Common errors in writing journals of the englishmajor students at ho chi minh city open university

60 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 2(14) 2015 – June/2015 
COMMON ERRORS IN WRITING JOURNALS OF THE ENGLISH-
MAJOR STUDENTS AT HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY 
Pham Vu Phi Ho
1
, Pham Ngoc Thuy Duong
2 
1
Ho Chi Minh City Open University 
2 
The National College of Education Ho Chi Minh City 
Email: ho.pham@ou.edu.vn 
(Received: 08/04/2015; Revised: 15/05/2015; Accepted: 19/05/2015) 
ABSTRACT 
Students’ writing problems are always a primary concern of instructors in writing 
classrooms, and to know the common errors which frequently occur on students’ writing papers 
is usually what the writing instructors have conducted in the classrooms. However, no research 
study has been conducted at the Faculty of Foreign languages at HCMC Open University to 
investigate into this aspect. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the common written 
errors on students’ writing journals and to see whether the extensive writing helps enhance 
students’ writing fluency. 115 first year English-major students participated in this study. They 
composed five writing journals every week during the course of 15 weeks. Each student 
composed 62 writing journals in total. The study found that four most common errors frequently 
occur in students’ writing journals are relating to tenses, collocations, spellings, and verb forms. 
Also, the current study confirms that the extensive writing practices effect the students’ writing 
fluency in terms of length of writing. The results of the study help the writing instructors at the 
local setting with the facts of their students’ writing problems in order to improve the writing 
practices in the writing classrooms. Particularly, the finding of this study confirms the effects of 
extensive writing so that the instructors and students could take this issue into their practices 
beyond the classrooms. 
Keywords: writing journals, errors, mistakes, writing practice, and writing fluency. 
1. Introduction 
The importance of English writing is 
becoming increasingly dominant in both 
educational programs and in professional 
writing in non-English dominant countries 
(Leki, 2001). To become a proficient writer is 
a wish of many EFL/ESL students especially 
for those who want to get higher education due 
to regular writing assignments from the 
instructors. In addition, EFL/ESL Writing has 
always been considered an important skill in 
teaching and learning. According to Rao 
(2007), EFL writing is useful in two respects. 
First, it motivates students’ thinking, 
organizing ideas, developing their ability to 
summarize, analyze and criticize. However, 
writing is always a big problem for EFL/ESL 
students in terms language uses, grammatical 
structures, and cultural communication. 
The biggest problem is that Writing is 
more complex which tests a person’s ability to 
use a language and the ability to express ideas 
(Norrish, 1983) and writing requires a person 
to write not only coherently but effectively. 
Homstad and Thorson (1996) state that writing 
in a foreign language is a frustrating and 
difficult activity for students, so the students 
are often reluctant to incorporate into these 
kinds of activities in or outside the classrooms. 
Particularly in a writing activity, language 
 Common Errors In Writing Journals Of The English-Major Students  61 
seems to be the most problematic difficulty for 
L2 writers (second language) due to their 
limited language proficiency or limited 
linguistic knowledge. Silva (1993) and Olsen 
(1999) agree that EFL writers cannot create an 
effective written work due to the inadequacy 
of syntactic and lexical competence. 
According to Wang and Wen (2002), L2 
writers obviously get stuck when writing in the 
target language because their mother tongue 
mainly affects the use of the second language; 
as a result, they may at times combine the 
systems of the two languages in their L2 
writing, which is called “language transfer or 
syntactic transfer”. Moreover, Weigle (2002) 
also states that because of the constraints of 
limited second-language knowledge, the 
students see L2 writing as hampered because 
of the need to focus on language rather than 
content. She claims that it is impossible for L2 
students to write in a second language properly 
without linguistic knowledge regarding 
grammar and vocabulary. In research findings, 
Olsen (1999) and Sattayatham & Honsa (2007) 
found that less proficient learners had a higher 
number of grammatical, orthographic and 
syntactic and lexical errors. 
In terms of error correction, researchers 
have been arguing for the effectiveness of 
error correction due to the phenomenon that 
students keep making the same mistakes even 
after being corrected many times (Semke, 
1984). According to Ferris (1995; 1999), 
errors corrections have great impacts on 
students writing revision. However, according 
to Truscott (1996), grammar correction is 
ineffective and harmful, and should be 
abandoned all together in the writing class. 
