socio-political editorials in english and vietnamese argumentative patterns and linguistics devices = mô hình lập luận và phương tiện ngôn ngữ trong các bài bình luận trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt

iii
ABSTRACT
This minor thesis was carried out with an attempt to improve the teaching and
learning of writing skill of the teachers and the 12th form students at Thanh Ha High
School, Hai Duong province.
The purposes of the thesis were to investigate the types of errors that 12th form
students at Thanh Ha High School often make in learning English, possible causes of
common English written errors made by 12th form students and to offer some possible
solutions to overcome these common English written errors.
The subjects involved in the study were 130 students' actual writings in class and 8
teachers who are currently teaching and have taught writing skill before. Teachers were
invited to answer the survey questionnaire and to participate in the interview.
The study reveals that in lexical and grammatical errors, students often commit
errors in spelling, noun number, word choice/ wrong word, wrong conjunction/ connective,
article and verb form mistakes. The common causes for these kinds of errors are mainly
their carelessness, mother tongue interference, incomplete application of rules,
overgeneralization and ignorance of rule restrictions.
The study suggests that teacher should use some techniques in pre-writing stage
and post- writing stage to reduce and prevent students' written common errors . In pre-
writing stage, teacher can elicit students' vocabulary and structures, give students samples
of the topic which students are required to write, and sometimes teach them grammar rules.
In post-writing stage, teachers can ask student to correct themselves, then correct in pairs
and finally teachers give corrective feedback.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENT

Pages
Declaration
i
Acknowledgements
ii
Abstract
iii
Table of content
iv
Abbreviations
vi
Lists of tables
vii
Part A: Introduction
1
1. Background to the study
1
2. Aims of the study
1

3. Research questions
2
4. Methods of the study
2
5. Scope of the study
3
6. Organization of the thesis.
3
Part B: Development
4
Chapter I: Literature review
4
1.1. Overview of writing
4
1.1.1. Definition of writing
4
1.1.2. Roles of writing
4
1.2. Overview of errors.
6
1.2.1. Error versus mistake.
6
1.2.2. Errors in language learning process.
7
1.2.2.1. First language and second language errors.
7
1.2.2.2. Receptive errors and expressive errors.
8
1.3. Causes of errors in foreign language learning
8

1.3.1. Mother tongue interference
9
1.3.2. Overgeneralization
11
1.3.3. Ignorance of rule restriction
12
1.3.4. Incomplete application of rules
12
1.3.5. Carelessness
13

v
1.4. Review of previous studies.
13
Chapter II: The study
15
2.1. The setting of the study.
15
2.1.1. Teachers
15
2.1.2. Students
15
2.1.3. Facilities
15
2.2. "Tiếng Anh 12" textbook
15
2.2.1. An overview of textbook 12
15
2.2.2. Writing lessons
16

2.3. The study
17
2.3.1. Method
17
2.3.1.1. Participants
17
2.3.1.2. Data collection instruments
17
2.3.1.3. Data collection procedure
18
2.3.2. Data analysis and discussion
19
2.3.2.1. Research question 1
19
2.3.2.2. Research question 2
26
2.3.2.3. Research question 3
30
2.4. Findings and possible solutions
32
2.4.1. Findings
32
2.4.2. Possible solutions
33
2.4.2.1. Techniques in pre-writing stage
33
2.4.2.1. Techniques in post-writing stage
36
Part C: Conclusion
39

1. Summary of the study
39
2. Limitations
39
3. Possible solutions
40
References
41
Appendices
I




vi
ABBREVIATIONS

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
L1: first language
L2: second language
FL: foreign language
FLL: foreign language learning

vii
LISTS OF TABLES

Table 1: Errors of lexical and grammatical items of 12th form students at Thanh Ha High
School synthesized from teachers' questionnaire
Table 2: Written error of 12th form students at Thanh Ha High School as synthesized from
document analysis
Table 3: Components of grammatical errors
Table 4: Typical examples of common grammar errors
Table 5: Typical examples of lexical errors
Table 6: Teachers' rating the significance of causes to students' common written errors
Table 7: The popularity of each kind of causes to students' common written errors
Table 8. Teachers' recommendations to reduce and prevent students' common written
errors



1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Background to the study
English has become one of the most popular languages in the world. As an
effective means of international communication, it is used as the official language in many
fields of life such as economics, politics, science, technology, sports and many others.
Therefore, there is a great demand for teaching and learning English throughout the world.
There are more and more people who learn English and consider it an inevitable factor in
their work and life.
In Vietnam, English has been brought into the school curriculum as a compulsory
subject, and the teaching and learning of the international language has been recently paid
great attention to. When teaching English, the teacher teaches his learners not only the

