INTRODUCTION
B ACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Hanoi Community College (HCC) offers a variety of majors, including Accounting, Business Administration, Construction, and Information Technology English is a mandatory subject for first and second-year students, structured into General English (150 hours) and English for Special Purposes (60 hours) The General English curriculum utilizes "Lifelines Intermediate" by Tom Hutchinson, focusing on essential language skills such as grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation to enhance listening, reading, speaking, and writing abilities However, students often struggle with writing, particularly in articulating their ideas This study specifically examines how the mother tongue influences grammatical errors in students' writing.
Writing exercises are a crucial component of semester assessments, yet many students struggle to express their ideas effectively in English They often rely on translating word-for-word from their first language (L1) to their second language (L2), leading to issues with idiomatic expressions, vocabulary, and grammar This negative transfer results in numerous grammatical errors and poor paragraph structure, ultimately hindering their ability to communicate effectively with native English speakers and impacting their overall writing scores.
Understanding students' errors in EFL writing is crucial for teachers to identify their learning challenges This insight enables the implementation of effective teaching strategies that enhance students' English proficiency, ultimately improving their writing accuracy and fluency Such improvements will benefit students in their English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses and future careers.
A IMS OF THE STUDY
This study focuses on enhancing students' writing skills by mitigating the negative influence of their mother tongue on their writing To achieve this goal, specific objectives will be explored.
- Investigating the most frequent errors students are prone to make when writing a paragraph to describe or narrate an event
- Identifying one of the reasons that causes the errors in students’ writing – the influence of mother tongue (Vietnamese)
- Providing some practical guidelines for teachers, so that they can help students deal with this type of errors in writing
To reach the aim of the study, the following questions are focused on:
1 What are the most frequent grammatical errors students often make in their writing?
2 How much does mother tongue influence on students’ errors?
1.4 Scope and significance of the study
This study examines the L1-related grammatical errors of 136 first-year students across three different faculties, focusing on their final term General English (GE) writing test papers Although a comprehensive analysis of multiple tests would provide deeper insights, the constraints of time limited the study to the evaluation of a single test.
The researcher aims for the study's findings to serve as criteria for material development by educators, enabling them to identify and address students' errors, particularly those influenced by their first language (L1) This approach is expected to enhance college students' writing skills, reducing errors and elevating their intermediate English proficiency to a higher level Ultimately, the findings will assist in creating effective teaching materials that empower students to achieve greater language proficiency, benefiting them beyond the classroom.
The thesis consists of five main chapters: Chapter I to Chapter V
Chapter I, Introduction, provides a comprehensive overview of the study's background, objectives, scope, and significance, while also outlining the structure of the thesis.
Chapter II, the Literature Review, examines relevant literature on errors, error analysis, and contrastive analysis It identifies and discusses essential procedures for conducting error analysis, establishing a foundation for the subsequent chapters on error and contrastive analysis.
In Chapter III, Methodology, the methodology is presented including the subjects of the study and the research instruments
Chapter IV presents the analysis and discussion of the collected data, highlighting the key findings of the study The researcher synthesizes these findings and offers recommendations for improving teaching strategies to effectively address errors influenced by the mother tongue.
Chapter V is the Conclusion and limitations of the study The conclusion summarizes the content of the study The limitations of the study and some recommendations for further studies are stated also in this chapter.
O UTLINE OF THE THESIS
The thesis consists of five main chapters: Chapter I to Chapter V
Chapter I, Introduction, provides a comprehensive overview of the study's background, objectives, and significance, while also defining its scope Additionally, it outlines the structure of the thesis, setting the stage for the research presented.
Chapter II, the Literature Review, examines essential literature on errors, error analysis, and contrastive analysis It identifies and discusses the key procedures for conducting error analysis relevant to the study This reviewed literature establishes a foundation for the subsequent chapters on error analysis and contrastive analysis.
In Chapter III, Methodology, the methodology is presented including the subjects of the study and the research instruments
In Chapter IV, titled Findings and Suggestions, the researcher analyzes and discusses the collected data, synthesizing the key findings of the study Additionally, the chapter offers recommendations for enhancing teaching strategies to effectively address errors influenced by the mother tongue.
Chapter V is the Conclusion and limitations of the study The conclusion summarizes the content of the study The limitations of the study and some recommendations for further studies are stated also in this chapter.
LITERATURE REVIEW
T HE ROLE OF GRAMMAR IN WRITING
Grammar has always been an integral part of composition instruction Virginia R Monseasu (2002), editor of the English Journal, writes:
Despite discussions on alternative language study methods, English teachers remain focused on grammar instruction in their classrooms The debate continues over whether to maintain traditional grammar teaching, address grammar only as it appears in student writing, or to forgo grammar instruction altogether in favor of emphasizing writing content.
In their article "Why Revitalize Grammar," Dunn and Lindblom (2003) emphasize that many effective writing educators recognize grammar as a vital tool for conveying meaning rather than an isolated objective (p.43) Similarly, Patricia J McAlexander (2000) reinforces this perspective, highlighting the importance of understanding grammar's role in enhancing communication.
Rei Noguchi, in his 1991 work "Grammar and the Teaching of Writing," emphasizes that style is as crucial as organization and content in writing He asserts that teaching grammar and mechanics can enhance students' writing style, as correctness is vital; many readers in professional contexts view errors as significant issues Noguchi suggests that the limited impact of grammar instruction may stem from students' inability to apply their formal grammar knowledge in practice He advocates for a balanced approach, recommending that composition instructors teach grammar integrated with writing instruction, focusing on essential terms and common errors rather than lengthy, standalone grammar lessons.
