Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Students Writing

19

Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Students Writing - indicators for curricula enhancement Patricia Murrow

Abstract
Analysis of errors in students original writing revealed significant shortfalls in grammatical ability in key areas even though the students are capable of demonstrating competence in routine textbook style exercises. There was a clear relationship between the topic chosen and the number and range of errors. The results suggest that while more grammatical instruction is required, the structures may be more successfully taught by use of specific context in writing classes. Various strategies for improving the students ability to communicate effectively are proposed. Keywords; grammatical errors, communication, discourse, internalization, context

1. Introduction Any teacher of English as a second language is ultimately faced with a dichotomy between knowledge and performance, especially if they teach courses with a major component of written expression. A class of English language learners can perform adequately in routine grammatical exercises, but then fail signally to translate this demonstrated knowledge into reality when faced with the task of writing original prose. The purpose of this paper is to present a numerical analysis of grammatical errors in students writing as a means of identifying those aspects of English grammar that do not translate well from routine testing of grammatical knowledge to original work. The results provide some insight into shortfalls in the capabilities of students and,

more importantly, identify ways to redress them. 2. Background All languages have structure. Strings of words have little or no meaning unless they are ordered in a way recognizable to the listener or reader. Although some researchers, for example Celce-Murcia (1996), argue against teaching grammar at the sentence level, the sentence is a fundamental building block of English prose. It is the simplest recognizable and useable element of written communication. As such, students must learn the function of each element of a sentence and the appropriate order(s) for these components. This, then, is the basis of grammatical instruction. However, explicit grammatical instruction has fallen somewhat out of favor. Hillocks and Smith (1991), Elley (1991), Krachen (1993), Weaver (1995), zbek (1995) and Celce-Murcia (1996) all present strong arguments against teaching grammar as a separate entity. The

17 2

20

Patricia Murrow

quotation researchers.

below

typifies

the

opinion

of

many

when it is taught. Grammar is seldom autonomous or context free (Celce-Murcia, 1996). The issues of grammar instruction, explicit versus contextual, are discussed in the light of the findings of this study in the discussion and conclusions sections. 3. Analytical Material

Research over a period of nearly 90 years has consistently shown that the teaching of school grammar has little or no effect on students. Hillocks and Smith (1991). There may be some benefit in de-emphasizing formal grammatical instruction for native speakers and replacing it with, for example, intensive reading and writing programs (Elley, 1991; Krachen, 1993). The solution for second language learners however will not be the same. Few non -native speakers will have sufficient exposure to written and spoken English to be able to internalize the English language code by acquisition alone. learning Basic knowledge must be available before tool. Therefore basic grammar and assimilation of implicit information becomes a viable

The materials used for analysis were 54 written exercises from fourth year Technical English students at Matsue National College of Technology. As part of their assessment, the students were asked to write ten lines or more on the topic: These days, Japanese students have no dreams; do you agree or disagree? The topic was chosen because it seemed likely that most students would have a strong opinion on the matter, and it was unlikely to favor any group over another. The work was done under exam conditions, but the students were allowed to use dictionaries. The work produced by the students was thoughtful, creative and well structured. The written work completed in class and for homework during the semester had focused on structure and logical progression of thoughts and ideas. The students had worked on the process of producing a reasoned argument by using brain storming, tabulation of ideas, and formalized paragraph structures. In this respect, most students demonstrated that real progress had been made. exercise. 4. Methodology After correction, grading, and feedback to students, copies of the students work were retained for use in this study. Each essay was analyzed for errors and the errors recorded. Nevertheless, the level of grammatical error was not encouraging, and so prompted this research

grammatical constructs must be taught. The dilemma is how to effectively provide minimal but explicit grammatical instruction. As outlined in later sections, students with five years of formal instruction in English as a second language are frustrated in their efforts to create meaningful discourse by their lack of skills. This is not because they have not been taught, nor because they have not learned. The success of the teaching and learning process is demonstrated by their ability to perform adequately in tests of grammatical knowledge. Nevertheless, this knowledge seems largely ineffective when the students write. An extreme view from Braddock et al (1963) is that teaching of grammar seldom improves writing, and may even be detrimental. A more useable approach was that discussed by zbek (1995), that although grammar is the first prerequisite for effective writing, students are unable to make use of the grammar they know in composition courses. This arises because they are taught grammar in isolation, and do not have the opportunity to apply it in actual discourse. The root cause, therefore, may well not be that grammar is taught, but how and