Truscott’s findings prove that grammatical 
correction does not work. The students often 
commit to the same mistakes in different 
setting of writing. 
In a case study, Darus and Ching (2009) 
aimed at investigating most common errors in 
essay written in English from 70 Chinese 
students. The study collected 70 essays to 
analyze for 18 types of error. The four most 
errors that the students frequently committed 
to were mechanics, tenses, prepositions, and 
subject-verb agreement. The study also found 
that L1 had great impact on students’ L2 
writing. Similarly, Watcharapunyawong and 
Usaha (2013) analyzed Thai students’ writing 
errors caused by the interference of Thai 
language. 40 2
nd
 year English major students 
composed 120 paragraphs of narrative writing, 
descriptive writing, and comparison & contrast 
wr ... nd Prepositions. Darus and Ching (2009) 
found that the four most errors that the 
students frequently committed to were 
mechanics, tenses, prepositions, and subject-
verb agreement and also confirmed the 
influences of L1 on students’ L2 writing. In 
addition, El-Sayed (1982) revealed that the 
 Common Errors In Writing Journals Of The English-Major Students  65 
students participated in his study committed to 
errors mostly to verbs, pronouns, articles and 
prepositions and adjectives. Belhhaj (1997) 
found most errors that the students committed 
to were tenses, adjectives, prepositions, and 
articles. Sattayatham & Honsa (2007) 
confirmed that the most frequent errors the 
students frequently committed to were at 
syntactic and lexical levels which led to the 
overgeneralization, incomplete rule 
application, and building of false sentences. 
Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2013) found 
that the students frequently committed to 
tenses, word choice, sentence structure, article, 
and preposition. 
Most of previous studies found errors on 
prepositions was the third or fourth most 
frequent errors while it was in the fifth most 
errors in this study and in 
Watcharapunyawong and Usaha (2013)’s also. 
Surprisingly, the order of adjectives and nouns 
was the least frequent errors in the current 
study (M = 1.6; D = 0.3) when the Vietnamese 
language (mother tongue) has different orders, 
mostly nouns first, then adjectives. In English, 
this order was seen opposite. The findings of 
the current study set lights for the writing 
lecturers at HCMC Open University who wish 
to know the most common errors of the 
students to show or train them in the 
blackboard (as they usually do) for the 
frequent errors as samples to help students 
avoid these mistakes in their writing practice 
everyday. This indication comes from Ferris 
(2004)’s suggestion that before providing 
comments on students’ papers, it is crucial for 
a writing teacher to be aware of error 
categories frequently found in his/her students’ 
writing. However, the authors of the current 
study did not imply for error corrections on 
these areas in the peer response activities 
because Trustcott (1996) argues that for both 
theoretical and practical reasons, comments on 
errors can expect it to be ineffective and it has 
harmful effects. In addition, Semke (1984) 
states that student progress is enhanced by 
writing practice alone. Corrections do not 
increase writing accuracy, writing fluency, or 
general language proficiency, and they may 
have a negative effect on student attitudes, 
especially when students must make 
corrections by themselves. 
Research question 2: Do the writing 
journals affect students’ writing fluency in 
terms of length of writing? 
To investigate if the writing journals 
affect students’ writing fluency in terms of 
length of writing, we compared the average 
length of the 10 first journals of each student 
to those of the 10 last journals out of 62 
journals of 115 students. The 10 first journals 
(journal 1 to journal 10) were written during 
the first 2 weeks. The 10 last journals (journal 
53 to journal 62) were written during the last 2 
weeks of the course. The selection of the 10 
first and last journals was to calculate the 
relatively average number of words that the 
students composed between the first and the 
last two weeks. The purpose was to see if there 
was any difference of the students’ writing 
fluency in terms of number of words. In order 
to analyze it, first the mean scores were added 
up, then pair sample t-test was run. Table 3 
presents the students’ writing fluency in terms 
of number of words. 
Table 3. Students' writing fluency in terms of number of words 
N1 Mean S.D. N2 Mean S.D. 
