Linguistic Difficulties in Undergraduate Academic Writing Within an English-Medium Instruction Context

In addition to genre awareness, academic writing is characterized by linguistic accuracy, including logical coherence, grammatical correctness, syntactic precision, and appropriate lexical selection (C​a​m​p​b​e​l​l​,​ ​2​0​1​9). In the English-medium instruction context, mastering writing skills in English is crucial for boosting academic performance (S​u​b​a​n​d​o​w​o​ ​&​ ​S​á​r​d​i​,​ ​2​0​2​3). Undergraduate students often encounter various difficulties in mastering their writing skills, which results in their poor academic performance due to spelling errors, grammatical errors, and complexity in illustrating ideas coherently (T​a​y​e​ ​&​ ​M​e​n​g​e​s​h​a​,​ ​2​0​2​4). To develop writing instructions and curricula effectively, it is crucial to consider these complexities.

Globalization and technological advancements make English an effective tool for communication, and English serves as a lingua franca worldwide (G​a​l​l​o​w​a​y​ ​&​ ​N​u​m​a​j​i​r​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0; M​c​K​a​y​,​ ​2​0​1​8). English plays a prominent role in learners’ career opportunities and academic performance (N​a​g​e​e​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​5). In higher education institutions, these opportunities help to facilitate the inclusion of English as a medium of instruction to become a global hub for education (S​a​h​ ​&​ ​F​a​n​g​,​ ​2​0​2​5) along with the colonial past. In the English-medium instruction context, proficiency in English is considered as a key instrument for university admission requirements as well as academic progress (L​i​ ​&​ ​A​k​r​a​m​,​ ​2​0​2​4; S​a​h​ ​&​ ​F​a​n​g​,​ ​2​0​2​5) in various countries, including Bangladesh, where English-medium instruction policies have been adopted in response to globalization. However, attaining proficiency in English writing is important for completing academic tasks as part of the course for undergraduate students (L​i​ ​&​ ​A​k​r​a​m​,​ ​2​0​2​4) and for future career prospects.

Writing is a unique way of thinking (F​l​o​w​e​r​ ​&​ ​H​a​y​e​s​,​ ​1​9​8​1) and a technical language skill that facilitates the coherent expression of thoughts for fruitful communication (T​a​y​e​ ​&​ ​M​e​n​g​e​s​h​a​,​ ​2​0​2​4). In the context of higher education, writing, such as assignments, theses and scholarly papers, is significant for enhancing the academic performance of undergraduate students. Maintaining grammatical structure, word choice, and syntactic and semantic forms accurately in written form is crucial for enhancing the quality and acceptability of writing. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have attempted to identify writing difficulties and causes behind poor writing qualities (A​l​-​N​a​f​j​a​n​ ​&​ ​A​l​h​a​w​s​a​w​i​,​ ​2​0​2​2; M​o​h​a​m​m​a​d​i​ ​&​ ​M​u​s​t​a​f​a​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Effective writing in an academic context is significant for conveying messages properly and attracting readers’ attention in terms of writing quality, authenticity and trustworthiness. Owing to multidimensional features in organizing ideas coherently with grammatical and syntactic correctness, writing is a difficult task in second language acquisition (K​h​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​2). In terms of disparities and differences in linguistic background and familiarity with academic writing, undergraduate students face numerous complexities in academic writing. These complexities, as suggested by previous studies (M​o​h​a​m​m​a​d​i​ ​&​ ​M​u​s​t​a​f​a​,​ ​2​0​2​0; N​u​r​u​z​z​a​m​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​8; T​a​y​e​ ​&​ ​M​e​n​g​e​s​h​a​,​ ​2​0​2​4), include errors at the morphological and syntactic levels, vocabulary and word choice, illustrating messages in written form coherently and interference with the first language. Additionally, for non-native learners, grammar is a major concern in attaining writing proficiency (N​u​r​u​z​z​a​m​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​8).

