iii
ABSTRACT
*****
This paper studies the common written errors that first year English major students in Hung
Yen University of Technology and Education make and the significance of error correction in
English writing teaching. To achieve the desired aims of the current study, I combined both
qualitative and quantitative methods, including 3 main ones namely observation, survey
questionnaire and student writing analysis. The subjects participating in the survey
questionnaire were 60 first year students and 6 writing teachers. Besides 30 students’ writings
were also analyzed and 6 writing lessons were observed.
Research results show that errors first year English major students often make are basically
dueto the lack of vocabulary and problems with normal grammatical rules in English. The
main causes of these errors are the interference of mother tongue, teaching- included cause,
carelessness and psychology, in which interference from the first language is the biggest
cause. Besides, it is found out that students’ writing improves significantly after teacher’s
error correction. Some correction methods and techniques, including self – correction, peer –
correction, student – teacher correction and remedial exercises, therefore, are strongly
suggested in hope to help teachers to give effective error correction. iv
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION i


v
2.2.1.2. Description of survey questionnaires 12
a. Survey questionnaire for students 12
b. Survey questionnaire for teachers 12
2.2.2. Student writing analysis 13
2.2.2.1. Reasons for choosing student writing analysis 13
2.2.2.2. Description of student writing analysis 13
2.2.3. Observation. 13
2.3. Procedure of data collection 13
CHAPTER III : RESULT AND DISCUSSION 15
3. 1. Common errors made by first year English major students in UTEHY based on data
analysis and discussion. 15
3.1.1. Data analysis from questionnaires and observation. 15
3.1.1.1. Students’ attitude towards their errors 15
3.1.1.2. Teacher’s attitude towards students’ errors 17
3.1.2 Data analysis from student writing 19
3.1.3. Discusion 23
3.2.Students’ improvement in writing proficiency as a result of teacher’s error correction 24
3.2.1. Data analysis from questionnaires and observation. 24
3.2.1.1. Students’ attitude towards their improvement in writing proficiency. 24
3.2.1.2. Teacher’s attitude towards their improvement in writing proficiency. 26
3.2.2 Data analysis from student writing analysis 28
3.2.3. Discusion 29
3.3. Some implications for writing teachers 29
3.3.1 Methods to give feedback 30
3.3.1.1. Use error code 30
3.3.1.2. How much and when to correct errors 32
3.3.1.3. Integrate positive and negative, direct and indirect feedback 32
3.3.2. Techniques for error correction 33

vii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Page
Figure 3.1. Students’ assessment on difficulty of writing skill
Figure 3.2. Students’ opinion on importance of writing skill
Table 3.1. Student’s opinion on frequencies and quantity or errors
Figure 3.3 Students’ opinion on the causes of errors
Table 3.2. Teachers’ opinion on the importance and difficulty of writing skill
Figure 3.4. Teachers’ opinion on frequencies of errors
Figure 3.5. Teachers’ opinion on quantity of student error
Figure 3.6. Teachers’ opinion on causes of student errors
Table 3.3. Collected data about errors in students’ free writings
Table 3.4. Collected data about errors in students’ final writing tests
Table 3.5. Comparative data about errors made by students
Table 3.6. Types of common errors in writings of the first year English major
students at UTEHY
Figure 3.7.Students’ assessment on the importance of teacher’s error correction
Figure 3.8. Students’ opinion on how teachers correct errors
Figure 3.9. Students’ opinion on how much teachers correct errors
Table 3.7. Students’ assessment on frequencies of error correction techniques
Table 3.8. Students’ assessment on effectiveness of error correction techniques
Figure 3.10.Teacher’s assessment on the importance of teacher’s error correction.
Figure 3.11. The way teacher correct student’s errors
Figure3.12. Teacher’s assessment on the frequencies of using correction
Figure 3.13. Teacher’s assessment on students’ improvement in writing
15
16
16
17

1
PART A. INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
Since Vietnam started its open door policy in 1986. The Government of Vietnam has
stressed the importance of English as it is considered to play a crucial role on the country’s
path of modernization and industrialization and integration. As a result, most learners are
encouraged to learn English to have access to information and better interactions. In the
modern world, the ability to use English is an empowering tool, which increases access for
professionals to information, technology and professional development. Moreover, the
English language has rapidly become the most popular first foreign language among
Vietnamese people, especially at schools, colleges and universities. English serves not only
as a beneficial instrument for English major students but also as a beneficial instrument for
non – English major ones.
Writing skill plays the utmost role in learning English. A proficient writing ability in
second language enhances students’ logical way of thinking, thus facilitating students in
meeting the requirements of almost every profession. However, to attain the proficiency in
writing has long been a challenge consuming much energy and practice for almost second
language learners.

