(LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ) corrective feedback on writing of second year english majored students a case study at da lat university

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN PHAN NHẬT NGUYÊN
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR
ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT
UNIVERSITY

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of TESOL

BA RIA – VUNG TAU, 2021

download by :


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN PHAN NHẬT NGUYÊN
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR
ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT
UNIVERSITY
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of TESOL

SUPERVISOR: ASSOC. PROF. NGUYỄN TẤT THẮNG

BA RIA – VUNG TAU, 2021

download by :

i

The thesis entitled CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR
ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT UNIVERSITY

was successfully defended and approved on ……….…. at Ba Ria Vung Tau University

Academic supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Nguyen Tat Thang

Examination Committee
1. Prof. Dr. Phạm Hữu Đức

Chair

2. Dr.Dương Mỹ Thẩm

Reader 1

3. Dr.Lê Lan Phương

Reader 2

4. Dr. Phan Thế Hưng

Member

5. Dr. Nguyễn Hoàng Tuấn

Secretary Member

On behalf of the Examination Committee
Chair
(full name, title, signature)

download by :


ii

BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY
POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE

Ba Ria Vung Tau, March 2021
MASTER’S THESIS REPORT
Student’s name: NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN Sex: Female
Date of birth: June 7th, 1995

Place of birth: Lam Dong Province

Major: TESOL

Student’s code: 18110097

I- Thesis title:
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR
ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT UNIVERSITY

II-Objectives and contents:

The study aims at investigating the way that teachers at Dalat University treat
students’ errors in their writing and students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback in
writing. The specific objectives are as follows:
-

To find out the strategies that teachers at Dalat University use when giving
corrective feedback in students’ writing.

-

To discover students’ attitudes towards written corrective feedback.

This study was conducted at Da Lat university. In order to find out strategies that teachers
at Dalat University used when giving corrective feedback in students’ writing, the
researcher collected 60 students’ writing pieces for analysis. With an aim of discovering

download by :


iii

students’ attitudes towards written corrective feedback, the researcher asked 271
students to answer the questionnaire and 12 students to join in the interview.
The researcher utilized the mixed-method approach to collect the data. In terms of data
analysis, the author used SPSS software and content analysis to analyze the data.
III- Starting date: (as stated in the Decision issued by the University )
IV- Completing date: ......................................................................................................
V- Academic supervisor: ASSOC. PROF. NGUYEN TAT THANG

ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR

((full name, signature)

FACULTY DEAN
((full name, signature)

download by :


iv

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I certify that the thesis “CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF
SECOND-YEAR ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA
LAT UNIVERSITY” is my work.
No other person’s work has been used without acknowledgment in the thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any
other tertiary institution.
Ba Ria – Vung Tau, March 2021

NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN

download by :


v

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I, Nguyen Phan Nhat Nguyen, being a candidate for the degree of Master of
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages accept the requirement of the
University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my Master’s Thesis
deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the Librarian for the care, loan,
and reproduction for theses.
Ba Ria – Vung Tau, March 2021

NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN

download by :


vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who assisted me to
complete this research.
Firstly, I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Nguyễn Tất Thắng
for his guidance and supervision as well as for providing invaluable information.
Without his help, this thesis would not have been possible.
Furthermore, my gratefulness is given to my parents for their encouragement and
supports which allow me to complete this research.
My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleagues at DLU who assisted me
to carry out this thesis and to the second-year English-majored students at DLU for
giving me such attention and time. This research could be completed thanks to their help.

download by :


vii

ABSTRACT
The study searched for the written corrective feedback (WCF) practices of DLU
teachers and the attitudes of English-majored students towards WCF. In order to find out
which corrective feedback types were used by DLU teachers, 60 samples of students’
writing were collected for analysis. 271 second-year English-majored students from the
Faculty of Foreign Languages participated in the study. In order to collect data from the
students, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were applied. The study
illustrated that a combination of WCF types was applied by the teachers at DLU
including direct WCF, indirect WCF and metalinguistic WCF. Among the three types of
WCF, indirect WCF was used most frequently. Besides, the study found that teachers at
DLU applied unfocused written corrective feedback when dealing with students’ errors.
In terms of the attitudes of DLU students towards WCF, the study is based on Wenden's
(1991) framework. Three components of attitude involving cognitive, affective, behavior
components were investigated. To be more specific, the study looked for students’
thinking about the importance of WCF, students’ feeling about WCF and students’
reactions when receiving WCF. With the aim of improving the effectiveness of WCF in
teaching, some implications for teachers and stakeholders were also included in the
study.

