"Global errors are those that violate rules involving the overall

structure of a sentence, the relation among constituent clauses, or in a

simple sentence, the relation among major constituents. Local mistakes

cause trouble in a particular constituent, or in a clause of complex

sentence."

Bartram and Walton (2001, p.89) give an example to exemplify this:

"Taken on its own, the following would pass unnoticed:

Despite this, Ford has made great progress in the UK market.

until it follows this:

Ford has always targeted the UK as a potential growth area for its

products."

Nevertheless, there are experts who base on different points of view

to classify errors. Lee (1990) sees errors at the linguistic level and at the

level of gravity. Accordingly, those at the linguistic level pertains to

grammatical errors/ morphological syntactic errors containing global and

local errors and discourse errors involved with the mode of discourse

errors, rules of discourse errors and lexical errors. As she proposes, rules

of discourse errors are a synonym to intra-lingual errors. At the level of

20

error gravity, as she defines, it is involved with the seriousness of error or

which errors to be corrected to be specific. Error gravity includes errors

that interfere with intelligibility or communication. In other words, they are

the errors that lead to communication breakdown like cohesion and

coherence-related ones. Besides, errors which stigmatize or irritate are

another subtype of error gravity. As its names suggests, this is the type of

errors that "intrudes upon the interlocutor's perception of the

communication." (Ludwig, 1982, p. 275). Nonetheless, it is such subjective

and judgmental a type of errors that it is not the focus of corrective

treatment. Additionally, Lee mentions common errors referring to those

that affect a large group of students and can be easily detected and high

frequency errors related to the repeated occurrence of the same error on the

part of individual students.

On the whole, the most popular classification of written errors that

earns scholars' consensus prevailingly is the division of errors into inter-

language errors, intra-lingual errors and developmental errors. The

elaboration of these categories is illustrated as below:

2.1.4.1. Inter-lingual errors

Inter-language errors, as Richards (1970) points out, are popular

among second language learners. Those are errors caused as a result of the

"characteristics of one language are being carried into another popular

language" (Richards, 1970: 6). To put it in another way, learners have

"carried the habits of his mother tongue into the second language" they are

striving to acquire (Corder, 1971: 158). Thus, this type of errors is very

diverse in form and manifestation as English second language learners

from different cultures and settings will commit different errors of this

type. For example, learners of different cultures have different modes of

21

paragraph patterns. As a result, there is likelihood that they will transfer

their mother tongue paragraph pattern into their target language one.

Figure 2 below, as presented by Sokolik (1990), illustrates paragraph

structures by speakers of different languages: extensive parallel

constructions in the Semitic group, an indirect approach in the Oriental

group, the repeated digressions in Romance and Slavic groups, and the

linear English language writing.

English Semitic Oriental Romance Russian

Figure 3: Different paragraph pattern in different languages

Brown (1980) adds that inter-lingual is a common phenomena

among English second language learners during their early stages of

learning a second language, before the system of second language is

familiar, the first language is the only linguistic system that learner can rely

on. When the two languages have the same corresponding features, there

would be a positive transfer from the first language to the second language.

On the other hand, if they do not correspond to each other, it would be

likely that a negative transfer will occur (Ho, 1973). This is a very source

for errors to occur.

2.1.4.2. Intra-lingual errors

The second category of written errors falls to intra-lingual errors.

This category of errors is defined by Richards (1970: 15) as those "that

22

reflect the general characteristics of rule learning, such as faulty

generalization, incomplete application of rules and failure to learn

conditions for rule application.” The very source of this type of errors,

according to Richards, originates from the complex structure of English

and students' misinterpretation of grammatical rules due to inadequate

learning, faulty teaching or lack of contrast between both languages.

Brown (1980) states that early stages of language learning are characterized

by the prevailing dominance of inter-lingual transfer errors while intra-

lingual errors are typical for learners at a more advanced competence. In

short, this category of errors deals much with errors related to students'

grammatical and lexical errors at higher competence rather than the first

sub-type of errors.

2.1.4.3. Developmental errors

Richards (1970) gives the definition for developmental errors as

"errors…which do not derive from transfer from another language…they

reflect the learner's competence at a particular stage and illustrate some of

the general characteristics of language acquisition." They are caused as a

result of learner's attempts to "build up hypothesis about the English from

their limited experience of it in the classroom or textbook." (Richards,

1971: 18) In other words, developmental errors are similar to the errors

made by children learning the language as their first language.

Developmental errors are assumed to be a natural product of a gradually

developing ability in the new language. Developmental errors make up the

majority of errors exhibited by second language learners. Examples of

developmental errors are the misuse of third person -s (she work hard), the

-ed morpheme (she teached us last year), of negation (I not like it) and of

interrogatives ( I wonder what is she doing).

23

All in all, there is no clear-cut distinction between the three types of

errors presented. As for the same error, it can be classified as inter-lingual

errors for this student but intra-lingual errors for another and

developmental errors for the others. The classification is varied with

regard to different learners; thus, it is vital that teacher well understand

his/her students to work out which type of errors learners are making to

provide necessary correction.

2.1.5. Causes of written errors in the field of English Language

Teaching

It is by no means easy to identify the actual sources of written errors

in the field of English Language Teaching. Some may blame such learner's

inadequacy for inappropriate teaching methods. Others may, on the

contrary, blame learners themselves for conducting those errors. Diverse

as these viewpoints are, there should be an intersection among different

schools of thoughts or a clear-cut justification among them so that these

causes are figured out and proper error correction is offered. In general, the

very causes of written errors can be summed up as below:

2.1.5.1. Mother tongue interference

Mother tongue interference is one of the major causes leading to

leaner's committing errors. Norrish (1987) states that learning a language

(a mother tongue or a foreign language) is a matter of habit formation.

When learner strives to learn a new habit, the old ones will interfere with

the new ones. In other words, the term "first language interference" best

summarizes this phenomenon. Besides, being able to express fully one's

ideas in another language is always a demanding task. Thus, when

learners' second language is not sufficient in expressing themselves, it is

likely that they will rely on their first language to express their ideas. Edge

24

(1989: 7) is in line with this thought: "when people do not know how to say

something in a foreign language, one possibility is to use words and

structures from their own language and try to make them fit into the foreign

language." Moreover, the interference of mother tongue may result from

the complication of the structure of the target language as Abbort et al

(1981: 230) argues that "wherever the structures of the first language and

target language differed, there would be problems in learning and difficulty

in performance, and that the greater the differences were, the greater the

difficulties would be."

2.1.5.2. Overgeneralization

Another possible cause of written errors to be mentioned is

overgeneralization. According to Jakobovits (in Richards, 1969: 55-56),

overgeneralization is "the use of previously available strategies in new

situation… In second language learning…some of these strategies will

prove to be helpful but others, perhaps due to superficial similarities, will

be misleading and in applicable." For example, all grammatical persons

except the singular third person in present simple tense carry base-form

verbs; therefore, there is a risk that learners will over-generalize this rule

and omit the "-s" ending after verbs of singular third persons. One of the

main reasons leading to this may derive from teaching techniques. In many

traditional classrooms where traditional methods like Grammar Translation

method are applied, teacher provides students with a variety of exercises so

that they can practice grammatical items. As a result of the over-practice of

these items, they get mixed up and over-generalize rules. In consensus

with this trait, Richards (1970) states that learners create a deviant structure

on account of their limited exposure to different structures in the target

language. Consequently, students automatically apply rules wherein they

are not allowed to.

25

2.1.5.3. Ignorance of rule restrictions

According to Richards (1970: 12), the ignorance of rule restrictions

refers to "the application of rules to context they do not". The scholar also

mentions that learners commit this type of errors due to their faulty analogy

and the rote teaching. Out of the two causes, the former may be said to be

a major cause to errors of this category. For example, because of their

limited exposure to target language, learners, once encountering the

preposition concerning with one type of verb, will attempt to apply the

same prepositions with verbs that they detect similarities thanks to the

analogy. To be specific, learners would probably use "about" for the verb

"discuss" as they see that a large number of verbal verbs like "tell, talk and

speak" all go with this preposition. However, this is not the rule to be

applied in this case. Rote teaching also plays a role in learner's ignorance

of restrictions. Such drilling exercises as below make students assume that

the distribution of the verb "make" should be "make sb to do sth" because

they have practiced using a "to-verb infinitive" after "allow, enable, permit"

(extracted from Richards, 1970: 13):

"1. The microscope enables scientists to examine very small objects.

1. A thermometer enables doctors to measure body temperatures.

2. Helicopters enable passengers to land in the city centre.

3. Good production methods enable the factory to manufacture more

cars.

4. Expansion joints permit/allow the pipes to expand or contract.

5. Safety valves permit/allow the steam to escape from the boiler.

6. We permit/allow the metal to cool slowly."

26

2.1.5.4. Incomplete application of rules

As defined by Richards (1970: 15), second language learners'

incomplete application of rules means "the occurrence of structures whose

deviancy represents the degree of development of the rules required to

produce acceptable utterances." For instance, although student has been

excessively taught the form of a proper question, he still uses the statement

form instead of the question form or he just add the question words at the

beginning of the sentence, assuming that he has transferred the statement

into a question. In fact, he has not. For example, such questions as below

may be produced by second language learners:

"What you often do in the evening?"

