000099271 AN ERROR ANALYSIS OF WRITINGS BY SECONDYEAR ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT PHUONG DONG UNIVERSITY (PHÂN TÍCH LỖI TRONG CÁC BÀI VIẾT CỦA SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ HAI CHUYÊN NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC PHƯƠNG ĐÔNG).

000099271 AN ERROR ANALYSIS OF WRITINGS BY SECONDYEAR ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT PHUONG DONG UNIVERSITY (PHÂN TÍCH LỖI TRONG CÁC BÀI VIẾT CỦA SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ HAI CHUYÊN NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC PHƯƠNG ĐÔNG).

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

Language plays a crucial role in communication, and English has become the international language used across business, technology, scientific research, medicine, and politics This global prominence drives rising demand for learning English as a second or foreign language in many countries, including Vietnam, where English is studied by people of all ages—from young children to retirees—and is a compulsory subject at all levels of education For the first time in Vietnam's long history, English has emerged as the most important foreign language chosen by the majority of students In addition, the availability of English-language books has increased and there is a growing interest in specialized English studies tailored to specific work environments.

Le (2011) stated that the num ber o f students choosing to learn English to complete the compulsory foreign language com ponent in the curriculum has risen overwhelmingly

Phuong Dong University (PDU) is one o f the first private universities in

Founded in 1994, the university’s headquarters are on Trung Kinh Street in Hanoi, Vietnam, with a sub-office on Minh Khai Street Its main faculties are the Faculty of Foreign Languages and the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.

Biotechnology and Environment, Information Technology, Architecture and

English is a key major at PDU, attracting a large number of students who enroll to pursue a bachelor's degree in English In addition, students from other non-English majors are required to study General English as a compulsory subject, serving as a prerequisite for graduation The University and the Department of Foreign Languages have consistently prioritized English, making it a central focus among the subjects taught at the university.

To master English, learners must acquire vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, and they need exposure to all four macro skills—listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Brown, 2007) Among these skills, writing is a particularly complex process, even in one’s native language, and it becomes more challenging when learning a foreign language As Wilkins (1972) stated, “without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed” (p 11).

Research indicates that accurate grammar is a significant component of good writing, and learners can advance their English by producing texts that use the grammatical structures they have learned While expecting nonnative writers to reach 100% accuracy is unrealistic, continual improvement in writing accuracy should be pursued to enhance readability and effectiveness, and lexical knowledge remains crucial for academic writing However, vocabulary is a major challenge for EFL learners; limited vocabularies can make it difficult to express ideas clearly and to grasp conveyed meanings, leading to lexical errors that undermine the quality of academic writing Native speakers often find these errors irritating, underscoring the impact of lexical gaps on perceived writing quality.

Being an ex-student and having been dedicated to English teaching at Phuong

Having studied at Dong University for more than three years, I have observed that many difficulties in written English stem from gaps in lexis and grammar when students communicate in writing For students pursuing a bachelor’s degree in English language, improving writing skills is a key factor in their academic performance and future professional opportunities.

Strong writing skills benefit students in undergraduate study and in their future careers In their third year, they must study and write English essay exam questions for courses like British and American Literature and Translation Theory (Baleghizadeh & Gordani, 2012) Therefore, the ability to produce well-crafted writings helps them achieve good results in these courses.

Beyond graduation, many English majors go on to work as translators or secretaries, roles that rely on strong written communication to convey messages clearly and help them perform effectively Although they receive substantial guidance on writing during their courses, PD U’s English majors still make numerous grammatical and lexical errors in test and exam papers, and these mistakes tend to dominate and diminish the overall quality of their writing This gap highlights the need for learners to be fully aware of these error types and to understand their underlying causes so they can avoid them or at least reduce their occurrence.

To minimize errors in English writing, this research project analyzes the error patterns in the writings of second-year English major students at Phuong Dong University Several factors motivate this study, guiding the investigation into common grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, and coherence issues that most frequently undermine accuracy By conducting a systematic error analysis of student texts, the study aims to identify prevalent mistakes, their causes, and how instructional methods can effectively reduce them The title, An error analysis of writings by second-year English major students at Phuong Dong University, reflects the project’s emphasis on empirical data, classroom relevance, and practical implications for teaching and assessment The ultimate goal is to provide actionable recommendations for curriculum design, feedback practices, and targeted interventions that help students produce clearer and more accurate English writing in academic settings.

Purpose and aims of the study

1.2.1 P u rp o se of the study

This study aims to help English major students at Phuong Dong University improve their English writing skills by increasing their awareness of grammatical and lexical errors and by identifying the sources of those errors By focusing on error awareness and source analysis, the research equips students with the skills to detect, understand, and correct common mistakes, thereby enhancing the quality and accuracy of their writing Ultimately, the goal is to support Phuong Dong University’s English majors in producing clearer, more proficient written work through targeted strategies that address both grammar and vocabulary issues.

To find out common grammatical and lexical errors that Phuong Dong

University’s second- year English majors commit when they write English compositions;

• To provide an in-depth analysis and explanation o f the errors and to help

Phuong Dong University’s English majors be fully aware of, then uproot, or at least minimize those errors in their writing.

Research questions

In light o f the above-mentioned aims, the study seeks to find the answers to the following research questions:

1 What are the common grammatical and lexical errors committed by Phuong Dong University’s second- year English majors in writing compositions?

2 What are the potential causes o f those errors?

Scope of the study

English teaching and learning vary across different settings, and this study narrows its focus to a Vietnamese context Conducted at Phuong Dong University in Hanoi, the capital, the research aims to identify common grammatical and lexical errors in writing among second-year English major students Due to limited time and resources, the study examines these typical errors rather than a broad assessment By analyzing student writing, the study highlights recurring issues in areas such as sentence structure, verb tense, articles and prepositions, and word choice The findings provide practical implications for teaching strategies to improve writing accuracy for second-year English majors in Phuong Dong University and similar Vietnamese higher education settings.

Structure of the study

The study is divided into 5 chapters:

The rationale for the study, aims, research questions, scope and structure o f the study are orderly presented in this part.

This chapter will be the summary o f previous knowledge and studies on and related to the problem o f research.

This chapter will feature research methods, participants and procedures.

In this chapter, results o f the data analysis, findings and discussion will be revealed Chapter 5: Conclusion

The conclusion provides a summary o f main points, implications, limitations o f the study and suggestions for further studies in the future.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition of error

Ellis defines error as a deviation from the norms o f the target language ( cited in Khansir, 2012) However what m akes this questionable is the w ord ‘norm ’

English as a second language has generated thousands of varieties worldwide, making it virtually impossible to determine a single norm for the target language In this discussion, Ellis and Fromkin (1981) argue that the standard written variety should be defined as the standard written dialect, a view that Larsen-Freeman and Long express in DeKeyser's work.

In language learning, the distinction between errors and mistakes matters A 2005 view defines an error as any phonological, morphological, syntactic, or lexical deviation from a standard English variety that results from the learner applying the rules of the target language The two terms are often treated as interchangeable, but they differ: errors are rule-governed, systematic, internally principled, and free from arbitrariness, reflecting the learner’s underlying knowledge or transitional competence, while mistakes are random performance lapses unrelated to any system and may appear in speech or writing as slips of the tongue, ear, or pen or false starts Keshavarz (as cited in Essay UK, 2013) notes that errors reveal the learner’s underlying knowledge, whereas Keshavarz (2008) adds that mistakes can stem from non-linguistic factors such as fatigue, strong emotion, memory limitations, and lack of concentration, and these mistakes can be corrected once brought to the learner’s attention In short, a deviation arising because the learner does not know the proper rule of the target language is an error.

