Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM

Introduction
Learning English Grammar is a constant complex subject for its learners

and speakers around the world, hence, errors are unavoidable. According to

Ramelan (1992), English language learners commit errors by incorrectly applying

the rules of the components and elements of the second language. Such is evident

in a study by Ameliani (2019), results show that Junior High School students of

Tidar University commit errors in areas that involve tenses, plurality, article,

preposition, and pronoun. The apparent causes of the errors are unsuccessful

interlanguage and intralingual transfers in the forms of the adverb, copulative

verb, word-order, and tense-form interference, overgeneralization, ignorance of

rule restriction, and incomplete application of rules. To support this, Brown

added, “Second language learning is a process that is not unlike first language

learning in its trial and error nature.” It means that students learning English

cannot avoid errors in learning a second language (Gass and Slinker, 1994).

Habit is a simple form of learning. Psychological theories explain that

habits are acquired dispositions gained and retained by an individual through any

learning process or experience. When learning experience is repeated, it is firmly

retained. Once retained, it gets strengthened and becomes a habit. It is not limited

to motor responses but often applied more widely to habits of thought or intellect

such as writing.

In learning, habit is part of the process of acquiring knowledge, whereas,

nescience is simply the lack of knowledge. Nescience is the lack of awareness or

1
unknowingness of something. Something that we do not think to question in the

first place.

In the Philippines, American English is the majority medium used in most

disciplines in schools. As young as seven (7) years old, Filipinos are already being

taught the alphabet and the basics of the language. Although it is only second to

the native language, it is not foreign to the Filipino tongue. However, Filipinos

have yet to fully master all its competencies and rules. Thus, grammar errors

occur despite the thorough and repeated instruction.

In a study conducted by Sumalinog about the Teacher’s perspective on

Grammatical Errors of High School Students, findings show that students have

difficulty using prepositions, observing noun-pronoun antecedent, distinguishing

English spelling variations, determining the plural and singular forms of foreign

nouns, using correct verb tenses, observing the agreement of subject and verbs

and writing active and passive sentences. As a result, student performance is

greatly affected. The conclusion is that students have not mastered some of the

competencies despite the repetition of these lessons in previous grade and year

levels.

Errors are common occurrence as it is inevitable and a requirement for one

to improve. However, as Filipinos have been in constant study of the language

since childhood, the extent to which students master and retain the rules of

grammar is still ambiguous. Learners in Grade 12 of the K-12 curriculum are

expected to have a deep grasp of the language way before they enter the tertiary

level, thus, errors should be minimal and justifiable. As pioneers of the K to 12

2
education, the researchers observed and experienced how the English language is

taught in schools. The conventions were instilled to hone the communication and

writing skills. In this study, the researchers aim to determine the extent of retained

knowledge of English as a Second Language (ESL) students regarding grammar

in subject-verb agreement as well as the cause behind it either habit or nescience.

Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study was to determine the causes of written

grammatical errors of ESL students as habit or nescience. The specific objectives

aimed to:

1. determine the frequency of common writing Grammatical Errors of

students in Subject-Verb Agreement.

2. determine the perceived causes of the Grammatical Errors of the

students.

3. analyze the significant relationship between the classification of

perceived causes and grammatical errors.

4. develop an educational instructional material that can be made to

lessen the grammatical errors of the students.

Scope and Delimitation

This paper aimed to determine the writing grammatical errors of ESL

students. The respondents were comprised of thirty (30) Grade 12 students from

Libon Agro-Industrial High School (LAIHS). The participants’ ages were around

sixteen (16) to nineteen (19) years old and were selected according to their grade

level and proximity. The study was conducted at a location best suitable for

collecting data upon approval and consent of the participating individuals while

3
adhering to proper health protocols. The researchers sought out respondents living

in San Isidro, Libon, Albay.

This study was designed to determine the common Grammatical Errors

that High School students make in writing using the English language. This paper

intended to determine the common errors that they make through a grammar test

about subject-verb agreement. The researchers also meant to determine its causes

whether it is out of habit or unawareness; and possible ways to respond to the

misapprehensions made by these students.

This study aimed to determine the observed errors of the researchers on

fellow learners regarding the usage of English in written format. Students at the

Grade 12 level should theoretically have a deep grasp of the language considering

the fact that English is the Official Second Language and the subject was taught

comprehensively from Elementary up to their current grade level. The

researchers’ motive behind this inquiry was inclined to the evident mistakes that

ESL students make despite the careful teaching done by their respective teachers.

As future teachers, the researchers were enlightened about the reason behind this

blunder and used the findings to improve it for their future students.

Significance of the Study

This study is important and beneficial to the following:

Students. This study helps students have awareness towards the errors that

they make in written format and how it may affect their performance in school. It

also helps them improve their English grammar.

4
 Parents. This study helps parents realize the mistakes that their children

make in terms of Grammar in English. It serves as a guide for parents to teach

their pupils with.

Teachers. This study assists educators to improve the mistakes their

students make and put more effort in areas that their students lack knowledge of.

School Heads. This study provides the administration with information

regarding the Grammatical Errors that their students make in order to correct it as

early as possible.

Future Researchers. This study serves as reference for the future

generation of researchers pursuing a similar study.

5
 References

Ameliani, A. (2019). Students’ Difficulties in Grammar of Seventh Grade Junior

High School 1 Magelang. English Department, Tidar University,
Magelang, Indonesia.
Brown. H. (1980). Principles of Language and Teaching. Prentice Hall, Inc., New
Jersey.
Gass S., Slinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory
Course. LEA, Mahwah, New Jersey
Ramelan. (1992). Introduction to Linguistic Analysis. IKIP Semarang
Press, Semarang.
Sharma, A. (n.d.). Habit Formation: Basis, Types and Measures for Effective
Habit Formation. Retrieved from:
https://www.psychologydiscussion.net/habits/habit-formation-basis-
types-and-measures-for-effective-habit-formation/638
Sumalinog, G. (2018). Common Grammatical Errors of The High School
Students: The Teachers’ Perspective. Cebu Normal University.
International Journal of Research Science & Management. Retrieved
from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328612436_common_grammat
ical_errors_of_the_high_school_students_the_teachers'_perspective

6
 Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents a view of the related literature and studies, the

synthesis of the art and gap to be bridged by the study, theoretical framework and

paradigm, and conceptual framework and paradigm.

The literature survey gathered provided essential background about the

nature of the problem and investigation. This served as a guide in crafting the data

collection instrument and a reference in the analysis and interpretation of the

possible result of the study.

Related Literature
Error Analysis (EA) is an approach of linguistic study that focuses on the

errors learners make and it assists educators in understanding the language

learning process. Since various errors are seen as a means to an end, some

researchers tend to discover the appropriate corrective techniques that can aid

effective learning and teaching of English. This is because through writing one

can evaluate the language competency, capability to recall and capability to think

(Javed et al., 2013). Saadiyah and Subramaniam (2009) used Error Analysis (EA)

to examine errors in a corpus of 72 essays written by 72 participants. Corder who

is the father of EA, explained EA in his article titled, The significance of learner

errors (1967). Errors used to be flaws that needed to be eradicated in writing.

However, Corder (1967, pp. 19-27) presents a completely different point of view

by saying those errors are important in and of themselves. In his opinion,

7
systematic error analysis can enable teachers to determine the kind of

reinforcement needed in teaching.

In this regard, this study has shed light on how students internalize the

rules of the target language, which is English. In addition, EA is found to be

useful to teachers as it provides information on common trouble spots in language

learning to guide preparation of effective teaching materials.

In studying grammatical errors that students usually encounter, there are a

lot of related studies especially from other were conducted in the past shows the

different factors or reason why students encounter these errors. Jayasundara

J.M.P.V.K.1, Premarathna C.D.H.M. (2011) pointed out that Grammar being the

most critical factor where undergraduates commit most of the errors in both the

writing and speaking performances has paved the way towards instructions for

language teachers to focus the special attention on teaching grammar in an

effective and more interesting way not only in the tertiary level, but it should also

be planned to teach in the school education to persuade students in learning the

language not only to pass the subject but also gain the expected proficiency level

in.

This was also proven by Woon (2003), to come up with the lexical errors

in the written work of form four Chinese educated ESL students of SMK Taman

Connaught, Kuala Lumpur were examined. Out of the total number of lexical

errors, 84.2% were accounted for intralingual errors whilst only 15.8% were

accounted for interlingual errors. She concluded in her study that MT interference

was not the main factor of lexical errors made by Chinese ESL students. This kind

8
of methodologies was also just by Salatig (2011). The study investigated cohesive

devices errors in 66 essays written by seventh semester students. The students

made errors in cohesive devices. The dominant error was reference, then

conjunction, and the last error was lexical cohesion.

Supported by the study of Randall (2005) and Ilomaki (2005) who claim

that monolingual learners do not necessarily make the same errors as bilingual

learners. It was the hypothesis of the present study that subjects from the three

ethnic groups have error profiles in their English L2 written work that differ from

each other and in their frequency of occurrence. On the contrary, the results of the

present study reveal that there was no big difference in the type of errors recorded

from each group. The total numbers of errors recorded were almost the same

(Oshiwambo 656, Silozi 630 and Afrikaans 588 errors). The only difference that

occurred was in the rate of frequency of occurrence.

In some cases, the source of the mistakes was the influence of the native

tongue if the learners, the many rules and complexity of the language and the

students partial or lack of knowledge. The grammatical and lexical error studies

discussed in this section involves both intralingual and interlingual. Kim (1988),

in a study to investigate grammatical errors in English with reference to verb

tense, mood, and voice, found out that mood were most frequently committed

errors followed by errors in voice and tense. This study was conducted among 120

Korean EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students who were asked to

translate Korean sentences to English. Kim noted that most of the errors

9
originated from overgeneralization (intralingual), while L1 transfer and

simplification were the least.

Again, Kim (2001) conducted a study to examine the sources and nature of

learners’ errors among 30 Korean college freshmen who were registered for

TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) class. Kim found that

most of the learners’ errors were grammatical: verb tenses, prepositions, articles,

plural/singular agreement, adjectives, and conjunctions. He then classified the

errors into their sources and realized that the errors were both intralingual and

interlingual. The study also showed that most of the learners’ errors were

intralingual and that only a few cases could be attributed to L1 interference

(interlingual).

As to the errors in mechanical, the highest number went to SHM with 28%

while the lowest percentage was committed by both CAS and COE having 4%.

Errors in punctuation, capitalization and most especially spelling were very

evident among the students. This implies that teachers in all year levels and

colleges are faced with the all-too-clear fact that the students find correct spelling

difficult.