Generally, grammatical misuses result from incorrect tense usage, subject-verb agreement, pronoun-antecedent (L​i​ ​&​ ​A​k​r​a​m​,​ ​2​0​2​4), preposition and number (Ö​z​k​a​y​r​a​n​ ​&​ ​Y​ı​l​m​a​z​,​ ​2​0​2​0). G​a​y​o​ ​&​ ​W​i​d​o​d​o​ ​(​2​0​1​8​) noted that grammatical errors extend to both the morphological and syntactic levels. Similarly, inappropriate word choice is frequently found in writings that indicate learners’ short range of vocabulary knowledge (T​a​y​e​ ​&​ ​M​e​n​g​e​s​h​a​,​ ​2​0​2​4). R​a​h​m​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​4​) reported that along with grammatical difficulties, limited lexical knowledge leads to inappropriate choices of vocabulary that create a significant gap between intended meaning and manifested expression. The clarity of texts is also reduced by the misuse of mechanics such as misspelling, the misuse of punctuation marks and the inconsistent usage of capitalization (D​o​b​r​i​ć​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​1). Taken together, these complexities weaken the accuracy and quality of academic writing tasks. Beyond grammatical issues, learners often face difficulties in organizing thoughts in written form. The use of cohesion devices is crucial for maintaining the flow of ideas. Owing to the lack of awareness and poor organizing skills in writing, learners often struggle to form ideas logically, resulting in an ill-fragmented way. As a result, academic standards in writing are constrained by complexities at the discourse level.

Furthermore, external factors, such as learners’ sociocultural backgrounds, play a significant role in shaping learners’ language learning strategies and academic performance. Female students present better writing ability than male students, as reported by A​d​a​m​s​ ​&​ ​S​i​m​m​o​n​s​ ​(​2​0​1​9​). A​l​-​S​a​a​d​i​ ​(​2​0​2​0​) emphasized that better proficiency in the English language leads to female superiority in terms of writing quality and fluency. Academic support is another crucial factor that shapes learners’ psychological aspects in writing proficiency. Additionally, instructor stringency in the academic context also leads to anxiety prior to the task (A​l​ ​F​r​a​i​d​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​5), which is another concern that ultimately degrades writing quality and accuracy. H​o​s​s​a​i​n​ ​(​2​0​2​4​) argued that underlying issues such as cultural phenomena play an important role in the language learning and teaching context. Thus, sociocultural aspects are interrelated in shaping learners’ academic writing performance. Additionally, Y​a​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​2​5​) illustrated that students from urban areas outperform those from rural areas in terms of reading and writing literacy and emphasized that the role of urban-influenced curricula and assessment criteria also makes this kind of difference. Inequalities in socioeconomic opportunities also constrain learners’ proficiency in language learning and writing skills (R​a​z​z​a​q​ ​&​ ​H​a​m​z​a​h​,​ ​2​0​2​4), which appears in the rural context. Similarly, T​e​r​a​s​a​w​a​ ​(​2​0​2​5​) reported that socio-economic status is strongly responsible for attaining English proficiency, which influences the ability to obtain academic support and learning materials in the learning context. As a result, disparity in mastering writing proficiency is observed among learners from different backgrounds.

To address profound challenges and opportunities in the globalized world, developing countries, such as Bangladesh, have also adopted English learning as a compulsory subject and as a medium of instruction in higher education institutions (K​h​a​n​o​m​,​ ​2​0​1​4; Y​o​u​n​u​s​,​ ​2​0​2​4). Since English is used as a compulsory subject from the first to twelfth grades (R​a​h​m​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​9), the national curriculum nominally addresses improving language skills in terms of speaking, listening, reading and writing. English classes primarily focus on grammar and vocabulary drills, passage comprehension, literature studies and examination performance, with instruction still predominantly conducted in Bangla (C​h​o​w​d​h​u​r​y​ ​&​ ​L​e​ ​H​a​,​ ​2​0​0​8). As a result, undergraduates have a modest English language proficiency, with a majority coming from Bangla-medium-of-instruction schools. Without an official status, English is acknowledged as the second language after Bangla and serves as a medium of instruction in both public and private universities (K​h​a​n​o​m​,​ ​2​0​1​4; R​a​h​m​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​2). However, many students enroll in universities where English is used as a medium of instruction despite having limited prior exposure to English-medium instruction. As a result, to enhance proficiency in English as well as in academic writing, various accredited courses have been incorporated into undergraduate curricula (M​u​n​i​r​u​z​z​a​m​a​n​ ​&​ ​A​f​r​i​n​,​ ​2​0​2​4; R​a​h​m​a​n​ ​&​ ​H​a​s​a​n​,​ ​2​0​1​9). However, students face numerous challenges in maintaining linguistic accuracy in academic writing. Y​o​u​n​u​s​ ​(​2​0​2​4​) illustrated the writing difficulties of Bangladeshi undergraduate learners in conveying ideas into written form coherently and emphasized students’ writing challenges, including errors in grammatical issues, difficulties in word use, and poor organizational skills (M​u​n​i​r​u​z​z​a​m​a​n​ ​&​ ​A​f​r​i​n​,​ ​2​0​2​4; R​a​h​m​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4), which degrade writing quality and acceptance. Underlying issues such as first language interference, poor knowledge about academic writing and pressure for course completion restrain learners’ academic writing proficiency. To understand writing difficulties related to linguistic accuracy, previous studies have focused primarily on the frequency analysis of writing errors (R​a​h​m​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​2; T​a​y​e​ ​&​ ​M​e​n​g​e​s​h​a​,​ ​2​0​2​4).