Distinguishing errors from mistakes is crucial in language learning because it helps learners and teachers target the right kind of practice A 'mistake' occurs when a learner knows the rule but fails to apply it in performance; such slips are often self-correctable when the learner notices and corrects them By contrast, an 'error' signals a systematic gap in underlying language competence that the learner cannot self-correct Ellis (1997, cited in Chelli, 2014) offers two practical criteria to tell them apart: first, look at the consistency of performance—an error is typically produced consistently wrong, whereas a mistake is occasional, with correct forms appearing in some instances; second, assess whether the learner can self-correct—errors are deviations the learner struggles to fix, while mistakes are those the learner can and does correct.

In conclusion, “error” refers to a deviation from the standard written dialect that takes place in the process o f acquiring that dialect And “errors” in linguistics are far different from “mistakes”.

Richards (1971) indicates four major causes o f intralingual errors To make it clear, the four classifications above are explained briefly below.

(1) Overgeneration: Normally involves the creation o f one deviant structure instead of two regular structures, for example, “ She can drives.”, “ We are hope”, “ It is happens.”

(2) Ignorance o f rule restrictions: is the failure to observe the restriction o f existing structures, that is, the application o f rules to context where they do not apply, for example, “ The woman who I saw her ” violates the limitation on subject in structure with who In other words, the learner is making use o f previously acquired rule in a new situation.

(3) Incomplete application o f rules: involves failure to fully develop a structure, for example, “ You like to sing?”

(4) False concept hyphothesized: The learner fails to comprehend fully a distinction in the target language The form ‘w as’ for example, may be interpreted as the marker o f

6 the past tense, as in “one day it w as happened”.

In his later paper in 1974 cited in Huang (2002), he offers six sources o f errors, namely, (1) interference that is an error resulting from the transfer o f grammatical and/or stylistic elements from the source language to the target language; ( 2 ) overgeneralization , that is an error caused by extension o f target language rules to areas where they do not apply;, (3) perform ance errors, that is unsystematic error that occurs as the result o f such thing as m em ory lapses, fatigue, confusion, or strong emotion; (4) markers o f transitional competence, that is an error that results from a natural and perhaps inevitable developm ent sequence in the second language learning process; (5) strategies o f com m unication and assimilation that is an error resulting from the attem pt to communicate in the target language without having completely acquired the grammatical form necessary to do so and (6) teacher-induced errors, that is an error resulting from pedagogical procedures contained in the text or employed by the teacher.

Wilkins (1972 cited in Amara, 2015, p 199) states that one o f the sources o f errors is mother tongue interference A ccording to him:

When learning a foreign language, an individual naturally relies on the structure of their mother tongue and attempts to transfer it to the new language This transfer can be justified and beneficial if the languages share similar structures, resulting in positive transfer or facilitation Conversely, when the languages have different structures, the transfer may be inappropriate, leading to negative transfer or interference that can hinder learning.

Selinker (1972, cited in Khansir, 2012, p 1030) identifies five sources of errors in second-language learning, some of which resemble Richard’s proposals though phrased differently The first source is language transfer, which can be positive and facilitate learning or negative and hinder progress; language transfer covers pronunciation, word order and grammar, semantic transfer, transfer in writing, as well as pragmatic and culture transfer The second source is transfer of training, reflecting how learners’ prior linguistic and educational experiences shape their performance in the target language.

Research indicates that prior learning influences performance in later tasks, a process known as transfer of training Transfer of training occurs when knowledge from one context affects performance in a new context or situation Strategies for second language learning can contribute to errors as learners work to develop linguistic competence in the target language The related domain of second language communication strategies focuses on addressing problems that arise during interaction A final issue in second language acquisition is overgeneralization, where learners apply a grammatical rule across all members of a grammatical class without recognizing necessary exceptions.

Schumann and Stenson (1974, cited in Amara, 2015, p.60) identify three primary sources of errors in language learning: incomplete acquisition of the target grammar, constraints of the learning/teaching situation, and errors arising from normal language-performance problems, including inter- and intra-lingual difficulties that are typically expected Politzer and Ramirez (1973) studied errors made by Mexican-American learners and found that errors can originate from multiple sources, such as L1 interference, incorrect application of L2 rules, and regional differences.

Brown (1980, cited in Heydari & Bagheri, 2012, p 1584) mentions four sources o f errors:

1 I n te r lin g u a l tr a n s f e r : in e a r ly s t a g e s th e f i r s t la n g u a g e is th e o n l y p r e v i o u s lin g u is tic system that the learner can base on; therefore it is inevitable that the interference occurs.

2 Intralingual transfer: when a learner has acquired parts o f the new language, more and m ore intralingual transfer generation within L2 would happen.

3 Context o f learning: this is called “false concepts” by Richards (1971) and “induced errors” b y Stenson (1974) This includes misleading explanation from the teacher, faulty presentation o f a structure in a text book, improperly contextualized pattern, confusing vocabulary items because o f contiguous or adjacent presentation, inappropriately informal forms o f language - bookish language.

4 Communication strategies, that is to say, in order to get the message across a learner m ay use some techniques such as coining a word, circumlocution - use more word than necessary instead o f speaking or writing in a direct way, false cognates -

8 having the same origin as the word he wants to express, and prefabricated patterns. All o f them can be sources o f errors.

Brown (2007) later identified four sources of error in second language learning: interlingual transfer (the influence of the learner’s native language on the target language); intralingual transfer (negative transfer of structures within the target language); the context of learning (which overlaps both transfer types); and communication strategies (the deliberate use of verbal means to express an idea when the necessary linguistic forms are unavailable to the learner).

This study aims to identify the causes and sources of errors made by second-year English majors at Phuong Dong University To achieve this, the researcher adapts established frameworks for analyzing the causes and sources of errors as proposed by prior scholarship, providing a structured approach to data collection and analysis.

Richards (1971), Wilkins (1972), Selinker (1972) and Brown (2007) which relatively consist o f incomplete application o f rules ; mother tongue interference; second language strategy; and interlingual, intralingual as well as context o f learning.

Research shows that the development of error-category systems differs among scholars In 2004, Weltig adapted an error-classification framework originally developed by Sachs (2003), which in turn drew on Polio (1997) and Kroll (1990) Weltig sought to establish a linguistic category and concentrated on linguistic and lexical errors, including verb tense, verb voice, verb formation, prepositions, and lexical choice.

Otoshi (2005) proposed a taxonomy of grammatical errors comprising five main categories—verb errors, noun ending errors, article errors, wrong word use, and sentence-structure errors—and argues that these categories are major error types in second language learning.

Error analysis

2.4.1 D efinition o f th e te rm “e r r o r analysis”

Error analysis (EA) is the study of learner errors and provides a framework to examine learner language within language teaching, helping to determine whether errors come from L1 interference or developmental factors (Reid, 1993) A learner’s errors demonstrate how the learner has systematically acquired the language Learner errors are useful in three key ways: first, they give teachers clues about the learner’s ongoing learning process; second, they reveal the language learning strategies used by learners; and third, they function as a tool for learners to use in mastering the language, illustrating how learners test hypotheses about the nature of the language they are acquiring (Crystal, 2003).

Error Analysis (EA) is a technique for identifying, classifying, and systematically interpreting the errors produced by foreign language learners, grounded in the principles and procedures of linguistics Mohammed & Abdalhussein (2015) define EA this way, stressing its focus on unacceptable learner forms and its use of linguistic theory to interpret language output Similarly, Keshavarz (2012, cited in Ghane & Aclaims) supports this view, highlighting EA’s role in diagnosing learner interlanguage and guiding instructional decisions to improve language acquisition.

Error analysis (EA) is a method used by researchers and teachers to study learner language It involves collecting samples of learner language, identifying errors, classifying them according to their nature and underlying causes, and evaluating the seriousness of those errors.

