JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM)
Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 261
Linguistic Errors and Descriptive Writing Proficiency in Indonesian EFL Secondary Students Zuhri Efendi 1*.
Sukri Adani 1 STKIP Muhammadiyah Aceh Barat Daya Article Info Article history:
Received 31 October 2025 Revised 1 November 2025 Accepted 2 November 2025 Keywords:
Linguistic Errors.
Descriptive Writing.
L2 Learners.
Coherence.
Clarity ABSTRACT This study examined linguistic error patterns in the descriptive writing of 50 second language learners, using a mixed-methods approach that combined quantitative error counts with qualitative analysis of coherence and clarity.
A total of 253 errors were identified across student responses to prompts such as Aubanana,Ay Aucat,Ay and Autiger.
Ay Grammar errors were the most frequent .
cases, 22.
5%), particularly subjectAeverb agreement and tense misuse, followed by sentence structure .
cases, 2%) and spelling errors .
cases, 20.
2%), with punctuation .
cases, 19.
8%) and capitalization .
cases, 17.
somewhat less common.
Correlation analysis revealed grammar .
= Ae.
, punctuation .
= Ae.
, and sentence structure .
= Ae .
as the strongest predictors of diminished writing quality, while spelling and capitalization played secondary roles.
Qualitative evidence confirmed that grammar, punctuation, and structure errors disrupted logical flow and obscured meaning, whereas spelling and capitalization mainly reduced surface These findings, consistent with L2 writing scholarship (Bitchener, 2012.
Ellis, 2.
, underscore the centrality of grammatical and structural accuracy for coherence in descriptive texts.
Pedagogically, the study recommends targeted grammar instruction, punctuation and sentence boundary practice, and genre-based scaffolding, complemented by digital feedback tools and peer review, to enhance studentsAo ability to produce coherent and reader-friendly descriptive writing.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.
Corresponding Author:
Zuhri Efendi | STKIP Muhammadiyah Aceh Barat Daya Email: zuhrispsa@gmail.
Introduction Descriptive writing is a fundamental skill in language learning, crucial for enabling students to depict people, objects, or phenomena clearly and vividly.
However, in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts such as Indonesia, developing proficiency in descriptive writing remains a persistent challenge.
Learners frequently struggle with linguistic accuracy and textual coherence, which limits their ability to communicate detailed and organized Journal homepage: http://w.
id/index.
php/jiem JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM) Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 262
descriptions effectively.
Studies such as Hyland .
and Ellis .
emphasize the importance of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and sentence structure for writing clarity.
these challenges are particularly pronounced among Indonesian EFL learners due to limited exposure and insufficient instructional support.
The participants in this study comprise 50 second-year senior high school students from IndonesiaAia group at a critical stage of language development, whose writing skills significantly influence their academic progress.
This demographic context enables a focused exploration of linguistic difficulties specific to secondary-level learners within Indonesian EFL classrooms.
Despite extensive research on L2 writing errors (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014.
Kirkpatrick.
Polio, 2.
, there remains a gap in how specific linguistic error types directly impact learnersAo ability to convey descriptive details.
Previous investigations have primarily targeted tertiary-level writers or general writing competencies, whereas secondary-level learners, particularly in Indonesia, remain under-studied (Hapsari.
Sudarman, & Utami.
While regional research such as Darus and SubramaniamAos .
error analysis in Malaysian secondary contexts offers insight into common mistakes, these studies lack a genre-specific focus.
Indonesian literature likewise tends toward narrative and technical writing genres (Azhari.
Setiyadi, & Nurweni, 2.
Given that descriptive text demands unique linguistic and organizational resources for clarity and vividness (Hyland, 2.
, the absence of research linking specific error types to descriptive writing coherence and clarity constrains the development of targeted pedagogy for Indonesian secondary-language This study addresses these gaps by systematically investigating the types, frequencies, and communicative impacts of errors found in descriptive texts authored by Indonesian secondary students.
By analyzing authentic student compositions, the research offers nuanced evidence of the challenges learners encounter in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and sentence structure, elucidating how these factors relate to writing quality and effectiveness.
The studyAos unique contribution lies in its concentrated focus on the relationship between detailed linguistic error patterns and the effectiveness of descriptive writing at the secondary school level in IndonesiaAian under-researched area.
The findings provide critical insights for local EFL pedagogy and curriculum development by highlighting specific linguistic obstacles to clear and coherent descriptive writing.
Theoretically, this research is grounded in interlanguage theory and cognitive frameworks positing that learnersAo evolving linguistic competence fundamentally shapes their discourse coherence (Ortega, 2009.
Sweller, 2.
