Common Errors and their Causes in Paragraph Writing Tasks by E.F.L. Second- year Students at Ha Hoa Tien University Các lỗi thường gặp và nguyên nhân mắc lỗi kh

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




PHẠM THỊ LAN PHƢƠNG


COMMON ERRORS AND CAUSES OF ERRORS IN PARAGRAPH
WRITING TASKS BY E.F.L. SECOND-YEAR STUDENTS
AT HA HOA TIEN UNIVERSITY

(Các lỗi thường gặp và nguyên nhân mắc lỗi khi viết đoạn văn của sinh
viên Anh văn năm thứ hai trường Đại học Hà Hoa Tiên)


M.A MINOR THESIS



Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code : 6014.0111





Hanoi, 2013

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




PHẠM THỊ LAN PHƢƠNG


COMMON ERRORS AND CAUSES OF ERRORS IN PARAGRAPH
WRITING TASKS BY E.F.L. SECOND-YEAR STUDENTS
AT HA HOA TIEN UNIVERSITY

(Các lỗi thường gặp và nguyên nhân mắc lỗi khi viết đoạn văn của sinh
viên Anh văn năm thứ hai trường Đại học Hà Hoa Tiên)



M.A MINOR THESIS


Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code : 6014.0111
Supervisor: Dr. NGUYỄN ĐỨC HOẠT

Hanoi, 2013
i

DECLARATION
I, Phạm Thị Lan Phương, certify my authorship of the study report entitled
“Common Errors and their Causes in Paragraph Writing Tasks by E.F.L.
Students at Ha Hoa Tien University”
is the result of my own research for the degree of Master of Arts at University of
Languages & International Studies-VNU, Ha Noi, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree Master of Arts.


Phạm Thị Lan Phƣơng









ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
******
I would like to express my thanks to many people who have assisted me
when I carried out the research.
To my supervisor, Dr. Nguyễn Đức Hoạt, I owe a special debt of gratitude
for his profound knowledge, helpful support and enthusiasm which are of utmost

importance to the achievement of my study.
I would like to convey my thanks to all my teachers of Postgraduate Studies
Department who have supported me with a lot of knowledge.
I also would like to thank all my colleagues for their invaluable comments
and assistance during the time I was completing my study.
My special thanks also go to the students in groups of DA5 and DAC5 for
their willingness to participate in writing tasks. Without their helps, this study could
not have been so successful.
I owe a great debt of gratitude to my husband who has constantly inspired
and encouraged me to complete this research.
Last but not least, I wish to thank my readers for their interests and
comments on this thesis.




iii

ABSTRACT
*****
This paper studies the common written errors in paragraph writing made by
second year English major students in Ha Hoa Tien University and the causes of
these errors. To achieve the desired aims of the current study, the author combined
both qualitative and quantitative methods, including two main instruments namely
analyzing student writing analysis and personal interviews. The subjects
participating in the research were 19 second year EFL students in Foreign Language
Faculty in Ha Hoa Tien, a private University in Ha Nam.
Research results show that errors second year EFL students often make are
basically due to the lack of vocabulary and problems with understanding basic
grammatical rules in English. The main causes of these errors are the interference

of mother tongue, carelessness, overgeneralization, incomplete application of rules
and ignorance of rule restriction, in which interference from the first language is the
major cause.








iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale of the study 1
2. Objectives of the study 1
3. Research questions 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Significance of the study 2
6. Structures of the thesis 3
PART II: DEVELOPMENT 4
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
1.1. Writing and paragraph writing 4

1.2. Definitions of errors 5
1.3. Errors versus mistakes 6
1.4. Error classification 6
1.5. Causes of errors 9
1.6. Previous study 14
CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 14
2.1. Research setting 14
2.2. Data collection instruments 14
2.2.1.Student writing tasks 14
2.2.2. Interviews 15
2.3. Procedure of data collection 15
2.4. Data analysis 19
CHAPTER III: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 21
v

3.1. Common errors made by second year EFL students in HHT 21
3.2. Causes of errors made by second year EFL students in HHT 31
PART III: CONCLUSION 37
1. Summary of the study 37
2. Limitations and further studies 37
3. Recommendations 38
REFERENCES 40
APENDIX ix

vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
List of tables
Page
Table 2.1. Error marking symbols
16
Table 2.2. Error classification
17
Table 2.3. Identification of error causes
19
Table 3.1. Number and frequency of errors in paragraph writing by
types and by groups
22
Table 3.2. Frequencies of each error types
23
Table 3.3. Numbers of errors per causes
31
Table 3.4. The popularity of each kind of causes to students' common written
errors