"You speak English?"

2.1.5.5. False concepts hypothesized

The errors resulting from false concepts hypothesized involve those

that are attributed to "the faulty comprehension of distinction in the target

language" (Richards, 1970: 19). It is also Richards, who states that the two

main grounds leading to this are excessive contrastive-based teaching and

pre-mature contrastive presentation. Excessive contrastive-based teaching

often originates from the stereotype that "presenting items in contrast can

lighten the teacher's and the students' work and consequently speed up the

learning process" (Ruth, 1978: 118). However, this method of teaching

does not always bring the desired effect as William (1968: 129) argues "a

course that concentrate too much on the main trouble spots without due

attention to the structure of the foreign language as a whole will leave the

learner with a patchwork of unfruitful, partial generalization…" In other

words, concentration of the different traits between the two languages may

27

not work because these different features may not be the language items

that are most often needed. On the other hand, once contrastive

presentation is involved, a poor or pre-mature presentation would cost

learner's confusion about the differences between the two languages. The

very consequences of this are that students end up with puzzlement and a

disordered knowledge.

2.2. Error correction

2.2.1. Different views concerning written error correction

Although errors committing is inevitable in the process of learning as

it proves learners are exploring the language, there remains a controversial

issue related to the question whether or not errors should be corrected and

how to correct errors as well. Basically, there are quite a few contrasting

views.

The first school of thought holds that there is no need to correct

learner's errors. Teacher's job is only to point out to learners that an error

has been committed. The other view suggests that errors must be corrected

every time they are detected; otherwise, a bad habit of the wrong use of the

target language will be formed. To some extent, these schools of thought

reach an extreme that would not benefit students to the best. Thus, the

researcher would like to employ the Communicative Language Teaching

approach to error correction. That is, error correction should be provided

when needed because the very goal of this approach is to develop students'

communicative competence and errors are seen as a sign of their real

learning but not a sign of incomplete learning.

In light of which errors earn more attention during the course of

correcting, there also remains a debate. Lee (1990) mentions three kinds of

28

errors that require more concern from teacher namely errors that interfere

with intelligibility or communication, errors which stigmatized or irritate

common errors and high frequency errors (see 1.3). Some scholars like

Edge (1970) and Van et al (1984) are in favor of the approach that much

weight should be attributed to errors that impede the intelligibility of the

message or errors of meaning as Edge terms. Edge (1970: 11) argues that

"the most important sort of errors is errors of meaning…There is no point

in learning to say correct sentences in English if they do not mean what we

want to say." In terms of errors that deserve more concerns from teacher,

the researcher would like to concur with Edge's view that errors that

impede the conveyance of meaning should be a priority to correction since

writing is at first to "express and impress. Writers typically serve two

masters: themselves and their own desires to express an idea or feeling and

readers, also called the audience, who need to have ideas expressed in

certain ways." (Sokolik, 1990: 88). Thus, errors related to failure to convey

messages would be worth correcting most.

2.2.2. Teacher role in written error correction

Traditionally, the role of teacher in error correcting has always been

dominant. Teacher is the only source to both point out the errors and show

how to correct them. Edge (1970) coins the term "over-correct teacher" to

imply this. Teachers always strive to be correct in terms of linguistic form

when they are in class and this poses profound effects on students. Thus,

learners will see that what their teachers priotize is freedom from any kinds

of mistakes or errors. "Even if the teacher tells the students that they should

try to express themselves freely, it will be difficult for the students to

behave in this way when they see that it is not the teacher's way." (Edge,

1970: 74).

29

Besides, teacher assumes the role as the only linguistic model in their

setting for students to look at. Learners always have a strong desire to be

themselves and to be able to express themselves in English. Teacher, to

some extent, has become the model of the same background culture to

enjoy the language, to express himself/ herself in the target language. Thus,

from students' perspectives, teachers earns their status "based on the fact

that they are successful examples of what their students aim to be; people

from a shared background who have achieved an ability to communicate in

English" (Edge, 1970: 76). Therefore, teachers should provide correction

that helps learner to express themselves more accurately and "make

correction a part of the teaching and learning process, not something to

fight against" or "a kind of criticism or punishment" (Edge, 1970: 75).

This is the very status that teachers should assume in error correction.

2.2.3. Techniques in error correction

The techniques for error correction vary in accordance with different

viewpoints of different scholars. First and foremost, it comes to the

identification of written errors. The five steps to detect written errors are

illustrated as following, as stated by Broughton et al (1980: 143):

- The first step is to establish what the errors are. The question to ask

is whether what the student intended to say is the same as what he actually

wrote.

- The second step focuses on establish hypothesis concerning causes

of detected errors.

- Then it comes to the stage of determining the seriousness of errors or

error gravity.

- The fourth step pertains to locating the error into a particular area of

errors.

- Last but not least, it comes to the step of correcting identified errors.

30

The techniques involving how to correct written errors can be

divided into teacher correction techniques and student correction

techniques as a whole, Edge (1970: 24). As for student correction, errors

can be corrected by error conductors' peers. That is, peer correction can

contribute to the stage of error correction. The teacher will not correct the

errors but show students that an error has been committed. Peer correction

can take place at the level of individuals, that is, student-to-student

correction and at the level of a whole class, or whole-class correction as it

is named. This type of correction works well with common errors from

students' tests or exercises. In addition to student correction, there remains

another type of correction, teacher correction with two corresponding sub-

types namely full teacher correction and teacher-student correction. In

terms of full teacher correction, all the errors are corrected by the teacher

and then the feedback is handed back to the students. This kind of

correction is useful for errors of various types and errors that are difficult

for students to correct. The teacher-student technique is implemented as

followed: the teacher provide correction in the form of standard codes

which have been agreed in advance by students and teacher. Students are

left to do the correction work themselves afterwards.

All things considered, these correction techniques have been in use

by many teachers. Preference of which techniques depends a lot on

numerous factors like the seriousness of the errors committed, the level of

the students and the favorite mode of correction that can motivate them.

31

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter focuses on a detailed depiction of the methodology

applied in this research paper. Specifically, the size and characteristics of

the participants altogether with data collection instruments, data collection

procedures as well as data analysis will be put into justification.

3.1. Participants

The researcher employed the participation of two groups of

participants. Firstly, they are the writing tests of first-year mainstream

students taken from three different points of time during their first

semester. These are the diagnostic test, the mid-term test and the end of

term test to be specific. Due to the researcher's limited access to the tests

as well as the fact that some students missed their end-of-term test, she

could only detect errors on 77 writing samples of each kind of tests, which

makes up a total of 231 ones. These samples were collected from four

different groups namely E15, E17, E21, E23. In fact, the strategy

underlying this procedure of sampling is "random cluster sampling" thanks

to lots-casting. These are all mainstream classes whose students have just

passed the entrance exam to university and at their first step to learn writing

as an independent and significant skill. The distribution of tests in

accordance with the four classes is tabulated as below:

Groups E15 E17 E21 E23

Samples

collected19 20 19 19

Table 1: Samples collected from each kind of test

32

The large size of the writing samples, 231 in total, which accounts

for one fifth of the total tests, can be considered eligible for representing

the whole population. Furthermore, these samples are expected to provide

the researcher with a more objective look at students' common written

errors when the identification of errors is implemented on three writing

pieces produced by the same student at different points of time. In so doing,

the researcher is supposed to eliminate the possibility that a mistake is mis-

categorized into an error. In addition, thanks to the convenience that all the

samples to be analyzed are collected from official tests, there is a low risk

that students may copy down from the internet or reference books. This

ensures that the writing samples collected are students' own products and it

would contribute greatly to the reliability of the study.

The other participants in the research paper are 10 teachers in charge

of teaching writing skills to first year students chosen randomly via

"random simple sampling". That is, they were picked out at random from

the list of teachers in Division 1 via lots-casting. These teachers are all non-

native language teachers; thus, they share the same background culture and

mother tongue as students. Besides, on account of their job features, they

have frequent contacts with students, which enables them to have an

understanding of students' common written errors. Taking these traits into

consideration, the researcher invited ten of them to take part in the

questionnaire survey. The results gained from the questionnaire would

serve as an assisting tool to support her own analysis of students' common

written errors. The data collected, therefore, would be more reliable.

3.2. Data collection instruments

In order to conduct this study, the researcher has employed two data

collection instruments namely document analysis and survey questionnaire.

33

The combination of these two methods offers the researcher not only

quantitative but also qualitative data for later analysis.

