See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323935792

Error Analysis in EFL Writing Classroom

Article · March 2018

DOI: 10.5539/ijel.v8n4p122

CITATIONS READS

3 4,022

5 authors, including:

Abdul Karim Abdul Rashid Mohamed

BRAC University Albukhary International University
17 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad Mosiur Rahman Faheem Shahed

Universiti Sains Malaysia BRAC University
30 PUBLICATIONS   119 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Revisiting the high profile 'ENGLISH IN ACTION' technology-oriented TPD in Bangladesh: Promises, Prospects and Eventualities. View project

Understanding EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices: A Phenomenological Study on the Impact of Teacher Education Program in Bangladesh View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Mosiur Rahman on 22 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018
ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Error Analysis in EFL Writing Classroom

Abdul Karim1, Abdul R. Mohamed1, Shaik A. M. M. Ismail1, Faheem H. Shahed2, Mohammad Mosiur Rahman3
& Md. Hamidul Haque4
1
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
2
BRAC Institute of Languages, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
3
School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
4
Department of English, American International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Correspondence: Abdul Karim, School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
E-mail: [email protected]

Received: February 5, 2018 Accepted: March 6, 2018 Online Published: March 22, 2018
doi:10.5539/ijel.v8n4p122 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n4p122

Abstract
Identifying the EFL learners’ errors in writing has no longer been important but essential. As such, drawing the
pertinent questions that what are the most common types of error committed by EFL learners in Bangladesh and
what are the perceptions possessed by them concerning error correction, the article addressed the commonest
errors committed by the learners and the perceptions of them toward error correction. Additionally, adopting the
error analysis suggested by Ellis, the categorical presentation of the errors was also accomplished. This study
comprised a corpus of EFL learners in the secondary level to enquire the commonest errors. Along with this, a
student survey was carried out to reveal the perceptions of the students regarding error correction. The common
errors identified were subjected to, grammar, misinformation, misordering and overgeneralization. Additionally,
the study uncovered strong preference of the EFL learners to get their errors to be corrected by the teachers.
Keywords: error correction, error analysis, EFL learner, perception, EFL writing
1. Introduction
Concerning error correction in the writing classroom, scholars have been found to conceive two schools of
thought. Actually, past few decades have been the years of constant debate concerning whether or not students’
errors should be corrected by the teachers. Consequently, the researchers of early 1980s or 1990s seemed to be
strong opponents of error correction, given that their studies uncovered no effect of corrective feedback (CF) on
second language learners. For example, Cohen & Bobbin’s (1976) findings indicate that “the correction did not
seem to have any significant effect on students’ errors” (p. 50). Subsequently, as regards grammar correction,
Truscott (1996) argued that it is ineffective, releasing drastic effects on the pupils. Building on Semeke (1984),
VanPatten (1986) and Leki’s (1990) findings, Truscott belittles the importance of error correction for L2 learners.
He holds the view that accuracy can be achieved “through extensive experience with the target
language—experience in reading and writing” (p. 360). However, the later studies reveal significant impact of
(CF) on building learners’ accuracy. In particular, Bitchener’s (2008) experiment uncovers that CF substantiates
learners’ accuracy. He concludes that CF is inevitable in L2 writing class. According to Sung & Tsai (2014) CF
facilitates learners to relate form and meaning to communication which ultimately leads to second language
acquisition. Wang (2017) identifies providing feedback for students’ writing as one of the core responsibilities of
language teachers. It is perceived beneficial for the learners since it concerns whether they are good writers or
whether the pedagogical practices fulfill students’ expectations of instruction. Coupled with this is the critical
information catered by Corrective feedback which conveys indispensable information to the students regarding
their writing performance; consequently, leading students to become critical and proficient L2 writers. Ferris
(2010), however, elucidates the paucity of empirical research on corrective feedback in L2 writing before the
mid-1990s, preceded by the historical and theoretical trends. One of the influential factors concerning this is
Krashen’s SLA theory (1981, 1982, &1985) which at that time devalued corrective feedback in writing
instruction. It was not until 1990, when researchers started penetration addressing language issues in L2 writing,
supporting “the idea that error correction should be contextualized within the writing process prioritized to focus
on the most frequent and serious errors and should pay attention to individual learners’ needs in writing” (p. 74).