Teaching grammar and mechanics can enhance students' writing style, primarily focusing on syntax and sentence structure, as noted by Noguchi A study by Briggs and Pailliotet (1997) revealed that a significant majority of teachers, approximately 71% for Applebee and 75% for Anson, prioritized "surface features" when commenting on student texts They highlighted that teachers often centered their feedback on grammatical errors Furthermore, their examination of 50 pre-service teachers' written discourse indicated a prevalent negative attitude towards writers who committed conventional errors Additionally, several articles in the English Journal indicate a resurgence in the teaching of grammar and conventional English at the secondary education level, as evidenced by the works of various authors (Blasé et al., 2003; Sams, 2003; Perrin, 2003; Vavra, 2003; Ehrenworth, 2003; Johansen & Shaw, 2003; Doniger, 2003; Carroll, 2003; Dean, 2001).
T HE I NFLUENCE OF L1 ON L2 ( PREVIOUS STUDIES RELATED TO THE STUDY )
For many years, native language interference has been regarded as a significant barrier to second language acquisition by linguists and educators Research in the late 1960s revealed that a majority of errors made by second language learners stemmed from their first language, leading to the development of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis This hypothesis aimed to identify differences between the first and second languages and predict potential error areas While it was not universally accepted as a comprehensive explanation for all second language errors, language transfer remained a key topic of discussion throughout the 1970s Notably, George (1971) found that approximately one-third of the incorrect sentences produced by second language learners could be attributed to language transfer, a statistic echoed by Brudhiprabha (1972).
1984, p.5) The interference problem was so common that it attracted the 1980’s linguists Ellis (1985) writes:
Many people believe that the first language (L1) negatively impacts second language acquisition (SLA) by interfering with the learning of the second language (L2) This perspective suggests that features of the L1 are transferred into the L2, creating obstacles for learners Consequently, SLA is often viewed as a process of overcoming L1 influences and gradually replacing its characteristics with those of the target language.
Brown (1994) emphasizes that second language acquisition (SLA) is significantly affected by the learner's first language (L1), noting that "native language interference is surely the most immediately noticeable source of error among second language learners."
A lot of practical research work has been done to find out errors in Vocabulary and grammar made by learners of English as a foreign or second language
In a quasi-experimental study published in the Asian EFL Journal (2006), Li-Ling Chen investigated the effects of a computer-assisted instruction (CAI) tutorial program on the grammar skills of beginner EFL students at a private college in southern Taiwan The findings indicated that incorporating the students' first language (L1) in CAI grammar instruction did not significantly enhance grammar learning An error analysis revealed that many grammar mistakes stemmed from L1 interference, with the most common error types identified as Verbs, Punctuation, Lexicon, Syntax, Capitalization, Subject Omission, Prepositions, and Articles This analysis highlighted the connection between the students' writing errors and the grammatical structures of Mandarin, shedding light on their learning difficulties.
"Common Mistakes in English made by Vietnamese" by Ha Van Buu, published in 1990, serves as an essential reference for Vietnamese learners of English Written by an experienced EFL teacher and native Vietnamese speaker, the book addresses common errors stemming from Vietnamese interference, covering issues identified in T.J Fitikides’ work as well as those discovered by the author It systematically presents frequent mistakes in four key areas: grammar, word usage, sentence structures, and pronunciation, while offering corrective suggestions Each section includes grammar lessons and practice exercises to help learners grasp English grammar rules more effectively Additionally, the author provides insights into the origins of these errors and the extent to which learners' difficulties in English are influenced by their Vietnamese background.
Nguyen Thi Hanh Trang's thesis, “Mother-tongue interference in Vietnamese learners’ written English,” explores the significant impact of Vietnamese language interference in the written English of intermediate learners Despite frequent reminders about correctness, interference errors are common and systematic, highlighting the crucial role of mother tongue influence in foreign language acquisition The study categorizes errors into morphology, semantics, and syntax, revealing that vocabulary and sentence structure pose greater challenges for students, while morphological errors, despite being frequent, are less complex To mitigate these interference errors, Trang recommends that EFL writing teachers expose students to authentic writing, clearly explain the meanings and uses of new vocabulary and structures, and incorporate cultural context Additionally, employing comparative techniques and diverse reinforcement exercises is essential However, the study's limitation lies in its focus on word and sentence structures, suggesting the need for further research in this area.
A N OVER VIEW OF LEARNERS ’ ERRORS
Errors made by foreign language learners are often referred to by various terms such as "ill-formed," faulty, deviant, mismatched, incomplete, or erroneous forms, depending on the perspective of different authors According to Corder (1975, p 112), these errors can be classified in several ways, highlighting the complexity of understanding language acquisition challenges.
A language error is defined as a linguistic form that is either superficially deviant or inappropriate for the target language According to James (1998), it represents an unsuccessful attempt at language use He supports Lennon’s definition, which describes an error as a linguistic form or combination of forms that, under similar conditions, would likely not be produced by native speakers of the language These definitions highlight the nature of language errors in the context of language learning.
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) highlight that errors in language learning represent the imperfect aspects of learners' speech and writing, reflecting deviations from established linguistic norms Richards and colleagues also support this understanding of errors in language acquisition.
According to 1992, errors made by second or foreign language learners occur when they use language elements—such as words, grammatical structures, or speech acts—in ways that fluent or native speakers perceive as indicative of incomplete or faulty learning.
Several researchers support the perspective that an error occurs when a linguistic item is used in a manner that, according to native speakers, reflects inadequate or flawed learning.
