Error analysis on junior and senior high school students written production

Error analysis on junior and senior high school students written production

Abstract

To reveal new an insight into what the most severe grammatical frequent errors made by Swedish learners in junior and senior high school, here, we performed an error analysis study of analysis errors in 20 written productions for junior and senior high learners, based on use (ULEC) The Uppsala learner English corpus. The results showed that the most frequent grammatical errors have occurred in the spelling category in both groups (junior and senior learners). Furthermore, the study also explored there were differences between junior and senior high school learners in terms of use grammatical errors, where the junior group had a higher frequency of grammatical errors compared to the top group. Also, this analysis provided senior learners have struggled more than junior in use the wrong verb, especially in errors of verb tense.

1.Introduction

The appropriate use of a language requires proper grammatical command. This is the most crucial part when learning a new language. According to Sloverket (2004:3), Swedish students have a better comprehension of the English language when compared to their counterparts from Europe. However, they still have a long way to go to perfect their grammar. For example, during interacted with Swedish students in school, it could be noticing that most of the Swedish students have a problem with simple grammatical structures, such as using the wrong tense. Furthermore, it may be exposed that Teachers also use various methods with some teaching grammar as an isolated subject as a strategy for better content delivery. Teachers could observe students’ use of grammar verbally and in writing and then develop a method of teaching p designed to help the student improve. This study seeks to detect the blunders in the use of English in writing by Swedish L2 beginners of English insubordinate high school and senior high school.

1.2 Aim and study question

The tenacity of the study is to scrutinize and analyze grammatical errors in written productions by Swedish L2 learners of English in junior high school and senior high school. This research also seeks to explore whether grammar knowledge differs between the two learners’ groups.

The following questions were used in the study

1. Which are the most recurrent errors made by Swedish subordinate and senior high school students in their writing?
2. Are there any differences regarding frequencies of errors between the junior group and senior group in their writing?

2. Background, theoretical framework, previous research

Most people can communicate in more than one language. However, several factors determine the level at which one can communicate effectively in the second language. These factors include the environment under which an individual learned the language, the approach used in teaching the word, and the language mechanisms. The process through which an individual acquires the capability to use a different linguistic denote as second language acquisition (SLA). A considerable amount of literature exists on second language acquisition, with various researchers and writers having different concepts on the topic. This section will provide an exhaustive analysis of the theories on second learning acquisition with a focus on Swedish students. In addition to introducing methods related to the research problem, this section highlights the findings of recent empirical studies, as well as insight into the research problem. The segment identifies previous research on this topic and provides a discussion and evaluation of the research relevant to this study.

2.1 Second language acquisition

Second language acquisition refers to the aspect of learning a different language, which is not, in most cases, the first language of the individual. The term second language acquirement is mostly used to refer to learning a third or fourth language. The second language can be acquired through formal or informal learning (Instructed and naturalistic learning). Informal learning provides the learner with the ability to use the word to communicate. In contrast, precise education concern with instilling knowledge of language mechanisms to a learner and occurs naturally (Ellis, 1994:12; Saville-Troike, 2006:6). Formal learning occurs under a controlled environment, usually in classrooms and learning institutions where detailed and comprehensive instructions are provided. The goal of researchers in second language acquisition is to study learner’s grammar capabilities and how these are developed using Coders” Error analysis (Ellis, 1994:15; Hinkel, 2005, 265). SLA research remains crucial in studying learner’s characteristics and determining the best methods for teaching English grammar as a secondary language (Ellis, 1997:17)

2.2 Different approaches to grammar teaching

Many individuals learn their first language through communication without the grammar aspect (Thornbury, 1999: 91). There are multiple approaches that English teachers can use in teaching grammar. One of these is the form-focused approach, which provides exhaustive instructions, while the zero-based approach leaves learners to acquire grammar from natural communication. According to Ellis (1997:48), the zero-based approach does not provide students with a concrete foundation for developing their grammar. Ellis contends that those learning English as a second language require a comprehensive introduction to grammar to be able to understand and use complex grammatical constructions properly. Grammar instructions are crucial for second language learners. Learners who used the form-focused approach score higher in grammar tests and learned at faster rates compared to those in the zero-based approach (Ellis, 2006, pp.83-107). In addition to this, teachers should identify the capabilities and shortcomings of the student and seek to help them improve (Ellis, 2006: 83,107).