Key words: error, writing, corrective feedback, written corrective feedback, students’
attitudes

download by :


viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ................................................................................iv
RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS.................................................................... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................. vi
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. viii
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................xii
LIST OF CHARTS ...................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS .........................................................xiv
CHAPTER 1..................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.

Background to the Study ........................................................................................ 1

1.2.

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 4

1.3.

Research Purposes and Objectives of The Study................................................... 5

1.4.

Research Questions ................................................................................................ 5

1.5.

Scope of the Study ................................................................................................. 5

1.6.

Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 6

1.7.

Definition of key terms .......................................................................................... 6

1.8.

Organization of The Thesis .................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2..................................................................................................................... 8
LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................. 8
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8
2.2. Errors ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1. Definition ............................................................................................................ 8
2.2.2. The Role of Errors .............................................................................................. 9
2.2.3. Types of Errors ................................................................................................. 10
2.3. Attitude .................................................................................................................... 10

download by :


ix

2.4. Corrective Feedback................................................................................................ 12
2.4.1. Whether Errors Should be Corrected ................................................................ 13
2.4.1.1 Negative Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback ................................. 13
2.4.1.2. Positive Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback .................................. 14
2.4.2. The Best Time to Give Corrective Feedback ................................................... 15
2.4.3. The Types of Errors that Should be Corrected ................................................. 16

2.4.4. The Best Way to Give Corrective Feedback .................................................... 17
2.4.5. The Person Who Should Give Corrective Feedback ........................................ 19
2.5. Written Corrective Feedback .................................................................................. 20
2.5.1. The Role of Written Corrective Feedback ........................................................ 20
2.5.2. Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback ............................................. 24
2.5.3. Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback .................................... 26
2.5.4. Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback .................................................... 28
2.6. Related Studies ........................................................................................................ 30
2.6.1. Studies on Written Corrective Feedback Practices ........................................... 30
2.6.2. Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback ............ 33
CHAPTER 3................................................................................................................... 39
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 39
3.1. Research Design ...................................................................................................... 39
3.2. Participants .............................................................................................................. 40
3.2.1. Students ............................................................................................................. 40
3.2.2. Teachers ............................................................................................................ 41
3.3. Research Instruments .............................................................................................. 41
3.3.1. Students’ Writing Pieces................................................................................... 41
3.3.2. Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 42
3.3.3. Interview ........................................................................................................... 42
3.4. Data Collection........................................................................................................ 43

download by :


x

3.5. Data Analysis Procedure ......................................................................................... 44
3.6. Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 4................................................................................................................... 47

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................. 47
4.1. The Practices of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback ...................................... 47
4.1.1. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback .............................................................. 47
4.1.2. Direct Written Corrective Feedback ................................................................. 49
4.1.3. Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback .................................................... 51
4.1.4. Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback .................................... 52
4.2. Students’ Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback ..................................... 54
4.2.1. Cognitive Beliefs of Students towards Written Corrective Feedback .............. 54
4.2.2. Affective States of Students towards Written Corrective Feedback ................ 58
4.2.2.1. The Person that Students Like to Give Them Corrective Feedback .......... 60
4.2.2.2. The Amount of Feedback that Students Liked to Receive ......................... 63
4.2.2.3. The Written Corrective Feedback Techniques that Students Preferred ..... 64
4.2.3. Behavioral Component of Students’ Attitudes towards WCF ......................... 67
4.3. Summary ................................................................................................................. 74
CHAPTER 5................................................................................................................... 76
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................... 76
5.1. Recapitulation ......................................................................................................... 76
5.2. Implications ............................................................................................................. 77
5.2.1. Implications for Teachers ................................................................................. 77
5.2.2. Implications for Stakeholders ........................................................................... 79
5.3. Limitations .............................................................................................................. 79
5.4. Recommendations for Further Research ................................................................. 80
References ...................................................................................................................... 81
APPENDICES................................................................................................................ 92

download by :


xi

APPENDIX 1: THE SPECIFICATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ........................ 92
APPENDIX 2: THE SPECIFICATION OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................... 95
APPENDIX 3: AN EXAMPLE OF A STUDENT’S WRITING .................................. 96
APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE (Vietnamese version) ........................................... 97
APPENDIX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE (English version) ................................................ 100
APPENDIX 6: VIETNAMESE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT .................................. 103
APPENDIX 7: ENGLISH INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT ........................................... 111