122
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

Nevertheless, researchers repeatedly suggested that error correction is ineffective for improving pupils’ writing
(Cohen & Robbins, 1976; Polio, Fleck & Leder, 1998; Robb, Ross & Shortreed, 1986; Truscott, 1996); however,
there is no denying fact that due to lack of writing teachers’ feedback students become frustrated (Lee, 2004). It
is evident that L2 students demand their errors to be notified by the teachers, believing that such feedback will be
beneficial for them (Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988). Thus, proponents of error correction argue that
teachers should elicit students’ errors. It is also noteworthy that proper categorization of learners’ errors should
be identified so that students can get aware of which areas to be improved, given learners’ errors can be different.
For instance, errors can arise from grammar, omission, misinformation and misordering, which, in what follows,
the article has elaborated on. If the teachers specify errors categorically, it would be easier for the learners to
correct their errors quickly. Although numerous studies have been undertaken in relation to learners’ errors, the
current study is unique in that it incorporates the categorization of errors, which will potentially inform EEL
teachers to address the areas of improvement for their pupils. This study, meticulously, intends to identify the
common types of error committed by the secondary-school learners in writing class. In addition, this study also
aims at uncovering the students’ perspective subjected to error correction.
1.1 Conceptualization of Learners’ Errors, Error Correction and Error Analysis
To educators and researchers, errors occur naturally in the process of language learning (see Edge, 1989;
Hendrickson, 1987). Learners’ errors particularly the ones committed in writing are identified as the key interest
of teachers, linguists and syllabus designers (Darus & Ching, 2009; Katayama, 2007b). Corder (1967)
compartmentalizes the thoughts conceived by educators regarding learners’ errors. The first group of thinkers
perceives that the learners’ errors notify the insufficiency prevailing in teaching. In contrast, another group of
educators see errors resulted from the imperfect world we live in. According to Corder (1967), errors are
systematic, consistent and deviant characteristics of learners’ linguistic system at a certain phase of development.
Dulay, Burt & Krashen (1982) define error as: “the flawed side of the learner’s speech or writing. They are those
parts of conversation or composition that deviates from selected norm of mature language performance” (p. 138).
Error correction subsumes dual meaning since it is sometimes carried out spontaneously by the teachers and
sometimes it is done due to appeal of the learners to correct the erroneous part (Lee, 2004). On one hand, it
means the feedback generally yielded by the teachers on pupils’ errors, and on other hand, it refers to the
correction suggested by the teachers on learners’ errors. Lee (2004) identifies the latter one as specific type of
error feedback strategy. Such distinction is portrayed on this article since it concerns the error corrections
provided by the teachers for the learners. In other word, it can be referred as overt correction of learners’ errors
(Lee, 2004). Study carried out by Hedgcock & Lefkowitz (1994) shows that foreign language learners opt for the
grammatical correction given by the teachers. Moreover, studies, e.g., Cohen & Cavalcanti (1990) and Ferris et
al. (2000), also show that learners prefer their errors to be corrected by the teachers. There is a diversity
prevailing in learners’ preferences of error correction. Some learners tend to be corrected by self while others
prefer it to be done by peers or teachers. Below are the types of error corrections delineated by Omaggio (1986):
• Peer correction: Teachers ask pupils to check each others’ scripts interchangeably. Teachers’ also encourage
the students to deliver feedback on the scripts they have gone through.
• Self correction: It is the best way to approach to correct what has been written. Pupils take the responsibility
to correct their own errors.
• Teacher correction: Teachers provide learners with correct answers.
Error analysis is defined as the technique for identifying, classifying, and systematically interpreting the
unacceptable forms produced by a learner of a foreign language. Such analysis informs learners’ errors, and
thereby, notifies the competence learners attained (Sinha, 1997). Researchers perceive errors as a part of error
analysis. Error analysis, as Corder (1974) illustrates, is done to identify learners’ areas of opportunities. He calls
for certain steps to be followed during the analysis of errors. These entail the collection of a sample of learner
language, identification of errors, description of errors, explanation of errors and evaluation of errors. For error
analysis, Ellis (2002) also suggests similar stages to follow. This study adapts the procedures suggested by Ellis
to carry out the error analysis. The underpinning reason for choosing it is that, in Ellis’ elicitation the errors are
presented categorically. It not just subsumes the grammatical errors but it also includes the errors resulted from
omission, misinformation and misordering. As such, the holistic identification of learners’ errors can be revealed.
Furthermore, the distinction between error and mistake has been drawn blatantly here. As such, it is easier for us
to define the erroneous part either as error or mistake. If the teachers are cognizant about which one is error and
which one is mistake, it becomes easier for them to address the problems associated with students’ writing.
At the beginning of all is identifying the errors in which the errors made by the learners are identified for

123
ijel.ccsenet..org Innternational Jouurnal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

analysis. FFor identifyingg the errors, thhe sentences w

written by the llearners have tto be compared with “what seem
to be norm mal or correcct in the targeet language” ((p. 16). Althoough, as he m mentions, it beecomes difficu ult to
reconstrucct the correct sentence since the meaning w writer wants too deliver is nott certain. Besiddes, identifying the
errors commmitted by thee learners is ooften challengiing because itt is difficult too distinguish bbetween errorss and
mistakes. T Thus, he also differentiates errors and misstakes. Errors result from laack of learners’ knowledge (Ellis,
2002). Leaarners do not know
k the correect one, and thhus, make erroors, he explicaates. Mistakes, on the other hand,
h
refer to thee “occasional lapses in perfoormance; they occur becausee, in a particullar instance, thhe learner is un nable
to performm what he or she knows” ((p. 17). Ellis (2002) also cclarifies that ddepending on the consistenc cy of
learners’ suubstitution of one instead off another, the eerrors and misttakes can be iddentified. However, if learnerrs are
seen usingg the correct foorm in their wrriting, and at ssome point, theey use the incoorrect form, Elllis (2002) suggests
to considerr it as mistake.
The next sstep in error annalysis, accordding to Ellis, iis describing eerrors. He callls for categorizzing the errorss into
different pparts, such as, verb errors, ommission, misinnformation andd misordering, According to him, errors re elated
to verbs arre considered as verb errors. Missing to state one item required for a particular utteerance is know wn as
omission. Substituting one
o grammaticaal structure wiith another is cclaimed as missinformation w while placing words
w
wrongly iss known as miisordering. Ellis expounds, ssuch compartm mentalization oof errors can faacilitate a plau
usible
diagnosis oof learners’ leaarning problemms. The follow wing stage is thhe explanationn of errors. Theere are some errors
e
which are the result of learners’
l own rule, which iss different from m that of English (Ellis, 20002). Besides, somes
errors are uuniversal, meaaning that in thhe certain stagee of the languaage learning prrocess, learnerrs tend to substitute
one gramm w another. Inn addition, theere are some errrors existing iin the writing of learners sharing
matical form with
same nativve language (L1). Another error learnerss make is oveergeneralizationn. Such error occurs due to o the
learning prrocess of the leearners. Finallly, when L1 intterference takees place, the errror—transfer——occurs.
me errors as global
The final ttask, accordingg to (Ellis, 20002), is the evalluation of learnners’ errors. He identifies som
ones, breaaking the overrall structure oof the sentence. Thus, readeers cannot proocess the senteence. Local errrors,
another typpe of errors, thhat “affect onlyy a single connstituent of the sentence, andd are perhaps, lless likely to create
c
any processsing problem”” (p. 20).

Figure 1. Analyysis of error (E

Ellis, 2002)

d
2. Method
2.1 The Coontext
Bangladessh belongs to EFL contexts (Chowdhuryy & Kabir, 22014). Ali & Walker (20144) corroborate e this
explainingg that the natioon is commennsurate with thhe characteristtics of EFL coontexts. Nunaan & Carter (22001)
defined thhat a context is considered as EFL one, if English laanguage gets eexposed to claassroom only. The
education system in Banngladesh is coonsisted of three tiers (Ali & Walker, 2014). These are mainstream or o the
secular staate education, Madrasha eduucation (religiious educationn) and Englishh-medium educcation. Bangla adesh
Bureau off Educational Information and Statisticss (BANBEIS) reports that primary, secoondary and higher
secondary levels comprise mainstreaam education. Grade 1-5 is considered as primary level. Grade 6-10
constitutess secondary leevel while Graade 11-12 commprises higherr secondary levvel. Bangladesh adopts dyn namic
Grade 1 to 12 in the
and ambitiious ELT policcies. English iss acknowledgeed as a compullsory subject too study from G
national cuurriculum (Ham mid & Honan,, 2012).

