th st

ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

DEVELOPING CRITERIA OF METHOD AND STRATEGY OF

CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT FOR GRAMMAR MASTERYTHROUGH
GRAMMATICAL ERRORS ANALYSIS IN INDONESIAN ADULT EFL
LEARNERS
Julian Chandra
STKIP YDB Lubuk Alung
Abstract

Having fluency and accuracy in English language is the ultimate goal of teaching English as foreign
language or second language in the prominent Communicative Language Teaching Methodology
(CTL). The method emphasizes the importance for language learners to acquire communicative
competence which is achieved by having linguistic, sociolinguitics, discourse and strategy
knowledge to the target language they are learning. In TEFL context, however, many current research
findings show that Indonesian EFL adult learners’ language productive skills such as in speaking and
writing are not equipped with strong and solid linguistic or grammatical knowledge. Frankly speaking,
they have lack and severe grammatical acquisition that hampers their ability to speak and to write in
English. For this pathetic issue, the demand for language teachers to focus not only on fluency but also
accuracy is an urgent. They need to lead their effort at how to assess grammar classroom in a such
way that strenghten L2 learners’ grammar mastery and acqusition. A criteria of method and strategy to
classroom assessment for grammar must be reformulated. Favorably, researches on L2 learners’
grammatical error analysis which provide source factor of the grammatical error influences, the
common type of errors on linguistic and surface taxonomy are abundant reserve in determining to
what an effective method and a strategy of grammar assessment might be useful to be applied into
classroom practice for Indonesian L2 adult learners. This paper is aimed at describing on how to develop
the best criteria for grammar classroom assesments in Indonesian L2 adult learners both through undertanding
the development of conceptualization of grammar knowldge and approaches offered for grammar assessment
purpose as well as to describe what an effective strategy might be used in grammar classroom practice with
the help of the source of grammatical errors and common type of linguistic and surface taxonomy made by L2
learners in writing and speaking.
Keywords: Grammar Error Analysis, Grammar Classroom Assessment, Grammar Knowledge,
Linguistic and Surface Taxonomy.

1. Introduction
Gaining success of a L2 learner in learning English as foreign /second language is
established by having fluency and accuracy to use the language. General speaking, accuracy
is defined as the ability of a L2 learner to produce target language that is being learnt with
correct grammatical rules, while fluency refers to a level of proficiency in communication. It
is the ability to produce written and spoken sentences with ease, efficiency, without pauses or
a breakdown of communication. On other words, L2 learner must not only know the correct
grammatical rules of the language but also know how to use it precisely, accurately and
meaningfully in communication context. As Srivasta (2014; 1) confirms “ understanding a
language is not merely knowing its linguistic forms and grammatical rules but also knowing
how to apply them meaningfully in communication”. More importantly, both accuracy and
fluency are parameter in determining a L2 leaner’s success in foreign/second language learning
and acquisition.

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2069

 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

The nessessary for a L2 leaner to acquire not only accuracy and fluency in language learning
has been much debated among educators and linguists. Some have assumption that fluency is
needed to develop first, while accuracy will follow to acquire implicitly later in the process of
learning The accuracy proponents argue that developing accuracy in the first place is very
critical for a L2 learner’s future progress in second language acquisition in order grammatical
errors not to be fossilized. As grammar competence is associated with accuracy, they suggest
that a L2 learner is firstly needed to be equipped with solid understanding of grammtical
knowledge before performing language productive skills. If fluency or meaning is the primary
goal to communicate, it would be difficult to carry out without accurate and correct use of
grammar since grammar itself gives meaning to sentence or utterance within the
communication. Concerning with the fact, there is growing perspective that both accuracy and
fluency are equal important in second language acquistion.
With the respect to current situation in Indonsian EFL context, however, many researches in
error analysis conducted in an attempt to find out Indonesian L2 adult learners’ ability in
language productive skills, reveal that most of the learners have fluency in English but not in
accuracy. Frankly speaking, many of them might be able to communicate fluently in English
but they are lack of grammatical correctness to use in the language. Additionally, They have a
severe grammatical knowledge. Specifically, the findings show that most of Indonesian L2
adult learners have low proficiency in applying rules of English linguistic forms in
grammatical descrite-points ( i.e., breaking down linguistic forms into small unit of grammar
components) and fails to interpret semantic meaning contained in the given linguistics forms as
well as to interpret what extra meaning (pragmatic meaning) might be drawn in given
sentences, utterances or discourse.
In the response to the fact, assessment as one of fundamental aspects in language teaching
and learning can be constructed into specific purpose, as classroom practice and task for
example, to enhance L2 learners’ competence in language learning in general and grammar
aqusition in particular. With the help of research findings in grammatical error analysis, we
might be able to determine what aspect and domain of grammar knowledge needed to
constructed and developed whether in discrite points, semantic or pragmatic meaning for
assessment purpose ( e.g., formative, summative or diagnostic ).