Journal 1 83 48 Journal 53 102 54 
Journal 2 79 41 Journal 54 97 48 
Journal 3 80 42 Journal 55 98 43 
Journal 4 84 42 Journal 56 96 48 
Journal 5 88 79 Journal 57 98 44 
66 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 2(14) 2015 – June/2015 
N1 Mean S.D. N2 Mean S.D. 
Journal 6 90 58 Journal 58 100 52 
Journal 7 88 51 Journal 59 97 46 
Journal 8 86 45 Journal 60 96 43 
Journal 9 84 42 Journal 61 99 53 
Journal 10 83 37 Journal 62 101 53 
* N1 refers to the first 10 journals 
* N2 refers to the last 10 journals 
* Descriptive statistics 
As can be seen in the table 3, the means 
of journals 1 to 10 were between 79 and 90 
while those of the journals 53 to 62 were 
between 96 and 102. Table 4 presents the 
students’ differences in writing fluency. 
Table 4. Students’ differences in writing fluency Paired Samples Statistics 
 Mean N Std. Deviation 
Std. Error 
Mean 
Pair 1 first 846.83 115.00 352.26 32.85 
last 985.90 115.00 356.35 33.23 
Paired Samples Correlations 
 N Correlation Sig. 
Pair 1 first & last 115 .478 .000 
Paired Samples Test 
Paired Differences 
t df 
Sig. 
(2-tailed) Mean 
Std. 
Deviation 
Std. 
Error 
Mean 
95% Confidence Interval 
of the Difference 
Lower Upper 
Pair 1 first-last -139.07 362.13 33.77 -205.97 -72.17 -4.12 114.00 0.00 
As can be seen from the table 4, the 
mean scores of the students’ first 10 writing 
journals was of 846.83 and that of the last 10 
journals was of 985.90. The correlation was 
of .478. The Sig. (2-tailed) reached at .00. This 
indicates that the students’ writing journals 
affect students’ writing fluency in term the 
numbers of words in their writing. The length 
of their journals improved by numbers of 
journals that the students committed to their 
writing activities. In other words, the more the 
students write, the more fluent in writing skills 
they become. According to Heder and King 
(2012), giving students extensive writing 
during the writing course will help students 
improve their confidence, speed, fluency and 
interest in learning English. Hyland (2002) 
states that teaching writing is a process and the 
instructors should let the students write and 
encourage them to write as much as possible. 
This might help students’ improve their 
writing fluency and quality. 
 Common Errors In Writing Journals Of The English-Major Students  67 
The findings of the present study 
correspond to Luu Trong Tuan (2010) who 
found that journal writing as an extensive 
activity is to foster learners' writing motivation 
and enhance their writing skill as well as to 
build a close bonding between teachers and 
learners. Furthermore, Homstad and Thorson 
(1996) confirm the importance of writing 
journals when stating that weekly writing 
journals strengthen writing skills and may also 
enhance critical thinking and cultural 
interaction. The findings of the present study 
and the literature discussed above indicate that 
the writing journals are beneficial activity and 
should take into account to encourage students 
to writing English. As a saying goes, “practice 
makes perfect”. The writing journal activities 
may bring EFL students no longer frustrating 
and difficult attitudes towards writing a 
foreign language (Homstad & Thorson, 1996). 
Bacha (2002) suggests that the writing 
lecturers should give the opportunities for 
students to practice writing regularly because 
the experience in writing practice was not only 
a very highly motivating basis for developing 
students’ writing skills but also a valuable one 
for students in acquiring necessary academic 
research know-how. 
5. Conclusion 
Firstly, the study reveals the most 
frequent types of errors the students made in 
both lexical errors and syntactic error. The 
results of the study help clarify what the 
students’ learning difficulties are for the 
writing instructors. Secondly, the study also 
indicates that the students’ writing journals 
affect students’ writing fluency. The length of 
their journals improved by numbers of journals 
that the students wrote during course. In other 
words, the more the students write, the more 
fluent in expressing ideas they become. 
Making errors is inevitable in language 
learning process. Clarifying errors keeps the 
teachers informed what aspects need further 
attention in the training process. 
The results of this study highlight certain 
issues regarding teaching and learning writing 
in English as a second/foreign language. 