40

Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Students Writing

21

Category Verbs Missing Tense

Subcategories Singular/plural Incorrect positive form Incorrect negative form Gerunds, infinitive, participles

Nouns

missing

singular/plural

inappropriate choice

Conjunction s Articles Pronouns Prepositions Parts of speech

missing

misplaced

inappropriate choice

missing missing missing noun-verb

superfluous superfluous superfluous noun-adjective

incorrect choice incorrect choice incorrect choice adjective-adverb

Table 1: Categories and Sub-Categories of Grammatical Errors


Figure 1 Frequency of Grammatical Error by Type

Development of a consistent methodology created some challenges. The wide range of error types and the The categories chosen, complexity of some errors created problems in how to categorize and subdivide them. as summarized in Table 1, may seem somewhat arbitrary, but were judged to best reflect the most common types of errors, and also to cover the main syntactic components of sentences and paragraphs.

Error Type
Verbs

Parts of Speech

Articles

Pronouns

Nouns

Prepositions

A secondary difficulty was in choosing how and where to record errors. For example, the clause they has never dreaming was assigned to the negative verb form category as a single error, although a case might be made for assigning two or even three errors to this phrase or, arguably, assigning the problem clause to a completely different category. In general, error(s) were recorded on the basis of presumed primary cause. In the example above, the problem arose from the students inability to assign the correct verb form, presumably they never have dreams or they never dream.

Conjunctions 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Frequency

5. Results The results show errors relating to use of verbs far outweighed any other category (Fig. 1). Confusion between parts of speech, for example adjectives used as adverbs, was the next most common error. The other errors were more or less evenly distributed between the remaining categories. The breakdown of verb related errors into subcategories (Fig. 2) shows that negative verb forms caused the most

17 2

22

Patricia Murrow

difficulty. Failure to include verbs was also a problem, suggesting that basic sentence structure was not well understood. In the missing verb sub-category the most common error related to parts of the verb to be. Tense caused relatively few problems, perhaps because the topic lent itself to extensive use of the simple present tense and so created few challenges.

negative statement, Japanese students have no dreams and the extension do you agree or disagree called upon the students to either refute the statement or to demonstrate, by example that the statement was, in their opinion, true. From either stance, the students response called for the use of negative forms. The topic inherently lent itself to exposing poor ability in this grammatical construct. This is perhaps ironic, in that the students sought to express themselves on an issue

Figure 2 Verb Error Frequency by Type

about which they held strong and even conflicting opinions. This led them to combine elements of considerable complexity within sentences, and served to

Error Type
Negative Form

demonstrate their relatively low levels of syntactic


Missing Verb

competence. In this respect, a different topic might have thrown a different grammatical construct into prominence. For example, the topic Describe your bedroom, would have required a spatial description and thus thrown prepositions of place or juxtaposition into prominence. Alternatively, My Life Story or How to Cook Rice
0 10 20 30 40 50

Positive Form

Plural/Singular

Collocation

Tense

Frequency

would have highlighted competence in time and sequence structures, and present versus past verb tenses. Equally, an alternative methodology for categorizing errors by type may have given different results. Nevertheless, the results are instructive, as they quantify the extent of the problems faced by students who demonstrate little resistance to communicating, but are continually frustrated by their incapacity to do so. The recognition that the topic played a significant role in the error distribution is perhaps the best indication of a way forward. Many students were unable to construct meaningful negative verb forms although the ideas they wanted to express required them to do so. Therefore they were not equipped to tackle the task. This indicates that