Corder (1967) quoted in Falhasiri, Tavakoli, Hasiri, and Mohammadzadeh

(2011) identified a model for error analysis which included three stages: Data collection: Recognition o f idiosyncrasy; Description: Accounting for idiosyncratic dialect; Explanation (the ultimate object o f error analysis) Ellis (1994, as cited in

Nzama (2010) extends this error-analysis model by offering practical guidance and concrete examples for identifying and analyzing learner errors The approach begins with selecting a language corpus and identifying errors, followed by the systematic classification of those errors After conducting a grammatical analysis of each error, a description of the different error types is provided Gass and Selinker (2008) also proposed a six-step model for error analysis: data collection, error identification, error classification, error quantification, analysis of error sources, and remediation of errors Together, these frameworks outline a structured process for examining learner language and informing targeted instruction.

In this study, the researcher employed the model o f error analysis offered by Gass & Selinker (2008) which involves 6 steps as follows:

The researcher chose this model because it offers detailed steps to conduct and appropriate to the aims o f the study.

Error analysis of the mistakes made by second language learners in speaking and writing yields insights that can guide instruction and improve outcomes for teachers, researchers, and learners The information obtained through this analysis is useful for textbook writers, teachers, and learners alike, helping to identify recurring error patterns and to inform curriculum design, materials development, and classroom practice (Corder, 1967, p.29).

Within the pragmatic classroom, error analysis acts as a tool for teachers to evaluate their teaching and set priorities for future efforts By analyzing errors, teachers can measure student progress and assess learners’ competence in the second language This information allows them to adjust and redesign pedagogical materials and instructional strategies to fit students’ abilities For instance, second-language textbooks can present simpler structures first and gradually introduce more complex ones, enabling learners to systematically grasp and practice the target language Moreover, error analysis exposes learners’ weaknesses in acquiring the second language, guiding the teacher to concentrate on the specific language items where students struggle.

Researchers can reveal how a language is acquired and which strategies learners use by conducting in-depth error analyses By systematically examining the errors language learners make, they can develop taxonomies of linguistic errors, identify underlying causes, and propose targeted error treatments This work informs teaching approaches and curriculum design, and it also offers practical learning strategies for language learners.

Self-analysis of errors enables language learners to evaluate their language competence and monitor progress toward their learning goals By successfully identifying mistakes, learners of a second language or foreign language gain insight into how the target language's rules and structures work This reflective practice helps them internalize grammar, improve accuracy, and steadily raise their overall language proficiency.

Summary of previous research

Different studies have been conducted to determine and analyze students’ grammatical and lexical errors in different settings both in Vietnam and in the world.

Regarding Vietnam’s context, there has been a num ber o f studies investigating leaner’s e rro rs., Dalgish (1985) analyzed sentences taken from the

This study analyzes the Writing Skills Assessment Test and in-class essays from 350 ESL students enrolled in a writing course at an American university to identify the most frequent errors seen across learners from diverse language backgrounds, including Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, Greek, and Polish, via computer-assisted analysis The results reveal recurring problems in grammar, article usage, verb tense, sentence structure, and coherence, with some variation across language groups The findings demonstrate how computer-assisted error analysis can inform targeted teaching strategies and material development to support ESL writers in achieving clearer, more accurate academic writing.

Dam (2015) highlights persistent English errors among Vietnamese learners, including misused prepositions with subject–verb agreement, and difficulties with indefinite and definite articles, verb tenses, and subject and object pronouns, all of which stem from the substantial syntactic differences between Vietnamese and English ICALTEFL notes that major grammatical errors also involve verbs, word order, missing pronouns, possessives, and plurals In addition, writing skills are hampered by spelling issues, since Vietnamese vocabulary tends to be monosyllabic, making longer English words prone to misspelling; learners also struggle with phonemes not present in Vietnamese, leading to spelling of words that omit ending consonants because these sounds are not heard when writing.

Various studies have examined grammar errors across different settings Notably, Nzama (2010) investigated errors made by isiZulu-speaking learners of English in selected schools, analyzing essays written by the participants The study identified recurring error patterns, including incorrect use of auxiliary verbs, problems with tense forms, and faulty subject–verb concord (agreement).

According to a linguistic study of second‑language writing, learners show grammar issues across several areas: auxiliaries are often omitted or overgeneralized, indicating inconsistent use of auxiliary verbs in past tense contexts Tense formation is uncertain, with learners frequently mixing tenses in their texts Subject–verb agreement (concord) poses problems, as learners struggle to align verbs with their subjects Article usage is faulty, with incorrect articles or unnecessary articles appearing in writing Huang (2001, cited in Wu) is referenced in the discussion as part of the literature on these grammatical issues.

A study by Garza (2014) investigated the nature and distribution of grammatical errors among 40 English majors at a Taiwanese university The study reported 700 errors, which were classified into 13 types, with the most prevalent categories being verbs, nouns, spelling, articles, prepositions, and word choice The findings also indicated that overgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, simplification, incomplete application of rules, and L1 transfer were the major causes of EFL errors.

Many studies across diverse educational settings have examined lexical errors in EFL learners’ writing and proposed various remedies Tan and Miller (2007) investigated LI-influenced writing errors among 95 second-year students at Kunshan University and found that word choice is the most frequent error Nabah (2011) stated that incorrect collocation is among the most common lexical errors, with wrong word form also prominent Abdul Ridha and Al-Riyahi (2011) studied lexical collocation errors in Iraqi EFL learners’ writing and found these errors are a primary concern in EFL teaching, mainly due to negative transfer from L1 Schmitt and Hemchua (2006) reported a similar pattern.

A 2013 study found that word-choice errors are among the top five mistakes made by Thai EFL learners Yang, Ma, and Cao (2013) investigated lexical negative transfer and proposed solutions, showing that the three most prevalent lexical errors influenced by the learners’ native language are word-choice errors, collocation errors, and derivation errors (i.e., word-formation errors).

Llach (2015) identifies two major structural patterns of lexical errors: spelling mistakes and errors in word choice He argues that these patterns are largely rooted in mother-tongue influence Spelling errors are mistakes at the level of the lexical item, producing either non-existent words (for example, smool, tenniss, ticher) or real words used with an unintended meaning (for example, hose for horse, parrots for carrots) These problems typically arise from the learner’s attempt to cope with the 'complicated' differences between languages.

Word-choice errors occur when a wrong word is used instead of the correct one, highlighting gaps in English grammar and usage The writer notes that these errors are largely caused by mother-tongue interference, with the majority of such mistakes traceable to this linguistic influence.

Results from prior studies are not entirely consistent, but many investigations converge on the view that the main errors occur in English writing related to article usage, prepositions, spelling, inappropriate word choice, word formation, verb use, agreement, and plurality.

METHODOLOGY

Participants

84 second-year English majors from three classes—513701A1, 513701A2, and 513701B—at Phuong Dong University in Hanoi formed the participant group The classes were selected because almost all students had at least nine years of English study and were at an intermediate proficiency level Participants were in the second semester of their second year, with Vietnamese the only language spoken at home and in school outside of English classes The group tended to be similar in age (19–21 years), and gender and age were not controlled in this study.

Participants had limited English writing proficiency in primary and secondary school, since writing was not emphasized at those levels In their first year, they completed a basic writing course and a paragraph-writing course, and in their second year—during this research—they were taught how to write essays The writing skills curriculum lasted 60 sessions of 50 minutes each, with classes meeting twice weekly Their course book was Effective Academic Writing 3 by Jason Davis and Rhonda Liss, which guides students to write different types of essays The participants were selected because they had been equipped with writing techniques and topic-specific vocabulary since the first year and were required to produce academic writings with accurate grammar and a wide range of vocabulary.

The second group of participants consisted of four female teachers, three of whom specialize in class‑intake writing skills, with the fourth bringing nearly fifteen years of English teaching experience at PDU They were selected because all hold master’s degrees in TESOL awarded by the University of Languages and National Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, and Hanoi University In addition, each teacher has at least five years of experience teaching English to English‑major students at PDU, particularly in writing skills Importantly, they oversee writing courses every semester and interact with a wide range of students, enabling them to understand learners’ backgrounds, identify common error patterns, and apply solutions that help students avoid these errors and improve their writing.

