Volume

Vol. 2 ·2November
· November 2018
2018
PRINT ISSN: 2619-8428 • ONLINE ISSN: 2619-8436
International Peer Reviewed Journal
This journal is produced by the Asian Society of Teachers for Research, Inc.

Writing Errors of Grade Nine Students:

Basis for Sentence Writing Module
JHONATHAN L. ULIT
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5860-3010
[email protected]
Camba National High School
Philippines

Grammar Test: 90/100

Originality: 92/100
Gunning Fog Index: 11.45
Flesch Reading Ease: 44.62

ABSTRACT

This study determined the sentence writing errors of the grade nine
students at Dolores National High School, Magalang, Pampanga, Philippines.
Total enumeration (70) of grade nine students served as the respondents of
the study. The holistic sentence rubric, California Education Language and
Development Test (CELDT), was used in analyzing the written sentences of the
respondents. Statistical tools such as mean, frequency and ranking, and T-Test
Independent Variable were used. The findings revealed that both in pretest and
posttest, capitalization was the most persistent sentence error in mechanical
category and wrong word choice in the structural category. However, the use
of preposition was the most persistent error under the grammatical category
for pretest only since tense/form of verb became the most persistent error in
posttest. The grade nine students’ level of writing performance in pretest fell
from emerging communication to basic communication in posttest after the
conducted intervention. The respondents’ most persistent sentence error in

9
 The ASTR Research Journal

pretest in each category had highly significant difference to their most persistent
sentence error in posttest. It also revealed that the respondents’ scores in pretest
had highly significant difference to their scores in posttest. The sentence writing
module was strongly agreed by the validators with an overall mean of 4.65.

Keywords: Writing errors, grade nine students, sentence writing module,

descriptive design, Philippines

INTRODUCTION

The Philippine educational system has been using English as a medium of

instruction from elementary to tertiary level. It is used as a tool for learning and
a medium of communication (Quibol-Catabay, 2016).
Writing is a means of expressing thoughts, ideas and feelings in which a
writer puts together the pieces of the text, developing ideas through sentences
and paragraphs within all structure (Hedge, 1988). Writing skills are important
part of communication for the students throughout their academic life because
it allows them to organize their feelings and ideas clearly as well as to convey
meaning through well-constructed text (Afrin, 2016).
However, according to Al-Buainain (2007), writing is one of the most
difficult and therefore frustrating subjects to teach particularly in English as a
Second Language (ESL) program. It is especially difficult for non-native speakers
because learners are expected to create written products that demonstrate
their ability to organize the content, to address the correct audience as well as
to demonstrate their linguistic ability (vocabulary, punctuation, spelling, etc.).
Hence, it is important to learn and acquire effective and engaged writing skills.
It is also defined that writing is a struggle for a large segment of the
population, and nearly 75% of the nation’s children and adolescents are not able
to produce texts that are judged to meet grade-level expectations (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2012). Likewise, nearly one third of high
school graduates are not ready for college-level composition courses (ACT, 2007).
In 2013, Cabansag investigated the written language proficiency of
the laboratory high school students in a State University in Cagayan Valley,
Philippines. He found out that most students were not very proficient in the use
of mechanics particularly in capitalization and punctuation. In addition, most
students commit persistent errors in their compositions such as the use of verbs,
verb tenses, and rules in capitalization. This shows that Filipino students have
weaknesses in their written language proficiency.

10
 Volume 2 · November 2018

This phenomenon is not only experienced in the Philippines but also in other
countries. Hussen (2015) assessed the students’ composition writing problems in
Bedeno Secondary School with special reference to grade ten students in focus.
The identified paragraph writing problems of students are organization, unity,
adequacy, grammar, punctuation, capitalization and spelling.
However, Gustilo and Magno (2012) investigated the sentence-level errors
of freshman college students at De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. They
found out that sentence-level errors have a significant role in essay scores.
Therefore, a good writer should learn first one of the most fundamental skills,
an essential element of writing, is the ability to develop a good sentence before
students push to write paragraphs and multi-paragraph compositions (Hinkel,
2012; Mayville, 2012; Eberhardt, 2013; & Gugin 2014).
Moreover, sentence structure is the level of text which consists of
propositions (ideas) that convey information sentence by sentence. One by one,
sentences communicate ideas that add up to make meaning. Crafting sentences
that accurately convey the intended meaning is challenging, especially for
struggling writers and English language learners (Hougen & Smartt, 2013).
The University of South Florida Writing Center (2013) identified common
sentence problems and these are fragments, run-ons, and comma splices.
Quibol-Catabay (2016) investigated the frequency and the types of sentence
errors committed by the students in writing sentences in Cagayan State
University, Andrews Campus, Tuguegarao City. She found out that the most
frequent error committed by students is the use of sentence fragments which
is under the structure category of sentence writing. Similarly, the studies of Lin
(2002) and Hsin (2003) as cited by Chen (2006) found that sentence problems
exist in the written essays of Taiwanese students such as sentence structures,
fragmented sentences, and run-on sentences. Thus, sentence errors are still a
serious problem when students are asked to write.
In the book of Gass and Selinker (1994) as cited by Hourani (2008) on his
study, they considered and identified steps followed in conducting an error
analysis of learners in writing and these were collecting data, identifying errors,
classifying errors, quantifying errors, analyzing source of error, and remediating
for errors which involves drills and lessons for students.
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2017), remediation is done to
correct or improve something and it involves students who need special help to
improve in a particular subject.
Reiss (2010) explored the effectiveness of a remedial intervention based
on Tier 2 word meanings for students whose primary deficit is phonological.
The study found that focusing on the teaching of word meaning enhanced the

11
 The ASTR Research Journal

remedial program due to the inclusion of a greater range of teaching strategies.