2. Development of Grammatical Knowledge Conceptualization

It has been acknowledged that development of theory in language view, language teaching
and learning methodology, language pedagogy, conceptualization of language knowledge and
principles in communicative competence have a significant role in further defining concept and
domains of grammatical knowledge to be used in constructing, method and instruments both in
the purpose to measure L2 learners’ grammatical ability and to asses grammar in classroom
language learning. .
In the first theory, language is traditionally viewed as a structure of grammatical rules, a set
of linguistic forms that govern in a systematic way how language is produced. As Richard &
Rodger (1986: 17) say “a system of structurally related elements for the coding of meaning”.
The target of language learning is seen to be the mastery of elemests of this system, which
generally defined in terms of phonological units ( e.g., phonemes), grammatical units (e.g.,
clause, phrases, sentences), grammatical operation (e.g., adding, shifting, joining or
transforming elements) and lexical items ( e.g., function words and structure words). This view
of language emphasizes the importance of grammatical accuracy in language learning. Under

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2070

 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

this view, audio-lingual and grammar tranlation had flourished as method of teaching and
learning English as foreign/second language. Under this form-based perspective of language,
grammar knowldge is seen as a set of linguistic forms and rules (i.e., phonological rules,
morphosyintactic rules, lexical rules ) that govern how a language is produced. Here
syntactocentric approach to grammar assessment takes its root to emerge.
In syntactocentric perspective, syntax or the way in which words are arranged into sentences
play an important instrument in analyzing and observing language phenomena. According to
Porpura (2014) Syntactocentric or form-based theories of language such as in traditional
grammar (i.e., an analysis of language structure through it prescriptive rules, structural
linguistics ( i.e., an analysis of language structure based on phonology and morphology study
pionered by linguist Bloomfield (1933) and Fries (1944) and tranformational- generative
grammar have been critized for their failure to explain meaning of certain linguistic forms.
The syntactocentric perspective are only able to explain lamguage phenomena in semantic
aspect ( i.e., the study of conventional meaning of words, phrases, and sentence ) of grammar
but provide little information how linguistic forms are used in context. According to Porpura
(2012), it happens because they exclude the pragmatic aspect of linguistic forms (i.e., meaning
of linguistic form context - specific use).
Another one is function view. Language is seen as a vehicle for the expression of functional
meaning in communication. Richard & Rodger ( 1986:17) states that this theory puts the
importance of semantic and communicative dimensions rather than merely the grammatical
characteristics of language. Fluency is the target of teaching and learning in L2 settings. Under
this view, natural approach to teaching and learning methodology in L2 acquisition begun to
take it roles. In communicative perspective, grammar is treated as linguistic forms that are used
to create meaning. Teaching method such as Direct Method, Suggestopedia, Silent Way, Total
Physical Response, and Community Language Learning were accepted widely as language
and teaching methodology and language pedagogy. However, it is admitted that L2
grammatical knowledge under this form-based meaning is still measured focused on what
semantic meaning of linguistic forms intended to convey in sentential level but not pragmatic
meaning which appears in discourse level.
The third language theory is called interactional view. In this view, aspects of social
demension is taken account in analyzing language phenomena. Language is claimed as a tool to
create and maintain of social interaction. Thus, language use is described in term of an
interaction between the individual characteristics of the language user on the oe hand, and the
context of language use on the other. Richard & Rodger (1986: 17) state that interactioal
perspective sees language as an instrument to realize interpersonal relations and performance of
social interaction. In this interactional view, grammtical knowledge refers to how individual
utterances or sentences are organized with respect to knowldge of phonology or graphology,
vocabulary and syntax. Under this view, Communicative Language Teaching Methodologys
(CTL) which emphasize interactional classroom instruction in language learning gains its
popularity as a prominent method in foreign/second language teaching.