It aligns with pedagogical models advocating integrated form- and meaning-focused instruction to foster writing development (Bygate.
Hyland, 2.
Anchoring the study within the Indonesian EFL context further amplifies its relevance for addressing region-specific educational needs and informing practical teaching approaches.
Journal homepage: http://w.
id/index.
php/jiem JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM) Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 263
Ultimately, through detailed error analysis, this study contributes novel insights into the interplay between linguistic accuracy and descriptive writing effectiveness, offering evidence-based guidance to enhance descriptive writing proficiency among Indonesian secondary school learners.
This research however attempts to answer the following research questions: What are the most common types of errors made by students in writing descriptive texts? and how do these errors affect the overall coherence and clarity of their writing?.
Method This study employed a mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative error analysis with qualitative evaluation to address the research questions on errors in studentsAo descriptive The data consisted of descriptive paragraphs produced by 50 Indonesian secondyear senior high school students, aged 14Ae15 years, who were asked to write about simple topic such as Aubanana,Ay Aucat,Ay or Autiger.
Ay These tasks were administered as classroom-based essay tests to elicit authentic writing samples in a non-native English-speaking context, as reflected in the error patterns characteristic of English as a Second Language (ESL) learners.
Each composition was examined and annotated using an analytic rubric adapted from Ellis .
and Ferris and Hedgcock .
, focusing on five linguistic categories: grammar .
erb tense, agreement, word for.
, punctuation .
entence boundaries and clarit.
, spelling .
rthographic accurac.
, capitalization .
entence-initial words and proper noun.
, and sentence structure .
ompleteness, coherence, and avoidance of fragments or run-on.
Each category was evaluated on a four-level scale: excellent .
o errors, sophisticated us.
, good .
inor errors, minimal impac.
, fair .
requent errors, some disruptio.
, and poor .
ervasive errors, significant impairmen.
, to systematically capture error types and assess their impact on descriptive effectiveness.
To ensure coding reliability, multiple trained coders independently analyzed a subset of texts, achieving high inter-coder agreement (CohenAos kappa > 0.
Quantitative analysis determined the frequency and proportion of each error type, while qualitative analysis explored the contextual impact of these errors on text coherence and descriptive detail.
Selected examples illustrated typical errors and their effects on writing clarity and communicative success, enabling a comprehensive understanding of linguistic inaccuracies and their implications for Indonesian EFL learnersAo descriptive writing proficiency.
Findings Descriptive Findings A total of 253 errors were identified in the descriptive texts produced by 50 students.
Punctuation errors were the most prevalent, with 50 cases .
8%), primarily involving missing periods, misplaced commas, and run-on sentences that disrupted textual clarity.
Grammar errors followed closely with 57 cases .
5%), with frequent issues in subject-verb agreement .
, "Banana are" in Students 37-40, "Tiger have" in Student .
and incorrect verb tense .
, "tasted" instead of "tastes" in Student .
Sentence structure errors accounted for 51 cases .
2%), often manifesting as fragments .
Student 9: "Tiger yellow Blak") Journal homepage: http://w.
id/index.
php/jiem JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM) Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 264
or run-ons .
Student 37: "Banana are a fruit.
many people like").
Spelling errors also totaled 51 cases .
2%), including misspellings like "corious" (Student .
, "musclest" (Student .
, and "xats" (Student .
Capitalization errors were slightly less frequent, with 44 cases .
4%), predominantly involving inconsistent sentence-initial capitalization .
lowercase "this" in Student .
or improper noun usage .
, lowercase "raja" in Student .
Figure 1.
Frequency of error categories in Student Descriptive Writing These distributions indicate that punctuation and grammar errors most significantly impaired the coherence and clarity of studentsAo descriptive texts.
Punctuation issues, such as missing periods or incorrect commas, often led to fused sentences or fragments, making texts like those of Students 12 and 45 difficult to follow.
Grammar errors, particularly in agreement and tense, reduced descriptive precision, as seen in Students 15 and 49, where subject-verb mismatches obscured meaning.
Sentence structure issues, including fragments and run-ons, further hindered readability, especially in brief responses .
Students 3, 4, .
Spelling errors, while frequent, were less disruptive unless combined with other issues, as in Student 23Aos multiple misspellings ("vas," "stumled").
Capitalization errors contributed to an unpolished appearance, particularly in banana and cat responses .
Students 1, 7, .
Notably, students with fewer errors, like Students 14 and 43, produced more vivid and coherent descriptions, suggesting that mastery of grammar and punctuation is critical for effective descriptive writing.
The results highlight that the primary barriers to clarity lie in the accurate application of punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure, with spelling and capitalization as secondary challenges.