32

List of fingures

Figure 3.1. Frequency of errors in paragraph writing by groups
22
Figure 3.2 Frequencies of each error types
24
Figure 3.3 The popularity of each kind of causes to students' common written
errors
32





vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EFL: English as a Foreign Language
HHT: Ha Hoa Tien University
EFL: Learning English as a Foreign Language
L1: First Language
L2: Second Language
SVA: Subject-Verb Agreement

1


CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
Writing skill plays an important role in learning English and is considered most
difficult skill to be acquired. A proficient writing ability in second language
enhances students’ logical way of thinking, thus facilitating students in meeting the
requirements of almost every profession. However, to attain the proficiency in
writing has long been a challenge consuming much energy and practice for almost
second language learners.
In effect, many Vietnamese teachers and researchers have been seeking new and
effective methods 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.
Nowadays, there are many private universities opened in Viet Nam and the real
quality of students in these universities raised a big question to both educators and
the Government. As a teacher at Ha Hoa Tien University, the author recognizes
English major students’ weaknesses in using English, especially in writing skill.
One of the most challenging tasks facing both the EFL learners and teachers is to
find out common mistakes and their causes in order to avoid possible mistakes or
errors in writing. To find effective solutions to the above problem, the author has
decided to do the research on “Common Errors and Their Causes in Paragraph
Writing Tasks by EFL Students at Ha Hoa Tien University”.
It is hoped that the results of this study will be really useful for both teachers
and students in teaching and learning writing skill in particular and in improving
their writing ability.
2. Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study are:

2


 to investigate the types of written errors often made by second-year
EFL students of English major at Ha Hoa Tien University in writing
paragraphs.
 to find out possible causes of common errors made by second-year
EFL students in paragraph writing tasks at Ha Hoa Tien University.
 To recommend effective ways of avoiding errors in students’ writing
tasks.
This study is carried out with the hope that teachers and students can define
the students’ common errors and adjust their way of teaching and learning this skill
basing on the errors’ causes to obtain better results.
3. Research questions
In order to achieve the above objectives, two research questions are raised:
1/ What are the types of written errors made by second - year EFL students
of Ha Hoa Tien University in writing tasks?
2/ What are possible causes of these errors?
4. Scope of the study
Due to the limited time and the restricted scope of study of a minor thesis, the study
only focuses on identifying a number of common grammatical written errors
committed by second year EFL students at HHT university. The errors are classified
according to Chaney’s model (1999) and the causes of errors are distinguished
based on the two researchers’ theoretical analysis, Norrish, J. (1992) and Richards,
C. (1971). Therefore, the criteria of classifying errors and causes of errors are partly
subjective or mental analysis.
5. Significance of the study
The study attempts to investigate the types of common errors in writing tasks and
possible causes to avoid errors and improve writing skill of students at Ha Hoa Tien
University in particular and in Vietnam in general.

3


In terms of foreign language learning, the study tells the students how much
progress they made toward the target language, especially in the field of writing,
hence they need improve. A deeply understanding why errors arise can assist in
adjusting learning methods.
In term of teaching and designing syllabus, the study may help teachers in particular
and educators in general to understand the nature of errors, which is useful for them
in sequencing and arranging target language items in their syllabus or material
designing.
6. Structures of the thesis
The study consists of 3 parts, organized as follows:
Part I - Introduction- gives information about the topic of this paper, the reason for
choosing the topic, the aim, scope, and methods and significance of the study. An
outline of the thesis is also mentioned in this chapter.
Part II
Chapter I - Literature Review – discusses the relevant theories related to
paragraph writing, errors and causes of errors
Chapter II- Research Methodology – will mention the 2 main research instruments
employed in the study, data collection procedure and data analysis.
Chapter III - Findings and Discussions – the data colleted will be analyzed in
order to find out the common errors made by second year English major students
and causes of these errors
Part III - Conclusion – provides some practical suggestions to help teachers have
effective methods in teaching writing. Some brief information about the limitations
of the study and suggestions for further study will be also added here.


