Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Study of EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai
Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Takwa Bosuwon, Ph.D.
This research is supported by grant from
University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, 2013
iii
ชอเรอง การศกษาความตระหนกและความทนของอาจารยผสอนภาษาองกฤษ
เปนภาษาตางประเทศตอขอผดพลาดทางไวยากรณ ในงานเขยนของ
นกศกษาไทยระดบปรญญาตร
ผแตง อาจารย ดร. ตกวา โบวสวรรณ
คณะมนษยศาสตร มหาวทยาลยหอการคาไทย
ปทแลวเสรจ 2556
จ ำนวนหนำ 80
Keywords: EFL writing error, syntactic error, error awareness, error tolerance,
error treatment
บทคดยอ
การวจยนมวตถประสงคเพอส ารวจความตระหนกและความทนของอาจารยผสอนภาษาองกฤษเปนภาษาตางประเทศตอขอผดพลาดทางไวยากรณ ในงานเขยนของนกศกษาไทยระดบปรญญาตร โดยใชแบบสอบถามจ านวน 20 หนา ส าหรบขอผดพลาดทางไวยากรณ 19 ชนด จากประสบการณการสอนของผท าวจยเองและจากผลงานวจยตางๆ ผลการวจย (ไมรวม miscellaneous errors) มดงนคอ พบความถของขอผดพลาด 16 ชนด อยในระดบกลาง (41-60%) 2 ชนด พบบอย (61-80%) ไดแก article และ verb tense ขอผดพลาดทพบมาก 5 อนดบแรกไดแกarticle, verb tense, run-on sentence, fragment และ subject-verb agreement ตามล าดบขอผดพลาดทอาจารยคดวามอทธพลมาจากภาษาแมเกอบ 50% หรอมากกวา ไดแก word order, fragment, run-on sentence, over-marking of conjunction และ singular or plural form สวนขอผดพลาดในกลม intralingual พบวามสาเหตมาจาก incomplete application of rules and ignorance of rule restrictions มากกวาสาเหตอนๆ สวนในเรองความทนตอขอผดพลาดพบวาอาจารยแกไขขอผดพลาด 17 ชนดทนทหรอเรวทสดเทาทท าได มเพยง 1 ชนด ไดแก preposition ทแกไขเมอจบบทเรยน นอกจากนนยงพบวาไมมความสมพนธระหวางความถของขอผดพลาดทพบกบความทนตอขอผดพลาด ยกเวนกบ article (insertion) และ subject-object pronoun และพบวาไมมความสมพนธระหวางชนดของขอผดลาด (global/local) กบความทน ยกเวนกบ verb tense (sequence) และ modal verb
ii
Title: A Study on EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai
Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Author: Takwa Bosuwon, Ph. D.
School of Humanities, University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce
Year: 2013
Pages: 80
Keywords: EFL writing error, syntactic error, error awareness, error tolerance, error
treatment
Abstract
This survey study investigated non-native EFL teachers’ awareness and
tolerance of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing errors. The instrument for collecting
data in the study was a twenty-page English-version questionnaire based on the written
errors by the nineteen types of Thai students’ directly experienced by the researcher and
revealed by other research. Excluding miscellaneous errors, the results show that 16
errors were moderately found (41-60%) and 2 errors were close to most frequently
found (61-80%). They were article: and verb tense. Top-five frequently found errors
included article, verb tense, run-on sentence, fragment, and subject-verb agreement
respectively. Five errors with percentages of L1 interference close to 50% or higher
were word order, fragment, run-on sentence, over-marking of conjunction, and singular
or plural form. Among all given intralingual causes, incomplete application of rules and
ignorance of rule restrictions received higher percentages than others. Regarding
teachers’ tolerance of 18 errors, all except one error (preposition) were to be corrected
immediately, or as soon as possible. There were no correlation between error frequency
and error tolerance except from article (insertion) and subject-object pronoun. There
were also no correlation between error type (global or local) and error tolerance except
from verb tense (sequence) and modal verb.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to those who made it possible
for me to complete this research. I gratefully acknowledge University of the Thai Chamber of
Commerce for their grant support. I am deeply indebted to the three readers, whose
constructive comments and suggestions always helped me to improve academically. My most
sincere thanks go to all EFL instructors participating in the research. I am grateful to Dr.
Thanisaya Jiriyasin, my commentator, for her constructive criticism, comments, and
encouragements. My gratitude is also extended to all of the experts and colleagues for their
generous guidance.
Most of all, “Alhamdulillah”-- all praise belongs to GOD for the success I have
achieved.
v
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract in English……………………………………………………………………ii
Abstract in Thai………………………………………………………………………iii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………..iv
Contents ………………………………………………………………………….......v
List of tables ……………………………………………………………………. …viii
List of figures………………………………………………………………………..viii
Chapter I Introduction ………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Background of the study and statement of the problems ………………..1
1.2 Research questions ………………………………………………….........3
1.3 Objectives of the study …………………………………………………...3
1.4 Statement of hypotheses ……………………………………………...….4
1.5 Scope of the study ……………………………………………............ .. .4
1.6 Definitions of terms ……………………………………………………...4
1.7 Significance of the study ………………………………………………...6
1.8 An overview of the study ………………………………………………..5
Chapter II Literature Review …………………………………………………………7
2.1 Definitions of errors ……………………………………………….....…..7
2.2 Overview of error theories and second/foreign language acquisition…….8
2.2.1 Contrastive analysis ……………………………………............8
2.2.2 Error analysis ……………………………..................................8
2.2.3 Interlanguage Theory ………………………………………......9
2.3 Models of error analysis …………………………………………………10
2.3.1 Corder’s model ……...................................................................10
2.3.2 The five-stage model …………………………………………..11
2.3.3 The six-stage model …………………………………………...11
2.4 Classification of errors ……………………………………………..........12
2.5 Error correction and error tolerance in language teaching ………………14
2.6 Related studies …………………………………………………………..19
2.7 Chapter summary………………………………………………...............22
vi
Chapter III Research Methodology …………………………………………………23
3.1 Population and sample …………………………………………………..23
3.2 Research instrument ……………………………………………………..23
3.3 Data collection …………………………………………………………..24
3.4 Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………24
3.6 Chapter summary…………………………………………………….......25
Chapter IV Results ……………………………………………………………….....26
4.1 Results of the study ……………..............................................................26
4.1.1 EFL teachers’ awareness of students’ errors………………....26
4.1.1.1 Order of frequently found errors …………………….26
4.1.1.2 Most frequently found errors ………………………..27
4.1.1.3 Error types …………………………………………...28
4.1.1.4 Possible causes of frequently found errors…………...29
4.1.2 EFL teachers’ tolerance of students’ errors………………......32
4.1.2.1 Order of error tolerance ……………………………...32
4.1.2.2 Least tolerant errors ………………………………….33
4.1.2.3 Correlation of error frequency and error tolerance…..33
4.1.2.4 Correlation of error type and error tolerance…………34
4.2 Chapter summary ……………………………………………………….35
Chapter V Conclusion, Discussion, and Recommendation ………………………...37
5.1 Summary of the study …………………………………………………...38
5.2 Discussion ……………………………………………………………….40
5.2.1 EFL teachers’ awareness of students’ errors …………………40
5.2.1.1 Frequently found and most frequently found errors …40
5.2.1.2 Error types …………………………………………...41
5.2.1.3 Possible causes of frequently found errors ………….42
5.2.2 EFL teachers’ tolerance of students’ errors…………………..43
5.2.2.1 Order of error tolerance and least tolerant errors ……43
5.2.2.2. Correlation of error frequency and error tolerance….45
5.2.2.3 Correlation of error type and error tolerance ………..45
5.3 Pedagogical implications ………………………………………………...46
vii
5.4 Recommendations for future research …………………………………...46
References …………………………………………………………………...………48
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………….54
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: Examples of errors and error types………………………………………..16
Table 2.2: Ubol’s (1981) research findings…………………………………………...19
Table 4.1: Order of frequently found errors…………………………………………..27
Table 4.2: Error types of frequently found errors……………………………………..28
Table 4.3: Percentages of six possible causes of each error (%)………………………29
Table 4.4: Order of error tolerance…………………………………………………….32
Table 4.5: Correlation matrix of error frequency (article) and error tolerance………..34
Table 4.6: Correlation matrix of error frequency (pronoun) and error tolerance……...34
Table 4.7: Correlation matrix of error type (verb tense) and error tolerance………….35
Table 4.8: Correlation matrix of error type (modal verb) and error tolerance…………35
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: Criterion to decide what errors should be corrected (Pengpanich, 2005)…17
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study and statement of the problem
Writing is an important communication skill in today’s information society.
Since English has become an international language, Thai undergraduate students’
English writing ability has become essential for their ongoing successful academic
studies and social lives. However, English writing has been a difficult skill to acquire
for Thai students. One reason is that they rarely write in English in their daily lives
resulting in insufficient practice with purposeful English writing. Only the relatively
few who have foreign friends in Thailand or abroad have more opportunities for
meaningful English writing practice. Moreover, the differences between Thai and
English grammatical structures, different manner of expressing thoughts and other
factors might affect their English writing. Consequently, errors in the writing process
are not infrequent. Fortunately, errors are no longer always viewed negatively.
Since the late 1960s (Corder, 1967), errors have been viewed positively as a
natural and vital part of language acquisition. Errors are no longer considered signs of
deficiency in language competence. They instead help reflect the students’ progress in
learning. This positive attitude played a much more important role in language teaching
and learning with the emergence of a Communicative Approach in 1990s.
Although errors are viewed positively, errors, especially of adult learners,
should be corrected. Based on literature concerning correction of second language
errors, “It appears that correcting spoken and written errors produced by adults will
facilitate their communicative and linguistic proficiency in a foreign language more so
than if their errors remain uncorrected,’ (Hendrickson, 1983). Furthermore, if a student
does not know when an error is made, either by himself or someone else, he/she cannot
really learn (Allwright, 1975). This is because “Error correction helps the students
learn the exact environment in which to apply rules and discover the precise semantic
range of lexical items,” (Krachen and Seliger, 1975: 181). To conclude, it is suggested
that adult learners should be aware of their own errors and errors must be corrected.
The problem is raised; however, concerning how to distinguish between major
errors that should be corrected first and minor errors that may be temporarily tolerated.
2
Allwright (1975) claims that error correction by teachers is so imprecise and
inconsistent that it is often difficult for students to distinguish their major from minor
errors. Moreover, for teachers to correct all errors creates a serious work overload.
According to Corder (1974), when errors are analyzed systematically, it is possible for
teachers to determine areas that need reinforcement, meaning, it is necessary to make an
analysis of errors in order to correct them effectively.
Error Analysis (EA) was proposed by Corder in 1967. It is a systematic
comparison between the language learners’ language, called interlanguage by Corder,
and the target language of the learner (Corder, 1973: 275). It identifies, describes, and
explains errors either in their spoken or written form (Lu, 2010). Error Analysis yields
both theoretical and applied benefits (Corder, 1974; Richards et al, 1992; Ellis and
Barkhuizen, 2005, etc.). The theoretical benefit is that a researcher can discover the
language learning process as well as the psycholinguistic process of language learning.
The applied benefit is that the analyzing of errors enables the student to learn more
efficiently because the teacher knows the precise level of the learner’s knowledge and
what the student needs to learn.
Based on all of the above, an analysis of Thai EFL students’ errors, especially at
the tertiary level, is crucial for the effective EFL teaching-learning process. It is;
however, quite difficult, costly, time-consuming, and probably impossible to conduct a
collaborative error analysis of English-major undergraduates’ free writing compositions
between campuses throughout Thailand. It was then proposed instead to study non-
native English speaking EFL teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai undergraduate
students’ syntactic writing errors. Of all errors, syntactic errors are of primary
importance because the ineffectiveness of a sentence can inhibit understanding and
clarity (Marina and Snuviskiene, 2005: 275). These errors also hinder the writing
accuracy required by business sectors following employment.