English language but also its usage. It means that his aim is to train learners with a good
control of English skills and to teach them to put the language into use in real
communicative situations: either writing or speaking. This learners' competence is assessed
in terms of how comprehensibly and accurately a message is conveyed. If a message is
unsuccessfully conveyed, the teacher will consider the reason why it is so, and the answer
often is the means that causes it. What lessens the effectiveness may be that there are
something wrong with the meanings of the sentences i.e. what is usually called 'error' in
foreign language learning.
In effect, learners often make mistakes when they produce English. When teachers
find the learners' errors, they often give feedback by correcting or just pointing them.
However, this is sometimes not effective because learners still make the same errors the
next time. Like many teachers and researchers, Vietnamese teachers have been always
seeking for new and effective methods and techniques to improve their teaching with the
hope of predicting and preventing errors before they appear. Nevertheless, they pay much
more concern to why Vietnamese learners commit errors and how to prevent or reduce
these errors, not students at high schools. Therefore, the situation encouraged the author to
do the research on "Possible causes of common English written errors made by 12th- form
students at Thanh Ha High School, Hai Duong and some possible solutions". This study
will be really useful for both teachers and students in teaching and learning writing skill.
2. Aims of the study
The researcher defines the major objectives of the study as:

2
 to investigate the types of written errors that 12th-form students at Thanh
Ha High School often make in learning English.
 to investigate possible causes of common English written errors made by
12th- form students.
 to offer some possible solutions to overcome these common English written
errors.
This study is carried out with the hope that teachers can improve their writing

teaching methods and students can define their common errors and adjust their way of
learning this skill to obtain better results.
3. Research questions
In order to achieve the above aims, three research questions are raised:
3.1. What are the types of written errors that 12th- form students make in writing skills?
3.2. What are the major causes of these errors?
3.3. What recommendations should be given to reduce and prevent these errors?
4. Methods of the study
With the aim of finding out the causes of common written errors made by 12th-
form students at Thanh Ha High School, Hai Duong, this study adopts quantitative and
qualitative methods.
To identify the problems, the study has been carried out with the data collected
from different instruments:
- Consulting related materials: For the sake of getting knowledge and useful
ideas, I read many books and other materials in addition to earlier researchers about errors
and causes of common English written errors.
- Delivering survey questionnaire: To fulfill this thesis, one survey
questionnaire for teachers was carried out to find out the teachers' attitudes toward causes
of common English written errors and some possible solutions.
- Interviewing teachers who have been teaching writing to 12th form
students to investigate what and how they do to prevent and reduce students' common
written errors.
- Using students' actual writings as a technique of eliciting data for the
analysis and statistical counting as measurement of results

3
5. Scope of the study
This study is limited to the area of teaching and learning writing in 12th-form at
Thanh Ha High School, Hai Duong. Specifically, this minor thesis deals with the possible
causes of common English written errors made by 12th- form students, and based on these

discussions of the findings, some possible solutions will be introduced.
6. Organization of the thesis
The thesis has three main parts: introduction, development and conclusion.
The introduction presents the background to the study, aims and significance of the
study, research questions, methods, scope and organization of the thesis.
The development consists of two chapters. Chapter One exposes literature review
relating writing and causes of errors in foreign learning. Chapter Two is about the study
which investigates possible causes of common English written made by 12th- form
students at Thanh Ha High School from survey questionnaires on teachers and students'
actual writings. It also contains findings of the study and some solutions for the problems.
The conclusion gives a summary of what has been discussed so far in the thesis, the
limitation of the study, and suggestion for further research.

