6. Discussion The preponderance of verb-related errors in the students work used for this analysis is unexpectedly high. However, the results must be considered with care. Identification of errors is straightforward and un-ambiguous: categorization of the errors is not. As discussed in the methodology section, it must be recognized that there is a degree of subjectivity in deciding the category/sub-category to which an error is assigned. The decision to assign errors contained within a specific phrase or clause to single rather than multiple categories may also have skewed the analytical results towards verb errors, since verbs are the motive force of clauses. Despite these strictures, it is clear that verb forms present a major difficulty for students. The data show (Fig. 2) that negative verb forms were the most difficult in this exercise. The topic itself played a role in this. The

additional grammatical instruction at some level is required. It could be presumed that they would be able to correct sentences in language manipulation tasks as might occur during grammar instruction. Therefore the
40

Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Students Writing

23

problem must relate to the need for internalization of information as language code, rather than as skills for arcane or academic purposes. The students cannot relate the grammatical knowledge they undoubtedly possess to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the individual to task based language. Herein lies the dilemma: students cannot improve their writing skills without the ability to recognize the essential components of prose in English and the ways in which they are used. Tsai-Yu Chen (1995) quoted earlier work which stated that students who had been explicitly taught target structures performed better overall than those who had received implicit instruction. He also quotes Mclaughlin and McLeod (1983) complex skills are learned and routinized only after earlier use of controlled processes. However, if formalized explicit grammar instruction is not carried over into communicative reality, the effort is wasted. The comparative dearth of specific grammatical

equally skeptical about communication based language teaching, Tsai-Yu Chen is nevertheless aware of the limitations of grammar instruction in isolation and the importance of context. He suggests that EGI has its place in the communication based learning environment, because without such instruction students are unable to communicate beyond the limitations of their acquired linguistic competence. He favors complementing EGI with a function or task based syllabus. Such an approach would enhance the opportunities of the students whose work forms the basis of this paper to acquire real grammatical skills with practical and immediate application. The current syllabus has a high component of task-based communication activity. However, the grammatical instruction that the students have received has been general, and was not specifically related to their immediate writing tasks. zbek favours an integrated teaching model in which students must apply structures they are taught to real situations what she describes as grammar lessons at textual discourse level. She argues that if students have a meaningful context to apply grammar structure, their motivation improves because they can make immediate use of what they have been taught. Celce-Murcia (1996) takes an even stronger stance in proposing that we must: analyze virtually all of English grammar at the discourse level in order to be able to teach our students rules of grammar that will serve them when they read and write English for academic or communication purposes. It may be possible to take this approach further and relate EGI to process. In writing about conjunctions, Her Basturkmen (2002) discussed the results of teaching conjunctions rather than lexical cohesion. arguments predicate upon the idea that if cohesion is the objective, use of conjunctions falls naturally in context. Her paper also cites results suggesting that students who

instruction for native speakers in the Western education system has no corollary here, due to the way in which an individuals mother language is acquired. Appropriate forms and patterns are assimilated through language immersion, and, significantly, by contextual correction. Extensive reading across a variety of genres is also an important tool in learning to recognize what is appropriate for standard written English. However, for students learning English as a second language, neither immersion nor extensive reading is likely to be a viable option. We now return to the issue alluded to in Section 2 of this paper. The issue is not perhaps so much one of whether grammar should or should not be taught, but when and how it is taught. It seems clear that context can be a key to learning and applying grammatical rules. Explicit grammatical information must be contextualized to be effective. Communication activities must play an important role in language practice where the rules of use are presented in discourse contexts, Tsai-Yu Chen (1995). A strong proponent of explicit grammar instruction (EGI) and
17 2

24

Patricia Murrow

are taught conjunctions in isolation tend to overuse and overcomplicate their application. Native speakers by comparison, use conjunctions sparingly and use a relatively limited range of devices to achieve coherence. In this study, the process is one of achieving cohesion; the use of conjunctions is one of the means by which this is achieved. As described in Section 3, the students had received process-based instruction for presenting a logical progression of ideas. This proved quite successful, as most students grasped the concept of structure and gained confidence within the constraints of that structure. Therefore the relationship of grammar to task might be successfully extended to process.