4

PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Writing and paragraph writing
Many linguists give the definition of writing. However, it is difficult to choose
which is the most exact and trustworthy.
According to Flower (1984, p.16), “writing is simply the act of expressing what you
think or saying what you mean” while Byrne (2000, p.1) considers writing as the
“use of graphic symbols: that is, letters or combinations of letters” . He concludes
that writing is the act of “forming these symbols; making marks on a flat surface of
some kind”. Nevertheless, on higher level, “writing is a more complex process than
the “production of graphic symbols”. It involves the arrangement of symbols
“according to certain convention, to form words and words have to be arranged to
form sentences”. Furthermore, writing is regarded as a productive and taught
language skill which is “difficult to acquire” ( Tribble, 1996, p.3) and “writing
normally requires some form of instruction. It is not a skill that is readily picked up
by exposure” (Tribble, 1996, p.11). Thus, it is necessary for learners to study and
practice to improve this skill as Ur (2003) stated that “most people acquire the
spoken language intuitively, whereas the written form is in most cases deliberately
taught and learned”.
For its complicated process, EFL learners meet many difficulties in writing skill.
From the realities in learning English in Viet Nam, there are some difficulties in
writing as: learners’ low proficiency in the language, students’ low motivation to
learn English, learners’ lack of background knowledge.
According to Hornby (1989 p.895), paragraph is distinct section of a written or
printed text, usually consisting of several sentences dealing with a single theme and
starting on a new line. In tone with it, Tidyman (1987, p.10) say that a paragraph is
a group of sentences that develop a point on an idea. Further he explains that the
important feature of paragraph is that it has unity when all of its sentences are

5


related to the main point. So, a paragraph is a group of sentences dealing with a
single theme that develop the main point on an idea.
The form of paragraph can be written into 12 kinds of genre. Those genres are
recount, report, discussion, explanation, analytical exposition, hortatory exposition,
news item, anecdote, narrative, procedure, description, and review. Each of them
has different function and characteristics.
In short, writing is a complex skill in second language learning because it requires
the ability to communicate in target language and to produce text in order to express
oneself efficiently. Therefore, paragraph writing requires conscious effort and much
practice in composing, developing, and analyzing ideas.
1.2. Definitions of errors
Making errors is the most natural thing in the world. In communication, both native
speakers and non- native speakers can make errors though their errors are different.
Error is defined as “systematic deviations” from the norms of language being learnt
by Cunning Worth (1987) or when a learner has not learnt something and
consistently gets it wrong ( Norrish, 1987). Besides, Choon (1993) describes
“error” as a form of structure that is inappropriately used and that cannot be
accepted by a native speaker. According to Richards (1989), the term is identified as
a faulty use of a linguistic item which shows incomplete learning. Another
definition of errors is given out by Brown (1994). He identifies error as “noticeable
deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage
competence of the learner” (as cited in Acker, 2000, p.205). Corder (1973) refers to
errors as breaches of the code; they deviate from what is regarded as the norm by
native speakers.
Error in writing is defined by many linguists and methodologists, but in short it is
the faulty use of target language and it reveals a portion of the learner’s weak
competence in the target language.

6


1.3. Errors versus mistakes
To understand more clearly about errors, it is necessary to differentiate errors and
mistakes. Brown (2000) argues that “a mistake refers to a performance error that is
either a random guess or a “slip” it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly”
(p.217). Brown also states that “errors can not often be self-corrected while
mistakes can be self-corrected if the deviation is pointed out to the speaker” or
“when attention is called to them” ( as cited in James (1998)). He thinks that
“mistakes are not the result of a deficiency in competence but the result of some sort
of temporary breakdown or imperfection in the process of producing speech.”
(Brown, 2000, p. 217)
Thus, mistakes are often non- systematic and are made by lack of attention, fatigue,
carelessness or other aspect of performance so if the language learners notice,
learners can avoid the mistakes or even can correct them themselves. Whereas,
errors are systematic because they are caused by the lack of the learners’
competence, ignorance of appropriate rule and interference of the learners’ mother
tongue and the general characteristic of the rule learning.
1.4. Error classification
According to Choon (1993), there are some categories of errors such as semantic
error (wrong words, wrong form, etc.), grammatical errors ( tense, preposition, etc.),
global and local errors. She also suggests “the system of classifying errors should be
flexible” (p.2) and adds that teacher can learn and decide what should be focused
more in their syllabus after analyzing the specific and common language problem
their students have.
High – frequency errors have been suggested for language teachers when they
respond to written products (Allwright, 1975, Mings, 1993). Walz (1982) defines
frequent errors as those frequently committed by individual students or by many
students in a class, and these errors are normally grammatical. Hendrickson (1980,