An error in language use occurs when learners deviate from the speech patterns of educated native speakers in English-speaking countries (Liski and Puntanen, 1986) Essentially, it refers to the unsuccessful application of the target language in both spoken and written forms, highlighting the differences between learners and native speakers.
Recognizing errors in language is challenging, even for native speakers, as demonstrated by a study conducted by Hughes and Lascaratou (1982) In their research, thirty judges—including ten Greek English teachers, ten native-speaker teachers, and ten native-speaker non-teachers—evaluated thirty-six sentences, of which thirty-two were incorrect and four were correct Surprisingly, one correct sentence from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary was deemed erroneous by two Greek teachers, nine native-speaker teachers, and nine native-speaker non-teachers These findings highlight the importance of context and conditions in language production when identifying errors, as many forms considered erroneous may only appear so within the larger linguistic context (Lennon 1991, p.189).
In short, the researcher, based on the above discussion, decides to choose Lennon’s definition of error (1991, p.182) to be the foundation for the study:
In learners' speech and writing, certain linguistic forms or combinations may emerge that, under similar contexts and conditions, are unlikely to be used by native speakers.
The researcher aims to clearly identify errors by providing a definition that outlines both the learners' communication goals and the methods they use to achieve them According to Lennon, the intention behind meaning remains consistent within the same context, leaving linguistic form as the sole variable to consider (James, 1998, p.64).
A mistake occurs when learners fail to apply what they have learned, resulting in incorrect language use, while an error arises when learners attempt to use new language concepts and make mistakes in the process (Bartram and Walton, 1991).
James (1998) highlights that intentionality is key in defining errors, asserting that an error occurs only when there is no intention to commit one He suggests that learners should review their output to identify mistakes; if they cannot or do not wish to correct it, the form used is deemed intentional and classified as an error Thus, an error is an unintentional deviation that the author cannot self-correct, while a mistake may be intentional or unintentional and can be corrected Taylor (1986) supports James's view, stating that distinguishing between a slip and a genuine error relies on understanding the writer's semantic and structural intentions.
Edge (1993) categorizes mistakes into three types—slips, errors, and attempts—based on teachers' perspectives regarding a student's learning stage This approach contrasts with other authors, as Edge views errors as a specific type of mistake.
In comparison with the definition of mistakes discussed by James (1998) and Brown
(2000), slips, so-called by Edge, may be understood as mistakes as in self-corrigibility
Errors cannot be self-corrected by learners, as they represent a deeper understanding of mistakes A learner's attempt can vary over time; what may be considered an attempt today could be labeled an error next month and a slip the following year.
Corder (1967, 1971) differentiates between errors and mistakes, linking errors to competence failures and mistakes to performance failures, as per Chomsky's distinction He emphasizes the importance of recognizing that errors reflect a speaker's knowledge, while mistakes arise from chance circumstances (Lennon, 1991) Similarly, Brown (2000) defines mistakes as performance errors resulting from random guesses or slips, indicating a failure to apply an unknown system correctly This perspective highlights that everyone, regardless of their language proficiency, makes mistakes in both their native and second languages.
"Lapses in speech are not indicative of a lack of competence; rather, they stem from temporary breakdowns or imperfections in the speech production process Furthermore, when these mistakes are highlighted, individuals often have the ability to self-correct them."
E RROR A NALYSIS THEORIES
2.4.1 Concepts for Error Analysis (EA)
Error Analysis (EA) in language learning involves utilizing learners' mistakes as a basis for understanding language acquisition Corder (1975) emphasizes that EA focuses on studying erroneous utterances made by groups of learners Similarly, James (1998) defines EA as the examination of the frequency, nature, causes, and effects of unsuccessful language use In contrast, Cook (1993) describes EA as a methodology for analyzing data rather than a theory of language acquisition.
(2000, p.218) gave a complete definition in the following way:
Learners inevitably make errors, and the observation, analysis, and classification of these mistakes can provide insights into the underlying systems at work within them This realization has sparked a significant increase in the study of learners' errors, a field known as error analysis.
EA serves as a valuable alternative to Contrastive Analysis (CA) in classroom research While CA is less effective at predicting challenges in syntax and early language learning stages (Brown, 1994, p.214), it remains useful for anticipating difficulties in second language acquisition (Richards, 1974, p.172).
EA, emphasizing “the significance of errors in learners’ interlanguage system” (Brown,
1994, p.204), may be carried out directly for pedagogic purposes (Ellis, 1995; and Richards et al., 1993)
Interlanguage, a term introduced by Selinker, describes a linguistic system that exists between a learner's native language and the target language (Brown, 1994) Nemser (1974) refers to it as the Approximate System, while Corder (1974) offers the term Idiosyncratic Dialect as another way to convey the same concept.
Error Analysis (EA) extends beyond the interface of mother tongue (L1) and foreign language (L2), addressing various sources of errors Unlike Contrastive Analysis (CA), which focuses solely on negative transfer from the native language, EA examines errors from all potential origins This broader perspective reveals that not all learner errors stem from their mother tongue, as learners often do not make the predicted errors outlined by CA Additionally, individuals from diverse linguistic backgrounds frequently encounter similar challenges while learning a single target language.
2.4.2 Key procedures for Error Analysis
Numerous linguistics researchers have developed their own models for Error Analysis (EA) procedures, but Corder's model from 1974 is the most frequently cited by other scholars in the field, including Ellis (1999), Brown (2000), and Richards et al (1992) Corder outlines five essential steps for conducting EA research: first, collecting a sample of learner language; second, identifying errors; third, describing those errors; fourth, explaining the errors; and finally, evaluating them.
