Chpaters 1-5

Republic of the Philippines
Bulacan State University

Sarmiento Campus
City of San Jose Del Monte
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
The four macro-skills namely: reading, listening, speaking and writing are
very important especially in learning language and other factors essential in the
learning process of students. These skills help the students to be globally
competitive and acquire knowledge holistically.
Mankind is a social being that cannot live alone. To live together, people
need to communicate to each other through language. And through language,
people can convey their messages both orally and written. People are known to
share ideas and information to each other. When they experience something
special for instance, he or she usually tells his or her experience to another
person or they might be even written it down on a piece of paper.
In expressing the ideas, every people share their own abilities. There is a
person who is clearly bright and confident in expressing his way of thinking in
spoken language. Meanwhile, there is also a person who is weak in spoken but
well enough in his or her written form. Robert Lado (2012) stated that:
―Language is a partial representation unit of a language. Learning to write a
1
Sarmiento Campus
foreign language is learning to put down the graphic symbol that represents a
language one understands, so that, the others can read the language and the
graphic representation.
Writing is one of those macro-skills that an individual should master. It is
one of productive skills in language learning. It is less spontaneous but more
permanent since it takes much time and concentrated practice. In many ways
writing is the act of saying, of imposing oneself upon other people, of saying
―listen to me‖, ―see it my way‖, ―change your mind‖. It‘s an aggressive, even a
hostile act. You can disguise its qualifiers and tentative subjunctives, with
ellipses and evasions—with the whole manner of intimating rather than claiming,
of alluding rather than stating—but there‘s no getting around the fact that setting
words on paper is the tactic of a secret bully, an invasion, an imposition of the
writer‘s sensibility on the reader‘s most private space.
In writing, there‘s a number of language aspects involved such as model
texts, grammar, spell-check, punctuation and prepositions. Apart from
differences in grammar and vocabulary, there are issues of letter, word and text
formation, manifested by handwriting, spelling and layout and punctuation. It
means that writing offers opportunities to increase students‘ vocabulary,
knowledge of grammar and develops their understanding of how things are
expressed and how well students‘ message is understood in the written form.
2
Sarmiento Campus
English language learning is a process where all skills of English
(listening, reading, writing, speaking and grammar) are interconnected. In
developing learner‘s writing proficiency, all language skills must be involved.
According to Adams and Keene (2012), today English, as the means of
instruction, makes a strong contribution to education and students‘ efficiencies in
communication are on top of institutional demands. Learners are expected to
master content areas which are all taught in English, such as ―mathematics, social
studies, science, and business‖. Such conditions have increased the profound
need of teaching and learning English that can help all students cope with their
academic tasks successfully. Leki (2011) claimed that English as Second
Language (ESL) students complain about learning and focusing on the English
word order or word forms. Hence, in order to handle academic tasks, students
need to do their best to write proficiently. Pak-TaoNg (2013) has asserted that the
first idea which comes to mind is that when you think about writing, it is a part of
obligatory course work. The thought seems to be true for students who should
write long or short assignments. If writing is just an anxiety for students, it means
they should do nothing except a chore. They are not likely to go beyond learning.
Moreover, Pak-TaoNg (2013) suggested that writing consists of a lot of activities
which result in understanding. Such an understanding includes a process of
3
Sarmiento Campus
thinking about the topic, notes gathering, data collection, etc. which makes a
reflective thought for you at the end.
The importance of English writing is becoming increasingly dominant in
both educational programs and in professional writing in non-English dominant
countries (Leki, 2011). To become a proficient writer is a wish of many
EFL/ESL students especially for those who want to get higher education due to
regular writing assignments from the instructors. In addition, EFL/ESL Writing
has always been considered an important skill in teaching and learning.
According to Rao (2014), EFL writing is useful in two respects. First, it
motivates students‘ thinking, organizing ideas, developing their ability to
summarize, analyze and criticize. However, writing is always a big problem for
EFL/ESL students in terms language uses, grammatical structures, and cultural
communication.
Nowadays, writing seems to the handicap and burden for the students.
They think that writing is the hardest part particularly in learning English;
moreover it requires not only having a lot of vocabularies but also considering
the mechanisms of it. The biggest problem is that Writing is more complex
which tests a person‘s ability to use a language and the ability to express ideas
(Norrish, 2011) and writing requires a person to write not only coherently but
effectively. Homstad and Thorson (2013) state that writing in a foreign language
4
Sarmiento Campus
is a frustrating and difficult activity for students, so the students are often
reluctant to incorporate into these kinds of activities in or outside the classrooms.
Individuals with writing problems may have difficulties in one or more
aspects of writing skill such as proper use of grammar, conventions, punctuation,
capitalization, spelling, and some of the basic and initiating aspects of writing. It
is also an unpleasant piece of work for both teachers and learners in English
classes. The said grammatical problems take a serious effect on the quality of
writing that the students‘ produce. It makes the communication process
unsuccessful and the learning of the second language ineffective.
In order to convey meaning in communication, both in written and oral
communication, one needs fully equipped with sufficient grammar mastery.
Grammar is the silver lining of language, the harmony of language, as it is the
one that make language meaningful. Imagine, if sentences are uttered without
grammar, it will be as messy as an orchestra without a conductor. The role of
grammar is vital in communication, language is a function and grammar is the
analysis of this function, it is as useless to know grammar in order to speak one‘s
native tongue, as to know physiology in order to breathe with one‘s lungs, or to
walk with one‘s legs.
This subject of study is provoked not only because of the researchers'
interests as teachers in the second language field, but also due to interest as
5
Sarmiento Campus
researchers who are engaged in writing classes in order to make a picture of what
carries on in these classes.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In any classroom, the researchers cannot deny that there are lots of
grammatical errors that they commit when it comes in writing. This study intends
to answer the following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the selected respondents with regards
to:
1.1 Age
1.2 Sex
2. What are the common grammatical errors committed by Second Year
English Major Students at Bulacan State University-Sarmiento Campus?
3. What are the least and most common grammatical errors that the students
can commit?
4. Is there any significant relationship between the common grammatical
errors and effective writing?
6
Sarmiento Campus
HYPOTHESIS
There is no significant relationship between the common grammatical
errors and effective writing of students.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Research today bridges the world of ideas to real- life situations. This
study tends to provide facts and information beneficial to the following sectors:
Students. This study aims to allow the students to know their common
grammatical errors in writing. Also, this will help in assessing themselves to
identify their strengths and weaknesses so that they can think of the possible
ways to lessen their numerous grammatical errors in writing.
Teachers. This research is intended to help the teachers to have a starting
point for the improvement and progress of the students‘ ability in writing. The
assessment results will provide the pedagogy the proper way of correcting the
common errors of the students. This will help them to prepare highly structured
lessons and remedial program for the benefit of the students.
7
Sarmiento Campus
Parents. This research seeks to boost the awareness of the parents about
their role in the development of their child‘s ability in writing. In addition,
parents will also be informed that the development of a child does not depend on
teachers alone for they are also part of the learning process. Most importantly,
they will recognize the essence of employing various activities at home that will
surely improve the writing ability of students.
School Administrator. This study will serve as motivation for the school
administrator to determine the needs of the students. Likewise, it aims for
progress to school‘s way of providing higher education to students that will
promote excellence.
Curriculum Planners. This study can help the curriculum planners to
design a curriculum that would suffice the needs of the students.
Researchers. The result of this study could give the researchers the
knowledge on how to improve their skills in writing.
Future Researchers. This study can serve as an inspiration and basis for
future researchers who will conduct studies related to the subject matter.
8
Sarmiento Campus
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION
This research aims to focus on the Grammatical Errors committed by
English major students.
This study is limited to fifty (50) randomly selected Second Year English
Major Students at Bulacan State University-Sarmiento Campus. The researchers
chose second year College students because they assume that at this level, the
students are fully equipped on the basic rules of grammar and language use. It
will approximately cover half of the second semester, Academic Year 2016-
2017.
9
Sarmiento Campus
Conceptual Framework
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
1. Demographic  Organizing  Upgrade