 Student writing analysis
 Observation
4.1. Survey questionnaire
To collect the information from teachers and students, one survey questionnaire is done
with 60 students in 2 classes in Faculty of Foreign languages in Hung Yen University of
Technology and Education and the other is used for 6 writing teachers in this university.
The data collected for the survey questionnaire supplies the information about the common
errors made by first year English major students, the fact of teachers’ correction and
student’s improvement in writing after teacher’s correction.
4.2. Writing analysis
To have an insightfully look into the current situation of common errors made by first year
English major students at HYUTE, the writer analyzed 30 papers written by the students.
4.3. Observation 3
Observation is also applied to find out how the teachers correct students’ errors and how
students’ writing improves after their errors are corrected.
All comments, remarks, and conclusion in the research are backed up by the data analysis.
5. Design of the study
The study consists of 3 main parts, organized as follows:
Part A - Introduction- gives information about the topic of this paper, background to the
study, the reason for choosing the topic, the aim, scope, and methods of study. An outline
of the thesis is also mentioned in this chapter.
Part B – Development – consists of three chapters, including Literature review,
Methodology and Results and discussions
Chapter I- Literature review – discusses the relevant theories related to writing, errors
and error correction.
Chapter II- Methodology – will mention the 3 main research instruments employed in the
study as well as data collection procedure.

“difficult to acquire” ( Tribble, 1996, p3) and “writing normally requires some form of
instruction. It is not a skill that is readily picked up by exposure” (Tribble, 1996, p.11).
Thus, it is necessary for learners to study and practice to improve this skill as Ur (1996)
stated that “most people acquire the spoken language intuitively, whereas the written form
is in most cases deliberately taught and learned”.
Regarding academic education, Taylor (1984, p 4) expresses that “the act of writing, upon
examination, turns out to be a complex process wherein writers use language as a tool to
discover and clarifying meaning on experience in order to say exactly what they mean”. In
addition, Brannon, Knight and Neverow -Turk (1982, p 2) states that "writing is a creative
art, not as an assembly line operation of locking words together into sentences and bolting
sentences together into paragraphs in accordance with a predefined plan"
In short, writing is a complex skill in second language learning because it requires the
ability to communicate in target language and to produce text in order to express oneself
efficiently. Therefore, academic writing requires conscious effort and much practice in
composing, developing, and analyzing ideas. 5
1.2. Definition of error
Making errors is the most natural thing in the world. In communication, both native
speakers and non- native speakers can make errors though their errors are different.
Error is defined as “ systematic deviations” from the norms of language being learnt by
Cunning Worth (1987) or when a learner has not learnt something and consistently gets it
wrong ( Norrish, 1987). Besides, Choon (1993) describes “error” as a form of structure
that is inappropriately used and that cannot be accepted by a native speaker. According to
Richards (1989), the term is identified as a faulty use of a linguistic item which shows
incomplete learning. Another definition of errors is given out by Brown (1994). He
identifies error as “noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker,
reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner” (as cited in Acker, 2000, p. 205).
Corder (1973) refers to errors as breaches of the code; they deviate from what is regarded

