| This action paper was conducted with the aim of determining the common writing convention problems encountered by the students in terms of punctuations and capitalization, their writing conventions proficiency level, and the significant difference between writing convention proficiency level of the two groups since both controlled and experimental groups were used. Experimental Method has been utilized in this study to analyze and interpret the results. Standardized test about punctuation marks and capitalization and the written business letters have been used to gather data. To interpret the data, Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient and T-Test were utilized to determine the significance of the hypothetical problem of the study. The findings revealed that the writing convention problems that the two groups mostly encountered are the use of comma and period. However, the experimental group got a lot of errors in using colon and semicolon in writing. With regard to capitalization, the controlled group got a greater number of errors compared to the experimental group. In accordance with the writing conventions proficiency level, out of 64 students, there were 46 students who are still at the beginning level, leading to the hypothesis that there significant difference writing conventions proficiency level of the controlled and experimental groups. In this regard, a pre-test can be done to diagnose first the writing conventions proficiency of the students, which may be supported by an intervention plan. More so, a further study focusing more on the error analysis is also recommended. |
Alfonso, V. S. (2016). Common Errors Committed by Freshman Education Students in their Written English Compositions and their Relationship to some Selected Variables. Tarlac City: Tarlac State University.
Bhat, A. (n.d.) Experimental Research- Definition, Types of Designs and Advantages. Retrieved from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/experimental-research/
Cammarata, L. (2005). Instructional Scaffolding with Graphic Organizers. Retrieved from https://carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol8/2005BRIDGE8.2.pdf
Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. British council report. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/e484_emi_- _cover_option_3_final_web.pdf
Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2017). ESL Learners' Writing Skills: Problems, Factors, and Suggestions. Journal of Education & Social Sciences, 4(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.20547/jess04216042
Fati, M. (2013). The effect of English writing proficiency in the type and amount of errors produced by Moroccan EFL students . International Journal of Education and Research, 1(9), 1–12.
Ghabool, N., Mariadass, M. E. A., & Kashef, S. H. (2012). Investigating Malaysian ESL Students’ Writing Problems on Conventions, Punctuation, and Language Use at Secondary School Level. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v2i3.1892
Implementing, (2013). In the Official Gazette of the Philippines’ online website. Retrieved from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/09/04/irr-republic-act-no-10533/
Lavrakas, P. (2008). Frequency Distribution. Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com/Reference//encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n195.xml
Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pinantoan, A. (2013). Instructional Scaffolding: A Definitive Guide. Retrieved from https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/teacher-resources/scaffolding-in-education-a-definitive-guide/?fbclid=IwAR3L3NbdjrecuDQwigOugEXWec_aLf4-ek7_W8cUs6CqE3wCiD7ULvm7UHU
Salija, K. (2008). The Effect of Using Outlines on Idea Development. International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, March 2017 pp. 11-19. Universitas Negeri Makassar.
Tales, K. (2016). Statistics and Probability. Baesa Quezon City: FNB Educational, Inc.
Tolentino, A. & Tenorio, M. A. (2013). College Statistics. Batangas City: Western Batangas Development Co.
Vonna, Y., Mukminatien, N., & Laksmi, E. D. (2015). The Effect of Scaffolding Techniques on Students ’ Writing Achievement. 3(1), 227–233. |