Van Els et al (1994) expand on Corder's procedures for error analysis (EA) by incorporating an additional step focused on error correction Their six-step model includes: (1) selecting a language corpus, (2) identifying errors within the corpus, (3) classifying these errors, (4) providing explanations for the errors, (5) evaluating the errors, and (6) implementing strategies for error prevention and correction.
James (1998) presents a comprehensive model for error analysis (EA) that aligns with the steps outlined by Van Els et al (1984), but with a greater emphasis on detailed error description His categorization of errors into three distinct levels, as discussed in section 2.3.3.2, proves to be both practical and accessible, making it beneficial for various research studies, including the current one.
This study selects Corder's model of Error Analysis (EA) procedures due to its foundational significance and straightforward approach While all steps of the model are discussed, the final step of error evaluation is omitted due to time constraints and the study's scope The following sections will elaborate on the other steps involved in the model.
2.4.2.1 Collection of a sample of learner language
Sample collection is the initial step in comprehensive error analysis, where the selection and gathering of language samples are crucial According to Van Els et al (1984), determining the sample size, medium, and homogeneity based on learner characteristics such as age, development stage, and motivation is essential Corder (1974) highlights four key considerations for effective sample collection.
Firstly, it is necessary to identify the size of sample There are three broad types of EA according to the size of sample:
(1) A massive sample involves collecting several sample of language use from a large number of learners in order to compile a comprehensive list of errors, representative of the entire population
(2) A specific sample consists of one sample of language use collected from a limited number of learners
(3) An incidental sample involves only one sample of language use produced by a single learner
Collecting well-defined samples of lean language is crucial for accurately identifying the types of errors learners make and the conditions under which these errors occur Various factors can influence these errors, such as the difference in processing conditions that may lead to mistakes in speaking but not in writing.
The researcher determines the method for collecting samples of learner language, which can either represent natural, spontaneous usage or be elicited through specific techniques While natural samples are typically favored, the limited amount of spontaneous data produced by learners often leads to the necessity of elicited data The author distinguishes between two types of elicitation methods.
‘Clinical elicitation involves getting the information to produce data of any sort, for example, by means of a general interview or by asking learners to write a composition
Experimental methods involve the use of special instruments designed to elicit data containing the linguistics features which the researcher wishes to investigate.’
The identification of error elicitation is insufficient to determine the appropriate data collection instruments for research According to James (1998), there are three primary elicitation techniques: observational, experimental, and introspective Observational techniques focus on natural settings, while experimental techniques emphasize manipulation.
Observational techniques in the classroom include activities such as role play, information gap tasks, and simulations, often involving pairs or groups of learners Classroom observation, utilizing an observation sheet, is a key method in this approach In contrast, experimental techniques, employed by interventionists, involve giving learners specific tasks to elicit targeted language forms of interest to the Error Analyst These techniques encompass simple imitation, stimulus modification, and controlled elicitation, the latter of which includes cloze tests, dictations, and multiple-choice assessments Additionally, introspection techniques seek to understand the learner's cognitive processes through methods like learner diaries, questionnaires, and language judgment tests.
Observational techniques that focus on classroom activities are particularly effective for analyzing speaking errors In this study, the researcher opted to implement an experimental approach, utilizing a test to explore various categories of errors made by students at HCC and to identify potential causes behind these mistakes.
C ONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS (CA)
Contrastive Analysis, a key component of Error Analysis, aids in understanding the errors made by learners after they have been identified It involves a systematic comparison of specific linguistic features across two or more languages (Corder, 1981).
Contrastive Linguistics, often seen as a replacement for Contrastive Analysis, serves several key objectives: it offers insights into the similarities and differences between languages, helps explain and predict challenges in second language acquisition, and aids in the development of effective language teaching materials.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Contrastive Analysis emerged as the preferred approach for studying foreign and second language learning (James, 2001) Defined as a subdiscipline of linguistics, contrastive linguistics focuses on comparing two or more languages to identify their similarities and differences (Fisiak, 1981) Johansson and Hofland emphasized the significance of language comparison, highlighting its theoretical and applied aspects (Johansson & Hofland, 1994) Thus, studies can be purely theoretical or applied for specific purposes, with applied contrastive studies being referred to as Contrastive Analysis (CA), a term popularized by Benjamin Lee Whorf.
1941, or “Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis” (CAH) by Wardhaugh (1970), belong within the scope of applied linguistics
Contrastive Analysis (CA) highlights the significant role of the mother tongue (MT) in acquiring a second language (L2) across phonological, morphological, lexical, and syntactic levels It posits that the first language (L1) influences the learning of L2, viewing language as a collection of habits and learning as the formation of new ones, a perspective rooted in behaviorism As learners acquire a second language, they often transfer habits from their L1 to their L2 Positive transfer occurs when similar structures exist between the MT and the target language (TL), allowing learners to effectively apply their L1 habits in L2 Conversely, negative transfer arises when elements of the MT lack equivalents in the TL, leading to errors as inappropriate L1 habits interfere with L2 learning.
2.5.1 The strong version of contrastive analysis hypothesis
In the realm of second language acquisition, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) is divided into two versions, with the strong version positing that interference from a learner's native language is the primary barrier to learning a second language It suggests that the greater the disparity between the native and target languages, the more challenging the learning process becomes Furthermore, it asserts that these challenges can be systematically predicted through scientific analysis, and the findings from contrastive analysis serve as a valuable resource for developing teaching materials, planning courses, and enhancing classroom methodologies.