Profile of the of the profile curriculum
Students from of the  Seminars,
Bachelor of
Secondary Education students trainings
Major in English,  Gathering of and
Second Year: data remedial
 Conducting programs
1.1 Age
1.2 Sex examinations
 Analyzing
2. Common Errors in the data
Writing:
A. Grammar Test  Coming up
with the
2.1 Idioms conclusions
2.2 Subject-Verb
Agreement
2.3 Adverbs
2.4 Pronoun
2.5 Verb Tense
2.6 Diction
2.7 Conjunction
2.8 Noun
2.9 Parallelism
2.10 Double
Negatives
2.11 Infinitives
2.12 Adjectives
B. Essay Test
2.13 Organization of
Ideas
2.14
Clarity
2.15 Unity
2.16 Coherence
10
Sarmiento Campus
The conceptual framework shows how the researchers will conduct
their research. In the input, the profile of the respondents of Bachelor of
Secondary Education major in English, Second Year, in terms of Age and Sex
are included as well as the conducting of two test type which is the Grammar test
wherein the researchers will identify the common errors in writing committed by
the respondents such as Idioms, Subject-Verb Agreement, Adverbs, Pronoun,
Verb Tense, Diction, Conjunction, Noun, Parallelism, Double-Negatives,
Infinitives, and Adjectives.
The researchers will also test the knowledge of the respondents in
terms of the Organization of ideas, Clarity, Unity and Coherence through an
Essay Test. In the process, the researchers will organize the profile of the
students, gather data, conduct the examination specifically grammar and essay
test, analyze the data and then make a conclusions to come up with the possible
solutions which can lead to the upgrade curriculum and seminars, trainings and
remedial programs which are the possible output.
11
Sarmiento Campus
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Analysis – In this study, the word analysis is used to describe the product
or output of the students on how they perform in their writing activities.
Analysis of Variance – Analysis of Variance is defined in this study as a
statistical tool that would measure the difference of the two test types, the
Grammar Test and the Essay type Test.
Grammatical Errors – In this study, these pertain to the subject of the
study that the researchers conducted or simply their mistakes in terms of writing.
Mean – In this study, the mean is equal to the sum of all the values in the
data set divided by the number of values in the data set.
Standard Deviation – In this study, Standard Deviation is defined as the
parameter that indicates the gap of every score of students to one another.
Writing – In this study, out of the four macro-skills it is the focus of the
researchers regarding their observations.
12
Sarmiento Campus
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Foreign Literature
According to Abdulah (2013) English language has become an
international medium of communication among the people on earth. The mastery
of good English is deemed as having an edge and can bring a lot of advantages in
many ways. This international language is not only used for communicational
purposes but also in the fields of technology, commerce, education and many
other aspects of life. Malaysia, that aims to be a developed country by the year of
2020, has long considered the importance of mastering this language. The
government has planned and subsequently implemented many policies to ensure
Malaysians master the English language starting from primary schools to tertiary
levels of education.
Al-Khasawneh (2011) argued that huge number of international contacts,
regarding non-native to non-native communication and deals are carried out
through English in a massive number of settings, including trade, diplomacy,
tourism, journalism, science and technology, politics, etc. Therefore, the
13
Sarmiento Campus
existence of competent writers and speakers of English is of a great importance
for today's world. Regarding the Malaysian ESL context, ―being a competent
writer of English in the banking sector of Malaysia and the consequences of
poorly-written business letters to clients‖ is what has been emphasized by
Puvenesvary, a well-known business magazine in Malaysia.
In connection to this, according to Tan and Miller (2012), writing is an
intentional, social communication that involves literacy as well. Furthermore, it
is taken as a means of social practices, through which patterns of participation,
gender preferences, networks of support and collaboration, patterns of time use,
space, tools, technology and resources are applied. In addition, through the
interaction of writing with reading and written language with other semiotic
modes, the symbolic meanings of literacy, and the broader social goals take
place. This is exactly what literacy serves in the lives of people and institutions.
Zamel (2011), a pioneer in English as Second Language (ESL) writing research,
considered writing process as a ―non-linear, exploratory, and generative process
whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to
approximate meaning‖
In the article ―Why Revitalize Grammar,‖ Dunn and Lindblom (2013)
stated that ―knowing there are many effective writing teachers who understand
that grammar is a tool for making meaning and not an end in itself‖.
14
Sarmiento Campus
Rei Noguchi (2011) in his Grammar and the Teaching of Writing argues
that style is ―just as global . . . as organization and content‖ and that teaching
grammar and mechanics can help students improve their style. Further,
correctness is important, Noguchi points out, since ―many readers, particularly in
business and other professional settings, perceive the errors as major
improprieties‖. A reason for the ―negligible‖ effect of much grammar instruction,
Noguchi speculates, is that ―students, though possessing sufficient knowledge of
formal grammar, fail to apply that knowledge to their writing‖. His conclusion
advises moderation between extremes: composition faculty should teach
grammar—but not at length and for its own sake. Rather, they should integrate
grammar instruction with writing instruction and teach the most vital terms and
the most frequently made errors.
Local Literature
Magno (2012) stated on Philippine ESL Journal that besides motivational
factors, other factors that may affect language learning include consecutive trial
and error learning. It has been observed in many research studies that children‘s
acquisition of the first language is easy and almost effortless but they always find
15
Sarmiento Campus
problems and make mistakes when learning a second language. Based on the
experience of learning the first language, it is always beneficial to analyze the
influence of the first language on the second language acquisition, which may
ultimately facilitate the teaching and learning processes.
In fact, second language acquisition is a developmental process, in which
the learners are inevitably making errors which should be treated as an integral
part of learning. He even believes that learners‘ errors should be categorized and
analyzed, and the psychological process of how learners commit such errors
should be studied. Error analysis therefore plays an indispensable role in
understanding second language acquisition.
Gurrea and Vincent (2013) published in Journal of English and Literature
that it is useful for students to master the specific features of the English lexical
system when learning English as a second language. Two main categories can be
found in the lexical characteristics of English. They are the lexical form and
lexical meaning. Furthermore, they stated that two levels of second language
behavior for the students should be emphasized: firstly, to be able to write
grammatical sentences with confidence, and secondly, to be able to express their
own meaning in the writing.
Gustilo (2012) in her article entitled Learner‘s Errors: The Case of
Filipino Writers said that lexicon is the major meaning-carrying element in
language and that is why its acquisition is an integral part of learning a second
16
Sarmiento Campus
language. Lexical learning is an on-going process. Lexicon acquisition is also a
mental discipline with memorization of vocabulary lists under traditional
teaching method.
Both first and second language learning attach great importance to
vocabulary leaning for a number of years within the language teaching program.
The format of the mental lexicon is different from the first language to second
language. The relative stability of responses to word association is indicated in
monolinguals, but not found in second language learners. Meanwhile, the second
language mental lexicon is only different from the first language lexicon as the
former has a far smaller amount of words and does not need the sophisticated
storage and retrieval faculty of the first language mental lexicon.
According to Mabuan (2015) second language lexicon acquisition is
related to the students‘ ability to recognize vocabulary. Active and passive
vocabularies come from different levels of recognizing the lexicon. On one hand,
learners‘ passive vocabulary includes the total number of lexical items that they
can understand correctly. A new lexical item seldom accumulated straightly into
the learners‘ passive vocabulary, but it usually passes a transition stage of partial
understanding. Students increase their understanding for a new word when they
read the word more often. On the other hand, students‘ active vocabulary consists
17
Sarmiento Campus
of the total number of lexical items that they can accurately use in speech and
writing. Second language acquisition also involves many interrelated factors.
Dulay et al. (2011) identify four broad features of the environment which
may affect not only the rate but also the quality of second language acquisition.
They are the naturalness of language, the learner‘s role in communication, the
availability of concrete referents to clarify meaning, and the target language
models. Whether a language environment is natural depends on where the focus
of communication is. If the speaker‘s focus is on the content of the message
communicated, the language environment is natural. Studies show that second
language learners in a natural language environment where the focus is on
communication achieve overall better results than those who study in a formal
environment where the focus is on acquiring linguistic rules. They also claim that
second language learner needs opportunities to match his own knowledge with
that of native speakers. An ideal situation for learning a second language is
therefore a total immersion situation or a real-life situation.