This can be reinforced by Wolff (2000) who found out that the carefully

prepared essay and free informal expression of out-of-school written materials

were all contain numerous lexical errors most especially in spelling which

occurred repeatedly. the greatest proportion of both morphological and syntactic

errors was gotten by SHM having 26% and 22% respectively; on the other hand,

10
the least errors in morphology went to COE with 4% and both COA and CAS

gathered the smallest syntactic errors with 5%.

These findings in the morphological and syntactic errors are comparable to

Juozulynas (1991) who discovered that the biggest problem in the students'

writing seems to be syntax, especially the use of the verb with the required noun

case or the use of the required case with the noun object of a preposition.

Inflectional morphology with its much-feared "endings" takes second place. Thus,

syntax and morphology together make up 53% of the errors in the corpus. This

infers that students must be given more opportunity to raise their awareness and

skills in making sentences and paragraphs which are connected with one another

to form meaningful compositions.

Related Studies
In the definition of Brown (2007), he viewed errors as being either global

or local. Global errors hinder communication; they prevent the message from

being comprehended. On the contrary, local errors do not prevent the message

from being understood because there is usually a minor violation of one segment

of a sentence that allows the hearer to guess the intended meaning. In connection

to this, the present study also aims to know either major or minor violation on

grammar that will be committed by the target participants of the study.

For Tizon, she analyzed the local and global errors of 236 students from

the different colleges of La Salle University. In her study, local errors are minor

11
mistakes which do not cause problems in comprehension. In contrast, global

errors are major mistakes which make a sentence difficult to understand. The

findings revealed that the School of Hospitality Management got the highest

number of local and global errors. Thus, she suggested that students in the said

school should actively attend remedial activities to reinforce their writing ability.

Tizon, M. N. (2008) when identifying, categorizing and analyzing the

global and local errors in the written compositions of the 236 English 2 students

representing the seven colleges and one School of La Salle University. It was

found out that SHM got highest in both global and local errors while CAS and

COE had the lowest global errors and the least local errors went to CAS only. It is

then concluded that all students from the different colleges and school of LSU

incurred both global and local errors; thus, errors are independable and

unavoidable in students' learning. SHM incurred the greatest lexical errors with

24% while CAS got the lowest of 5%. These lexical errors could be traced from

the students' wrong word choice, word form and errors in pronouns and

prepositions. This result in lexical errors is similar with Akande's (2006) study

which found out that Technical College students did not have a high competence

in the use of words related to their different areas of specialization as they

normally made mistakes resulting from overgeneralization of rules, wrong

analogy, wrong word choice and others. This finding indicates that SHM students

did not have sufficient vocabulary; they do not have enough knowledge on the

correct word form and they are inefficient in the correct use of prepositions in

12
writing their sentences. Thus, teachers have to impart a body of knowledge, but

learners have to discover that knowledge for them in order to internalize it.

As a total, syntactic errors dominated the rest for 647, followed by lexical

errors with 608, morphological errors for 442 and mechanical errors 356. This

result is exactly in the same order with the study of Kato (2006). This denotes that

errors in writing a composition are inseparable to students' learning. Moreover,

the LSU students are non-native speakers who are more prone to making mistakes

and/or committing errors .Indeed, errors clearly tell the teachers how far towards

the goal the learners have progressed and what remains for them to learn.

Moreover, errors are means of feedback for the teachers reflect how effective they

are in their teaching style and what changes they have to make to get higher

performance from their students learning. Therefore, teachers should help students

to improve their language proficiency and become more confident in their writing

abilities and their linguistic accuracy at every level of proficiency.

In the study conducted by (Tizazu, Y., 2014), he told that the interplay of

intralingua and Interlingua factors triggered learners’ errors. The majority of the

errors in this study are attributed to intralingua factors i.e. not having a full

mastery of the English language. This present study also seeks to know other

factors that causes grammatical errors aside from not having a full mastery of the

English language.

Robertson (2000) and Jarvis (2002) asserted that the errors and omissions

made by Chinese students in discourse were variations in linguistic contexts and

13
syntactic forms. The present study aims to analyze the habitual and intuitive errors

made by LAIHS students with the assumption that language transfer affects it.

The use of written works as an instrument helped most of the studies in

identifying the factors in having linguistic errors these include grammar,

intralingua and interlingua factors, monolingual and bilingual learners, cohesive

devices, reference, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Some of the studies got the

same rate of linguistic error in one of the factors and it was all from foreign

countries and major universities. The research basis from conducting this study

was from these past studies and it is nearly have the same pattern as the study of

Woon (2013).

Beltran, E. L. (2014) analyzed the Grammatical Errors of Utterance

Structure of the student teachers in Technology University in the Philippines. The

findings show that misinformation and omission account for most of the total

grammatical errors identified, with addition and ordering of elements being less

frequent. It is observed that the student teachers repeatedly use the wrong forms of

the words in place of the correct ones. These errors in their utterance structure are

the results of the influence of their native language structures to produce a spoken

discourse of the English language (L2). It can be noted then that grammatical

errors on spoken discourse are different from written discourse as the spontaneous

utterances encompass several errors. Data present a Philippine English variety

based on the utterances of student teachers which are patterned on the Philippine

language structures.

14
 Mendoza, P. J. L. (2016) analyzed the common errors made by college

freshmen students of Mindanao University of Science and Technology. The study

focuses on identifying the interlingual and intralingual errors with 40 participants

to write essays in the classroom and were given prompts for self-correction.

Moreover, the participants were given one week to revise each essay. Findings

reveal the common errors committed by students in their essays which include

morphology (13), verb tense (27), erroneous complementation of preposition (13),

single lexical items (20), missing word (53), register (9) and incomplete style (14).

Such errors are mostly driven by intralanguage influence. This goes to show that

learners find the grammar system of the English language a major challenge,

though at times the error is due to transfer surfaces, but still the rules of the target

language carry the most burden for learners. However, interlanguage surfaces

from time to time and it is imperative that pedagogues should recognize the

influences brought by the L1 in the teaching of English. In addition, it should be

noted that 41.67% of the errors caused in missing word is attributed to interlingual

interference.

Another study worthy of reviewing in this research is the work of Bataineh

(2005). Bataineh, his study included the identification of the kinds of errors

committed by Jordanian first, second, third, and fourth year minority EFL

students, identified nine types of errors in relation to the use of the indefinite

articles. This is a grammatical error study. The nine types of errors identified were

deletion of the indefinite article, writing a as part of the noun/adjective following

it, substitution of the indefinite for the definite article, and substitution of the

15
definite for the indefinite article. Others were substitution of a for an, use of the

indefinite article with unmarked plurals, use of the indefinite article with marked

plurals, use of the indefinite article with uncountable nouns, and use of the

indefinite article with adjectives. Similar intralingual grammatical errors in L2

learners’ writings are found in studies by Ghadessey (1980), Sattayatham and

Honsa (2007), Collins (2007), and Ahmadvand (2008).

Besides the above studies, other research works in error studies have

shown that L2 writers employ their L1 skills in their writing. They adopt L1

composing strategies to compensate for possible deficiencies in their L2

proficiency and as a tool to facilitate their writing process (Karim & Nassaji,

2013). For instance, Kubota (1998) in a study among Japanese ESL students

found that L2 students used similar patterns from L1 in their essay writings. He

found that L2 writers transfer organization and rhetorical patterns from the L1.

Similarly, Kim (2002) and Maniam (2010) have also identified that there is

frequency of occurrence of grammar transference in the L1 to the L2. In the same

instance, Barto, Nicol, J. Witzel, and N. Witzel (2009) discovered in a study of

Spanish students learning English that transferability of native language grammar

and structure exists when acquiring a second language (English). It is also realized

that there is L1 lexical interference in L2 writing concerning collocation, plural

words, general-meaning, and literal word translation (Nattama, 2002). These

research works have been supported by Hung (2000) in a study of Thai ESL

(English as a Second Language) students. He found that written English

assignments of students were influenced by their L1 grammar structures which

16
include subject-verb agreement, auxiliaries, noun, determiners, and

clause/sentence structure.

The incorrect usage of grammar in writing for second and foreign

language learners is caused by their lack of awareness on the rules of English. It

was discovered that the students’ difficulty was influenced by the way the

language was taught. According to Krashen (1984) claims that language

acquisition occurs naturally and the ability to write is influenced by the exposure

to natural materials and not through the learning of grammar in isolation. This has

raised concern regarding the suitability of error correction in reducing the errors

made by students. According to Corpuz (2011), the approach is said to be lacking

in validity, effectiveness is difficult to be measured and it may be harmful in the

context of learning. However, according to his study the error correction

technique benefits teachers in creating awareness among learners, in instilling

independent reading habits among students besides aiding revision.

In another development, Yin and Ung (2001), in a study of Bahasa Melayu

EFL students with low language proficiency in English, identified that about fifty

percent (50%) of the errors committed by the students have their source from their

L1. The researchers used 50 written essays and analyzed, described, and explained

the cross-linguistic influence of these students. The analysis indicated that lack of

proficiency in English made the students rely heavily on their L1. The study noted

that approximation, coined words and slang, language switch, medium transfer,

inappropriate use of tenses, omission of articles, omission or wrong usage of

articles, adjective morphology errors, prefabricated patterns, and literal translation

17
were some of the L1 interference errors. These errors are both grammatical and

lexical. There were two variables in this research. There were 30 samples in which

each class level was represented by 10 students. The researcher’s uses a writing

test and the results of this research showed that (1) From nine types of

grammatical errors provided by La Trobe University Handout, there were three

types which became the common grammatical errors made by the students in

MAN 1 Parepare in academic year 2013/2014. They were singular-plural noun

with 39 items (13.31%), vocabulary with 39 items (13.31%), and sentence

structure with 39 items (13.31%), (2) Each class level in MAN 1 Parepare in

academic year 2013/2014 had different percentage of grammatical errors. Class X

made 139 errors or (47.44%). Class XI made 93 errors or (31.74%). Class XII

made 61 errors or (20.82%). It showed that the higher class of the students in

MAN 1 Parepare, the fewer grammatical errors that they made in their writing

test.