rule and interference of the learners’ mother tongue and the general characteristic of the
rule learning.
1.4. Sources of errors
Errors are made by some different causes. Each linguist has different way to classify
errors. Brown (2000) argues that errors arise from several possible general sources:
“interlingual errors of interference from the native language, intralingual errors within the
target language, the sociolinguistic context of communication, psycholinguistic or
cognitive strategies, and no doubt countless affective variables”. (p. 218)
He states that the significant source of error for all learners is interlingual transfer. This
means that when using the second language, learners often tend to transfer from the native
language or interference. Take the verb “ăn: in Vietnamese as an example. According to
Vietnamese rule, the verb does not change in form when going with third singular person.
Hence, they can produce such sentence as “Cô ấy/ Anh ấy ăn tối”. However, when this
rule is applied into English, students may write “He/ she eat dinner”, which is considered
erroneous. Students may also translate from first language into second language because
they assume that their first and second language are similar (Acker, 2000). For instance,
Vietnamese learners may translate the sentence “Anh ấy rất thông minh” into English “He
very intelligent”, skipping the verb to be. He also thinks that the major factor in the second
language is intralingual transfer –generalization (within the target language itself). For
example, learners often write “she go to school every morning” instead of “she goes to 7
school every morning” or they say that “Do you can play tennis?” instead of “ Can you
play tennis?”
Sharing the same idea, Richards (1971), when trying to identify the causes of competence
errors, comes up with three types of errors: interference errors, which reflect the use of
elements from one language to the other, intralingual errors, subdivided into errors due to
overgeneralization, or to ignorance of rules restriction, which is incomplete application of
the rules, or finally due to the false concept hypothesis, which demonstrate the general

identify the causes of learners’ errors and to obtain information on common difficulties in
language learning, as an aid to teaching or in the preparation of teaching materials.
According to Brown (2000, p. 218), error analysis is that “errors can be observed,
analyzed, and classified to reveal something of the system operating with the learner, led
to a surge of study of learners errors”. Additionally, Richards and Sampson (1974, p. 15)
states that “at the level of pragmatic classroom experience, error analysis will continue to
provide one means by which the teacher assesses learning and teaching and determines
priorities for future effort.”
In 1967 Corder figured out the procedures for error analysis as follows : (1) collection of a
sample of learner language, (2) identification of errors, (3) description of errors, (4)
explanation of errors, and (5) evaluation of errors. Besides, Corder (1974) argues that error
analysis has two objects: one theoretical and another applied. The theoretical object serves
to “elucidate what and how a learner learns when he studies a second language.” And the
applied object serves to enable the learner “to learn more efficiently by exploiting our
knowledge of his dialect for pedagogical purposes.”
Moreover, to treat the error the teachers should consider the three phases of its treatment:
localization, Identification and correction. Many times teachers just care for the
localisation of the errors without moving on to the Identification of the type of the error
made or its cause. It is of great importance to try to find out why the error is made, because
not all types of error must be treated in the same way. It is not just the teacher that should
correct the students, they should actually be motivated to do so themselves.
1. 6. Error correction and significance of error correction
It is agreed that error correction is very necessary for second language learners and that
correction is an important stage in writing process. After students have produced a written
text, teacher is held accountable for giving feedback to their errors. It is not only useful for
students but for teachers as well. 9
For students, correction is “a way of reminding students of the forms of standard English”

10
mother language, and which are considered to be essential in the socialization of the
second language.

11
CHAPTER II : METHODS OF STUDY

Nevertheless, survey questionnaire is undoubtedly not a perfect method for study. It is the
truth that researchers cannot gather unpredicted responses from subjects for the surveys are
usually mainly multiple choice questions. As a consequence, other supplementary
instruments, student writing analysis and observation are also used to lessen the draw
backs of survey questionnaire.
2.2.1.2. Description of survey questionnaires
There are 2 different questionnaires designed to survey the subjects of this study. One
questionnaire is for students and the other is for teachers.
a. Survey questionnaire for students
The first survey questionnaire is distributed for students in writing class in order to study
the common errors they often make, their opinion about their teacher’s correction and their
improvement in their writing when their errors have been corrected by their writing
teacher.
In this questionnaire, 16 questions (divided into 2 parts) are conducted.
The first part (including 4 questions) is aimed at gathering student’s general information
such as age, sex and so on.
Part II, consisting of 11 questions, is intended to find out student’s remark on writing skill,
errors as well as their writing teacher’s correction.
Question 5, 6 and 7 are used to find out students’ opinion about writing skill while three
next questions can be designed to study students’ errors. Through the answers of questions
from 11 to 16 the author will know students’ opinion about their teacher’s error correction,
the correction techniques and their improvement in writing skill.
b. Survey questionnaire for teachers
Another survey questionnaire of 12 questions has been administered to 6 teachers who
teach writing in Foreign Language Department at Hung Yen University of Technology and
Education for their opinion.
In answering the three first questions, teachers will reveal their thought about writing skill. 13