3.2.1. Document analysis

Regarding the very aim and objectives of this study, the researcher

would like to employ document analysis as a feasible method to gain

insights into the research problems. This data collection method is

“considered a research technique that provides objective, systematic and

qualitative data” (Verma and Mallick, 1999). In spite of the large size of

writing samples collected, this method of researching enables the

researcher to summarize a large volume of data into fewer categories

basing on a proper coding system as Stemler (1996) affirms "content

analysis enables researchers to sift through large volumes of data with

relative ease in a systematic fashion". Additionally, it also allows the

researcher to make inferences from data collected, which can be used to

assist the data gained from survey questionnaire as well. However, this data

collection method could be impaired due to the incompleteness or the

missing of students' writing samples. With a stroke of luck, the number of

students' writing tests missed is insignificant enough to ensure the

reliability of the research.

Specifically, document analysis was conducted with a checklist

drafted in advance. The checklist is extracted from the writing syllabus for

first year mainstream students and consists of major errors that students are

expected to conduct at a high frequency. The very purpose of the checklist

is to guarantee a systematic and consistent analysis of students' errors. The

lay-out of the checklist is a three-column table. The first column

categorizes students' errors in groups related to different aspects of a

writing product like syntax, content, grammar, mechanics, organization and

34

word choice. The second column represents typical examples of each

category while the third one is used to list students' errors that the

researcher encountered.

3.2.2. Questionnaire

On account of the researcher’s limited time and finance,

questionnaire proves to be an appropriate method “to get data economically

from a large number of participants” (Verman and Mallick, 1999).

Moreover, the fact that “the employment of open-ended in addition to the

conventional close-ended questions of this method provide more helpful,

reliable data and more accurately reflecting what the respondents want to

say” (Nunnan, 1992) led the researcher to choose questionnaire as one of

the major methods to collect data.

The questionnaire consists of two main parts. The first part enables

the researcher to have an overview on the general information of the

participants including the number of semester they have been teaching

writing to mainstream freshmen. Meanwhile, the second part highlights

teachers' views on students' common errors and their causes. It embodies

two rating questions covering two pages of paper. In fact, these two

questions include a number of different items to rate; thus, the modest

number of questions does not hinder the researcher from collecting data

economically and comprehensively. Additionally, the questionnaire is

written in English because its target respondents are the teachers of English

at a foreign language university. It goes without saying that their level of

proficiency in English is high enough to comprehend what the researcher

would like to express.

Nevertheless, questionnaire remains an imperfect method as

respondents may not be fully aware of the content of the question or they

may not answer truthfully. Therefore, in a move to eliminate this

35

drawback, the questionnaire will be brief and it will also be finished within

the presence of the researcher so that any arising misunderstandings will be

made clear in time.

3.3. Data collection procedure

The data collection procedure is divided into three successive phases.

The elaboration of each phase is clarified as followed:

Phase 1:

The focus of phase one is to deal with the drafting of the checklist to

be used in the document analysis and the questionnaire. As for the

checklist, the researcher, first and foremost, read a volume of documents to

have an overview on typical types of written errors often conducted by

students. Afterwards, she spent time researching common written error

checklists proposed in other studies. This process of researching resulted

in the adaptation of common error checklist from the writing syllabus for

mainstream freshmen at Faculty of English Language Teacher Education,

Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies. The

comprehensiveness and the wide coverage of this checklist led the

researcher to choose it as a tool to analyze students' common written errors.

Nonetheless, for the sake of convenience for later analysis, the checklist

was edited, regrouped and presented in the form of table. The checklist is

attached as an appendix at the end of the research paper.

In terms of the questionnaire, the researcher, at first, spent time

having a close look at the literature related to common written errors to

gain decent background knowledge. Next, a draft questionnaire was

produced to serve as the piloting version in phase two. Since this

questionnaire is aimed to be delivered to teachers in charge of teaching

writing skills for first year students who are already at a high proficiency of

36

English, it is written in English to ensure that terminologies would not be

distorted as a result of translation into Vietnamese.

Phase 2:

This phase concentrates mainly on such tasks as collecting students'

test and piloting the questionnaire. As for the former, the researcher went

through a series of demanding tasks. Firstly, with the aid of her supervisor,

she was enabled to get access to students' diagnostic and mid-term tests by

borrowing them from teachers in charge of teaching writing to four groups

of E15, E17, E21 and E23. Then it came to the photocopying students'

end-of-term tests. However, the access to this resource is limited; hence,

the researcher's supervisor did her a favor when he asked the Dean of

Division 1 for permission to get access to students' writing tests. These 77

writing tests were scattered alphabetically in 23 testing rooms. In an

attempt to sort them out, the researcher had an initial look at their names in

the testing lists of each testing room to pick out their numerical orders in

the lists. It is worth noting that no examinee's personal information is left

on their tests except for the numerical order of their headings. However,

these headings were cut from examinees' tests to ensure fairness during

marking procedure. Thus, the numerical orders found were used to collate

with the numbers on examinees' headings to make out what the number

written on students' tests. The last step is left to picking out students' tests

based on the numerical order written on each test. After that, all of these

77 examinees' tests were borrowed and photocopied to serve the

researcher's later analysis. Finally, they were returned to exactly where

they used to be to ensure that no missing tests occurred.

With regard to the later, the questionnaire was piloted with the

enthusiastic help of one volunteer teacher in the Department. The

researcher also consulted her with advice to improve the questionnaire to

get the desired effect.

37

Phase 3:

This is the last but by no means the least phase in data collection

procedure. It focuses mainly on delivering questionnaire and analyzing

students' writing samples collected in phase two.

With respect to the delivery of the questionnaires, in order to contact

respondents, the researcher had a quick look at the teacher's list provided

for students to pick out the phone numbers of the selected respondents.

Afterwards, she made short phone calls to these respondents to make an

appointment with them as they were all at work and their free time was not

abundant. Prior to respondents' completion of the questionnaire, the

researcher spent a short time explaining briefly what the respondents were

required to do. Additionally, on account of ethical reasons, their

anonymity was pledged. The researcher's presence was also provided

during the respondents' procedure of completing the questionnaire to

explain anything that the respondents were not clear about. Afterwards, all

the questionnaires were collected and the researcher would have a short

look at them to detect any unexpected outcomes and immediate

remediation would be provided.

In terms of the analysis of students' writing samples, the researcher

grouped their writing tests in accordance with their classes for the sake of

convenience in error detecting. Accordingly, with the aid of the checklist

drafted in phase 2, the researcher detected written errors made by the same

students throughout their three official tests of diagnostic, mid-term and

end-of-term tests. Simultaneously, any errors encountered were noted

down to serve as a justification for the researcher's later generalization and

conclusion.

38

3.4. Data analysis methods

The quantitative data obtained from the questionnaire were

calculated and tabulated so that the researcher could analyze and compare

figures conveniently. For example, the percentage of participants who

shared the same ideas or the same average rating would be calculated and

illustrated in a comprehensive table of data.

The qualitative data gained from document analysis were

summarized and categorized according to the taxonomy in the checklist to

best represent the researcher's analysis. A system of color coding in pie

charts, bar charts altogether with tables was adopted to highlight relevant

information.

3.5. Data analysis procedures

First of all, the data collected from the questionnaire, the document

analysis were classified basing on the two research questions. In other

words, the first questions of the questionnaire and the data gained from

analyzing students’ writings will be used to answer the first research

question “What are the common written errors committed by first year

students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE),

Hanoi University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Viet

Nam National University, Hanoi?''

The second question of the questionnaire and qualitative data

originated from the analysis of students' writing were employed to answer

the second research question “What are the causes to common written

errors made by first year students at the Faculty of English Language

Teacher Education (FELTE), Hanoi University of Foreign Languages and

International Studies, Viet Nam National University?".

39

Afterwards, numerical data were tabulated and presented in the form

of pie charts, bar charts and tables. Particularly, quantitative data gained

from the questionnaire was tabulated and calculated into percentage. Then,

written errors detected on students' writing samples were categorized based

on the prepared checklist. This step was followed by the counting of the

times that errors of the same category were repeated. Simultaneously,

prominent examples of each category were noted down to exemplify the

researcher's later analysis. Finally, all numerical data will be transferred

into percentage and corresponding charts with relevant coding color system

offered.

40

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter serves as a representation of data collected during

research procedure. Accordingly, the interpretation of these data is also

offered to address the two research questions.

4.1. Research question 1

As stated in the previous chapter, the first research question " What

are the common written errors committed by first year students at the

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, Hanoi University of

Foreign Languages and International Studies, Hanoi?" was answered by

the interpretation of the qualitative data gained from analyzing 231 of

students' writing samples as well as the quantitative data collected from

teachers' survey questionnaire.

Following are the tables and the corresponding bar chart to illustrate

first-year main-stream students' written errors.

