Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2

67
THE USE OF DRILL EXERCISES IN HELPING STUDENTS
REDUCE SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT ERRORS IN
ACADEMIC WRITING: A CASE STUDY IN IPBA

Tan Aig Bee
Jabatan Bahasa Inggeris
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine if drill exercises are
effective in reducing the Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA) errors in the academic
writings of B. Ed. TESL Year 1 students in the Learning Support programme.
For the purpose of this study, the three participants involved sat for a pre-test
which involved the writing of an expository essay. From the essays, the different
types of SVA errors were identied, and treatment in the form of drill exercises
were given for three dominant SVA errors. After the treatment, the participants
sat for a post-test, which again involved the writing of an expository essay on
a parallel topic. Results of the study showed that there was a reduction in the
occurrence of SVA errors after the treatment. The ndings were supported by
interview data and participants reections.

INTRODUCTION
The quality of a piece of writing is often evaluated by the number of errors,
grammatical or otherwise, that general readers see in it. Research has shown
that the relationship between grammar and writing well is complex. What
constitutes an error, why students make them, how they can identify them are
far more complex than it seems. Kroll and Schafer (1978, as cited in Frodesen,
2000) suggested that teachers should look at students errors not simply as
failures, but as windows into their minds. Further, they aver that the errors
serve as potentially useful indicators of what processes the students are
using to learn the language as, according to them, the errors are the product
of intelligent cognitive strategies. Thus, if teachers were to view the errors in
this light, it is believed that they stand a better chance of helping the students
correct their errors.
Like Kroll and Schafer (1978), Shaughnessy (1977) recommended that teachers
should analyze errors in students writing. In addition, she also suggested
that teachers help students understand the differences between written and
spoken language, give students a lot of practice in writing and also keep a
list of personal grammar trouble spots. Rei-Noguchi (1991) in commenting on
errors due to SVA, sentence fragments and run-ons, suggested that English
language teachers should focus on just a few key grammatical issues that
Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
68
show up in students language use. They should view grammar beyond a set
of rules and a code of correctness.
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
The students of the B. Ed. (TESL) Overseas Link programme undergo a two-
year foundation course and their rst undergraduate year at the International
Languages Teacher Training Institute, after which they continue their tertiary
teacher training education abroad. Students who lack prociency in English are
given support through the Learning Support programme, a two-hour weekly
component. These classes are usually small, with numbers ranging from 5-8
persons per tutor. The objective of the programme is to assist these students
in the areas they are weak in, such as writing skills, presentation skills or study
skills.
Feedback from lecturers of the B. Ed. (TESL) Overseas Link programme
showed that some students are generally weak in their academic writing.
These students have been found wanting in grammatical competence and,
among others, are especially weak in Subject-Verb Agreement (SVA). Such
inadequacies pose concern for both lecturers and students as the students are
expected to face even greater demand when they continue their studies abroad.
Consequently, alternative pedagogical strategies have to be formulated to help
the students overcome these inadequacies.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study was to determine the types of Subject-Verb Agreement
(SVA) errors found in the writing of B. Ed. TESL Year 1 students. In addition,
it hoped to investigate the effectiveness of drill exercises in reducing the
occurrence of such errors. Finally, this study also aimed to uncover students
perceptions on the effects of drill exercises on their writing.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample for this study consisted of three students from one of the Learning
Support groups.