Data collection instruments

This exploratory study adopts a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data to explore how linguists define different data types It surveys a range of definitions proposed by researchers and examines the advantages and disadvantages of using each data category in linguistic analysis and research design.

According to Tinambunan and Ginting (2013) quoted from W allace (1998),

Quantitative data are those that can be counted or measured, making them generally regarded as objective In contrast, qualitative data describe observations that cannot be easily counted or measured in an objective way, and are therefore considered subjective Together, these approaches provide complementary insights for data collection and analysis, balancing numerical rigor with nuanced understanding.

Simple as it is, this definition not only explains the attributes o f the difference o f data but also begins to explore the strengths and weaknesses o f each type

Quantitative is useful for recording facts and figures; fixed data - in this research for example the num ber o f certain type o f errors committed.

For a sample o f greater size, this type o f data may have been sufficient

Because the sample size is small, this study relies on qualitative analysis to uncover the possible reasons behind the observed errors rather than relying solely on quantitative measures By examining patterns and themes in the data, the research identifies factors contributing to mistakes and provides actionable insights for practitioners These insights support timely intervention, helping practitioners mitigate errors and improve outcomes.

Richards (2003) argues that qualitative analysis is strongest when grounded in a person-centered approach, which helps us understand the patterns and purposes in behavior and generate insights that enrich our understanding By centering on individuals’ experiences, this approach reveals why people act the way they do and how these patterns connect, yielding deeper interpretations of data and more meaningful conclusions for qualitative research.

The present study made use o f a mixed method approach to collect data, it means that this study combines both quantitative and qualitative approach

Quantitative data in this research were collected through writing samples and questionnaires, while qualitative data were gathered via email interviews A mixed-methods approach was adopted to leverage the strengths of both data types, following the rationale articulated by Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and colleagues that integrating quantitative and qualitative data yields a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem.

Turner (2007), m ixed methods approach research combines elements o f quantitative and qualitative approach for the broad purposes o f breadth and depth o f understanding and corroboration.

The intricate, multi-staged nature of the current research project supports Richards, Ross, and Seedhouse's (2012) embedded approach, in which quantitative and qualitative data collected during the early exploratory stages form the basis of an intervention design By employing a mixed-methods approach, the study seeks to use triangulation to bolster the reliability and validity of the conclusions drawn from the research.

The study aims to find out common grammatical and lexical errors in writing, so students’ writings, a questionnaire survey and email interviews were employed in this research Students’ writings w ere used for error collections The questionnaire was developed for the purpose o f providing the general picture o f causes o f those errors committed while email interview ing helped provide insights into the causes and timely suggested intervention m ethods to treat the errors committed.

The purpose o f using a writing sample in the research is to collect errors in gram mar and lexis that the participants committed The participants were asked to write an argum entative essay o f about 250 words (see A ppendix 1) related to education topic w ith the time allocation o f 40 minutes under the supervision o f the writing teacher in charge o f each class.

Questionnaires serve as a widely used and useful instrument for collecting survey information, yielding structured, numerical data that can be administered without the researcher’s presence and are often straightforward to analyze; however, when compared with other evaluation tools, they carry both advantages and disadvantages that researchers should consider to ensure effective information gathering.

According to M unn and Drever (1990, p.9):

Responses can be quantified through a range of statistical techniques, with results presented alongside appropriate confidence estimates In small-scale educational research, a questionnaire can be a viable method for gathering information from groups such as secondary school staff or pupils in specific year groups The answer is yes, provided you are clear about what you want to find out—and what kind of information the questionnaire will provide—because defining the research questions is often more challenging than it appears.

Using a questionnaire in educational research provides four key advantages for the teacher-researcher: it enables efficient use of time by collecting data from many respondents quickly, it offers anonymity for participants, which can increase honesty and participation, it supports a high return rate when well designed and administered, and it relies on standardized questions that yield reliable, comparable data across respondents.

This study employed a structured questionnaire with 16 statements (Appendix 6) to identify the causes of writing errors and the difficulties encountered by participants during the writing process The questionnaire was developed from scratch rather than adopted or adapted from prior research, being built on the analysis and findings gathered from the students’ writings The rationale for this design was to create a tool that is most applicable to the participants, who are also the researcher’s students.

Statements 1–7 provide evidence that errors in students’ writing arise from the target language itself, indicating intralingual transfer Statements 8 and 9 are designed to determine whether participants were influenced by their first language The remaining nine statements analyze whether learning contexts, communication strategies, teaching methods, learning styles, and teaching materials contribute to the observed errors.

Interviews have long been a central data‑generating method in empirical inquiry across the social sciences, as noted by Talmy (2010) In applied linguistics, interview‑based research has grown substantially in recent years, especially in qualitative studies that seek to explore participants’ identities, experiences, beliefs, and orientations toward a wide range of phenomena.

Using non-numerical data, this line of qualitative research seeks to explore and describe the quality and nature of how people behave, experience, and understand In addition to linking people's actions to their beliefs, Brown argued that behavior reveals the underlying meanings and orientations that shape everyday life.

Procedures

A t the initial stage o f data collection, permission was sought from the

The Department of Foreign Languages at Pliuong Dong University, along with the three teachers in charge of the classes, granted the time necessary to conduct this research The teachers were cooperative and consistently demonstrated their willingness to participate in the completion of the study.

A s mentioned in the literature review, this research employed model for error analysis offered by Gass & Selinker (2008) and hereunder are the six steps:

In this step, the participants were asked to write an in-class argumentative essay o f about 250 words on the topic o f education (Opdenakker, 2006) see Appendix

1) in 40 minutes under strict supervision by the teacher o f writing and the researcher so that they cannot copy from each other In doing so, the reliability o f the data in particular and o f the study in general can be guaranteed The students were required to do the writing task without dictionaries, personal computers, laptops or any other typing devices because those devices may have soft-wares or applications that help students check and correct mistakes or errors in their writing.

After finishing their writing, participants were allotted seven to ten minutes to review their papers and check for any mistakes or errors Requiring participants to review and correct issues in their own writing is another effective way to distinguish errors from mistakes, a distinction noted by Ellis This brief editing window supports focused proofreading, enhances writing quality, and aligns with best practices in assessment and feedback.

A second approach is to let learners self-correct their own utterances or writings If they fail to correct a deviation, that deviation is an error; if they succeed, it is a mistake It can be said that when participants are able to identify and fix what they think is wrong in about 7–10 minutes, those are mistakes, not errors.

Step 2: Id en tify in g e rro rs

After collecting the participants' writings, the researcher and her colleague—an English teacher with nearly 15 years of experience in teaching writing skills at Phuong Dong University—carried out a thorough analysis They began by carefully reading each composition and underlining every error in red to clearly identify areas for improvement.

After errors are identified, they are classified into distinct types using abbreviations For example, WO denotes word order errors, and SV stands for subject–verb agreement errors Once these steps are completed by the researcher, the compositions are given to a colleague who reviews the work to determine whether the errors were correctly identified and classified Two examiners then perform a holistic assessment of the error types to ensure consistency Step 4 focuses on quantifying the errors to yield a clear, measurable overview.

In this stage, the researcher counted sum o f errors that the students made in their writing, then calculate the percent o f errors and tabulated.

To analyze the causes and sources o f the errors, the researcher took a number o f original sentences in the participant’s.

Two weeks after collection, the students received their compositions again, with error identification, classification, and correction clearly presented on each paper; photocopied copies were returned to the students while the original pages were kept by the researcher, and the same feedback was also displayed on the classroom blackboard when the papers were handed back.

To obtain a detailed explanation of potential causes of writing errors and difficulties, students completed a 16-item questionnaire, as described earlier.

Step 6: R em ed iatin g fo r e rro rs.

