COMMON GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN WRITING: A STUDY ON ESL LEARNERS OF

A BOARDING SCHOOL

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.0 Introduction

This chapter is intended to provide an overview of what the study is all about including

the background, objectives, statement of the problem, research questions and significance of the

study. Several definitions of key terms are also explained in this chapter in order to present

comprehensible research writing.

1.1 Background of the Study

Grammar is regarded as the most fundamental element of language learning for second

language learners. In Malaysia, the knowledge of grammar is a need for learners in all schools

for the fact that English is a subject taught in the curriculum. Previous studies have proposed that

in written form especially, English as a Second Language (ESL) learners committed common

grammatical errors showing their incompetency in some grammar aspects. Specifically, this

study is highlighting the common errors in writing by ESL learners of a boarding school; in

which the learners are expected to have higher English competency than daily schools’ students.

As achieving competency in second language is a progressive process, common grammatical

errors are continuously dealt by both learners and teachers using various techniques to improve

learners’competency especially in producing the written form of the language. Besides focusing

Anis Zulaikha bt. Basrah

D20091034413

on the types of errors, this study would highlight the reasons why the same errors are committed

by the ESL learners.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

1. To identify the most common grammatical errors in ESL learners’ writing

2. To find out the reasons why the common errors are committed in relation to the learners’

exposure to English language

1.3 Problem Statement

Based on the educational context in Malaysia, there is a need for ESL learners to be

equipped with good grammar knowledge since the educational system relies very much on

written examination as compared to other language skills. However, learners in secondary

schools, especially, despite having learnt English language since their primary schools, tend to

commit common grammatical errors in writing. Those errors are thus believed to be caused by

several factors including first language interference, lack of grammar knowledge and ignorance

of learners on the grammar rules.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What are the most common grammatical errors committed by ESL learners in written

form?

2. Why do ESL learners tend to commit the common grammatical errors in relation to their

exposure to English language?

1.5 Significance of the study

This study is an attempt to provide an overview of most common grammatical errors

committed by ESL learners in written form. It might be undoubted that ESL learners are taught

on grammar more than any other language aspects especially in formal classroom context but

there is the need for learners to be informed on the common errors they commit. While previous

studies were conducted on unspecific groups of learners, this study would consider the ESL

students of a boarding school with all the students are selected ones. In addition, it is worth for

teachers to know the causes of the same errors committed by students so that ways to minimize

them could be figured out. Although this study is not focusing on the need to give feedbacks on

the errors, the researcher would still give the feedbacks for the sake of learning procedure in

class (task are given, students complete the task, then marked task is returned to each student)

Thus, this study, even though in a small scale is hoped to be useful for teachers to find

out the grammatical errors which are commonly committed by the students thus possible ways

for learners to improve their grammar as well as language competency based on their writing

might be later considered. Along with that, learners’ performance in English examination paper

is expected to be improved too. As for the school, it has always been a healthy competition

between the boarding schools that they compete to be in good positions in the schools ranking.

This implies that this study might also contribute to finding alternatives in increasing students’

language performance in the written examination and place the school in a good ranking

especially for English subject.

1.6 Definition of Key Terms

There are some key terms used frequently in this study that it would be useful to provide

their definitions in this introduction chapter. The definitions are mostly the operational

definitions; the ones which are based on the context of this study. Operational definition is also

usually defined as functional definition.

Boarding schools – Schools which are under a specialized programme of the Ministry of

Education; Sekolah Berasrama Penuh (SBP) in which the students are all selected from those

who excel in UPSR (for Form 1 intake) and PMR (for Form 4 intake).

Error – in this research, it refers specifically to the misusage of grammatical concepts in

students’ writing.

Error analysis – The study of the error which include the works of identifying and classifying

the errors into categories.

ESL – English as a Second Language; mostly learnt or used language after the national

language. In Malaysia, English is regarded as second language after the national or official

language, Bahasa Melayu.

Grammar – The rules in a language for changing the form of words and joining them into

sentences (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th ed., 2008).

Intralingual transfer - A situation when language learners commit errors that Ellis (1997)

states, some errors seem to be universal,

- A situation reflecting learners’ attempts to make the task of learning and using the target

language simpler; as cited in Erdogan (2005) of Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of

Education).

Proofreading – Proofreading means examining your text carefully to find and correct

typographical errors and mistakes in grammar, style, and spelling. (The Writer’s Handbook:

How to Proofread. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2012).