The results of the study indirectly illustrated common areas of EFL students’
language difficulties. This provided fundamental insights and implications for
administering any particular error-analysis case studies with Thai EFL students. In
addition, discussion of frequencies of errors found and teachers’ error tolerance enabled
EFL writing teachers to develop a rough error correction hierarchy, organize a more
effective remedial teaching program, and construct useful lesson plans. Moreover, in
3
terms of teachers’ error tolerance, the results of the study reflected the adoption of error
theories by EFL teachers in Thai universities, and to what extent. Last, but not least, it
provided insights and /or implications for EFL course organizers and paved the way for
further research concerning EFL writing and related fields.
1.2 Research questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent are EFL teachers aware of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic
writing errors?
1.1 What is the order of frequently found errors?
1.2 What are most frequently found errors?
1.3 Are these errors considered ‘global’ or ‘local’?
1.4 What are their thoughts on possible causes of the errors?
2. To what extent do EFL teachers tolerate Thai undergraduates’ syntactic
writing errors?
2.1 What is the order of error tolerance?
2.2 What are least tolerant errors?
2.3 Is there any statistical correlation between error frequency and error
tolerance?
2.4 Is there any statistical correlation between error type (global or local)
and error tolerance?
1.3 Objectives of the study
The objectives included:
1. To investigate EFL teachers’ awareness of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic
writing errors
1.1 To find the order of frequently found errors
1.2 To find the most frequently found errors
1.3 To find if the errors are global or local
1.4 To find possible causes of the errors
2. To investigate EFL teachers’ tolerance of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic
writing errors
4
2.1 To find the order of error tolerance
2.2 To find the least tolerant errors
2.3 To find if there is any statistical correlation between error frequency and
error tolerance
2.4 To find if there is any statistical correlation between error type (global or
local) and error tolerance
1.4 Statement of hypotheses
The hypotheses of this study are as follows:
1. EFL teachers’ awareness of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing errors
includes frequently found errors, error types (global or local) and possible
causes of errors.
2. Degree of EFL teachers’ tolerance of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing
errors depends on various factors such as error frequency, error types (global
or local), and possible causes of errors.
1.5 Scope of the study
This study investigated sixty-nine full-time non-native English teachers’
awareness and tolerance of syntactic errors by Thai EFL undergraduate writers. These
English instructors were working for the Faculty/School of Arts, Liberal Arts, or
Humanities of seven public and three private universities in Thailand.
1.6 Definition of terms
Definitions of terms in the study include the following:
1. Syntactic writing errors refers to grammatical errors, not mistakes in any
free compositions by English-major Thai undergraduates. These were overt
errors, which were ungrammatical at the sentence level.
2. EFL teachers refers to full-time Thai instructors teaching English for
English-major undergraduates of the Faculty/School of Arts, Liberal Arts, or
Humanities of Thai universities. They were teaching or had taught English
writing courses or at least an English course having some writing tasks.
They had had at least one-year teaching experience.
5
3. Awareness (of error) refers to acknowledgement of sentence-level syntactic
English writing errors: frequently found errors, error types (global or local),
and possible causes of errors. Degree of error frequency was classified into 5
levels based on their experience in encountering each error.
(least frequently found)
Level 2: 21-40%
Level 3: 41-60%
Level 4: 61-80%
Level 5: 81-100% (most frequently found)
4. Tolerance (of errors) refers to judgment as to what extent errors should be
overlooked. Degree of error tolerance was classified into 5 levels based on
the immediacy in giving correction feedback. (any types of correction
feedback)
Level 1: 0-20% tolerance (immediate correction or as soon as possible)
Level 2: 21-40% tolerance (correction at the end of the lesson/unit)
Level 3: 41-60% tolerance (correction in the middle of the semester)
Level 4: 61-80% tolerance (correction at the end of the semester)
Level 5: 81-100% tolerance (no correction at all)
1.7 Significance of the study
This survey study provided fundamental insights and implications for
administering any error-analysis case study with Thai EFL students by reflecting
common areas of syntactic difficulties in Thai undergraduate students’ writing and their
critical level. Moreover, it enabled EFL instructors in Thailand to create a rough error
correction hierarchy, organize a more effective remedial teaching program, and
construct useful lesson plans. Furthermore, the study revealed teachers’ judgments on
error types (global or local), possible causes of errors, and how they treat them in
general—to correct or to tolerate. This reflected whether or not EFL teachers in Thai
universities had adopted any error theories when dealing with students’ errors, and to
what extent. Last but not least, it provided implications for EFL course organizers and
paved the way for further research concerning EFL writing and related fields.
1.8 An overview of the study
6
This chapter presents the background of the study and statement of the
problem in the field of EFL writing. Research questions, objectives of the study, and
hypotheses to address the problems are introduced. The scope of the study, definition
of terms, and significance of the study are also described and explained. Chapter 2
reviews the literature related to definitions of errors, error theories and second/foreign
language acquisition, models for error analysis, classification of errors, error correction
and error tolerance in language teaching, and related studies. Chapter 3 elaborates on
research methodology consisting of 2 phases: (1) construction of a survey questionnaire
and (2) investigation of EFL teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai undergraduate
students’ writing errors. Chapter 4 reports the findings of the study in accordance with
the research questions. Chapter 5 presents the discussion and conclusion of the study. It
starts with a summary of the study.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to investigate EFL teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai
undergraduate students’ syntactic writing errors, it is necessary to explore the literature
in terms of definitions of errors, overview of error theories for second/foreign language
acquisition (SLA), models for error analysis, classification of errors, error correction
and error tolerance in language teaching as well as related studies.
2.1 Definitions of errors
Errors refer to the use of linguistic items in a way that is unacceptable to native
speakers because of inappropriate use or incomplete learning (Klassen, 1991: 74).
Beginning in the 1990s, errors were considered a vital part of the learning process. They
are systematic and different from mistakes.
Since analysis of error sources is a central aspect in the study of learners’ errors,
they must be distinguished from mistakes or lapses. Errors are caused by failures in
competence, whereas mistakes are caused by failures in performance (Corder, 1967;
Brown, 1987). Errors are not only systematic but also likely to occur repeatedly without
learners’ recognition (Gass and Selinker, 1994). They are caused by the lack of
language competence, reflecting gaps in the learner’s knowledge (Corder, 1971: 152;
Brown, 1987; Ellis, 1997). Unlike errors, mistakes are unsystematic and of no
pedagogical significance because they can be self-corrected, while errors cannot
(Corder 1967, 1971; Ellis, 1997). Mistakes result from occasional memory lapses,
physical states, and psychological conditions (Corder, 1967: 166). Simply put, when a
learner makes a mistake, it is when he/she is unable to perform what he or she knows
(Ellis (1997).
Since errors are a significant and inevitable aspect as students move toward the
acquisition of teaching and learning knowledge, this study focused on students’ written
compositions errors, not their writing mistakes. The questionnaire used in this study
was administered to EFL writing teachers. These informants were advised that mistakes
were excluded from the study.
8
2.2 Overview of error theories and second/foreign language acquisition
In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), Contrastive Analysis (CA),
Error Analysis and Interlanguage Theory have been influential approaches dealing with
L2 students’ language errors.
2.2.1 Contrastive Analysis
The basic assumption of CA is that L2 would be affected by L1 (Jie, 2008). This
means it views errors simply as a result of L1 interference. This approach; however,
cannot explain other error factors. Much research such as by Dulay and Burt (1973)
support the fact that interference from L1 is not the sole source of L2 learning
problems. This caused CA to become an unproductive pedagogical tool.
2.2.2 Error Analysis
Since the late 1960s when cognitive psychology influenced the theory of
language acquisition, errors have been viewed positively as a vital part of learning (Lu,
2010: 74). It was Corder who first argued for the significance of learners’ errors and
Error Analysis (EA), which has emerged in the field of second language acquisition,
showing the shift from CA to EA. EA is “the study and analysis of the errors made by
second language learners” (Richards et al, 1998: 160). Error Analysis has two
functions: a theoretical and a practical (Corder, 1981: 45). Based on its theoretical
aspect, Error Analysis is part of the methodology of investigating the language learning
process. From its practical aspect, Error Analysis guides the remedial action. For
example, it tells the teacher how far towards the goal the learners have progressed and
what remains for them to learn (Corder, 1973: 257). It tells the teacher how effective
the teaching method and materials are, what the difficulties in the curriculum are and
how to plan the lessons and supplementary materials (Corder, 1973:265). Moreover, it
tells if the results of the contrastive analysis is correct or not (Corder, 1973:265). The
notion of EA is defined as “the study of linguistic ignorance, the investigation of what
people do not know and how they attempt to cope with their ignorance” (James, 2001:
62).
9
Even though EA is significant in SLA in many aspects as mentioned above,
many important weaknesses of EA are also reported (Jie, 2008: 38-39). For example, no
robust error typology covering almost all error types was established in traditional EA.
This is because it was difficult to collect or access a large amount of data of learners’
language. Also, EA cannot effectively describe learners’ developmental stages. This is
because it examines learners’ errors at a single point in time and types and frequencies
of learners’ errors change in each acquisition phase. Moreover, it deals with only the
learners’ language production—speaking and writing, not their reception—listening and
reading. Furthermore, it ignores where students perform correctly, and it fails to
account for the strategy of avoidance.
2.2.3. Interlanguage Theory
Interlanguage (IL) is the term introduced by Selinker (1972) when he admitted
that there is “the existence of a separate linguistic system …which results from a
learner’s attempted production of a target TL norm”. Other terms referring to language
learners’ language have been introduced earlier by different researchers such as
‘approximative system’ by Nemser (1971) and ‘idiosyncratic dialects’ by Corder
(1971). IL refers to the study of language learners’ language (Corder, 1981: 66), or the
third language that is systematic and rule-governed (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 2000).
It is a natural language system that can be described in terms of linguistic rules and
principles (Doughty and Long, 2003). It suggests the half way position between
knowing and not knowing the target language, which might be better understood as a
continuum between L1 and L2 in which the learners are moving toward the state of a
native speaker, but never reach it (James, 2001: 3, 7). Moreover, it may be viewed as an
adaptive strategy that learners use through developmental stages toward target language
proficiency. These strategies include simplification, reduction, overgeneralization,
transfer, formulaic language, omissions, substitutions, and restructurings (Selinker,
1972).
Since interlanguage realizes a complete shift of the focus from teaching
perspective to learning perspective in SLA, it has characterized a major approach to
second language research and theory. IL, however, is also the focus of several
important criticisms. For example, IL is mostly limited to morpheme and syntax, so it
fails to deal with semantic development (Ellis, 1982). Moreover, it fails to define the
10
concept clearly and to develop effective approaches to facilitate empirical studies (Jie,
2008: 40).
Based on the three error theories reviewed, it can be concluded that Error
Analysis (EA) and Interlanguage (IL) have yielded many benefits to the study of SLA,
more than Contrastive Analysis (CA). However, both EA and IL are not considered
perfect theories on their own. They still fail to answer several questions concerning
second language acquisition. Thus, the findings of the present study investigating EFL
teachers’ awareness and tolerance of their students’ errors are discussed based on Error
Analysis and Interlanguage Theory.
2.3 Models for error analysis
Below are the three models of error analysis: Corder’s model, the five-stage
model, and the six-stage model. The last two models were elaborated based on Corder’s
model.
2.3.1 Corder’s model
Corder’s (1967, 1974, 1981) model of error analysis includes three stages:
recognition of idiosyncrasy, accounting for idiosyncratic dialect, and explanation. The
first two stages are linguistic and the third is psycholinguistic.