Tabula (2012) also argued that on the written exposition skills of Mass
Communication students in the University of Northern Philippines stated that the
respondents‘ level of written exposition skills is ―competent‖ in all areas of
purpose, language, content, organization, and delivery. He also found out that
there is a significant relationship between the student-related variables on type of
school graduated from, parents‘ educational attainment, language used at home,
18
Sarmiento Campus
and exposure to mass media and their level of written exposition skills. He, then,
recommended that a research looking into the practices of teachers in writing in
secondary language and language as a whole be pursued to figure out the cause
of the low written exposition skills proficiency of the students.
Foreign Studies
Abushihap et.al (2011) conducted a study in order to investigate and
classify the grammatical errors in the writings of 62 students of the Department
of English Literature and Translation at Alzaytoonah Private University of
Jordan. The students enrolled in a paragraph writing course in the first semester
of the academic year 2009/2010. These errors were first classified into six major
categories and then they were divided into subcategories. It was observed that the
category that included the largest number of errors was the errors of prepositions,
which comprised 26% of the total errors. The following most problematic areas
were respectively: morphological errors, articles, verbs, active and passive and
tenses. On the basis of the students' results, the researcher has included some
pedagogical implications for teachers, syllabus designers, textbook writers and
text developers.
19
Sarmiento Campus
Based on the significance of errors and error analysis in second and
foreign language learning, the researcher who is an English lecturer in a
university would like to investigate grammatical errors made by the first year
English major students enrolling the subject EN51105 English Form and Use 1 at
Udon Thani Rajabhat University in the first semester of 2012 academic year.
These students were the freshmen English majors so it was essential to find out
their language ability and difficulties that could provide useful evidence to
improve their linguistic competence that is an important part of communicative
competence.
The results showed that the most frequent errors made by the first year
English majors were general grammatical errors: verbs, nouns, possessive case,
articles, prepositions, adjectives, and adverbs (47.41%), syntactic errors:
sentence structure, ordering, and coordination/subordination (19.53%), substance
errors: capitalization, spelling, and punctuations (19.20%), lexical errors: word
selection and word formation (11.69%), and semantic errors: ambiguous
communication and miscommunication (2.17%) respectively. The characteristics
of grammatical errors found in this study were omission, misinformation,
misordering, and overgeneralization.
The evidence of grammatical errors indicated that the first year English
majors had some difficulties in using correct grammatical forms and structures.
20
Sarmiento Campus
However, these errors did not affect communication process much since the
students could get themselves understood; only a few per cent of errors caused
miscommunication and ambiguous communication. Nevertheless, teachers still
need to pay special attention to these errors, especially general grammatical
errors such as the use of verbs, nouns, and sentence structures, the most frequent
errors made by the students. Besides, there were some language problems of
syntactic errors, substances errors, and lexical errors that teachers have to
emphasize when teaching to help the students use better English to a more
advanced level.
Similarly, the study conducted by Mohaghegh et.al (2011) investigated the
frequency of the grammatical errors related to the four categories of preposition,
relative pronoun, article, and tense using the translation task.
This study was conducted with 60 junior EFL students studying at Shahid
Bahonar University of Kerman. Out of these randomly selected students, 30 were
majoring in English literature and 30 were majoring in English translation. To
meet the goals of the study, four translation tests were used in order to extract
four types of grammatical errors committed by EFL students in their written
products. The first test that should be noted in this study was a preposition test.
The items of this test were extracted from Fitikides (2011), and then translated
into Persian to test the knowledge of the students in using different prepositions
21
Sarmiento Campus
in English. It contains 69 Persian items, and in every case the students had to
translate the items into English using the appropriate prepositions. It should be
noted that because of the high number of prepositions in English this study was
limited to a certain number of prepositions (12types) based on Fitikides (2011).
The second test used in this study was a relative pronoun test. The items
of this test were taken from Fitikides (2011), and Swan (2011). Then the items
were translated into Persian to examine the ability of the students in using
various relative pronouns in English. This test consists of 16 Persian items that
the students were supposed to translate each item into English using the
appropriate relative pronouns. The third test applied in this study was an article
test. The items of this test were also extracted from Fitikides (2011), and
translated into Persian. Translation of 38 sentences, using the appropriate articles
in English based on Persian sentences was the aim of this test in the study. The
last instrument used in the present study was a tense test. The items of this test
were taken from Mollanazar (2011). This test consists of 27 English items that
the students were supposed to translate them into Persian using the appropriate
tenses to examine whether they know all the different tenses in English
especially those ones that they do not have an equivalent in Persian tense
classification.
22
Sarmiento Campus
In this study the preposition test was divided into two sections because of the
high number of items, 69 items, in order not to be boring for the students to
translate them. The students were supposed to translate the items of each section
within 30 min on each session. For the other three translation tests (relative
pronoun, article and tense) the tests were given to the students on three sessions
that each one took them 35min.One important point that should be taken into
account is that the students had to translate the items without using any
dictionaries or other helps to show their true knowledge of English, and also it
should be mentioned that in each test, the participants had the instruction to use
the appropriate prepositions, relative pronouns, articles and tenses.
The Mann-Whitney U test was used to measure and compare the
frequencies of the grammatical errors related to the category of relative pronoun
between literature and translation students.
The findings showed errors that there is a statistically significant
difference between the frequencies of the grammatical in the regarded categories.
Comparing literature and translation students in committing the grammatical
errors in these four categories was also another aim of this study. The findings
revealed that the literature students outperformed the translation students
relatively. The results of the statistical analyses suggest that preposition is the
most problematic category in this study and then relative pronoun, article, and
tense have the most number of errors respectively. These statistical analyses also
23
Sarmiento Campus
suggest that there is a significant difference between the different types of the
grammatical errors in each category and furthermore, there is a significant
difference between literature and translation students in the frequencies in
different categories.
Based on the study by Nassaji (2014), he found out that there are162
target errors that learners had made in their journals received feedback. Of these
errors, 89 (55%) were article errors and 73 (45%) were preposition errors. Of the
total number of article errors, 38% had received direct reformulation with no
negotiation, 26% had received prompt + reformulation, and 36% had received
negotiation. Of the total number of preposition errors, 34%, 32%, and 34% had
received direct reformulation, prompt + reformulation, and feedback with
negotiation, respectively. Altogether, about one third of each of the two target
forms had received one of the three feedback types.
The first analysis examined whether there was any relationship between
feedback types and learners‘ ability to successfully identify and correct the target
errors. To this end, the frequency and percentages of learners‘ correct test scores
in each of the feedback conditions were calculated and compared. Over-all,
learners were able to correct more than half (54%) of the errors (articles and
prepositions) on which they had received feedback in the first immediate testing.
A comparison of the three feedback types showed that the percentages of correct
test scores varied across feedback conditions. Of the total number of errors that
24
Sarmiento Campus
had received direct reformulations with no negotiation, learners corrected 41% of
them in the first testing. However, of the total number of errors that had received
prompt + reformulation and negotiation, learners corrected higher percentages:
56% and 65%, respectively. A chi-square test indicated that the difference among
the three feedback types was statistically significant (2, N= 162) = 7.05, p < .05.
The residual analysis, further indicated that of the three feedback types, feedback
with negotiation led to a significantly higher percentage, and reformulation with
no negotiation led to a significantly lower percentage, of correct test scores.
The findings regarding the overall efficacy of negotiation can be
explained in terms of the opportunities that it provides for scaffolding and guided
help learners obtained as a result of interacting with the teacher (Nassaji &
Swain, 2014). The finding pertaining to the greater effect of negotiation on
article errors also echoes those of Bitchener et al. (2013) who found a significant
effect for feedback (when combined with oral conferencing) on the accuracy of
the definite article but not on the accuracy of preposition errors. Bitchener et al.