3. Form-based Use in Grammar Assessment

According to Purpura (2014), the current approach to grammar assessment much revolves
around form-focused approach. Even though this approach in some extant is appropriate for
some purpose, it has little attention to meaning-focused approach. More importantly, it doesnot
constitute overall L2 learners grammar ability that is defined in grammatical knowledge. As

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2071

 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

assessment has different purposes such as diagnostic, source of information, reinforcement,

evaluation, and measurement in the second language learning and acquisition, forrm-focused
approach only will mislead a teachers to incorrect judgement to the grammar ability to their
students. Purpura (2012) suggests to present meaning and use -focused form approach as
alternative approach to grammar assessment. According to Purpura (2012), grammatical
knowledge of L2 learners can be mapped into linguistic knowledge and pragmatic knowledge.
Linguistic knowldge refers to L2 leaners’ knowing the linguistic forms ( i.e., phonology,
morphology, syntax and lexis) and knowing the explicit meaning intended by the use of
linguistics forms (i.e., semantic meaning) in given sentence or utterance in communication.
Pragmatic knowledge refers to L2 learners’ knowing the implicit meaning of sentence and
utterance beyond intended meaning given by linguistic forms. Knowing pragmatic meaning
means L2 learners have to have knowldge of context socio-cultural used in given
communication setting between two speakers. What we understand from this respect that
grammatical assessment in which we will construct assesment for different purposes is more
complex to do and not just to measure L2 learners’ knowing grammatical systems and rules of
a language but how this systems and rules operate in rich-context communication. Futhermore,
Purpura (2012) propose a theoretical model of language knowledge comprising in grammtical
and pragmatic components. This model will be useful to construct aspect and domain of
grammatical ability needed for assessment purpose.

4. The Role of Error Analysis in L2 Teaching, Learning and Acquisition

Error analysis, a branch of applied linguistics emerged in the sixties to reveal that learner
errors are not only because of interference in native language but also they reflect specific
strategies that are employed by L2 learners in the process of development of second language
acquisition. language learning is a process of discovering the underlying rules, categories
and systems of choice in the language. Thus, in order for this discovery to take place, L2
learners have to go through several stages and processes in making errors. (Corder, 1973).
Concerning with the role error analysis in language teaching, Dulay and Burt (1974) stated
that error making is expected and that it would appear necessary and essential to language
learning. In fact, it is a clear sign to show language learner actually develop and internalize the
rules of the language. While the errors a learner makes provide no direct measure of his
knowledge of the language, it is probably the most important source of information about the
nature of his knowledge.

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2072

 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

From the analysis of the learner’s errors, teachers are able to assume the nature of their
knowledge at that point in his learning and discover what he still has to learn. By describing
and classifying his errors, teachers may build up a picture of the features of the language
which cause him learning problems. A learner’s errors, therefore, are significant to the
teacher, in that they tell him if he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the
goal the learner has progressed and, consequently, what remains for him to learn (Corder,
1981). On the other hand, learner’s errors provide to researchers evidence of how language is
learnt and acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner employ in his discovery of the
language. In fact, errors are essential to the learner himself and it is a method the learner uses
to test his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning.
For language teacher, in fact, teachers can gain much benefit from error analysis and
description because errors provide them with feedback on the effectiveness of their teaching
materials and their teaching techniques. In addition, errors enable teachers to decide whether
they can move on to the next item they have been teaching and they provide the information
for designing an improved syllabus or a plan of improved teaching. Therefore, errors made by
students are major elements in the feedback system of the process of language teaching and
learning. It is on the basis of the information the teacher gets from errors that he modifies his
teaching procedures or materials, the rapidity of the progress, and the amount of practice that
he plans at any point of time.
Dulay and Burt (1974) stated that error making is expected and that it would appear
necessary and essential to language learning. In fact, it is a clear sign to show language learner
actually develop and internalize the rules of the language. While the errors a learner makes
provide no direct measure of his knowledge of the language, it is probably the most important
source of information about the nature of his knowledge. From the analysis of the learner’s
errors, teachers are able to assume the nature of his knowledge at that point in his learning and
discover what he still has to learn. By describing and classifying his errors, teachers may build
up a picture of the features of the language which cause him learning problems. A
learner’s errors, therefore, are significant to the teacher, in that they tell him if he
undertakes a systematic analysis, how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and,
consequently, what remains for him to learn (Corder, 1981).
On the other hand, learner’s errors provide to researchers evidence of how language is
learnt and acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner employ in his discovery of the
language. In fact, errors are essential to the learner himself and it is a method the learner uses
to test his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning.
For language teacher, in fact, teachers can gain much benefit from error analysis and
description because errors provide them with feedback on the effectiveness of their teaching
materials and their teaching techniques. In addition, errors enable teachers to decide whether
they can move on to the next item they have been teaching and they provide the information
for designing an improved syllabus or a plan of improved teaching. Therefore, errors made by
students are major elements in the feedback system of the process of language teaching and
learning. It is on the basis of the information the teacher gets from errors that he modifies his
teaching procedures or materials, the rapidity of the progress, and the amount of practice that
he plans at any point of time.