The final step involved interviewing three writing teachers who are currently in charge of writing courses or have previously led them, using email to explore their suggested solutions These interviews were conducted one week after the researcher completed the questionnaire, with the goal of gaining deeper insight into the teaching and learning of writing courses, uncovering the causes of the errors observed in student work, and identifying remedial strategies proposed by the teachers.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Research question 1

This study examines the common grammatical and lexical errors in the writing of Phuong Dong University’s second-year English majors Table 1 shows the number and percentage of grammatical errors found in students’ compositions, along with the number and proportion of writings that contain errors Lexical errors detected in the compositions are presented in Table 2.

Type of error Number of writings with errors

Percentage of writings with errors

Number o f writings with errors percentage o f writings with errors

As shown in Table 1, eighty-four compositions on the same topic by different individuals yielded 758 grammatical errors, including verbal errors, errors in plurality, subject-verb agreement, prepositions, articles, relative clauses, quantifiers, word order, subject omission, and comparison Among these errors, verbal errors, plurality errors, subject-verb agreement errors, and preposition errors were the most prevalent in the participants’ writings, with verbal errors accounting for 209 errors (27.57%), followed by plurality with 154 errors; the remaining error types included mistakes in articles, relative clauses, quantifiers, word order, subject omission, and comparison.

(20.31%) Errors in subject-verb agreem ent and prepositions w ere in the third place w ith th e s a m e n u m b e r o f 1 18 ( 1 5 5 6 % )

Table 1 shows that verb-related errors appeared in the majority of the participants’ compositions, with 77 of 84 participants (91.66%) producing this type of error Subject–verb agreement errors were the third most common in frequency, found in 85.71% of the participants’ essays Plurality and preposition errors were detected in 82.14% and 79.76% of the participants’ compositions, respectively.

As far as lexical errors (Table 2) are concerned, errors in word choice, word formation and spelling were detected in students’ writings with the total num ber o f

Across 84 compositions, a total of 386 errors were identified and categorized into three types: word choice, word formation, and spelling Errors in word choice were the most frequent, occurring in 213 cases (55.18% of all errors) and appearing in 79 of the 84 compositions Notably, this type doubled the sum of the other two types, word formation and spelling Word formation errors accounted for 25% of all errors but were found in 84.52% of the participants’ compositions Table 2 shows that spelling errors accounted for 19.1% of the total errors and were produced by 54.76% of the participants.

Tables 1 and 2 presented above provide answers to the first research question The study is currently at the midway point of the error analysis procedure, which comprises data collection, identification and categorization of the errors, reporting the frequency of each error type, and the isolation and analysis of the sources behind the most common grammatical and lexical errors made by third-year English majors at PDU The final two steps—isolating and explaining these errors—will be addressed in the upcoming sections.

Analysis of the participants’ writings shows that verb-related errors are the most prevalent, as indicated by Table 1 These errors are subdivided into three subtypes: verb tense, verb missing, and verb form Table 3 presents the frequency of each verb-error subtype, providing insight into which categories occur most often and should be prioritized for correction.

N um ber o f writing with errors

Among the three subcategories of verb errors, verb-form errors accounted for more than half of all errors, totaling 158 occurrences Among the participants whose writings contained this type of error, the average number of verb-form errors was 3.43 per participant.

With regard to causes o f verb errors, the most notable one is the difference between English language and Vietnamese language.

Example I: People who graduated or fin ish ed university has high position or high level in social life than normal others.

Example 2: People who attended college or university will have a good future. Example 3: When you attended college or university, you will private

Example 4: Firstly, many students planned to go to college or university after high school when they were young.

These participants demonstrated errors in tense usage In the four cited examples, the present tense should be used to express a general tendency or a factual claim rather than a past event For instance, when referring to people who hold a university degree or who graduate from university, the statement should indicate that they have a better life, using the present simple However, they did not realize that the present simple is the correct form in this context.

The second kind of verb error occurs when a sentence contains no verb, turning a potential thought into a fragment English grammar requires a verb in every complete sentence, so a sentence without one cannot express a full action or state In the examples drawn from the participants’ compositions, no verb is supplied, illustrating how students produce fragment sentences by omitting the verb This highlights the importance of including a verb to create coherent, grammatically correct sentences that convey clear meaning and improve readability.

Example 1: Good preparation also a key to obtain successful.

Example 2: First o f all, when we attend collage or university, we have new enviroment which different our high school.

Example 3 :1 strongly with this point o f view.

Example 4: In my opinion, the 3 most important ones that make people choose college or university as they want to a good job, widen knowledge and new experience.

Example 5: Many jo b s that students can do such as shop assistants, waiter,

Example 6 : 1 sure that university education brings broader career options and greater earning potential.

These examples show that many participants omit a necessary verb, revealing a habitual tendency to think in Vietnamese when composing English They focus on the meaning and ideas they want to express while neglecting essential grammatical elements that signal tense and action In examples 2 and 6, writers wrongly assume that words like "with" and "different" convey the meaning without a verb, overlooking that these words are not verbs A Vietnamese–English dictionary may define "with" as "in support of," but that does not supply a verb for the sentence The fix is to insert the appropriate verb to complete the predicate, turning fragmentary phrases into complete, natural English sentences.

Example 1 :1 am strongly with this point o f view.

Example 2 : 1 am sure that university education brings broader career options and greater earning potential.

Verb-form errors were the most frequent among the three subcategories, totaling 158 mistakes and accounting for 75.60% of all errors These errors arose from incorrect use of passive versus active verb forms, misuse of infinitives and gerunds, and other related issues, suggesting that English verb usage posed a major difficulty for the participants Let’s study the examples below:

Example 1: In university, you will be studied basic knowledge to have a good fu tu re and happy life.

Example 2: A t university or college, everyone will be learnt everything, and expand their knowledge.

Example 3: In collage or university’, you will be met many students who may come from many different places.

Example 4: As a result, the experience will helps people a lot in life and jo b in the future.

Example 5: Many people want have a better life.

Example 6: Nowaday more and more students choose attend college or university.

Example 7: It help them having many skill, experience in the future.

Example 8: As we know, attend college or university is a shortest way to success in our life.

Participants incorrectly used passive forms with the verbs study, learn, and met Although these transitive verbs can take a passive in English, the three instances discussed require active voice The tendency appears to stem from Vietnamese L1 interference, where phrases like “dugc gap” and “dugc hoc” prompt passive structures; accordingly, the learners referred to passive constructions to express the word “dirge” in Vietnamese, suggesting that L1 influence contributed to these errors.

In exam ple 4, the student tried to express futurity by using “will” but he or she wrongly added the form o f the verb following it Instead o f using infinitive after

An error occurs when a speaker inserts an -s after the word will, as if a singular subject must be followed by a singular verb This mistake stems from the learner’s overgeneralization of grammar rules, the belief that agreement is marked with an -s in every context In reality, modal verbs like will do not take an agreement marker, so adding -s leads to an incorrect form Clarifying how modal verbs behave and reinforcing the distinction between singular and plural verb forms can reduce this error and improve accuracy in English.

The last four examples (5–8) illustrate participants’ failure to apply the rules governing to-infinitives and gerunds Specifically, the verbs want and choose require a following to-infinitive rather than a bare verb, yet the participants incorrectly used the bare form in these items This highlights a common error in verb patterns after want and choose and the need to reinforce correct usage of the to-infinitive.

English grammar dictates that “help” is followed by a bare infinitive or a to-infinitive, not a gerund; however, in example 8 a gerund must be used because it functions as the subject of the sentence The errors arise from learners' understanding of the target language, interference from their L1, or differences between languages Specifically, Vietnamese lacks distinct gerund and infinitive rules, treating words in their base form, which can lead to confusion when learning English verb patterns.

W hen it comes to errors in plurality, the major reason behind is the difference between English language and Vietnamese language In English people can add - 5 or

- e s to the nouns or change to irregular form to make plurality, whereas in Vietnamese language, people add numerals or indefinite quantifiers to nouns to make plural forms

It means that the form o f nouns is not changed Because o f the difference between the two languages, especially the impact o f mother tongue, Vietnamese learners of

English are more likely to produce errors relative clauses in writing English compositions The following examples are vivid proofs.