(2013) explained the difference in terms of Ferris‘ distinction between treatable
and less treatable errors. According to Bitchener et al. (2013), since the use of
articles is more rule-governed, feedback with oral negotiation is more effective
because it can provide opportunities for explaining and illustrating those rules.
This is not true for prepositions that have many meanings and whose application
25
Sarmiento Campus
is more idiosyncratic. However, in the present study, direct reformulation also
led to a noticeably high percentage of correction in the case of preposition errors,
but not article errors. Although variations in the effectiveness of negotiated
feedback on article errors may be explained in terms of the degree of error
treatability, the findings regarding the relative ineffectiveness of direct
reformulation for articles and its effectiveness for prepositions need further
explanation. One explanation, although speculative, may come from the type of
rules involved in article errors, on the one hand, and the more lexical nature of
prepositions, on the other. Grammatical rules can be classified into two types:
‗transparent‘ and ‗opaque‘ (Kiparsky, 2012). Transparent rules are easy to
explain and teach (an example could be plural -s.). Opaque rules are not simple,
and therefore, are harder to explain and grasp. Although article errors are
relatively rule-oriented, these rules are not straightforward and can be considered
to be more opaque.
In the case of such errors, negotiation was helpful possibly because it
provided the necessary time to explain and treat the error. Direct reformulation
was not very helpful because it did not provide such opportunities. Prepositions,
on the other hand, responded effectively to direct reformulations possibly
because learners may have simply stored the reformulations in the memory and
then remembered them in the post-tests. This could have been because of the
26
Sarmiento Campus
more lexical nature of prepositions. Because of that, prepositions are also more
salient than articles. This characteristic may then make them also more likely to
be noticed when they become the target of reformulation. There is some research
evidence from feedback on oral errors that seems to support this latter
explanation. Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2011), for example, found that
learners perceived the corrective nature of lexical reformulations (recasts) more
accurately than morphosyntactic reformulations.
Also, based on the finding in the study conducted by Ting, Mahadhir, and
Chang (2011) the grammatical accuracy in writing English in simulated in
written exercises among less proficient English as Second Language (ESL)
learners in a Malaysian tertiary institution. The findings showed that the students
developed grammatical accuracy towards the end of the writing communication
course. In all grammatical categories examined, the students made fewer errors
in the third written exam compared to the first, with the exception of the plural
form which was used. Based on the surface structure description of Dulay et al.,
(2012), misinformation and omission account for 72% of the total grammatical
errors identified, with addition and misordering of elements being less frequent.
Based on a linguistic description of the errors, preposition and question are the
most difficult for the less proficient students constituting about 35% of total
errors, following by word form and article (about 11% each). The other types of
errors are relatively less frequent: subject-verb agreement, plural form, tense,
27
Sarmiento Campus
pronoun, misordering of question and negative statements. There are also severe
grammatical errors in which the types of error are not easily identifiable.
The study has identified common errors for remedial teaching where
writing English is concerned. As an error analysis of spoken language, this study
has contributed by identifying two grammatical categories for which allowances
need to be made for features of speech, that is, the use of the affirmative sentence
structure as a question, the use of the base form of the verb in place of the past
tense form. While the grammaticality of these utterances is a contentious issue,
the nature of spontaneous language use in speech and its resemblance to
authentic language use need to be considered. Marking students down on
grammatical inaccuracy for these grammatical errors might be reflective of
importing an expectation of grammatical correctness akin to that of written
language which is produced with time for planning and editing and which
represents experience as products rather than processes (Halliday, 2013).
Nevertheless, as the study focused on students who are less proficient in
English and did not include proficient writers of English, the researchers were
unable to provide empirical evidence as to the authentic language use of
proficient writers in non-native English environments, apart from relying on
descriptions of features of Malaysian English in the literature.
28
Sarmiento Campus
Else, on the experimental, statistical study by Davis (2011), he
investigated the effects that the testing of grammar and writing mechanics would
have on the overall quality and reduction of errors in college students‘ essays for
freshman composition. In the experimental group of 42 students, the professor
assigned several exercises in grammar and mechanics as a review related to
composing skills and then gave two major tests on proofreading essays for
grammatical errors. However, the other professor did not give these grammar
tests to the 41 students in the control group. The study used ―T-tests‖ for
statistical analysis on pretest and posttest essays, which each of the 83 students
had written.
On overall writing quality, the faculty raters holistically scored the
students‘ essays, using a scale from 1 (failing) to 4 (superior). Since the two
raters scored each student‘s pretest and posttest essay, each essay had a
combined score resulting in a scale from 2 (failing) to 8 (superior). The results
showed that the 42 students of the experimental group who tested on grammar
had a mean pretest essay score of 2 and a mean posttest essay score of 4.53,
showing a gain of 2.53. Statistically, these students made very highly significant
gains in overall writing quality. The 41 students of the control group not tested
on grammar had a mean pretest essay score of 2.66 and a posttest score of 4.49,
showing a gain of 1.83. These students‘ also made very highly significant gains
29
Sarmiento Campus
in overall writing quality, although the experimental group‘s posttest essay
scores were still significantly higher than the control groups.
On traditionally serious grammatical errors, the experimental group had a
mean number of 1.5 serious errors on the pretest essay and a mean number of
0.93 error on the posttest, a reduction of 0.57 which was statistically significant.
The control group‘s mean number on the pretest essay was 1.23 serious errors
and a mean posttest number of 0.64 error, a reduction of 0.59 which was also
significant; however, there was no significant difference between both groups in
the reduction of serious errors. For the less serious ―minor‖ errors, the
experimental group had a mean number of 7.4 minor errors on the pretest essay
and a mean number of 5.12 errors on the posttest essay, a reduction of 2.28 errors
which was highly significant. The control group had a mean pretest essay
number of 12.5 minor errors and a mean posttest essay number of 7.42 errors, a
reduction of 5.08 errors which was very highly significant. Moreover, statistics
showed a significant difference between both groups‘ posttest essays in the
reduction of these minor errors, with the control group making more significant
reductions in the minor errors than the experimental group. The researchers
concluded that the two major grammar tests on proofreading two essays for
errors may have had some effect on the experimental group‘s gains in overall
writing quality for correctness.
However, these tests appeared to make no difference between both
30
Sarmiento Campus
groups, by having very little if any effect on the students in the experimental
group to reduce the number of errors significantly in their essays.
Local Studies
Lasaten (2014) use the qualitative research design in his study which aims
to analyze the common linguistic errors in the English writings of teacher
education students. His paper specifically sought to identify and describe the
prevailing linguistic errors in the English writings of the students. Moreover, it
investigated the possible causes of these errors and drew out implications to
language learning and teaching. Using random sampling, the written
compositions of the students were subjected to error analysis using the
Taxonomy of Errors patterned after the model of Darus and Ching (2011).
The study found out that errors in verb tenses are the most common
linguistic errors of the students, followed by error in sentence structure,
punctuations, word choice, spelling, use of prepositions and articles. These errors
fall under the grammatical, mechanics/substance and syntactic aspects of writing
English. Majority of these errors are caused by learners‘ poor knowledge of the t
arget language (English), specifically ignorance of rule restrictions. Others are
attributed to the learners‘ carelessness, first language transfer or interference and
31
Sarmiento Campus
limited vocabulary in the target language. Through this study, language teachers
are guided to assess their own teaching methodologies and identify their students'
ability in writing and to choose the strategies and topics that are best suited to
their students.
The findings of the study show that errors in verb tenses are the most
common linguistic errors of the students with a total of 76 (19.29%) occurrences,
followed by error in sentence structure (66 or 16.75%), punctuations (66 or
16.75%), word choice (36 or 9.14%), spelling (30 or (7.61%), prepositions (26 or
6.60%) and (24 or 6.09%). Among all indicated linguistic errors, errors in verb
tenses are the most common or prevailing errors of the students in their English
writings, with 76 (19.29%) total number of occurrences. It was clearly observed
from the students‘ compositions that they are not consistent in the use of verb
tenses. The fact that the compositions are told in the past form of the verbs, they
are not cautious of the correct verb tenses to be used. Likewise, they are not
aware that verbs also indicate time of occurrence.
