Anis Zulaikha bt.

Basrah
D20091034413

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
learnerscompetency especially in producing the written form of the language. Besides focusing

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 Learners 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 Writers 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 Browns 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). Browns 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 researchers 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 closeended 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 from
http://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 to
writing 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 from
http://www.colvir.net/prof/sharon.plett/103/correction.PDF
Erdogan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin
University 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: Oxford
University Press.
Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood, M. (1995). The current stage of interlanguage studies in
honour of William E. Rutherford. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 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 Mifflin
Harcourt.
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 and
practice (2nd ed.). Marwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Foppoli, J. (2011). Is grammar really important for a second language learner? Retrieved on
May 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. Retrieved
on 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, 2012
from http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/community/yoursay/Questionnaires.pdf
Nairn, L. (2003). Faculty response to grammar errors in the writing of ESL students. Retrieved
on 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 using
systematic error analysis (Bachelor of Educations thesis). Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan
Idris, Tanjung Malim.
Pazaver, A. & Wang, H. (2009). Asian students perceptions of grammar teaching in the ESL
classroom. 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 from
http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=230122
The Writing Center of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2011). The writers 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 Educations thesis). Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris,
Tanjung Malim.
5 Most Common Grammatical Errors. Retrieved on May 5, 2012 from
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/5-most-common.html