To address these limitations, this study investigated the patterns of linguistic difficulties as well as underlying issues related to external factors. The external factors related to academic writing difficulties, such as gender and the role of undergraduate discipline, remain unexplored. Understanding these factors’ roles is crucial for developing writing instruction and teaching methods, as well as targeted interventions. By examining the roles of these underlying factors, this study aims to explore linguistic difficulties in the academic writing of Bangladeshi undergraduate students in the English-medium instruction context. Consequently, this study intends to address the following research questions:

(i) What are the most recurrent linguistic error types and categories in the academic writing of undergraduate students in the English-medium instruction context?

(ii) Is there any difference in producing major linguistic error categories with respect to the student’s gender and undergraduate discipline?

This study employed a descriptive cross-sectional design to examine patterns of writing errors. The main objective of this study was to investigate the types and major categories of academic writing errors produced by students in the English-medium instruction context. In addition to the manual error analysis procedure used to identify error types and major categories, several quantitative analyses were applied to illustrate the distribution of error frequency.

Undergraduate students from Dhaka University participated in this study, who were aged between 21 and 25 years (Table 1). A purposive sampling technique was applied to select participants for this study. This kind of sampling procedure allows for selecting participants on the basis of the objective of the study. Initially, 60 students were selected for this study via a purposive sampling technique. A total of 49 students gave full consent to participate anonymously in this study. To enhance learners’ writing skills, various accredited academic writing courses were incorporated into the curricula to enhance their academic writing performance across all disciplines. The selection criteria for this study included the following: (i) they were undergraduate students; (ii) their medium of instruction was English; and (iii) they had completed accredited academic English writing courses in previous curriculum semesters. Prior to data collection, consent was obtained from the participants as well as the university’s relevant authority.

To analyze error patterns and frequency, a total of 49 writing samples were collected from the participants. The participants were instructed to write an academic essay with a minimum of 150 words. Approximately 40 minutes were allocated to ensure that the participants had adequate time for writing. Participants were assured that their writing samples would not be evaluated for grading purposes.

After the data were collected, a manual error analysis was performed. Error analysis involved identifying types, major categories and frequency distributions of errors from written samples. SPSS (Version 25) software was used to conduct various statistical analyses. Statistical tests involved descriptive statistics and independent t-tests to determine error differences across gender and undergraduate disciplines.

To identify error types from the writing sample, a manual error analysis technique was applied. This study collected 49 writing samples for error analysis from the participants. Upon applying a manual error analysis of those essays, an overview of recurrent errors emerged that indicates common linguistic difficulties encountered by students in their academic writing. The identified error types and their corresponding error frequencies presented in Table 2 illustrate academic writing difficulties. A total of 743 errors within 13 error types were identified from the academic writing sample. These errors were subsequently categorized into four major error categories (grammatical, mechanical, lexical, and discourse-level). The frequency distribution shows that punctuation errors were the most common (27.46%), followed by errors related to collocation and word choice (20.86%). Another considerable portion of errors were run-on and long sentences (10.09%), cohesion and cohesive devices (7.81%) and subject-verb agreement (7.54%). Errors in articles (5.11%), prepositions (4.98%) and tenses (4.44%) were also commonly observed. In contrast, errors in the misuse of capitalization (3.50%), misplaced and dangling modifiers (2.42%), wrong word formation (2.29%), spelling (2.15%) and sentence fragments (1.35%) appeared less frequently.