According to Oller (1972), the strength of the strong version of CAH is that it has validity as a device for predicting some of the errors a second language learner will make
2.5.2 The weak version of contrastive analysis hypothesis
Wardhaugh (1970) proposed a weak version of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) to address criticisms of its strong version, focusing on the explanatory power of observable errors rather than solely on predictive aspects This approach emphasizes the necessity of comparing language systems to identify potential learning difficulties, which must be validated through empirical data on learners' errors This evolution led to Error Analysis (EA), which employs an inductive approach to derive insights from actual learner errors, such as faulty translations and persistent foreign accents By relying on real data, EA is considered more descriptive and acceptable than CA, as it requires fewer assumptions about contrastive theory.
In this chapter, the researcher examines relevant literature on errors, error analysis, and contrastive analysis, identifying key procedures for her study This review establishes a foundational understanding for the subsequent chapters on error and contrastive analysis.
This section is dealing with the methodology which is used to carry out this research paper It starts with the description of the subjects
This study involves 136 first-year students from Hanoi Community College, comprising 40 males and 96 females aged 18 to 20, who have completed their Pre-intermediate level English course The participants are divided into two groups: 96 students from the Department of Accounting, including 47 in Accounting (KT1) and 49 in Business Management (QT1), and 40 students from the Department of Construction (XD2) Despite being from different departments, all students share a similar cultural and linguistic background, with Vietnamese as their first language They have undergone formal English education for three to six years prior to college and have completed one year of General English (GE) study, totaling 150 classroom hours across two semesters, which has equipped them with a pre-intermediate level of English proficiency.
Students at HCC hail from various provinces in Vietnam, with differing educational backgrounds; those from urban areas typically exhibit stronger academic performance compared to their rural counterparts A small number of students from remote regions entered college without any prior English education, having instead studied French or Russian To maintain consistency in background knowledge, these students are excluded from the target group.
During the study, students focused on various subjects related to their specialties, such as Accounting, Business Management, and Construction Notably, students in Accounting and Business Management are often perceived to have stronger English skills and higher motivation compared to their counterparts in Construction.
METHODOLOGY
In the study, the subjects are test-takers They all show their interest in taking the test
The thesis is carried out with one research instrument That is test The test is used to investigate errors and explain the causes of these errors
The test chosen for this study is a Final Achievement test
3.2.1 Introduction to a Final Achievement Test in general
Final Achievement Tests, as defined by Hughes (1994), are conducted at the end of a course to evaluate the success of students and the effectiveness of the course in meeting its objectives These tests should be aligned with the course syllabus, with a preference for content based on specific course objectives to ensure accurate assessment of student achievement and to foster positive teaching outcomes This study incorporates a Final Achievement Test to analyze grammatical errors in students' writing, particularly those influenced by their mother tongue, and to propose more effective teaching strategies.
3.2.2 Description of the Final Achievement Test used in the study
The study focuses on the final term test from the academic year 2007-2008, administered after students completed their General Education (GE) program This test was selected for three key reasons: first, it aims to assist students in overcoming difficulties identified through error analysis; second, it provides insights into various types of errors linked to their foundational knowledge of the GE program; and third, it allows students to demonstrate how their mother tongue influences their second language (L2) learning when narrating events.
This achievement test aligns with the General Education course objectives at HCC, and the study will thoroughly examine its validity and reliability, as these factors are crucial in understanding potential errors made by students.
The test comprises two sections: multiple-choice questions and an essay However, this study focuses solely on L1-related writing errors in the essay portion, as outlined by the researcher in the first chapter Test specifications are derived from college documents, and a specific prompt is provided to the participants.
One of the most memorable experiences in my life occurred during a family vacation to the mountains, where we embarked on a challenging hike that tested our limits and brought us closer together The breathtaking scenery, filled with towering trees and vibrant wildflowers, set the stage for an adventure that would become etched in my memory As we navigated the rugged terrain, we encountered unexpected obstacles, including a sudden rainstorm that forced us to seek shelter under a large rock formation, igniting laughter and camaraderie among us This event not only highlighted the importance of resilience and teamwork but also deepened my appreciation for nature and family bonds Reflecting on this unforgettable journey, I realize how it shaped my perspective on overcoming challenges and cherishing moments spent with loved ones.
In this assessment, students must craft a narrative that demonstrates their grasp of grammatical concepts, including verb tenses, nouns, articles, and prepositions Furthermore, they are expected to employ proper sentence structure, utilize subordinate clauses and conjunctions, and apply correct punctuation throughout their writing.
3.2.3 Data collection procedures of the test
The procedures of collecting data from the test in this study were carried out in accordance with the key procedures for error analysis discussed in chapter 2, section 2.4.2
The tests were administered to each class, with supervisors ensuring that students completed the exams diligently A total of 136 final term GE test papers were collected immediately after the exams To facilitate scoring, the original papers were copied, and the copies were handed over to the English teachers responsible for marking.
The researcher thoroughly reviewed the test papers before submitting them to two experienced colleagues at HCC for evaluation Out of 136 test papers, 5 were excluded due to being completely blank, 3 were deemed too short for analysis, and 4 were not completed according to the required topic Consequently, these papers were considered invalid for the study Ultimately, only 124 test papers were deemed suitable for analysis.
42 from 21-KT1, 46 from 21-QT1 and 36 from 21-XD2
Errors in the test papers were identified and then classified into different error sub- categories by the two raters individually These errors were then analyzes for possible causes
Coding is the process of assigning codes to groups of data collected with an aim to simplify and standardize the data for analytical purposes (Hughes, B and Tight, M
Coding is essential for research success, as the coding process significantly impacts data analysis and ultimately shapes our conclusions.