124
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

It is noteworthy that Bangladesh has integrated English for Everyone (EFE) policy that facilitates language
learning opportunity for learners irrespective of their socio-economic statuses and geographic locations. In
Bangladesh, English is mandated as an academic subject (Ali & Walker, 2014). English for General Purposes
(EGP) precedes the English Language Teaching (ELT) in this state, they illustrate. However, in all grades, other
subjects, apart from English, are taught in Bengali, the native language. Learners, as such, solely depend on the
subject English to learn English. In the primary level, there are six classes every day, in which each consists of
40 minutes except the first one with 55-minute duration. Similarly, in the secondary level, students have six
classes every day in which each lasts for 40 minutes with 55 minute for the first one. Learners in all levels have
English class every day. It is conspicuous that students can avail approximately four hours weekly to learn
English in Bangladesh, given the books of the remaining subjects are written and taught in Bengali. Such policy
integrated by the curriculum curtails the exposure to English outside the classroom. The time weekly allocated to
learn other subjects in Bengali is almost six times as much as that provided for English.
Bangladeshi learners traditionally struggle to attain English language skills; even after 12 years of schooling and
four years of tertiary education, most of the learners fail to equip with necessary language skill (Hamid, 2010). In
other EFL contexts similar to Bangladesh, researchers have identified writing as the most obligatory but complex
skill for learners to attain, amid four language skills (see Darus & Ching, 2009). Being competent in writing skill
enables learners’ pragmatic expression. Furthermore, a good command in writing using English opens diversified
avenues for the learners to be employed in the prestigious-corporate world (Darus & Ching, 2009). However, the
recognition as an EFL context and little exposure to English result in erroneous writing of Bangladeshi learners
(Hasan & Akhand, 2010). Deplorably, very few studies have been conducted to identify the common errors
occurred usually in Bangladeshi learners’ writing. Consequently, the errors committed by the Bangladeshi
students have never been analyzed categorically. On top of that, no study has been carried out to identify the
perception of the Bangladeshi learners regarding the error corrections suggested by the teachers. This study,
particularly, aims at answering the following questions:
• What are the most common types of errors committed by the EFL learners in Bangladesh? What are the
categories of the errors?
• What are the perceptions of the students regarding error corrections suggested by the teachers?
2.2 Research Instrument
The corpus harnessed in this study was a subcorpus comprising a larger corpus of argumentative essays,
preceded by the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) (Granger, Dagneaux & Meunier, 2002) written
by grade 9 and 10 students (aged between 15 and 16) belonged to three secondary schools (Bengali medium) in
Bangladesh. The subcorpus, entitled the EFL learner Corpus, included 70 essays containing 21700 words
(average 310 words in each essay) written by the students, given their mother tongue was Bengali. The
participants belonged to the same socio-economic status. They belonged to six urban-government secondary
schools, in which students of middle class family usually admit for their schooling. They have to pay only a little
amount of money as their yearly fees. Therefore, we considered them as the members of the same
socio-economic status. The essays were word-processed, and students were asked to submit them as a typical
class-assignment. They were not asked to submit their writings within a stipulated time-period. Availing the
freedom, students completed their writings and submitted them in their own time. It is worth mentioning that the
English proficiency level of the participants did not noticeably vary since they belonged to grade 9 and 10. The
data was collected after the completion of their first terminal examination, provided there are two examinations
students have to appear yearly. We asked them to write the scores they had obtained in English in the first
terminal examination. It was observed that their scores did not vary noticeably, given their marks ranged from 60
to 70 out of 100. Accordingly, we considered them having similar level of English proficiency. They were
exposed to basic grammatical rules by grade 7 and 8. By grade 7 and 8, students were introduced to grammatical
components including parts of speech, nouns, verbs, possessives, articles, sentences, adjectives, adverb,
prepositions, linking words, modal, tenses, and so on. In grade 9, students were introduced to voice, conditionals,
speech, tag questions and sentence connectors. These components are introduced to them before their first
terminal examination. This study was carried out after this examination. Accordingly, all the new components
had been taught, and they were left with nothing to be introduced. In Appendix B, the grammatical syllabi for
grade, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were briefly presented. Answering the second research question required students’ survey
questionnaire (Appendix A) developed bilingually (in both Bengali and English). Lee (2004) harnessed this
questionnaire to reveal students’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding error correction. The current study
adapted this questionnaire since it addressed the points demanded by it. This questionnaire was designed based
on a literature review derived from previously conducted studies incorporating student errors and teacher