p.161) claims that the examination to find out the frequently committed errors at
7


various stages of FLA is necessary, because it could provide the information to
build “hierarchies of language learning features”.
In fact, some researchers have found errors that are produced frequently by EFL and
ESL learners introduced by Dulay et al. in 1982.
(1) Omitting grammatical morphemes, which are items that do not contribute
much to the meaning of sentences, as in He hit car.
(2) Double marking, as semantic feature (e.g. past tense) when only one
marker is requires, as in She didn’t went back.
(3) Regularizing rules, as in womans for women.
(4) Using archiforms – one form in place of several- such as the use of her for
both she and her, as in I saw her yesterday. Her danced with my brother.
(5) Using two or more forms in random alternation even though the language
requires the use of each only under certain conditions as in the random use of
she and he regardless of gender of the person of interest.
(6) Misordering items in constructions that require a reversal of word- order
rules that had been previously acquired, as in What you are doing?, or
misplacing items that may be correctly placed in more than one place in the
sentences, as in They are all the time late.
(Dulay et al., 1982, p. 138-139)
In Vann et al.’s 1984 study that examined university faculty’s opinion of ESL
errors, common ESL writing errors are presented as:
Spelling
Subject-verb
Article
Relative clauses
Comma slice

Tense
Prepositions
It-deletion
Pronoun agreement
Word order
(Vann et al., 1984, p.431)
There is also a useful checklist developed by Robinett in 1972, which contains the
frequent errors of ESL learners. The checklist consists of 18 areas, and the types of
8


frequent errors in each areas are described in detail, so that the teachers can use
them to evaluate compositions in a more objective way (for more detail, see Walz,
1982).
Agreement
Verbs
Word division
Penmanship
Comparison
Prepositions
Capitalization
Punctuation
Sentence
Vocabulary
Content
Double negative
Article/ Determiners
Format
Paraphrase
Nouns

Spelling
Word order
(Robinet, 1972, extracted from Walz, 1982, p.35)
In addition to the above studies, Ferris and Roberts’s (2001) recent article
introduces the following five categories that represent the five most frequent errors
found by Chaney’s analysis of learner error in 1999.
Description of Error Categories
Verb errors
All errors in verb tense or form, including
relevant subject-verb agreement errors.
Noun ending errors
Plural or possessive ending incorrect,
omitted, or unnecessary; includes relevant
subject-verb agreement errors.
Article errors
Article or other determiner incorrect,
omitted, or unnecessary.
Wrong words
All specific lexical errors in word choice or
word form, including preposition and
pronoun errors.
Spelling errors only included if the
(apparent) misspelling resulted in an actual
English word.
Sentence structures
Errors in sentence/ clause boundaries (run-
on, fragments, comma splices), word order,
omitted words, or phrases, other
unidiomatic sentence construction.
9

It’s obvious that common writing errors are identified and classified differently
according to the researchers’ perspectives. However, in order to achieve the study
objectives of finding the most common errors in paragraph writing made by EFL
second year students in HHT, I have adopted the way Chaney (1999) analyzed
learner’s errors. This will be discussed in detail in chapter II of this study.
1.5. Causes of errors
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 causes. From the two authors' theory above and from my
experience, the researcher sees 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.
1.5.1. Mother tongue interference
According to Norrish, J. (1983, p. 22) mother tongue interference “was commonly
believed until fairly recently that learning a language (a mother tongue or a foreign
language) was a matter of habit formation. Beside forms, meanings and cultural
aspects which 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". 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
10


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.
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 p.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 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.
1.5.2. 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 reasons, 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
11


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 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 over-learning 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.
1.5.3. Ignorance of rule restriction
12


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)
1.5.4. 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. 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).
1.5.5. 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 losing 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
13


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.
There are many other factors that cause FL learner errors in writing. However, in
this minor thesis any other causes of error would be classified in to carelessness
group to make easier to the data analysis.
1.6. 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 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 second- year EFL students and causes
of these errors.