4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Overview of writing
1.1.1. Definition of writing
Writing is a significant and essential area of development in a native language and
in a second language; therefore it has been studied by many researchers and defined in a
variety of ways. According to Byrne, D (1998, p.1), writing can be seen as the "act of
forming graphic symbols"; that is letters or the combination of letters or simply writing is
like "making marks on the flat surface of some kinds" (p.1). Whereas Lannon (1989, p.9)
points out that writing, in fact, is a far more complicated process than the production of
graphic symbols. It is "a process of transforming the material discovered by research
inspiration, accident, trial and error, or whatever into a message with a definite meaning ,
a process of deliberate decision." From another view of writing, Brannon et al.(1982, p.2)
defines writing as "a creative art, not as an assembly line operation of locking words
together into sentences and bolting sentences together into paragraphs in accordance with a
predefined plan". Byrne does not seem to share the same view with Brannon, Knight and
Neverow Turk in stating that "writing is a sequence of sentences arranged in a particular
order and link together in a certain way".
Noticeably, language teachers have defined writing so differently. As for Tribble
(1996, p.3), writing is "a language skill which is difficult to acquire". He also stresses that
writing "normally requires some forms of instruction" and that "it is not a skill that is
readily picked up by exposure" (1996, p.11). From my personal experience as a classroom
teacher, I agree with Rivers' definition (1981) that "writing is not a skill that can be learned
or developed in isolation but it should be taught and developed in cooperation with other
skills and aspects of the language studied."
1.1.2. Roles of writing
Writing emerges with its own functions and brings along communicative code of
the writers. When making a piece of writing, the writer implies a message or a certain
purpose. In the modern world, writing (written language) serves a range of functions in
everyday life. As Nunan (1991: 84) points out, writing is:

5
(i) Primarily for action: public signs (on roads and stations), product labels and
instructions (on food, tools or toys purchased), recipes, maps, television and radio guides,
bills, menus, telephone directories, etc.
For social contact: personal correspondence, letters, postcards, greeting cards.
(ii) Primarily for information: newspapers and magazines, non- fiction books
including textbooks, public notices, advertisement, guidebooks and travel literature, etc.)
(iii) Primarily for entertainment: light magazines, comic strips; fiction books;
poetry and drama; film subtitles; games including computer games.
In classroom, the teaching and learning of writing also play an important role.
Through writing we are able to share ideas, arouse feelings, persuade and convince other
people. We are able to discover and articulate ideas in the ways that only writing makes
possible. Therefore, writing has always occupied a place in the language syllabus.
Discussing about this issue, White (1981, p.1) describes a number of reasons why writing
merits a place in the language syllabus:
(i) Writing remains the commonest way of examining student performance in
English (all public examinations include a composition). Consequently, ability to write
remains a key to examination success.
(ii) In the eyes of both parents and students, ability to write may be associated with
evidence of having learnt the language. Writing is tangible-parents and students can see
what has been done and what has been achieved. So it has high "face validity".
(iii) In the classroom, writing may be used as one of a number of techniques to help
add variety and interest to lesson.
(iv) Teachers may use writing as a testing device to provide feedback on what
students have learnt. Students' writing can provide useful evidence of successes of failures
in learning, of confusions, and errors.
(v) Writing requires thought, discipline and concentration. It is relatively a
permanent form and readers judge us by our style, content and logic. So writing demands
care and thought.

In CLT, the teaching of writing also aims at communication. However, beside used
to communicate, writing helps our students learn. According to Raimes' opinion (1983),
"first writing reinforce the grammatical structures, idioms and vocabulary that we have
been teaching our students. Second, when our students write, they also have a chance to be

6
adventurous with the language, to go beyond what they have just learnt to say, to take
risks. Third, when they write, they necessarily become very involved in the new language;
the effort to express ideas and the constant use of eyes, hand and brain is a unique way to
reinforce learning".
With all the roles mentioned above, writing really becomes an integral part in
almost every language syllabus from elementary to tertiary level.
1.2. Overview of errors
1.2.1. Error versus mistake
Before 1960, the concept of error was hardly mentioned in the literature of first
language. However, it started to be paid in second and foreign language after the turn of
that decade. Distinction was generally drawn between what people termed "error" and
"mistake" although they found it impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation.
According to Chomsky (1965), there were two types of errors: one resulting from
verbal performance factors and the other from inadequate language competence. Later in
1975 Corder, S. supported this view. He called performance errors "mistakes" and deemed
them to be a result of psychological or neurological factors such as fatigue, lack of
attention, or lapses of memory, etc. Mistakes are said to be unsystematic in nature and
correctable when attention is drawn to their procedures. In contrast, errors refer to any
systematic deviations from the rule of the target language system as a result of the learner
internalizing the language and still developing his knowledge. They are recognized as
defects in learners' competence and stubborn faults resistant against learners' immediate
perception and correction.
However, in 1969, Duskova, L. investigated errors made by Czech learners of
English in an attempt to look for a reasonable answer and found that the above-mentioned

principle of distinction was not reliable. She discovered that many recurrent systemic
errors: failure to express genitive relation or confusion of passive an active voice, etc
reflected no defects in knowledge at all. She also provided an explanation for these cases
saying that lack of autonomy in rule application was responsible.
In that situation, Duskova, L. (1969) suggested a criterion for treatment of errors,
according to which errors manifest themselves in their regular occurrence and the systemic
nature they share. This is noticeable and well taken for our research:

7
An error analysis should be based primarily on recurrent systematic errors
that are made by a number of learners and that can be readily traced to their
sources, no matter whether they reflect defects in knowledge or they result
from inadequate habit formation.
1.2.2. Errors in language learning process.
To enhance language teaching we should make a clear understanding of how
language is learned. It means that we should know language learning process. In order to
comprehend the process, researchers always observe the product of learners: through what
they successfully take in and what failures they experience. Some linguists stated that
"errors are trustable evidence based on which they can look into the process". Therefore, in
this part, we try to give a brief account of the background setting in which errors in
language learning are approached and dealt with. Some issues are included: errors in first
language and second language; receptive errors and expressive errors.
1.2.2.1. First language and second language errors
Error committing is an observable and common phenomenon both in first language
acquisition and second language acquisition. An examination of both L1 and L2 learners'
speech as well as writing enable researchers to conclude that these learners both undergo
similar systematic stages of learning since most of the errors they systematically make
share the same nature. These erroneous forms are categorized as developmental errors, i.e.
those which are "the result of a normal pattern of development in language learning"
(Richards et al. 1992, p.104).

Both children learning L1 and children and adults learning L2 are believed to
produce errors of the following types:
(i) The omission of grammatical morphemes: she go, cat go there
(ii) The double marking of a given semantic feature: Joe doesn't goes; I didn't
remembered it
(iii) The overgeneralized application of irregular rules: I falled; he gots a flower
(iv) The use of one form for several required: She no goes there; she has a pants
(v) The wrong word ordering: what it is?; how she is like?
Deviations of such sorts, in the viewpoint of many researchers are non-serious to
the learning because they will finally disappear of themselves as the learner develops
ability to control the language being learned.

8
Apart from this characteristic, studies of FL learning point out that there is another
minor group of errors that are thought to reflect the nature of learners' mother tongue. They
are called interlingual errors. This will be mentioned more in subsequent sections.
To sum up, it is accepted that while L1 errors are results of learners internalizing
the rule system, L2 errors reflect not only the process of internalization but the native
language influence as well.
1.2.2.2. Receptive errors and expressive errors.
Linguistic comprehension and expression can be respectively related to linguistic
competence and linguistic performance. Chomsky (1965) draws out attention to the
distinction between these two concepts. With respect to the former, he holds that it
accounts for a person's capacity to produce and comprehend new utterances. In that sense,
failure to understand an utterance addressed to him may emerge from lack of competence.
Failure of this sort was hardly detectable and very few studies were carried out about it.
The latter is defined as actual use of the language in specific situations, and to have a good
performance a FL learner needs to develop his competence in that language, which is
always the teaching goal of FL teachers. Nonetheless, production of a language is
obviously susceptible to a great deal of influence. Therefore any wrong or deviant

utterance does unnecessarily originate from inadequate knowledge although neither does it
mean "never".
Corder, S. (1975) therefore presents two types of errors: the receptive errors, which
are caused by failure of comprehension on the reception level, and the expressive ones,
which manifest in the learners' utterances in "meaningful discourse". In this paper, the
investigation is carried out on the written discourse of Vietnamese learners, so the focus is
stressed on those errors on the level of self-expression.
1.3. Causes of errors in foreign language learning
To know why certain errors arise from learners' performance is essential and
helpful in different ways as aforementioned. However, it is not easy to elucidate the
problem in psycholinguistic terms: what process and strategy it is that leads to the making
of errors. According to Norrish, J. (1992), he reported that some causes of errors were
carelessness, first language interference, translation, overgeneralization, incomplete
application of rules but Richards, C. suggested that over-generalization, ignorance of rule
restrictions, incomplete application of rules and false concepts hypothesized are main