download by :


xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3. 1: Reliability of the questionnaire .................................................................. 455
Table 4. 1: Students’ attitudes towards the necessity of WCF ..................................... 54
Table 4. 2: Students attitudes towards the effect of WCF on their writing skill............ 54
Table 4. 3: The effect of WCF on students' self-learning .............................................. 56
Table 4. 4: Students’ attitudes towards the helpfulness of WCF ................................... 57
Table 4. 5: Students’ liking to WCF .............................................................................. 58
Table 4. 6: Students’ preference level on the person giving WCF ................................ 61
Table 4. 7: Students’ preference level on the amount of WCF ...................................... 63
Table 4. 8: Students’ preference level on different types of WCF ................................ 65
Table 4. 9: The frequency of activities that students do when receiving WCF ............. 67

download by :


xiii

LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4. 1: Written corrective feedback used by the teachers ........................................ 47
Chart 4. 2: Whether students commit errors again after receiving WCF....................... 55
Chart 4. 3: Students’ agreement level about the statement “Written corrective feedback
helps me notice my weaknesses” ................................................................................... 55
Chart 4. 4: The effect of WCF on students’ learning motivation .................................. 59
Chart 4. 5: Students’ preference level on correcting errors by themselves ................... 62
Chart 4. 6: How often do students learn more about their errors ................................... 69

download by :


xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ESL

English as a Second Language

CF

Corrective Feedback

WCF

Written Corrective Feedback

DLU

Da Lat University

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

download by :


1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the Study
According to The Economist, English is the most widely spoken language
worldwide. Among English speakers, a significant number of people use it as a second
language.
With the integration of Vietnam into the global economy, the Vietnamese are
required to be able to use English fluently. Therefore, teaching and learning English have
become the top priority. Among major language skills, writing is considered a
challenging one for various Vietnamese students. Mustafa, Mulya, and Syamsul (2017)
say that it is hard to compose good writing not only with language learners but also with
native speakers.
Expecting non-native writers to produce a piece of writing without any errors is
unrealistic (Valdés, 1992, cited in Ferris, 2011). Errors are inevitable when an individual
learns a foreign language. Many researchers have carried out studies to find out the role

of errors and how to deal with errors. “Errors can be taken as red flags; they provide
windows onto a system that is, evidence of the state of a learner’s knowledge of the L2”
(Gass & Selinker, 2008:102). By looking at errors, teachers can see “how much that
learners have learnt”, researchers can see “how language is learned”, and learners can
use error as “devices by which the learner discovered the rules of the target language”
(Ellis, 2003:48).
According to Krashen (1982), errors should be corrected for two reasons. Firstly,
if error correction works, it will have an impact on learners’ study competence because
learners will be informed that their current understanding of a certain rule is wrong.

download by :


2

Nevertheless, Krashen (1982) notes that errors should be treated but not all times and
not all rules.
Teachers have been putting efforts into finding out an effective way to deal with
errors. However, many teachers have to admit that correcting students’ written and
spoken errors is one of the toughest challenges in language acquisition (Amara, 2015).
There are many techniques that teachers can use when giving corrective feedback;
however, one of the commonly used is to write down the correct forms in students’
incorrect production (Hendrickson, 1980). This technique will cost teachers lots of time;
moreover, it disturbs students when receiving “many words crossed out, new words
added, and an array of marginal comments” (Hendrickson, 1980:216-217).
When learning a second language, students usually pay too much attention to
grammar and vocabulary errors, so they are not dared to use a new language, and they
find ways to keep away from making any mistakes. As for teachers, they focus on
providing feedback on errors while they are teaching. Because of these two reasons, it
seems that learners’ learning achievement and efficiency are lower (Wei Zuo, 2017).