In Chownahe’s (2000) study, errors in English compositions written by

178 Mattayomsuksa Six students at Kaengkrowittaya School in Chaiyaphum

Province were analyzed, and interlingual errors and intralingual errors were

examined. The study also aimed to compare errors in the first and second

compositions after remedial teaching lessons for the low-, mid-, and high-grade

level students. The results of the study showed that within the ten categories of

errors committed by Mattayomsuksa Six students, both interlingual errors and

intralingual errors were found. The frequently made interlingual errors were word-

by-word translation and adjectives used as main verbs. The problems of

18
intralingual errors included singular versus plural nouns, tenses, word selection,

determiners, punctuation and capitalization, form of pronouns, prepositions and

subject-verb agreement. The causes of errors were omission, addition and

misformation. Moreover, it was found that the proportions of both interlingual and

intralingual errors found in the second compositions were significantly less (p =

0.05) than those in the first compositions after remedial teaching lessons. The

number of errors produced by students of the three grade levels also decreased in

the second compositions. However, the low-grade level students did not make the

highest number of errors. The mid-grade level committed the highest number of

both interlingual and intralingual errors in both compositions.

Most of the errors that constrained the learners were their inabilities to

apply the rules in the vast aspects of grammar. Students are still incapacitated in

constructing grammatically correct sentences despite the fact that they were taught

about it before.

Malimas, M.A, Samson, S.C (2017). They identified and analyzed the

common linguistic errors encountered by Linguistics, Literature, and Advertising

Arts majors in their Thesis Proposal classes in the First Semester 2016–2017. The

data were the drafts of the thesis proposals of the students from the three different

programs. A total of 32 manuscripts were analyzed which was based on the actual

number of groups. Results showed that of the three kinds of errors, namely

grammatical, syntactical, and mechanics/substance, grammar as a main concern in

writing competency was the most common linguistic error among these students.

Moreover, the prevalent grammatical errors were: disagreement between the

19
pronoun and antecedent, wrong usage of tense, and disagreement between the

verb and subject. In the area of syntax, the most problematic areas were:

fragments and run-ons. Lastly, in terms of mechanics, the top errors were:

punctuation and spelling.

Mabuan, R.A. (2015). With the Analysis of Weblogs’ Grammatical Errors

of Filipino Learners of English as Second Language, the participants were

freshman university students enrolled at a Study and Thinking Skills class at

Lyceum of the Philippines University – Manila during the first semester of the

academic year 2014-2015. Research data come from students’ blog posts, survey,

and focus group interviews. Errors were first classified into seven major

categories and then they were divided into subcategories. Results show that the

most pervasive errors committed by the participants were tenses, subject-verb

agreement, prepositions, morphology, articles, verbs, and pronouns. Pedagogical

implications for teachers, syllabus designers, textbook writers, and text developers

were offered on the basis of these results.

Beltran, E. L. (2014) analyzed the Grammatical Errors of Utterance

Structure of the student teachers in Technology University in the Philippines. The

findings show that misinformation and omission account for most of the total

grammatical errors identified, with addition and ordering of elements being less

frequent. It is observed that the student teachers repeatedly use the wrong forms of

the words in place of the correct ones. These errors in their utterance structure are

the results of the influence of their native language structures to produce a spoken

discourse of the English language (L2). It can be noted then that grammatical

20
errors on spoken discourse are different from written discourse as the spontaneous

utterances encompass several errors. Data present a Philippine English variety

based on the utterances of student teachers which are patterned on the Philippine

language structures.

Fernandez, I. M. (2016). The analysis of the seventy-nine (79) randomly

sampled research introductions revealed that the research introductions from the

English program are the wordiest; most cohesive based on the frequency of

cohesion resources; and follows the sequence of moves provided by Swales'

Create-a-Research-Space (CARS) model. The Biology research introductions are

the most abbreviated, disjunctive, and show few moves and steps that are in

concert with CARS model. On the other hand, the Statistics research introductions

are appropriately condensed, moderately cohesive, only few follow the CARS

model.

Wee et al. (2009) use overt teaching to reduce subject-verb agreement

(SVA) errors of Malaysia EAP learners. The explanation of the rules of a new

structure either through the deductive (direct) approach or through the inductive

(discovery) approach has greatly benefitted the subjects. Comparison of the data

from the subjects’ pre-test and post-test shows a drastic decrease in the frequency

of errors in the targeted SVA error forms after overt teaching. Besides that,

Ruziah (2006) has enhanced the correct use of prepositions through error

identification drill exercises among the 17 KPLI (M) students. Even though both

findings showed positive outcomes, these outcomes are only applicable for certain

aspects that are on SVA and prepositions in writing.

21
 The incorrect usage of grammar in writing for second and foreign

language learners is caused by their lack of awareness on the rules of English. It

was discovered that the students’ difficulty was influenced by the way the

language was taught. According to Krashen (1984) claims that language

acquisition occurs naturally and the ability to write is influenced by the exposure

to natural materials and not through the learning of grammar in isolation. This has

raised concern regarding the suitability of error correction in reducing the errors

made by students. According to Corpuz (2011), the approach is said to be lacking

in validity, effectiveness is difficult to be measured and it may be harmful in the

context of learning. However, according to his study the error correction

technique benefits teachers in creating awareness among learners, in instilling

independent reading habits among students besides aiding revision.

This was supported by Sumalinog, G, G. (2018). He stated that teaching of

grammar has been a constant struggle for many teachers in the different parts of

the world. This is due to its complexity in form and structure. He conducted a

study that investigated the common errors which students encountered as they

study English, especially the case of the second language learners. With the use of

qualitative research design, specifically conducting interviews and focus group

discussion. The study involved fifteen (15) high school teachers who have served

for at least ten (10) years. The data were analyzed following the Colaizzi's seven

steps method. Findings showed that students have difficulty using prepositions,

observing noun-pronoun antecedent, distinguishing English spelling variations,

determining the plural and singular forms of foreign nouns, using correct verb

22
tenses, observing the agreement of subject and verbs and writing active and

passive sentences. As a result, students' performance has been greatly affected. As

conclusion, students have not mastered some of the competencies despite the

repetition of these lessons in previous grade and year levels.

Wee et al. (2009) use overt teaching to reduce subject-verb agreement

(SVA) errors of Malaysia EAP learners. The explanation of the rules of a new

structure either through the deductive (direct) approach or through the inductive

(discovery) approach has greatly benefitted the subjects. Comparison of the data

from the subjects’ pre-test and post-test shows a drastic decrease in the frequency

of errors in the targeted SVA error forms after overt teaching. Besides that,

Ruziah (2006) has enhanced the correct use of prepositions through error

identification drill exercises among the 17 KPLI (M) students. Even though both

findings showed positive outcomes, these outcomes are only applicable for certain

aspects that are on SVA and prepositions in writing.

The incorrect usage of grammar in writing for second and foreign

language learners is caused by their lack of awareness on the rules of English. It

was discovered that the students’ difficulty was influenced by the way the

language was taught. According to Krashen (1984) claims that language

acquisition occurs naturally and the ability to write is influenced by the exposure

to natural materials and not through the learning of grammar in isolation. This has

raised concern regarding the suitability of error correction in reducing the errors

made by students. According to Corpuz (2011), the approach is said to be lacking

in validity, effectiveness is difficult to be measured and it may be harmful in the

23
context of learning. However, according to his study the error correction

technique benefits teachers in creating awareness among learners, in instilling

independent reading habits among students besides aiding revision.

This was supported by Sumalinog, G, G. (2018). He stated that teaching of

grammar has been a constant struggle for many teachers in the different parts of

the world. This is due to its complexity in form and structure. He conducted a

study that investigated the common errors which students encountered as they

study English, especially the case of the second language learners. With the use of

qualitative research design, specifically conducting interviews and focus group

discussion. The study involved fifteen (15) high school teachers who have served

for at least ten (10) years. The data were analyzed following the Colaizzi's seven

steps method. Findings showed that students have difficulty using prepositions,

observing noun-pronoun antecedent, distinguishing English spelling variations,

determining the plural and singular forms of foreign nouns, using correct verb

tenses, observing the agreement of subject and verbs and writing active and

passive sentences. As a result, students' performance has been greatly affected. As

conclusion, students have not mastered some of the competencies despite the

repetition of these lessons in previous grade and year levels.

Synthesis of Related Literature and Gap Bridged by the Study

24
 The above review of related literature and studies provided information

to the proponents that their proposed study had similarities in the claim of Corder

in his article where he presented a completely different point of view by saying

those errors in writing are important in and of themselves. With this systematic

error analysis, it enables teachers to determine the kind of reinforcement needed in

teaching. Supported by the study of Wee et al. (2009), (Javed et al., 2013),

Saadiyah and Subramaniam (2009), Mohaghegh, H. et. Al. 2011. They have

studied the grammar errors the students commit and through which they cited

recommendations to prepare teachers in order to address these errors.

Krashen (1984) claims that language acquisition occurs naturally and the

ability to write is influenced by the exposure to natural materials and not through

the learning of grammar in isolation. This was contradicted by Corpuz (2011)

saying that the approach is said to be lacking in validity, effectiveness is difficult

to be measured and it may be harmful in the context of learning.

It is difficult for the student that have English as a second language

especially learning its grammar as supported by the study of Sumalinog, G, G.

(2018), Kim (1988), Bataineh (2005), Ghadessey (1980), Sattayatham and Honsa

(2007), Collins (2007), and Ahmadvand (2008), Chownahes (2000), Based on

Singh, K. C. et. al (2017), and Sukasame, N. (2014). They determined the

common errors student encounter and the conclusion in their studies are of similar

results. They found out the following areas that their subjects make mistakes on:

prepositions, adjectives, and conjunctions., observing noun-pronoun antecedent,

distinguishing English spelling variations, determining the plural and singular

25
forms of foreign nouns, using correct verb tenses, observing the agreement of

subject and verbs and writing active and passive sentences use of the indefinite

article with unmarked plurals, use of the indefinite article with marked plurals, use

of the indefinite article with uncountable nouns, and use of the indefinite article

with adjectives.

The first language or the native language have a great effect on learning

English as a second language. Studies of Kim (1988), (Karim & Nassaji, 2013),

Kubota (1998), Kim (2002) and Maniam (2010), Barto, Nicol, J. Witzel, and N.

Witzel (2009), (Nattama, 2002), EL-Aswad (2002), Yin and Ung (2001), Hung

(2000) have similarities as they all discovered the frequency and role of First

language (L1) in learning Second language (L2) especially in the errors they

omitted in writing second language.

The influence of intra lingual and inter lingual factors, code switching

influence and study of linguistics errors are lexical and systematic. As stated in

the related literature, the mechanics of writing such as handwriting, capitalization,

punctuation and spelling, as well as vocabulary and grammatical structures are

traditionally believed to be the major ingredients of good writing.