4.1.Sources of Errors

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2073

 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

Brown (1980:173-181) classifies sources of error into, 1) interlingual transfer, that is the
negative influence of the mother tongue of learner, 2) intralingual transfer, that is the
negative transfer of items within the target language. In order words, the incorrect
generalization of rules within the target language; 3) context of learning, which overlaps both
types of transfer, for example, the classroom with its teacher and its materials in the case
of school learning or the social situation in the case of untutored second language
learning. In a classroom context the teacher or the textbook can lead the learner to
make wrong generalization about the language; 4) communication strategies. It is obvious
that communication strategy is the conscious employment of verbal mechanisms for
communicating an idea when linguistic forms are not available to the learner for some reasons.
There are five main communication strategies, namely:
4.1. 1. Avoidance
Avoidance can be broken down into several subcategories, and thus distinguished
from other types of strategies. The most common type of avoidance strategy is ‘syntactic or
lexical avoidance’ within a semantic category. When a learner, for example, cannot say “I
lost my way” he might avoid the use of way’ and says “I lost my road” instead. “Phonological
avoidance’ is also common, as in the case of a learner of English who finds initial /I/ difficult
to pronounce and wants to say “he is a liar” may choose to say” He dose not speak the
truth”. A more direct type of avoidance is “topic avoidance”, in which a whole topic of
conversation is entirely avoided. To avoid the topic, a learner may change the subject,
pretend not to understand, or simply not respond at all.
4.1.2. Prefabricated patterns
Another common communication strategy is to memorize certain stock phrases or
sentences without understanding the components of the phrases or sentences. “Tourist
survival” language is full of prefabricated patterns, most of which can be found in pocket
bilingual “phrase” books which list hundred of stock sentences for various occasions. The
examples of these prefabricated patterns are “How much does it cost?”, “Where is the
toilet?”. “I don’t speak English” and “I don’t understand you”.
4.1.3 Cognitive and personality style
One’s own personality style or style of thinking can be a source of error, highlighting the
idiosyncratic nature of many learner errors. A reflective and conservative style might
result in very careful but hesitant production of speech with perhaps fewer errors but errors
indicative of the conscious application of rules. Such a person might also commit errors
of over formality. A person with high self-esteem may be willing to risk more errors, in the
interest of communication, because he does not feel as threatened by committing errors with
a person with low self-esteem. In answer to “How did you get here?” a person might be
heard to say, “I drove my bicycle” while another might say, “I pedaled my bicycle” in an
attempt to be precise. Language errors can thus conceivably be traced to sources in certain
personal or cognitive idiosyncrasies.
4. 1. 4. Appeal to authority
Another common strategy of communication is a direct appeal authority. The learner may
directly ask a native speaker (the authority) if he gets stuck by saying, for example,
“How do you say?” Or he might guess and then ask for verification from the native