2.3 Theoretical framework and error analysis

Errors, in most cases, are considered an integral part of the language in learning. Besides, error analysis is commonly viewed as a primary topic in second language acquisition. Errors such as overgeneralization, incomplete language rule applications, use of false concepts, and ignorance of language rules are common in second language acquisition. Ellis and Barkhuizen state that Error analysis is “a set of procedures for identifying, describing, and explaining learners’” errors” (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005: 51). Additionally, in performing an error analysis for L2 learners’ papers, there are some steps involved, as recommended by Ellis and Barkhuizen.

The First step involves the collection of a sample of a learner’s language. It considers the purpose of the study to ensure that relevant data is collected for the aim of education. The second step involves the identification of errors. This is done to describe and identify the type of error committed. Thirdly there is a description of failures that requires the use of the following principles: error omission, errors of addition, misinformation/substitution, disordering, and blends. These principles are used to specify and categorize grammatical mistakes in place. The fourth step is the clarification of the blunders and comprises of transfer of errors and the overgeneralization of error. This is the most critical step as it gives the reasons as to why someone made such an error. The preceding step in this analysis is fault evaluation. This deals with evaluating the analysis process and concluding on the results gathered.

2.4 Previous study on L2 learners’ grammar information

A lot of investigation has been conducted regarding SLA due to interest from English teachers. This interest is because most countries have embraced English as an official language. Some of the SLA researchers include Coder and Ellis, both of whom have contributed immensely to the field. Köhlmyr (2003) studied 16-year-old Spanish students by analyzing their writing to identify grammatical errors and uses error examination to explain her conclusions using the data unruffled from Swedish national tests done in 1992 and 1995. The study discovered that grammatical mistakes were caused by overgeneralization (50%), simplification (8%), blending (1%), others (1%), and transfers (40%). The study aimed at identifying possible approaches to be used by English teachers in the future and provides feedback to students as one. Köhlmyr further discovered that correcting the students’ mistakes was ineffective (2003, 341). She suggests that students should be made to recognize their grammatical errors, as this would help them grow and improve their capabilities.

3. Methods and materials

3.1 Methods

This investigation used A Corpus Studies based on the (EA) Error Analysis of texts written by L2 learners of English, which is a standard methodology design for classifying and including grammatical errors in the learners’ scripts. There are other reasons to use this error analysis as a method to investigate second language acquisition. First of all, this method aims to create awareness in second language learners about the existence of language rules and specific systems in the English language. Secondly, error analysis is carried out to examine the learners’ output and input, as well as to make corrections concerning spelling, utterances, and grammar, among other challenges spotted (Saville-Troike and Barto, 2007: 3).

3.2 Materials

This study used the Uppsala Learner English Corpus(ULEC). The goal of the corpus is to offer scholar educators with materials that they can utilize when examining learners’ English linguistic information (Johansson & Gessler, 2009: 181). Also, the collected data consisting of twenty sampled texts on a specific topic, which is entitled “Do You Believe in Ghosts?”, these texts were written by Swedish L2 students of English from two groups – junior-high-school and senior-high-school students. Table 1 below shows the dissemination of the total number of books and the size words used in the study by each group.

Table1:  the distribution of the total number of texts used in the study by each group.

 3.3 Method of analysis

This section explains the procedures and the steps of how was analyzed data in this study. The primary measure was involved in identifying grammatical errors by classifying the mistakes into four categories depending on which type of error it was, for example, spelling, use a wrong verb, prepositions, and articles. Also, another primary procedure was done and was determined to count the most frequency of grammatical errors for each category in all of the written texts in both the junior high school and senior high school groups. The second procedure and the step were adopted in this study, performing analyses to compare differences of using grammatical errors between the two groups. The third step was the description and explained of the grammatical errors for both groups. The final step was done in this analysis by evaluation of grammatical errors for two groups.

