Types of English Grammatical Errors in Online Chats

Abstract

Background and Objectives: English grammatical structures are an essential component of effective communication for learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). However, EFL students often encounter difficulties in understanding and applying grammatical structures appropriately when producing language. These difficulties can result in various grammatical errors in both speaking and writing tasks. In particular, online communication provides EFL students with opportunities to produce language through real-time interaction, but grammatical errors may still occur during such communication. Therefore, this research aimed to examine the types of English grammatical errors made by Thai EFL students in online chats. The findings were expected to provide useful information regarding the grammatical problems commonly encountered by EFL students when communicating in English through online platforms.
Methods: The participants were 40 Thai EFL students who were enrolled in an English for Communication course. Online chat was employed as the research tool for collecting students’ written texts produced during real-time conversations. The participants were assigned to chat in small groups for one hour per week over a period of eight weeks. The students participated in conversations based on four topics selected from the course textbook. Their online conversations were collected and examined to identify and classify grammatical errors. The identified errors were categorized according to their characteristics, and the frequency and percentage of each type of grammatical error were calculated. Eight types of errors were identified for analysis: tense, subject–verb agreement, word form, plural form, preposition of time, adverb of frequency, possessive adjective, and irrelevant topic.
Results: The analysis revealed that the Thai EFL students made various types of grammatical errors during online chat conversations. Among the eight categories identified, errors in tense were the most frequently occurring type, accounting for 57.4% of the total errors. This finding indicates that the appropriate use of English tenses was a major grammatical difficulty encountered by the students when producing language in online conversations. In contrast, errors involving plural forms occurred at the lowest percentage, accounting for only 1% of the total errors. The findings demonstrate that although online chat provides students with opportunities to communicate and produce language in a relatively natural, real-time context, grammatical problems remain evident in their English production.
Application of this study: The findings can be applied to English language teaching, particularly in the development of instructional activities and language-learning materials for Thai EFL students. Teachers can use the identified error types to design activities that specifically address students’ common grammatical difficulties. The findings may also be used to provide students with additional practice in producing accurate grammatical structures during online communication. Furthermore, online chat activities can be incorporated into English for Communication courses as opportunities for students to practice language production while teachers monitor and provide feedback on grammatical accuracy.
Conclusions: Thai EFL students produced eight types of grammatical errors in online chat conversations, with tense errors being the most frequent and plural-form errors being the least frequent. The results suggest that particular attention should be given to tense usage when developing English language instruction for Thai EFL students. Further research should investigate effective approaches for reducing grammatical errors and develop appropriate language-learning materials and instructional strategies to improve students’ grammatical accuracy and overall English language skills.