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.0 Introduction

In this chapter, the review of literature on theoretical and conceptual background are

presented which includes the learning of grammar, distinguishing error and mistake, giving

feedbacks on grammatical errors as well as findings of previous studies on the most common

grammatical errors committed by ESL learners in writing.

2.1 Learning Grammar of the Second Language

For ESL learners to start learning new language, it is suggested as an essential part that

they learn the basic grammar rules of the target language first. While it is easier to speak a

language than to write and understand it (Jossiejk, 2007), learners’ ability to write grammatically

correct sentences is put into much concern especially in an education system which relies on

written examination to measure the learners’ academic performance. According to Harmer

(2007), writing provides learners with more ‘thinking time’ than the one they experience from

spontaneous conversation. Due to that, writing offers more opportunity for learners to undergo

the stage of language processing in which they will be thinking ‘about’ the language – the

grammar. As compared to speaking, the ability to write grammatical sentences is not natural

since grammar and writing demand a formal teacher and a structured taught education. Besides

that, learning grammar implies that the language learning is directed to focus on form and that is

the issue argued by Krashen (1985) in Pazever and Wang (2009).

However, Pazaver and Wang in their writing have provided the proof that studies

conducted in foreign language context do indicate that students find grammar instruction with

error correction are helpful in language learning. The proof is extracted from the respondents

who are the ESL learners from seven different Asian countries including China, India and Sri

Lanka. They responded to the interview question by stating that through writing, they could

apply their grammar skills and that when they made mistakes, corrections could be made easily.

Upon answering is grammar really important for second language learners, Foppoli (2012)

insists that it is indeed really important; quoting that grammar is the backbone of a language.

Even lay people who are not in the field of linguistics would have agreed that grammar

encompasses mostly on the structures of sentences which requires all sort of rules.

2.2 Distinguishing Errors and Mistakes

While Foppoli (2012) has also discussed on how the knowledge of grammar should be

taught, he suggests that there is no need to be afraid of using drilling since it could be very useful

especially for new concepts to be fixed in their brains. The failure of the grammar rules to be

fossilized in the brains could be one of the reasons of the learners committing the common

grammatical errors. Meanwhile, Corder (1978) as cited in Ho (2003) has published an article

distinguishing ‘mistakes’ with ‘errors’ where the former refers to ‘unsystematic errors of learners

as opposed to the systematic errors of learners from which we are able to reconstruct their

knowledge of the language to date’. Whatever it is, the underlying assumption implies that

learners’ errors made in grammar are systematic and classifiable.

On the other hand, Brown (2007) has provided a clearer view upon distinguishing errors

and mistakes. Since the two terms are interchangeably used in daily conversation, they are

actually quite different from each other. Brown claims that every once in a while, all native

speakers make mistakes or what he coins as “performance lapse”. He has also proposed that the

key to differentiate between mistakes and errors is the fact that mistakes can be self-corrected

when addressed.

"A mistake refers to a performance error that is either a random

guess or a "slip", in that it is a failure to utilize a known system

correctly. An error...reflects the competence of the learner. While

mistakes can be self-corrected, an error cannot be self-corrected."

Brown (2007)

Another scholar, Selinker (1992) as cited in Ho (2003) has insisted the vitality of error to

learners in his claim that errors committed can be regarded 'a device the learner uses in order to

learn'. The claim is also supported by Carter (1997) as cited in Ho (2003); suggesting that

'knowing more about how grammar works is to understand more about how grammar is used and

misused'. In other words, the knowledge of grammar is not only mastered by knowing how to

apply the rules by heart but also it demands the learners to be aware of the wrong application of

the rules as well.

2.3 Common Grammatical Errors by ESL Learners Based on Previous

Studies – A Highlight on Brown’s Claim

As other studies have proven, common grammatical errors committed by ESL learners

would include the usage of pronouns, apostrophe, lack of subject-verb agreement, count and non

count nouns, prepositions, incorrect or missing articles, and irregular verb error. While there are

many of them, the question on why do ESL learners commit such common errors has also been

pondered. As findings have suggested that one of the causes could be the interference from

learners’ first or native languages, Brown supports this cause by claiming that it is natural for

learners to at first apply the rules of their native language to the target language. Furthermore,

learners’ error is regarded as the result of the intralingual transfer; indicating the transition of

learners to move out from the beginning stages of learning (Brown, 2007). As another significant

cause of errors, Brown put the responsibility on the teachers for the misleading explanation, the

ineffectiveness of materials as well as the drilling patterns which are based on memorization

rather that contextualizing the grammar concepts.