To collect information about errors and error correction in written work of English major
students at Hung Yen University of Technology and Education, first of all, 60 survey
questionnaires were handed out to first year English major students. Besides, 6 teachers of
English were asked to complete 6 survey questionnaires, which are designed for teachers
only.
Next, students were asked to write an essay in class within 45 minutes. Students’ writing
papers with teachers’ correction were collected some days later to analyze. Besides, ten
final writing papers were copied for the study.
When data collection was accomplished, the data analysis was initiated. The results of
survey questionnaire and analysis of students’ writing papers revealed students’ common
errors and teachers’ treatment of students’ errors at this university. In addition, observation
and analysis of students’ writing papers with teachers’ correction also revealed accurately
which methods teachers apply to correct students’ errors.
This chapter has presented the methods of study which include participants, data collection
instruments as well as the data collection procedure.

5%
Very dificult
Dificult
Quite dificult
Not dificult16
observation in some writing classes, the author can see that most students have difficulty in
writing skill. It takes them much time to finish a writing task and they seemed confused to
express their ideas clearly because of the lack of grammar knowledge and vocabulary.
Regarding question 6, all students polled acknowledge the significance of writing skill and
no one has the idea that writing skill is unimportant as shown in the chart below:
33%
0%
45%
22%
Very important
Important
Quite important
Not important

Figure 3.2. Students’ opinion on importance of writing skill
Question 7 and 8 ask students about their frequencies and quantity of errors in writing. Due
to the intricacy of writing skill, students often commit many errors while writing is a
logical result.
Table 3.1. Student’s opinion on frequencies and quantity or errors
Frequencies
Very often
Often

17
with the percentage of 51%. Psychology and carelessness, accounting for 36 and 33
respectively, affect significantly to writing. The rest (15%) admit that they commit errors
because of time pressure and other reasons. The result was synthesized in the following
chart.

Figure 3.3 Students’ opinion on the causes of errors
Moreover, students’ answers for question 11 show that they often have much more
grammar errors (such as verb form, verb tense, sentence structure, subject verb agreement,
fragments, parallelism, run-on sentence, prepositions, articles and pronoun) than mechanic
errors ( including punctuation, spelling) or word choice or expression errors. That means
their grammar knowledge is not good enough.
3.1.1.2. Teacher’s attitude towards students’ errors
The author received 6 survey questionnaires which had been handed out to 6 teachers. The
result of the first question of the questionnaire shows that English teaching experience of
the teachers polled ranges from 4 to 9 years.
Like students, teachers are also asked to access the importance and difficulty of writing
skill. The result was synthesized in the following table:
Table 3.2. Teachers’ opinion on the importance and difficulty of writing skill
Importance
Very important
Important
Quite important
Not important
Responses
17%
50%

included
cause
Carelessness Time
pressure
Others18
According to Table 3.2, half of the teachers (50%) express that writing skill is important,
33% state that it is quite important, and only 17% accept that it is very important. Half of
teachers polled (56%) admit that writing in second language is very difficult, 33 % say that
it is quite difficult.
In questions 4 and 5, the teachers share the same idea with the students. They reveal that
their students frequently make numerous errors in writing.
0
0%
50%
17%
33%
Very often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never

Figure 3.4. Teachers’ opinion on frequencies of errors
As shown in Figure 3.4, 50% of the teachers polled say that their students often make
errors in writing while 33% state that students commit errors sometimes. Students do not
make errors very often but in general the frequencies of error are remarkable according to
teachers’ assessment.

Most of teachers (84%) reveal that interference from mother tongue is the paramount cause
of student errors. The secondary cause is students’ carelessness while writing, which is
stated by 50% of teachers. Psychology and time pressure which both account for 33%
equally cause student written errors.
3.1.2 Data analysis from student writing
In order to study the common errors made by first year English major students in UTEHY,
the author collected 15 students’ free writing papers and 15 final writing tests. After that
the author found out errors in these writing works and calculated the frequency of each
type of errors.
According to the result of students’ analyzed free writing I collected, a total of 175 errors
were examined and categorized into 16 types of error encountered during their process of
learning this skill. The results are presented in the following tables. 84%
33%
17%
50%
33%
0%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Interference