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2074

 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

speaker of the correctness of the attempt. He might also choose to look a word or structure up
in a bilingual dictionary.
1.1. 5. Language Switch
Finally, when all other strategies fail to produce a meaningful utterance, a learner may
switch to the so-called language switch. That is, he may simply use his native language
whether the hearer knows that native language or not. Usually, just a word or two are
slipped in, in the hope that learner will get the gist of what is being communicated.
1.2. Causes of Error
Norrish (1983:21-26) classifies causes of error into three types that is carelessness, firs
language interference, and translation. The three types of causes of error will be
discussed briefly below.
4.2.1. Carelessness
Carelessness is often closely related to lack of motivation. Many teachers will admit that
it is not always the student’s fault if he loses interest, perhaps the materials and/or style of
presentation do not suit him.
4.2.2.First language
Norrish states that learning a language (a mother tongue or a foreign language) is a matter
of habit formation. When someone tries to learn new habits the old ones will interfere the
new ones. This causes of error is called first language interference”.
4.2.3.Translation
Translation is one of the causes of error. This happens because a student translates his
first language sentence or idiomatic expression in to the target language word by word.
This is probably the most common cause of error. Another expert who discusses the sources
of error is Richards in Schummann and Stenson (1978 : 32) in his article “Error Analysis
and Second language Strategies” . He classifies sources of errors into (1) interference that
is an error resulting from the transfer of grammatical and/or stylistic elements from the source
language to the target language; (2) overgeneralization, that is an error caused by extension of
target language rules to areas where they do not apply; (3) performance error, that is
unsystematic error that occurs as the result of such thing as memory lapses, fatigue, confusion,
or strong emotion; (4) markers of transitional competence, that is an error that results from
a natural and perhaps inevitable development sequence in the second language
learning process (by analogy with first language acquisition); (5) strategy of
communication and assimilation that is an error resulting from the attempt to
communicate in the target language without having completely acquired the
grammatical form necessary to do so; and (6) teacher-induced error, that is an error
resulting from pedagogical procedures contained in the text or employed by the
teacher.
In another article “A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis”, Richards (1971:
19-22) classifies causes of error into 1) overgeneralization, 2) incomplete application of
rules, 3) false concepts hypothesized, and 4) ignorance of rule restriction. To make it clear,
the four classifications above are explained briefly below.

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2075

 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

4.2. 4. Overgeneralization
Overgeneralization generally involves the creationof one deviant structure in place of two
regular structures, for examples, “He can sings”, “We are hope”, “it is occurs”.
4.2. 5. Incomplete Application of rules
An example of incomplete application of rules can be seen in the question forms.
Very often they are used, not to find out something, as they should, but as a means of eliciting
questions through a transform exercise.
The use of question may also be unrelated to the skills it is meant to establish.
Teacher’s questions Student’s responses Ask her how long it takes How long it
takes?How much doIt cost five dollar What does he have to do?He have to do write the
address

4.2.6.Falseconceptshypothesd
False concepts hypothesized are something due to poor gradation of teaching items. The
form ‘was’ for example, may be interpreted as the marker of the past tense, as in
*“one day it was happened”.
4.2.7. Ignorance of rule restriction
Closely related to the generalization of deviant structures is failure to observe the
restriction of existing structures, that is, the application of rules to context where they do
not apply. They man who I saw him violates the limitation on subjects in structure with
who. This is again a type of generalization of transfer, since the learners is making use of
previously acquired rule in a new situation.
There are four descriptive taxonomies to analyze errors, namely linguistic
category taxonomy, surface strategy taxonomy, comparative taxonomy, and
communicative effect taxonomy.
4.3.Linguistic Category Taxonomy
Dulay et al. in Alfim (2011: 27) explain linguistic category taxonomies classify errors
according to either or both the language component and the particular linguistic constituent the
error effects. Language components include phonology (pronunciation), syntax and
morphology (grammar), semantics and lexicon (meaning and vocabulary), and discourse
(style). Constituents include the elements that comprise each language component.
4.4. Surface Strategy Taxonomy
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen in Alfim (2011: 28) state surface strategy taxonomy highlights the
way surface structures are altered. The surface strategy elements of a language.” Among the
common errors are
4.4.1. Omission Errors
Dulay, Burt and Krashen in Alfin (2011:29) argue that ommision errors are characerized by
the absence of an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance. language learenrs ommit
grammatical morpheme much more frequent than content words . For example “ he comes my
house”. the correct one is “ He comes to my house”
4.4.2. Addition Errors