WRITTEN ERRORS OF FIRST YEAR

STUDENTS AT ED, HULIS

General items 18.99%

Mechanics 10.34%

Grammar 36.21%

Syntax 13.30%

Lexical items 4.99%

Style 27.84%

Layout 3.64%

Idea organization 2.49%

41

Table 2.1: Written errors of first year students at ED, HULIS as

synthesized from document analysis

Items of

errors1 (never) 2 3 4 5(always)

Idea

organization0% 40% 0% 40% 20%

Lexical items 0% 0% 40% 60% 0%

Inappropriate

language style0% 0% 40% 0% 60%

Grammar 0% 20% 40% 40% 0%

Wrong

format20% 60% 0% 20% 0%

Mechanics 0% 20% 60% 20% 0%

Expression 0% 0% 20% 40% 40%

Word choice 0% 0% 40% 20% 40%

Table 2.2: Written errors of first year students at ED, HULIS as

synthesized from teachers' questionnaire

In term of table 2.2, the researcher would like to choose the mean 2.5

as the medium indicator. That is, if most of the teachers agree that a certain

item of errors occur above the mean "2.5", it would be consider a common

error and vice versa. Accordingly, 100 percent of the teachers agree that

expression, word choice, inappropriate language style and lexical items are

common errors. In the meantime, 80% of the teachers are in agreement

with the fact that grammar and mechanics are common errors. Another

portion of 60% of the teachers see idea organization as common errors.

This is, to some extent, quite similar to the data presented in Table 2.1.

42

As for Table 2.1, the researcher would like to employ the percentage

of five as the standard figure to determine whether a certain category of

errors falls into the groups of common errors or not. This figure is chosen

due to the fact that 5% would mean that the category is popular with one

twentieth of the population; in other words, at least one out of twenty errors

encountered will fall into these groups. Accordingly, the six most common

errors are those related to grammar, style, general items, syntax, mechanics

and lexical items with the descending percentage of 37.21%, 27.84%,

18.99%, 13.30% 10.34% and 4.99% (roughly 5%) respectively. The types

of errors concerning inappropriate format and illogical idea organization

are less popular. This can be accounted by the fact that the writing samples

collected by the researcher are all produced during students' first semester

wherein the focus is writing informal letters and postcards. Hence, students

are not required to make use of their logical and critical thinking as much

as in argumentative writing.

In order to illustrate data vividly, a bar chart is provided as below.

Particularly, the vertical axis represents the percentage of each category of

errors while the horizontal axis is a set of bars with corresponding coding

color system

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

1

General Items

Mechanics

Grammar

Syntax

lexical items

Stlye

layout

idea organization

Figure 4: Written errors of first year students at ED, HULIS

43

The detailed description of each category of errors is provided as

below. First of all, it comes to the interpretation of errors concerning

grammar violation.

Grammar errors:

Grammatical errors

Pronoun agreement mistakes 1.06%

Article mistakes 15.18%

Use gerund 2.59%

Use Noun 0.47%

Noun Number 12.00%

Use pronoun 1.06%

Pronoun reference unclear 0.82%

Voice change 0.35%

Subject and verb agreement 9.06%

Wrong verb tense 13.65%

Verb form 2.94%

Modal problem 0.82%

Auxiliary verbs 2.47%

Use infinitive 1.53%

Incorrect formation/use of conditionals 0.71%

Use possessive form 0.71%

Preposition 20.47%

Wrong use of conjunction/connective 12.12%

Link/combine 0.71%

Add relative pronoun 1.29%

Table 3: Components of grammar errors

44

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

1

Pronoun agreementmistakesArticle mistakes

Use gerund

Use Noun

Noun Number

Use pronoun

Pronoun reference unclear

Voice change

Subject and verbagreementWrong verb tense

Verb form

Modal problem

Auxiliary verbs

Use infinitive

Incorrect formation/use ofconditionalsUse possesive form

preposition

Wrong use ofconjunction/connectiveLink/combine

Add relative pronoun

Figure 5: Components of grammar errors

As it can be seen from the chart above, errors involving wrong use of

preposition (20.47%), article mistakes (15.18%), wrong verb tense

(13.65%), wrong use of conjunction/connective (12.12%), wrong noun

number (12.00%), and subject/verb agreement (9.06%) earn the most

prevailing occurrence. These figures show the fact that knowledge related

to noun usage (article mistakes, noun number), verb usage (verb tense,

subject and verb agreement) and preposition usage is problematic to

students. In particular, students often omit articles where they are needed

and insert them into inappropriate places.

45

The same phenomenon is encountered when students' preposition

errors are detected. More or least, they insert prepositions after verbs that

do not carry prepositions and omit them after verbs that are in need of, or

they can replace the frequently used preposition with an inappropriate one.

In the meantime, students' wrong use of noun number is seen in erroneous

structures like "each or every + plural nouns" and their false assumption of

the countability of nouns which partially account for their subject and verb

agreement errors. Besides, such structures as "there + to be + N" pose a

problem to students as they fail to determine whether the verb "to be"

should be in singular or plural forms. Additionally, students' putting verbs

into wrong tense results from the fact that they forget to put verbs into past

tense when they are recounting a story or events.

Regarding students' wrong use of connectives and conjunction, they

hardly violate logical rules, that is, they use conjunctions to denote

confliction between ideas where they are indeed supporting each other.

Instead, it is common that students place the FANBOYS (For And Nor But

Or Yet So) conjunction group at the beginning of a sentence. The table

below offers a specific description of the aforementioned errors.

Common

Grammatical

errors

Typical examples

Preposition Omit prepositions

Write me soon

Apologize our teacher

Reply me

Provide me knowledge

Graduate school

Watch about T.V programmes

Mention to your plan

46

Add prepositions

Consider about the time

Telephone to me

Join with us/ in my birthday

Wasting it for playing games

Prove for her opinion

Suit for you

Answer for your question

Bring for us many useful things

Replace

prepositions

With a high price

Congratulate my brothers in…

During the reading of history

During 19.00 to 22.00

In other hand

Familiar to

Omit articles

Give me (an) outlook

In (a) clear way

(a) nice garden

Have (a) chance

(the) best result

(the) other side of the problem

Both (the) countryside and (the) town

In such (a) large school/such (a) good

condition

Give me (a) happy time

Article

mistakes

Add articles

The next paragraph

The students

The dinner

Attend the classes

47

Go to the hospital

Wrong insertion

of article

A good advice

A best choice

A children

A nice people

Verb tense

Today I write this letter…/ I write this card to…

We agreed that we will meet…

I'm very happy when I received your letter

You said that you are moving to a different area.

You said that you love watching T.V.

Conjunction/

Connective

I must go to visit my grandparents on that day. So I can't meet

you.

More and more happy when you ask me to tell you all about my

favourite programme. And now I'll tell you about it.

But, there are some shortcomings that make me wonder.

Although its fee is much, it's large and modern. Especially, the

teachers at that school are very well.

Noun number

Each/every + Plural Nouns

Each others

Every sad things

Every students

Everythings

Some + Singular countable nouns

Some hobby

Some mistake

Some good point

Some material

Uncountable Nouns in plural forms

48

Tooinformal/formal

Faulty parallelism

Transition needed

Equipments

Advices

Informations

Subject/Verb

agreement

There + to be + Noun:

There is many new friends

There is good teachers

Singular subject + Plural Verb

It make me fun and relax me

The story make me…

The author give…

Table 4: Typical examples of common grammar errors

Style errors:

With respect to the second most common errors, style errors, their

elaboration is illustrated as below. The corresponding table shows specific

figures while the pie chart offers a vivid and straightforward representation

of this category of errors.

ERRORS RELATED TO STYLES

Too informal/formal 96.18%

Faulty parallelism 2.55%

Transition needed 1.27%

Table 5: Components of errors related to style

Figure 6: Components of errors related to style

49

Obviously, the most dominant type of style errors is that of

inappropriate language style with two common tendencies accounting more

than 96% of the total errors of the same category. Students, on one hand,

may write in a too informal language style, that is, they integrate elements

of spoken language into written language. On the other hand, they may

overuse lengthy and complicated structures which are supposed to be found

in formal writing though this trend is less popular than the former. Typical

examples are presented in the following table:

Typical example of inappropriate language style

Too informal language style Too formal language style

It's Ok?

Alright

And you?

No

Of course

Right

Hey, Sally

Got it?

Okay

Uhm

Use contractions like isn't, don't,

won't, etc in writing reflections

I would like to notice you that…

According to what you wrote in

your letter…

The fact is that…

I would like to be visited by you

next month.

I am writing to inform you that…

I would like to give you a special

thanks for such a nice party.

Table 6: Typical example of expression errors

Errors related to general items:

In terms of general items, students are most of the time found to

produce lengthy and clumsy sentences or they translate word by word,

which results in Vietnamese-like expression. Thus, errors related to

50

expression accounts for nearly half of the total errors conducted by students

in this kind. In particular, lengthy or clumsy expression is found as

students over-use intensifiers like "very much, really, a lot" or they expand

the sentence unnecessarily whilst it can be shortened instead. For example,

students produce such sentences as "I really enjoyed it a lot" or "I am glad

to know that you move from a large school to another which was smaller"

(instead of "I really enjoyed it" or "I am glad to know that you move from a

large school to a smaller one"). In fact, students are accustomed to the

prevalence of intensifiers in Vietnamese. It is natural for students to

produce sentences like "cô ấy rất xinh đẹp (She is very beautiful)/ tôi rất

thích chạy bộ (I like jogging a lot)/ tôi thực sự thích bong đá rất nhiều ( I

really like football very much)" instead of "cô ấy xinh đẹp (she is beautiful)

/ tôi thích chạy bộ (I like jogging)/ tôi thích bóng đá (I like football)". Thus,

there is a tendency for them to add as many intensifiers as possible;

otherwise, they would feel that they are lacking something significant.

