A Mixed-Methods Comparative Analysis of Grammatical Errors in Handwritten and Digitally Typed Academic Writing of Sri Lankan EAP Undergraduates

Authors

  • P. B. S. L. Pushpakumara Department of English Language Teaching, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka; International Center for Multidisciplinary Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0773-2805
  • K. S. P. Dias Department of English Language Teaching, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka
  • T. L. Obeysekara Department of English Language Teaching, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka

Abstract

This study investigated the types and the causes of grammatical errors in handwritten and digitally typed essays produced by second-year English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students in a Sri Lankan state university. Although previous studies (Jayasundara & Premarathna, 2011; Abeywickrama, 2010) have focused on handwritten essays, little is known about how digital typing affects grammatical accuracy in writing.  Adopting a mixed-methods design, the study combined quantitative error analysis of student essays with qualitative data from a questionnaire. Using Corder’s (1967) Error Analysis framework and Selinker’s (1972) Interlanguage Theory as the main theoretical frameworks, handwritten and digitally typed essays produced by 22 undergraduates were analyzed to identify error patterns. Errors were categorized as omission, addition, substitution, misordering, or tense and subject–verb agreement errors. The questionnaire was used to explore contextual factors contributing to these errors. The research found that students made numerous mistakes in article usage and verb tense and subject-verb agreement throughout both their handwritten and their typed essays. The handwritten essays contained more spelling and mechanical errors whereas the digitally typed essays displayed greater typographical and lexical errors which resulted from excessive dependence on technological resources. Participants also reported that authentic English exposure and L1 influence and lack of guided practice and insufficient constructive feedback together caused these errors.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.31357/fhss/vjhss.v11i02.02

Downloads

Published

2026-07-01