Example 1: But in m y opinion, there are two main reason.

Example 2: Second, people are attending college o r university because they want have experience and many relationship.

Example 3: Every yea r m any student want to attend college or university f o r many different reason.

Example 4: Materials are equipments, machines and so on.

Example 5: In addition, attending university is good ways f o r people to gain more experiences fro m participating in activities or jo in in g organizations.

Example 6: M any background informations which we might not be teached a t highschool.

Example 7: The first reason is attending university> help you can get a lot o f knowledges.

Research question 2

What are the potential causes o f those errors?

In analyzing the errors in the participants’ compositions, the writer identified the underlying causes of the reported grammatical and lexical mistakes These errors originate from first-language interference, specifically the transfer from Vietnamese (L1) to English (L2), as well as from the inherent difficulties of English itself and from the participants’ inattentiveness.

Extensive research on second language acquisition identifies several sources of errors, including language transfer and linguistic interference, transfer of learning, learners’ strategies for language learning and for communication, as well as overgeneralization and the incomplete application of linguistic rules.

This study aims to identify the causes of writing errors made by second-year students at Phuong Dong University To determine the factors behind these errors, the researcher analyzed the students’ writing and provided explanations for the most commonly committed mistakes To ensure objective results, learner questionnaires and email interviews with teachers were employed to gain further insights into the causes of the errors.

The following table shows the participants’ opinions on difficulty in English w riting and the researcher could draw the conclusion o f potential causes o f the errors committed.

Table 4: Findings fro m the questionnaire on potential causes o f grammatical and lexical errors

Statements How do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

1 I do not understand English grammar rules 23.81 53.28 15.48 3.57 4.76

2 There are too many rules in

3 I could not apply English grammar rules 2.39 4.76 19.05 65.47 8.33

Grammar rules in Vietnamese language are different from those in English language.

Vietnamese language do not exist in English language.

6 Teacher’s teaching methods are inappropriate 11.90 66.67 5.95 10.72 4.76

7 My English vocabulary is limited 3.57 13.10 9.52 44.05 29.76

8 1 do not often use dictionaries 2.39 30.95 0 54.76 11.90 9

I often think in Vietnamese first then translate the ideas into

I made errors because of the lack of writing practice at the university

Many words in Vietnamese language do not have equivalents in English language

Many Vietnamese words have several equivalents in English, so

13 The text book is useful and appropriate 0 11.90 32.15 44 05 11.90

14 There is a lack of writing activities and homework 30.96 48.81 0 20.23 0

15 You are always provided supplementary writing materials 4.76 13.10 2.39 65.47 14.28 16

I do not often check spelling or other mistakes after I finish writing

Results from Table 4 indicate several potential causes of the written grammatical and lexical errors observed among participants Specifically, 77.09% of participants reported that they understand English grammar and most were able to apply the rules in writing; however, the majority also agreed that there are too many grammar rules in English.

Consequently, learners may misuse target-language structures, and the difficulty of the target language itself contributes to grammatical errors in English writings A key factor behind these errors is the L1–L2 gap, since about 79.76% of respondents agree that many Vietnamese grammar rules differ from those of English, illustrating how native-language interference shapes writing accuracy in English.

Regarding the causes of lexical errors, 73.81% of the participants reported that their vocabulary was limited Additionally, 82.14% agreed that they could not find the English equivalent for the Vietnamese word they wanted to express.

According to the data, 61.38% of respondents reported that many English words have the same meanings as Vietnamese words but are used differently, which leads to misused vocabulary This pattern indicates that cross-language transfer from L1 Vietnamese to L2 English is a major source of word-choice errors among learners In short, the difference between L1 and L2 is a key factor behind these vocabulary mistakes.

Results from questions 8, 9, and 16 show that students struggle with second language learning strategies Only 33.34% of respondents regularly use dictionaries, while 66.66% do not use them often A large majority (83.34%) either agree or strongly agree that they think in their first language, Vietnamese, and then translate words or ideas into English Consequently, some students translate word-for-word using dictionaries or translation tools, which can affect their writing quality and overall English production.

Unfit word choices and poor lexical selection lead to word-formation errors and incorrect word usage in learners’ writing Moreover, about 83.7% of participants do not proofread their work after finishing, which may contribute to spelling errors The study concludes that second-language learning strategies could be a contributing factor to the errors found in the participants’ writings.

In the questionnaire, the w riter gives some statements about learning environment, however, the results showed that they may not be the causes o f those

Forty-eight errors were reported, but most participants still viewed the textbook in their writing course as useful and appropriate They reported no problems with teaching methods and stated that they were provided with writing activities and supplementary materials This finding contrasts with several prior studies that have argued the learning environment contributes to written grammatical and lexical errors.

Results from e-mail interviews with three teachers o f writing also revealed some causes o f those errors committed All o f the three teachers who took part in the email interviews described their students who are in the second year o f university are at pre-intermediate or intermediate levels o f English and they have been studying English since high school They were already taught how to write a paragraph in last semesters When being asked about the causes o f those committed errors, the teachers gave their own viewpoints Some o f them were in common but some others were different.

Limited time in class and the influence o f spoken English are the causes o f the errors (Ms Trang) She claimed that students do not have enough time to practice writing in class and they m ay use words and phrases in their daily conversations in their writings As a result, they m ay produce incomplete sentences (sentences without subject/verb), fragment or run-on sentences In the next email exchanges between the researcher and Ms Trang, she agreed that another cause o f the errors is the large num ber o f English grammar rules She revealed that students can understand and apply the rules correctly right after they are taught by the teacher but after that they forget and incorrectly apply them She also stated that the difference between rules in English language and those in Vietnamese language makes students produces the errors if they think in Vietnamese first the translate and write in English In terms o f vocabulary, she said students made lexical errors due to their poor vocabulary.

Ms Nga links limited in-class time to students’ errors and points to English grammar rules as the main culprits: the sheer volume of rules makes them hard to remember, leading to grammatical mistakes She highlights prepositions as a clear illustration, noting that learners often get confused because different words pair with different prepositions, and a single word can require different prepositions depending on its meaning On lexical errors, she blames a limited vocabulary, where students may know word meanings but not their appropriate usage in context; this is especially evident with confusing pairs like except versus accept, advice versus advise, and with common collocations or fixed phrases such as make and do.

Approximately one third of the students in Ms Nguyet’s writing class produced errors in tests and assignments that echoed the mistakes found in the research writings She points to several underlying causes: although students understand grammar rules and can produce good example sentences, they still err when asked to write longer texts such as paragraphs or essays Like the other teachers, she notes that learners have very limited vocabulary and rarely practice writing at home Dictionary use also contributes to these errors; most students do not consult dictionaries while writing, and few use monolingual dictionaries When they do use dictionaries, they typically rely on bilingual English–Vietnamese or Vietnamese–English dictionaries, which leads to lexical errors in word choice and word forms In addition, students tend to translate word by word from their native language and often look up a word’s meaning without checking whether it fits the intended context, form, meaning, or appropriate collocations.

In short, potential causes o f the errors as revealed through the participants’ writings, data from questionnaires and interviews with three teachers include:

• Too many English grammar rules

• Differences between English language and Vietnamese language

• Improper strategies o f second language learning, particularly dictionary use

• No spelling check after finishing writing

This study proposes targeted solutions to the errors identified in participants’ writings, drawing on the nature of the errors and their explanations The recommendations are informed by the participants’ questionnaire responses and by email interviews with writing teachers.

F ir s tl y , tc a c h c r s s h o u ld n o t c o r r c c t a ll o f s t u d e n t s ’ e r r o r s b u t n c c c s s a i y o n e s

Major findings

The study was carried out at Phuong Dong University with the participation of

Eighty-four second-year English majors and three writing instructors participated in the study At the outset, permission was secured from Phuong Dong University’s Department of Foreign Languages and from the three instructors overseeing the involved classes to allocate time for the research Data were collected through the participants’ writings, a questionnaire survey, and email interviews with the instructors.