The collections of studies and literature above are related in the area that

English serves as the second language of the respondents. It also tackles the

analysis of grammatical errors in writing and the recommended guide for the

teachers in addressing these errors. Based from the related materials found, there

is no study that had the same topic which talks about the analysis of grammatical

errors being a habit or nescience that both benefit the students and the teachers.

26
 The related literature and studies focus on determining the errors that

occur in writing using the English language as medium. The studies report that

writing errors occur from flawed mechanics of writing, low L2 vocabulary, and

incomplete L2 learning.

The gap in the study is evident on the notion that either habit or nescience

are factors that cause common grammatical error to students. Proponents

purposively seek to determine the grammatical errors of students and its

frequency. The study determined the factors that causes grammatical errors and

this made a gap-bridge to the present study. It is for the reason that aside from

identifying grammatical errors, the present study is essential for educators to

undertake a systematic analysis of grammatical errors and address the problem if

there is a continuous decline in learning the language.

27
Theoretical Framework

The theoretical paradigm in figure 1 shows the theories related in the

present study. The paradigm included four major parts that relates the concepts of

the present study in three theories. The first part includes Behaviorism Theory and

Cognitivism Theory.

The first is the Behaviorism Theory, a psychological theory to language

learning proposed by B.F Skinner. Traditional behaviorists hypothesized that

when children imitated the language produced by those around them, their

attempts to reproduce what they heard will receive praise or successful

communication. As encouraged by their environment, children would continue to

imitate and practice these sounds and patterns until they form the "habit" of

correct language use. Because language development was viewed as the formation

of habits, thus a person can influence the learning of the second language.

The second theory is the Cognitivism Theory proposed by Jean Piaget.

Cognitive learning theorists believe that learning occurs through internal

processing of information. Unlike behaviorism, cognitive information processing

is governed by an internal process rather than by external circumstance. The

cognitive approach learning theory pays more attention to what goes on inside the

learner's head and focuses more on mental processes than observable behavior.

The theory that connects the concepts of habit and nescience is the

Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition. This theory was proposed by

Stephen Krashen with five hypotheses. First is the Acquisition-Learning

Hypothesis of Krashen's theory is about the "acquired system" or "acquisition"

28
and "learned system" or "learning". Acquisition is very similar to the process

when children undergo and acquire their first language. First language is

influenced by external circumstance such as parents. Accordingly, what is

acquired from the environment also influence habit formation in second language

learning. Learning is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a

conscious process which results in conscious knowledge about the language, for

example knowledge of grammar rules. However, if there is nescience or

unknowingness, the conscious knowledge is not present. This is where nescience

affects learning of the second language.

Second is the monitor hypothesis. According to Krashen, the learning

system performs the role of the monitor or the editor. Monitor focus on

correctness and knowing the rule. However, those learners who have not learned

or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge are classified by Krashen as

under-users. The third is input hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the

learner improves and progresses along the natural order when he/she receives

second language input. Fourth is affective filter. Krashen claims that low

motivation, low self-esteem, anxiety, introversion and inhibition can raise the

affective filter and form a mental block that prevents comprehensible input from

being used for acquisition. Fifth is the natural order. Krashen suggested that the

acquisition of grammatical structures follows a natural order which is predictable.

For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be acquired early while

others are late. Factors such as first language background and exposure of learners

29
in the use of language are considered in order to achieve second language

learning.

The aforementioned theories have the relation to the focus and essential

variables of the present study. The objective of the study was to determine the

cause of grammatical errors of the students as to Habit or Nescience. Thus, Habit

has relation to Behaviorism Theory and Nescience has relation to Cognitivism

Theory. Based from Behaviorism Theory, learning the second language is

influenced by external circumstance such as habit. In contrast, based from

Cognitivism Theory, it only focuses on the learner's knowledge and nescience or

unawareness could be a cause of grammatical error in learning second language.

30
 Theoretical Paradigm

Behaviorism Cognitivism
Theory Theory
B.F. Skinner Jean Piaget

Krashen’s Theory of Second

Language Acquisition
Stephen Krashen

Language Acquisition
Habit Language Learning Nescience
(Natural/Formal)

Affects Learning English

as a Second Language
(ESL)

Develop an educational instructional

material that can be made to lessen
the grammatical errors of the
students.

Figure 1. Theoretical Paradigm

31
Conceptual Framework

The conceptual paradigm presents the important aspects of the study. It

focused on three major parts which are the input, process, and output.

The first part is the input that was based on the research questions of the

study. It stated the basis on what the researchers are looking for while conducting

the study. The input of the study included the common writing grammatical errors

of students in subject-verb agreement, perceived causes of grammatical errors and

classifying the cause of grammatical errors if it is habit or nescience are also

needed in order to answer the general problem of the study.

The second part is the process. The ways that the researchers conducted

the study were patterned on the data collected. The process included determining

the frequency of grammatical errors by the respondents in subject-verb agreement;

interpreting the perceived causes of grammatical errors; analyzing the

classification of these grammatical errors; interpreting the relationship between

the classification of perceived causes and grammatical errors along:

The third part is the output. It was based on the findings of the researchers

from the data gathered. The output is an educational instructional material to

lessen the grammatical errors of the ESL students that were specified by the

researchers at the end of the study.

32
 Conceptual Paradigm

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

● the frequency
of common
written
Grammatical ● determining the
Errors of students frequency of
in Subject-verb common written
agreement grammatical
● the perceived errors of the
causes of the respondents in
Grammatical Subject-verb
Errors of the agreement Develop an
students educational
● determining the
instructional
● the relationship perceived causes
material to lessen
between the of grammatical
the grammatical
classification of errors
errors of the ESL
perceived causes ● analyze the students
and grammatical significant
errors relationship
● Review of between the
Related Literature classification of
and Studies perceived causes
and grammatical
● Theories
errors
● Survey
Questionnaire
● Statistical Tool

Figure 2. Conceptual Paradigm

33
Definition of Terms

To ensure clarity and understanding of the data in this study, the following

important terms used in the study were conceptually and operationally defined to

provide substantial meaning and purpose for easier understanding.

English as a Second Language. ESL or TESL is a traditional term for

the use or study of the English language by non-native speakers in an English-

speaking environment (it is also known as English for speakers of other

languages). English as a Second Language also refers to specialized approaches to

language teaching designed for those whose primary language is not English

(Nordquist, 2019). In the study, English as a Second Language is used because

English is the medium of instruction and learning of the respondents.

Grammar. "Grammar is the study of all the contrasts of meaning that it is

possible to make within sentences. The 'rules' of grammar tell us how. By one

count, there are some 3,500 such rules in English." (Crystal). Grammar is the rules

of a language governing the sounds, words, sentences, and other elements, as well

as their combination and interpretation (Editors of Britannica). In the study, the 18

rules of the subject-verb agreement will be the focus. The frequency of errors

along these rules will be determined in the study.

Grammatical Error. It is a term used in prescriptive grammar to describe

an instance of faulty, unconventional, or controversial usage, such as a misplaced

modifier or an inappropriate verb tense. Also called a usage error (Nordquist,

2020). In the present study, grammatical error serves as the dependent variable. It

34
is classified as dependent variable because grammatical error is dependent to its

causes.

Habit. It is defined as ‘an automatic response to a specific situation,

acquired normally as a result of repetition and learning’. Habit is a settled

tendency or usual manner of behavior (Merriam-Webster). It refers to the habits of

the students in writing that results to common grammatical errors. In the present

study, habit is an independent variable which can possibly cause grammatical

errors to students. This is an essential variable of the study because this is one of

the focus in determining which from habit or nescience is the cause of

grammatical errors.

Nescience. It is lack of knowledge or awareness (Merriam-Webster). The

word “nescience” means “to not know” (viz., Latin prefix ne = not, and

the verb scire = “to know”; cf. the etymology of the word “science”/prescience).

Nescience is the unknowingness of something, something which we do not think

to question in the first place (Germann). In the study, nescience is another

independent variable which can cause grammatical errors to students. This is

another important variable of the study because the focus of the study is to

determine which from nescience or habit causes grammatical errors to students.

35
36
 References
Ahmadvand, M. (2008). Analyzing Errors of Iranian EFL Learners In Their
Written Productions. Retrieved from:
http://moslem17.googlepapers.com/AnalysingerrorsofIranianEFLlearners.
pdf on 27/10/15
Barto, K., Nicol, J., Witzel, J., & Witzel, N. (2009). Transfer Effects in Bilingual
Sentence Processing. Retrieved from http//w3.coh.arizona.edu/awp16/awp
%2016Bbartosisamout on 12/3/16.
Bataineh, R. F. (2005). Jordanian Undergraduate EFL Students’ Errors in The Use
of The Indefinite Article. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 56-76.
Beltran, L.E. (2014). Analysis of Grammatical Errors of Utterance Structure.
Technological University of the Philippines : Cavite, Philippines.
Retrieved from: http://www.ijias.issr-journals.org/
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood
Cliffs. N.J. Prentice Hall.
Collins, L. (2007). L1 Differences and L2 Similarities: Teaching Verb Tenses in
English. ELT Journal, 61(4), 295-304.
Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford. Oxford University
Press.
Corpuz, V. A. F. (2011) Error Correction in Second Language Writing: Teachers'
Beliefs, Practices, And Students' Preferences. Master of Education Thesis,
Queensland University of Technology.
Crystal, David. (2006). The Fight for English. Oxford University Press.
Darus, S. et. al (2009, p. 493) Error Analysis of the written English essays of
Secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European journal of
Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 3, November, p. 493
EL-Aswad, A. A. (2002). A Study of the Ll and L2 Writing Processes and
Strategies of Arab Learners with Special Reference to Third-Year Libyan
University Students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Newcastle
University, England.
Ewie, C, O. Williams, R. Grammatical and Lexical Errors in Students’ English
Composition Writing: The Case of Three Senior High Schools (SHS) in
the Central Region of Ghana. College of Languages Education, University
of Education, Winneba: Ghana.