9
causes. From the two authors' theory above and from my experience, The researcher see
that a number of reasons for how learners go wrong are mother tongue language
interference, overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, incomplete application of
rules, and carelessness.
1.3.1. Mother tongue interference
According to Norrish, J. (1983, p. 22) "It was commonly believed until fairly
recently that learning a language (a mother tongue or a foreign language) was a matter of
habit formation. The learner's utterances were thought to be gradually "shaped" towards
those of the language he was learning". That is the reason why whenever an error appears,
there is likely that the mother tongue is responsible. Traditionally, the notion of
interference is understood as negative transfer. It stems from what is termed "proactive
inhibition", i.e. the way learning new habits is hindered by previously- learnt ones. This
explanation which relies on the behaviorist theory so far discussed goes that learning takes

place through habit formation. Language is a set of habits, and learning a new language is a
process of formulating a new habit. During this process the old ones: those of the first
language may at a time interfere, hence causing errors.
Language differs in many aspects, and the most basic difference is the way a shared
meaning is realized. Two languages employ different devices to express the same meaning.
It is this distance that may give rise to error because FL learners have a tendency to
transfer the realization devices of their native language into the foreign language.
Vietnamese beginner learners of English very often transfer the word order of Vietnamese
into English because of the contrast between the two languages in arranging words. For
example, Vietnamese students may produce such utterance as "after working hard a day "
or "I felt sad very much".
Beside forms, meanings and cultural aspects can be transferred. Lado (1957, p.1)
claims "errors are originated in the learner's disposition to "transfer the forms and
meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture
to the foreign language and culture".
George (1972, p.45) disagrees with this assumption casting doubt upon the idea of
"direct interference from the mother tongue". Instead, he attributes L2 errors to the
redundant features of the language as a direct source. In effect, the term "interference" in
CA hypothesis has later possessed a less technical sense. Contrastive linguists contended

10
that interference first resulted from the contrasting features between the source and the
target languages. They presented scales of difficulty with possibilities from the least to the
most likely for errors to occur. The explanation stresses that in case a language item is
absent from either languages or both possess similar but unidentical features, as errors
occur, they are believed to result from interference.
Corder (1975) rejects this explanation, observing that L2 learners make hypothesis
about the language they are learning, trying compare it with their native language. This is,
he believed, the reason why L2 errors reflect the mother tongue features. Later in 1978, he
recasts interference as learners' reliance on L1 as their strategy of communication. Learners

use literal translation as a learning strategy to overcome their ignorance. Reliance by
translation is indeed dissimilar to influence. Norrish (1983) distinguishes interference
against translation. The explanation goes as follows: translation is a voluntary strategy
reflecting learners' consciousness of using L1 while interference takes place
subconsciously. This suggested distinction is very fine, and it is uneasy to decide whether
an error reflects a conscious or subconscious process.
Despite the fact that many linguists have not accepted the habit formation theory,
the notion of interference still proved to be useful and necessary in a number of nun-
contrastive studies of errors. Errors due to L1 interference have been estimated to range
approximately from 23% (Mukattush. 1975) found in English of Jordanian students to 51%
(Chau, 1974) found in non-native speakers of Spanish in Toronto.
Then, beside the different nature of the L1 and FL, what other factors might be
sources of L1 interference? Generally there are four major factors that may enable FL
learners to use their native language in second language acquisition.
In the first place, it is common knowledge that at a certain stage of their learning:
often very early in classroom settings, FL learners are required to produce the new
language. The performance forms needed in classrooms are for example writing
compositions, talking about something, or taking tests. The important thing is that they are
forced to perform even though they do not want or their linguistic competence fails to meet
their expansive needs to communicate. It is due to this pressure both from the demand for
communication and the teacher's request that the learner falls back on the language he is
most familiar with.

11
Secondly, the limited L2 environment is to blame. The absence of a natural
linguistic input with native speakers and confinement to contact with non-native teachers
and people cause learners to have recourse on their language.
What is more, the way learners are asked to perform the FL also has a significant
affect on his verbal production. For example, he is asked to translate a paragraph into the
target language, write an essay or describe a picture orally, etc. All these things may have

mother tongue influence rooted in them. Among the types of tasks, translation is said to
"increase the L2 learner's reliance on first language structures" (Dulay et al., 1982: 110)
Last but not least, the monitor use is believed to be in effect. It is realized by Dulay
et al. as "an important factor associated with L1 use in L2 acquisition" (Dulay et al. 1982:
110). It is reflected in the learner's use of L2 vocabulary to fill L1 structures. He is said to
think in his mother tongue and attempt to put his idea in the target language. By this way,
he has subconscious reliance on his vernacular.
By far land large, the influence coming from L1 and FLL is one of the popular
attempts to interpret the source of Fl errors. It is conditioned by four basic factors: the
performance pressure, limited language environment, manner of eliciting verbal
performance and the monitor use.
1.3.2. Overgeneralization
The concept of generalization has been perceived the same as transfer by
Jakobovits (1969, p.55), i.e. "the use of previously available strategies in new situations".
This use of previously learned rules is, for some reason, sometimes misleading where the
rules are inapplicable, thus being over-generalized. Over-generalized covers instances
where the learner creates a deviant structure on the basis of his experience of other
structures in the target language: he can sings, we are hope, it is occurs, he come from.
(Richards, 1971).
What then give rises to the process of overgeneralization? Actually, it is part of the
learning process and it reflects the learner's consciousness and creativeness in learning. It is
closely related to the process of simplification as seen in L1 learners. L2 learners also tend
to reduce redundant sub-systems such as omission of the third person -s or the past maker -
ed.
However over- extension may result from other sources as well. "Failure to observe
rule restrictions of existing structure" is one of the reasons. A good example suggested by