Besides, teachers have given corrective feedback without considering the validity of a
certain kind of feedback in terms of fostering “the process of L2 acquisition and L2
proficiency in general” (Botha, 1987:46). Teachers’ corrective feedback aims to
facilitate students to recognize their errors and avoid repeating the same error. However,
this kind of feedback is not efficient. When students are given back the corrected essay,
they just focus mainly on red markings and the given mark, if any; after that, the writing
will be put away and forgotten (Botha, 1987).
Besides, a mismatch between students’ preferences and teachers’ beliefs as well
as their practices has existed over the times. As Oladejo (1993) mentions there is a
difference between teachers’ attitudes, the reality in the classroom, and the expectations

download by :


3

and needs of students; this difference can result in a fail in language learning. Teachers
have their ways when giving feedback to their students, and there is no specific rule or
requirement for giving feedback. Some teachers will provide corrective feedback on all
of the students’ errors; some will only mark students’ errors and let students correct
themselves; some teachers just give the total score without any explanation or error
correction.
Many researchers and teachers carried research to look for the best way to give
corrective feedback. Results from various research suggest techniques that are believed
to affect students’ learning outcomes positively. Nevertheless, not much research
includes students’ attitudes as well as the gap between students’ preferences and
practices. The methods and techniques that are believed to be useful would become
useless if students do not want to follow. Teachers and educators should not
underestimate students’ expectations, for students are those who know best about their
studies. Students’ attitudes are a reliable source to count on when teachers want to test

whether the ways that they give students corrective feedback is effective or not and
whether they need to make any adjustment.
Although students majoring in English have more time to learn and use English
than students majoring in other subjects, they still make quite a few errors in their
writing. A problem here is that some students still make the same errors again after
receiving corrective feedback from their teachers, and some are not satisfied with the
ways their teachers give the correction. Hence, the need for figuring out students’
attitudes towards corrective feedback and the practices of teachers’ corrective feedback
on students’ writing is apparent.

download by :


4

1.2. Statement of the Problem
The aim of giving students corrective feedback on students’ writing is to help
them avoid making the same errors again. Most of the teachers acknowledge this fact,
and they are trying their best to achieve the goal; however, it is not easy. At Dalat
University (DLU), even students majoring in English still repeat errors that have been
corrected by their teachers. This issue proves that students do not keep in mind the
corrective feedback from their teachers. Obviously, in this case, corrective feedback
becomes useless as well as no progress can be made in students’ writing skills in specific
and in students’ English learning in general.
Another problem is that many students at Dalat University do not dare to make
suggestions and discussions with their teachers. When students receive their writing back
from their teachers, sometimes they do not understand teachers’ feedback. It may be
because they can’t translate corrective codes that their teachers use, or the comment and
explanation from teachers might be too short that makes students hard to understand.
There are so many reasons for this issue, but the main reason is that students reluctant to

ask and to discuss with their teachers. Therefore, students accept that their performance
is wrong without knowing why they do wrong. In some cases, students even feel
unsatisfied with teachers’ feedback, but they do not dare to say.
Due to the lack of discussion between teachers and students, teachers will
encounter various challenges in evaluating how they give corrective feedback on
students’ writing. Hence, no reflection and adjustment would be made. Teachers will
continue to do in the way they are used to; unfortunately, their effort has little value to
students’ writing and learning.
Knowing students' needs and preferences is vital, and it can contribute to
successful teaching and learning; nevertheless, teachers at Dalat University are so

download by :


5

occupied. They do not have time to ask how students think about the way they treat
students’ writing errors. Therefore, by identifying students’ attitudes towards corrective
feedback, teachers will be provided useful information about written corrective
feedback. Basing on students’ perspectives, teachers can reflect on their writing teaching
and adjust if necessary.
1.3. Research Purposes and Objectives of The Study
The study aims at investigating the way that teachers at Dalat University treat
students’ errors in their writing and students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback in
writing. The specific objectives are as follows:
-

To find out the strategies that teachers at Dalat University use when giving
corrective feedback in students’ writing.

-

To discover students’ attitudes towards written corrective feedback.

1.4. Research Questions
The research questions of the study are as follows:
1. What strategies do teachers at Dalat University use when giving corrective
feedback on students’ errors in their writing?
2. What are students’ attitudes towards written corrective feedback?

1.5. Scope of the Study
Due to time limitations, all recommendations cannot be fully used and
implemented in the research. The research was carried out at Dalat University. The
subjects were second-year English-majored students.
In the first part, the study aims at exploring the strategies that teachers at Dalat
University apply when correcting students’ errors in their writing.

download by :


6

The research results in the second part are based on the data collected from
second-year English-majored students. The goal of the second part is to find out the
attitudes of students towards the treatment of writing errors. Due to the limited sample
size, the research result is not able to present a greater number of students majoring in
English at Dalat University.
1.6. Significance of the Study
The study aims at identifying how teachers at Dalat University deal with students’
writing errors. In addition, the study also looks for the attitudes of students towards

corrective feedback. Therefore, the result of the research would possibly contribute to
English writing teaching and learning.
Moreover, this study also informs teachers what students think about written
corrective feedback, what corrective techniques that the students wish their teacher to
apply. Hence, this study can help both teachers and students to overcome the mismatch
between teachers’ and students’ thinking.
1.7.