They are not aware of the fact that in certain circumstances, the use of such

intensifiers is not needed as the sentence itself is meaningful and

intelligible. Besides, because of students' word-by-word translation, they

ignore grammatical rules and produce erroneous sentences. For instance,

they would translate "chủ nhật hàng tuần" into English word-by-word as

"Sundays weekly" instead of "every Sunday". Below is the presentation of

data gained and typical examples for expression errors.

GENERAL ITEMS

Meaning unclear 8.75%

Add omitted words 11.11%

Omit words 13.13%

Right words but wrong 22.56%

51

Table 7: Written errors belonging to general items

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%50.00%

Meanin

guncle

ar

Add

om

itte

d

Om

itw

ord

s

Rig

ht

word

s b

ut

Expre

ssio

n

Meaning unclear

Add omitted words

Omit words

Right words butwrong forms

Expression

Figure 7: Written errors belonging to general items

Prominent examples of lengthy, clumsy or Vietnamese-like

expression are provided as below:

Typical examples of expression errors

Lengthy or clumsy expression Vietnamese-like expression

It makes me easy to understand

I am partially in disagreement with

the author's idea.

I am glad to know that you move

from a large school to another which

was smaller.

If you don't know about the price,

I see this programme on Sundays

weekly.

Students are adults but not already.

Students almost don't go to school.

It's a good idea for someone but not

everybody.

In the last place of this story…

forms

Expression 44.44%

52

you will lose little.

I really enjoyed it a lot.

I eventually never understand what

they say in that programme.

Write to me a reply

His hurt is serious very much.

I'm glad to write to tell you that I

was interested in the party you gave

me yesterday

I prepared dinner on the table

…arrive Vietnam from USA

I felt like someone stand behind me

I was taken part in your party

Small school in the countryside will

not enough condition to organize.

My special favourite programme…

I have to move to a new place which

is far from my village many times.

However, nevermind, with your

study you can learn at the best

school.

Table 8: Examples of expression errors

Syntax errors

With regard to syntactic errors, the dominant occurrence belongs to

fragment error (39.42%) and it is roughly followed by wrong order and

run-on sentence error with the portion of 15.38% and 10.1% respectively.

Specific data and a corresponding pie chart are presented as below:

Syntax errors (%)

Fragment error 39.42%

Run-on sentence 10.1%

Subject/verb needed 9.62%

Wrong order 15.38%

Sentence structure 2.4%

Table 9: Common written errors related to syntax

53

Fragment error

Run-on sentence

Subject/verbneeded

Wrong order

Sentencestructure

Figure 8: Common written errors related to verb usage

With reference to fragment error, there is a widespread use of

subordinating clauses as an independent sentence among students. The

presence of such subordinators as "although/though, because" at the very

beginning of the sentence is popular. On the contrary, some students join a

number of single sentences into a long and complex sentence, which not

only irritates readers but also hinder their interpretation of the sentence

meaning. Earning a slightly higher portion compared to that of run-on

sentence errors is those of wrong word order. The most popular

phenomenon in this kind of errors is the misplacement of adverbs in a

sentence. For example, students usually put adverbs of manner right after

the verb itself regardless of the length of the accompanying object. They

may write "complete successfully the project" instead of "complete the

project successfully". Following are representative examples of the errors

under discussion.

Common

syntactic

errors

Typical examples

54

Fragment

error

.Some knowledge you can only get from the teacher.

.As it will give you more chance.

.Especially I liked the food.

.Because the party was so wonderful.

.The subject whether or not they like.

Wrong Order

Misplacement of adverbs:

- Adverb of frequency: have been never…

- Adverbs of manner: complete successfully their project/

find easily a good job

- Adverb of time: What do you think about next week on

Tuesday?

- Adverb of degree: The most thing I remember/ I liked

best the music at the party.

Run-on

sentence

The story he tells is only one case, there are still many people

who is very hard-working at school and the results in a good

future, and someone who spent much time on part-time jobs

couldn't finish their time at university.

Knowing that you and your family are going to move to a

different area and you are considering about going to a small

school in the countryside or in the centre of town, I'm writing

to give you my advice.

When I read this story, I like very much because it can advises

me what I should do when I am a student and I think that I

should attend the classes regularly in order to that I can gain

more skills and improve my knowledge at university.

Table 10: Typical examples of common syntax errors

55

Mechanics errors

Data concerning mechanics errors are tabulated in the following

table and clearly presented in the pie chart followed.

MECHANICS ERRORS

Capitalize 10.27%

Incorrect punctuation 45.21%

Incorrect spelling 44.52%

Table 11: Components of mechanics errors

Capitalize

Incorrectpunctuation

Incorrect spelling

Figure 9: Components of mechanics Errors

As it is shown from Figure 9, the two most prevailing mechanics

errors falls into those of incorrect punctuation and incorrect spelling.

Although wrong punctuation and spelling hardly impede meaning

conveying, they signify readers of students' inproficiency in English and

may irritate readers because of such trivial errors. Below is a table

representing examples of these two kinds of mechanics errors.

Common Mechanics errors

Incorrect punctuation Incorrect spelling

. So that,

. Although,

Prepaired/ developed

Althought/ affort

56

, such as:

For example:

As a result:

Dear Sally!

Emagining/convinient/

sociaty/ rubbits

Persuative

Table 12: Examples of common mechanics errors

Lexical items

Students' lexical errors are much concerned with the wrong choice of

words or wrong use of words in inappropriate contexts. Thanks to the

analysis of students' writing samples, the research finds that lexical errors

result from the fact that students do not master words' collocation or

semantic meaning of a word or they translate words by words into the

target language.

To be specific, collocation refers to typical combinations of words

such as "strong tea" or "crystal clear" which is an essential aspect of

English language learning. It is well-known that English language learner,

even advanced ones, often struggle with English collocations (Granger,

1998). Hence, the fact that those freshmen produce collocation errors is

inevitable and the production of such combinations as hot topics (heated

topic), scare crazily (scared to death), etc are understandable.

In addition to collocation errors, wrong use of semantic meaning of a

word is to denote students' unawareness of its context-free meaning. To

put it in another way, students fail to incorporate semantic features of a

word; what they bear in their minds is the equivalent in Vietnamese only.

For instance, students neglect the semantic feature of "truthful" as "attached

to human personality" and just keep that of "related to reality" and the

57

Vietnamese equivalent, "chân thật". As a result, students produce an

erroneous sentence like "the story is truthful" unconsciously.

Another manifestation of lexical errors is involved with word-by-

word translation. That is, students put words by words mechanically

basing on their equivalent meaning in Vietnamese. Accordingly, to express

the phrase "kinh nghiệm thực tế", it is likely that students would translated

"kinh nghiệm" into "experience" and "thực tế" into "fact", which would

results in the production of the noun phrase "fact experience", an odd in

standard English.

A detailed table with examples to illustrate this category of errors is

provided as below.

Lexical Items

Collocation Semantic meaningWord-by-word

translation

Overcome questions

Open HBO channel

Scare crazily

Comfortable reasons

Hot topic

Shoot fireworks

The story is truthful

Qualified equipment

I assure that you will

like it

Recover from the pain

It makes his opinion

more believable

The news may be

honest

Fact experience

Join part-time jobs

Events lasting

throughout the world

I enter a complex

problem

Table 13: Typical examples of lexical Items

All things considered, the elaboration of six common written errors

namely grammar, style, general items, syntax, mechanics and lexical items

and the detailed description of their corresponding sub-categories has

58

offered an overall picture of common written errors produced by main-

stream first year students at English Department, Hanoi University of

Languages and International Studies. All the issues under discussion are

tabulated as following.

COMMON WRITTEN ERRORS

Common

CategoriesCommon sub-categories

1.1.1.Omit preposition

1.1.2. Add preposition1.1. Preposition

1.1.3. Replace

preposition

1.2.1. Omit articles

1.2.2. Add articles1.2. Article mistakes

1.2.3. Replace articles

1.3. Wrong verb tense

1.4. Wrong conjunction/connective

1.5.1.Each/Every +

Plural Nouns

1.5.2. Some + Singular

countable nouns1.5. Noun number

1.5.3. Uncountable

Nouns in plural forms

1.6.1. There + to be +

Noun

1. Grammar

1.6. Subject/verb agreement1.6.2. Singular subject +

Plural Verb

2.1. Too formal language style2. Style

2.2. Too informal language style

59

3.1. Lengthy/ clumsy expression3. General items

3.2. Vietnamese expression

4.1. Fragment error

4.2. Wrong word order4.2.1. Misplacement of

adverbs4. Syntax

4.3. Run-on sentence

5.1. Incorrect punctuation5. Mechanics

5.2. Incorrect spelling

6.1.1. Collocation

6.1.2. Semantic

meaning6. Lexical items6.1.Wrong word/ Word

choice6.1.3. Word-by-word

translation

Table 14: Common written Errors of first year main-stream students

at English Department, HULIS

4. 2. Research question 2

With a view to addressing the second research question "What are

the causes to common written errors made by first year students at the

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, Hanoi University of

Foreign Languages and International Studies, Hanoi?", the researcher

would like to rely on the theoretical background as presented in chapter 2

concerning the causes of second language learners' written errors combined

with quantitative data gained from teachers' survey questionnaire to

determine the very causes to students' common errors. Accordingly, the

researcher has identified five major causes namely mother tongue

interference, overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete

application of rules and false concept hypothesized.