12
Richards is the application of infinitive even to verbs that do not require it. The last factor,
perhaps an important one that is worth noticing is the teaching and presentation technique.

Certain types of teaching techniques increase the frequency of over- generalized structures.
Many patterns drills and transform exercises are made up of utterances that can interfere
with each other to produce a hybrid structure. Richards (1971) gave the following example:
Teacher
Instruction
Student
He walks quickly
Change to continuous form
He is walks quickly
This has been described as overlearning of a structure. At other times, he walks
may be contrasted with he is walking, he sings with he can sing, and a week later, without
any teaching of the forms, the learner produces he can sings, he is walks.
George (1972) also agreed on the same thing. He postulated that the erroneous
structure like Did you mended it? Owed its cause to the instruction of simple present
statements, simple present questions and simple past statements respectively in succession.
In short, along with l1 interference, over-generalization is regarded as one of the
major causes of error-making. It is the result of learners' processing and making hypotheses
about the language that is subjected to a variety of factors and is hard for us to control.
1.3.3. Ignorance of rule restriction
Closely related to the generalization of deviant structure is failure to observe the
restrictions of existing structures, that is, "the application of rules to contexts where they
do not apply" (Richards, 1974). The scholar also mentions that some rule restriction errors
that learners commit may be accounted for in terms of analogy. For example, the learner,
encountering a particular preposition with one type of verb, will attempt to apply the same
preposition with similar verbs by analogy. To be specific, students know the sentence "He
showed me the book" so that they may think the sentence " He explained me the book" is
correct one.
Besides, the rote learning of rules is also a cause of learners' ignorance of
restrictions. For instance, students are taught to use a to-verb infinitive after some verbs
such as allow, enable, permit and then that makes students assume that the use of verb

make should be make sb to do sth. (Richards, 1974)
1.3.4. Incomplete application of rules
Like L1 learners, Fl learners undergo developmental stages through which they
process target language rules. This is the reason for their imperfect application of the rules.

13
There are two factors Richards thinks that lead to this violation. The first one is the use of
questions in classroom as elicitation techniques. For example:
Teacher: What does she tell him?
Student: She tell him to hurry
The second factor may be that the learner is so interested in the communication that
they need not a mastery of L2 rules provided that they can achieve efficient
communication. (Richards, 1974).
1.3.5. Carelessness
Carelessness is also a significant cause to students' common written errors.
Carelessness is often closely related to lack of motivation. Many teachers will admit that it
is not always the student's fault of he loses interest; perhaps the materials and / or the style
of presentation do not suit him.
Norrish (1983) mentioned one way of reducing the number of "careless" errors in
written work. Teachers get students to check their work themselves and then each other's
work. This will involve students in an active search for errors and English can be used for a
genuine communication while discussing these errors in class.
1.4. Review of previous studies
A great number of error studies have been carried out in many countries.
Researchers like Corder (1967), Richards (1974), Dulay and Burt (1974), and Norrish
(1983) among others emphasized the importance of errors in theory and practice of
teaching and learning a foreign language. As Corder observed, errors as traced to their
sources are helpful in different ways. First, they tell language teachers how much progress
a learner has made toward the target language, as a result, where he needs help and what
sort of help he needs. Second, they provide evidence for researchers of the second

language learning process. That is to say, the researchers discover what strategies FL
learners use in learning and acquiring a language. The last benefit is practical in the sense
that errors can serve as good feedback to the learners for self- adjustment.
However, errors searched in those studies come from learners other than
Vietnamese and may be characteristic of those learners. The causes may be common but
the types of error may be distinctive and must be pointed out together with their causes.
Despite common errors believed to exist in learners of various language backgrounds.
Etherton (1977) still holds the view that learners of different mother tongues "make

14
different types of mistakes". This is why this study should be conducted to find out what
types of errors are derived from the Vietnamese students and what their causes are. To be
specific, in this study the researcher wants to investigate common written errors made by
12th form students and from these findings she gives some possible solutions.