Definition of key terms

With the aim of illustrating the issues proposed, there are terms that need to be specified
for this report.
Errors refer to deviation from a norm of adult native grammar that shows the learners’
ability to use a language (Brown 2000, cited in Fang & Xuemei, 2007).
Attitude refers to what a person thinks or feels about something; it is also an individual’s
behavior towards someone or something.

download by :


7

Corrective feedback (CF) is defined as “the feedback that learners receive on the
linguistic errors they make in their oral or written production in a second language (L2)”
(Ellis and Sheen, 2011:593).
Written corrective feedback refers to error correction on L2 students’ writing
(Bitchener, 2008).
1.8.

Organization of The Thesis

The organization of the research includes five chapters:
Chapter 1 illustrates the introduction of the study which involves the background to the
study, statement of the problem, research purposes and objectives of the study, research
questions, and finally definitions of key terms.
Chapter 2 presents the review of the literature including the definition of errors, the role
of errors in language learning, the definition of attitude, the effect of attitude, the
definitions and issues related to corrective feedback, the definitions of written corrective
feedback, its roles, written corrective feedback types and review of previous studies.
Chapter 3 presents the research methodology used in the study including research design,
research instruments, data collection, data analysis procedure, validity and reliability.
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study. This chapter also involves further
discussion.
Chapter 5 presents the conclusion, implications, limitations and recommendations for
further research.

download by :


8

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the definition of error, its role in language learning, and the
distinction between error and mistake. The following section will mention corrective
feedback, as well as illustrate perspectives towards the effect of corrective feedback.
After going through corrective feedback issues in general, this chapter will further
present issues relating to written corrective feedback, including types of written
corrective feedback. This chapter also reviews previous studies on the way English

teachers gave corrective feedback and students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback in
writing. The goal of this part is to search for the research gap of previous studies in order
to carry out new research.
2.2. Errors
2.2.1. Definition
According to Brown (2000), an error is defined as a deviation from a norm of
adult native grammar that shows the learners’ ability to use a language (cited in Fang &
Xuemei, 2007). Corder (1975) further states that students usually make uncorrected
spoken and written compositions when learning a second language. These compositions
are decided by standards of the second language. Typically, people consider errors as
proof that learners are not proficient at what they are taught. In addition, people usually
treat errors by explaining again and again until they vanished. Errors will not arise if
efficient learning takes place. This point of view contributes to the belief that errors are
signals of problems when learners encounter different language factors. This problem
can be a consequence of the first language's habitual performances and the exchange of
them to the new language. Errors making is generally considered as a part of language

download by :


9

learning like other human learning. Systematically, when learning a language, people
will make errors (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982, as cited in Keshavarz, 2012).
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis believes that errors are attributed to the impact of the
learner’s first language. Nevertheless, native language transfer is not the reason for all
error commitment. Various studies reveal that errors result from “learner’s developing
knowledge of the structure of the target language rather than an attempt to transfer
patterns of their first language” (Spada & Lightbrown, 2006:78). Moreover, some errors
made by second language learners are like errors made by young native learners (Spada

& Lightbrown, 2006:78).
2.2.2. The Role of Errors
People used to have negative beliefs about errors. They maintain that errors are
outcomes of non-learning, not wrong learning, and should be eliminated. Therefore,
people make effort to predict the occurrence of errors. One way to predict error
occurrence is to tell the difference between the native language and the target language.
The identified difference could be utilized to predict areas that errors would occur. (Ellis,
1985, cited in Wang, 2008). Hence, the role of error has changed. Instead of being
considered as something which is detrimental and should be deleted. Errors now play
such an essential role in language learning. There are three crucial conclusions that
Keshavarz (2012) makes about the errors that are the basement of error analysis:
Firstly, in the language learning process, making an error is unavoidable.
Secondly, errors are vital in a distinctive manner.
Thirdly, the learner’s first language is not the source for all errors.
Errors are important in three distinctive ways. Firstly, they are significant to the
teacher. Errors inform teachers of learner’s progress towards their goal, and what he still
lacks. Secondly, by looking at the error, researchers understand how a person learns and

download by :