Brown concludes his claim pertaining to the issue of error correction by addressing the

inevitability of learners’ error as a part of learning process. Despite the negative connotations of

the word ‘error’ itself, he insists that it should not be perceived as such. Instead, learners’ error

should be regarded as the tool of critical pedagogical feedback for ESL teachers to improve and

reflect on their own deficiencies in knowledge, lesson plans and teaching methods

(Brown, 2007). Brown’s claim, in other words actually suggests that the term

‘students’ error’ or ‘learners’ error’ is not merely referring to learners’

behavior of committing the errors but also as the hint for teachers to reflect on

their own teaching.

Looking into the Malaysian context, there have been many studies conducted on common

grammatical errors in writing of ESL learners. Zanariah (2002) has presented almost the same

findings on the errors where she studied on Form Two students’ compositions in a rural

secondary school in Kuala Pilah. In her study, 40 students were chosen to write a composition

each on the same given title. Among the reported errors were subject-verb agreement, usage of

pronouns, wrong or inappropriate choice of word, and problems in tenses. Based on her finding,

several factors contributing to the errors were identified including the interference of students’

native language, lack of vocabulary and overgeneralization of some grammatical rules.

For English as a Second Language (ESL) learners as well as teachers, learning and

teaching grammar have always been regarded as boring which resulted in less attention on

grammar lesson in ESL classes (Nairn, 2003). This issue could not be left unattended since

grammar lesson plays vital role in boosting learners’ competency in the second language learnt.

Furthermore, learners are considered as competent language users when they have sufficient

knowledge about the grammar of the language which then enables them to perform in oral as

well as in written form. That is why Nairn (2003) has claimed that the drawback of neglecting

grammar lesson could be seen in the long term where learners’ success in learning the language

is affected especially in the case involving examination and grading. Looking into the Malaysian

context, teachers should not resist from conducting grammar lesson in an education system that

is very much based on learners’ written performance in the examination.

2.4 Providing Feedbacks on Grammatical Errors

Most ESL teachers would agree that grammatical errors should be pointed out for

learners to notice what is lacking in their application of grammar. Another belief which is

common to ESL teachers is that if a teacher points out the learners’ errors, they are expected to

understand, take note on them, and then they could improve their writing without repeating the

same errors. In contrast, Gray (2004) in his journal on grammar correction has stated that this

belief is merely common sense shared between the teachers. This is due to the fact that solid

research conducted in the last 20 years has proven it to be wrong that Gray has also suggested

some reasons to explain the finding. He finds that error correction has discouraged learners to

write that they tend to have negative feeling on writing as compared to those whose errors were

not corrected.

In the same journal, Gray has insisted that despites the findings which have proven the

drawbacks of error correction, it does play its role in improving ESL learners’ written

performance. Thus, the techniques of giving practical feedbacks should be put into consideration

in order for learners to be informed on the errors they have made without affecting their

motivation on writing the language. Some suggested possible solutions have included the

usefulness of giving short grammatical lessons before class based on the learners’ previous

homework and discussing some grammatical errors. Semke (1984) in Gray (2004) has come out

with an idea which implies the need for teachers to relate the errors in writing with the whole

content of the writing itself. In other words, the errors should be put into contexts so that the

learners would have clear view on the causes of errors as well as learning the correct concept of

particular grammar rules.

2.5 Students’ Views on Teachers’ Feedback

Ferris and Hedgcock (2005) have revealed several finding from various studies on the

way the students perceive teachers’ feedback on errors. It is found that students view the

comments made by teachers as extremely vital to an extent that they would be helpful for further

improvements. Besides that, the students also would really appreciate the comments on variety

of issues without focusing on language errors per se. This event supports the earlier claim by

Semke (1984) in Gray (2004) who proposes that the teachers need to contextualize the errors;

integrating them with the writing content.

Despite the appreciation by students, other studies have discovered that there are students

who would feel frustrated while receiving teachers’ feedback. The causes for their frustration

which have been claimed by Semke include the illegibility of the comments, the comments

which are cryptic; consisting of incomprehensible symbols, circles, single-word questions, or

comments which are seen as confusing with the ambiguous questions, less practical alternatives

or suggestions for improvement.