15
CHAPTER TWO: THE STUDY
2.1. The setting of the study.
2.1.1. Teachers
There are totally eight teachers of English. Their English proficiency and teaching
method are not equally qualified. Five of them graduated from English Department,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi College of Foreign Languages. Two were trained
English as their second foreign language at Russian Department, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi College of Foreign Languages. One graduated from English Department,
Hanoi University of Education.
2.1.2. Students
The 12th form students at Thanh Ha High School are eighteen years old and have
learnt English, including writing skill, for seven years from grade six to grade twelve.
Although they have learnt English for seven years, they seem be beginners of English.
More importantly, few students take English examinations into universities and colleges
and if they do, they take multiple choice tests, not essay or composition, therefore they are
likely to be demotivated easily. Apparently, applying teaching approaches and using

teaching methods should be taken into account in order to foster and develop their writing
skills efficiently.
2.1.3. Facilities
Generally speaking, the average class size of fifty-five students is rather big and
inconvenient. The desks are arranged traditionally with two rows of seven desks. There is a
narrow isle in the middle and two narrower on the sides, no other empty space left where
the teachers and the students can move to and from if they implement interactive activities.
Moreover, the classroom are not equipped with modern facilities such as television,
computer, DVD and projector, except for a board.
2.2. "Tiếng Anh 12" textbook
2.2.1. An overview of English textbook 12
The textbook 12 is compiled following the communicative approach in which
communicative competence is emphasized. The development of communicative skills are
the most important objectives in teaching and learning. Therefore, each unit focuses on
four skills: reading, speaking, listening and writing. Language knowledge such as

16
phonetics, vocabulary and grammar are considered the means and condition to form and
improve communicative ability.
Along with the communicative approach, the learner-centered approach is also
adapted in order to promote students' activeness and creativeness. The teacher is the
organizer and controller in the class.
To achieve the teaching objectives under the two approaches mentioned above,
task-based teaching is the major method applied in the book. In each lesson, tasks are
stated clearly with different activities which provide students with opportunities to interact
and cooperate.
The content of the book was designed under theme-based approach. It is the
succession and development of previous grades textbooks with 16 units covering different
topics which were contextualized and developed naturally to attract and to help students
practice communicative skills. Each unit includes five items corresponding to five periods

such as reading, speaking, listening, writing and language focus. There are six "test
yourself" to help students revise and check their achievement after each three units.
2.2.2. Writing lesson
Writing lessons in the textbook make up 20% of 86 periods of the English syllabus.
Although each lesson is not clearly divided into stages: pre-writing, while-writing and post-
writing, it can be easily noticed that the initial tasks are a preparation for the final task.
There are totally 16 units, so 16 writing lessons are designed with a view to make students
familiar with real-life situation on text. The required competences of writing lesson in each
unit are detailed in the following table:
Units
Competences
1. Home life
Writing about family rules
2. Cultural diversity
Describing typical features of a Vietnamese conical hat
3. Ways of socializing
Building sentences based on given words.
Re-ordering given sentences to make a complete
paragraph.
4. School education system
Describing school education system in Vietnam.
5. Higher education
Writing a letter of request
6. Future jobs
Writing a formal letter of job application.

17
7. Economic reforms
Writing a report based on given information
8. Life in the future

Describing the world you would like to live in in the
future
9. Deserts
Describing main features of a desert
10 Endangered species
Writing about measures to protect endangered species
and possible results
11. Books
Describing a book
12. Water sports
Giving instruction
13. The 22nd Sea Games
Describing a sporting event (a football match)
14. International organizations
Writing a short description of an international
organization
15. Women in society
Describing a chart
16. The association of Southeast
Asian Nations
Writing a letter of recommendation
("Tieng Anh 12" textbook)
2.3. The study
2.3.1. Method
2.3.1.1. Participants
The participation chosen for the study are 130 12th-form students with their
writings during the writing lessons in the class and eight teachers of English. (three of them
are teaching grade 12 at present)
2.3.1.2. Data collection instruments
In order to obtain adequate data for the study, the researcher employed three data

collection instruments namely document analysis and survey questionnaire and interview.
The combination of these methods offers the researcher not only quantitative but also
qualitative data for later analysis.
(i) Document analysis
Regarding the objectives of the study, the researcher would like to employ
document analysis as a feasible method to gain insights into the problems of the study. This
method is "considered a research technique that provides objective, systematic and
qualitative data" (Verma and Mallick, 1999). This method of researching enables the