Procedure and Instrumentation

Participants of the study met the researcher seven times during the course of
this study, in a classroom. Each session lasted about 40 minutes.
Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
69
At the rst meeting, an interview was carried out with each of the participants.
The interview schedule was developed based on Hagemanns (2003) work.
At this meeting, participants were also required to write an essay in about 300
words on The Effects of Water Pollution on the Environment. Participants
were alloted 30 minutes to complete the essay.
The essays were marked by the researcher and second-marked by an English
language teacher. All errors were coded accordingly, for example sp for spelling
and sv for subject-verb agreement. There was complete concordance in the
marking of the scripts by the researcher and the second marker. The frequency
of each type of error made by the participants was then tabulated. The three
most frequently made subject-verb agreement errors were identied so that
treatment could be given. Recordings of the interviews were transcribed on
the same day, while the researchers memory was still fresh.
During each treatment session, participants were introduced to only one type
of SVA. Oral drills were conducted followed by written exercises. At the end of
each treatment the participants took turns to complete the exercises orally.
The researcher conrmed correct answers. Whenever an error was made, the
researcher would reveal the correct answer and then get the participants to
explain why the answer given was wrong.
On the nal session, participants sat for a post-test whereby they
wrote an essay entitled Effects of Deforestation on the Environment in about
300 words. The time allotted was 30 minutes. As with the rst meeting, an
interview with each of the participants was carried out. The same interview
schedule used at the rst meeting was used in this nal session. However, four
of the questions were dropped and replaced with three questions about the
treatment. Samples of the replaced questions included:
a. What have you learnt from these sessions?
b. Comment on my teaching.
The marking of the scripts followed the same procedure as for the pre-test.
Recordings of the interviews were transcribed on the same day. Participants
also wrote an introspective reection on the whole experience and submitted
to the researcher two or three days later.
FINDINGS
This study derived its data from three main sources, namely the pre- and post-
tests, pre- and post-interviews and the written reections by the participants.
These data were used to help answer the research questions of this study.
Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
70
Comparison of the Number of SVA Errors in the Pre- and Post Tests
Table 1 shows the number of SVA errors made by the three participants for both
the pre- and post-tests. As can be seen from the table, there was a reduction
in the total number of SVA errors made. In the pre-test, 22 errors were made.
However, there were only 6 errors made in the post-test. Also, there was a
reduction in the number of errors made by each participant in the posttest.
The results indicate that the drill exercises provided were effective in reducing
the number of SVA errors made.
Table 1: Comparison of the Number of SVA Errors
Between the Pre- and Post-tests
Participant Pre-test Post-test
P1 7 3
P2 8 1
P3 7 2

Total 22 6
Table 2 shows the frequency of the types of SVA errors made for both the
pre- and post-tests. As can be seen from the table, the most number of errors
committed for both the pre- and post- tests were those involving singular
subjects, followed by those involving plural subjects. This was probably because
the major types of SVAs encountered by the students in writing their essays
were those involving singular and plural subjects. As with the total number of
errors committed, there was a reduction in the number of errors committed for
each type of SVA error. The results indicate that the drill exercises provided
were effective in reducing all types of SVA errors.
Table 2: Comparison of the Type of SVA Errors
Between the Pre- and Post-tests
Types of SVA Errors Pre Post
Singular subject 12 3
Plural subject 7 2
Expression of quantity 2 0
Some irregularities 1 1
TOTAL 22 6
Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
71
Students Perceptions of Drill Exercises
In order to determine the students perceptions of the drill exercises in
helping their academic writing, data from the pre- and post-interviews with the
participants, as well as their reective writings were used. They are reported
as below.
Effectiveness of Drills
In response to the question, Do you think drill exercises can help you reduce
grammatical errors in your writing? Why?, the following were their responses
from the pre-interview:
Participant Responses
P1 Yes I am able to nd my weakness through drill
exercises and remember it well. Pause. I guess.

P2 No, because I think I am a a visual person. I need
to see and understand, why, when and how it is used.

P3 I guess for a while.
From the responses above, it can be construed that the participants were
guessing that drill exercises were effective, as indicated by the word guess.
There is also a tone of uncertainty in the responses. However, the responses
were completely differently in the post-treatment interview as below:
Participant Responses
P1 It is very effective because the teacher focused on the
topic. Do many times (the drills) so I can remember. I
understand the concept now. I am condent in using it.

P2 Yes, it is very effective. The practice / drills made me
remember what I have learnt.

P3 Yes, it is very effective because it helps me practise what
you have taught. Practice is reinforcement for our memory.
Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
72
Condence of Own Academic Writing
With regard to how the students felt about their academic writing after the
treatment, the following responses were elicited from the three participants in
the post-interview:
Participant Responses
P1 After this treatment, I feel more condent in using
the singular and plural subject-verb agreement in my
writing.