37
Fernandez I.M. (2016). Discourse Analysis of Research Introduction and its
Pedagogical Implications to ESL Writing Classroom. University of
Southeastern Philippines : Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 17, July 2016
Germann, C. (n.d.). Nescience vs. ignorance (on semantics and moral
accountability). Cognitive-Liberty.online. Retrieved from:
https://cognitive-liberty.online/nescience-vs-ignorance/
Ghadessey, M. (1980). Implications of Error Analysis for Second/Foreign
Language Acquisition. Language Teaching, 189(2), 3-14.
Hung, T. (2000). Interlanguage Analysis as An Input to Grammar Teaching.
PASAA, 31(1), 1-12.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in second
language acquisition. 24, pp., 387-418
Jayasundara J.M.P.V.K.1, Premarathna C.D.H.M. (2011) A linguistic Analysis on
Errors Committed in English by Undergraduates. International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications Volume 1.
Kim, I. (1988). A Study of The Errors in The Use of The English Verbs with
Special Reference to Tense, Mood, And Voice. (Unpublished master’s
thesis, Busan National University, Busan, Korea).
Kim, S. (2001). An Error Analysis of College Students’ Writing: Is That Really
Konglish? Studies in Modern Grammar, 25, 159-174.
Kim, S. (2002). Transfer and Access to Universal Grammar in Adult Second
Language Acquisition. Retrieved from
http//dissertation.ub.rug.nl/faculties/arts/2002 on 10/3/16
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York:
Longman.
Kubota, R. (1998). An Investigation of L1-L2 Transfer In Writing Among
Japanese University Students: Implications For Contrastive Rhetoric.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 69-100.
Leman, M. I. (2014). Common Grammatical Errors in Students’ Writing at Man 1
Parepare. State University of Makassar : Indonesia.
Mabuan, R.A. (2015). An Analysis of Weblogs’ Grammatical Errors of Filipino
Learners of English as Second Language. Lyceum of the Philippines
University : Manila.
Malimas, M.A. Samson, S. C.2017. Linguistic Error Analysis on Students’ Thesis
Proposals. University of San Carlos, Philippines: IAFOR Journal of
Language Learning.

38
Maniam, M. (2010). The Influence of First Language Grammar (L1) on The
English Language (L2) Writing of Tamil School Students: A Case Study
from Malaysia. Language in India, 10, 1-209.
Mendoza, P.J. (2016). Analysis of in-class Writing Errors of College Freshmen
Students. Mindanao University of Science and Technology: Philippine
ESL Journal Vol. 17, July 2016.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Habit. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
January 2, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/habit
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Nescience. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.
Retrieved January 2, 2021, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nescience
Nordquist, Richard. (2020, August 27). What Is a Grammatical Error? Retrieved
from https://www.thoughtco.com/grammatical-error-usage-1690911
Nordquist, Richard. (2020, August 28). Definition and Examples of Native
Languages. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/native-language-
l1-term-1691336
Nordquist, Richard. (2020, August 28). What Is a Second Language (L2)?
Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/second-language-1691930
Randall (2005) and Ilomaki (2005) Monolingual Errors as Billingual Learners.
Africa
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of Language Teaching &
Applied Linguistics. London: Pearson Education.
Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by
Chinese learners of English. Second language research 16 (2), pp., 135-
172.
Saadiyah, D., & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error Analysis of The Written English
Essays Of Secondary School Students In Malaysia: A Case Study.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 483-495.
Sattayatham, A., & Honsa, S. (2007). Medical Students’ Most Frequent Errors at
Mahidol University, Thailand. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 170-194.
Schütz, R. E. (2019). Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition.
Retrieved from https://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash-english.html
Sukasame N. et al. (2014). A Study of Errors in Learning English Grammatical
Structures on Tenses of MatthayomSuksa 4 Students of the Demonstration
School, KhonKaen University: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814005151

39
Sumalinog G, G. (2018). Common Grammatical Errors of The High School
Students: The Teachers' Perspective. Cebu Normal University:
International Journal of Research Science & Management. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328612436_common_grammatic
al_errors_of_the_high_school_students_the_teachers'_perspective
Swaran, K.S. et. al. (2017). Grammar Errors Made by ESL Tertiary Students in
Writing. English Language Teaching; Vol. 10, No. 5: Canadian Center of
Science and Education. Retrieved from:
http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n5p16
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020). Grammar. Encyclopædia
Britannica. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/grammar
Tizazu, Y. (2014) A Linguistic Analysis of Errors in Learners’ Compositions: The
Case of Arba Minch University Students. European Centre for Research
Training and Development: UK
Woon (2003). The Lexical Errors in The Written Work Of Form Four Chinese
Educated ESL Students Of SMK. Taman Connaught, Kuala Lumpur:
Malaysia.
Xie & Jiang. (2007.). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching. College of
Foreign Languages, Liaoning Normal University.
Yin, C. C., & Ung, D. C. (2001). Sub-Stratum Transfer among Low Proficiency
Students in Written English. (Unpublished master thesis, University
Malaya, Malaysia).

40
 Chapter 3
RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Method

By employing a combination of qualitative and quantitative research

design, the study examined the common errors that occur among the Grade 12

students of LAIHS with English as Second Language and determined the written

Grammatical Errors and classified them as either habit or nescience. The

researchers utilized the mixed approach in this study to compute and analyze the

collected data. The researchers also applied Questionnaire Survey Research which

employed the use of questionnaires as the major data collection technique and

instrument.

Data Sources

This study employed purposive sampling based on the proximity of the

target respondents. The Grade 12 students of Libon Agro-Industrial High School

were the selected respondents of this study. The participating subjects' ages

ranged from 16-19, and they were represented in figures instead of real names for

the sake of anonymity. The students were bonafide Grade 12 LAIHS students and

uses English as a Second Language. Survey questionnaires were distributed to the

selected respondents to gather the necessary data.

Data Gathering Procedure

           Before administering the survey questionnaire, permission to conduct the

study within a safe premise was secured. The researchers also anticipated consent

from the target respondents upon securing consent from the school. The study

41
employed purposive sampling technique of data gathering based on proximity.

The researchers aimed to collect data from thirty (30) Grade 12 students of

LAIHS.

Upon receiving approval from the respondents, the researchers

administered a pen and paper survey questionnaire. The participants were advised

to accomplish it to the best of their abilities. After completing the questionnaire,

the researchers collected it, computed and interpreted it afterwards.

Instrumentation

In response to the objective of the study and based on several previously

reviewed literature, the researcher developed a questionnaire that consists of the

respondents’ demographic information, a grammar test and a checklist.

For part I, the respondents selected a letter that represents the error found

in the statements. The researchers utilized a grammar test to measure the

individual’s level of skill and mastery over a specific body of knowledge being

represented by the test. The study used it to determine the frequency of common

grammatical errors these purposively selected respondents make in subject-verb

agreement.

The part II of the checklist included the perceived causes of grammatical

error. The perceived causes were already identified as habit or nescience and it

will be presented to the respondent in a particular order. The respondents were

instructed to check the cause/s of his/her grammatical error. The part II of the

checklist also led the researchers to classify the cause of the respondent's

grammatical error as to habit or nescience.

42
Statistical Tools

           The data gathered from the grammar test and designed checklist was

analyzed statistically. The researchers employed Weighted Mean, Percentage, and

Pearson Correlation to interpret the data.

The Weighted Mean was used in order to determine the frequency of

common written grammatical errors of students in subject-verb agreement. There

was a frequency count of the respondents' responses with the application of the

grammar test. The formula for weighted mean was applied and the interpretation

of the desired data was based on the range presented from the item analysis.

Through the respondents' responses from the checklist, Percentage was

also used to determine if habit or nescience is the cause of their grammatical error.

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient was used to test the significant

relationship between habit/nescience and the grammatical errors.

The formulas utilized were the following:

1. Weighted Mean

Σwx
WM =
Σw

where:
Σ= sum of the values
w= weight

43
 x= population

2. Percentage

X
P= x 100
N

where:

P= percentage

X= part of the population

N= total population

3. Pearson Coefficient Correlation

where:

r = correlation coefficient

xi = values of the x-variable in a sample

x̅ = mean of the values of the x-variable

yi = values of the y-variable in a sample

y̅ = mean of the values of the y-variable

Table 1. Range of Interpretation for the Frequency of Grammatical Errors

0.01 – 1.00 Never

44
 1.01 – 2.00 Rarely
2.01 – 3.00 Sometimes
3.01 – 4.00 Frequently
4.01 – 5.00 Always

Table 2. Range of Interpretation for the Perceived Causes of Grammatical Errors

0.01 – 1.00 Strongly Disagree

1.01 – 2.00 Disagree
2.01 – 3.00 Neither Agree nor Disagree
3.01 – 4.00 Agree
4.01 – 5.00 Strongly Agree

Table 3. Range of Correlation Coefficient

0.5 – 1.0 large positive correlation

0.3 – 0.5 medium positive correlation
0.1 – 0.3 small positive correlation
-0.1 – -0.3 small negative correlation
-0.3 – -0.5 a medium negative correlation
-0.5 – -1.0 large negative correlation

45
 References

Byjus. (n.d.). Percentage Formula. Byjus The Learning App. Retrieved from:
https://byjus.com/percentage-formula/Chi square
MathIsFun. (n.d.). Weighted Mean. Math Is Fun. Retrieved from:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/weighted-mean.html
MathIsFun. (n.d.). Correlation. Math Is Fun. Retrieved from:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/correlation.html

46
 Chapter 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter presents the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data

obtained from the conducted survey of the researchers in San Isidro, Libon,

Albay. The computed data are presented using tables.

Objective 1. Determine the frequency of common writing Grammatical

Errors of students in Subject-Verb Agreement.

The data collected using the grammar test are presented in tables and

values. This includes the frequency table for the common writing grammatical

errors of students in Subject-Verb Agreement, and the total and weighted mean

with its corresponding interpretation.

Table 4. Number of Errors for each Rule

Rule Number of errors Total
5 4 3 2 1 0
1. Singular and Plural Subjects 5 6 7 6 5 1 30
2. Each and Every 2 9 10 6 3 0 30
3. Special Nouns 4 4 7 8 4 3 30
4. Special Construction: One of the (plural noun) + 6 10 9 4 0 1 30
singular verb.
5. The verb is singular if the two subjects separated by 2 5 6 6 10 1 30
"and" refer to the same person or thing as a whole.
6. If the subjects are both singular and are connected by 2 7 7 9 5 0 30
the words "or," "nor," "neither/nor," "either/or," or "not
only/but also," the verb is singular.
7. The singular verb form is usually reserved for units of 1 5 14 9 1 0 30
measurement or time.
8. If one subject is singular and the other is plural, and the 0 9 8 10 1 2 30
words are connected by the words "or," "nor,"
"neither/nor," "either/or," 30or "not only/but also," use
the verb form of the subject that is nearest the verb.
9. Indefinite pronouns typically take singular verbs (with 1 6 13 6 3 1 30
some exceptions). The following common words are
singular: each, either, neither, one, everyone, everybody,
no one, nobody, anyone, anybody, someone, somebody.
10. When gerunds are used as the subject of a sentence, they 1 2 8 12 6 1 30
take the singular form of the verb. However, when they
are linked by "and," they take the plural form.