Coding framework of data collected in this study is coding 21-KT1: from 1-42; 21-QT1: 43-88; 21-XD2: 89-124).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
D ATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the errors found in the test papers Discussion on these data is given accordingly
4.1.1 Analysis and discussion on the errors from the test papers
This study's error analysis follows the key procedures outlined in Chapter 2, Section 2.4.2 A sample of learners' errors is presented in Section 3.2.2 The subsequent sub-sections address the identification, description, and explanation of these errors.
Each rater independently identified errors in students' test papers after receiving training from the researcher To facilitate this process, the researcher developed a comprehensive guide for error analysis along with a score sheet detailing various error types and their corresponding symbols For instance, verb errors were marked with the number 1, while noun errors were denoted by the number 2 Utilizing the completed score sheets, the researcher calculated error rates as percentages and averages, also noting the number of students making errors in each class.
Errors were identified by consulting reliable and validated sources, specifically "A University Grammar of English" by Quirk and Greenbaum (1976) and "English Grammar in Use" by Murphy (1994).
In the final-term examination, 124 test papers were analyzed, revealing a positive correlation between the ratings of two raters The total number of errors identified by both raters was similar across categories, with only three discrepancies in their ratings After discussion among the raters and the researcher, a consensus was reached, concluding that a total of 1,376 errors were found in the study.
4.1.1.2 Description and discussion on the six most frequent categories of errors
The classification of errors was based on the framework discussed in section 2.3.1.3 of Chapter 2, identifying three types of errors as categorized by James (1998) Detailed classifications are provided in Appendix 2, while the table below presents the results of the error analysis from the test papers, highlighting the frequency and types of errors made by students in their final term test.
Error categories Error frequency Error rate (%)
Table 4.1 Total number of errors from the test papers
Error rate = number of errors of each categories / total number of errors of all categories x 100%
From the table, lexical errors and misspelling errors occurred in the test frequent with
The study identified a total of 149 errors, with 42 classified specifically as grammar-related Among the errors found in the test papers, many involved both spelling and grammar or grammar and lexical issues However, this research focuses exclusively on grammar errors, as outlined in the study's objectives.
The frequency of errors indicates how often mistakes occur in test papers To calculate the error rate, divide the number of errors in a specific category by the total number of errors across all categories, then multiply the result by 100 to express it as a percentage For instance, the error rate for verbs can be determined using this formula: (number of verb errors / total errors) x 100.
Where: P = error rate f = the number of errors per category
N = total number of errors of all categories
P re po si ti on s
Su bj ec t O m is si o n S- V a gr ee m en t
M is sp el li ng
C on ju n ct io ns
The analysis of student errors reveals that verb errors account for 31.0% of the total mistakes, followed by preposition errors at 13.4%, lexical errors at 10.8%, noun errors at 9.1%, article errors at 7.4%, subject omission errors at 7.0%, and subject-verb agreement errors at 6.5% These seven categories represent the most common types of errors Given the study's time constraints, the researcher has chosen to focus on six typical grammar error categories, excluding lexical errors, and provides examples for each category, followed by a detailed discussion and explanation.
The highest error rates in this study occurred within the error category of verbs, with
In the final term test, students made 426 errors, representing 31.0% of total mistakes, indicating that English verbs posed a significant learning challenge The study identified various types of verb-related errors, including morphology errors, verb omissions, and verb additions Additionally, it examined errors involving modal verbs, the use of infinitives versus gerunds, and tense discrepancies.
Morphology errors, particularly the omission of the past tense "-ed" ending, are the most common mistakes observed The frequency of these errors varies between perfect and passive constructions Such omissions often lead to incomplete sentence structures, resulting in unclear communication.
- My sister had to be *operate (√operated)
- When all of the work was *finish …(√finished)
- My parents adopted a 7 year old child *name Ly (√named)
- His dog is *name Lucky (√named)
- I was *accept to enter the college (√ accepted)
Omission of verbs: verbs are misused in form of passive or predicate
- They *always beside me and talk with me (√are)
- We walked around the place until all of us *tired (√were)
- It *very interesting to talk with him (√is)
Addition of verb: verb “to be” is used where it is not applicable
- I *am feel hopeful about the good future (√feel)
- My friend was *be and amateur photographer (√was)
- We *are ate fruit, cakes, sweets and chatted (√ate)
- The journey *was started at 5.30 (√started)
- I *was failed in the examination (√failed)
Errors in the use of tenses
Common errors in GE writing often stem from verb usage, particularly with the simple past tense, which is essential for narrative writing Many students tend to use various tenses incorrectly instead of the required simple past tense to describe past events Here are some examples of these frequent errors.
- When I was at high school, I *have moved from Chiem Hoa district to Tuyen Quang province with my family (√moved)
- He pulled his door back to his garden and *lock it up (√locked)
- When I was a girl, I *like to travel with my family (√liked)
- Last summer, I *have got a holiday in Sam Son (√had)
- The day before my first day to school, I *feel very worried and *excitement (√felt, excited)
Vietnamese learners of English often struggle with using the correct verb forms, particularly confusing the simple form of a verb with instances that require an infinitive This common mistake can hinder effective communication and understanding in English.