125
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

feedback, perceiving that it would yield information on students’ perception, beliefs, and attitudes concerning
error correction. Both versions (Bengali and English) were pretested and revised by two graduate research
students to secure the proper translation. Finally, the one in Bengali was employed in this study. The
administered questionnaire included statements about their teachers’ error correction practices as well as
participants’ own beliefs and attitudes about error correction. We administered follow-up interviews, in which
participants had elaborated on some of the questionnaire statements. In addition, we conducted the interview by
informing the interviewees that their elicitations will be published, and after securing their consent we
incorporated their expressions. We also maintained anonymity throughout the data presentation process.
2.3 Sample
Following convenience sampling, the students to respond to the questionnaire were selected. This study adopted
convenience sampling because, according to Gay, Mills & Airasian (2011), such sampling provides the
researchers with the participants depending on their availability. The survey questionnaires were sent to six
schools. A contact teacher in each school was held responsible for distributing the questionnaires to the students.
Three-hundred students finally participated in this study from six schools. It is noteworthy that 155 participants
belonged to grade 9 and 145 participants from grade 10 were selected to complete the questionnaires.
Participants for the interview session were selected espousing purposive sampling. According to Gay et al.
(2011), purposive sampling offers samples that are considered representative of a given population. As such, 20
participants were selected to take part in follow-up interview.
2.4 Data Analysis
The students’ writings were checked by two English teacher educators to identify the errors. The errors identified
in the first phase were categorically subjected to SPSS analysis, generating descriptive data (Table 1).
Subsequently, adopting the error analysis process suggested by Ellis (2002), the categorical presentation of the
errors was accomplished (Figure 3). Data elicited from student questionnaire survey were also subjected to SPSS
analysis, yielding descriptive data mainly (Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Data derived from student interview were
translated from Bengali to English. Then, these are transcribed, summarized and categorized. Fourth and fifth
authors were assigned to accomplish translation and transcription work. They were thought eligible to carry out
this task because they had been teacher educators, and they conducted translation studies, a MA in TESOL
course, in two universities.
3. Results
Our current study had aimed at answering the following questions:
• What are the most common types of errors committed by the EFL learners in Bangladesh? What are the
categories of the errors?
• What are the perceptions of the students regarding error corrections suggested by the teachers?
The results of the study are presented below under the heading of these two questions.
3.1 Research Question No 1
The first research question was intended to reveal the most common types of errors committed by the EFL
learners in Bangladesh and present a category of the error. From the samples, different types of errors were
identified, which are presented categorically in the following parts of this section. As mentioned earlier, the
current study adapts the errors and error analysis suggested by Ellis (2002). Therefore, after identifying the
commonest errors, the analysis has been carried out here following the one suggested by him.

Table 1. Total errors by the students

Types of errors Number of errors Percentage of errors
Misordering 31 7%
Overgeneralization 43 10%
Misinformation 19 4%
Grammatical 338 79%
Total 431 100%

126
ijel.ccsenet..org Innternational Jouurnal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

F
Figure 2. Percentage of studeents’ errors

Table 2. D
Different types of grammaticaal errors
Grammatical errors Number of errorss Percenntage
Subject-verb agreement error 56 14%
Article error 47 14%
Verb error 82 24%
Pronoun error 35 10%
Prepositionall error 40 12%
Tense error 78 23%
Total grammaatical errors 338 100%
%

3.1.1 Misoordering

Table 3. Errrors caused byy misordering

Number of Misorrdering 31

Example: B
But Bangladesshi people are good not in Ennglish.
Most of thhem are attentivve not in Engliish learning.
The correcct form of thiss sentence is ““Bangladeshi ppeople are nott good in Engglish” and “Moost of them are not
i learning Ennglish”. To bee more sophistticated, the peeople in Banglladesh do not have
attentive oor inattentive in
good com mmand in English language.. As such, thee particular leearner wrote iit with wrongg placement of the
word—“noot”. This can be b explained inn terms of the learners’ nativve language, BBengali, whichh can also be called
c
L1 interferrence. In Benggali, typically a sentence struucture containss…. “subject + object + verbb” in contrast to
t the
structure ““subject + verbb + object” of English languuage. Such erroor demonstratees that learnerss’ knowledge about
a
L1 preceddes the sentennce constructioon of L2. Thee learners inteended to transslate it directlly from his native
n
language ((Bengali) to tarrget language (English).
3.1.2 Overrgeneralizationn

Table 4. Errrors caused byy overgeneraliization

Numberr of Overgeneralizzation 43

Examples:: Even the univversity studentts communicatte welly using English.

They shouuld must learn English.
E
They mustt have to learn English.
It is unposssible to learn English…….
E
The first error committted by a partiicular learner is the adverbbial one whicch the learner made becausse he

127
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

possessed the knowledge that adding “ly” with an adjective can yield an adverb. Actually, most of the
Bangladeshi students, being suggested by their teachers, try to memorize adverb in such way. Ellis (2002) also
supports such tendency of the learners stating that “they also over generalize forms they find easy to learn and
process” (p. 19). Apart from this, another student wrote a sentence “They should must know English”. Similarly,
another student wrote “They must have to learn English”. In these two sentences, students tried to emphasize on
English learning of the students. However, such emphasis led the sentences to overgeneralized ones. In Bengali,
often people use some hyperbolic expression. Because of L1 interference, students tend to make
overgeneralization in their writing.
3.1.3 Misinformation

Table 5. Errors caused by misinformation

Number of misinformation 19

Examples: People needs English to communicate with foreign people.

English play a vital role in the economic development.
When people goes abroad, they needs English.
The learners made errors concerning subject + verb agreement. The correct form of these sentences the target
language are as follows:
People need English to communicate……………….
English plays a vital role…………………………….
When people go abroad……………………………..
Comparing the erroneous sentences with the correct ones, we can realize that learners have problem in
identifying person, i.e., first person, second person and third person, when they write. Since, as mentioned above,
they translate from L1 to target language and they lack knowledge about subject + verb agreement, they produce
such errors. Thus, they use one form instead of another which results in misinformation.
3.1.4 Article Errors
Examples: Errors related to articles are as follows:
The English is an important language.
English is an international language.
It is not possible to learn English within a year.
Below is the correct form of these sentences.
English is an important …………………..
English is an international………………..
……….. ……….to learn English within a year.
A noticeable number of students include “The” before English in the beginning of a sentence. The reason behind
this is that their teachers taught them to use “the” before English. However, they did not clarify the distinction
between the nationality “English” and the language English. It is conspicuous that students lack appropriate
knowledge about the usage of articles. The remaining two sentences are drastic example of learners’ lack of
knowledge. The additional information these two convey is that learners failed to distinguish between English
vowels and consonants.
3.1.5 Verb Errors
Examples: We have to learning English.
If we know English, it will helping us…………………………….
Without learn English, we cannot communicate…………………..
If someone wants to exploring the international arena…………….
The correct forms of these sentences are:
We have to learn English.