4. Outcomes of the Fault Investigation

This segment presents the outcomes of the slip investigation in two parts regarding the questions of this study. First, it will show and discuss the highest frequency of blunders made by Swedish junior and senior high school learners in their writing. Second, it will also discuss differences regarding rates of errors between the junior group and the top group in their book.

4.1 Results of error categories

To understand the prevalent writing errors made by Swedish learners of English in two groups, junior high school, and senior high school learners, the first assessment was done by identifying and calculating the frequency of grammatical errors after analyzing all of the ULEC papers for both groups of Swedish learners (juniors and seniors). This study revealed that some grammatical errors occurred in their documents, such as spelling, using the wrong tense, prepositions, and articles. The errors are presented in Table 2 below, according to the most intermittent faults first, trailed by the others. In total, around 445 linguistic defects were found in all of the ULEC papers for both groups of Swedish learners. Table 2 shows an impression of all fault categories that were identified in the documents of both groups of learners. As can be seen in Table 2, the spelling category had the highest frequency compared to the other error categories (about 35%). Meanwhile, the use of the wrong tense group was 31%, respectively, and preposition errors were evident at 18%. Finally, errors related to articles only occurred by 13%.

Table2: The total number of errors in all of the texts for both groups (juniors and seniors).

4.2 Results of contrast amongst the junior group and senior group.

The most striking result to emerge in our analysis was the alterations amongst the junior group and senior group in their writing texts. After studies and comparing the most error categories made by Swedish learners among the junior group and top group in their writing texts, in our results, we found out there are changes between the two groups in terms of the different error categories. Table 3 below presents a comparison between the two groups of varying fault categories. For example, related to spelling errors were the most recurrent ones in both groups. Meanwhile, the junior group had overuse of mistakes in spelling about 37% compared to the senior group, around 35%.  However, related to the use of the wrong verb in both, junior and senior groups, the error of the use of the wrong verb was higher respectively after spelling, which the junior group had fewer errors of the use of the wrong verb, an approximate 30% compared to the senior group who had overused about 33%. According to Johansson & Geisler (2009), the most common errors learners make are related to verb form (2009:184). When it comes to prepositions errors, we can see that the junior group was more frequent in using wrong prepositions around 19%, while in the senior group, about 17% in their texts. As for articles, the same trend was evident about the differences in both groups, which means a higher amount of errors were found in the junior group, with an estimated 14%. In contrast, we found that the senior group, compared to the junior group, used less of the wrong articles, around 13%.

Table3: Comparison of differences of errors in percentage between the junior and senior groups.

4.3 Presentation of grammatical errors in the ULEC texts for both groups

To understand some grammatical errors that occurred in versions of the learner in both groups from ULEC.this section will present a description and explanation of the mistakes that were made by Swedish learners by giving some examples from their written productions. The error categories will show below according to their occurrence with the most recurrent errors first then trailed by the others.

4.3.1Spelling related errors

According to texts in the ULEC for the two groups of high Swedish learners that used in this study. The most numerous errors in both groups were spelling related.  There have been many spelling errors realized in English papers written by Swedish students. Spelling has been a challenge because unlike any other non-native speakers of the English language, they struggle the most with English vowels. For instance, there are words spelled as ‘scared,’ ‘natural,’ ‘beings,’ ‘believe,’ and ‘felt’ instead of scared, natural, beings, and believe. Below are examples of some of the learners spelling relate errors.

(1) My friend was not afraid,

(2)I don’t believe in ghost or supernatural beings

(3) No, I don’t believe in ghosts.

(4)I don’t know, and I feel safe.

As shown in the examples above, learners made errors to write the correct spelling, and spelling errors which Swedish students commit in the productions of writing can be connected to the influence of their first language. Also, it could be indicted that learners do not have an awareness of knowledge in English grammar or might be a relatively minor mistake by the learners due to they do not yet master English.