Another review by Ferris and Hedgcock (2005) on several findings is the evidence of

students’ open mindedness to receive the comments or feedback from the teachers. This finding

would give a perspective for teachers that there are students who would take teachers’ comments

positively provided that the comments are constructive ones followed by teachers’

encouragement. In fact, the findings suggest that teachers’ constructive criticism would not make

the students feel offended or even hurt since the students practically know it is for the sake of

improvement in writing as well as in boosting their proficiency in the language learnt.

Chapter 3

Methodology

3.0 Introduction

This chapter highlights on the research design, sampling, instruments being used, and

procedures of collecting and analysing the data. There are also some minor circumstances stated

in this chapter which imply the limitations of the study.

3.1 Research Design

This is a qualitative research on learners’ writing performance, specifically on grammar

whereby a case study was conducted in order to obtain the findings. The case study involved an

individual or group of people being observed in order to determine the outcomes. In this study,

the common grammatical errors are the outcomes obtained from the students’ writing. On the

other hand, this research is considered as quantitative as well since it takes the number of errors

committed into consideration.

The advantage of this kind of research is that it includes the issue of flexibility in which it

emphasizes on exploration rather than prediction. However, there was the tendency to foresee the

outcome before the research was conducted. For instance, in this study, the researcher could

somehow predict the grammatical mistakes that the learners would possibly commit, based on

the previous studies by other researchers. Besides that, this study involved a survey as there was

a set of questionnaire being distributed for each respondent in order to get their feedbacks on

related information.

.

3.2 Sample and Sampling Procedures

The researcher applied the procedures of convenience sampling in which the samples

were selected simply because they were easily accessible to the researcher (Fook, Sidhu, &

Singh, 2006). In other words, the samples consisted of the researcher’s students in the English

class taught. Specifically, the study was conducted on 15 Form Four students of the weakest set

for English subject. This school has actually held a programme for English subject where all the

Form Four students are divided into four sets based on a special test.

The test is conducted once in every year as early as in the month of January. According to

one of the Form Four teachers, Pn. Nidzra Radzwan, the aims of the test are to identify students’

proficiency levels and skills besides to identify students’ maturity of thoughts. The duration of

the test is one hour. In short, the samples were all from the last set in which the researcher was

teaching. Although they were from the weakest set, their level of proficiency is classified as

intermediate based on their performance in class. It was only the marks that they scored in the

test were the lowest among the total of almost two hundred Form Four students of the school.

3.3 Research Instruments

There were two instruments used in this study which were the students’ writing on a

given topic and a set of questionnaire answered by each of the students involved. The title of the

essay was chosen from past year question of SPM 2010, “It had been raining all day”. The

rationale of choosing the essay question from the public examination is because the question is

undoubtedly valid for students in terms of the context, theme as well as syllabus. Narrative essay

was preferred since it does not restrict the students’ use of language as well as creativity upon

performing the language. For research purpose, the students were given 50 minutes to write an

essay of 250 words. The writing took place during school session, specifically in the two-period

English class. The question for essay writing was given as follow:

SPM 2010

Write a composition of about 250 words on the following topic.

Write a story beginning with:

“It had been raining all day…”

Meanwhile, the questionnaire was designed to collect the data on specific issues of

interest or focus; in this case, it was on the students’ behaviour, access and exposure to English

language. Comprising the related students’ information on family background, access to English

language materials, and attitude towards the language, the questionnaire was answered by the

students a month before they had to write the essay question. Basically, it consisted of close-

ended questions (yes-no questions) and questions lead to quantitaive data such as the ones using

the phrase ‘How often’.

3.4 Data Collection Procedures

Since the research is on students common grammatical errors in writing, the data was

collected in written form; the students’ responses on the questionnaire as well as their writing.

The rationale of having written data is the fact that it is easier to be analysed since it provides

clear evidence of the expected findings which were the grammatical errors. Not only was the

written data easy to obtain but also the fact that the data was easy to be presented on paper.

Besides that, the written response from the questionnaire has enabled the researcher to get a

wider range of response from more students as compared to oral response which might limit the

range. Meanwhile, numerical data was also collected when it came to counting the errors and

converting them into percentage.