18
researcher to summarize students' typical errors and it also allows her to make inferences
from data collected, which can be used to assist the data gained from the survey
questionnaire as well.
(ii) Questionnaire
On account of the researcher's limited time, questionnaire is only delivered to the
eight teachers. While the teachers were completing the questions, the researchers also sat
besides them to give them clarification if any confusion arose.
The questionnaire consists of two main parts. The first part was given to obtain the
personal information of the teacher respondents. The second part was to investigate the
teachers' opinion about their views on students common errors, their causes and
recommendation for reducing and preventing them. In this study, the researcher was only
concerned about errors on lexical and grammatical items so that she investigated these on
students' writing only and this extracted from "error correcting symbols" (Klassen 1991,
Bates at al 1993, Ingram & King 1996). In researcher's experience and her colleagues', she
only mentions some typical types of errors students often commit, not all aspects of lexical
and grammatical items. 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.
(iii) Interviews

The researcher interviews teachers for question number 3 only to get better insights
into the recommendation for reducing and preventing students' common errors. Four
teachers were invited to discuss for further information about the items raised in the
question number three.
2.3.1.3. Data collection procedure
As being described in the previous part, various instruments were designed.
Document analysis was the first instruments for this study. The students' actual
writing were the results of their writing lessons in the class. The researcher collected
students' writings in units 9, 10 and 16.
Secondly, eight sheets of questionnaires were delivered to the eights teachers of
English. While the respondents were working on the questions, the researcher was also
present to give any explanation, if any problems arose.

19
Thirdly, after teachers completed the survey questionnaires, four of them were
chosen to take part in a one to one interview. It was conducted in a quiet room free from
distraction.
2.3.2. Data analysis and discussion
This part serves as a representation of data collected during research procedure.
Accordingly, the interpretation of these data is also offered to address the three research
questions.
2.3.2.1. Research question 1
As stated in the Introduction part, the first research question is " What are the types
of written errors that 12th- form students make in learning English?". This question was
answered by the interpretation of the qualitative data gained from analyzing 130 students'
actual writing in the class and the quantitative data collected from eight teachers' survey
questionnaire. Following are the tables to illustrate 12th form student written errors at
Thanh Ha High School.
Items of errors

1
(Never)
2
(Sometimes)
3
(Often)
4
(Usually)
5
(Always)
Lexical
items
Incorrect spelling
0%
25%
25%
50%
0%
Word choice/
Wrong word
0%
0%
37.5%
62.5%
0%

Grammatical items
Preposition
0%
37.5%

50%
12.5%
0%
Article mistakes
0%
25%
62.5%
12.5%
0%
Noun number
0%
37.5%
25%
37.5%
0%
Wrong conjunction/
connective
0%
37.5%
25%
37.5%
0%
Wrong verb tense
0%
12.5%
25%
50%
12.5%
Subject-verb
agreement

0%
12.5%
50%
37.5%
0%
Verb form
0%
12.5%
50%
37.5%
0%
Table 1: Errors of lexical and grammatical items of 12th form students at Thanh Ha
High School synthesized from teachers' questionnaire


20


Table 2: Written errors of 12th form students at Thanh Ha High School as
synthesized from document analysis

In terms of table 1, the researcher would like to choose "often" as the medium
indicator. That is, if most of the teachers agree that a certain item of errors occur after it,
namely "usually" and "always", it would be a common error and vice versa. According to
the table, 100 percent of the teachers agree that wrong word or word choice are common
errors. In the meantime, 87.5% of the teachers are in agreement with the fact that wrong
verb tense, subject-verb agreement and verb form are common errors. 75 % of them think
that article mistakes and incorrect spelling are also common ones. Another potion of 62.5
% of the teachers see preposition , noun number and wrong conjunction or connective are
common ones.

As for table 2, the researcher would like to consider 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. I choose this figure because 5% would mean that the category is
Common written errors made by 12th form students at
Thanh Ha High School
Lexical
items
Incorrect spelling
34%
Word choice/
Wrong word
15.1%

Grammatical items
Preposition
3.9%
Article mistakes
8.5%
Noun number
16.6%
Wrong conjunction/
connective
10.4%
Wrong verb tense
1.4%
Subject-verb
agreement
2.6%
Verb form

7.5%