Overall, the frequency distribution of error types indicates major difficulties in academic writing faced by undergraduate learners. These findings provide a substantial basis for descriptive analysis to identify patterns and causes of writing difficulties and would be useful for targeted intervention and instructional assistance.

On the basis of the frequency distribution of error types (Table 2), four error categories, i.e., grammatical, mechanical, lexical, and discourse-level, were categorized. Different categories of writing error (per 100 words) were calculated through descriptive statistical tests, i.e., means and standard deviations, as presented in Table 3. Among all four error categories, grammatical errors were the most frequent with a mean of 2.38 (standard deviation = 1.24), and the observed value ranged from 0.34 to 5.85, indicating substantial variability in grammatical errors. In contrast, discourse-level error had the lowest mean frequency (mean = 0.50, standard deviation = 0.48), and the observed value ranged from 0.77 to 3.90, indicating comparatively lower coherence- and cohesion-related difficulties.

Additionally, analysis revealed that the second most frequent error was mechanical errors, with a mean of 2.38 (standard deviation = 0.77), and the observed values ranged from 0.77 to 3.90. The frequency of lexical errors was lower (mean=1.53, standard deviation = 1.03) than that of grammatical and mechanical errors, with a wide range of values (0.00–4.46). Overall, descriptive analysis suggested a higher frequency of errors in grammatical and mechanical categories with prevalent variability in error range, followed by lexical and discourse-level errors, which occurred less frequently. Furthermore, the standard deviation and relatively wide range of variability indicate writing difficulties at different levels.

In the independent sample t-test, a statistically significant gender difference was observed for discourse-level errors (p = 0.042), where female students (mean = 0.31, standard deviation = 0.30) outperformed male students (mean = 0.60, standard deviation = 0.52) by producing a lower rate of discourse-level errors (Table 4). In contrast, there were no significant gender-based differences in the other error categories. Furthermore, the mean of errors per 100 words from the gender-based analysis suggested that male students produced higher grammatical (mean = 2.53, standard deviation = 1.24), lexical (mean = 1.61, standard deviation = 0.97) and discourse-level (mean = 0.60, standard deviation = 0.52) errors than female students (Table 4). Conversely, female students produced slightly higher mechanical errors (mean = 2.32, standard deviation = 0.86) than male students (mean = 1.98, standard deviation = 0.71). These findings suggested significant gender-based differences in discourse-level errors, and male students produced more errors in academic writing than female students.

To determine discipline-based differences in writing errors across the four categories, an independent t-test was conducted (Table 5). The results revealed significant differences in the production of grammatical (p < 0.001) and lexical (p = 0.001) errors across disciplines, where students from the social sciences discipline outperformed science students in producing lower error rates. In contrast, no significant difference was found in mechanical or discourse-level errors in academic writing. Additionally, discipline-based analysis illustrated that science-major students produced substantially more errors than social-science students in terms of grammatical, lexical and discourse-level errors. On the other hand, mechanical errors were produced slightly more often by social science students (mean = 2.32, standard deviation = 0.85) than science students (mean = 1.94, standard deviation = 0.68). Overall, the findings suggest significant differences across undergraduate disciplines in the production of grammatical and lexical errors, with students from the science major producing more errors in academic writing.

The objective of this study was to explore the types and frequency distributions of errors in academic writing, followed by gender- and discipline-based differences, to find out external factors behind the production of errors in academic writing. Manual error analysis allows for identifying 13 distinct error types within four major error categories, including grammatical, mechanical, lexical and discourse-level errors. Overall, this study provided a major account of linguistic difficulties in academic writing encountered by undergraduate learners in the English-medium instruction context. By identifying major error patterns in academic writing, this study extends the current understanding by conducting gender- and discipline-based comparisons via quantitative analysis.