Teachers/educators in similar situations may 
utilize those results to enhance the teaching 
and learning of L2 writing. Firstly, language 
interference should be taken into consideration 
during writing classes as the use of L1 which 
might affect writing performance in L2. 
Teacher/peer feedback should be applied 
during the writing activities to help students 
learn from each other to enhance writing 
quality. Teachers should offer students 
opportunities for sufficient amount of writing 
practice. 
Although the researcher has made great 
efforts to carry out the study, the study has got 
certain restrictions. Firstly, the study just 
collected papers from 115 students of Writing-
1 courses out of 363 in HCMC Open 
University for error analysis. There should be 
further investigation to most of the students in 
three writing levels such as Writings 1, 2, & 3 
so that the findings will be strengthened for 
generalization. Secondly, the data for analyses 
were journals which were collected from 
students’ writing assigned by only one 
instructor for 3 classes. This seems not to be in 
the normal curriculum. Moreover, the 
instructor didn’t correct students’ journals so 
the quality was not measured. There should be 
research investigating the quality of students 
writing in the control of peer/teacher feedback 
to see if the students’ writing quality improves 
in the extensive writing practice. 
REFERENCES 
Bacha, N. N. (2002). Developing Learners’ Academic Writing Skills in Higher Education: 
A Study for Educational Reform. Language and Education, 16(3), 161-177. 
Belhaj, A. M. (1997). Contrastive Textual Analysis: An Arabic-English English-Arabic 
Translation Corpus. Occasional Papers, 24(25), 103-150. 
68 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 2(14) 2015 – June/2015 
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case 
studies of native language interference with target language usage. International Education 
Journal, 1(1), 22-31. 
Darus, S., & Ching, K. H. (2009). Common Errors in Written English ssays of Form One 
Chinese Students: A case Study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 242-253. 
El-Sayed, A. M. (1982). An Investigation into the Syntactic Errors of Saudi Freshmen’s English 
Compositions. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation: Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 
U.S.A. 
Ferris, D. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. 
TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22. 
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott 
(1996). Journal of second language writing, 8(1), 1-11. 
Ferris, D. R. (2004). Treatment of Error in Second language Student Writing. Michigan: The 
University of Michigan Press. 
Herder, S., & King, R. (2012). Extensive Writing: Another fluency approach for EFL learners . 
Extensive Reading World Congress Proceedings, 1, 128-130. 
Homstad, T., & Thorson, H. (1996). Using Writing-to-Learn Activities in the Foreign Language 
Classroom - A research grant report. Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Writing. 
Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota. 
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. Essex: Longman. 
Lee, J., & Seneff, S. (2008, June). Correcting Misuse of Verb Forms. In ACL (pp. 174-182). 
Lee, L. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for 
college-level teaching. System, 25, 465-477. 
Leki, L. (2001). Material, Educational, and Ideological Challenges of Teaching EFL Writing at 
the Turn of The Century. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 197-209. 
Norrish, J. (1983). Language Learners and Their Errors. London: Macmillan Press. 
Olsen, S. (1999). Errors and compensatory strategies: a study of grammar and vocabulary in 
texts written by Norwegian learners of English. System, 27, 191-205. 
doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00016-0 
Pham Vu Phi Ho (2013). Các Hoạt Động Dạy và Học Môn Viết tại Khoa Ngoại ngữ Đại học Mở 
TP.HCM. Tạp Chí Khoa học trường Đại học Mở TP.HCM, 3(31), 96-115. 
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT journal, 61(2), 
100-106. 
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics 
(4th ed.). London: Pearson. 
Sattayatham, A., & Honsa, S. (2007). Medical students' most frequent errors at Mahidol 
University, Thailand. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 170-194. 
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign language annals, 17(3), 195-202. 
 Common Errors In Writing Journals Of The English-Major Students  69 
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research 
and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677. doi:dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587400 
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language 
learning, 46(2), 327-369. 
Luu Trong Tuan (2010). Enhancing EFL Learners’ Writing Skill via Journal Writing. English 
Language Teaching, 3(3), 81-88. 
Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 
Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second language Writing, 11, 225-246. 
Watcharapunyawong, S., & Usaha, S. (2013). Thai EFL Students’ Writing Errors in Different Text 
Types: The Interference of the First Language. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 67-78. 
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.