1. Recognition of idiosyncracy (Identifying learner errors): One has to
identify idiosyncracy and produce a reconstructed sentence, identical
to that of a native speaker. Simply put, at the end of this stage, there
are two sentences which by definition have the same meaning. One is
the idiosyncratic sentence, the other a well-formed sentence or a
translation equivalent.
2. Accounting for idiosyncratic dialect (Describing learner errors): The
two languages are described in terms of a common set of categories
and relations.
3. Explanation (Explaining learner errors): This stage attempts to
explain how and why the learner’s idiosyncratic dialect is of the
nature it is.
11
Figure 2.1: Error Analysis procedures (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005)
Collect a sample. Identify grammatical errors. Record error
frequencies.
Explain errors. Repeat procedure with other
morphemes.
2.3.2 The five-stage model
Lu (2010: 75) summarizes the five-stage model of error analysis as follows:
1. Identify the errors.
2. Analyze and describe the errors based on a grammatical model.
3. Classify the errors according to categories or sub-categories.
4. Explain why the errors have been made.
5. Evaluate the errors to determine how much they deviate from the
target language norm, to what extent they affect communication and
which method of correction can be most effective.
2.3.3 The six-stage model
Li-qiu (2008: 26) summarizes the EA six-stage model based on the
multi-sources of errors as follows:
1. Select language samples. If written, they should be students’
homework.
2. Identify errors: Mistakes are to be excluded. Overt and covert errors
are identified.
3. Describe errors: Grammatical description is assigned to each error.
4. Explain errors: Errors are explained based on the psycholinguistic
cause of errors such as interlingual/transfer errors or
intralingual/developmental errors.
5. Evaluate errors: Errors are evaluated whether they are global or local
errors.
6. Treat errors: Errors are corrected or tolerated. This concerns when,
how and who to treat.
12
Above is a brief review of three models of error analysis. It can be concluded
that to analyze errors, the error must be clearly identified, fully described and
thoroughly categorized. Next, it can be explained and evaluated based on error theories.
This knowledge facilitated the construction of the questionnaire and discussion of the
findings.
2.4 Classification of errors
Errors in the taxonomy of Linguistic Category (one of four taxonomies
presented by Dulay et al, 1982: 146) are categorized according to the level of language,
namely phonology errors (pronunciation), lexical errors (vocabulary), morphological
errors (morphemes), syntactic errors (grammar), and discourse errors (style). Of these
errors, the present study was restricted to syntactic errors. Syntax is “the study of how
words combine to form sentences and the rules, which govern the formation of
sentences” (Richards et al, 1992: 370).
To analyze errors based on the EA approach, classification should be based on
psycholinguistic causes of errors, rather than level of language, in order to be able to
explain the errors. Below are examples of this way of error classification.
Richards (1971) proposes a three-way classification of errors, which includes
interference errors, intralingual errors, and developmental errors. The interference
errors are those caused by the influence of the learner’s mother tongue (L1). The
intralingual errors are those related to the structure of the target language (L2).
Intralingual errors are overgeneralization, incomplete applications of rules, and failure
to learn conditions for rule application. Developmental errors reflect the strategies that
the learners use with their false hypothesis about the target language based on limited
exposure to it. Since Richards (1971) focuses on the intralingual and developmental
errors, rather than interference errors, he also classifies them into four categories,
including overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restriction, incomplete application of
rules, and false concepts hypothesized.
Selinker (1972) classifies errors based on five different sources. They are
language transfer, transfer of learning, strategies of second language learning, strategies
of second language communication, and overgeneralization of target language linguistic
material.
13
Richards and Simpson (1974) report seven types of errors, which include (1)
language transfer, (2) intralingual interference (overgeneralization, ignorance of rule
restrictions, incomplete application of rules, and semantic errors such as building false
concepts or systems), (3) sociolinguistic situations, (4) modality of exposure to the
target language and modality of production, (5) age, (6) successions of approximative
systems, and (7) universal hierarchy of difficulty.
James (1998: 178) classifies errors into 3 categories, namely interlingual,
intralingual, and induced errors. Interlingual refers to L1 interference. Intralingual
errors are classified again into learning strategy-based errors and communication
strategy-based errors. Learning strategy-based errors include seven types of errors.
They are false analogy, misanalysis, incomplete rule application, exploiting
redundancy, overlooking co occurrence restrictions, hypercorrection, and
overgeneralization. Communication strategy-based errors include holistic strategies
(approximation, language switch, etc.) and analytic strategies such as circumlocution
(expressing the concept indirectly). Induced errors are caused by classroom situations.
These errors are material induced errors, teacher-talk induced errors, exercise-based
induced errors, errors induced by pedagogical priorities, and look-up errors.
Based on the review of classification of errors, EA errors are classified into
various types and in various ways according to psychological causes or sources of
errors. Of all classifications above, it can be concluded that the errors can be
categorized within two domains: interlingual and intralingual errors. Interlingual errors
are caused by L1 interference and intralingual errors are caused by the students’
strategies or efforts to learn the second or the foreign language.
Since the present study consisted of a survey, questions asking about possible
causes of errors were limited to those that the teachers could analyze based on linguistic
evidence. They included (1) mother tongue interference, (2) overgeneralization, (3)
incomplete application of rules, (4) false concept hypothesized, and (5) ignorance of
rule restrictions.
14
2.5 Error correction and error tolerance in language teaching
Based on error theories and the literature of error correction, errors are
considered part of the learning process. They are viewed positively throughout the
students’ language learning. This doesn’t mean that errors can be ignored. On the
contrary, appropriate error feedback is required. This helps students to make fewer
errors and produce a higher performance by realizing the errors and operating on them
according to the feedback given (Erdogan, 2005). Treatment of student errors thus plays
an important role toward students’ success in their writing. Following is error correction
and error tolerance based on Error Analysis and Interlanguage Theory.
2.5.1 Error correction and error tolerance based on Error Analysis (EA)
Below are distinctions of errors in error analysis. These distinctions help
the teacher to know what errors are more important than others and when to correct
them.
According to Corder (1973) a major distinction is made between “overt”
and “covert” errors. Overt errors are ungrammatical at the sentence level. Covert errors
are grammatically correct at the sentence level, but are not interpretable within the
context of communication.
Major Errors VS Minor Errors
Norrish (1983) classified errors into major and minor errors based on
accuracy. Major errors are those caused by the violation of major grammar rules
including all fundamental grammar rules. Minor errors are those caused by the violation
of minor grammar rules such as exceptions to grammar rules.
Global Errors VS Local Errors
On the basis of how errors affect the comprehensibility of whole
sentences, students’ second language errors are classified into two distinct categories:
global and local errors (Burt and Kiparsky, 1972). Global errors are those that cause a
listener or reader to misunderstand a message or to consider a sentence
incomprehensible. Local errors, by contrast, do not significantly hinder communication
of a sentence’s message. Global errors should be corrected first. It is claimed that the
correction of one global error in a sentence clarifies the intended message more than the
15
correction of several local errors in the same sentence. Local errors should only be
treated when their production in the foreign language begins to become relatively free
of communicative errors or when the students approach near native fluency.
Burt and Kiparsky’s global/local error distinction was modified by
Hendrickson in 1977. A global error is a communicative error that causes a proficient
speaker of a foreign language either to misinterpret a spoken or written message or to
consider the message incomprehensible within the total context of the error. On the
other hand, a local error is a linguistic error that makes a form or structure in a sentence
appear awkward but, nevertheless, causes a proficient speaker of a foreign language
little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence, given its
contextual framework.
Apart from major/minor and global/local distinctions as criterion for
determining the importance of errors, high frequency errors are considered to have top
priority (Bhatia, 1974; Allwright 1975). However, excessive correction of such errors
may frustrate students (George, 1972) and lower frequency of errors needs not
necessarily mean that they are less difficult (Duskova, 1969), since this perhaps reflects
the strategy of avoidance (Schachter, 1974).
Moreover, errors that might stigmatize the learner in the eyes and ears of
native speakers should also be corrected first (Sternglass, 1974; Corder, 1975, etc). To
deal with this type of errors, the teacher will have to use his/her own judgment about
correcting them (Corder, 1975) based on ‘common sense’, intuition, and knowledge of
their individual students (Birckbichler, 1977).
Hendrickson (1983) stated that even though much more research is
needed, three types of errors that can be quite useful to second language students are
errors that significantly impair communication, errors that have highly stigmatic effects
on the listener or reader, and errors that occur very frequently in students’ speech and
writing.
16
Table 2.1 presents examples of errors and error types from Pengpanich
(2005).
The sample erroneous sentence: Since the harvest was good was rain a lot last
year.
Clause 1 Clause 2
Since the harvest was good was rain a lot last year.
Table 2.1: Examples of errors and error types
Errors Error Type
1) Wrong place of ‘Since’ It must be in
the second clause, not the first one.
Global error: this error causes wrong
meaning of the whole sentence.
2) Omission of ‘it’ in front of ‘was rain’ Local error: This error has an effect within
a clause, not more than that.
3) ‘was rain’ must be ‘rained’ Local error: This error has an effect within
a clause, not more than that.
17
Figure 2.1: Criterion to decide what errors should be corrected (Pengpanich, 2005)
To conclude, important errors that should be corrected first based on error
analysis are major errors and global errors. Minor errors and local errors can be
tolerated and corrected later or even remain uncorrected. Moreover, other factors that
should be taken into consideration are error frequency and effect on the listener or
reader. However, the last two factors require the teacher’s judgment.
Since the present study dealt with the frequency of sentence-level syntactic
errors, those counted in the study were overt. Covert errors were excluded. The overt
errors were then classified into major-minor and global-local errors before their
description.
Criterion
to decide
what
errors
should be
corrected
Errors caused by
the violation of
sub-rules
(exceptions to
primary grammar
rules)
Violation
of
grammar
rules
Errors caused by
the violation of
primary grammar
rules
Minor
errors
Errors not
affecting the
meaning of the
whole sentence
Errors affecting the
meaning of the
whole sentence
Global
errors
Major
errors
Errors made by
most students
Effect on
reader’s,
or
listener’s
understanding
Local
errors
18
2.5.2 Error correction and error tolerance based on Interlanguage Theory
(IL)
Errors are considered natural signs of the learning process as an indication of
progress through the interlanguage system. This system contains three characteristics:
systematicity, permeability, and fossilization (Adjemian, 1976). Systematicity means
that interlanguage is systematic from the start like any natural language (Fauziati,
2003). It is rule-governed (Jie, 2008). Permeability is “the susceptibility of IL to
infiltration by first language and target language rules or forms” (Yip, 1995). These
rules are not fixed (Ellis, 1985). Fossilization is “the persistence of plateaus of non-
target like competence in the interlanguage” (Selinker, 1988). Based on Interlanguage
Theory, these errors should be treated pertinently (Huang, 2009) with an appropriate
corrective feedback. This is because excessive error correction may interfere with and
alter students’ thinking process and induce severe psychological frustration. On the
other hand, too much tolerance of students’ errors may increase a risk of fossilization,
resulting in non-progression of learning despite continuous exposure to input and
opportunity to practice (Jie, 2008). Furthermore, this fossilization is not confined to any
particular stage of the interlanguage system.
Based on Error Analysis and Interlanguage Theory, that is the errors found were
classified into major and minor errors as well as global and local errors. All the major
errors that are also global errors, which inhibit understanding, were considered very
important errors for correction. Minor errors that are also global errors were considered
moderately important, and the minor errors that were also local errors were considered
the least important errors. However, the degree of importance for the correction or
tolerance of each error also depends on other factors, such as the frequency of the errors
and effect on the reader/researcher. Moreover, the likelihood that highly frequent
local errors may become fossilized was considered and discussed. Where necessary,
they would also be treated. The present study discussed the findings, especially
frequencies of the errors found, and EFL teachers’ tolerance toward these errors based
on this view.
