Indonesian Orthographic Errors in Student Observation Reports at Senior High School

Authors

  • Diza Artamevia Indonesian Language and Literature Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Tadulako, Palu, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v14i2.13123

Keywords:

error analysis; Indonesian orthography; observation reports; secondary education; writing instruction

Abstract

Orthographic accuracy helps observation reports communicate factual information through consistent word forms and clear sentence boundaries. This study describes Indonesian orthographic errors in observation reports written by Grade X students at SMA Negeri 3 Palu during the 2025–2026 academic year. A descriptive qualitative design was employed. Data were obtained through classroom observation, a report writing task, and documentation of student texts. Analysis followed data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing, with interpretations aligned with the fifth edition of the Enhanced Indonesian Orthography guidelines. The reported examples revealed inappropriate capitalization of common words, lowercase country names, inconsistent separation of prepositions and passive prefixes, nonstandard abbreviations, inaccurate technical vocabulary, and problems with sentence punctuation. Illustrative corrections include “indonesia” to “Indonesia,” “di observasi” to “diobservasi,” and “didalam nya” to “di dalamnya.” The analysis also distinguishes integrated Indonesian technical terms from Latin scientific names and ordinary lexical misspellings, preventing unrelated forms from being grouped indiscriminately as loanword errors. These findings suggest that instruction should connect orthographic rules with grammatical function, report organization, and purposeful revision. Teachers can use short contextual editing tasks, terminology lists, and guided peer review to help students explain their corrections. Because corpus size and category frequencies were not specified in the research documentation, the findings describe error forms rather than prevalence or comparative error rates. Further research should document the corpus transparently and investigate whether contextual editing instruction improves accuracy across successive writing tasks. The study contributes contextual examples that link formal conventions with decisions made during authentic report writing.

References

Afkarina, D. R. (2021). Analisis kesalahan penggunaan bahasa Indonesia dalam bidang diksi dan ejaan pada teks laporan hasil observasi siswa kelas X SMAN 7 Malang [Analysis of Indonesian diction and orthographic errors in Grade X observation reports at SMAN 7 Malang]. Jurnal Penelitian, Pendidikan, dan Pembelajaran, 16(14). Retrieved from https://jim.unisma.ac.id/index.php/jp3/article/view/11642

Amalia, C., Seli, S., & Heryana, N. (2025). Analisis kesalahan berbahasa pada teks pidato siswa kelas VIII H SMP Negeri 1 Sungai Raya [Analysis of language errors in speech texts by Grade VIII H students at SMP Negeri 1 Sungai Raya]. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa, 14(4), 650–659. https://doi.org/10.26418/jppk.v14i4.89123

Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa (2022). Ejaan bahasa Indonesia yang disempurnakan [Enhanced Indonesian orthography] (5th ed.). Jakarta, Indonesia: Author. Retrieved from https://ejaan.kemendikdasmen.go.id/

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1–4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161

Darwati, E., & Fitriani, Y. (2019). Analisis kesalahan penggunaan bahasa Indonesia dalam laporan hasil observasi pada siswa SMA [Analysis of Indonesian language errors in senior secondary students’ observation reports]. Jurnal Pembahsi (Pembelajaran Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia), 9(1). https://doi.org/10.31851/pembahsi.v9i1.4237

Febriana, H. A., Supriadi, O., & Setiawan, H. (2023). Analisis kesalahan ejaan bahasa Indonesia dalam laporan praktik kerja industri siswa SMK Texmaco Karawang [Analysis of Indonesian orthographic errors in industrial placement reports by SMK Texmaco Karawang students]. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, 12(1), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.31571/bahasa.v12i1.4268

Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406

Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Madehang, M., Masruddin, M., & Iksan, M. (2024). Reflecting on the Implementation of Online English Learning in Islamic Higher Education: Lecturers and Students’ Perspectives. International Journal of Asian Education, 5(3), 183-197.

Masruddin, Hartina, S., Arifin, M. A., & Langaji, A. (2024). Flipped learning: facilitating student engagement through repeated instruction and direct feedback. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2412500.

Munira, F., & Utami, S. P. T. (2025). Indonesian spelling errors in the text of observation report written by students. J-LELC: Journal of Language Education, Linguistics, and Culture, 5(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.25299/j-lelc.2025.22135

Downloads

Published

2026-11-10

Citation Check