47
 The table presents the tabulated data of the number of errors committed by

the 30 respondents for each rule in the grammar test. The first column presents the

ten rules of grammar that were used in the test. The rows with the values of 5, 4,

3, 2, 1 and 0 above indicate the number of errors. The values for the succeeding

rows are the number of respondents who committed 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0 error/s.

Table 5. Interpretation of the Grammatical Errors Using the Weighted Mean

Rule 5 4 3 2 1 Total Weighted Interpretation
Mean
Rule 1 25 24 21 12 5 87 2.9 Sometimes

Rule 2 10 36 30 12 3 91 3.03 Frequently

Rule 3 20 16 21 16 4 77 2.57 Sometimes

Rule 4 30 36 30 8 0 104 3.47 Frequently

Rule 5 10 20 18 12 10 70 2.3 Sometimes

Rule 6 10 28 21 18 5 82 2.73 Sometimes

Rule 7 5 20 21 18 1 85 2.87 Sometimes

Rule 8 5 36 24 20 1 86 2.87 Sometimes

Rule 9 5 24 39 12 3 83 2.77 Sometimes

Rule 10 5 8 24 24 6 67 2.23 Sometimes

Table 5 presents the computed data of the total and the general weighted

mean. It shows that students generated errors Frequently on Rule 2 and 4 for

recording a general weighted mean of 3.03 and 3.47 respectively. Whereas, for

Rules 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the students appeared to commit errors Sometimes

generating a weighted mean equivalent to 2.9, 2.57, 2.3, 2.73, 2.87, 2.87, 2.77 and

2.23 of the same order. The specific details about the rules are found in Table 4

and were used to analyze and interpret the frequency of grammatical errors.

48
 Subject-Verb Agreement Rule 2 about Each and Every yielded a total of

91 and a weighted mean of 3.03 is categorized under Frequently. Rule 4 ‘Special

Construction: One of the (plural noun) + singular verb.’ also falls under

Frequently for generating a weighted mean of 3.47 for the total of 104. As for

Rule 1 in Subject-Verb Agreement which concerns Singular and Plural Subjects,

it accumulated a total of 87 and a general weighted mean of 2.9 and is interpreted

as Sometimes.

Rule 3 regarding Special Nouns also interprets to Sometimes for accruing

a total of 77 and a weighted mean of 2.57. Rule 5 ‘The verb is singular if the two

subjects separated by "and" refer to the same person or thing as a whole.’ also

garnered an interpretation of Sometimes for the students erred with a total of 70

and a computed weighted mean of 2.3. As for Rule 6 which is about ‘If the

subjects are both singular and are connected by the words "or," "nor,"

"neither/nor," "either/or," or "not only/but also," the verb is singular.’, it produced

a weighted mean of 2.73 out of the total 70 errors as computed using the indicated

formula is classified under Sometimes.

Rule 7 ‘The singular verb form is usually reserved for units of

measurement or time.’ with a total of 86 and a weighted mean of 2.87 is under

Sometimes as well. Rule 8 ‘If one subject is singular and the other is plural, and

the words are connected by the words "or," "nor," "neither/nor," "either/or," or

"not only/but also," use the verb form of the subject that is nearest the verb.’ with

a total of 86 and a general weighted mean of 2.87 also categorizes to Sometimes.

For Rule 9 which is about Indefinite Pronouns, it gathered a total of 83 for the

49
computed errors and 2.77 as weighted mean is classified under Sometimes as

well. Rule 10 ‘When gerunds are used as the subject of a sentence, they take the

singular form of the verb. However, when they are linked by "and," they take the

plural form.’ is also categorized under Sometimes for amassing a total of 67 and a

general weighted mean of 2.23.

Corresponding to this result, Tizon stated that local errors are minor

mistakes which do not cause problems in comprehension. Furthermore, errors are

independable and unavoidable in students' learning. In addition, Akande

discovered that students did not have a high competence in the use of words

related to their different areas of specialization as they normally made mistakes

resulting from overgeneralization of rules, wrong analogy, wrong word choice and

others. Same as the findings of Wolff, he found out that errors in punctuation,

capitalization and most especially spelling were very evident among the students.

This implies that teachers in all year levels and colleges are faced with the all-too-

clear fact that the students find correct spelling difficult. Thus, teachers have to

impart a body of knowledge, but learners have to discover that knowledge for

them in order to internalize it.

Krashen claimed that language acquisition occurs naturally and the ability

to write is influenced by the exposure to natural materials and not through the

learning of grammar in isolation. In relation, Juozulynas inferred that students

must be given more opportunity to raise their awareness and skills in making

sentences and paragraphs which are connected with one another to form

meaningful compositions.

50
51
Objective 2. Determine the perceived causes of the Grammatical Errors of
the students.

With the data collected using the checklist, the responses from the 30

respondents on the 10 indicators for both Nescience and Habit are presented in

tables. The frequency of the perceived causes of grammatical errors are also

shown in tables. It also includes the total and weighted mean with the

corresponding interpretation, and the percentage of the perceived causes of

grammatical error.

Table 6. Frequency Table for Nescience

NESCIENCE 5 4 3 2 1 TOTAL
SA A NA/D D SD
I am not familiar with the rules of grammar. 0 6 16 7 1 30
I write whatever comes to mind without 1 3 12 13 1 30
minding the rules.
I did not listen to my English teacher in the 1 4 10 12 3 30
past.
I did not know that singular subjects take 1 2 7 13 7 30
singular verbs.
I am not familiar with the structure of the 0 4 16 7 3 30
grammar in English.
I am ignorant of the Rules in Subject-Verb 0 6 12 9 3 30
Agreement.
I Frequently missed English Class so I do not 0 5 7 12 6 30
know much about Subject-Verb Agreement.
I did not know that plural subjects take plural 0 2 9 16 3 30
verbs.
I did not know that the subject should always 0 3 12 10 5 30
agree with the verb.
I believe Subject-Verb Agreement was not 0 4 7 14 5 30
taught to me in school.

The table presents the tabulated data of the scale of agreement provided by

the 30 respondents for each indicator. The first column presents the ten indicators

of Nescience that were used to determine the cause of grammatical errors of the

students. The rows with the values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 above indicate the level or
52
extent of agreement that corresponds to Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor

Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The values for the succeeding rows

are the number of respondents who responded 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively.

5 4 3 2 1 TOTAL WEIGHTED INTERPRETATION

SA A NA/D D SD MEAN
0 24 48 14 1 87 2.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
5 12 36 26 1 80 2.67 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
5 16 30 24 3 78 2.6 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
5 8 21 26 7 67 2.23 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
0 16 48 14 3 81 2.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
0 24 36 18 3 81 2.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
0 20 21 24 6 71 2.37 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
0 8 27 32 3 70 2.33 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
0 12 36 20 5 73 2.43 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
0 16 21 28 5 70 2.33 Neither Agree nor Disagree.
Table 7. Weighted Mean of Nescience as a Perceived Cause of Grammatical
Errors

This table shows the computed data of nescience as one of the causes of

subject-verb agreement errors of the students. The ten indicators are found in table

6 and were used to analyze and interpret the tabulated data for Nescience.

Indicator 1 ‘I am not familiar with the rules of grammar.’ recorded a total

of 87 as applied by the formula and a weighted mean of 2.9 is categorized under

Neither Agree nor Disagree. The second indicator ‘I write whatever comes to

mind without minding the rules.’ also falls under Neither Agree nor Disagree with

a total of 80 and a general weighted mean of 2.67. The indicator ‘I did not listen to

my English teacher in the past.’ accumulated at total of 78 and a weighted mean

of 2.6 that classifies under Neither Agree nor Disagree. The fourth indicator

which is ‘I did not know that singular subjects take singular verbs.’ garnered a

total of 67 and a weighted mean of 2.23 is also categorized as Neither Agree nor

Disagree.
53
 The responses for the fifth and sixth indicators ‘I am not familiar with the

structure of the grammar in English.’ and ‘ I am ignorant of the Rules in Subject-

Verb Agreement.’ both accrued a total of 81 and 2.7 as weighted mean which is in

Neither Agree nor Disagree category as well. Indicator 7 ‘I Frequently missed

English Class so I do not know much about Subject-Verb Agreement.’ is also

Neither Agree nor Disagree for gathering a total of 71 and a general weighted

mean of 2.37. Indicator 8 ‘I did not know that plural subjects take plural verbs.’

produced a total of 70 and a weighted mean of 2.33 classifies as Neither Agree

nor Disagree as well. Indicators 9 and 10 ‘I did not know that the subject should

always agree with the verb.’ and ‘I believe Subject-Verb Agreement was not

taught to me in school.’ recorded a total of 73 and 70, and a weighted mean of

2.43 and 2.33 respectively also showed that the respondents Neither Agree nor

Disagree.

In accordance to this, in the study of Mahmoud that used the Modern

Standard Arabic essays at the beginning of the semester and translated it into

English at the end of it as a tool for the study; it was discovered that on the

remaining 141 (23%) cases, no English was spoken. Furthermore, there were

terms used that were categorized and analyzed into three categories: (1) Ignorance

and perceived complexity, (2) perceived duplication, and (3) memory lapse. In

order to distinguish between these three forms, students were consulted for clarity

and justification, a technique that is used to justify a decision. a procedure that had

not been practiced to the best of knowledge in previous studies on behalf of the

researcher's knowledge. The results of this study revealed that the majority of

54
cases of Nonuse (65%) was due to ignorance and perceived complexity,

suggesting that there were holes in the system. Interlanguage between students

and a third of the cases involved avoidance. Just three (2%) cases were found. a

lapse of recollection. His study suggests the nescience does indeed contribute to

the errors that students make in Subject-Verb Agreement in written form and that

it includes ignorance of the rules as reflected in the indicators of Table 6.

Table 8. Frequency Table for Habit

HABIT 5 4 3 2 1 TOTAL
SA A NA/D D SD
I think I hypothesized a false concept of grammar from 2 2 19 6 1 30
school.
I literally translate my thoughts in Filipino into 3 18 6 3 0 30
English.
I tend to incompletely apply the rules of grammar. 0 8 18 3 1 30
I write and compose the same way via social media. 2 11 11 5 1 30
I overgeneralize plurals by adding “s” to indicate 5 9 10 5 1 30
plurality.
I tend to use websites for checking the grammar of my 4 8 11 7 0 30
essay.
I make grammatical errors because I frequently 4 13 10 3 0 30
misunderstand the rules.
I usually use passive instead of active voice. 0 9 16 5 0 30
I only use common punctuation marks like period and 4 15 7 4 0 30
comma.
I always add –ed to indicate past tense. 3 12 15 0 0 30

The table presents the tabulated data of the scale of agreement provided by

the 30 respondents for each indicator. The first column presents the ten indicators

of Habit that were used to determine the cause of grammatical errors of the

students. The rows with the values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 above indicates the level or

extent of agreement that corresponds to Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor

55
Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The values for the succeeding rows

are the number of respondents who responded 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively.