Most Common Errors and Their Impact on Coherence and Clarity To address the research questionAiwhat are the most common types of errors in studentsAo descriptive texts, and how do these affect coherence and clarityAian error analysis of 50 student responses was conducted using an analytic rubric adapted from Ellis .
and Ferris and Hedgcock .
The rubric evaluated grammar .
erb tense, agreement, word for.
, punctuation .
entence boundaries, clarit.
, spelling .
rthographic accurac.
Journal homepage: http://w.
id/index.
php/jiem JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM) Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 265
entence-initial words, proper noun.
, and sentence structure .
ompleteness, coherence, avoidance of fragments/run-on.
The analysis revealed distinct error patterns and their implications for effective descriptive writing, with variations across topics .
anana, cat, tige.
providing further insight into error prevalence and impact.
Most Common Error Types Grammar errors were the most frequent, totaling 57 instances .
5%), primarily driven by subject-verb agreement issues and verb tense inaccuracies.
Agreement errors were particularly evident in banana responses, such as "Banana are a fruit" (Student .
, where singular subjects were paired with plural verbs, reflecting overgeneralization common in L2 learners (Ellis, 2.
Tense errors, like "tasted" instead of "tastes" in Student 1Aos banana description, deviated from the present tense expected in general descriptions, disrupting temporal consistency.
Sentence structure errors tied with spelling at 51 instances each .
2%).
Fragments were prevalent in brief responses, such as Student 9Aos "Tiger yellow Blak," which lacked verbs, while run-ons dominated longer texts, like Student 27Aos "A cat is a small pet animal.
It has four legs sharp claws and teeth, bright eyes and a furry tail its body is covered with soft and silky hair.
" Punctuation errors, with 50 cases .
8%), included missing periods .
Student .
, misplaced commas .
Student 45Aos "Cat, its a animal cute,"), and absent apostrophes, leading to fused sentences.
Spelling errors, also at 51 cases, affected descriptive vocabulary, with misspellings like "corious" (Student .
, "musclest" (Student .
, and "xats" (Student .
Capitalization errors, the least frequent at 44 cases .
4%), involved inconsistent sentence-initial capitalization .
, "this is a banana plant," Student .
and proper noun issues .
, lowercase "siberian" in Student .
Impact on Coherence Coherence, defined as the logical flow of ideas, was most severely disrupted by sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation errors.
Sentence structure issues, particularly fragments, halted idea progression.
Student 9Aos "Tiger yellow Blak" fails to connect attributes into a cohesive image, leaving readers to infer relationships.
Run-ons, as in Student 37Aos banana text, fused unrelated ideas about fruit, trees, and taste, overwhelming logical transitions.
Grammar errors exacerbated this, with agreement issues like "Tiger have" (Student .
creating illogical pairings that forced readers to pause and reinterpret.
Punctuation errors, such as missing periods in Student 12Aos "Cat its animal She cute.
eye Beautiful," fragmented ideas, disrupting the flow from one feline attribute to another.
Ferris and Hedgcock .
argue that such errors act as barriers to textual unity by obscuring relationships between descriptive elements.
Spelling and capitalization errors had a secondary impact.
misspellings in Student 23Aos narrative ("vas," "stumled," "folward") broke reading rhythm, while inconsistent capitalization, like lowercase "his" in Student 24, signaled disorganization, subtly weakening the logical progression of ideas.
Topic-specific patterns showed banana responses suffering most from run-ons .
Students 37-.
, cat responses from fragments .
Students 12, .
, and tiger responses from mixed errors .
Student .
, reflecting varying complexity in descriptive intent.
Journal homepage: http://w.
id/index.
php/jiem JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM) Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 266
Impact on Clarity Clarity, the ease of understanding, was primarily undermined by grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure errors.
Grammar issues, such as tense shifts in Student 15Aos "The tiger are basically a bit cat," obscured the intended comparison to "big cats," muddling the tigerAos prominence as the largest feline.
Punctuation lapses, like Student 45Aos erratic commas in "Cat, its a animal cute she has two ears and four legs She tail so long," created ambiguous boundaries, making it unclear whether phrases described the tail or other features.
Sentence structure errors, especially fragments, left meanings incomplete.
Student 3Aos "Banana Plan Yellow" lacks verbs, forcing readers to guess intent.
Ellis .
notes that such interlanguage gaps impede precise communication, requiring extra cognitive effort from Spelling errors had a moderate impact.
isolated misspellings like "corious" (Student .
were decipherable, but multiple errors in Student 42Aos "ist," "cild," "sothat" severely obscured narrative clarity.