19
2.6 Related studies
Ubol (1981) analyzed errors of English compositions by Thai students. Four
objectives were (1) to find the common difficulties and errors in the written English of
Thai students, (2) to provide the teachers of English with a clear idea of a controlled or
guided approach in the teaching of free composition, (3) to enable university teachers to
have valuable feedback on their own teaching (what particular teaching methods are
most likely to prevent a student from making certain kinds of errors in written English),
and (4) to diagnose which common types of errors might have been prevented during
the first eight years of English study by a different teaching method. The subjects were
one hundred and fifty first-year students at Prince of Songkla University. About four
months after the free compositions (Text A) were collected, the students were asked to
translate a Thai language text into English (Text B). The same entire text was also given
to thirty English-major third-year students to translate into English (Text C). Errors
were classified under three main headings: grammatical or structural errors, lexical
errors, and errors of style. These three headings were broken down into twenty-four
categories. The findings were that a comparison of the percentages of errors between A
and B texts and B and C texts (calculated by Spearman rank-order correlation) shows
noteworthy differences as shown in Table 2.2 below:
Table 2.2: Ubol’s (1981) research findings
A% greater than B% B% greater than A%
1. Tenses
2. Agreement
3. Infinitives and
gerunds
5. Pronouns
7. Word order
2. determiners
11. prepositions
13. nouns
15. adjectives
B% greater than C% C% greater than B%
2. determiners
11. prepositions
17. spelling
18. punctuation
19. capitalization
1. tenses
3. agreement
4. pronouns
14. conjunctions
15. adjectives
20
24. miscellaneous 21. spoken forms
22. style
23. gaps
Explanations are:
(1) Since B group was translating, it was impossible for them to avoid problems
of lexical selections.
(2) The A group made more errors, which were primarily syntactic in nature,
owing to the freedom they enjoyed in lexical selection.
(3) The B group made slightly more total errors than the A group, owing to no
freedom in lexical selection.
(4) The C group made fewer errors than B group because they had the benefit of
more English teaching at the university level in precisely those areas, which would have
received the most teaching emphasis in writing and composition classes, and especially
in the mechanical aspects of writing.
(5)The C group made more errors than the B group in every primarily syntactic
area except determiners. This is because they were adventurous in the style of
composition and wrote more complex sentences.
(6) The greater number of gaps in the C texts is probably evidence that the third-
year students were more aware of what they did not know than the first-year students
were, and may also explain why they made fewer unclassifiable errors.
Wongsothorn (1983) studied language transfers from Thai to English caused by
linguistic, organizational, style, and field (topic, function) factors in three types of
discourse: explanatory, descriptive, and persuasive. The subjects were fifteen English
major students of Chulalongkorn University who translated Thai passages into English.
The findings were that (1) the students were more successful with explanatory discourse
than with descriptive or persuasive discourse. (2) The students tended to translate word-
by-word rather than by meaning.
21
Izzo (1999) surveyed 34 professors teaching English as a second language in
twenty Japanese universities to elicit information about common errors in students’
writing. The open-ended question asked the EFL writing professors to list the most
common errors made by their students. Forty different errors were reported and were
grouped into 18 categories. The most common problem category was sentence
development (fragments, basic mechanics, comma use, word order, clause without a
verb, word omission, clause structure, and sentence structure). Other high-frequency
categories included subject-verb and number agreement, paragraph development, use of
articles, and verbs (tense, active-passive voice, form, gerund with to) respectively. It
was discussed that major errors reported cannot be corrected by the EFL teaching
practices presently emphasized in the Japanese secondary education system. This is
because the teaching practices concentrate on preparing students for university entrance
examinations. Consequently, students are familiar with multiple-choice test, and lack
enough opportunities to write in English.
Camps and Salsbury (2008) conducted research at a Mexican bilingual
university to investigate university teachers’ tolerance of EFL students’ writing errors.
Teachers were categorized into 4 groups: non-native speakers of English (NNS)
teaching content courses in English, native speakers of English (NS) teaching content
courses in English, NNS teaching EFL courses, and NS teaching EFL courses.
Significant differences were found between EFL and content teachers’ tolerance for
errors in mechanics and content. That is, EFL teachers tend to focus more on linguistic
features rather than elements found in the content of the composition. However, all
participants found that both grammar and content are important to assess the quality of
the writing. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between NNS and NS in
all aspects investigated.
The studies by Ubol (1981) and Wongsothorn (1983) provided valuable insights
and implications for conducting the present study, especially in terms of what to ask in
the survey questionnaire and what common errors can be expected, and why. Izzo’s
(1999) survey implies that only open-ended questions seemed to cause a very low
response rate. The items in the questionnaire used in the present study were then based
on a five-point Likert scale and a checklist to replace the open-ended part of the
questionnaire. It was thought that this might encourage more responses. Camps and
Salsbury (2008) found that EFL teachers tend to focus more on linguistic features rather
22
than elements found in the content of the composition. This later helped discuss the
findings.
2.7 Chapter summary
The review of the literature has illustrated issues relating to definitions of errors,
error theories and second/foreign language acquisition, models for error analysis,
classification of errors, error correction and error tolerance in language teaching, and
related studies. Errors refer to the use of linguistic items in a way that is unacceptable to
native speakers. They are different from mistakes because they were caused by the lack
of language competence. The current study investigated awareness and tolerance of the
errors, not the mistakes. Overview of error theories provided information concerning
Error Analysis and Interlanguage Theory, two influential approaches dealing with L2
students’ language errors. The literature review of models for error analysis,
classification of errors, error correction and error tolerance facilitated the construction
of the questionnaire and discussion of the findings. The last topic covered related
studies giving guidelines for the present study.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This was a survey study with two phases: construction of a survey questionnaire
and investigation of EFL teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai undergraduate
students’ writing errors.
3.1 Population and sample
The population of this study comprised EFL teachers in Thai universities. The
study sample consisted of 69 full-time EFL teachers, 13 male and 56 female, of the
Faculty/School of Arts, Liberal Arts, or Humanities of seven public and three private
universities in Thailand. The teachers’ experience teaching English ranged from 1.5 to
37 years. The average teaching experience was 12 years. All of them had taught or were
at that time teaching an English writing course(s) or at least an English course having
some writing tasks. Since public universities are located throughout Thailand, seven
public universities were selected to represent all regions (Northern, Southern, North
Eastern, and Central).
3.2 Research instrument
The instrument for collecting data in the study was a twenty-page English-
version questionnaire based on the written errors by the nineteen types of Thai students’
directly experienced by the researcher and revealed by other research. It consisted of
three sections. The first section was about respondents’ personal data. The second
section consisted of four parts: A, B, C, and D. Parts A and C were five-point Likert
scales asking questions concerning error awareness and tolerance toward the nineteen
types of students’ errors. These errors included verb tense, article, subject-verb
agreement, infinitive or gerundive construction, causative verb, modal verb, verb to be,
active or passive voice, pronoun, singular or plural form, word order, negative
construction, preposition, part of speech, conjunction and connector, possessive and
attributive structure, fragment (incomplete structure), run-on sentence, and
miscellaneous errors. Part B and D were checklists to collect error types and possible
causes of the students’ errors. (See the questionnaire in Appendix.)
24
After three experts had reviewed its content validity, the questionnaire was
revised according to the experts’ comments. Then, the questionnaire was pilot-tested
with 11 English instructors in the Department of Business English of the University of
the Thai Chamber of Commerce. The reliability value of the questionnaire was 0.927
(Cronbach’s Alpha). This proved that the questionnaire possessed internal consistency
and was reliable for collection of data of the study.
3.3 Data collection
Request letters for permission to distribute questionnaires were sent to the Dean
of the Faculty/School of Arts, Liberal Arts, or Humanities of twenty-four Thai
universities in May 2012 (twelve public and twelve private universities). Of twenty-four
universities, fourteen of them granted the permission to distribute the questionnaires to
English teachers of their English Department. It required about thirty minutes to
complete the questionnaire.
Of the 200 questionnaires sent by hand and by post to each university, seventy-
six questionnaires (from 7 public universities and 3 private universities) were returned
to the researcher. After discarding all the incomplete questionnaires, data obtained from
sixty-nine questionnaires were ready for calculation, analysis, and interpretation.
3.4 Data analysis
To investigate EFL teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai undergraduate
students’ writing errors, data collected from five-point Likert scales and a checklists
asking about error types were analyzed by using descriptive statistics of SPSS for
Windows. Frequencies were shown as means and percentages. Data collected from the
other checklist asking about possible causes of the errors were calculated into
percentages based on tallies. Manual tallying was used because the participants could
select more than one cause for one error.
The correlations between error frequency and error tolerance, as well as between
error type (global or local) and error tolerance, were calculated by using
Nonparametric Correlations (Spearman’s rho).
25
3.5 Chapter summary
This research was conducted as a survey study based on a sample of sixty-nine
full-time EFL teachers of the Faculty/School of Arts, Liberal Arts, or Humanities of
seven public and three private universities in Thailand. The research process consisted
of 2 phases: (1) construction of a survey questionnaire and (2) investigation of EFL
teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai undergraduate students’ writing errors. The
instrument was a twenty-page English-version questionnaire based on the nineteen
types of written errors by the Thai students’ directly experienced by the researcher and
other research. All data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and Nonparametric
Correlations (Spearman’s rho).
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This Chapter presents the results from the second phase of the study: an
investigation of EFL teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai undergraduate students’
writing errors.
4.1 Results of the study
Results of the study came from the analysis of quantitative data obtained from
parts A, B, C, and D of the questionnaires. Parts A and C were in the form of a five-
point Likert scale. Questions were about error frequency and error tolerance
respectively. Parts B and D were in the form of checklists referring to error type and
possible causes of the errors respectively.
4.1.1 EFL teachers’ awareness of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing
errors
4.1.1.1 Order of frequently found errors
Based on Table 4.1, it was found that of the 18 error types
(Miscellaneous errors were excluded.) the top-five most frequently found included (1)
article: 4.06, (2) verb tense: 4.01, (3) run-on sentence: 3.97, (4) fragment: 3.93, and (5)
subject-verb agreement: 3.81. It was seen that the frequency of the top-five errors types
were not much different from the other 13 errors on the list. The two error types which
were at the 4th level (61-80%) were article and verb tense. They comprised only 11.11%
of all the errors. The other 16 errors were all at the 3rd level (41-60%). They represented
88.88% of all the errors. To conclude, the findings showed that none of the 18 errors
were least frequently found or close to least frequently found. Most of them (16 errors)
were moderately found and 2 errors were close to most frequently found.
27
Table 4.1: Order of frequently found errors
order Errors types
(overall picture of each
error)
Mean from 5
levels
Remark
Level 1: least frequently found
Level 5: most frequently
found
Level 1 = 0-20%
Level 2 = 21-40%
Level 3 = 41-60%
Level 4 = 61-80%
Level 5 = 81-100%
1 Article 4.06
2 Verb tense 4.01
3 Run-on sentence 3.97
4 Fragment 3.93
5 Subject-verb agreement 3.81
6 Infinitive or gerundive
construction
3.77
7 Singular or plural form 3.75
8 Part of speech 3.72
9 Preposition 3.71
10 Active/passive form 3.70
11 Modal verb 3.64
12 Causative verb 3.55
13 Word order 3.51
14 Conjunction 3.39
15 Verb Be 3.30
16 Possessive adjective and
attributive structure
3.12
17 Pronoun 3.07
18 Negative construction 3.00
4.1.1.2 Most frequently found errors
Based on Table 4.1, there were no most frequently found errors
(81-100%). The errors classified as the highest in the order received the 4th level of the
scale or represented 61-80%, including article and verb tense.