128
ijel.ccsenet..org Innternational Jouurnal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

If we know
w English, it will
w help us……
………………………………
…
………………..
Without leearning Englishh, we cannot ccommunicate…
If someonee wants to expplore the internnational arena…
………………
The errorss indicate thaat students lacck the gramm matical knowleedge which leed to the prodduction of deviant
structures. According too Ellis (2002), the learners hhave developed some kinds of rule whichh are even diffferent
from that oof the target laanguage.
3.1.6 Pronnoun Errors
Examples:: Bangladeshi people
p is goodd not in Englishh. Therefore, hhe cannot………………
When peopple goes abroaad, he need……
……………
The correcct forms of the wrong sentennces produced bby the learnerss are—
People in B
Bangladesh are not good in E
English. Thereefore, they cannnot……………
…..
When peopple go abroad,, they need Engglish…………
…………………
……
From the aforementionned sentences produced by the students, it becomes conspicuous that students lack
substantiall knowledge abbout parts of sppeech. Therefoore, they fail too relate the nouuns to their aliigned pronoun
n.
3.1.7 Prepositional Errorrs
Examples:: English helpss us communiccate foreign peeople.
English is important to communicate
c oother countriess.
The correcct sentences are:
English heelps us to comm
municate with foreign peoplee.
English is important to communicate
c inn other countrries.
Ellis (20022) defined suchh errors as trannsfer error. In these sentencees, learners atttempt to incorpporate the senttence
constructioon knowledge of their L1. Prepositional errrors occurred because studeents did not knnow the approp priate
use of it. L
L1 interferencee is also responnsible for suchh error.
3.1.8 Tense Error
Examples:: Nowadays thhe importance oof learning English could noot be describedd in words.
Previouslyy, English is noot given imporrtance…………
……………………
In today’s world, people of different coountries spokee English as a ccommon languuage.
When com mes to evaluattion, the very pertinent quesstion is whethher the errors ooccurred weree considered as a the
local errorrs or global onnes. Since the errors spelledd in learners’ w
writing affect the single connstituent of a given
g
sentence, iit is plausible to
t identify them
m as local erroors.

Figure 3. A sketch of Baangladeshi learrners’ error anaalysis

129
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

3.2 Research Question No 2

3.2.1 Data Elicited from Student Questionnaire Survey
Concerning a large amount of data yielded, only the significant findings are reported. Where the data regard
statistics, only those of descriptive are stated, since statistical testing finds no difference resulting from the
variety in terms of participants’ grade level. Depending on the necessity, the interview data has been presented
verbatim.

Table 5. Students’ perception concerning the teachers’ error correction feedback

Said that teachers marked all errors 65%
Wanted teachers to mark all errors 86%

Data elicited from the student questionnaire, as depicted in Table 5, revealed that students concerned the error
correction suggested by the teachers. Majority of them (65%) expressed that underlining the erroneous part,
teachers notified them the areas to be corrected. In response to another question, 86% of them preferred their
teachers to identify all their errors. In the interview session, participants expressed that they wanted to be aware
of the errors they had made. For instance, one of the participants stated, “I know what errors I make, when the
teachers mark them”.

Table 6. Students’ perception of type of error feedback produced by the teachers

Said that teachers gave direct feedback on all errors 46%
Wanted teachers to give direct feedback on all errors 74%
Wanted teachers to give direct feedback on some errors 18%

The survey, as presented in Table 6, suggested that students were aware of the teachers’ practice. About 46% of
the participants reported, the teachers yielded direct feedback concerning the errors occurred. Most of the
participants (74%) indicated that they wanted their teachers to provide correction for all errors, while only 18%
of them preferred teachers to provide them with some corrections. In other words, students perceived teachers
primarily responsible for correcting their errors. In the interview, participants delineated that they wanted their
teachers to provide them with correction because such correction they felt more easily rectifiable.
“Teacher-directed correction helps me out with easy recovery of my errors” one participant stated. Another
participant mentioned, “if teachers discuss the common errors, even after correcting individual, in front of the
class, it will be more effective since others can also get aware of the errors.”

Table 7. Students’ perception of their teacher’s use of error codes

Said that teachers used error codes 90%
Said they were able to follow over ¾ of error codes 42%
Said they were able to follow ½ to 2/3 of error codes 41%
Said they were able to correct over ¾ of errors based on error codes 37%
Said they were able to correct ½ to ¾ of errors based on error codes 43%
Said they wanted teachers to use error codes 78%

90% of them explicated, as Table 7 illustrated, that their teachers used error codes in marking their compositions.
However, a number of students admitted that they did not always understand the codes. For instance, 42% of
them said they were able to follow and understand over ¾ of the codes when correcting errors in their
compositions. About 41% of the students reported that they could follow ½ to ¾ of the codes. Students were also
asked if they could correct errors based on the codes. Approximately 37% of them reported that they were able to
correct over ¾ of the errors, and 43% of them reported that they could correct ½ to ¾ of the errors. Although
students reported that they could not always cope with the codes, the interview data depict that students’
preference for error codes were mainly based on the fact that the codes could enable them to understand the
types of errors they made. In other words, the codes could make them familiarize with specific types of errors.
One of the participants, Sanjit, reported, “If teachers do not use error codes, I will not be aware of the kind of
error I commit”. Another student, Maqbul, said, When teacher marks the error as tense/verb error

130
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

(T/v/v.t./T(present)/ T(past)/past simple/ tn/tv/vb/past par/vF v l v2, e.g., I had (v1) not go (v2)) or article error
(Ar/art/A), at that time it becomes easier for me to be notified about my errors”. Yet using codes cannot uproot
the problem. Some students remarked that since they lacked good command in grammatical rules, they failed to
follow the codes. Lee (2004) explicated, “Knowing the codes is one thing, but correcting error is quite another”
(p. 297). Another student, Barkat, expressed, “I can understand the errors associated with parts of speech when
teacher codifies them. However, I have some issues regarding grammar”. One of the participants, Riad, claimed,
“Since the class is restricted by specific time, teacher cannot use codes sometime, instead, he underlines the
erroneous part using red pen. At that time I realize that the sentence is incorrect, but I do not have cognizance
about the type of error”.