- My dreams were *study in a university (√to study)
- I didn’t want *go out (√to go)
Errors in the use of prepositions in this study had the 2 nd highest error incidence with
185 errors or a13.4% occurrence (see Table 3.1 – Appendix 2) The errors involved omitted prepositions, using wrong prepositions, or adding unnecessary prepositions
- We climbed* a mountain and did some sightseeing (√climbed up)
- I got on the bus and sat down next to a school boy *about my age (√at about my age)
- *The afternoon, we went out, some people went fishing, the others cut flowers, caught butterflies and birds (In the afternoon)
- I was having *for dinner with my family, suddenly the telephone rang (√dinner)
- We were excited at the beginning to *at the end (√the end)
- I phone *with my girl friend (√my girl friend)
- Everyone always understood *for me (√me)
- She isn’t a normal toy and *with me, she is my close friend (√for me)
- *In 25th July, our class organized a journey *at Khoang Xanh – Suoi Tien (√
- *In the day when I got the result of the examination, I didn’t even believe in my eyes (√On the day)
- Everything became strange *for me (√to me)
The researcher identified 125 noun usage errors, representing over 9.1% of all errors in the test papers (refer to Table 3.1 – Appendix 2) This category ranked fourth in the study's error frequency The predominant issue was morphological errors related to plural forms, specifically the use of –s.
Singular nouns should be used with numerals and quantifiers, while the plural -s is often omitted inappropriately Many students make this mistake when using countable nouns to describe events, forgetting to add the necessary plural -s.
- I stayed in hospital with him all *day in this summer (√days)
- They were the biggest *competitor we had ever seen (√competitors)
- Moreover, my friends sang a Happy birthday song, then played some *game
- We only stayed in Nha Trang for 3 *day (√days)
Plural –s follows an uncountable noun or quantifier “one”
- The *winds blew lightly (√wind)
- I was one *years older than her (√year)
- After that, we left the beach and went to the most famous restaurant and had some special *foods (√food)
Errors in the use of articles are prevalent in English, frequently appearing in test papers This category ranks fifth in error incidence, accounting for 102 errors, or 7.4% of the total (refer to Table 3.1 – Appendix 2) The most common mistake is the omission of articles, which students often make.
- And then we went to some caves The light in *ỉ caves vacillated, my younger sister joked together and nobody wanted to go out of *ỉ caves (√ the caves)
- We got our luggage from *ỉ car and booked the room We decided to stay at *ỉ hotel whole day and night (√ the car, the hotel)
- My My is only *ỉ close friend *with *me and I never want to change that (√a close friend)
- And then all of us relaxed on *ỉ large detached stone and had lunch (a large detached stone)
Addition of articles is another type of errors in the use of articles Definite and indefinite articles were added where they were not applicable For example:
- The next morning I got up early and had *a breakfast Then my mother took me to school (√breakfast)
- The cart’s design was *a somewhere between the horse carts in Dalat of Vietnam and the cow carts in Japan (√somewhere)
- I liked becoming a famous singer but my father wanted me to become a nurse He thought that a nurse could help everybody, especially *the poor children (√poor children)
M AJOR FINDINGS
4.2.1 Major findings on the most frequent grammatical errors
A study analyzing 124 students from three different specialties identified a total of 1,376 grammatical errors, excluding lexical and misspelling errors The findings revealed that verb errors were the most prevalent, constituting 31.0% of the total errors with 426 instances Preposition errors followed at 13.4% (185 errors), while noun errors accounted for 9.1% (126 errors) Additionally, article usage errors comprised 7.4% (102 errors), subject omission errors represented 7.0% (96 errors), and subject-verb agreement errors made up 6.5% (89 errors) These six categories emerged as the most frequent grammatical errors in the test papers.
English learners frequently make more grammatical errors than lexical ones, a trend observed in our students as well This study's findings emphasize the importance of addressing grammatical points alongside vocabulary in language instruction Additionally, it highlights the significant influence of the mother tongue on students' errors.
Interlingual and trantralingual transfer is no doubt to have the greatest effect on error- making
The disparity between English and Vietnamese significantly impacts interlingual transfer, leading students at HCC, like their peers in Vietnam, to frequently incorporate English words into Vietnamese in search of equivalents This practice often results in unconscious errors.
The study identified a total of 1,185 grammatical errors, with 761 (64.19%) attributed to the influence of the Vietnamese language, significantly surpassing the 424 errors (35.81%) caused by interlingual transfer Among the errors resulting from mother tongue interference, verb errors were the most prevalent, accounting for 300 instances or 25.31%, which is more than double the number of the second most common errors, those related to prepositions Understanding the causes of these L1-related errors can assist students in avoiding their recurrence.
Many intralingual errors stem from overgeneralization, incomplete rule application, and a lack of understanding of rule restrictions To overcome these challenges, consistent practice and repetitive exercises are essential.
S UGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER TEACHING STRATEGIES
The study highlights the effectiveness of using Error Analysis (EA) and Contrastive Analysis (CA) as pedagogical techniques to identify and understand the errors made by L2 learners It allows teachers to isolate common error categories, providing valuable insights for HCC educators to tailor their instruction accordingly The research reveals that many errors among HCC students stem from the influence of Vietnamese language rules on their English writing To address these challenges, the researcher recommends strategies such as identifying students' learning difficulties, minimizing the negative impact of their mother tongue, addressing L1-influenced errors, encouraging English usage, and enhancing EFL writing instruction.
4.3.1 Teachers’ identifying students’ learning difficulties
This study identified several errors linked to L1 transfer, highlighting the complex role a writer's first language plays in L2 acquisition Under pressure, learners often rely on their native language to convey and synthesize meaning, which can complicate their English writing process Despite being capable of expressing their ideas clearly, the adult students in this study faced challenges due to language transfer, underscoring the significant impact of L1 on writing in English.