28
4.1.1.3 Error types of frequently found errors (global or local)
Table 4.2 shows that of the 18 errors, 15 errors were considered
local rather than global. The three errors with ‘global’ percentages, which were higher
than those considered as ‘local,’ included fragment: 65.2, 30.4, run-on sentence: 56.5,
42.0, and word order: 53.6, 42.0, respectively. The three errors with the highest ‘local’
percentages included preposition: 82.6, infinitive and gerundive construction: 79.7, and
singular or plural form: 79.7. There were two other errors that were considered local
rather than global, but the percentages between global and local were not much
different. The two errors were verb tense: 43.5, 53.6 and negative construction: 40.6,
58.0. The findings showed neither absolute global errors nor absolute local errors.
Table 4.2: Error types of frequently found errors
order Errors types
(overall picture of
each error)
Global
in percent
Local
in percent
Remark
Global error = an error
which results in a
misinterpreted or
incomprehensible message
for a native speaker.
Local error = an error which
results in an awkward
message for a native speaker,
but he/she has little or no
difficulty in understanding
the intended meaning of the
sentence.
1 Article 23.2 75.4
2 Verb tense 43.5 53.6
3 Run-on sentence 56.5 42.0
4 Fragment 65.2 30.4
5 Subject-verb
agreement
23.2 75.4
6 Infinitive or gerundive
construction
17.4 79.7
7 Singular or plural form 15.9 79.7
8 Part of speech 34.8 63.8
9 Preposition 15.9 82.6
10 Active/passive form 30.4 65.2
11 Modal verb 20.3 75.4
12 Causative verb 18.8 78.3
13 Word order 53.6 42.0
14 Conjunction 39.1 58.0
15 Verb Be 27.5 66.7
16 Possessive adjective
and attributive
24.6 72.5
29
structure
17 Pronoun 18.8 78.3
18 Negative construction 40.6 58.0
4.1.1.4 Possible causes of frequently found errors
Table 4.3 shows percentages of six possible causes of each error
given by sixty-nine EFL teachers. Number 1-6 in the table below refer to the following
causes.
1 = false concept hypothesized
2 = incomplete application of rules
3 = ignorance of rule restrictions
4 = interference of Thai language
5 = overgeneralization
6 = other causes
Table 4.3: Percentages of six possible causes of each error (%)
Error
categories
Error
subcategories
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. article 1.1 omission 15.94 43.48 37.68 23.19 5.80 2.90
1.2 insertion 18.84 31.88 39.13 5.80 21.74 2.90
1.3 wrong use of a,
an, the
24.64 24.64 13.04 10.14 11.59 4.35
2. verb tense 2.1 wrong tense
selected
20.29 31.88 31.88 24.64 4.35 2.90
2.2 wrong verb form 8.70 42.03 39.13 14.49 24.64 2.90
2.3 wrong tense
sequence
13.04 26.09 11.59 8.70 13.04 2.90
3. run-on
sentence
34.78 43.48 55.07 47.83 11.59 4.35
4. fragment 40.58 50.72 57.97 52.17 15.94 5.80
5. subject-verb
agreement
28.99 46.38 56.52 21.74 20.29 0
6. infinitive or 31.88 50.72 66.67 23.19 24.64 1.45
30
gerundive
construction
7. singular or
plural form
23.19 37.68 55.07 43.48 23.19 0
8.part of
speech
8.1 wrong selection
for a verb
33.33 33.33 31.88 11.59 8.70 2.90
8.2 wrong selection
for a noun
27.54 39.13 27.54 18.84 7.25 2.90
8.3 wrong selection
for an adj.
30.43 33.33 23.19 15.94 5.80 7.25
9. preposition 9.1 omission 17.39 43.48 26.09 31.88 1.45 4.35
9.2 insertion 20.29 30.43 31.88 28.99 21.74 4.35
9.3 wrong selection 20.29 39.13 28.99 15.94 5.80 2.90
10. active or
passive form
10.1 omission of be 14.49 28.99 33.33 21.74 1.45 2.90
10.2 use of have, has,
had
20.29 13.04 30.43 14.49 4.35 5.80
10.3 wrong voice 30.43 43.48 31.88 17.39 23.19 4.35
11. modal verb 30.43 43.48 63.77 17.39 28.99 2.90
12. causative
verb
34.78 47.83 52.17 17.39 27.54 2.90
13. word order 37.68 42.03 49.28 63.77 18.84 1.45
14. conjunction 14.1 wrong selection 34.78 37.68 30.43 18.84 7.25 5.80
14.2 over-marking of
conjunction
18.84 30.43 27.54 44.93 15.94 1.45
15. verb Be 15.1 omission 14.49 39.13 31.88 33.33 2.90 1.45
15.2 insertion 15.94 21.74 23.19 13.04 10.14 4.35
15.3 use of have, had 15.94 11.59 23.19 36.23 7.25 2.90
16. possessive
adjective and
attributive
structure
16.1 Omission of
apostrophe-s or a
possessive
adjective
18.84 37.68 31.88 18.84 7.25 1.45
16.2 wrong use of 24.64 33.33 37.68 5.80 2.90 4.35
31
apostrophe-s
16.3 use of there to
replace their
15.94 21.74 13.04 4.35 0 2.90
17. pronoun 17.1 subject-object
pronoun
21.74 43.48 30.43 10.14 10.14 4.35
17.2 relative pronoun 13.04 46.38 28.99 31.88 10.14 2.90
18. negative
construction
18.1 over-marking of
negative
construction
17.39 33.33 31.88 4.35 14.49 5.80
18.2 wrong auxiliary
verb
21.74 40.58 36.23 4.35 14.49 2.90
Based on Table 4.3, it was found that there were five errors with
percentages of L1 interference close to 50% or higher. They were (1) word order:
63.77% (2) fragment: 52.17%, (3) run-on sentence: 47.83%, (4) over-marking of
conjunction: 44.93%, and (5) singular or plural form: 43.48%. Among all given
intralingual causes, incomplete application of rules and ignorance of rule restrictions
received higher percentages than others. The errors with percentages of incomplete
application of rules higher than 40% included fragment: 50.72%, infinitive and
gerundive construction: 50.72%, causative verb: 47.83%, subject-verb agreement:
46.38%, relative pronoun: 46.38%, article (omission): 43.48%, run-on sentence:
43.48%, active or passive form (wrong voice): 43.48%, subject-object pronoun:
43.48%, verb tense (wrong verb form): 42.03%, word order: 42.03%, and negative
construction (wrong auxiliary verb): 40.58%. Seven of these errors with percentages
higher than ignorance of rule restrictions included relative pronoun (46.38: 28.99),
article (omission) (43.48: 37.68), preposition (omission) (43.48: 26.09), active or
passive form (wrong voice) (43.48: 31.88), subject-object pronoun (43.48: 30.43), verb
tense (wrong verb form) (42.03: 39.13), and negative construction (wrong auxiliary
verb) (40.58: 36.23). Of these seven errors, only the percentages of fragment and
infinitive and gerundive construction were higher than 50%.
32
There were eight errors with percentages of ignorance of rule
restrictions higher than 40%. They were infinitive and gerundive construction: 66.67%,
modal verb: 63.77%, fragment: 57.97%, subject-verb agreement: 56.52%, run-on
sentence: 55.07%, singular or plural form: 55.07%, causative verb: 52.17% and word
order: 49.28%. All of these eight errors received more than 50% of the percentage on
ignorance of rule restrictions, except word order. Moreover, the percentage of all of the
eight errors was higher than that of incomplete application of rules.
4.1.2 EFL teachers’ tolerance of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing
errors
4.1.2.1 Order of error tolerance
Table 4.4 shows that 17 errors were rated in Level 1, which
means that they were among the least tolerated errors; they were to be corrected
immediately or as soon as possible. The only error rated in Level 2, which was to be
corrected at the end of the lesson, was preposition. The top-five least tolerated errors
included (1) verb tense: 1.67, (1) subject-verb agreement: 1.67, (1) modal verb: 1.67,
(2) verb Be: 1.71, (3) fragment: 1.75, (4) pronoun: 1.77, and (5) word order: 1.78.
Table 4.4: Order of error tolerance
order Errors types
(overall picture of each
error)
Mean from 5
levels
Remark
Level1: least tolerated
Level 5: most tolerated
Level 1 = 0-20%
(correct immediately or as
soon as possible)
Level 2 = 21-40%
(correct at the end of the
lesson)
1 Verb tense 1.67
1 Subject-verb agreement 1.67
1 Modal verb 1.67
2 Verb Be 1.71
3 Fragment 1.75
4 Pronoun 1.77
5 Word order 1.78
6 Singular or plural form 1.80
7 Active/passive form 1.81
8 Conjunction 1.83
33
9 Part of speech 1.86 Level 3 = 41-60%
(correct in the middle of the
semester)
Level 4 = 61-80%
(correct at the end of the
semester)
Level 5 = 81-100%
(no correction at all)
9 Negative construction 1.86
10 Infinitive or gerundive
construction
1.90
11 Article 1.91
11 Possessive adjective and
attributive structure
1.91
12 Causative verb 1.93
13 Run-on sentence 1.96
14 Preposition 2
4.1.2.2 Least tolerated errors
Based on Table 4.4 least tolerated errors were all errors except
preposition. Of all the least tolerated errors, verb tense, subject-verb agreement and
modal verb were to be corrected first.
4.1.2.3 Correlation of error frequency and error tolerance
There were no correlations between error frequency and error
tolerance, except for two subcategories of article and pronoun. Table 4.5 shows that the
correlation coefficients between the frequency of article (insertion) and its tolerance
was significant (α = 0.05). This means that, generally speaking, high-frequency articles
(insertion) tend to have low tolerance and the cases were also true for low-frequency
articles (insertion) (to have high tolerance). However, the correlation was very low (rxy
= -.272).
Table 4.6 shows that the correlation coefficients between the
frequency of subject-object pronoun and its tolerance was significant (α = 0.05). This
means that, generally speaking, high-frequency subject-object pronoun tends to have
low tolerance and this was also true for low-frequency subject-object pronoun (to have
high tolerance). However, the correlation was very low (rxy = -.260).
34
Table 4.5: Correlation matrix of error frequency (article) and error tolerance
Error frequency Tolerance
article
Tolerance
article a
Tolerance
article b
Tolerance
article c
Article (overall picture) -.221
a. Article (omission) -.196
b. Article (insertion) -.272*
c. Article (wrong use of a,
an, the)
-.104
*p < 0.05
Table 4.6: Correlation matrix of error frequency (pronoun) and error tolerance
Error frequency Tolerance
pronoun
Tolerance
pronoun a
Tolerance
pronoun b
pronoun (overall picture) -.234
a. Subject-object pronoun -.260*
b. Relative pronoun .040
*p < 0.05
4.1.2.4 Correlation of error type (global or local) and error tolerance
There were no correlations between error type and error tolerance
except for verb tense (subcategory) and modal verb. Table 4.7 shows that the
correlation coefficients between the error type of verb tense (sequence) and its tolerance
was significant (α = 0.05). This means that, generally speaking, verb tenses (sequence)
marked as global errors tend to have low tolerance and the cases were also true for verb
tenses (sequence) marked as local errors (to have high tolerance). However, the
correlation was very low (rxy = .284).
Table 4.8 shows that the correlation coefficients between the
error type of modal verb and its tolerance was significant (α = 0.01). This means that,
generally speaking, modal verbs marked as global errors tend to have low tolerance and
35
the cases were also true for modal verbs marked as local errors (to have high tolerance).