Table 8. Students’ perception of effectiveness of their teacher’s error feedback

Said they thought they were making good progress in writing accuracy 11%
Said they thought they were making some progress in writing accuracy 48%
Said they thought they would make the same errors again 69%

What did the students think about their own progress in writing? Overall, 48% of the students reported, as
depicted in Table 8, that they were making some progress. Only 11% of the participants thought that they were
attaining noticeable progress in terms of grammatical accuracy in writing. When asked if they would make the
same errors after the teacher had corrected them. Majority of them (69%) answered in affirmative. The interview
data elicited several reasons. In particular, they failed to apply the same rule in all situations. This is because of
the distinct topics and context of the next composition. Meanwhile, they might forget what they have learnt. One
student, Majid, indirectly figured out the demerits of extensive error stating that, “It is difficult for me to handle
so many things such as, vocabulary items”.

Table 9. Students’ perception about the responsibility for error correction

Said it is mainly the teacher’s job to locate and correct errors for students 48%
Said it is mainly the student’s job to locate and correct their own errors 52%

What did the students think about the responsibility for error correction? Nearly half of them (48%), in Table 9,
perceived that it was their teachers’ job to locate and correct their errors for them while 52% of them hold the
belief that the learners should correct their errors. When interviewed, most of the students responded that it was
the responsibility of the teachers to correct errors. Only student, Farooq, has been found acclaiming that student
should correct their own errors. However, he added that this responsibility seems uninteresting to the learners.
Because of the laziness or reluctance, “I sometimes do not like to identify and correct mistakes”, he elicited. Two
more participants, Masood and Sajib, endorsed this statement and claimed that teacher is the responsible
authority for correcting learners’ errors. The rationale most of the participants expressed was the teachers’
competence in error correction. For example, “I do not feel myself able to locate the mistakes. I am not a good
proof reader and thereby, I should leave my write up to the teachers for correction”. Therefore, the interview
yielded the statement that teachers should be responsible for correcting learners’ errors.
4. Discussion
From the error analysis, it has been observed that Bangladeshi EFL learners prone to commit grammatical errors
mostly. This finding is linear to Kennedy’s (2010) study, indicating that grammatical errors are the most
frequently committed errors by the learners. Conversely, Sung & Tsai’s (2014) investigation revealed that
grammatical errors are rarely made errors by the Chinese EFL learners, although there is substantial difference
existing between Chinese grammar and English grammar. In the case of Bangladesh, it should not be the case.
For elaboration, the change of verb is prevailed in English language depending on whether the speaker is
referring to past, present or future. Likewise, Bengali language also requires the change of verbs to refer to the
events taken place in the past, present or future. For example, the sentence in English, I played football yesterday,
necessitates the speaker to change the verb from “play” to “played” to refer to the past tense. Likewise, in
Bengali, the speaker, putting “yesterday” at the beginning, requires to change verb to refer to the past. Therefore,
it is surprising that students’ errors are largely associated with verb and tense errors. As such, it needs to be
investigated that whether or not instructional shortcoming is liable for committing such errors.
Concerning the survey, the findings of the concurrent study are commensurate with those uncovered in both ESL

131
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

and EFL settings (see Katayama, 2007b; Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Chenoweth et al., 1983; McCargar, 1993;
Oladejo, 1993; Bang, 1999). For instance, studies carried out by Katayama (2006, 2007a) also illustrate that 92.8%
of the participants exhibit their strong preference for teacher correction. Schulz’s (2001) observation also
demonstrates Foreign Language (FL) learners’ strong urge for error correction. A Bangladeshi study on English
teaching in urban schools demonstrates how Bangladeshi learners, dependent on teachers’ comprehensive
corrective feedbacks, display reluctance in even seriously taking note of teachers’ corrections and thus continue
to perform the errors repeatedly (Shahed, 1998). The reason behind this lies in students’ resentment attitude
toward English (they learn English only because it is a part of their curriculum) that has been a result of
inconsistent, aimless education policy in Bangladesh (ibid).
Schulz anticipates that “perceptions could be the result of the way FLs are taught or tested (i.e., with
predominantly form-focused, discrete-point tests) or both” (p. 255). Learners feel the necessity of being accurate,
since it facilitates them to attain a good mark in the examination. It is worth mentioning that vivid examinations
have been developed only to test the accuracy of the students in producing correct pieces of language (Edge,
1989). Advocates of error correction oppose comprehensive error feedback concerning the risk of “exhausting
teachers and overwhelming students” (Ferris, 2002, p. 50). Thus, Ferris calls for the effective error correction
stating, “when it focuses on patterns of error, allowing teachers and students to attend to, say, two or three major
types at a time rather than dozens of disparate errors” (p. 50). Study carried out by Lee (2004) suggests that not
all the teachers consider the use of error codes as effective. It is expected that notifying the error types can be
prompts reinforcing learners’ learning. However, Lee concerns that when teachers mark all the errors and code
them, an essay written by a student seems containing error codes throughout, which generates the plausible
question if this students have the ability to correct this errors.
Students, for the most, demand their errors to be marked comprehensively by teachers. Perhaps, teachers’
practices in the classroom precede such expectation and preferences. Lee (2004) divulges that secondary students
in Hong Kong also grow such expectation because of their teachers’ practices. Cohen & Cavalcanti (1990)
reckon, “learners’ expectations and preferences may derive from previous instructional experiences, experiences
that may not necessarily beneficial for the development of writing” (p. 173). Lee (2004) elaborate that if student
errors are corrected by the teachers, certainly, students possess belief that teachers are solely responsible to
correct their errors. In the case of Bangladesh, English teacher tend to circle the erroneous part of pupils’ writing
by using red per. Sometimes teachers, after circling, write the correct version in the script. Learners have been
introduced to such correction from the very beginning of their schooling. Consequently, they expect their
teachers to mark their errors.
In such context, this current research would help ELT experts, academics and educational policymakers get a
focused overview of the nature of student errors along with learners’ perception—which is innovative in the
domain of error analysis in Bangladesh.
This study is the categorical illustration of the commonest errors committed by the Bangladeshi learners. Mostly,
as depicted, the errors derived from misordering, overgeneralization, misinformation and grammar such as,
article, preposition, pronoun, verb and tense. The findings of the study can serve the scaffold for the teachers,
since addressing these errors and correcting them become their first concern. Caused sometimes due to the L1
interference and inadequate knowledge about grammatical rules, these errors debilitate the quality of students’
writing. As aforementioned, EFL learners in Bangladesh are generally introduced to all the grammatical rules by
grade 8. Therefore, it is expected that they are equipped with the rules, and thereby, able to produce correct piece
of writing. However, the results of the study exhibit that learners were still struggling to produce even a sentence
using simple present tense. Another issue slackening students’ attainment of accuracy is the time and exposure
allocated to learning English. In the beginning, it was mentioned that only 240 minutes (4 hours) is generally
allocated weekly to learn English in the secondary level while other subjects taught in Bengali encompass the
remaining hours of their schooling. Therefore, with difference prevailed in Bengali and English in terms of the
sentence construction, students prone to spell erroneous sentences.
The findings of this study suggest that teachers should bring change in their classroom practices. In the teachers’
professional development programs, session should be conducted concerning how comprehensive marking and
correction of errors can dismantle students and teachers, what has been dubbed as “student frustration and
teacher burnout” Ferris (2002, as cited in Lee 2004, p. 303). However, student expectation can be changed by
teachers, reversing their classroom practice. Lee (2004), in this regard, recommends that teachers should
abdicate their get-the-job-done attitude. By linking, as explicated, the pre- and post- writing grammar instruction,
teachers can assist students. For instance, teachers can mention about which tense be used for particular piece of
writing. If an essay to be written entitling “A journey by boat”, teachers should initially tell the students to use