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2076

 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

Addition errors based on Dulay, Burt, and Krashen in Alfim (2011: 29) are
characterized by the presence of an item which must not appear in a well-formed utterance.
There are two categories of addition according to Dulay as cited by Alfim (2011: 30). Those
are:
4.4.3. Double marking
Double marking happens when the learners failed to delete some unnecesary item that
identified as error. For example, as in “She does not reads the book.” In the example, there are
two tenses marker: “does” and “reads”. The used of auxiliary and verb seem as such phenomena that be
common errors in constructing sentences.
4.4.4. Regulation
Regulation occurs when learners confuse to decide the use of regular and irregular form.
For instance: “eated” and “childs”. These kind of errors happened when learners use the
tense marker–ed in irregular verb or when putting the suffix –s in the noun that do not have
the addition –s form.
4.4.5. Misformation Errors
Dulay et al. in Alfim (2011: 31) define misformation errors are characterized by the use of
the wrong form of the morphemes or structure. For example: “I am believing in you.” In this
case the learners were supplied a present continuous tense marker, even though it was just
not the right.
4.4.6. Misordering Errors
Dulay, Burt, and Krashen in Alfim (2011: 31) state misordering errors are characterized by
the incorrect placement of a morpheme or group of morphemes in an utterance. For instance:
“I don‟t know what is that.” The word “is” in this sentence is misordering.
4.5.Comparative Taxonomy
Regarding Dulay, Burt, and Krashen in Alfim (2011: 32), comparative taxonomies classify
errors based on comparison between the structure of language learner errors and certain other
types of construction. The errors are classified into developmental errors (intralingual errors)
and interlingual errors.
4.6.Communicative Effect Taxonomy
Dulay et al. in Alfim (2011: 32) explains communicative effect taxonomy deals with errors
from the perspective of their effect on the listener or reader. This taxonomy classifies errors
into global errors and local errors.
5. Research on Grammatical Error Analysis in Indonesian EFL Adult Learners
There are number of researches conducted on grammatical error analysis in Indonesian EFL
adult leaners. First, research conducted by Josefa J. Mardijono (2003) in investigating linguistic
and surface taxonomy of grammatical errors made by college students in writing thesis
proposal. In linguistic taxonomy, he found out that syntactic grammatical errors were the
most error occurances made by the students. The syntactic elements were mostly found in the
incorrect use of Noun Phrase and Verb Phrase particularly related to subject-verb agreement. In
surface taxonomy, He found that the most type of occurance falls into category of error
ommision. The error omission was found in the use of inflectional suffixes (-‘s), plural
inflection (-es), noun forming derivational suffixes (-ing2), third-person inflection (-“s), past
tense inflection (-ed1), and past participle inflection (-ed2). Another one is conducted by
Matius Tandikombang and et all (2016). In an attempt to find the grammatical error made by
ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2077
 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

college students in translating Indonesia into English, they found that most error occurance was
in the incorrect use of verb. It covered up almost 40 % of total subpredominant grammatical
error in linguistic category. the source of the error are most caused by overgeneralization of
grammatical rule and ignorance of rule restriction. Evlin Yumanda Salim (2016), in her
research to find type of grammtical error made by senior high school students in writing
narrative text, he found that most common error made by the students fall into the incorrect use
of verb simple past tense cover up 16 % and the incorrect use of subject verb agreement. In the
surface strategy, the most common error falls into omission error. Research conducted by
Sugeng Bambang (2014) in order to find grammatical quality of College students among many
universities in spoken English shows that they had low level of grammatical quality in the use
English language to communicate. The grammatical problems that the students made were
found in wide range such as in the incorrect use of verb group, finitive verb, object verb,
subject verb agreement, subject verb concord, predicate, concord of noun, and word choice.
7. Discrite-Point Approach to Grammar Assessment
According to Purpura (2012), the common way to asses grammar knowldge is to use
Selected Response Task (e.g., involving selecting two or more items in assessment) to isolate
and measure recognition and recall of grammatical discrite units (i.e., assess individual
grammar items). The assumption underlying this approach is that learning language involve
acquisition of discrite and finite set of grammar predictable patterns. Example of discrite-point
assesments are phoneme recognition, sentence combine exercise, sentence order, Yes,No/True
False answer, spelling, word completion, error recognition, and multiple choice. The scope of
grammar discrite-points that can be assessed are for example; sentence structute, using and
identifying part of speech, tense aspects, verb-agreement, conditional, passive active sentence,
modality, preposition, clause reported speech etc. Discrite point approach to grammar
assessment is critized for its absence of contextual meaning of lingusitic form use and for its
failure to reflect true ability of grammar acquisition in L2 leaners’ brain. However, for L2
adult beginner, discrite points approach might be useful to strengten their awareness in
metacognitive ( i.e, the use of grammar terminology in assessing grammar) language in
grammar.knowledge.
8. Performance Assement Approach to Grammar Assessment
Performance-based assessment to grammar involves assesss L2 learners’ grammar
knowldge in the form of oral and written production. The goal is to measure how accuracy
lingusitic forms are used in language productive skills. In this approach, L2 learners’
grammatical knowledge can be assessed and measured not only in term of mastery discrite
point grammar but also semantic and pragmatic meaning of linguistic forms that L2 use in oral
or written performace.
9. Production Assessment to Grammar Assessment
Production assessment resolves around measuring grammatical knowledge of L2
learners in the feature of (1) grammatical dimension (e.g., phonological, lexical,
morphosyntactic, cohesive and interactional form and associated meaning, (2) semantic
meaning dimension ( i.e., preposition, idea units), (3) pragmatic meaning dimension ( marker of
stance, coherence, and rhetorical or conversational organization)
10.Conclusion
By using assessment can help teachers determine their learner’s grammar proficiency in
language and help them identify the strenght and the weakneses that the learners have. By
constant assessment wether to measure, to diagnose, to give feedback or to evaluate in
ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2078
 th st
ASEAN Comparative Education Research Network Conference , November 30 – December 01 2016