However, the correlation was low (rxy = .308).
Table 4.7: Correlation matrix of error type (verb tense) and error tolerance
Error type
(global or local)
Tolerance
verb tense
Tolerance
verb tense a
Tolerance
article b
Tolerance
article c
Verb tense (overall picture) .159
a. Wrong tense selected .095
b. Wrong verb form .149
c. Wrong tense
sequence
.284*
*p < 0.05
Table 4.8: Correlation matrix of error type (modal verb) and error tolerance
Error type
(global or local)
Tolerance
modal verb
Modal verb (overall picture) .308**
**p < 0.01
4.2 Chapter summary
Two research questions were answered as follows:
1. What is EFL teachers’ awareness of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing
errors?
The findings showed that none of the 18 errors were least frequently
found (0-20%) or close to least frequently found (21-40%). Most of them (16 errors)
were moderately found (41-60%) and 2 errors were close to most frequently found (61-
80%). They were article: 4.06 and verb tense: 4.01. The frequency of other errors
ranged from 3.00-3.97.
These 18 errors were neither absolute global errors nor absolute local ones. Most of
them were considered local rather than global. The three errors with ‘global’
36
percentages higher than ‘local’ included fragment: 65.2, 30.4, run-on sentence: 56.5,
42.0, and word order: 53.6, 42.0, respectively.
Regarding possible causes of the errors, it was found that there were five
errors with percentages of L1 interference close to 50% or higher. They were (1) word
order: 63.77%, (2) fragment: 52.17%, (3) run-on sentence: 47.83%, (4) over-marking of
conjunction: 44.93%, and (5) singular or plural form: 43.48%. Among all given
intralingual causes, incomplete application of rules and ignorance of rule restrictions
received higher percentages than others. There were seven errors with percentages of
incomplete application of rules higher than that of ignorance of rule restrictions, and
there were eight errors with percentage of ignorance of rule restrictions higher than that
of incomplete application of rules.
2. To what extent do EFL teachers tolerate Thai undergraduates’ syntactic
writing errors?
Seventeen out of 18 errors considered least tolerated were to be
corrected immediately, or as soon as possible. Only one error was to be corrected at
the end of the lesson: preposition.
The findings showed no correlations between error frequency and
error tolerance except from two subcategories of article and pronoun. High-frequency
errors (article (insertion) and subject-object pronoun) tended to have low tolerance and
low-frequency errors (article (insertion) and subject-object pronoun) tended to have
high tolerance. However, the correlations were very low (rxy = -.272 and -.260,
respectively). The findings also showed no correlation between error type and error
tolerance except for verb tense (sequence) and modal verb. Global errors tended to have
low tolerance and local errors tended to have high tolerance. However, the correlations
were very low and low (rxy = .284 and .308).
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter concludes the current study by summarizing the research findings,
elaborating on the discussion, highlighting pedagogical implications drawn from the
findings, and providing recommendations for future research.
5.1 Summary of the study
This study aimed to investigate EFL teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai
undergraduates’ syntactic writing errors. Thus, the study attempted to answer the
following research questions:
1. To what extent are EFL teachers’ aware of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic
writing errors in terms of frequently found errors, error types (global or
local) and possible causes of the errors?
2. To what extent do EFL teachers tolerate Thai undergraduates’ syntactic
writing errors?
Sample
The sample comprised 69 full-time EFL teachers of the Faculty/School of Arts,
Liberal Arts, or Humanities of seven public and three private universities in Thailand.
All of them had taught or were at that time teaching English writing course(s), or at
least an English course having some writing tasks. They had at least one-year English
teaching experience.
Procedures
The study comprised two phases: construction of a survey questionnaire and
investigation of EFL teachers’ awareness and tolerance of Thai undergraduate students’
writing errors.
38
Construction of a survey questionnaire
A twenty-page English-version questionnaire was designed based on the
nineteen types of Thai students’ written errors, namely verb tense, article, subject-verb
agreement, infinitive or gerundive construction, causative verb, modal verb, verb to be,
active or passive voice, pronoun, singular or plural form, word order, negative
construction, preposition, part of speech, conjunction and connector, possessive and
attributive structure, fragment (incomplete structure), run-on sentence, and
miscellaneous errors. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section
was about respondents’ personal data. The second section consisted of four parts: A, B,
C, and D. Parts A and C were five-point Likert scales asking questions concerning
error awareness and their tolerance toward the nineteen types of student errors. Part B
and D were checklists to collect error types and possible causes for the students’ errors.
After three experts had reviewed its validity, the questionnaire was
revised according to the experts’ comments and pilot-tested. The reliability value of the
questionnaire was 0.927 (Cronbach’s Alpha).
Data Collection
In June 2012, 200 copies of the questionnaire were sent by hand and by post to
14 universities. Seventy-six were returned to the researcher. After discarding all the
incomplete questionnaires, data obtained from sixty-nine questionnaires were ready for
calculation, analysis, and interpretation.
Summary of findings
1. EFL teachers’ awareness of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing errors
Frequently found and most frequently found errors
The findings showed that none of the 18 errors were least frequently
found (0-20%) or close to least frequently found (21-40%). Most of them (16 errors)
were moderately found (41-60%) and 2 errors were close to most frequently found (61-
80%). These were article: 4.06 and verb tense: 4.01. The frequency of other errors
ranged from 3.00-3.97. The top-five frequently found errors included article, verb tense,
run-on sentence, fragment, and subject-verb agreement, respectively.
39
Error types (global or local)
These 18 errors were neither absolute global nor absolute local errors.
Most of them were considered local rather than global. The findings showed that more
than 50% of word order, fragment, run-on sentence, conjunction (over-marking of
conjunction), and singular and plural form errors were caused by L1 interference. The
two errors considered local rather than global, but with percentages between global and
local and not much different were verb tense and negative construction.
Possible causes of the errors
It was found that there were five errors with percentages of L1
interference close to 50% or higher. They were (1) word order: 63.77%, (2) fragment:
52.17%, (3) run-on sentence: 47.83%, (4) over-marking of conjunction: 44.93%, and
(5) singular or plural form: 43.48%. Among all given intralingual causes, incomplete
application of rules and ignorance of rule restrictions received higher percentages than
other causes. There were seven errors with percentages of incomplete application of
rules higher than that of ignorance of rule restrictions. Only two of these errors received
more than 50%: fragment and infinitive and gerundive construction. There were eight
errors with ignorance of rule restriction percentages higher than that of incomplete
application of rules. All of these eight errors received more than 50%, except word
order.
2. EFL teachers’ tolerance of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing errors
Order of error tolerance and least tolerated errors
Seventeen out of 18 were least tolerated errors, which required
immediate correction, or as soon as possible. The top-five least tolerated errors included
(1) verb tense: 1.67, (1) subject-verb agreement: 1.67, (1) modal verb: 1.67, (2) verb
Be: 1.71, (3) fragment: 1.75, (4) pronoun: 1.77, and (5) word order: 1.78. Only one
error was tolerated to the end of the lesson: preposition.
Correlation of error frequency and error tolerance
There was no correlation between error frequency and error tolerance
except with article (insertion) and subject-object pronoun. High-frequency errors tended
40
to have low tolerance and low-frequency errors tended to have high tolerance. The
correlation was significant (α = 0.05). However, the correlations were very low (rxy = -
.272 and -.260).
Correlation of error type (global or local) and error tolerance
There was no correlation between error type and error tolerance except
for verb tense (sequence) and modal verb. Global errors tended to have a low tolerance
and local errors tended to have a high tolerance. The correlation was significant (α =
0.05). However, the correlations were very low (rxy = .284) and low (rxy = .308).
5.2 Discussion
The discussion was based on the findings of the study in terms of EFL teachers’
awareness and tolerance of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing errors as follows:
5.2.1 EFL teachers’ awareness of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing errors
5.2.1.1 Frequently found and most frequently found errors
Based on the findings that two errors were close to most frequently
found (61-80%) and all the other errors were moderately found (41-60%), it can be said
that EFL students in Thailand had probably made all errors at a moderate and high level
throughout their interlanguage process. Corder (1967) asserted that errors are a vital
part of language acquisition. Making errors is a way to test his/her hypothesis about the
nature of the language that he/she is learning (Corder 1982). Since they help reflect
students’ learning progress, errors have played a very important role in language
teaching and learning especially since the communicative approach emerged in 1990s.
The finding of high-frequency errors does not always mean that the
students are not successful in language learning. Some errors such as articles and
prepositions naturally have more opportunities to occur, even in simple sentences.
Consequently, they should not be compared to other errors which have fewer chances to
occur in sentences.
Moreover, the frequency order of the errors based on how frequent EFL
teachers have encountered them does not imply the order of the errors’ importance. In
other words, it cannot be concluded that less frequently found errors were less
41
important or less difficult (Duskova, 1969). The students might use the strategy of
avoidance to produce fewer errors (Schachter, 1974).
However, the fact that all the frequencies of the eighteen errors were not
much different from one another indicates that there was an abundance of errors for
EFL teachers to deal with. As a result, it is necessary that EFL teachers know what
errors are more important than others. This would be of great help to manage a more
effective error correction feedback for Thai students.
5.2.1.2 Error types (global or local)
Since Thai students have made many errors in all types as found in the
study, being able to differentiate global errors from local ones is very helpful, indeed
essential. The global/local distinction is the most pervasive criterion to determine the
communicative importance of errors and global errors deserving correction (Burt,
1975). Global errors are those that cause a listener or reader to misunderstand a
message or to consider a sentence incomprehensible. Local errors, by contrast, are
errors that do not significantly hinder communication of a sentence’s message.
According to the findings, all the eighteen errors were neither considered
absolute global errors nor absolute local ones. This might be because there were also
subcategories of most of the errors. For example, there were three subcategories of
preposition, namely omission, insertion, and wrong selection. Furthermore, there could
be more than one sample erroneous sentence for each subcategory. Thus, both global
and local errors were likely to be found under the same category: preposition.
EFL teachers in Thailand viewed most errors as local rather than global.
This means that most of the errors in the majority of cases were considered less
important or they did not significantly hinder communication of a sentence’s message,
in which case they can be tolerated. Only fragment, run-on sentence, and word order
were considered global rather than local errors. If so, this means that in most cases
fragment, run-on sentence, and word order errors were more important than others.
They significantly affected the communication and needed to be treated before other
errors.
Verb tense and negative construction were the two errors considered
local rather than global, but the percentages between global and local were not much
42
different. This means that erroneous points under verb tense and negative construction
had almost equal chances to impair communication. If so, EFL teachers should always
take these errors under judgment. If they are global errors, they deserve correction.
Sometimes even local errors need to be treated, especially when they
occur very frequently in individual students’ interlanguage. An absence of corrective
feedback can sometimes result in the errors becoming fossilized, causing non-
progression of learning (Selinker, 1972). As a result, EFL teachers in Thailand have to
judge again if the local errors found were tolerated, would they become fossilized or
not. If so, they all need to be treated more or less like other global errors.
5.2.1.3.Possible causes of the errors
The findings showed that more than 50% of word order, fragment, run-
on sentence, conjunction (over-marking of conjunction), and singular and plural form
were caused by L1 interference. L1 interferes with L2 when the learner carries over the
habits of his mother tongue into the second language (Corder, 1971). Word order,
fragment, and run-on sentence are usually found among Thai students, especially when
they’re confused. These erroneous sentences are probably simply a result of word-for-
word translation from Thai. This reason is also true for over-marking of conjunctions.
When a Thai student is thinking in Thai, a sentence using two conjunctions such as
‘Although………….., but…’ or ‘Because…………, so …’ can also often be found in
his/her writing. Plural forms are unmarked in Thai so, when a student is not sure about
the language, he/she sometimes simply uses word-for-word translation and just ignores
pluralization.
