Journals / The Literacy Trek / 2022 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

An error analysis on Turkish EFL learners’ writing tasks

Pages
121–141
Publication Date
2022-12-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The analysis revealed that the most frequent type of error was grammatical errors overall, a large part of which was the inappropriate use of verb forms.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This descriptive qualitative study aimed to investigate the types and sources of errors committed by Turkish students learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in their foreign language (L2) writings as well as find out whether there is a difference in terms of the number, classification, and sources of errors between students at two different proficiency levels.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this end, the study was carried out at the School of Foreign Languages at a non-profit foundation university in Turkey in the 2020-2021 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The analysis revealed that the most frequent type of error was grammatical errors overall, a large part of which was the inappropriate use of verb forms.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2020-2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Error analysis · L2 writing · error

Abstract

This descriptive qualitative study aimed to investigate the types and sources of errors committed by Turkish students learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in their foreign language (L2) writings as well as find out whether there is a difference in terms of the number, classification, and sources of errors between students at two different proficiency levels. To this end, the study was carried out at the School of Foreign Languages at a non-profit foundation university in Turkey in the 2020-2021 academic year. The students participating in the study (N= 32), who were selected using the convenient sampling method and participated in the study voluntarily, were Turkish preparatory class students having two different English proficiency levels, namely A1 level (n= 16) and A2 level (n= 16). Data for the study came from three different narrative paragraphs (each ranging in a 100 - 200 word band) written by the students, and a total of 96 paragraphs were collected for the study. The analysis revealed that the most frequent type of error was grammatical errors overall, a large part of which was the inappropriate use of verb forms. Moreover, findings concerning the potential differences between two proficiency levels showed that A1 level learners committed more errors than A2 level learners in all types except the semantic errors. Based on these findings, a number of implications for L2 writing teachers are discussed.

🔖

Cite This Article

DUYGUN, B., KARABACAK, P. (2022). An error analysis on Turkish EFL learners’ writing tasks. The Literacy Trek, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 121–141. https://ajindex.com/articles/870824

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Atmowardoyo, H. (2018). Research methods in TEFL studies: Descriptive research, case study, error analysis, and R & D. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(1), 197-204.
  2. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge Publishers, 3(6), 147-156.
  3. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 4(5), 161-170.
  4. Çepni, G. (2014). Error analysis in writings of English language teaching prep students: A study on bilinguals of Kurdish and Turkish majoring in English. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çağ University, Turkey. Ellis, R. (2019). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 454-475.
  5. Erdoğan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 261-270.
  6. Eroğlu, S., Alabay, S., & Keklik, H. (2022). A study on the usage of verb’s complements with cases by French bilingual Somali students learning Turkish as a foreign language. International Education Studies, 15(2), 113-122.
  7. Fisiak, J. (1985). Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher. Pergamon Press.
  8. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: an introductory course. Journal for English as a Second Language, 1(3), 243-249.
  9. Gürsel, E. (1998). Error analysis of the English writings of the students from the department of foreign language at the University of Gaziantep. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gaziantep University, Turkey. Hamouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teachers' preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 128-141.
  10. Karim, A., Mohamed, A. R., Ismail, S. A. M. M., Shahed, F. H., Rahman, M. M., & Haque, M. H. (2018). Error analysis in EFL writing classroom. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(4), 122-138.
  11. Kaweera, C. (2013). Writing error: a review of interlingual and intralingual interference in EFL context. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 9-18.
  12. Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 591-598.
  13. Mustafa, F., Kirana, M., & Bahri, S. (2017). Errors in EFL writing by junior high students in Indonesia. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 6(1), 38-52.
  14. Prasetyawati, O. A., & Ardi, P. (2020). Integrating Instagram into EFLwriting to foster stude