In the light of the findings, it can be concluded that the common linguistic
errors in the English writings of the teacher education students were errors in
verb tenses, sentence structure, punctuations, word choice, spelling, prepositions
and articles. These errors fall under the grammatical, mechanics/substance and
syntactic aspects of writing English. Majority of these errors are caused by the
32
Sarmiento Campus
learners‘ poor knowledge of the target language, particularly ignorance of rule
restrictions. Others are caused by the learners‘ carelessness, first language
transfer or interference and limited vocabulary in the target language. Analyzing
linguistic errors in students‘ English writings is indeed an interesting endeavor in
the field of language teaching and learning. Error Analysis (EA) provides a shift
or direction toward a more positive treatment on student linguistic errors in their
writings. It brings changes in teachers‘ attitudes toward errors, evident in a less
obsessive avoidance of errors. It lets language teachers picture out and
understand how language learning takes place in the minds of learners. Hence,
language teachers are given the opportunity to find ways on how to improve their
instruction to address their learners‘ difficulties and needs.
Based on the study of Gustilo et.al. (2012), the top five most frequently
occurring errors that are distributed in three different levels of writing
proficiency are comma (unnecessary or missing comma, missing comma after an
introductory clause or phrase, missing comma before a non-restrictive clause)
16.6 %, Word choice (wrong word form/word choice) 13.5%, Verbs (S-V
Agreement, verb tense, verb form) 11.8%, Capitalization 11.3 %, and
punctuation and sentence structure (fragment and run on sentences) 9.4 %. All
three levels have errors on these aforementioned categories. However, out of the
28 error types identified in the essays, only 24 types appeared in level 3 essays.
Level 3 essays have no errors in pronoun-antecedent agreement, wrong
33
Sarmiento Campus
punctuation (e.g. question mark instead of a period), missing hyphen, and
unnecessary words.
The data were analyzed by multiple regressions, using as regressors are
the factors of error categories. The regression was a rather poor fit (adjusted R2=
12.40%), and the overall relationship was not significant F(30,104)= 1.63, p <
0.05).With other variables held constant, essay proficiency levels were positively
related to word choice and cap, decreasing by 0.21 for every extra point of word
choice, by 0.35 for every extra point of cap. The effect of word choice and cap
were significant, t(104) = 2.28, t(104)=3.52, p< 0.01.
This finding is, perhaps, explained partly by the raters‘ survey replies
which indicated that, for them, sentence-level errors are secondary factors that
influence their ratings of essay. As for the individual error types that emerged as
having significant effect on essay scores, this too may be partly corroborated by
the survey data—two out of three raters indicated that they tend to focus on word
choice and punctuation and mechanics (along with other factors) while rating
essays.
The qualitative results of the survey corroborate some of the results in the
quantitative analysis of sentence-level errors. As discussed earlier, the three
proficiency levels do not significantly differ on error categories as a whole,
giving us a hint that essays in higher levels of proficiency (2 and 3) seem to have
34
Sarmiento Campus
shared almost the same errors with essays in proficiency level 1. This is because
the raters seem to have given room for errors even in essays that were rated high.
These essays meet the other criteria which are given more emphasis by the raters
such as logical organization, clarity of expression, effective use of language, and
ability to target the prompt. Word choice significantly decreases essay score
apparently because the raters were unanimous in according it an important role in
essay score.
Generally, most of the findings of the present study corroborate the
findings of previous studies on error analysis and essay evaluation—that
sentence-level errors have a significant role in essay scores. However, the present
study‘s finding that word choice and capitalization errors are the significant
predictors of essay scores compared with other error types contradicts the
findings of previous research: Sweedler-Brown (2013) concluded that article
errors were more damaging in predicting essay scores; Weltig 2012 claimed that
verb formation errors are more damaging to writing scores than any error types
because they cause more problems in the transmission of meaning. More studies
are needed to verify these conflicting findings.
In the meantime, English as Second Language (ESL) teachers have to
focus on the troubling results of the present study. It seems that students need to
be given more effective strategies on how to enlarge their vocabulary—an
35
Sarmiento Campus
important aspect in surviving today‘s academic and global world that placed
more emphasis on the use of the English language as a major medium for
instruction and communication. Next, teachers need to remind students that
although punctuation or mechanics errors do not greatly impede meaning in the
sentence as compared with other 109 language aspects, they are regarded as
important; and raters may find these errors irritating and damaging to the overall
quality of essays. Equally important is the understanding that although more
language teachers and academicians have become open to the place of World
Englishes in composition (Canagarajah, 2012) and the descriptivist approach to
language teaching, the emphasis on grammar or language accuracy when it
comes to the written texts should not be weakened. Although the use of local
variety in writing may be allowed, familiarity with the standard usage is still
beneficial. There is no harm in being competent in both codes.
Alinsunod (2014) identify the writing problems of English as Second
Language (ESL) learners.
The researcher used a questionnaire as her instrument. This instrument is
composed of two parts: the first part is created to get the personal information of
the participants including the students spoken language used at home; and second
part requires the students to write at least two paragraphs on a given topic..
36
Republic of The Philippines
Sarmiento Campus
Second instrument is a questionnaire adapted from Kamimura‘s (2013; in Mojica
2012 concerning what students thought and did before, during, and after writing.
The findings of the study show that less than 40% of the participants
committed errors on articles/ determiners, numbers. Moreover, more than 30% of
the participants have problems on grammar and preposition. It supports to this
data is the study of Blake (2011); in Lozada and Magsangya, 2012) that Filipino
speakers and even writers find it difficult to use the English prepositions because
Philippine official language [Filipino] has a very limited number of prepositions.
Meanwhile, a little less than ten (15) % appears to have difficulties in verb tense,
word order, spelling and one who reported for not having a good command in
English. On the other hand, raters noticed that majority of the participants have
problems in organization of ideas. They have also noted that the students
disregard the use of punctuation including the period, comma, and apostrophe.
This finding is very opposite to Mojica‘s study on the investigation of
English as First Language (EFL) self-report writing and actual writing
difficulties. In her study, student‘ thinking processes increasingly reduced as the
EFL students proceed to the next writing stage. In this study, one possible reason,
students tend to concern about the reaction of their teachers after reading the
paper.
37
Sarmiento Campus
The present and past studies were similar on the focus of their study
which is to identify the common errors of students in terms of writing. Also, the
instrumentation used in the present study is the same with the past studies. Both
studies made used of test questionnaires and essay examination to test the
student‘s ability in writing. On the other hand, the studies differ on the research
design, research locale, sample and sampling technique and procedure of
administering the test. Some researchers used the qualitative research design
while others used the experimental research design. The findings of the study
reveal different results of errors in writing that are mostly committed by students.
However, all these errors fall under the grammatical and syntactic aspects of
writing.
38
Sarmiento Campus
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The researchers used the descriptive method of research in this study.
According to Fraenkel and Wallen, descriptive method is a method used to
explain, analyze, and classify, something through various techniques, survey,
interview, questionnaire and test. The former defines descriptive method as a
study which determine and reports the way things are. The researchers used this
method as a purposive process of gathering and analyzing data about the study.
Descriptive method describes the nature of situation as it exists at the time
of the study and to explore the causes of particular phenomena. This instrument
is useful in describing and interpreting phenomena, in analyzing relationship of
variables, testing hypothesis and in the development of generalization.
This method involves collection of data in order to test hypothesis or to
answer questions concerning the current status of the subject of the study.
39
Sarmiento Campus
Research Locale
The researcher conducted the study at Bulacan State University-Sarmiento
Campus. It is a public, non-sectarian university with two semesters each
academic year. Also, it is a satellite campus of its main campus at Malolos,
Bulacan.
Bulacan State University-Sarmiento Campus is a state-funded institution
of higher learning established in 1998, as Don Pablo Sarmiento and his family
donated a 2-hectare lot in Kaypian which served as an extension campus of the
university. It is located at University Heights, Brgy. Kaypian, City of San Jose
Del Monte, Bulacan, Region III, Philippines.
Sample and Sampling Technique
With an entire population of almost two hundred (200) students coming
from a section of Second Year College Major in English currently studying in
Bulacan State University-Sarmiento Campus, the researchers came up with a