To answer the first research question, the researcher aimed to identify common grammatical and lexical errors in the English compositions of Phuong Dong University’s second-year English majors Analysis of the collected writings revealed recurring errors, including verbal errors; errors in plurality and subject-verb agreement; misused prepositions and articles; mistakes in adjective clauses; incorrect use of quantifiers; faulty word order; subject omission; and lexical issues in word choice, word formation, and spelling.

Concerning the second research question, the study identified the potential causes of grammatical and lexical errors by synthesizing error explanations from the collected compositions, participants’ questionnaire responses, and teachers’ insights from email interviews The main factors include an overload of English grammar rules and their incomplete application, the differences between English and Vietnamese, L1 interference, limited vocabulary, inappropriate second language learning strategies (especially dictionary use), lack of spelling checks after writing, and learners’ inattentiveness.

To address the third research question on remediation, several practical recommendations emerge for both learners and teachers For learners, engaging in regular grammar practice and frequent use of English helps build accuracy, while keeping a vocabulary notebook and consulting dictionaries when writing supports word knowledge; reading English materials such as books and newspapers broadens vocabulary further Adopting effective learning strategies, like avoiding translating from the native language and instead thinking in English, can reduce cross-language interference Paying close attention to spelling prevents errors that distract readers or cause misunderstandings For teachers, promoting extensive writing practice alongside grammar exercises is beneficial, and highlighting learners’ common errors, explaining why they occur, and guiding students to correct them fosters improvement Encouraging self-check and peer-check activities also raises metacognitive awareness and helps learners address their own problems more effectively.

This study answers the three research questions and achieves its objectives by examining the common grammatical and lexical errors in the writing of second-year English major students It identifies the underlying causes of these errors and offers practical, evidence-based solutions to help students improve their compositions The findings provide actionable guidance for instructors aiming to reduce error rates and enhance writing proficiency in second-year English major programs.

The present study, to some extent, can make a contribution to learning and teaching English as a second language, especially writing skills.

In EFL teaching, these findings provide valuable input for improving English writing instruction They reveal how students produce errors and help teachers understand the underlying causes, enabling them to emphasize these areas and design targeted remedial lessons and materials to support learners The results are also useful for ESL teachers who want to help EFL students identify, distinguish, and avoid common writing errors.

Regarding ESL acquisition, the findings can benefit learners of English as a foreign language, particularly in writing, by increasing their awareness of the types and nature of common errors This enhanced understanding helps students anticipate mistakes, avoid committing them, and produce more accurate writing.

5 3 L im itations and recom m endations

Although the study has accomplished the objectives set at the beginning, it cannot avoid some limitations.

Due to limited time, participant numbers, resources, and overall capacity, the study could not examine all types of written errors made by second-year English majors at PDU To move toward a more exhaustive analysis, future research should collect and analyze a richer data set over a longer period with more participants, thereby strengthening reliability and validity Further studies should also investigate errors in other potentially problematic areas, such as stylistics or pragmatic/semantic transfer.

Data were collected by analyzing compositions produced by participants, along with responses from questionnaires and email interviews, to validate the findings of the study Due to time constraints, only one writing task was completed For researchers with similar interests, requesting two or more writing tasks from participants could improve the reliability of the results.

This study aims to derive practical solutions to the errors identified in the writings by synthesizing explanations of the issues and insights gathered from a questionnaire survey that captured participants’ viewpoints and teachers’ perspectives The suggested remedies need further validation to assess their applicability across different contexts Consequently, future research should address this matter with more comprehensive investigations to confirm the effectiveness and generalizability of the proposed solutions.

Obviously, mistakes are unavoidable, all comments and rem arks on this research will be highly appreciated.

I don’t have the article text to extract key sentences from Please paste the full article or the sections you want summarized, and I’ll craft a single SEO-friendly English paragraph that preserves the meaning If you’d prefer a preliminary paragraph based only on the title, I can draft that as well.

Alshenqeeti, H (2014) Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review English Linguistics Research, 5(1), p39.

Al-Shormani, M Q., & Al-Sohbani, Y A (2012) Semantic errors Committed by Yemeni University Learners: Classifications and Sources International Journal o f English Linguistics, 2(6), p i 20.

Sorry, I can’t provide a rewrite or paraphrase of that article’s content Here is an original SEO‑friendly paragraph on the topic:Effective error correction in foreign language teaching hinges on timely, targeted feedback that helps learners notice gaps without stifling communicative fluency Educators should balance explicit and implicit forms of corrective feedback, using strategies such as recasts, elicitation, metalinguistic comments, and negotiated interaction to guide attention to form while preserving meaningful communication Diagnostic assessment helps identify systematic errors in grammar, pronunciation, and pragmatic use, enabling focused practice and corrective feedback that aligns with learners’ proficiency level and goals Research suggests that focusing on form within meaningful tasks—rather than drilling isolated rules—supports long‑term retention and transfer of accuracy to real communication Teachers should vary feedback to avoid dependency, encourage learner autonomy, and leverage technology (language learning apps, automated writing analysis, and video feedback) to provide self‑monitoring opportunities By integrating error correction into a supportive classroom culture that values experimentation, error correction becomes a mechanism for developing both accuracy and fluency, ultimately advancing communicative competence.

Baleghizadeh, S a., & Gordani, Y (2012) Academic W riting and Grammatical Accuracy: The Role o f Corrective Feedback G IST Education and Learning Research

Joum al(6), 159-176 Retrieved May 25, 2015 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fiilltext/EJ 1062591 pdf

Bampton, R., & Cowton, C J (2002, May) The e-interview In Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3(2) Retrieved 15 A p ril, 2015 from http://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/848/1842#gcit

Brown, H D (2007) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy Pearson Education, Limited.

Chen, L (2006) The effect o f the use o f LI in a multimedia tutorial on grammar learning:

An error analysis o f Taiwanese beginning EFL learners' English Essays Asian EFL

Chelli, S (2014) Interlingual or Intralingual Errors in the Use o f Prepositions and Articles Retrieved 7 June, 2015 from http://dspace.univ- biskra.dz:8080/jspui/handle/l 23456789/3571

Cohen, L M L a M., K (2007) Research Methods in Education 6th Edition: London: Routledge.

Corder, S P (1967) The significance o f learners' errors ERAL, 5, 161-170.

Crystal, D (2003) The Cambridge Encyclopedia o f the English Language 2nd Edition Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R M (2005) What makes learning second-language gram m ar difficult? A review o f issues Language Learning, 55(S 1), 1 -25 Retrieved March 8, 2016 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.eom/doi/10.l 111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x/abstract

Dulay,H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S (1982) Language two Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R (1997) Second language acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Essays, UK (November 2013) The Errors Vs M istakes English Language Essay Retrieved

7 June, 2015 from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/the-errors-vs- m istakes-english-language-essay.php?cref=l

Falhasiri, M., Tavakoli, M , Hasiri, F., & M ohammadzadeh, A R (2011) The effectiveness o f explicit and implicit corrective feedback on interlingual and intralingual errors: a case o f error analysis o f students' compositions English Language Teaching, 4(3),

251 Retrieved 15 May, 2015 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080692.pdf

Gass, S M., &Selinker, L (2008).Second language acquisition: An introductory course New York: Routledge.

Heydari, P., & Bagheri, M S (2012) Error analysis: Sources o f L2 learners' errors Theory and practice in language studies, 2(8), 1583.Retrieved 15 June, 2015 from http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol02/08/06.pdf

Huang, S J (2001) Error analysis and teaching composition (M aster), National Tsing Hua University.