P2 The grammar in my writing is better than before.
Now I know how to use singular and plural subject-
verb agreement.

P3 I think er I think I am condent because I am quite
careless in my writing.
As can be seen from the responses, the participants were more condent of
their own writing after the treatment. The responses above provide support to
the effectiveness of drill exercises in helping the participants reduce the number
of errors and in helping them to be more condent of their own academic
writing.
Feelings of Grammatical Competency
When asked about how they felt about their grammatical competency in the pre-
interview, the participants were honest to admit their lack of competency in that
area. They also expressed a strong belief that sound grammatical knowledge
is an essential requirement in the production of a good piece of writing. The
following were their comments:
Participant Responses
P1 I still make a lot of grammatical errors in my writing.
I think greatest weakness is in tenses.
P2 Very poor because after so many years of learning
English in school. I still cannot apply proper tenses in
my writing.

P3 I think my grammar is really bad, I usually get confused
when it comes to tenses.
Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
73
However, the responses of the participants after the treatment, had a tone of
condence and certainty as in the following:
Participant Responses
P1 Now I understand better about the singular and plural
subject-verb agreement. Before this, I was confused
about using them.
P2 I think it is better than before. I know the rules. I can
differentiate singular and plural subject-verb agreement
P3 The sessions reinforce my previous knowledge about
subject-verb agreement.
Benets of Drill Treatment

Another outcome which was consistent in both the interviews and reective
writings were the benecial effects of drill treatment on the participants. The
following were the responses:
Participant Responses
P1 Before I was not sure whether to use is or are when
the subject is everybody, but now I am sure and
can remember well. I understand better now. I have
improved in my subject-verb agreement.
P2 In the 40 minutes, I learn better. But after a few sessions,
I think my perspective of drilling changed. In my opinion
drilling could help students understand better.

P3 The drill exercise is an effective way of remembering the
input and it has a profound impact on me. I manage to
remember it (the rule) quite well.
those sessions are very benecial to me. Although
it is about subject-verb agreement nevertheless it has a
big impact on my knowledge on this topic.

Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
74
Views on How Best to Learn Grammar
Another interesting outcome generated from the post-interviews and reective
writings involved the participants opinion about how best to learn grammar.
These responses lent further support to the effectiveness of drills in helping
students learn grammar. The following were the responses:
Participant Responses
P1 A lot of exercises, drilling exercises Reading a lot of
books. I think this way of teaching should be continued
because it could help students in their language.
P2 I think drilling, written exercises. By reading we can also
improve our grammar. there were lots of exercises
which I think is the best solution to understand
grammar.
P3 it is to be learnt through drills and explanations.
this way of teaching should be implemented to other
subjects since it works very effectively on me.
Views on the Quality of the Teaching
With regard to the participants comments on the quality of teaching provided,
all of them were of the opinion that the sessions were easy to understand, clear,
focused and effective. These were culled from their comments as follows:
Participant Responses
P1 Very effective, focused. Simple language. I like it.
The way the topic was taught to me was effective.
P2 Easy to remember. .was very systematic, suitable for
students who are weak in grammar.
P3 Generally, it is clear. It is student-focused.
Two implications can be made from the comments above. One, the use of drills
can make the teaching of grammar more systematic, effective and focused and
thus more suited for weaker students. Second, drills may only be effective if
they are accompanied by good pedagogy.
Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
75
DISCUSSION
Types of Subject-Verb Agreement Errors
Subject-verb agreement is one of the basic grammatical knowledge every
learner must acquire in order to communicate uently and effectively in English.
The ndings from this study showed that before treatment, the three students
made a number of SVA errors, the most frequent being those related to singular
and plural subjects. This nding showed that despite having eleven years of
learning English in schools and another two years in the foundation course in
IPBA, all three students were still making SVA errors.
In the researchers opinion, this situation can be attributed to two variables, the
practitioner and the learner. In the context of language learning in Malaysian
schools, the communicative approach focuses in getting students to use
language to communicate effectively, in other words through contextual learning.
However to achieve this, there are teachers who advocate accuracy, that is
they begin by teaching grammar rules and basic sentence structures while
another group of teachers assume that with sufcient input and opportunities
to learn English in purposeful communication, students will eventually acquire
implicit knowledge of grammar.
Products of the accuracy model may be able to reproduce accurate sentences
but how effective are these students with their accurate sentences in real
life communication is anybodys guess. Students who are the product of
the accuracy model may not have understood the concept of subject-verb
agreement. Perhaps that is why Shaughnessy (1977) commented that
producing the correct answer is not as important as knowing the logic behind
the answer.
And in the case of the communication model, students can be condent and
uent in communication but are also likely to make grammatical errors in their
sentences. A study by Higgs and Clifford (1988, as cited in Celce-Murcia, 2001)
indicates that students who learn English through the communication model
often develop the habit of using ungrammatical forms. These inaccurate forms
may become fossilized, that is, they become difcult to change and the errors
become perpetuated.
In conclusion, if the aim of teaching English is to develop in our learners both
accuracy and uency, we should include both types of activities, activities
focusing on grammar and those focusing on uency. Only through a balanced
of both types of activities can we help our learners improve their communication
skills.

Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
76
Reduction of Subject-Verb Agreement Errors
The ndings from this study showed a 72.7% reduction in the number of
subject-verb agreement (SVA) errors after treatment was given indicating that
the drill exercises were effective in bringing about the reduction. This nding is
consistent with the participants comments on the effectiveness of drills, their
condence in academic writing after the drills, their feelings of grammatical
competency as a result of the drills, their views on the benets of drills and their
views on how best to learn grammar.
The ndings above are also consistent with Harmers (1991) communicative
approach to grammar teaching, that is, the covert and overt approaches to
grammar teaching. In the former approach, the learners are involved in using the
structures without their attention to grammatical rules. Errors are tolerated rst
so that learners are not afraid to take risks to test their linguistics competence.
The latter approach involves explanation of the rules of a new structure either
through the deductive approach or the inductive or discovery approach.
In the context of this study, participants were rst presented with the structures.
This was followed by oral and written drills. So while practising the structures,
they discovered the underlying logic of the rules. When an error was made, the
researcher encouraged the participants to explain why the error was made. The
intensive drills allowed the participants to understand and consequently make
logical deductions on the correct form. This is consistent with Borichs (2000)
view that drills delivered in brief, non-evaluative and supportive manners can
allow for effective practice.
Students Perception of Drill Exercises
As reported in the ndings of this study, the participants perception of the
drill exercises before the treatment was one of uncertainty. However, this
perception changed quite drastically after the treatment. Thus it can be said
that on the whole, the participants perception of the effects of drill exercises
on their writing was positive and encouraging. As mentioned earlier, this nding
complements the view that drills are an effective strategy in helping learners
discover grammatical rules.
CONCLUSION

As reective English language teachers, we must not only be able to identify
students weaknesses, but we must also be able to seek redress and take
action to improve the situation. In particular, we must be able to raise the
general prociency of our learners so that they can communicate correctly
and effectively in the four language skills. In order to attain these, various
strategies and techniques should be attempted. In this study, drills that were
accompanied by explanations were used. The ndings showed that indeed the
drills were successful in helping the students reduce the number of SVA errors
Jurnal IPBA / Jilid 3 : Bilangan 2
77
they committed in their academic writing. It is thus the view of the researcher
that drills should continue to be used and that they have a place in our language
classroom especially for the less procient population of our learners.
Note: This research was also presented at Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan IPBA 2005

REFERENCES
Borich, G. D. (2000). Effective teaching methods. USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language teaching approaches: An Overview. USA:
Heinle & Heinle.
Frodesen, J. (2000). Grammar in writing in teaching English as a second
language. USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research (5th ed.). USA:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hagemann, J. A. (2003). Teaching grammar a reader and workbook. USA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language
(3rd ed., pp. 219-232). USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Rei-Noguchi. (1991). Grammar and the teaching of writing: Limits and
possibilities. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weaver, C., McNally, C. & Moerman. (2001). To grammar or not to grammar:
That is not the question. In J. A. Hagemann (Ed.), Teaching grammar.
USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. USA:
Pearson Education Company.