132
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

“simple past tense” and explain why they have to use it. On top of that, the size of the class (Karim, Mohamed,
Rahman & Haque, 2017) is a major factor challenging the correction of individual errors. Ge (2011) also reports
the same problem associated with the writing classes in Taiwan, mentioning the fact that teachers tend to spend
almost all the time lecturing about writing skills and evaluating students’ writing by providing teachers’ feedback,
provided the large class size which requires teachers to consume most of the class-time for providing corrections
on individual students’ writing assignments (Shintani et al., 2014). Therefore, to reduce the time spent for
teachers’ such activity, Kaufman & Schunn (2011) and Shintani et al. (2014) suggest online peer feedback and
direct corrective feedback via the use of technological tools, given their proven role to provide higher quality
writing instruction. Lin & Griffith (2014), in other word, explicate that facilitated by synchronous and
asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) features to exchange ideas or fix problems for better
writing quality, the use of online technologies is a pedagogical approach. English in Action (EIA), according to
Karim, Mohamed, & Rahman (2017), the last teacher training program incorporating Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs), should have accounted online peer feedback and direct corrective feedback
via the use of technological tools, which will substantially reduce the overwhelming pressure, yielded from
generating error corrections, of the teachers.
The current study incorporates error analysis of the students in Bangladesh. However, acknowledging the
significance of student variables in error correction research was not the scope of this study. Further research,
therefore, would do in-depth exploration as to how the student factors influence teachers’ error correction and
students’ ability to learn from it. Learners characteristics such as, proficiency, motivation, attitudes and beliefs
provide worthy avenues for future research.
Acknowledgments
The school of Educational Studies, USM provided the authors with financial aid to conduct the study. The first
author thoroughly contributed to the development of the manuscript. The second and third authors played a
supervisory role throughout. The first, fourth, fifth and sixth author were instrumental concerning the data
collection process. The first author carried out data analysis and drew conclusion. I would like to pay my
heartfelt gratitude to the school teachers and students who have been cooperative throughout the process.
References
Ali, M., & Walker, A. L. (2014). “Bogged down” ELT in Bangladesh: Problems and policy. English Today,
30(02), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078414000108
Bang, Y. J. (1999). Reactions of EFL Students to Oral Error Correction. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 3, 39-51.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing,
17(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Cathcart, R., & Olsen, J. E. W. B. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom
conversation errors. On Tesol, 76, 41-53.
Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to
error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 79-87.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100000310
Chowdhury, R., & Kabir, A. H. (2014). Language wars: English education policy and practice in Bangladesh.
Multilingual Education, 4(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13616-014-0021-2
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports.
Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 155-177.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.015
Cohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between
selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ explanations. Language Learning, 26(1), 45-66.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00259.x
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161
Corder, S. P. (1974). Error analysis. The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, 3, 122-131.
Darus, S., & 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.

133
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and correction. London, New York: Longman.
Ellis, R. (2002). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. Retrieved from
http://repositories.cdlib.org/uccllt/l2/vol1/iss1/art2/
Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan: University of Michigan
Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and
practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems,
and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention,
Vancouver, BC.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2011). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
applications. White plains, NY: Pearson Higher Ed.
Ge, Z. G. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75-91.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2002). The International Corpus of Learner English.
Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Hamid, M. O., & Honan, E. (2012). Communicative English in the primary classroom: Implications for
English-in-education policy and practice in Bangladesh. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(2), 139-156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2012.678854
Hasan, M. K., & Akhand, M. M. (2010). Approaches to writing in EFL/ESL context: Balancing product and
process in writing class at tertiary level. Journal of NELTA, 15(1-2), 77-88.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response
in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice.
The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.
Karim, A., Mohamed, A. R., & Rahman, M. M. (2017). EIA-A Teacher Education Project in Bangladesh: An
Analysis from Diversified Perspectives. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 51-66.
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1044a
Karim, A., Mohamed, A. R., Rahman, M. M., & Haque, M. H. (2017). Teachers’ dilemma bog down CLT in EFL
contexts: A discussion on EFL teachers’ beliefs and sources. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social
Science (IOSR-JHSS), 22(4), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-220405112120
Katayama, A. (2006). Perceptions of JFL students toward correction of oral errors. In JALT2005 Conference
Proceedings (pp. 1248-1264). Tokyo: JALT.
Katayama, A. (2007a). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian
EFL Journal, 9(4), 289-305.
Katayama, A. (2007b). Students’ perceptions of oral error correction. Japanese Language and Literature, 41(1),
61-92.
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin
and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6
Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher’s choices. TESL
Canada Journal, 27(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1054
Kranshen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implication. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University