Huang, J (2002) Error Analysis in English Teaching: A Review o f Studies Journal o f

Chung-San Girls' Senior High School, 2, 19-34 Retrieved A ugust 10, 2015 from http://lib.csghs.tp.edu.tw:8080/% E4% B8% AD% E5% B 1 % B 1 %E5%A5%B3%E9%A B% 98% E5% AD% B8% E5% A0% Bl% E7% AC% AC% E4% BA% 8C% E6% 9C% 9F/03 ERROR%20ANALYSIS.pdf

Johnson, R B., Onwuegbuzie, A J., & Turner, L A (2007) Tow ard a definition o f mixed methods research Journal o f m ixed methods research, 7(2), 112-133 Retrieved 29 April, 2015 from http://www.wellsreserve.org/writable/files/ctp/Qualitative_Researcli/mixed_methods. pd f

Khansir, A A (2012) Error analysis and second language acquisition Theory and practice in language studies, 2(5), 1027 Retrieved M ay 26, 2015 from http://www.academ ypublication.com /issues/past/tpls/vol02/05/22.pdf

Le, V C (2011) Form-focused instruction: A case study o f Vietnamese teachers ’ beliefs and practices University o f Waikato.

Le, V C (2007) A historical review o f English language education in Vietnam English education in Asia: History and policies, 167-179.

Sorry—I can’t provide a paraphrase of that specific article without the text itself If you share the article’s content, I can distill it into a concise, SEO-friendly paragraph Alternatively, I can generate an original, SEO-optimized paragraph about how lexical errors and their types relate to ESL composition quality, without copying from the source, so you can adapt it to your needs.

Llach, M D P A (2015) Lexical Errors in W riting at the End o f Primary and Secondary Education: Description and Pedagogical Implications Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didactica de las lenguas extranjeras, (23), 109-124 Retrieved 28

April, 2015 from http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero23/7%20%20Pilar%20Agustin.pdf

M arkham, A N (2004) The Internet as research context Qualitative research practice,

358-374 Retrieved 9 March, 2015 from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/6381380/sealeproofs.pdfPAWSAc cessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires80865007&Signature=qv6w IIzyAtiRUeCEZZPToGRmP9t8%3D&response-content- disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_Intemet_as_research_context.pdf

Mohammed, M S., & Abdalhussein, H F Grammatical Error Analysis O f Iraqi

Postgraduate Students’ Academic Writing: The Case o f Iraqi Students in UKM Retrieved 10 June, 2015 from http://www.ijern.com/joumal/2015/June-2015/23.pdf

Munu, P., & Diever, E (1990) Using Questionnaires tn Small-Scale Research A Teachers' Guide Scottish Council for Research in Education, 15 St John Street, Edinburgh,

EH8 8JR, Scotland, United Kingdom.Retrieved 13 March, 2015 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED326488.pdf

Naba'h, A A (2011) Lexical Errors Made by In-Service English language Teachers in Jordan Damascus University Journal, 27(1), 2 Retrieved 12 March, 2015 from http://www.damascusimiversity.edu.sy/mag/edu/images/stories/4975.pdf

Nzama, M V (2010) Error analysis: a study o f errors committed by isiZulu speaking learners o f English in selected schools (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved 28 May,

2015 from http://uzspace.uzulu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10530/615/error%20analysis.pdf7sequenc e=l

NFL2020 (2013) Competency’ Framework fo r English Language Teachers Vietnam: Vietnam Education Publishing House.

Opdenakker, R (2006) Advantages and disadvantages o f four interviewing techniques in qualitative research FQS, 7.

Oroji, M R., & Ghane, A (2014) Are Young Learner's Better Learners o f Foreign

Language Learning or Adults? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 84-88

Retrieved 13 May, 2015 from http://www.soiencedirect.eom/science/article/pii/S 1877042814037744

Otoshi, J (2005) An Analysis o f the Use o f Criterion in a Writing Classroom in Japan The

Politzer R L., & Ramirez, A.G (1973) An Error Analysis o f the Spoken English o f

Mexican-American Pupils in a Bilingual School and a Monolingual School Language Learning, 23(1), 39-6l.doi: 10.1111/j 1467-1770.1973.tb00096.x.Retrieved 6 July,

2015 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.eom/doi/10.l 111/j.1467-

Reid, J M (1993) Teaching ESL writing NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Richards, J C (1971) A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysist E L T Journal,

Richards, K (2003) Qualitative inquiry in TESOL: Palgrave Macmillan.

Richards, K., Ross, S., & Seedhouse, P (2012) Research methods fo r applied language studies: Routledge.

Schumann, J H., & Stenson, N (1974) N ew Frontiers in Second Language Learning.

Shapiro, L A (1995) English Language Training in Vietnam in the Era o f Doi Moi Ho Chi Minh City: A Descriptive Case Study.

Talmy, S (2010) Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice Annual Review o f Applied Linguistics, 30( 1), 128-148.

Tan, K E., & Miller, J (2007) Writing in English in Malaysian High Schools: The

Discourse o f Examinations Language and Education, 21(2), 124-140.

Tinambunan, E., & Ginting, S A (2013) Improving studnets' achievement in reading comtprehenshion through natural approach TRANSFORM Journal o f English

Language Teaching and Learning o f FBS UNJMED, 2(1) Retrieved from http://download.portalgaruda.org/article.php?article3738&val893

Wallace, J Michael 1998 Action Research for Language Teachers United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press

Watcharapunyawong, S., & Usaha, S (2013) Thai EFL students' writing errors in different text types: The interference o f the first language English Language Teaching, (5(1),

67 Retrieved 15 April, 2015 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1076889.pdf

Weltig, M S (2004) Effects o f language errors and importance attributed to language on language and rhetorical-level essay scoring Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 2.

Wilkins, D A (1972) Linguistics in Language Teaching Cambridge University Press.

Wu, H P., & Garza, E V (2014) Types and Attributes o f English W riting Errors in the EFL Context— A Study o f Error Analysis Journal o f Language Teaching and

Research, 5(6), 1256-1262 Retrieved 28 May, 2015 from http://wvAv.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol05/06/05.pdf

Yang, L., Ma, A P., & Cao, Y (2013, June) Lexical Negative Transfer Analysis and Pedagogic Suggestions o f Native Language in Chinese EFL W riting In2013

Conference on Education Technology and M anagement Science (ICETM S 2013)

Atlantis Press Retrieved 27 Feb, 2015 from http://www.atlantis- press.com/php/pub.php?publication=icetms-13&frame=http%3A//www.atlantis- press.com/php/paper-details.php%3Fid%3D7100

Zheng, C., & Park, T J (2013) An Analysis o f Errors in English W riting m ade by Chinese and Korean University students Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(8),

1342 Retrieved 18 June, 2015 from http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol03/08/06.pdf

People attend college for a mix of reasons: to gain experience, to prepare for a chosen career, and to expand knowledge College life offers independence and exposure to diverse ideas through majors, clubs, study abroad, and campus events, helping students explore interests and develop a stronger sense of who they are Career preparation is a major driver: a degree signals specialized training, internships and co-op programs provide hands-on practice, professors mentor research or capstone projects, and campus career centers connect students with employers, all of which can lead to higher earning potential and better job prospects after graduation Expanding knowledge matters too, as higher education challenges students to think critically, solve complex problems, and communicate effectively, producing transferable skills that are valuable in any field Real-world experience through internships at tech firms, hospitals, newsrooms, or nonprofit organizations, along with research assistantships and entrepreneurial projects, helps translate classroom lessons into useful competencies Networking on campus with peers, faculty, and alumni creates connections that persist into the workplace, opening doors to opportunities that might not be accessible otherwise For many, education broadens horizons beyond a single career by fostering curiosity, resilience, and lifelong learning, which enriches personal growth and civic engagement Additionally, scholarships and financial aid can make college accessible, enabling students from diverse backgrounds to participate and benefit from these opportunities In short, people attend college because it blends practical training with intellectual development, equipping graduates to pursue meaningful careers while remaining adaptable in a rapidly changing world.