classroom, teacher can determine how well learners are comprehending grammar knowldge
that has been covered or how much information they have picked up in a specific language
course. Before constructing grammar assessment for L2 learners whether in discrite points,
performance or production approach, teachers need to know why they need to assess grammar
whether to measure, to evaluate or to enpower their learners’ linguistic or communicative
competence, structure or funstion, usage or use, prescriptive or descriptive.

REFERENCES
Brown, H. Dauglas.2003.Language Assessment Principle and Classroom Practice. California:
Longman Com
Corder, S. P. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmonds worth: penguin.
Corder, S.P 1981 Error Analysis and Interlanguage.Oxford: University Press
Dooley, J. & Evan, V. 1994. Grammarway. Berkshire: Express Publishing
Dulay, H.Burt.M & Krashen, S. 1982. language Two. New York: Oxford University Press
Ellis, R.1997. Second language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press
Erdogan, V. 2005. Contribution of Error Analysis to Foreign Language Teaching. Mersin
University Journal of the Faculty ofEducation. 2, 261-270.
Purpura, James. 2014 Asessing Grammar. New York:Wesley & Son Inc
Hendriwanto et all .2013. An Analysis of the Grammatical Errors in the Narrative Writing of
the First Grade Students of SMA 6 Yogjakarta. Journal of Education Vol.6. No.01
Kunnan, Anthony John (2014) Companion to Langaguage Assessment
Marjono., Josefa J. 2003. Indonesian EFL Advance Grammatical Error Jurnal Vol.5. No. 01.
67-90
Purpura, James. 2004. Assessing Gramamar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Putri, Pratiwi Sampurna et all 2014 An Analysis of Grammatical Error in Writing Narrative
Text one by the Second Semester Students at the Diploma Program English Department
in Airlangga University Surabaya Journal Anglicist Vol.03.No.01tudents of English
Department at STAIN Salatiga. Unpublished Thesis. English Department of Education.
Faculty. State Isntitution of Islamic Studies (STAIN) Salatiga.
Rahmawati, Risti Yuni. 2012. Error Analysis on the Use of Simple Present Tense in Paper
Assisgnment of Writing Subject Made by the Fourth Semester S
Richards, J.C. 1971. A Non- Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. Journal of ELT. 25, 204-
219.
Richard, Jack C. 1986. Approach and Method Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Srivasta, Shilpi Rishi. 2014. Accuracy and Fluency in English Classroom. Newman
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. ISSN; 2348-1390.vol.1/4th April
2014
Salim, Evlyn. 2013. An Analysis of Grammtical Error in Students Essay of Past Narrative
Comic. Unpublished Thesis. English Department. Faculty of Language and Art. Satya
Wacana Christian University. Salatiga
Tandikombong, Matius et all. 2016 Grammatical Error in the English Translation Made by the
Students of English Study Program of UKI Toraja ELT worldwide Journal Vol. 3. No.
1. ISSN 2303307-ISSN 2503291.

ISBN: 978-983-2267-95-9 2079