total of fifty (50) learners as a sampling size for this study.
In the selection of representative for this study, they used one of the
cluster methods. This was also based on the fact that the method of research
adapted happened to be in the Descriptive Design of Research. The more
delegates they have, the more accurate the results are.
40
Sarmiento Campus
Cluster Sampling is a sampling used when mutually homogenous yet
internally heterogeneous groupings are evident in a statistical population. It is
often used in marketing research. In this sampling plan, the total population is
divided into these groups (known as clusters) and simple random sample of the
groups is selected.
Instrumentation
This research relied heavily on questionnaire as the primary source of
gathering the data. This is a standardized test. For the first part of the
examination, the researchers used the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). For the
second part, the researchers used the Preliminary SAT/National Merit
Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT).
It measures the literacy and writing skills. This objective type of test is in
the form of multiple choice-tests. It measures both simple knowledge and
complex concepts. Since multiple choice questions can be answered quickly, it
can assess students‘ mastery of many topics on an hour exam. In addition the
items can be easily and reliably scored.
This SAT is in the form of error identification test in which the students
must locate the word producing the source of the error or indicate that the
sentence has no error. All multiple-choice questions have five choices, one of
which is correct.
41
Sarmiento Campus
Procedure
The researchers adapted an objective type of test in which the students
will answer. Instructions as to what is to be done to the examination had been
provided.
In administering the examination, the researchers used the time allotted
for vacant to avoid distraction of class discussion. For the first part of the
examination, the students were given 1 hour in answering the 50 items multiple
choice-tests. For the second part, they were given 30 minutes in answering the 20
items multiple choice-tests.
The researchers personally supervised the retrieval of the retrieval of the
questionnaires to achieve the one hundred percent (100%) return.
Statistical Treatment Tools
Statistical treatment of data is essential in order to make use of the data in
the right form. The organization of data is equally important so that appropriate
conclusions can be drawn. This is what statistical treatment of data is all about.
The following statistical tools were used to answer the specific problems
and the hypothesis of this study.
42
Sarmiento Campus
1. Percentage
This will involve determination of the frequency and use of the percentage
formula as follows:
Where,
P = percentage
F = frequency
N = sample size
This was used for the statistical treatment of data from the two types of
test and the percentage of the students who committed it. These errors were
ranked accordingly in order to find the common and least mastered areas in
grammar and structure.
2. Mean
Mean was used to get the average score from all the scores of the
respondents using the following formula.
43
Sarmiento Campus
Where,
µ= Pro
nounced as ―mu‖ stands for Mean
∑x = The sum of the scores
N= Sample size
3. Standard Deviation
It was used to measure the gap from each score of the respondents. This
was done through the use of the following formula.
( )
√
Where,
x = represents each value in the population
μ= the mean value of the population
Σ= the summation (or total)
N= the number of values in the population
44
Sarmiento Campus
4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
ANOVA was used to find the difference of the result of the scores from
the two test types. This was done using the formula:
Where,
s is the standard deviation.
yi is the ith observation.
n is the number of observations.
is the mean of the n observations.
45
Sarmiento Campus
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter contains the presentation of all the data gathered, respondents
of the sampling design, research instruments, procedures and the use of statistical
instrument.
Figure 1
Population of Respondents According to Age
Respondents according to Age
10, 20%
19, 38%
17
9, 18%
18
19
12, 24% 20 and above
Figure 1 shows the number of the respondents according to age and its
corresponding percentage.
46
Sarmiento Campus
There were fifty (50) respondents of second year Bachelor of Secondary
Education major in English from Bulacan State University – Sarmiento Campus
second semester of academic year 2017.
Nineteen (19) from the respondents were at the age of seventeen (17)
years old which is equivalent to 38% from the total percentage.
Twelve (12) respondents from the whole population were at the age of
eighteen (18) years old which is equivalent to 24% from the total percentage.
Nine (9) respondents from the population were at the age of nineteen (19)
years old which is equivalent to 18% from the total percentage.
Lastly, ten (10) respondents with the equivalent percentage of 20% were
at the age of twenty (20) years old and above.
The age bracket that got the least number of respondents is in the age of
nineteen (19) which consisted nine respondents, while the age bracket that got
the highest percentage is in the age of seventeen (17) which got nineteen
respondents.
47
Sarmiento Campus
Figure 2
Population of Respondents According to Sex
40, 80%
Male
Female
10, 20%
The figure 2 presented the total number of the fifty (50) respondents of
Second Year Students Bachelor of Secondary Education major in English from
Bulacan State University – Sarmiento Campus second semester of academic year
2017 in which the males are consist of ten (10) students and the females are
consist of forty (40) students.
In the total respondents of the research, females got the highest number in
percentage, which is 80 % while males only got 20 %.
48
Sarmiento Campus
To get the percentage of the population according to their sex in this research, the
researchers divided the number of the respondents in each sex to the total number
of the whole class and multiplied it to 100.
Table 1
Ranking of the Common Errors in Grammar Test
Errors
No. of Total Frequen in Rankin
Topics Scor cy of
items Percenta g
es Errors
ge
Double Negative 4 200 155 78% 1
Preposition 5 250 186 74% 2
Subject-Verb 250
5 171 68% 3
Agreement
Noun 2 100 67 67% 4
Pronoun 9 450 284 63% 5
Conjunction 3 150 91 61% 6
Adjectives 3 150 83 55% 7
Verb Tense 6 300 162 54% 8
Parallelism 3 150 63 42% 9
Diction 6 300 107 36% 10
Adverb 2 100 25 25% 11
Infinitives 2 100 18 18% 12
49
Sarmiento Campus
Table 1 showed the number of the most common errors committed by the
students in grammar test.
Double Negative got the most number of committed errors with four items; total
number of score is 200 and has 155 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to
76%. Followed by Preposition, total number of score is 250 with five numbers of
items in test with 186 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 174%. Subject-
Verb Agreement has a total score of 250 and has five item numbers with 171
frequencies that is equivalent to 168%. Noun has a 200 number of total scores
with two numbers of items in test with 67 frequencies of errors that is equivalent
to 67%. Pronoun has 450 total scores with nine numbers of items in test with 284
frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 63%. Conjunction has 150 total scores
and also has three numbers of items in test with 91 frequencies of errors that is
equivalent to 61%. While Adjectives, has 150 total scores with three numbers of
items in test with 83 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 55%. Verb Tense,
has 300 total scores also has six numbers of items in test with 162 frequencies of
errors that is equivalent to 54%. Parallelism, has 150 total scores has three
numbers of items in test with 63 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 42%.
Diction has 3 total scores and has six numbers of items in test with 107
frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 36%. Adverb has 100 total scores and
has two numbers of items in test with 25 frequencies of errors that is equivalent
50
Sarmiento Campus
to 25%. %. Infinitives, has 100 total scores and has 2 numbers of items in test
with 18 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 18%
Table 2
Ranking of the Common Errors in Essay Test
Frequency Error in
Total
Topics No. of of Percentage Ranking
Scores
Items Errors
Coherence 5 250 158 63% 1
Clarity 5 250 130 52% 2
Organization 5 250 104 42% 3
of ideas
Unity 5 250 93 37% 4
Table 2 presented the topics that consist the whole test in set B and its
corresponding number of items, frequency of errors, error in percentage and its
ranking based on the respondents answers.
First rank is for the Organization of ideas it has five numbers of items and
a total score of 250 that got 104 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 42%
error in percentage. Second, Clarity has five numbers of items and a total score
of 250 that got 130 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 52% error in
51
Sarmiento Campus
percentage. Third, Unity has five numbers of items and a total score of 250 that
got 93 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 37% error in percentage.
Lastly, Coherence has five numbers of items and a total score of 250 that
got 158 frequencies of errors that is equivalent to 63% error in percentage
Table 3
Comparison of the Two Tests
2.040095
SUMMARY HSD 2.045576
Groups Count Sum Average Variance Scheffe 14.28067
Grammar Grammar
Test 50 1056 21.12 31.04653 Post Hoc Test
Essay Test 50 520 10.4 21.79592 Essay Test 10.72
Colored cells have significant
mean differences
Reject null
Hypothesis
because p
< 0.05
(Means
are
Different)
ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F Value F crit
Between
Groups 2872.96 1 2872.96 108.7368 0.000 3.938111
Within
Groups 2589.28 98 26.42122
52
Sarmiento Campus
The table 3 shows that the hypothesis of this research which is there is no
significance relationship between grammatical errors and effective writing is
rejected because the P-Value is less than 0.05. In addition, the means of the two
data are different. Therefore, the data proved that there is a significant
relationship between grammatical errors and effective writing.
Table 4
Score in Grammar Test – Score in Essay Test
Score in Grammar Test – Score in Essay Test