The first research question intends to find out the most recurrent linguistic error types and categories in academic writing. The findings indicate prevalent linguistic difficulties in academic writing faced by undergraduate learners in the English-medium instruction context, as a high number of total errors (743) were identified across 49 writing samples. The presence of various error types within the four categories suggests that writing is a multidimensional task and requires a better understanding of linguistic accuracy (K​h​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​2). This finding aligns with the view that writing is the most challenging task, as it requires substantial cognitive and psychological engagement, strict adherence to rhetorical conventions, and linguistic accuracy (B​a​l​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​5; S​u​n​ ​&​ ​Z​h​a​n​g​,​ ​2​0​2​2). Additionally, academic writing requires maintaining a strict genre style along with linguistic accuracy.

In addition, grammatical errors were identified as the most frequent among the four major error categories, indicating the significance of grammatical accuracy for improving academic writing. This finding is consistent with several recent studies (N​u​r​u​z​z​a​m​a​n​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​1​8), emphasizing that grammatical problems are the most frequent in the writing of undergraduate students. Persistent difficulties across grammar-related errors, such as subject-verb agreement and correct usage of articles, prepositions and tenses, indicate that learners of a second language often face difficulties in internalizing grammatical systems, whose first language is structurally different from English. Despite Bangladeshi learners’ early exposure to English, limited exposure to academic writing instruction and practices might be a barrier to internalizing grammatical accuracy in writing.

The findings also revealed that mechanical errors, specifically punctuation issues, constituted the second most frequent error type. Mechanical issues in academic writing remain neglected but are a critical aspect for academic writing instruction (G​i​a​w​a​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4; P​a​t​w​a​r​y​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3), which is the key to enhancing clarity and meaning in text. This finding is also consistent with a previous study by Y​u​l​i​a​h​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​ ​(​2​0​1​9​), indicating that punctuation is a persistent weakness in writing. The results also emphasized that punctuation errors are widespread in undergraduate learners’ academic writing, which aligns with the findings of previous studies (P​a​t​w​a​r​y​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Lexical errors, related to collocation and word choice, constituted the third most frequent error in this study. This finding aligns with the previous study by M​a​s​r​u​d​d​i​n​ ​&​ ​N​a​s​r​i​a​n​d​i​ ​(​2​0​2​2​) that highlighted the importance of lexical competence for enhancing academic writing accuracy. Inadequate vocabulary knowledge may lead to poor collocational patterns and improper word choices. Although lexical errors are less frequent than grammatical and mechanical errors, they may reduce writing quality (B​a​d​i​l​l​a​ ​&​ ​N​ú​ñ​e​z​,​ ​2​0​2​0). The relatively lower rate of word formation error suggests basic morphological knowledge, although learners face difficulties in using lexical items appropriately. The results also confirmed the lowest level of discourse-related error compared to other categories; however, the misuse of cohesion and cohesive devices remained another concern. A previous study by M​e​s​t​r​e​ ​&​ ​C​a​r​r​i​ó​-​P​a​s​t​o​r​ ​(​2​0​1​3​) also highlighted the importance of discourse competence for writing accuracy related to rhetorical knowledge and genre awareness.

In essence, linguistic difficulties are present across the academic writings of undergraduate students. Errors related to grammar issues, i.e., subject-verb agreement and tense, appeared to be developmental. Though learners have to study English as a compulsory subject up to the 12th grade (C​h​o​w​d​h​u​r​y​ ​&​ ​K​a​b​i​r​,​ ​2​0​1​4), these mistakes indicated the learner’s evolving interlanguage understanding. Meanwhile, learners’ first language interference has a significant impact on all major error categories, as also reported in previous studies (E​h​s​a​n​z​a​d​e​h​ ​&​ ​D​e​h​n​a​d​,​ ​2​0​2​4; K​h​a​n​,​ ​2​0​2​2; S​a​l​i​m​a​,​ ​2​0​1​2; Z​a​f​a​r​,​ ​2​0​1​6). As English differs structurally from learners’ first language, Bangla, linguistic inaccuracies in mechanical, lexical, and discourse-level categories appeared across learners’ academic writing due to first language interference. Along with poor background knowledge, a lack of motivation and practice is also another major cause for poor writing skills, as reported by S​a​l​i​m​a​ ​(​2​0​1​2​). Limited exposure to academic writing practices and instruction constituted a great challenge for developing academic writing. Linguistic difficulties in writing may reduce academic writing accuracy as well as quality, which also results in students’ poor academic performance.