Capitalization errors, though less severe, detracted from lowercase starts in Student 1 made texts harder to parse.
Across topics, banana texts suffered clarity loss from brevity and run-ons, cat texts from fragmented pronouns .
Student .
, and tiger texts from spelling-heavy errors .
Student .
, diluting vivid details like stripes or habitats.
Topic-Specific Insights and Error Interactions The distribution of errors varied by topic, reflecting task complexity and student proficiency.
Banana responses .
Students 1, 5, 37-.
were often brief, amplifying punctuation and sentence structure errors.
For instance.
Student 37Aos run-on fused attributes like "long curved yellow" and "tall tree," reducing clarity about the plantAos features.
Cat responses .
Students 12, 13, .
showed frequent grammar and punctuation errors, with fragments like "eye Beautiful" (Student .
obscuring elegant traits.
Tiger responses .
Students 23, .
were longer, with more spelling and run-on errors.
Student 49Aos "they are carnivores wich means they eat meats only" lost clarity due to missing commas and misspellings.
Students with minimal errors, like Student 14Aos vivid "fluffy cat with a coat of snow-white fur" or Student 43Aos clear cat description, achieved high coherence and clarity, underscoring the role of linguistic accuracy.
Error interactions were notable: grammar and punctuation errors often co-occurred .
Student 49Aos agreement and punctuation issue.
, amplifying disruptions, while spelling and capitalization errors compounded unpolished impressions in brief texts .
Student .
Quantitative Correlation Analysis The mean composite score was 12.
32 (SD = 4.
, indicating average performance at a fair level, with some disruption to coherence and clarity.
The composite score range was 6 to 20, with the maximum score of 20 (Student .
reflecting error-free, sophisticated writing .
AuItAos white and grey in color.
It has lovely green eyesA.
and the minimum score of 6 (Students 9, .
indicating pervasive errors .
Student 9Aos AuTiger yellow Blak,Ay Student 42Aos Auist,Ay AusothatA.
Category-specific means showed spelling (M = 2.
, capitalization (M = 2.
and sentence structure (M = 2.
approaching good performance, while grammar (M = .
and punctuation (M = 2.
were weaker, aligning with their higher error counts Journal homepage: http://w.
id/index.
php/jiem JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM) Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 267
rammar: 57, punctuation: .
The standard deviation .
suggests moderate variability, with some students achieving near-excellent performance and others struggling with pervasive errors.
Figure 2.
Mean Scores and Correlation Coefficients by Error Category The analysis revealed strong negative correlations between composite rubric scores and errors in grammar .
= -0.
70, p < 0.
, punctuation .
= -0.
65, p < 0.
, and sentence structure .
= -0.
63, p < 0.
These findings indicate that higher frequencies of these errors were associated with lower writing quality, as seen in examples like Student 15Aos AuThe tiger areAy .
rammar erro.
Student 45Aos run-on sentences .
unctuation error.
, and Student 9Aos AuTiger yellow BlakAy .
entence structure fragmen.
, which disrupted clarity and coherence in the descriptive texts.
Weaker but statistically significant correlations were observed for spelling .
= -0.
35, p = .
and capitalization .
= -0.
30, p = 0.
, suggesting a less pronounced impact on writing For instance, spelling errors like Student 23Aos AuvasAy and capitalization errors like Student 1Aos lowercase AuthisAy had a limited effect on readability unless combined with other The moderate score variability (SD = 4.
and wide score range .
Ae.
reflect diverse proficiency levels among students, with some achieving near-excellent performance .
Student .
and others struggling with pervasive errors .
Students 9, .
Discussion The error analysis of 50 student descriptive texts revealed a total of 253 errors, distributed across grammar .
5%), sentence structure .
2%), spelling .
2%), punctuation .
8%), and capitalization .
4%).
This distribution underscores the multifaceted nature of learnersAo difficulties, where sentence-level errors, particularly in grammar, punctuation, and structure, emerged as the most significant disruptors of textual coherence and clarity.
These findings corroborate established research in L2 writing, which highlights persistent Journal homepage: http://w.
id/index.
php/jiem JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM) Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 268
challenges in grammatical accuracy and syntactic cohesion (Bitchener, 2012.
Ellis, 2016.
Lee, 2.
Grammar errors were especially salient, with subjectAeverb disagreement .
AuBanana are,Ay Student 37.
AuTiger have,Ay Student .
and tense misuse .
AutastedAy for Autastes,Ay Student .
reflecting interlanguage influences where learners transfer or overgeneralize L1 patterns.
These errors compromised logical relationships within sentences, creating semantic disruptions that required readers to reconstruct meaning.