3.5 Data Analysis Procedures

All the 15 transcripts of the essays were collected right after the class ended and they

were marked later. Proofreading technique was sometimes used whenever appropriate to point

the errors besides written comments at the end of the transcripts. Specific grammatical errors

marked were extracted to be classified into several categories including parts of speech and

tenses which were most commonly found based on the essays written. The analysing stage

considered counting the number of errors according to the respective categories before the

comparison was made on the frequency of the types of error committed. The causes of the errors

were then analysed based on the responses from the questionnaire which was distributed earlier.

The data was analysed to an extent that the students’ tendency to commit grammatical

errors could be inferred. For instance, the frequency of students speaking in English might be

one of the factors which caused them to commit the errors. This is due to the fact that they are

not used to speaking the language, as well as the language structures in sentences. As the

students communicate in Malay most of the time, they tend to apply the rules of the language

into the second language which is English.

3.6 Limitations

The major limitation is the issue of generalizability of the findings that might not apply to

the larger scale of the boarding schools context in Malaysia. In precise, this study encompassed

the common grammatical errors committed by only 15 Form Four students of a boarding school,

a number which do not represent the performance of the whole student population of the school.

This is due to the limited abilities and time of the researcher to be really focused and aware with

every single grammatical error made by learners and to record all the errors.

References

Beach, D. (n.d). Avoiding common grammar mistakes. Retrieved on May 7, 2012 fromhttp://classweb.gmu.edu/WAC/EnglishGuide/Critical/grammar.html

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York:Longman.

Chan Yuen Fook, Gurnam Kaur Sidhu & Parmjit Singh. (2006). A comprehensive guide towriting research proposal. Selangor, Malaysia: Venton Publishing (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Editor of colvir.net (2011). Correction symbols and abbreviations used in marking essay.Retrieved on December 1, 2011 fromhttp://www.colvir.net/prof/sharon.plett/103/correction.PDF

Erdogan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. MersinUniversity Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1(2), 265-266. Retrieved from

http://efd.mersin.edu.tr/dergi/meuefd_2005_001_002/pdf/meuefd_2005_001_002_0261 -0270_erdogan.pdf

Eastwood, J. (2006). Oxford practice grammar: Intermediate with tests. Oxford, U.K: OxfordUniversity Press.

Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood, M. (1995). The current stage of interlanguage studies inhonour of William E. Rutherford. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publications.

Exsemesdians Alumni. (2012). Sejarah SBP. Retrieved on May 21, 2012 from http://www.exsemesdians.org.my/v2/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id

Fawcett, S. (2003).Evergreen: A guide to writing (7th ed.). London, U.K.: Houghton MifflinHarcourt. 

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students.Marwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process andpractice (2nd ed.). Marwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Foppoli, J. (2011). Is grammar really important for a second language learner? Retrieved onMay 7, 2012 from http://www.eslbase.com/articles/grammar

Gray, R. (2004). Grammar correction in ESL/EFL writing classes may not be effective.Retrieved on May 7, 2012 from http://iteslj.org/Technique/Gray-WritingCorrection.html

Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. London, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Ho, M. L. (2003). Empowering English teachers to grapple with errors in grammar. Retrievedon May 6, 2012 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ho_Grammar_Errors.html

James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. Essex: Longman Group.

Kirklees Council. (n.d.). Research and consultation: Questionnaires. Retrieved on May 10, 2012from http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/community/yoursay/Questionnaires.pdf

Nairn, L. (2003). Faculty response to grammar errors in the writing of ESL students. Retrievedon May 6, 2012 from www.sfu.ca/heis/archive/22-1_nairn.pdf

Noor Suzana Jaafar. (2000). Writing: Helping ESL learners to reduce global errors usingsystematic error analysis (Bachelor of Education’s thesis). Universiti Pendidikan

Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim.

Pazaver, A. & Wang, H. (2009). Asian students’ perceptions of grammar teaching in the ESLclassroom. Retrieved on May 7, 2012 from

http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/

Shoebottom, P. (2012). Frankfurt International School: Grammar mistakes. Retrieved on May 8,2012 from http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/mistakes.htm

Timeline Beta (2009). History of second language acquisition. Retrieved on May 10, 2012 fromhttp://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=230122

The Writing Center of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2011). The writer’s handbook:How to proofread. Retrieved on May 10, 2012 from

http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Proofreading.html

Zanariah Pilus. (2002). Errors in English Composition Written by Form Two Malay students in a selected rural school (Bachelor of Education’s thesis). Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris,

Tanjung Malim.

5 Most Common Grammatical Errors. Retrieved on May 5, 2012 fromhttp://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/5-most-common.html