34.5
29.5
24.5
19.5
Values
14.5
9.5
4.5
-0.5
-5.5
Score in Test A Score in Test B
Subgroups
53
Sarmiento Campus
The table 10 shows that there is a big difference between the results of the two
data. The Score in Test A
stands for Grammatical Errors and the Score in Test B stands for the
mastery of the students when it comes to effective writing.
Score in Test A range in 24.4 while the score in test B ranges in 14.4 that
creates a 10 gap.
Therefore, the researchers concluded that there is a significant relationship
between the Grammatical Errors and Effective Writing of the second year
students English Major in Bulacan State University-Sarmiento Campus.
Table 5
Significant Difference of Grammar Test and Essay Test
Mean Standard Deviation
Grammar Test 21.12 5.571941
Essay Test 10.4 4.66861
Grammar test is composed of fifty (50) items with a mean of 21.12 and
with the standard deviation of 5.571941 while the essay test is composed of
twenty (20) items with a mean of 10.4 and standard deviation that is 4.66861.
54
Sarmiento Campus
The mean of the grammar test is 21.12 showing that the respondents do
not reached the half of the score of fifty (50) items, while in the essay test;
respondents reached the half of the total scores within twenty (20) items. It
shows that when the respondents got a high score in the grammar test, the
respondents will also have a high score in the essay test.
The data revealed that there are five (5) gaps in every item in standard
deviation of the grammar test and essay test. Therefore, the researchers
concluded that there is a relationship between the frequencies of grammatical
errors and effective writing.
55
Sarmiento Campus
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter included the summary of findings that the researchers have
analyzed, documented conclusion and recommendation that will help in
enhancing students writing quality, in upgrading the curriculum and for the
future researches.
Summary
The summary of findings presented the results acquired from the data
gathered by the researchers.
This study was designed to measure the common grammatical errors in
the English writing of Second Year English Major students at Bulacan State
University-Sarmiento Campus. The researchers identify the common errors
committed by the fifty (50) respondents in terms of writing.
Majority of the respondents are at the age of seventeen (17) years old with
a percentage of 38%, 19 out of 50 respondents. On the other hand, most of the
representatives are female with the percentage of 80%, 40 out of 50 respondents.
56
Sarmiento Campus
The research instruments used in the study was a standardized test. In the
first part of the examination, the researchers used the Scholastic Assessment Test
(SAT) and for the second part, they used the Preliminary SAT/National Merit
Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT). The type of the test was in the
form of a multiple choice to measure the higher order thinking skills of the
students.
The researchers used the descriptive method in explaining, analysing and
classifying the data. This instrument helped the researchers to describe and
interpret the problem, and analyzing relationship of variables, testing hypothesis
and the development of generalization. The errors were analyzed and tallied with
the use of frequency distribution, percentage, ranking, and analysis of variance.
The findings of the study in the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT)
revealed that the most frequent errors committed by the respondents were Double
Negative with the total percentage of 76%, Preposition with a percentage of 74%,
Subject-Verb-Agreement with a total percentage of 68%. Noun with a percentage
of 67%, Pronoun with 63% and lastly, Conjunction was also one of the most
committed errors in grammar structure with the percentage of 61%.
57
Sarmiento Campus
The least committed errors in grammar structure are Adjectives with a
percentage of 55%, Verb Tense with 54%, Parallelism with 42%, Diction with
36%, Adverb with 25%, and Infinitives with 18%.
On the other hand, the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship
Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) led to a noticeably high percentage of
correction in the case of coherence with sixty three percent (63%) of errors.
The mean on the Grammar test is 21.12, which show that the average
score of the students did not reach the half of the test items that is 25 and its
standard deviation is 5.6. On the other hand, the mean in the Essay type Test
reached the half of its test items that is 10 with the average score of 10.4 while its
standard deviation is 4.7.
The standard deviation of the two test types reveals that there are five
(5) score gaps in every score of the students.
The evidence of grammatical errors indicated that the second year
students English major had some difficulties in using correct grammatical forms
and structures.
Conclusions
The researchers concluded that there are more females in Second Year
English major students with the age of 17 years old compared to the males.
58
Sarmiento Campus
The result of Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) revealed that the
respondents are not that knowledgeable when it comes to Double Negative,
Preposition, Subject-Verb-Agreement, Noun, Pronoun and Conjunction. It
implies that the respondents are more expose to Adjectives, Verb Tense,
Parallelism, Diction, Adverb and Infinitives.
Based on the data gathered, the results of the mean and standard deviation,
the researchers rejected the null and void hypothesis. The finding showed that
there is a statistically significant relationship between the grammar and the
effective writing in which they should be directly proportional with each other.
Recommendations
There are factors to consider in determining whether you have a good writing
quality. And one of these factors is the proficiency in grammar. As the
researchers progressed in the study, they had analyzed some of the data being
gathered and came up with the following recommendations. In enumerative as
follows:
59
Sarmiento Campus
1. Seminars, trainings and remedial programs
The school might conduct seminars and trainings that are related to
grammar and writing skills so that the students can gain knowledge and learning
and can be able to apply it especially when writing an essay effectively.
Remedial program for grammar that could be built into the English program
offered and more contact hours may be allocated for this. Evaluation like quizzes
and examination should reflect the implementation of the program.
2. Be familiar with the structures of English
Students should have the knowledge on grammar rules to ensure that they
could apply those when they write. They should be able to know what their
strong points so that they will enhance it and weaknesses in terms of writing to
give much focus on that certain part.
60