14


CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1. Research setting
The research is conducted in 2 groups of English Department in HHT for two
weeks. Teaching and learning English in this university is taken into great
consideration. It is not only a major but also an instrument in studying other majors
such as Economics, Accounting, Information Technology, etc. However, students’
ability of using English in this university is mostly at beginner level. English major
students get low marks in the entrance exam.
Subjects of the study are 19 second year English major students from 2 classes of
Foreign language Department. Their English is at intermediate level. They are
familiar with writing skill and are able to compose narrative, cause and effect,
compare and contrast paragraphs. However, their proficiency in English is not as
fluent as advanced learners; hence they tend to make more errors in higher
frequency. Thus, treatment of students’ errors in writing is a headache and time –
consuming job to teachers. They are willing and enthusiastic to take part in this

study.
2.2. Data collection instruments
An instrument plays an important role in research. It influences the data which are
collected. In order to obtain adequate data for the study, the researcher employed
two data collection instruments namely document analysis and interview.
2.2.1. Student writing tasks
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 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 interview as well.
15


The participants are asked to write paragraphs choosing one of the following topics:
Topic 1: Living in your house or living in the hostel.
Topic 2: The most unforgettable day in your life.
Topic 3: A bad habit.
Topic 4: A favorite film
Topic 5: The way you learn English
The topics for writing are designed based on the topics in the book “Writing
Academic English”, 3
rd
edition by Alice Oshima and Ann Hogue, introduced by Le
Thanh Tam and Le Ngoc Phuong Anh (2004, p.257-258)
The paragraphs are written in pieces of paper. It is not an exam so students are
allowed to use dictionaries. The paragraph has to be at least 150 words long. It
could be done in maximum of 60 minutes. The total respondents are 19 students

who are chosen as samples of the study.
After collecting the writing papers, they are marked by two writing teachers in HHT
university. Before marking, they are given a list of marking symbol (see table 2.1),
then the researcher introduces the way of marking (see appendix 1 as an example).
2.2.2. Interviews
After collecting the errors from the participants’ writing tasks the researcher
choose 60 errors, 10 errors of each error group, in 10 writing samples. Then the
researcher interviews 10 students who make these errors to get better insights into
the research on the causes of written errors in paragraph writing. Each student
receives a piece of paper containing their own errors in their writing papers. Then,
the researcher interviews them with the same question: “Why do you make this
error?”. The researcher can suggest some causes if the participants find difficulties
to explain their causes. All the answers are recorded and classified into categories of
causes by the researcher. The classifying criteria is detailed in table 2.2.
2.3. Data collection procedure
To collect information about errors the researcher has used the combination
of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative approach is used in
16


describing and analyzing data to find out the distinctive features of English
paragraphs written by HHT students in term of linguistic errors. On the contrary, the
quantitative approach is applied in determining the percentage of some linguistic
errors.
2.3.1. Student writing tasks collection procedure
2.3.1.1. Collection of samples:
First of all, students are asked to write paragraphs of one of five given topics in
class within 45 minutes. Then, 19 writing tasks are collected by the researcher.
2.3.1.2. Identification of errors:
Students’ writing papers with teachers’ correction are collected one week later to

analyze. The researcher has two teachers of writing English in HHT University
correct these written works according to the Correction Symbols as followed:
Symbol
Meaning
Symbol
Meaning
Vt
Verb tense
Sp
Spelling
Prep
Wrong/ unnecessary or
omitted preposition
Art
Wrong/ omitted or unnecessary
Articles
P
Punctuation
Cap
Capitalization
Agr
Subject – verb agreement
T
connective/transition signal
Vf
Verb form (wrong gerund,
participle, infinitive, modal
or passive voice verb)
Ww
Wrong word

Frag
Fragment sentence
RO
Run – on sentence
Wf
Word form (noun, verb,
adj…)
WO
Word order
^
Add a word/phrase (use the
symbol and mark the word
type omitted)
X
Optional/ unnecessary
word/phrarse (cross the words
and mark if they are article,
preposition, or others)
Conj
Wrong/omitted/unnecessary
conjunction
Pl
Plural
Exp
Unidiomatic sentence
structure
Pro
Wrong/ unnecessary or omitted
Pronoun
Poss

Wrong possessive ending
Cs
Comma splice
Table 2.1. Error marking symbols
(According to Klassen 1991, Bates et al. 1993, Igram and King 1996)