56
Table 9. Weighted Mean of Habit as a Perceived Cause with Interpretation
5 4 3 2 1 TOTAL Weighted
SA A NA/D D SD Mean INTERPRETATION

10 8 57 12 1 88 2.93 Neither Agree nor

Disagree.
15 72 18 6 0 111 3.7 Agree
0 32 54 6 1 93 3.1 Agree
10 44 33 10 1 98 3.27 Agree
25 36 30 10 1 102 3.4 Agree
20 32 33 14 0 99 3.3 Agree
20 52 30 6 0 108 3.6 Agree
0 36 48 10 0 94 3.13 Agree
20 60 21 8 0 109 3.63 Agree
15 48 21 8 0 92 3.06 Agree

Table 9 shows the number of responses according to the degree of

agreement of the respondents on the 10 indicators of Habit indicated in Table 8.

This presents the calculated data provided by the 30 respondents. It included the

total and weighted mean as a result of the application of the respective formula

found in Chapter 3.

Indicator 1 ‘I think I hypothesized a false concept of grammar from

school.’ obtained a total of 88 and a weighted mean of 2.93 which interprets to

Neither Agree nor Disagree. For the second indicator ‘I literally translate my

thoughts in Filipino into English.’, it recorded a total of 111 and a weighted mean

of 3.7 which categorizes under Agree. Indicator 3 ‘I tend to incompletely apply

the rules of grammar.’ also falls under Agree for gathering a total of 93 and 3.1 as

weighted mean.

For the fourth indicator ‘I write and compose the same way via social

media.’, it garnered a total of 98 and a weighted mean of 3.27 is classified as

57
Agree. ‘I overgeneralize plurals by adding “s” to indicate plurality.’ as indicator

number 5 has a total of 102 and 3.4 weighted mean also interprets to Agree.

Indicator 6 ‘I tend to use websites for checking the grammar of my essay.’ is

categorized under Agree as well for accruing a total of 99 and a weighted mean of

3.3.

For the seventh indicator which is ‘I commit grammatical error because I

frequently misunderstand the rules.’, it accumulated a total of 108 and a general

weighted mean of 3.6. Another indicator having 94 and 3.13 as total and weighted

mean respectively also interprets as Agree, is indicator 8 ‘I usually use passive

instead of active voice.’ Even indicators 9 and 10, ‘I only use common

punctuation marks like period and comma.’ and ‘I always add –ed to indicate past

tense.’ acquired an interpretation of Agree for recording totals 109 and 92, and

general weighted means of 3.63 and 3.06 respectively.

In connection to this, Corpuz inferred that error correction technique

benefits teachers in creating awareness among learners, in instilling independent

reading habits among students besides aiding revision. There is clearly a need for

Error Analysis that focuses on the errors learners make to assist educators in

understanding the language learning process. Since various errors are seen as a

means to an end, some researchers tend to discover the appropriate corrective

techniques that can aid effective learning and teaching of English.

Table 10. Percentage of Perceived Causes

NESCIENCE HABIT TOTAL
NO. OF RESPONDENTS 2 28 30
PERCENTAGE 7% 93 % 100%

58
 Table 10 presents the percentage results based on the responses. Nescience

covers 7% of the responses from the 30 respondents and 93% are for Habit. The

percentage of the respondents who responded to habit and nescience, the mean of

perception was computed and compared. 2 respondents fall on nescience and 28

respondents fall on habit. The results leaned towards more responses agreeing that

Habit is the cause of grammatical error than there is to Nescience.

Objective 3. Analyze the significant relationship between the classification of

perceived causes and grammatical errors.

The results gathered from the frequency of grammatical errors and

perceived causes were analyzed using the Pearson Correlation. The information

gathered from the cross analyzation were presented in tables, and it also encloses

the final computed data with interpretation.

59
Table 11. Correlation of Grammatical Error to Nescience

Weighted Mean (Grammatical Errors) Weighted Mean (Nescience)

2.9 2.9
3.03 2.67
2.57 2.6
3.47 2.23
2.3 2.7
2.73 2.7
2.67 2.37
2.87 2.33
2.77 2.43
2.23 2.33

This table shows the correlation between the weighted mean of Grammatical Errors and

Nescience. The values presented are the results from objectives 1 and 2.

Table 12. Correlation of Grammatical Error to Habit

Weighted Mean (Habit)

Weighted Mean (Grammatical Errors)
2.9 2.93
3.03 3.7
2.57 3.1
3.47 3.27
2.3 3.4
2.73 3.3
2.67 3.6
2.87 3.13
2.77 3.63
2.23 3.06

Similar to the previous table, table 12 shows the correlation between the weighted mean

of Grammatical Errors and Habit. The values presented are the results from objectives 1 and 2.

Table 13. Correlation of Grammatical Error to Nescience and Habit

Correlation Interpretation
Coefficient
Nescience -0.17609 small negative correlation
Habit 0.13212 small positive correlation

60
 In these results, the Pearson correlation between Grammatical Error and

Nescience has a value of -0.17609, which indicates that there is a small negative

correlation between the variables since when the P value lies between -0.1 and -

0.3, it is interpreted to have a small correlation. For the Pearson correlation

between Grammatical Error and Habit, it produced a value of 0.13212, which

means that there is a small positive correlation since the value lies between 0.1

and 0.3. In support of this, the study of Kim, Woon, and Salatig affirms that

interlingua—in the relationship of interlingua and intralingua—plays a great role

in the cause of written grammatical errors that the students frequently commit.

Objective 4. Develop an educational instructional material that can be made

to lessen the grammatical errors of the students.

With the use of the results from the conducted study having been tabulated

and computed, the researchers designed and produced Strategic Intervention

Materials. The two SIMs are named GrySIMdor and SIMposter respectively. Both

are outputs developed from the Common Writing Grammatical Errors of the

students. The topics were drawn from the results of Objective 1, correspondingly,

Rule 2 and Rule 4 garnered the most responses which apparently interprets to

Frequently—the second highest value in the Range of Interpretation for Common

Writing Grammatical Errors manifested in Table 1.

GrySIMdor is a Strategic Intervention Material intended to help students

lessen their grammatical errors in a Subject-Verb Agreement rule which involves

Each and Every because the researchers found out that the Grade 12 Students of

Agro-Industrial High School commit frequent mistakes in this area, out of all the

61
10 rules, with the help of the Grammar Test. Also, GrySIMdor is designed to help

the students master a competency-based concept which they were not able to

comprehend completely and correctly. It was made using Powerpoint Presentation

divided into 6 parts: Guide Card, Activity Card, Assessment Card, Enrichment

Card, Reference Card and Answer Card. The main topic is about Each and Every

and the students can access the SIM by flipping through its pages.

SIMposter is another Strategic Intervention Material designed to lessen the

Grammatical Errors of the students in Rule number 4 about Special Construction:

One of the (plural noun) + singular verb of the Subject-verb agreement. Similar to

GrySIMdor, this was created using Powerpoint Presentation to reinforce the

concept that the researchers found the students frequently commit errors in. It also

has six parts: Guide Card, Activity Card, Assessment Card, Enrichment Card,

Reference Card and Answer Card. The students can access the material and its

contents by flipping through the pages and answering the given exercises. After

accomplishing both SIMs, the researchers expect the students to be more aware of

their mistakes that would eventually help them lessen the errors.

62
63
 Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the Summary of the Findings gathered from the

conducted study, Conclusions drawn from the findings and Recommendations

made for future researchers.

Summary of Findings

The following are the findings obtained from the conducted study:

1. The Common Written Grammatical Errors of the students in Subject-verb

Agreement involve Rule 2 about Each and Every, and Rule 4 ‘Special

Construction: One of the (plural noun) + singular verb.’ the most. In terms

of frequency, Rule 2 registered a total of 91 errors as computed and a

general weighted mean of 3.03 from the respondents. It is categorized

under Frequently, as applied by the frequency interpretation. Rule 4 also

suggested the same interpretation for acquiring a total of 104 errors and a

weighted mean of 3.37. Clearly, the students frequently commit

grammatical errors in subject-verb agreement in sentences that involve the

canon for Rules 2 and 4. As for the rest of the rules, all of it gathered a

total and weighted mean that interprets to Sometimes, which means that

the students sometimes commit errors in Rules 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and

10. These findings in the syntactic errors are comparable to Juozulynas

who discovered that the biggest problem in the students' writing was

syntax, especially the use of the verb with the required noun case or the

64
 use of the required case with the noun object of a preposition. This infers

that students must be given more opportunity to raise their awareness and

skills in making sentences and paragraphs which are connected with one

another to form meaningful compositions.

2. Based on the checklist, the respondents' perception in every statement

under Nescience is Neither Agree nor Disagree with a weighted mean

between 2.01-3.00. On the other hand, the respondents' perception for the

statements under Habit is Agree with a weighted mean between 3.01-4.00.

9 out of 10 statements of the perceived causes of grammatical error is

classified under Habit. Correspondingly, 28 out of 30 respondents or

(93%) responded Habit. These findings are related to Chownahe’s study

where he found out that most of the errors that constrained the learners

were their inabilities to apply the rules in the vast aspects of grammar.

Inabilities to apply the correct rules of grammar in writing reflects habit.

According to Corpuz, the error correction technique benefits teachers in

creating awareness among learners. When the teacher is aware of the

students' habits in writing and the instances that the students commit

grammatical errors, instilling independent reading habits among students

as suggested by Corpuz.

3. As shown in the statistical data, Nescience has a value of -0.17609 which

substantiates that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it has a

significant linear relationship to Grammatical Errors. On the other hand,

there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a significant linear relationship

65
 exists between Grammatical Errors and Habit as the correlation coefficient

has a value of 0.13212. Krashen’s Language Acquisition Theory supported

the findings of the study where the students naturally adapt things easily

which eventually becomes a habit and a reason for the written grammatical

errors. In addition, Akande found that if a student does not have enough

knowledge on the correct word form and they are inefficient in the correct

use of prepositions in writing their sentences, it appears that habit is one of

its variables.