4.3.2 Use a wrong verb tense

(5) My friends also believed in ghosts.

(6) he lives in the castle

(7) I thought that they wish to hurt me.

(8) But one second later, the door smash and the tv sound comes back on…etc

(9) Because of these things not happen to me

(10) When I believed in ghosts.

4.3.3Prepositions

(11) They are going to my room, and they scared me.

(12) I’m my room and read a book.

(13) Most cases are hearing weird sounds.

(14) it will be too small forsee at.

(15) that gets me to not believe at ghosts.

Using the above examples, it is clear that prepositions have been misused. Most of the prepositions in the above example have been used in the wrong places in the sentence. In the case of a model (11), the phrase noun ‘my room’ should have been succeeded by a proposition (in) instead “on.” For example (12), it can be seen that the learner used preposition ‘i’ instead of ‘in,’ which indicates the learner transferred the preposition used in the Swedish language to English, which explains the mismatches because the rules are different in the two words. For example (13), the learner omitted used preposition “of.” Example 14 demonstrates another case where preposition ‘for’ was used instead of the preposition ‘to.’ Lastly, for example, (15) preposition ‘at’ is used instead of ‘in.’ The net effect of using the wrong preposition is the fact that the idea of the learner may not be understood. Secondly, the sentence, like in the example (15) the penalty may not convey the message intended by the writer because of using wrong propositions.

4.3.4Definite/indefinite articles

After analyzing our data, I found the items had been misused away By the Swedish learner in both groups, junior and senior learners. Below are examples of some of the learners who are using the incorrect Definite/Indefinite articles.

(16) My sister thought the same thing

(17) the light was blue-white I believe,

(18) they have also been visiting the island in Italy

(19) a house was like a recovery house.

(20) They tried to kill me with a computer.

As notable in example (16) and (17) the learners have omitted the definite article “the” before “same thing” and “light” meanwhile, in some case article “the” is inserted in areas that do not need it such as in an example (18). The reasons for the learner do that in their texts, due to transfer errors from Swedish to English. Which mean in Swedish sometimes definite article do not requires in the sentence despite the particular item is also used in Swedish but in a different system. Further could be the students have struggled to distinguish between generic and specific references; however, in example (19), the noun ‘house’ should not be preceded by the article ‘a’; instead, the item ‘the’ should have been used. Example (20) has other cases where ‘an’ is used instead of ‘a’ like the article preceding the noun ‘house.’ Using the examples could indicate the influence of the Swedish language on English learners can be realized. The challenge, in this case, can be understood to have emanated from the fact that the Swedish language has a definite article system. Secondly, though, in some cases, the Swedish language uses definite and indefinite articles, their uses are not similar to how they are used in English. This explains the mix-up in terms of misusing materials and using others in the places where they were not needed.

5.Discussion

In both junior and senior high school learners, the use of the English language in writing text is a key challenge, in which both groups have trouble in grammatical structures of the sentence, which grammatical errors were the most frequent in their books. Concerning the first research question, our findings show that the most frequent grammatical errors occurred in spelling in both groups. Furthermore, regarding the second question, if their differences between groups. The results of this study aimed to improve our best knowledge if there were any differences between junior and senior high school learners in terms of use grammatical errors.  The results provided that the learners in both groups have tended to make the same grammatical errors but are not to the same extent, where the junior group had a higher frequency of grammatical errors compared to the senior group into three categories: spelling, prepositions, and articles. Interestingly, we found in our analysis senior learners have struggled more than junior in use the wrong verb, especially in errors of verb tense.