60

With reference to the data collected from teachers' survey

questionnaire, it can be seen that there does not exist a consensus among

teachers as to which causes assume a more degree of significance. The

diversity is illustrated in the table below. The continuum from one to five

corresponds with the rating from the most significant to the least

significant. The percentage represents the number of teachers sharing the

same perspective.

Degree of

significance

Causes

1 (most

significant)2 3 4

5 (least

significant)

Mother tongue

interference60% 20% 0% 0% 20%

Overgeneralization 20% 40% 40% 0% 0%

Ignorance of rule

restrictions0% 20% 20% 40% 20%

Incomplete

application of rules20% 0% 20% 20% 40%

False concepts

hypothesized0% 20% 20% 40% 20%

Table 15: Teachers' rating the significance of causes to students'

common written errors

The researcher would like to employ the figure "2.5" as a medium

mean to determine whether a certain cause is significant or not in students'

production of errors. Table 15 shows that most of the teachers (80%) agree

that mother tongue interference assume a leading cause to students' written

61

errors. Then it comes to the overgeneralization and ignorance of rule

restrictions with the portion of 100% and 40% respectively. The least and

nearly least significant causes belong to incomplete application of rules and

false concepts hypothesized with 40% of the respondents' concurrence.

By the same token, data gained from document analysis prove that

mother tongue interference, overgeneralization and ignorance of rule

restrictions are among the three most significant causes. However, the

ranks between incomplete application of rules and false concept

hypothesized permute with each other. Specific figures and corresponding

chart are offered as following:

Causes of written errors Percentage of occurrence

Mother tongue interference 28.00%

Overgeneralization 28.00%

Ignorance of rule restrictions 20.00%

Incomplete application of rules 12.00%

False concept hypothesized 12.00%

Table 16: The popularity of each kind of causes to students' common

written errors

62

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

1

mother tongueinterference

Overgeneralization

Ignorance of rulerestrictions

incompleteapplication of rules

False concepthypothesised

Figure 10: The popularity of each kind of causes to students' common

written errors

The detailed discussion and justification of each cause is provided as

below.

Mother tongue interference

As defined in chapter 2, mother tongue interference is due to the fact

that students carry the characteristics of their native language, Vietnamese,

in to the target language, English. Hinkel (2002: 31-32) identifies these

characteristics as following:

"The purpose of a text (in Vietnamese) (e.g. an essay thesis) is

delayed until the end of the piece of writing, causing it to be inductive

rather than deductive as is common in Anglo-American writing. The goal

of such discourse organization is to convince the reader of the validity of

the writer's opinion and lead the audience to support the writer's stance,

63

instead of employing over persuasion, which may be considered to be

excessively direct and forceful.

…(Writers) place the responsibility for text clarity and explication

on the reader and not on the writer as is considered to be the norm in

written discourse in English. That is, the writer is vested with the authority

to be ambiguous, vague and indirect, and it is the readers' task to tease out

the text's meaning and purpose."

Hinkel's stance can be interpreted as the popularity of indirectness in

Vietnamese English learners. This can account for students' deficiency in

errors related to lengthy and clumsy expression. Moreover, it is a matter of

fact that students can hardly think in the target language at first hand. They

are to resort to their mother tongue in order to think logically; then they

would translate what they have just thought into the target language.

Therefore, there is a likelihood that students will produce the phrase

"prepare the dinner on the table" instead of "lay the table", or "people who

were there were all humorous and out-going" instead of "people at the party

were all humorous and out-going", or "move from a large school to another

one which was smaller" instead of "move from a large school to a smaller

one." Moreover, the translation is, most of the time, word-by-word, which

leads to the wrong order of words in a sentence. Modifiers and adverbs are

put in to places wherein they are not to be. For instance, "where took place

the party" instead of "where the party took place" is the very consequence

of translating word-by-word "nơi tổ chức bữa tiệc", or "find easily a good

job" for "find a good job easily" as a reference to the translation of "tìm

kiếm dễ dàng một công việc tốt".

Besides, characteristics of Vietnamese syntax also pose certain

transfers to learners producing their own English. In Vietnamese, such

64

conjunctions/ connectives as "Và, bởi vậy/vì vậy, mặc dầu vậy…nhưng

mà…, nhưng" can be used at the beginning of a sentence and serve as an

introduction of an independent sentence. Thus, it is common for

Vietnamese students to use "And, so, although…but…, but" at the

beginning of a sentence and they use these conjunction as preceding

elements of an independent sentence, though they must be used in a

subordinating clause instead. This partially accounts for students' incorrect

use of punctuation. That is, in Vietnamese, it is standard grammar that

commas can be used after such conjunctions as "tuy nhiên, mặc dầu vậy, vì

vậy, nhưng mà". As a result, students will take it for granted that they can

apply the same rule in English. They will add commas after conjunctions

like "although, so, but" while it is indeed deviant.

In addition to the different syntax between the two languages,

Vietnamese morphological system corresponding with its phonological

system imposes certain impacts on students' spelling errors. In other

words, a certain word will be read exactly as how it is written.

Nonetheless, this is not the case to be applied in English. This language is

notorious for it inhomogeneity between its morphology and phonology.

Thus, such spelling errors as "convinient" instead of "convenient",

"emagining" for "imagining", "dicision" for "decision", "sociaty" for

"society" and "belive" for "believe" earn a prevailing occurrence.

In short, mother tongue interference is relatively popular among

students' written errors. It not only makes students' writing less smooth but

also impedes the conveyance of meaning at times.

Overgeneralization

Overgeneralization is present in errors related to noun number,

subject and verb agreement, and too formal language style. In particular,

65

students overgeneralize the rule that every expression of quality which is

used to denote the concept of "plurality" will be followed by a plural noun.

Students, therefore, would see that "every" also denotes a plurality concept

and accordingly, it should be accompanied by plural nouns. For example,

students would be likely to produce errors like "everythings, every people,

every bad things". They may also expand the rule that plural nouns taking

zero articles refer to a group of people or things and adopt it to non-count

noun. Hence, it is common to encounter such errors as "advices,

equipments, informations."

Additionally, the structure "there + to be + Noun" seems problematic

to students as they assume that any elements at the beginning of a sentence

should be the subject and the number of verbs are supposed to be in

accordance with the number of subject. Thus, they may see that "there"

belongs to a singular subject and it must go with singular verbs. In fact, the

number of the verb "to be" should be determined by the nearest noun

following it. This accounts for the presence of such sentences as "there is

many new friends/ there is many facilities at the centre of town", etc.

Ignorance of rule restrictions:

The presence of ignorance of rule restrictions is seen in errors

concerning lexical items and prepositions usage. Specifically, students

often ignore the restriction of contexts wherein rules are applied and

produce a deviant form or structure. For example, on account of students'

limited knowledge of the language, they may use adjectives like "truthful,

honest", which refer to human characteristics to denote thing characteristics

while these two words all belong to the semantic field of being "real".

Such sentences as "the story is truthful or the news is honest" can be

detected among students' writing samples. Furthermore, it does not come

66

as a surprise that students unconsciously put words into a surrounding

where they are supposed not to appear. Terminologically, collocation

aspect of the language is troublesome to students. In other words, students

ignore the restriction use of verbs like "overcome, open, shoot"; thus, they

produce such combination as "overcome your question, open HBO channel

and shoot fireworks".

Besides lexical items, ignorance of rule restriction also results from

students' analogy which can be seen in their wrong use of preposition. For

example, student may infer that preposition "for" indicates "purpose" or the

object targeted at, which is evident for the usage of "for" in "there is a letter

for you", "it's a book for children", "we got a new table for the dinning

room" or "this is the place for me". As a result, there is a tendency for

students to use "for" in such structures as "write for me", "wasting it for

playing games", "prove for her opinion", "introduce for you", "suit for you"

whilst it is not the right use of "for" in such situations.

Incomplete application of rules:

As stated in chapter two, incomplete application of rules has much to

deal with students' inability to apply rules into contexts although they have

been taught that language item many times. This type of cause is

prevailing in errors related to verb tense and article usage. In terms of the

former, the use of past simple tense and present continuous tense is

problematic to students. Although they have been taught that the present

continuous tense is used to denote a "happening action at the time of

speaking" and the past simple tense is for recounting a happened event in

the past, they still fail to apply the rules. For examples, students produce

sentences like "today, I write to you to tell you about my favourite

programme" or "I write this card to thank you about your party yesterday"

67

instead of "today I'm writing to tell you about my favourite programme"

and "I'm writing this card to thank you for your birthday party yesterday".