Since there were altogether eighteen errors and only five were thought to
be caused 50% or more by L1 interference, this showed that most of the errors were
considered intralingual or developmental errors rather than interlingual. It is possible
that while L1 transfer played a less important role along the continuum, the majority of
errors were caused by developmental factors. Research done by Chan (2004) and
Bataineh (2005) found that ESL students of lower proficiency levels made more
interlingual errors than those of higher levels. However, it cannot be concluded that
interlingual errors are less important than intralingual errors in second or foreign
language acquisition. On the contrary, being aware of the differences between L1 and
43
L2 would yield benefits to the students in the early stages of their interlanguage, and
especially when negative transfer is likely to occur. Falhasiri et al (2011), who studied
the effectiveness of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on interlingual and
intralingual errors with 23 low-intermediate leveled university students, reported that
with deductive (explicit) teaching of interlingual erroneous points the frequency of the
errors decreased.
Based on the findings of the present study, incomplete application of
rules and ignorance of rule restrictions received higher percentages than other
intralingual causes. This would suggest that the communicative approach adopted
throughout Thailand is probably not enough to promote accuracy in Thai students’
writing. This might be because the approach cannot reach its potential in that Thai
students rarely use English in their daily lives since Thailand uses English as a foreign
language. Homework and classroom writing tasks alone seem not to give them enough
practice to boost accuracy. Furthermore, classroom language is probably meaningless or
unrealistic enough to not motivate them to write accurately.
The situation becomes worse due to Thai students’ poor reading habits,
which need to be improved. The National Statistic Organization of Thailand reported in
2003 that an average of five books is read per person per year. Reading and writing are
related in both L1 and L2 research. Krashen (1993) found that extensive reading
directly improves writing abilities. When Thai students do not love reading even in Thai
language, their English reading habit is questionable.
5.2.2 EFL teachers’ tolerance of Thai undergraduates’ syntactic writing errors
5.2.2.1 Order of error tolerance and least tolerated errors
The findings showed that preposition was the only error considered
satisfactory to be corrected at the end of the lesson, while the seventeen other errors
were considered important enough to be corrected immediately or as soon as possible.
In other words, 94.44% were least tolerant errors and only 5.55% could be tolerated
until the end of the lesson or unit.
The issue raised was how EFL teachers in Thailand dealt with these
errors almost simultaneously when most of them required feedback immediately or as
44
soon as possible. Moreover, no matter what type of correction feedback was used, it
implied that they had worked hard against huge numbers of errors.
Chandler (2003) reported that grammar correction boosted accurate
revisions and did not reduce fluency in subsequent writing over one semester, and that
students preferred direct correction from the teacher to self-correction based on the
teacher’s marking of errors for students. However, the students felt that they learned
more from the latter method. This was similar to the findings of other researchers such
as Sheen’s (2007), Truscott (2007), Truscott and Yi-ping Hsu (2008), and
Srichanyachon’s (2011). Nevertheless, accuracy improvements based on corrective
feedback during revision, are not evidence for improving writing ability on other
similar occasions (Bitchener, et al, 2005; Truscott and Yi-ping Hsu, 2008).
Furthermore, some previous research questioned the effectiveness of
teacher feedback techniques. Erel and Bulut (2007) and Chatranonth (2008) found that
direct feedback from the teacher was ineffective and caused students to make more
errors. The findings supported Truscott’s (1996) argument that direct teacher feedback
is merely a provision of correct grammatical forms, which does not help improve
students’ writing ability.
Consequently, EFL teachers in Thailand should reduce their work load
in correcting all the errors. Sheorey (1986) and Hyland and Anan (2006) found that
non-native teachers were less tolerant of errors than native teachers. They were
generally more severe in grading errors, and rely more on rule infringement rather than
judging the seriousness of the errors (Hyland and Anan, 2006).
The most important and very frequently found errors should be dealt
with first, as discussed above, using a corrective feedback technique best suited to the
teacher and the students based on different occasions and different objectives. For
instance, if one of the learning objectives is to develop learner autonomy in EFL writing
classrooms, peer feedback is recommended, rather than teacher correction
(Kulsirisawad, 2012).
All in all, when a teacher is aware of the importance of each error, the
teacher would know when to deal with it properly, using his/her judgment on the most
45
appropriate selective error correction method throughout the semester. Hopefully, not
only fluency but also accuracy can be promoted in Thai students’ writing.
5.2.2.2.Correlation of error frequency and error tolerance
The findings showed no significant correlation between error frequency
and error tolerance except in a sub category of article (insertion) and a sub category of
pronoun (subject-object pronoun). This means that less than 10% of high-frequency
errors tended to have low tolerance and less than 10% of low-frequency errors tended to
have high tolerance. Generally speaking, in most cases EFL teachers in Thailand seem
not to judge the seriousness or the importance of errors based on the frequency of error
occurrence. This also supported the findings by Hyland and Anan (2006).
5.2.2.3.Correlation of error type (global or local) and error tolerance
The findings showed no significant correlation between error type and
error tolerance except in a sub category of verb tense (sequence) and modal verb. This
means that less than 10% of global errors tended to have low tolerance and less than
10% of local errors tended to have high tolerance. Generally speaking, in most cases
EFL teachers in Thailand seemed not to judge the seriousness or the importance of
errors based on error type. Consequently their degree of tolerance toward errors did not
rely on whether an error was global or local. This also supported the findings by Hyland
and Anan (2006).
In conclusion, when not only fluency but accuracy are learning objectives in
EFL writing classrooms, EFL teachers in Thailand have worked hard to correct the
errors with various corrective feedback. Based on the findings of the present study, an
abundance of errors from eighteen types was found. Two errors were found under 61-
80% and all the other errors were found under 41-60%. Most of them were to be treated
immediately, or as soon as possible, regardless of how frequently individual errors were
found and whether they were global or local errors. The findings showed that most of
the errors were considered local rather than global. These local errors were regarded as
less important errors because they did not significantly hinder communication of a
sentence’s message. It was believed that most of the possible causes of the errors were
intralingual or developmental errors rather than interlingual. There were only five errors
that were thought to be caused by L1 interference for 50% or more. Incomplete
46
application of rules and ignorance of rule restrictions received higher percentages than
other intralingual causes. This implied that the communicative approach adopted in
Thai classrooms cannot work to its potential, possibly because Thai students do not
receive enough input. This has been a challenging problem for EFL teachers and the
Thai government because of not only the fact that students have less exposure to
English than those in English-speaking countries, but Thai students in general do not
have good reading habits. Without good reading habits, the writing improvement rate is
not promising because of the umbilical relations between reading and writing in both
L1 and L2 research.
5.3 Pedagogical implications
The findings of this study suggest four pedagogical implications. First, EFL
teachers in Thailand can reduce their workload correcting students’ errors by selectively
correcting or tolerating. This should be based on both theories such as Error Analysis,
Interlanguage Theory and their own judgment. Most errors teachers encountered, based
on their experience, were local rather global. Therefore, these errors should not be the
least tolerated. Second, instead of spending too much time correcting students’ errors,
various instructional strategies should be applied to promote free writing in which only
global errors are treated. Third, since research shows that accuracy increased when
students learn by themselves rather than from teacher correction, autonomous learning
should be encouraged based on peer feedback, etc. Last but not least, since there is a
close relation between reading and writing, reading should always be part of writing
classes.
5.4 Recommendations for future research
According to the findings of the present study, four recommendations can be
made for future research. First, since it was found that run-on sentences and sentence
fragments were among the top-five most frequently found errors, and both are
considered global errors. Furthermore, that more than 50% of the two errors were
caused by L1 interference, a research investigating to what extent explicit teaching of
L1 transfer based on contrastive analysis would improve students’ writing might be
beneficial to writing teaching and learning. Second, since it was found that most of the
errors were considered least tolerant for EFL teachers and they were to be corrected
immediately or as soon as possible, a survey study of what corrective feedback
47
strategies EFL teachers use in dealing with all the errors would be valuable. Third, more
research is required in terms of corrective feedback strategies to improve Thai students’
writing accuracy independence of direct teacher correction as well as students’
perception toward independence. This would provide EFL writing teachers with
selective methods for dealing with their students’ errors. Finally, since the sample of the
present study was rather low (69 teachers), there should be a study with a larger sample
size to replicate it for more accurate findings that can be better generalized.
REFERENCES
Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage system. Language Learning. 26:
297-320.
Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of
learner error. In Marina K. Burt and Heidi C. Dulay. (1975). (Eds.). New
directions in second language learning: Teaching and bilingual education.
Washington, D. C.: TESOL: 96-109.
Bataineh, R. F. (2005). Jordanian undergraduate EFL students’ errors in the use of the
indefinite article. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly. 7(1): 56-76.
Bhatia, A. T. (1974). An error analysis of students’ compositions. International Review
of Applied Linguistics. 12: 337-350.
Bitchener, J., Young, S. and Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing. 14: 191-205.
Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Birckbichler, D. W. (1977). Communication and beyond. In J. K. Phillips (Ed.), The
language connection: From the classroom to the world (pp. 53-94) Skokie,
Illinois: National Textbook Company.
Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 9: 53-
63.
Burt, M. K. and Kiparsky, C. (1972). The Gooficon: A repair manual for English.
Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Camps, D. (1999). How far have we got in preparing students for writing assignments
at English-speaking universities?: Identifying the needs for writing assignments
of three Mexican Masters students at a British University. Mextesol Journal. 19-
37.
49
Camps, D. and Salsbury, T. (2008). Faculty perceptions of EFL student writing: A pilot
study report. ESP World. 7: 2-18.
Chatranonth, P. (2008). Impact of Teacher Feedback on Students' Grammatical
Writing Accuracy: A Case Study in Thailand. Dissertation, University of
Manchester.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2004). Syntactic transfer: Evidence from the interlanguage of Hong
Kong Chinese ESL learners. The Modern Language Journal. 88(1): 56-74.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in
the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing. 12: 267-296.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 5(4): 161-170.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics. 9:149-159.
Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Middlesex: Penquin.
Corder, S. P. (1974). Error analysis. In J.P.B. Allen and S. Pit Corder (Eds.).
Techniques in applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Corder, S. P. (1975). The language of second language learners: The broader issues.
Modern Language Journal. 59: 409-413.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Darus, S., Maasum, N, R. M., Stapa, S. H., Omar, N.,and AB Aziz, M. J. (2007).
Developing an error analysis marking tool for ESL learners. Paper presented at
the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Computer Science, Venice,
Italy, November 21-23, 2007.
Darus, S. and Ching, K. H. (2009). Common errors in written English essays of Form
One Chinese students: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences. 10
(2): 242-253.
50
Doughty, C.J. and Long, M.H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax. Language Learning.
23: 245-258.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. NY: Oxford University
Press.
Duskova, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreign language learning. International
Review of Applied Linguistics. 7: 11-36.
Erel, S., & Bulut, D. (2007). Error Treatment in L2 Writing: A Comparative Study of
Direct and Indirect Coded Feedback in Turkish EFL Context. Journal of
Institute of Social Sciences, Erciyes University, 23(1), 397-415.
Ellis, R. (1982). The origins of interlanguage. Applied Linguistics. 3: 207-223.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. and Barkuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Erdogan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin
University Journal of the Faculty of Education. 1(2): 261-270.
Falhasiri, M., Tavakoli, M., Hasiri, F. and Mohammadsadeh, A. (2011). The
effectiveness of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on interlingual and
intralingual errors: A case of error analysis of students’ compositions. English
Language Teaching. 4(3).
Fauziati, E. (2003). Interlangauge errors in English textbooks for junior high school
students in Surakarta. TEFLIN Journal. 14(2).