Identifying learning difficulties is crucial for helping students master English, particularly in addressing language interference between Vietnamese (L1) and English English teachers should highlight these differences to minimize writing errors, especially with verbs, which are the most common source of mistakes Educators must focus on explaining grammatical rules and facilitating comparisons between verb tenses in both languages Activities that involve grouping and categorizing words can aid this mental comparison, allowing students to connect new linguistic items with their existing knowledge As Ellis (1997) noted, learners can only incorporate new rules into their inter-language system by understanding how they differ from their current representations.
Research on language transfer issues between Vietnamese and English has identified six key categories of grammatical errors: verbs, prepositions, nouns, articles, subject omission, and subject-verb agreement Understanding these errors can enhance teachers' instructional methods by providing a basis for comparison between the two languages The significant differences in grammatical structures between Vietnamese and English pose challenges for students learning English, but these contrasts also offer teachers valuable opportunities to effectively teach English grammar through comparative analysis.
4.3.2 Reducing the negative effects of the mother tongue
Students often experience negative transfer of their first language (L1) rules to the target language due to the strong influence of their mother tongue and insufficient proficiency in the new language This interference is exacerbated by a classroom environment where both teachers and peers share the same L1 background While it is impossible to completely eliminate language interference, there are effective strategies to reduce its impact.
To effectively teach students the English language, it is essential to immerse them in authentic materials that showcase various text types, enabling them to learn vocabulary and sentence structures in context Teachers should utilize models of good writing and clarify new vocabulary or sentence structures, highlighting differences between the target language and the students' native language to prevent potential interference.
There is a widely held belief that in order to be good writers, students need to read a lot
In "Techniques in Teaching Writing," Raims (1983) emphasizes that reading is essential for learners of English, especially when they have limited opportunities to practice speaking or listening Increased reading exposure helps students become familiar with vocabulary, idioms, sentence structures, and the cultural nuances of native speakers, ultimately enhancing their language proficiency.
Secondly, if they want to be good writers, students need to write a lot Apart from their
To enhance students' writing skills in English, it is essential for them to engage in journal exchanges with teachers, fostering a new habit of thinking directly in English This practice helps students move away from the outdated method of drafting in Vietnamese and translating into English, which often leads to word-for-word translations and interference errors Therefore, teachers should refrain from using translation as a teaching method in writing classes to promote more effective learning.
Teachers should foster a natural language learning environment in the classroom by maximizing the use of English, allowing learners to engage with the target language authentically According to the interactionists' hypothesis (Lightbown and Spada, 1993), providing opportunities for conversation compels learners to express and clarify their thoughts, leading to mutual understanding This negotiation of meaning not only enhances fluency but also aids in the acquisition of language forms, words, and grammatical structures, ultimately promoting accuracy in language use.
In short, reading, writing, speaking and listening to the target language a lot may prevent the learners from being strongly influenced by the mother tongue
Despite students' efforts to minimize the impact of their mother tongue, interference errors in second language acquisition are inevitable These errors are not indicative of failure; instead, they highlight the learners' evolving interlanguage systems and the inappropriate transfer of first language rules to the second language (Lightbown and Spada, 1993) Consequently, addressing and correcting these interference errors effectively is a significant concern.
Research on interference error correction remains limited, with little distinction made between errors stemming from L1 interference and those that are independent Effective error correction should prioritize supporting learners rather than criticizing them, emphasizing the importance of constructive feedback (Edge, 1989) Furthermore, the process of error treatment is nuanced and requires careful handling, as highlighted by Lightbown and Spada.
Excessive error correction can significantly harm student motivation, as noted by research (1993, p.115) While teachers often aim to help students through corrections, their good intentions can inadvertently discourage learning Students generally appreciate feedback, but many feel disheartened when they receive heavily marked papers Consequently, it's common for students to focus solely on grades and disregard the feedback altogether Therefore, teachers should approach error correction with care, employing effective strategies to address interference errors.
To effectively correct errors in language learning, it is crucial for students to understand their L1 interference Teachers should analyze the origins of these interference errors by clearly explaining the differences in morphology, semantics, or syntax between L1 and L2, depending on the specific issue By adopting a comparative technique between L1 and L2, students can become more aware of their mistakes, leading to improved writing with fewer recurring errors However, it is important to recognize that changing ingrained habits takes time, and corrections may need to be repeated multiple times for lasting improvement.
When correcting student errors, teachers should focus on specific issues to avoid overwhelming learners Highlighting common persistent errors or significant mistakes that hinder communication is essential Teachers can mark interference errors by cycling or underlining them and noting "L1" in the margin While morphological errors are important, greater emphasis should be placed on semantic and syntactic errors Addressing morphological mistakes, such as missing plural or tense markers, can be done through brief explanations and practice For more complex issues related to word choice and sentence structure, careful analysis and targeted written exercises are necessary As Fries (1993) notes, consistent practice with varied content is crucial for making language patterns automatic.
Effective error correction requires learner involvement in assessing correctness, as increased participation enhances their accuracy in language use (Edge, 1989) Lightbown and Spada (1993) emphasize that second language learners can offer each other valuable corrective feedback during carefully planned group interactions Consequently, peer correction emerges as a beneficial method, fostering cooperation and helping students recognize their mistakes Although Vietnamese learners may initially find peer correction unfamiliar, as they traditionally rely on teacher feedback, it should be gradually integrated alongside teacher correction This can be achieved through whole-class discussions where common errors from students' writing are highlighted, promoting understanding and a positive attitude towards mistakes Ultimately, peer correction not only reduces errors, particularly morphological ones, but also allows teachers to focus on more significant issues, encouraging students to express themselves with greater accuracy.
4.3.4 Encouraging students to use English