134
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (pp. 1982-1982). New York:
Pergamon Press.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign
Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
Lin, S. M., & Griffith, P. (2014). Impacts of online technology use in second language writing: A review of the
literature. Reading Improvement, 51(3), 303-312.
McCargar, D. F. (1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences and implications. The
Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01963.x
Nunan, D., & Carter, R. (Eds.). (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages.
Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learner’s preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v10i2.619
Ommaggio, A. C. (1986). Teaching language in context: proficiency-oriented instruction. The Modern Language
Journal, 17, 286-479. Boston: Heinle and Heinle publishers.
Polio, C., & Fleck, C. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay
revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System,
16(3), 355-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(88)90078-4
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality.
TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar
instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107
Shahed, F. H. (1998). English in School Education: Focus on Urban Schools (Unpublished M.Phil. dissertation).
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Berlin, Germany:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7
Sinha, B. S. (1997). Learners’ errors, Their Significance in L2 Learning and The Role of Correction. The Dhaka
University Studies, 54(2), 145-157.
Sung, K. Y., & Tsai, H. M. (2014). Exploring Student Errors, Teachers’ Corrective Feedback (CF), Learner Uptake
and Repair, and Learners’ Preferences of CF. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 37-54.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2),
327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Wang, X. (2017). The Effects of Corrective Feedback on Chinese Learners’ Writing Accuracy: A Quantitative
Analysis in an EFL Context. World Journal of Education, 7(2), 74-88. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v7n2p74

Appendix A
Student Questionnaire
A.1. Marking of English writings
This questionnaire aims to find out your views about how English compositions should be marked. Please
answer the questions with reference to how your present English teacher marks your writings in this academic
year. All your answers will be treated confidentially.

135
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

Please Tick the appropriate answers

• Which of the following is true?
• My English teacher underlines/circles all my errors.
• My English teacher underlines/circles some of my errors.
• My English teacher does not underline/circle any of my errors.
• I have no idea about the above.
If your answer of the question 1 is “B”, answer question 2. If your answer is “A”, “C”, or “D”, go to
question 3.
• Before or after marking your writings, does your teacher tell you what error types (e.g., verbs, pronoun,
tense) s/he has selected to mark?
• Yes
• No
• Which of the following do you like best?
• My English teacher underlines/Circles all of my errors.
• My English teacher underlines/Circles some of my errors.
• My English teacher does not underline/Circle any of my errors.
• Which of the following is true?
• My English teacher corrects all errors for me.
• My English teacher corrects some errors for me.
• My English teacher does not correct any error for me.
• I have no idea about the above.
• Which of the following do you like best?
• My English teacher corrects all errors for me.
• My English teacher corrects some errors for me.
• My English teacher does not correct any error for me.
• Does your English teacher use a correction code in marking your compositions (i.e., using symbols like
v, Adj, t etc.)?
• Yes
• No
If your answer to question 6 is “Yes”, answer question 7 and 8. If your answer is “No”, go to question 9.
• What percentage of your English teacher’s marking symbols (e.g., t/v/adv) are you able to follow and
understand when you are correcting errors in your compositions?
• 76-100%
• 51-75%
• 26-50%
• 0-25%
• What percentage of errors you are able to correct with the help of your English teacher’s marking
symbols (t/v/adv)?
• 76-100%
• 51-75%
• 26-50%
• 0-25%
• After your teacher has corrected the errors in your writings, do you think you will make the same errors
again?

136
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

• Yes
• No
• Do you want your English teacher to use a correction code (using symbol like t/v/adv) in marking your
writing?
• Yes
• No
• Which of the following is true?
• In this academic year, I am making good progress in grammatical accuracy in writing.
• In this academic year, I am making some progress in grammatical accuracy in writing.
• In this academic year, I am making little progress in grammatical accuracy in writing.
• In this academic year, I am making no progress in grammatical accuracy in writing.
• Which of the following do you agree with?
• It is mainly the teacher’s job to locate and correct errors for students.
• It is mainly the student’s job to locate and correct their own errors.

Appendix B
Grammatical Syllabi for grade 7, 8, 9 and 10
Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9-10
Grammar Grammar Grammar
• Parts of speech • Parts of speech a. Noun
• Nouns (Countable and • Nouns (Countable and - Proper
Uncountable) Uncountable) - Common
• Modal • Modal - Collective
• Tenses • Tenses - Material
o Simple present o Simple present - Abstract
o Simple past o Simple past Number
o Simple future o Simple future Gender
o Present continuous o Present continuous Possessive
o Past continuous o Past continuous Appositive
o Present Perfect o Present Perfect b. Pronoun
o Present continuous o Present continuous for - Personal
for indicating future. indicating future. - Interrogative
• Verbs (To be, regular & • Verbs (To be, regular & irregular) - Demonstrative
irregular) • Adjectives - Distributive
• Adjectives • Adverb (Time, place, manner, - Relative (use of who,
• Adverb (Time, place, frequency) which, that, what, etc)
frequency) • Prepositions - Reflexive
• Prepositions • Linking words (and, but, yet, so, - Reciprocal
• Linking words (and, but, yet, firstly, secondly, etc), however, c. Adjective
so, firstly, secondly etc) hence, therefore, by the way, - Articles
• Articles anyway, as well as, etc. - Determiners
• Possessives • Articles - Degree of comparisons
• Sentences • Possessives - Quantifiers
o Affirmative • Sentences d. Verb and Tenses
o Negative o Affirmative - Regular and Irregular verbs
o Interrogative (what, o Negative - Be verbs
when, what time & o Interrogative (how, how - Finite Verbs
wh-questions) often, how much time, - Transitive and Intransitive
o Imperative how long, how well, verbs
o Exclamatory how good) - Infinitive, Gerund,
• Introductory “There” (Positive o Imperative Participle
and Negative) o Exclamatory - Modals
e. Adverb and Adverbials
f. Prepositions

137
 ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 8, No. 4; 2018

g. Sentences
- Types of sentences
- WH questions
- Short answers
- Tag questions
- Use of introductory “There/
it”
- Sentence connectors
- Punctuations
h. Voice
i. Speech
j. Conditionals
k. Composition
- Types of paragraph
- Descriptive, narrative,
imaginative and creative
writing (such as completing
story)
- Formal and informal
writing (application, letter,
CV, cover letter, emails,
online form filling etc)
- Analyzing graphs and
charts, summary writing,
referencing.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

138

View publication stats