There is a body of opinion in the literature which discounts grammar as a teaching tool. Their justification, borne out in part by the results of this study, is that grammatical knowledge is not carried over to discourse and communication. Other researchers favor grammatical instruction in context, rather than in isolation because they recognize the limitations of explicit grammatical instruction when it is not related to task based communication activities. The results of this study, and their application to the findings of other researchers, suggest ways to enhance and improve the current curricula for students in writing classes. Specifically:

It will take time to develop suitable methods for using process to enhance grammatical competence. situation. topics The methods will then have to be tested in a classroom However context is also significant and matching grammar instruction to writing assignment may be quite easily introduced through modification of the existing syllabus. The indications are that selecting writing tasks that require students to use a particular grammatical form or structure and preparing them to use it, should improve syntactic, and hence communicative, competence. 7. Conclusions

Use the data on errors to develop a coherent program to enhance grammatical skills in the problem areas. Revise contexts. Provide class time to revise the grammar that the students already know, but always with the opportunity to utilize the rules for communication. the task schedule to provide

opportunities to practice the structures in real

Analysis of the students work demonstrated a wide range of grammatical errors. The results highlighted a preponderance of errors related to verb usage. negative verb forms. and provide insight into areas requiring special attention in the classroom. Of more significance, however, is the observation that the errors seemed to relate specifically to the context as controlled by the actual topic. The students were unable to write freely about this topic because they had insufficient useable grammatical knowledge to do so. The most common form of error was use of incorrect The error results are interesting

Explore means for translating problematic grammatical rules into means of achieving an outcome so that process becomes the determinant of use in discourse.

40

Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Students Writing

25

References Basturkmen, H., 2002. Clause relations and macro

58. http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol33/no3/p58.htm

patterns: cohesion, coherence and the writing of advanced ESOL students. January 2002, pp.50-56 Braddock,R., Lloyd-Jones, R. and Schoer, L. 1963. Research in written composition. Urbana, Il.: NCTE, Quoted in C. Weaver, L. Gillmeister-Krause and G. Vento-Zogby, Creating Support for Effective Literacy Education. s Celce-Murcia, M., 1996. Describing and Teaching English Grammar with Reference to Written Discourse. In Functional Approaches to Written Text, Section V. http://exchanges.state.gov.education.engteaching/pubs Elley, W.B.,1991. Acquiring Literacy in a Second Language: the effect of book-based programs. In. Language Learning, 41(3), pp. 375-411. Hillocks, G. Jr., and Smith, M.W. 1991. Grammar and Usage. In J. Flood, D. Lapp & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp.591-603). New York: Macmillan. Krachen, S.D.,1993. The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Cited in C. Weaver, L. Gillmeister-Krause and G. Vento-Zogby, Creating Support for Effective Literacy Education, BoyntonCook, /courses/3360/readings Mclaughlin, B. and McLeod, B., 1983. language perspective. learning: An information Second processing 1996. See also http://www.tamuccc.edu/~gblalock BoyntonCook, 1996. See also http://www.tamuccc.edu/~gblalock/courses/3360/reading English Teaching Forum,

Nurdan zbek, 1995. Integrating Grammar into Teaching Paragraph-Level Composition. Forum, Vol. 33, No. 1, p. 43. http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol33/no1/p43.htm Tsai-Yu Chen, 1995. In Search of an Effective

Grammar Teaching Model. Forum, Vol. 33, No. 3, p. 58. http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol33/no3/p58.htm Weaver, C., Gillmeister-Krause, L and G. Vento-Zogby, Creating Support for Effective Literacy Education. BoyntonCook, s 2004 11 5 1996. See also http://www.tamuccc.edu/~gblalock/courses/3360/reading

Language Learning, 33, pp.135-138.

Quoted in, In Search of an Effective Grammar Teaching Model. Tsai-Yu Chen, 1995. Forum, Vol. 33, No. 3, p.
17 2

26

Patricia Murrow

40

Potrebbero piacerti anche