Furthermore, after examine and analyzing the writing productions for both groups. Own my perspective, and it would be necessary for educators to understand the grammar perspectives that should be emphasized after evaluating and assessing the learner’s papers. It would require the need to analyze the type of grammar teaching that would be the most effective, and this would be a comprehension of whether the integration of naturalistic grammar acquisition or traditional grammar teaching would be essential to the development of the student.  There are many challenges regarding these assumptions on which one would be best in teaching grammar; however, all of them have advantages and disadvantages surrounding them. Some researchers such as Krashen (Ellis, 2006:87) states that it would be instrumental for educators to teach English students on the principal and straightforward components of language such as the 3rd person –sending and the past tense form of verbs with the –ed ending. He assumes that L2 learners are still not as developed to be exposed to complex grammatical structures, and it would be necessary for educators to shift to simple instructions that would be comprehendible to them.

Nonetheless, some researchers argue against his belief and who have found a significant number of L2 learners of English who can come up with both complex grammatical structures and phrases and can also provide additional information on the grammatical terms in detail. According to Elli, teaching involves “those forms that differ from the learners ‘first language” (Ellis,2006:87). Integrating this approach of teaching grammar would be a very effective method. From the above results, transfer errors encompassed many of the grammatical errors, and it would be a stepping stone to provide additional information to learners on the different forms of grammar that vary from the Swedish. It is optimistic that this study has brought about giving prospective English educators a universal knowledge and awareness of the different grammatical errors common amongst Swedish high school learners. By chance, it would be essential to them to facilitate their points of view on how to maneuver and teach grammar in learning institutions.

5.1 Strength and weakness of the study

The study about analyses of grammatical errors in written texts by Swedish L2 learners of English in junior high school and senior high school had several distinct strengths and weaknesses. Firstly, the significance of this study arose from the fact that it focused on what is the most and serious grammatical errors had found in their texts of Swedish L2 learners of the English language. Secondly, the study’s relevance appeared from age stratification, and the strategy of grammar teaching is the most efficient due to formal or informal learning (Instructed and naturalistic learning). However, the study revealed several limitations, such as the lack of large sample size and potential bias in the analysis process because the findings were limited to the 20 texts written by two groups of Swedish l2 learners of English (junior and senior high school). Additionally, in future work, it is essential to consider the above limitations, such as using a large sample size will enable us to include as possible variables that might influence the analyses, therefore reducing such potential bias.

6.Conclusion

This case study revealed that Swedish L2 learners had grammatical errors in their writing. The results were intriguing when especially junior learners behave differently compared to senior learners. Also, this study proved a spelling was the most severe error among other categories. Moreover, this study would inspire scholars to further investigate in this area and recommend them to translate this study into extensive survey research (e.g., intervention study) to improve our current knowledge and to characterize some factors that could affect writing. Also, this study could help and support English teachers by giving background about the linguistic errors that Swedish learners in high school tend to make it. Also, to contribute to broadening their viewpoint on how to deal with teaching grammar in school.

.

References

Bergström, Göran & Boréus, Kristina (red.) (2005). Textens mening och makt: metodbok i

samhällsvetenskaplig text- och diskursanalys. 2. [omarb.] uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Rod (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Rod (2006). Current issues in the teaching of English grammar: An SLA perspective.

Tesol Quarterly 40(1): 83-107.

Ellis, Rod & Gary, Barkhuizen, 2005. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford University Press.

The UK.

Hinkel, Eli (ed.) (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning.

Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Johansson, Christine & Geisler, Christer (2009). The Uppsala Learner English Corpus: A new corpus of Swedish high school student’s writing. In: Multilingualism (Proceedings of

23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics), ed. By Anju Saxena and Åke Viberg.

Köhlmyr, Pia (2003). To err is human – An Investigation of Grammatical Errors in Swedish

16-year-old Learners’ Written production In English. Göteborgs Universitet.

Skolverket (2004). Engelska I åtta europeiska länder- en undersökning av ungdomars

kunskaper of uppfattningar.

Svartvik, Jan & Sager, Olof (1996). Engelsk universitetsgrammatik. 2. uppl. Stockholm:

Almqvist & Wiksell.

Thornbury, Scott (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Longman.

Vetenskapsrådet. (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk samhällsvetenskaplig

forskning. Vetenskapsrådet.