Fieg, J.P. (1983). Thai student’s written English: A syntactic analysis. PASAA: Journal
of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand. 13(1-2)
51
Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course.
Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
George, H. V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts:
Newbury House Publishers.
Hendrickson, J. (1983). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching.
RELC, occasional papers No. 10: Singapore.
Huang, Q. (2009). Accuracy and fluency: Inspiration from error correction of
interlanguage theory. Asian Social Science. 5(2): 84-86.
Hyland, K. and Anan, E. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of error: The effects of first
language and experience. System. 34: 509-519.
Izzo, J. (1999). English writing errors of Japanese students as reported by university
professors. ERIC[online] Report No. ED428585.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis.
London: Longman.
James, C. (2001). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis.
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Jie, XU. (2008). Error theories and second language acquisition. US-China Foreign
Language. 6(1): 35-42.
Klassen, J. (1991). Using student errors for teaching. Forum. 29(1).
Krashen, S. (1993). The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Englewood,
CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Krachen, S. D. and Seliger, H. W. (1975). The essentials contributions of formal
instruction in adult second language learning. TESOL Quarterly. 9(2): 173-183.
Kulsirisawad, P. (2012). Developing learner autonomy in EFL writing classrooms via
peer feedback. CULI National Seminar 2012 proceeding. 19-20 November 2012
at Chulalongkorn University Language Institute.
52
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (2000). An introduction to second language
acquisition research. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Li-qiu, W. (2008). To correct or to ignore? US-China Foreign Language. 6 (5): 25-30.
Lu, T. (2010). Correcting the errors in the writing of university students in the
comfortable atmosphere. International Education Studies. 3(3): 74-78.
Marina, V. and Snuviskiene, G. (2005). Error analysis of scientific papers written by
non-native speakers of English. Transport. 20(6): 274-279.
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL. 9 (2):
115-124.
Norrish, J. (1983). Language Learners and their Errors. London. Macmillan.
Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language
Teaching Journal. 25: 204-219.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., and Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching
and applied linguistics (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., and Platt, H. (1998). Dictionary of language teaching and
applied linguistics. Hong Kong: Addison Wesley Longman China Limited.
Richards, J. C. and Simpson, G. P. (1974). The study of Learner English. In J. C.
Richards (ed.). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition.
London: Longman.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning. 24: 205-214.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Journal of Applied Linguisitics. 10:
209-231.
Selinker, L. (1988). Papers in interlangauge. Occasional Papers No. 44. Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused corrective feedback on error and language
aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly. 41(2): 255-
283.
53
Sheorey, R. (1986). Error perceptions of native-speaking and non-native-speaking
teachers of ESL. ELT Journal. 40(4): 306-312.
Srichanyachon, N. (2011). A comparative study of three revision methods in EFL
writing. Journal of College Teaching and Learning. 8(9): 1-8.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language Learning. 46(2): 327-369.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing. 16: 255-272.
Truscott, J. and Yi-ping Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning.
Journal of Second Language Writing. 17: 292-305.
Ubol, C. (1981). An error analysis of English compositions by Thai students. Seameo
Regional Language Centre. Singapore.
Wongsothorn, A. (1983). Analysis of language transfers from Thai to English in three
types of discourse: Explanatory, descriptive and persuasive. PASAA: Journal of
Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand. special issue: 83-87.
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English. J. Benjamins.
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Directions: Please mark in the box that best reflects your experience, opinion, and action (Part A, B, and C). Then, follow the instructions for Part D.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
1 Verb Tense (overall picture)
Examples:
a. Wrong tense selected
1) I had two sisters.
2) I go to Australia last year.
b. Wrong verb form
1) I thinked to become a nurse.
2) I have never forget my teacher.
c. Tense sequence
1) I couldn’t do anything I want.
2) We cooked our dinner and take
a bath.
verb tense
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
2 Article (overall picture)
…………………………………
Examples:
a. Omission
1) It was ___ unforgettable trip.
2) We went to ___restaurant.
b. Insertion
1) We had a dinner in a
restaurant.
2) I took a many photos.
c. Wrong use of a, an, the
- Krabi is the province of
Thailand.
Article
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write in the boxes. You
can select more than one cause.
(You can also write 1, 2, 3, ..
instead of to separate each
example’s cause from others.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
3 Subject-Verb Agreement
(overall picture) (Answer here.)
Examples:
1) There is ten people in my
family.
2) A hill tribe have a local
custom.
3) I have to stay with the people
who is unknown.
4) My mother were not angry
with me.
Subject-Verb Agreement
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write in the boxes. You
can select more than one cause.
(You can also write 1, 2, 3, ..
instead of to separate each
example’s cause from others.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
4 Infinitive or Gerundive
Construction (overall picture)
Examples:
1) I went upstairs for take a bath.
2) I went to Australia to studying
English.
3) We went to the zoo to saw
pandas.
4) She began to invited me to
skipped the class.
5) I need to changed my life.
6) I like play it.
Infinitive or gerundive construction
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write in the boxes. You
can select more than one cause.
(You can also write 1, 2, 3, ..
instead of to separate each
example’s cause from others.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
5 Causative Verb (overall picture)
Examples:
1) This made me felt tired.
2) It makes me crying.
3) The ID card made me became
an adult.
Causative Verb
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write in the boxes. You
can select more than one cause.
(You can also write 1, 2, 3, ..
instead of to separate each
example’s cause from others.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
6 Modal Verb (overall picture)
Examples:
1) I must to practice my English.
2) I must to went to a hospital.
3) I must walked to the market.
4) I should found a group of
people.
5) They might has a class next
week.
6) I might be change.
Modal Verb
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
7 Verb To Be (main verb)
(overall picture)
Examples:
a. Omission
1) It ___ so fun.
2) My cell phone ___ expensive.
3) The weather in Tak ___ too
cold.
b. Insertion
- Finally was the time had come.
c. Use of ‘have’, ‘had’
1) I had comfortable.
2) We have happy.
Verb To Be
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more thacause for
each type of example errors. (You
can write a1 and a2 instead of ‘a’ if
their cause(s) are different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
8 Active/Passive Voice (overall
picture)
………………………………….
Examples:
a. Omission of ‘be’
- I ___ very frightened.
b. Use of ‘have’, ‘has’,
‘had’
- I had excited and surprised.
c. Wrong voice
1) Finally we were arrived at the
temple.
2) This camp built for children.
Active/Passive Voice
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors.(You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
9 Pronoun (overall picture)
…………………………………..
Examples:
a. Subject-object pronoun
1) My mother wanted to see me
and he.
2) Them are not friendly.
b. Relative pronoun
1) I am a person ___ does not lie.
2) I have an experience that I
never forget it.
3) I could see a boy he smoked.
Pronoun
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write in the boxes. You
can select more than one cause.
(You can also write 1, 2, 3, ..
instead of to separate each
example’s cause from others.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
10 Singular or Plural Form
(overall picture)
Examples:
1) She doesn’t like other teacher.
2) We could see thousands
million stars in the sky.
3) They have many activity.
4) I was a children.
5) We spent nine hour.
6) Most people want to see panda
bear.
7) I traveled in Genting for three
day.
Singular or Plural Form
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write in the boxes. You
can select more than one cause.
(You can also write 1, 2, 3, ..
instead of to separate each
example’s cause from others.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
11 Word Order (overall picture)
Examples:
1) It was fantastic my song that
day.
2) My mother made chicken grill
with sticky rice.
3) Every meal my family and I
ate together.
4) We went to sea together eight
persons.
5) I bought a package five days
for travelling in Chiangmai.
Word Order
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part C
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
12 Negative Construction (overall
picture)
…………………………………
Examples:
a. Over-marking of negative
construction
- I never don’t forget everything.
b. Wrong auxiliary verb
1) The rain wasn’t stop.
2) We felt very happy that we
were not die.
Negative Construction
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
13 Preposition (overall picture)
Examples:
a. Omission
1) She was angry ___ me.
2) My mother wait ___ me.
3) I stayed there ___ three days.
b. Insertion
1) I went back to my home.
2) We arrived at home.
3) I knew with many new friends.
c. Wrong selection
1) We arrived at Singapore.
2) I went to Paris on November.
Preposition
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
14 Parts of Speech (overall picture)
Examples:
a. Wrong selection for a verb
1) I had to dinner with him.
2) I shopping all day.
b. Wrong selection for a noun
1) My visited at the temple was
great.
2) I am hopeful of my mom.
c. Wrong selection for an
adjective
1) I can see the panorama view.
2) There were variety products.
Parts of Speech
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
15 Conjunction (overall picture)
Examples:
a. Wrong selection
1) I did something wrong and my
mother was not angry.
2) I don’t know it well unless I
wasn’t born there.
b. Over-marking of conjunctions
1) Although my father died long
time ago, but he is still in my
memory.
2) Because I was lazy, so I didn’t
pass the final exam.
Conjunction
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
16 Possessive Adjective and
Attributive Structure (overall picture)
Examples:
a. Omission of apostrophe-s or a
possessive adjective
1) My friend ___ family went to
Samui Island.
2) I had a dinner with ___ friend.
b. Wrong use of apostrophe-s
- It’s cub is very attractive.
c. Use of ‘there’ to replace
‘their’
- They love there children.
Possessive Adjective and
Attributive Structure
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write in the boxes. You
can select more than one cause.
(You can also write 1, 2, 3, ..
instead of to separate each
example’s cause from others.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
17 Run-on Sentence (overall
picture)
Examples:
1) Then my dad called my mom
in Thailand my mom heard it she
was angry me.
2) I visited Ban Yak that room
has a chair, bed, shoes, spoon and
fork everything in this room are
very big sizes.
Run-on Sentence
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write in the boxes. You
can select more than one cause.
(You can also write 1, 2, 3, ..
instead of to separate each
example’s cause from others.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
18 Incomplete Structure/Fragment
(overall picture)
Examples:
1) At this period be tired.
2) First camp of me on October
last year.
3) What I want you find
everything.
4) That picture still in my mind.
5) It was the first time went to
foreign country.
6) Someday study half a day or
full day.
Incomplete Structure
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
QUESTIONNAIRE
EFL Teachers’ Awareness and Tolerance of Thai Undergraduate Students’ Syntactic Writing Errors
Remark: A global error is an error which causes a misinterpreted or incomprehensible message for a native speaker.
A local error is an error which causes an awkward message for a native speaker, but he/she has little or no difficulty in understanding the intended meaning of a sentence.
Error
Item
Error Classification with
Examples
Part A
Frequency of Errors Found
Part B
Error Type
Part C
Tolerance towards Errors
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Part D
Possible Causes of Error
least frequently → most frequently global
error
local
error
Please write a, b, or c in the boxes.
You can select more than one
cause for each type of example
errors. (You can write a1 and a2
instead of ‘a’ if their cause(s) are
different.)
1
0-20%
2
21-40%
3
41-
60%
4
61-
80%
5
81-
100%
1
correct
immediately
or as soon
as possible
2
correct at
the end of
the
lesson/unit
3
correct
in the
middle
of the
semester
4
correct
at the
end of
the
semester
5
no
correction
at all .
19 Miscellaneous errors
a. Use of ‘has’, ‘have’, ‘had’
instead of ‘there is/are/was/were’
1) My trip had one teacher and
15 students.
2) In my hand had many things.
3) Inside have the Ocean World.
4) It has many things to eat.
b. Use of ‘Be’ + base form
1) We are eat dinner together.
2) They are wear beautiful
clothes.
3) We were use 11 days for build.
Miscellaneous errors
.…………false concept
hypothesized
…..............incomplete
application of rules
……….ignorance of rule
restrictions
………interference of
Thai language
………overgeneralization
………other causes
(Mistakes are excluded.)