As for the later – article usage, there is a widespread trend that

students omit or add articles to wherein they are not supposed to appear.

For example, it is necessary that article "the" precede the structure of

"ordinal number + noun". Nevertheless, students omit the definite article in

this case and produce phrases like "Ø second paragraph". In a great

contrast, students may add article "the" preceding ordinal number "next"

such as "the next paragraph". This may be explained by the fact that there

are a variety of rules to apply in English. Students' desires to communicate

in English exceed their desires to be correct in English; thus, they omit

rules automatically to lessen their burden.

False concepts hypothesized

Due to students' limited exposure to the second language and their

unawareness of the differences between the two languages, it is likely for

them to form a false hypothesis of the target language. This provides the

explanation for students' inappropriate use of language style. Students

create inappropriate language style in two dimensions: either too formal or

too informal. Too informal language style results from students' adaptation

of spoken language into written language. Students falsely assume that

when the target audience is over-familiar with them, integration of spoken

elements involving short questions like "Right?/ And you?/ Okay?" will

characterize the informality of their letter. This is indeed a violation of

language style as written language is more or least different from spoken

language.

In an adverse dimension, students may resort to highly formal

structures to use in informal writing because of their false assumption that

68

complexity in structures proves a high proficiency of the target language.

In the mean time, complexity in informal writing is not expected in

standard written English. This phenomenon can be exemplified by the

presence of such structures as "I would like to be visited by you next week/

I'm writing to inform you that …" in an informal piece of writing.

To sum up, the aforementioned justification of the actual causes to

students' common written errors has proposed a panorama on the research

problem. Relative as it is, this justification has offered further insights into

the five major causes to students' written errors involving mother tongue

interference, overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete

application of rules and false concept hypothesized.

69

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the theoretical background presented in chapter two and

the main findings revealed in chapter four, the researchers would like to

propose the following recommendations in the hope that these minor

suggestions could benefit teachers as well as other possible researchers.

With reference to the characteristics of first-year main-stream

students at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, HULIS,

they have all finished a 12-year education programme and they have all

acquired a decent volume of knowledge of English like grammar, lexical

items and syntax to be specific. Thus, their focuses at university is

improving four specific skills in English and studying such specializing

subjects as phonetics and phonology, grammar, cross culture

communication and discourse analysis, etc. There would be no chance for

them to revise the language items they have learnt during their high school

years like verb tenses, passive voice, indirect speech, etc. Hence, the

researcher would like to propose techniques to eliminate students' errors

and to foster their knowledge but not how to re-teach these language items.

As presented in the definition of errors, students are unconscious of

the fact that they are producing a deviant language form; therefore, the aid

of other individuals would be precious. Below are two common techniques

used in classroom to help students correct their errors.

5.1. Peer-correction

The help provided from students' peers are highly appreciated as it

benefits students in many ways. Students' active involvement in correcting

their peers' errors would encourage them to think critically and engage

them intellectually during the process of error correction. Besides, a

70

cooperative environment would be created and there would be a shift from

the teacher as the main corrector to students as beneficiaries and correction

providers. That is, two head are always better than one.

Peer correction can be conducted in the form of pair work, group

work or whole class correction. When students have finished their writing,

the teacher asks students to sit in pairs or groups, exchanging each other's

work, find the errors and correct them. It is advisable that students of

higher competence work in groups with weaker ones. Peer correction in

pairs or groups can be implemented as the following diagram (as proposed

by Bartram and Walton, 2001)

= PAIR WORK = GROUP WORK

Figure 11: Pair work and group work in peer correction

In order to diversify group work correction activity, teachers can

divide the class into four groups of four to five members. Each week, there

will be a group in charge of correcting all the class's writings. These four

groups will take turns to be the correction group. Accordingly, each

student in the correction group will have a paper of his/her own and two or

three papers of their peers to comment on. In so doing, students' correction

will not be limited to the one in their pairs groups. They will be enabled to

approach the whole class's writings and learn from their errors.

A B

C D

F

EG

71

Alternatively, the teacher can offer a chance for the whole class to

participate in the correction process by organizing whole class

organization. That is, the teacher will select the most common and the most

serious errors to write on the blackboard. The whole class will contribute

ideas as to how to correct the errors. This way helps the whole class learn

from typical errors.

5.2. Teacher correction

Teachers need not to be an over-corrector, that is, point outs and

corrects all errors detected. Instead, they can employ the following

techniques to deal with errors.

Firstly, with each set of student papers, there is no point in trying to

mark all the errors. It is advisable that teachers decide in advance what

kinds of errors they are going to deal with. Another alternative is that

teachers can choose to mark errors that affect the intelligibility of the

writing. For instance, the following sentence "English language use much

people" are erroneous. "Much" needs to be replaced by "many", the

definite article "the" should be added before "English" and the word order

in the sentence should be changed. However, the first two errors does not

impede meaning as much as the other; consequently, it is the word order

that should be corrected here. That is, much people use English language.

Secondly, it is important for teachers to bear in mind that errors are

to be examined carefully. Careful analysis of the cause of errors is required

in this case. For instance, when students use "catched" instead of "caught"

in the past simple, teachers will see that they are aware of the regular verbs

but are problematic with irregular verbs. That they add "ed" to "catch"

instead of using its irregular form may be accounted by their analogy with

"watched"- a regular verb with almost similar spelling. In light of students'

72

errors, teacher can plan their syllabus for the next class. In the case of the

above example, teachers may plan a guided composition in which a student

writes a story in the past tense.

Thirdly, teachers should first and foremost search for what students

have done correctly. Often, a piece of writing contains both correctly and

incorrectly used forms. The students need to have it pointed out that they

have demonstrated the correct grammatical feature and they can use the

correct form easily.

In addition to that, teacher should bear in mind that certain errors

require different techniques to correct. Those like "peer-correction" and

"teacher correction" are very sources to rely on. Peer correction is a

popular and favourite technique. This technique can be effective as it

encourages students to be responsible for each other, allows them to share

ideas, and teaches them to read critically. .

Finally, teachers should not turn a writing course into a grammar

course because of the presence of language problems. Teacher can also

provide extra task for students to carry out to enforce what students have

learnt. The task can be designed in the form of game to interest students.

Below are some suggested tasks.

ERROR MAZE (extracted from Batram & Wallon, 2001)

This task is useful for the correction of comprehensive errors or any

specific types of errors.

The students are given a maze with numbers connected by black and

white arrows. Below the maze are 15 sentences, some of which are correct

and some wrong.

73

Clear instructions are essential. The students' task is to start at the IN

sentence, visit each number once, and arrive at OUT. First they read the IN

sentence, if they think it is correct, they follow the white arrow to sentence

3; if they think it is wrong, they follow the black arrow to sentence 14.

They then continue in the same way, follow the white arrow if the sentence

is correct and the black if it is wrong.

IN: I was such tired that I fell asleep.

1. I wish I'd left school at 16 instead of 18.

2. Thanks, but you really should have bothered.

3. Two people were asked to take part in the experiment.

4. If I were you, I'd stay at the Grand Hotel.

5. He apologized for being late.

6. If I'll be away, I'll get someone else to do it.

7. It is the prettiest town I have ever seen.

8. When I was young, I used to playing football in the park.

9. As soon as I left school, I got a job.

10. The "No smoking" sign means you don't have to smoke in here.

11. She told me to meet her outside the British Museum.

12. If I find $5 in the street, I would take it to the police.

13. However he's good at English, he never does his homework.

74

14. If I didn't miss the bus to the airport, I would have been on the plane

which crashed!

Figure 12: Error Maze

GRAMMAR AUCTION

(Extracted from Grammar Games Batram and Wallon)

This game works well when teachers long students to pay particular

attention to grammatical errors as it has been proved that grammatical

errors lie among the most common written errors by first year students.

The game proceeds exactly the same as an auction. The class is

divided into groups of four or five. Each group has $5000 to spend, and

they should spend as little money as possible. The winning group is the

one that has bought the most correct sentences. If two groups share the

same number of correct sentences, which one spend less will be the winner.

146

9

13 47

2

OUT

8

10

IN 3

12

1

511

75

Prior to the beginning of the game, students are allowed to have a

certain amount of time to determine among provided sentences, which one

is correct and which one is not. They also decide on how much money

they would like to spend on each correct sentence. It is worth noting that

sentences that are difficult to tell whether they are true or not should be

included.

Below is an example of an auction game:

Right or Wrong? Budget

1. Do you have some sugar? _____________ ______

2. I'm very fond of the classical music. _____________ ______

3. She spent $60 for a new dress. _____________ ______

4. Would you like to come round for _____________ ______

supper tonight?

5. This is the best fish I've ever had. _____________ ______

6. She works like a waitress in a _____________ ______

French restaurant.

