https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/48058
Analysis of Common Errors Made by Second Year English Language Department Students in Writing Academic Paragraph: The Case of Gilgel Beles CTE by Tadesse Hirpa
This article investigates the pervasive grammatical errors hindering academic writing proficiency among second-year English language students at Gilgel Beles College of Teachers Education (CTE), Ethiopia. Through a mixed-method analysis of 45 students’ essays and surveys of six instructors, the study identifies critical gaps in grammar mastery, including passive voice misuse, verb tense inconsistencies, and spelling inaccuracies. Root causes such as insufficient practice, outdated teaching methods, and low motivation are explored, alongside actionable recommendations for curriculum reform and pedagogical innovation. The findings underscore the urgent need to address systemic barriers to effective English writing instruction in non-native contexts.
Introduction
Writing in English remains a formidable challenge for non-native speakers, particularly in academic settings where precision and coherence are paramount. In Ethiopia, despite over a decade of formal English education, students frequently struggle to produce error-free paragraphs—a critical skill for academic and professional success. This article examines a 2019 study conducted at Gilgel Beles CTE, which analyzed grammatical and structural errors in second-year English majors’ academic writing. By dissecting student essays and instructor feedback, the research highlights systemic issues in pedagogy, curriculum design, and student engagement that perpetuate writing deficiencies. The implications extend beyond Ethiopia, offering insights into broader challenges faced by EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners globally.
Methodology
The study employed a mixed-method design, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative error analysis. Participants included 45 students and six instructors from Gilgel Beles CTE. Students composed 150–200-word paragraphs on “causes of environmental pollution,” while both groups completed Likert-scale questionnaires adapted from Korbel (2001). Errors were categorized into grammatical domains, such as verb forms and prepositions, and contextual factors, including teaching methods and motivation. Data triangulation ensured a comprehensive understanding of both symptoms (errors) and causes (systemic weaknesses).
Key Findings
The study revealed persistent grammatical errors across student essays, with passive voice misuse emerging as a dominant issue. Approximately 32% of errors stemmed from incorrect passive constructions, such as “Environmental pollution is causes by…” instead of “is caused.” Verb tense inconsistencies accounted for 28% of mistakes, exemplified by phrases like “We can doing cook” instead of “can cook.” Subject-verb agreement errors, such as “Human being are…” instead of “is,” comprised 23% of inaccuracies. Spelling and mechanical errors further compounded the problem, with 37.8% of students identifying spelling as a major hurdle. Essays featured frequent inaccuracies, such as “deissess” for “diseases,” reflecting gaps in foundational literacy.
Systemic factors exacerbated these challenges. A striking 71.1% of students attributed their struggles to outdated, grammar-heavy instruction that prioritized rote memorization over practical application. Compounding this, 86.7% reported minimal writing opportunities in prior education, correlating directly with error frequency. Motivational barriers also loomed large, with 71.1% citing low confidence and disengaged classrooms as deterrents to practice. Instructors echoed these concerns, with 66.7% criticizing textbooks for neglecting writing in favor of speaking exercises.
Discussion
The study exposes a stark disconnect between students’ theoretical grammar knowledge and their ability to apply it. While instructors emphasized grammar during lessons, students’ essays revealed persistent misunderstandings, suggesting that rote learning alone fails to cultivate competency. For instance, passive voice errors like “Environmental pollution can caused…” instead of “can be caused” indicate confusion between active and passive structures, likely stemming from insufficient contextual practice.
Mother-tongue interference further complicated learning. Amharic, Ethiopia’s primary language, lacks articles and employs distinct word order, leading to errors such as “tree cutting” instead of “cutting trees.” This aligns with prior research by Jain (1974), who attributes such morphological errors to overgeneralization and simplification strategies. Additionally, 55.6% of students acknowledged that Amharic syntax influenced their English writing, underscoring the need for targeted cross-linguistic instruction.
Motivational barriers emerged as equally critical. As Holaday (1997) observes, students who perceive themselves as poor writers often avoid writing, perpetuating a cycle of incompetence. At Gilgel Beles, 35.6% of students admitted avoiding writing due to fear of errors, a sentiment mirrored by instructors who noted classroom disengagement. This lack of confidence, coupled with sparse practice opportunities, stifled progress.
Implications for Policy and Pedagogy
Addressing these challenges demands systemic reforms. Curriculum redesign should prioritize daily writing exercises across disciplines, moving beyond grammar drills to foster creativity and critical thinking. For example, integrating reflective journals or argumentative essays in science and humanities courses could contextualize writing as a universal skill. Teacher training programs must also evolve, equipping educators with modern techniques like peer review, digital tools, and process writing. Workshops on interactive pedagogy could help instructors transition from traditional lecture-based methods to student-centered approaches.
Student motivation warrants equal attention. Collaborative projects, such as group essays or class blogs, could mitigate fear of individual failure while promoting peer learning. Gamified activities, like “error hunts” in sample texts, might demystify mistakes and reduce anxiety. Schools should also invest in supplementary resources, such as writing guides and online platforms, to compensate for textbook limitations.
Conclusion
The writing crisis at Gilgel Beles CTE reflects broader struggles in EFL education, where structural and motivational barriers impede proficiency. By addressing root causes—through curriculum innovation, teacher empowerment, and student engagement—Ethiopian institutions can transform writing from a daunting chore into a cultivable skill. As globalization intensifies, nurturing competent English writers is not merely academic; it is a socioeconomic imperative. This study serves as both a warning and a roadmap, urging stakeholders to prioritize writing as the cornerstone of language mastery.
References
- Holaday, L. (1997). Writing Students Need Coaches, Not Judges. NCTE.
- Jain, M. (1974). Error Analysis: Source, Cause and Significance. Longman.
- Korbel, M. (2001). Strengthening Student Writing Skills. Saint Xavier University.
- Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.