Conclusions

After the results have been obtained and the findings were stated, the researchers

came up with the following conclusions:

1. The researchers conclude that the students frequently misuse each and

every with a plural verb. The same is true for special construction, students

also frequently make mistakes in statements that have ‘One of the (plural

noun)’ whereby using a plural verb instead of a singular verb.

2. It has been statistically proven and agreed upon that the perceived cause of

grammatical errors of the students is Habit. Thus, the researchers conclude

that the mistakes students frequently make in Subject-Verb Agreement are

influenced by literal translation, incomplete application/misapprehension

of the rules, overgeneralization of plurals, constant passive voice usage,

limited punctuation mark usage, irregular past tense conjugation, and

internet reliance for grammar checking. 

66
 3. The researchers conclude that Nescience has a negative relationship on the

Written Grammatical Errors committed by the students. While, Habit that

the students have adapted from their younger years, shows to have a

positive relationship to the Written Grammatical Errors of the students.

Hence, the perceived cause Habit has a significant influence on the

Written Grammatical Errors of the students. 

Recommendations

After the whole conduct of the study and upon coming up with the conclusion, the

researchers further recommend the following:

1. The researchers suggest to students to be very particular in the use of Each

and Every in the sentence where singular verb is always used. In writing,

the verb should always agree with their subjects especially in the rule for

Special Construction: One of the (plural noun) + singular verb. Also,

grammar exercises or writing activities which involves the use of subject-

verb agreement should be given to students for further practice.

2. The researchers recommend to students that they should break these habits

and start to make changes in how they construct sentences and paragraphs

to adapt proper subject-verb agreement. In addition, the teacher should

clearly correct the students’ habits on subject-verb agreement and become

the students’ guide to realize that their habits should be changed. Likewise,

teaching subject-verb agreement requires a lot of time and the teacher

should refrain from moving on to the next rule without making the

students learn and retain the previous rule that they have been taught.

67
3. The researchers suggest to students that they should find time for reading

and discovery. The habit or concept of repeating grammatical errors in

subject-verb agreement should be noticed and realized. The researchers

also recommend to teachers to develop a strategic intervention material in

teaching students on lessons about subject-verb agreement.

4. For future researchers, the researchers recommend further study of other

aspects that can affect student understanding of Subject-Verb Agreement

which causes grammatical errors in writing.

68
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmadvand, M. (2008). Analyzing Errors of Iranian EFL Learners in Their
Written Productions. Retrieved from:
http://moslem17.googlepapers.com/AnalysingerrorsofIranianEFLlearners.
pdf on 27/10/15
Ameliani, A. (2019). Students’ Difficulties in Grammar of Seventh Grade Junior
High School 1 Magelang. English Department, Tidar University,
Magelang, Indonesia.
Barto, K., Nicol, J., Witzel, J., & Witzel, N. (2009). Transfer Effects in Bilingual
Sentence Processing. Retrieved from http//w3.coh.arizona.edu/awp16/awp
%2016Bbartosisamout on 12/3/16.
Bataineh, R. F. (2005). Jordanian Undergraduate EFL Students’ Errors in The Use
of The Indefinite Article. Asian EFL Journal, 7(1), 56-76.
Beltran, L.E. (2014). Analysis of Grammatical Errors of Utterance Structure.
Technological University of the Philippines : Cavite, Philippines.
Retrieved from: http://www.ijias.issr-journals.org/
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.).
White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, H.D. (1987). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood
Cliffs. N.J. Prentice Hall.
Brown. H. (1980). Principles of Language and Teaching. Prentice Hall, Inc., New
Jersey.
Byjus. (n.d.). Percentage Formula. Byjus The Learning App. Retrieved from:
https://byjus.com/percentage-formula/Chi square
Collins, L. (2007). L1 Differences and L2 Similarities: Teaching Verb Tenses in
English. ELT Journal, 61(4), 295-304.
Corder, S.P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford. Oxford University
Press.
Corpuz, V. A. F. (2011) Error Correction in Second Language Writing: Teachers'
Beliefs, Practices, And Students' Preferences. Master of Education Thesis,
Queensland University of Technology.
Crystal, David. (2006). The Fight for English. Oxford University Press.
Darus, S. et. al (2009, p. 493) Error Analysis of the written English essays of
Secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European journal of
Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 3, November, p. 493
EL-Aswad, A. A. (2002). A Study of the Ll and L2 Writing Processes and
Strategies of Arab Learners with Special Reference to Third-Year Libyan

69
 University Students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Newcastle
University, England.
Ewie, C, O. Williams, R. Grammatical and Lexical Errors in Students’ English
Composition Writing: The Case of Three Senior High Schools (SHS) in
the Central Region of Ghana. College of Languages Education, University
of Education, Winneba: Ghana.
Fernandez I.M. (2016). Discourse Analysis of Research Introduction and its
Pedagogical Implications to ESL Writing Classroom. University of
Southeastern Philippines : Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 17, July 2016
Gass S., Slinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory
Course. LEA, Mahwah, New Jersey
Germann, C. (n.d.). Nescience vs. ignorance (on semantics and moral
accountability). Cognitive-Liberty.online. Retrieved from:
https://cognitive-liberty.online/nescience-vs-ignorance/
Ghadessey, M. (1980). Implications of Error Analysis for Second/Foreign
Language Acquisition. Language Teaching, 189(2), 3-14.
Hung, T. (2000). Interlanguage Analysis as An Input to Grammar Teaching.
PASAA, 31(1), 1-12.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in second
language acquisition. 24, pp., 387-418
Jayasundara J.M.P.V.K.1, Premarathna C.D.H.M. (2011) A linguistic Analysis on
Errors Committed in English by Undergraduates. International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications Volume 1.
Kim, I. (1988). A Study of The Errors in The Use of The English Verbs with
Special Reference to Tense, Mood, And Voice. (Unpublished master’s
thesis, Busan National University, Busan, Korea).
Kim, S. (2001). An Error Analysis of College Students’ Writing: Is That Really
Konglish? Studies in Modern Grammar, 25, 159-174.
Kim, S. (2002). Transfer and Access to Universal Grammar in Adult Second
Language Acquisition. Retrieved from
http//dissertation.ub.rug.nl/faculties/arts/2002 on 10/3/16
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York:
Longman.
Kubota, R. (1998). An Investigation of L1-L2 Transfer In Writing Among
Japanese University Students: Implications For Contrastive Rhetoric.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 69-100.
Leman, M. I. (2014). Common Grammatical Errors in Students’ Writing at Man 1
Parepare. State University of Makassar : Indonesia.

70
Mabuan, R.A. (2015). An Analysis of Weblogs’ Grammatical Errors of Filipino
Learners of English as Second Language. Lyceum of the Philippines
University : Manila.
Malimas, M.A. Samson, S. C.2017. Linguistic Error Analysis on Students’ Thesis
Proposals. University of San Carlos, Philippines: IAFOR Journal of
Language Learning.
Maniam, M. (2010). The Influence of First Language Grammar (L1) on The
English Language (L2) Writing of Tamil School Students: A Case Study
from Malaysia. Language in India, 10, 1-209.
MathIsFun. (n.d.). Correlation. Math Is Fun. Retrieved from:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/correlation.html
MathIsFun. (n.d.). Weighted Mean. Math Is Fun. Retrieved from:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/weighted-mean.html
Mendoza, P.J. (2016). Analysis of in-class Writing Errors of College Freshmen
Students. Mindanao University of Science and Technology: Philippine
ESL Journal Vol. 17, July 2016.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Habit. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved
January 2, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/habit
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Nescience. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary.
Retrieved January 2, 2021, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nescience
Nordquist, Richard. (2020, August 27). What Is a Grammatical Error? Retrieved
from https://www.thoughtco.com/grammatical-error-usage-1690911
Nordquist, Richard. (2020, August 28). Definition and Examples of Native
Languages. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/native-language-
l1-term-1691336
Nordquist, Richard. (2020, August 28). What Is a Second Language (L2)?
Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/second-language-1691930
Ramelan. (1992). Introduction to Linguistic Analysis. IKIP Semarang
Press, Semarang.
Randall (2005) and Ilomaki (2005) Monolingual Errors as Billingual Learners.
Africa
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of Language Teaching &
Applied Linguistics. London: Pearson Education.
Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by
Chinese learners of English. Second language research 16 (2), pp., 135-
172.

71
Saadiyah, D., & Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error Analysis of The Written English
Essays Of Secondary School Students In Malaysia: A Case Study.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 483-495.
Sattayatham, A., & Honsa, S. (2007). Medical Students’ Most Frequent Errors at
Mahidol University, Thailand. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 170-194.
Schütz, R. E. (2019). Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition.
Retrieved from https://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash-english.html
Sharma, A. (n.d.). Habit Formation: Basis, Types and Measures for Effective
Habit Formation. Retrieved from:
https://www.psychologydiscussion.net/habits/habit-formation-basis-types-
and-measures-for-effective-habit-formation/638
Sukasame N. et al. (2014). A Study of Errors in Learning English Grammatical
Structures on Tenses of MatthayomSuksa 4 Students of the Demonstration
School, KhonKaen University: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814005151
Sumalinog G, G. (2018). Common Grammatical Errors of The High School
Students: The Teachers' Perspective. Cebu Normal University:
International Journal of Research Science & Management. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328612436_common_grammatic
al_errors_of_the_high_school_students_the_teachers'_perspective
Sumalinog, G. (2018). Common Grammatical Errors of The High School
Students: The Teachers’ Perspective. Cebu Normal University.
International Journal of Research Science & Management. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328612436_common_grammatic
al_errors_of_the_high_school_students_the_teachers'_perspective
Swaran, K.S. et. al. (2017). Grammar Errors Made by ESL Tertiary Students in
Writing. English Language Teaching; Vol. 10, No. 5: Canadian Center of
Science and Education. Retrieved from:
http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n5p16
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020). Grammar. Encyclopædia
Britannica. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/grammar
Tizazu, Y. (2014) A Linguistic Analysis of Errors in Learners’ Compositions: The
Case of Arba Minch University Students. European Centre for Research
Training and Development: UK
Woon (2003). The Lexical Errors in The Written Work Of Form Four Chinese
Educated ESL Students Of SMK. Taman Connaught, Kuala Lumpur:
Malaysia.
Xie & Jiang. (2007.). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching. College of
Foreign Languages, Liaoning Normal University.

72
Yin, C. C., & Ung, D. C. (2001). Sub-Stratum Transfer among Low Proficiency
Students in Written English. (Unpublished master thesis, University
Malaya, Malaysia).

73