Punctuation issues, particularly missing periods and misplaced commas .
Student 45Aos AuCat, its a animal cute she has two ears and four legsA.
, further undermined readability by fusing clauses or creating abrupt Such findings echo Ferris and HedgcockAos .
argument that punctuation operates as a scaffold for textual coherence, where errors disrupt the rhythm and intelligibility of prose.
Sentence structure errors also featured prominently, often in the form of fragments .
AuTiger yellow Blak,Ay Student .
or extended run-ons .
Student 27Aos description of cat.
These errors not only obscured syntactic boundaries but also distorted the logical progression of descriptive details.
Spelling and capitalization, while frequent, were less damaging unless clustered with other errors.
For example.
Student 23Aos multiple misspellings (Auvas,Ay Aumusclest,Ay AustumledA.
combined with tense errors to obscure meaning more severely than isolated orthographic inaccuracies like Student 14Aos Aucorious.
Ay Similarly, capitalization errors, such as lowercase sentence starters (Authis is a banana plant,Ay Student .
, primarily weakened surface polish rather than meaning, supporting LeeAos .
view of capitalization as a secondary concern.
The quantitative analysis reinforced these qualitative observations.
Strong negative correlations were observed between writing quality and errors in grammar .
= Ae.
70, p < .
= Ae.
65, p < .
, and sentence structure .
= Ae.
63, p < .
, confirming these as the most predictive indicators of diminished coherence and clarity.
Spelling .
= Ae.
35, p = .
and capitalization .
= Ae.
30, p = .
displayed weaker but statistically significant relationships, suggesting a more limited role in shaping comprehensibility.
For example.
Student 15Aos subjectAeverb disagreement (AuThe tiger areA.
or Student 45Aos punctuation lapses distorted meaning far more acutely than Student 1Aos lowercase Authis.
Ay These results underscore FerrisAos .
contention that error gravity is hierarchically stratified: sentencelevel disruptions create cognitive overload for readers, while mechanical infractions primarily affect polish and professionalism.
Error patterns varied across topics, reflecting differences in task complexity and descriptive Shorter banana responses tended to magnify punctuation and structural issues .
Students 3Ae.
, while cat descriptions often suffered from fragments and agreement errors .
Student .
Longer tiger responses exhibited more spelling and run-on errors .
Student 23.
Authey are carnivores wich means they eat meats onlyA.
, suggesting that extended texts impose heavier linguistic demands, exposing weaknesses across multiple These topic-specific variations align with HylandAos .
genre-based Journal homepage: http://w.
id/index.
php/jiem JOURNAL INFORMATIC.
EDUCATION AND MANAGEMENT (JIEM) Vol 8 No 1 .
: September 2025 - February 2026, pp.
ISSN: 2716-0696.
DOI: 10.
61992/jiem.
A 269
framework, which emphasizes that writing tasks activate distinct linguistic resources, with less proficient learners struggling to marshal them effectively.
The interaction of errors also warrants attention.
Grammar and punctuation errors frequently co-occurred .
Student 49Aos AuTiger haveAy combined with missing comma.
, compounding disruptions to meaning.
Polio and Park .
note that such clustering exacerbates reader confusion, as multiple errors accumulate to obscure text-level cohesion.
Conversely, texts with minimal errors, such as Student 14Aos vivid Aufluffy cat with a coat of snow-white furAy or Student 43Aos polished feline description, demonstrated how accuracy supports descriptive vividness, confirming the strong link between linguistic control and rhetorical effectiveness.
Conclusion The findings confirm that the most consequential errors in L2 descriptive writing occur in grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure, as these categories exert the strongest negative influence on coherence and clarity.
Grammar errors disrupt logical relations, punctuation errors blur sentence boundaries, and structural issues fragment or overload ideas, collectively diminishing reader comprehension.
Spelling and capitalization, though frequent, were less disruptive to meaning, primarily affecting surface polish and perceived Quantitative correlation analysis validated these patterns, showing that grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure are the strongest predictors of reduced writing quality, while spelling and capitalization exert only secondary effects.
These results carry significant pedagogical implications.
Targeted interventions should prioritize subjectAeverb agreement, tense consistency, sentence boundary control, and syntactic cohesion, using explicit instruction and focused feedback to address recurring interlanguage challenges.
Genre-based approaches (Hyland, 2.
may further help learners internalize the linguistic conventions of descriptive writing, while scaffolded tasks can gradually build fluency without overwhelming cognitive resources.
Ultimately, enhancing accuracy in grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure is essential for enabling learners to produce coherent, vivid, and communicatively effective descriptive texts in English.
References