Chpaters 1-5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chpaters 1-5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chpaters 1-5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Bulacan State University

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

learning process of students. These skills help the students to be globally

competitive and acquire knowledge holistically.

need to communicate to each other through language. And through language,

person or they might be even written it down on a piece of paper.

―Language is a partial representation unit of a language. Learning to write a

Writing is one of those macro-skills that an individual should master. It is

one of productive skills in language learning. It is less spontaneous but more

words on paper is the tactic of a secret bully, an invasion, an imposition of the

writer‘s sensibility on the reader‘s most private space.

In writing, there‘s a number of language aspects involved such as model

texts, grammar, spell-check, punctuation and prepositions. Apart from

formation, manifested by handwriting, spelling and layout and punctuation. It

means that writing offers opportunities to increase students‘ vocabulary,

knowledge of grammar and develops their understanding of how things are

(listening, reading, writing, speaking and grammar) are interconnected. In

developing learner‘s writing proficiency, all language skills must be involved.

According to Adams and Keene (2012), today English, as the means of

instruction, makes a strong contribution to education and students‘ efficiencies in

communication are on top of institutional demands. Learners are expected to

academic tasks successfully. Leki (2011) claimed that English as Second

Moreover, Pak-TaoNg (2013) suggested that writing consists of a lot of activities

which result in understanding. Such an understanding includes a process of

reflective thought for you at the end.

The importance of English writing is becoming increasingly dominant in

both educational programs and in professional writing in non-English dominant

countries (Leki, 2011). To become a proficient writer is a wish of many

regular writing assignments from the instructors. In addition, EFL/ESL Writing

has always been considered an important skill in teaching and learning.

According to Rao (2014), EFL writing is useful in two respects. First, it

motivates students‘ thinking, organizing ideas, developing their ability to

EFL/ESL students in terms language uses, grammatical structures, and cultural

reluctant to incorporate into these kinds of activities in or outside the classrooms.

Individuals with writing problems may have difficulties in one or more

aspects of writing skill such as proper use of grammar, conventions, punctuation,

writing that the students‘ produce. It makes the communication process

unsuccessful and the learning of the second language ineffective.

In order to convey meaning in communication, both in written and oral

communication, one needs fully equipped with sufficient grammar mastery.

Grammar is the silver lining of language, the harmony of language, as it is the

grammar, it will be as messy as an orchestra without a conductor. The role of

grammar is vital in communication, language is a function and grammar is the

analysis of this function, it is as useless to know grammar in order to speak one‘s

native tongue, as to know physiology in order to breathe with one‘s lungs, or to

walk with one‘s legs.

This subject of study is provoked not only because of the researchers'

carries on in these classes.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

to answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the selected respondents with regards

2. What are the common grammatical errors committed by Second Year

English Major Students at Bulacan State University-Sarmiento Campus?

4. Is there any significant relationship between the common grammatical

errors and effective writing?

There is no significant relationship between the common grammatical