7. If I could, I would. _____________ ______

8. Turn it off, would you? _____________ ______

9. The bank in Queen Street has _____________ ______

been robbed yesterday.

10. This man worked by my _____________ ______

uncle for ten years.

COLLOCATION PRACTICE

(extracted from Bartram & Wakton)

It is helpful to prepare learners with collocation practice before

asking them to produce a piece of writing. As revealed in chapter four,

76

collocation is one major reason leading to students' deviancy in lexical

items. Thus, a well-prepared task can help students eliminate collocation

errors.

Teacher chooses a noun that is important for the theme. Students are

then asked to list five adjectives or nouns that precede immediately the key

noun, three nouns that can follow the key noun immediately and five verbs

that can be the immediate antecedent of the key noun.

Then it comes to students' comparison in pairs or groups and they

will eliminate the least interesting word like old, big, etc. Afterwards, the

groups or pairs will report to the whole class. Finally, teacher suggests

other possible collocations.

Teacher may prepare a card for students to write on. The card may

look like this:

Verbs Adjectives/Nouns

(Key words)

Table 17: Collocation practice table

All things considered, there exists a variety of correction techniques.

It is unfair to judge which techniques is more helpful than the others.

However, teachers have to base on the level of students, their preferences

and the type of errors committed to provide the most suitable remediation.

77

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

This chapter is supposed to review the major findings presented in

chapter four and limitations of the research paper would also be presented

so that it can server as an aiding tool for later researchers.

6.1. Main findings

Generally speaking, the research paper has pinpointed two main

findings, namely the common written errors made by first year mainstream

students and the causes to these errors.

As for the former, the researcher has detected six types of common

written errors made by first year mainstream students at English

Department, HULIS. They are grammar, style, general items (language

style and expression in particular), syntax, mechanics and lexical items. It

comes as a surprise that grammatical errors make up the highest portion

among common errors detected. Those students, whose writing samples

are collected, are all newcomers at university. However, in order to be

admitted to this university, they were all to deal with a national-wide

sorting exam. Only students of decent capacity can be admitted to

university. Thus, they are expected to acquire a relative volume of

grammatical items and only minor grammatical errors are accepted as a

result of students' carelessness or slips of pens. Nonetheless, the dominant

appearance of grammatical errors claims a different panorama. This means

that English grammar is problematic to first year mainstream students at

English Department, HULIS.

In terms of the later, the overwhelming presence of mother tongue

interference among the very causes to students' written errors is predictable.

It is of nature that students will resort to their first language to express what

78

they would like to convey when they do not have the relevant second

language in hands. Besides, as students fail to express themselves

concisely, there is a tendency for them to express in a lengthy and

complexly grammaticalized way. Thus, students are at a risk to produce

both collocation/expression errors and grammatical errors simultaneously.

6.2. Limitations of the study

On account of the researcher's limited time, resources and capacity,

she could not investigate further into error correction, a closely related

aspect to errors identification, at the Faculty of English Language Teacher

Education, HULIS. If further study had been carried out in the field of

error correction, the study would be more in-depth and valuable.

Therefore, any studies on this field would be highly appreciated.

Besides, although the researcher developed an error checklist to

remain the consistency and objectivity throughout the research procedure,

the job of error identification implemented by the researcher is, to some

extent, subjective. Hence, the reliability of the research could be counter-

affected. In addition to this, the work of identifying the causes to students'

written errors is mainly based on the researcher's personal stance with the

aid of theoretical background presented previously. Thus, the justification

of causes of common written errors in chapter 5 is not highly satisfactory.

Moreover, the same error may result from different sources of causes. The

researcher only counts on the most prevailing degree of frequency to

determine whether a certain cause is responsible for a specific category of

errors. It is not to mention the fact that the researcher identifies the causes

of errors separately from error conductors and she bears no background

understanding of their personal characteristics. This may lead to

subjectivity or a fallacy of the results under discussion.

79

REFERENCES

Abbort, G. et al, (1981). Teching English as an international language.

Britain.

Batram, M & Walton, R (2001). Correction: Mistake management: A

positive approach for language teachers. Commercial Color Press

Broughton, G. et.al. 1980. Teaching English as a foreign language.

Routledge

Brown, H.D (1980) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New

Jersy: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Burt, M.K and Kiparsky, C. (1974). Students' errors and the learning of

French as a Second language. A pilot study. International Review of

Applied Linguistics.

Corder, S.O. (1967) Error analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Crystal (in Lee), D. (1987) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics.

Second Edition. New York: Basil Blackwel Inc.

Cunningworth, A. (1987) Evaluation and Selecting Teaching Materials.

London: Heinemann Education Book.

Edge, J. (1997) Mistakes and correction. New York: Longman, (p.10-50).

Retrieved December 20, 2009 from the web

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11235151/Mistakes-and-Correction

Hinkel, E (2002), Second language writers' text. Linguistic and Rhetorical

feature. Seattle University

Ho, W.K. (1973). An investigation of errors in English composition of

some pre-university students in Singapore with suggestions for the

teaching of written English. RELC Journal 4

80

Jakobovits (in Richards), L.A. (1969). A psycholinguistic Analysis of

Second Language Learning and bilinguialism. Institute of

Communications Research. Illionois.

La Brant, L. (1946).Teaching high-school students to write. The

EnglishJournal

Lee, N. (1990). Notion of errors and appropriate corrective treatment.

Hong Kong paper in Linguistics and Language teaching 13. Hong

Kong Baptist College. Retrieved 26-November from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/

Ludwig, J. (1982). Native speaker judgments of second language learner's

errors at communication: A review.

Lyons, L.H and Heasley, B. (1992). Study writing. CUP

Norrish, J (1987). Language learning and their errors. London: Macmillan.

Richards, J.C. (1970) A non constrastive approach to error analysis.

English language teaching

Ruth Hok, Constrast: An effective teaching device. English language

teaching. Vol 17.

Sokolik, M. (1990). Writing. University of California. Berkeley (USA)

Sperling, M. (1996).Revisiting the writing-speaking connection:

challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of

Educational Research

Stemler, S (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment,

Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved April 9, 2010 from

http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17 .

Rainne, A (1996). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford University Press

Rebat, K.D (2008). Correction and Remediation of errors. (p.23).

Retrieved December 26, 2009 from

81

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16429583/Correction-and-Remediation-

of-Errors

Vann, R.J. et al (1984), Error gravity: A study of faculty opinion of ESL

errors. TESOL quaterly 18/3

William C. Rithchie. 1970. Some implication of generative grammar.

Language Learning Vol XVII.

82

APPENDIX 1

QUESTIONNAIRE

Part 1: General information

Number of semesters of teaching writing skills to first year students……….

Part 2: Questions:

1. How often do your students make written errors on the following

items? (write one number in the 1-5 continuum in the row provided)

Items of Frequency

errors

Never Always

1 2 3 4 5

Idea organization

Lexical items

In appropriate language style

Grammar

Wrong format

Mechanics (punctuation and spelling)

Expression

Word choice

2. In your opinion, what are the major causes to students' written

errors?

Please rate them from 1 (most significant) to 5 (least significant causes)

in correspondence with these five choices:

83

A. Mother tongue interference: Students carry the characteristics of their

first language into the target language.

B. Overgeneralization: Students use the available strategies to apply in

new situations.

C. Ignorance of rule restrictions: Students apply rules to context they do

not.

D. Incomplete application of rules: Although students have been taught

that language rules many times, they fail to apply them.

E. False concepts hypothesized: Students have a false comprehension of

distinction in the target language.

Your rating:

1: ……… 2: ……… 3: ……… 4: ……… 5: ………

-----------------------------

ITEMS Specific errorsDiagnostic

testMid-term test

End-of-term test

84

ITEMSSUB-CATEGORIES Diagnostic

testMid-term test End-of-term

testMeaning unclearAdd omitted wordsOmit wordsRight word but wrong forms

GENERAL ITEMS

Expression (affected by L1)Capitalize

MECHANICSIncorrect Punctuation

Pronoun agreement mistakeArticle mistakeUse gerundUse nounNumber (singular <-> plural)Use pronoun

NOUN

Pronoun reference unclear

Voice changeSubject/verb agreementWrong verb tenseIncorrect verb formModal problemAuxiliary verbUse infinitive

VERB

Incorrect use/formation of a conditional sentence

Use AdjectiveUse AdverbMODIFIERS

Use possessive form

GRAMMAR

PREPOSITIONS Wrong use of prepositionFragment errorRun-on sentenceSubject/verb neededWrong order

SYNTAX

Sentence structureWrong used oft conjunction/ connectiveLink/combine

CONNECTORS

Add relative pronounIncorrect spellingLEXICAL

ITEMS Word choice/ wrong wordToo informalFaulty parallelism

STYLE

Improve topic sentence

Transition neededLAY-OUT Wrong format

New paragraphCoherence (one idea does not lead to the next)

IDEA ORGANIZATI

ONLack of paragraph unity

APPENDIX 2- ERROR CHECKLIST

85