The second research question intends to find out the difference in linguistic error types and categories in academic writing on the basis of gender and undergraduate discipline. The findings revealed significant gender-based differences only in discourse-level errors, and female students produced fewer errors in academic writing than male students. This finding aligns with a previous study insisting that female students have stronger organizational and cohesive writing proficiency (Z​h​a​o​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​4). In contrast, the findings also concluded the absence of gender-based differences in producing grammatical, mechanical and lexical errors. Conversely, the present study’s lack of statistical significance based on gender also contradicts the findings of previous studies (A​d​a​m​s​ ​&​a​m​p​;​ ​S​i​m​m​o​n​s​,​ ​2​0​1​9; A​l​-​S​a​a​d​i​,​ ​2​0​2​0). Similarly, this finding contradicts those of previous studies (A​l​m​u​s​h​a​r​r​a​f​ ​&​a​m​p​;​ ​A​l​o​t​a​i​b​i​,​ ​2​0​2​1; C​h​e​o​n​g​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​2), which reported significant gender-based differences in terms of writing accuracy and performance. Instead of using gender to predict overall writing accuracy, exposure to academic writing practices and cognitive awareness during writing may play significant roles.

Additionally, the higher discourse-level accuracy of female students reflects differences in rhetorical awareness and revision practices. However, overall findings suggest that in academic writing development, both male and female students encounter comparable linguistic challenges.

Discipline-based analysis illustrated significant differences in grammatical and lexical errors, suggesting differences in academic writing instruction and practices. Students majoring in social science produced fewer errors than science majors, indicating discipline-based differences in linguistic accuracy, which is consistent with the findings of S​m​i​r​n​o​v​a​ ​&​ ​P​é​r​e​z​-​G​u​e​r​r​a​ ​(​2​0​2​5​), who reported discipline-based differences in writing. Students from the science discipline often face pressure from course completion and lab classes, which may force them to prioritize technical content and solve problems rather than focus on linguistic accuracy in writing. As a result, to achieve a smaller scope of practice and genre development, science students may fall behind. Additionally, students majoring in social science reflect better linguistic accuracy by producing fewer errors in academic writing, suggesting better linguistic accuracy and awareness in academic writing. To enhance linguistic accuracy in academic writing, developing discipline-based curricula is crucial (S​t​a​r​k​e​y​ ​e​t​ ​a​l​.​,​ ​2​0​2​3).

Furthermore, the absence of differences in mechanical and discourse-level errors across disciplines indicates that linguistic difficulties in academic writing may illustrate shared educational experiences. Significant differences in linguistic accuracy require the development of academic writing instruction across disciplines. To enhance academic performance, redesigning writing instruction and learner-centered teaching is crucial.

This study investigated academic writing samples of undergraduate students by addressing two research questions, namely, linguistic difficulties and differences based on gender and undergraduate discipline. The findings revealed that linguistic difficulties at the grammatical, mechanical, lexical and discourse levels emerged in academic writing. Firstly, grammatical errors are the most frequent in academic writing, followed by mechanical and lexical errors, whereas discourse-level errors occur frequently at least. Secondly, gender doesn’t significantly differ in terms of producing errors at the discourse level, indicating that both male and female learners face substantial linguistic difficulties in academic writing. Additionally, disciplinary differences in linguistic difficulties were observed in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy. However, these findings provide an understanding of linguistic difficulties in academic writing to develop writing instruction and intervention strategies.

To enhance academic writing instruction, considering these linguistic difficulties is crucial. The findings emphasize the need for linguistic error-centric intervention through an integrated approach to writing instruction. Writing pedagogy should prioritize discipline-specific approaches rather than gender-oriented ones. Overall, this study provides notable insight into the significance of targeted feedback and discipline-based writing instruction.

In light of these findings, this study has several limitations. For instance, the usage of writing strategies and psychological aspects (i.e., motivation and anxiety) has significant effects on writing accuracy, which are not addressed in this study. Additionally, external factors, such as prior exposure to academic writing and individual differences in second language learning experience, also remain unexplored. In spite of these constraints, this study emphasizes and extends the understanding of linguistic difficulties in academic writing by incorporating further analysis.