Most of the students had improved in spelling and their attitude to writing was
more positive at the end of the study. Several students showed improvement in
written expression.
Furthermore, the Philippine education system mandates the program
of remediation or intervention for the learners who have literacy weaknesses.
DepEd. Order no. 39 series 2012 on Policy Guidelines on Addressing Learning
Gaps and Implementing a Reading and Writing Program in Secondary Schools
states that the results of the pre-assessment or diagnostic test indicate the
areas of strength and development that should be the basis for designing
appropriate intervention programs, i.e., whether for enrichment or remediation.
Thus, priority attention should be given to areas of development as these may
require immediate and even long-term interventions that unless provided will
present obstacles to learning. However, a whole-class approach to bridging
gaps is recommended once the deficiencies are common to all students. One of
various forms of intervention that was provided is teacher modeling followed by
guided practice and independent practice. Therefore, conducting remediation
or intervention could help the learners in their writing difficulty.
In relation to this, the studies of Cabansag (2013), Hussen (2015), Gustino
and Magno (2012), and Quibol-Catabay (2016) just focused on assessing the
writing errors of the students. They did not consider remediation or intervention
in the writing difficulties they found out. To fill the gap on these researches,
this present study would like to develop a learning module as an intervention
to elevate the students’ level and minimize their writing errors (Al-Buainain,
2007) that will be based on the actual writing samples of students’ sentence
writing problems which is a primary instrument to utilize in identifying writing
difficulties (Afrin, 2016).
The module consisted of lessons and tasks which were designed using
scaffolding approach for English learners which is known for its effectiveness
because it helped remedy the students in writing difficulties (Veerappan, Suan,
& Sulaiman, 2011; Troja, 2014; Faraq, 2015; and Sinaga, Suhandi, & Liliasari, 2015).
Scaffolding is a step-by-step process that provides the learner with sufficient
guidance until the process is learned, and then gradually removes the support to
transfer the responsibility for completing the task to the student (Vernon, 2014).
Scaffolding in this module involved four parts of lesson or steps that shift
responsibility to learners such as teacher modeling, guided practice, group
collaboration, and independent practice (DepEd. Order no. 39 series 2012; Fisher
& Frey, 2008).

12
 Volume 2 · November 2018

FRAMEWORK

The learning/teaching theory that was used in this study is the theory of
Lev Vygotsky which is known as the Social Constructivist Theory. The theory
highlighted the essential role played by the social learning process and social
interaction in the development of language and thought. Students need social
support or scaffolding to improve their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
With this, teaching must be harmonized in some manner to the students’
developmental level.
Furthermore, Social Constructivist Theory in education recommends
successful learning and teaching that must be learner-centered. This means that
learning is enriched when it is relevant to the socio-cultural context, interests,
background, and needs of the learner. For this reason, it is important to develop
a sentence writing module which is consisted of sentence writing lessons that
provided proper scaffolding to students’ learning and which are learner-centered.
The paradigm of the study (Figure 1) shows the administration of sentence
writing pretest and posttest to determine the persistent sentence errors and
sentence writing performance of the respondents with the use of error analysis
and the adopted sentence holistic rubric from California English Language
Development Test (CELDT).
The validated sentence writing module refers to the lessons on the most
persistent sentence error of the respondents in pretest in every category that
were designed using the scaffolding approach that was facilitated and discussed
to the respondents.
Administration of the audio-visual prompt sentence writing posttest
was done to determine the persistent sentence errors and sentence writing
performance of the respondents after their exposure to the sentence writing
module.
The results were used to compare the degree of difference on the most
persistent sentence error and sentence writing performance of the respondents
in pretest and posttest.

13
 The ASTR Research Journal

Figure 1. Paradigm of the study

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study aimed to determine the sentence writing errors of grade nine
students. Specifically, it aimed to answer the following questions: 1) What is
the most persistent sentence error in terms of: 1.1) mechanics; 1.2) grammar;
and 1.3) sentence structure? ; 2) How may the level of writing performance of
the respondents in pretest and posttest be described; 3) Is there a significant
difference between the most persistent error in pretest and posttest of the
respondents in terms of mechanics, grammar, and sentence structure?; 4) Is
there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the
respondents?; and 5) How agreeable is the module as perceived by experts in
terms of its learning objectives, learning content, organization and learning
experiences?

Hypotheses
It is therefore hypothesized that there is no significant difference between
the most persistent sentence error in the mechanical, grammatical, and structural

14
 Volume 2 · November 2018

category in pretest and posttest of the respondents and there is no significant

difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the respondents.

METHODOLOGY

The current study employed a descriptive-experimental method for

it described the scores of the respondents in both sentence writing pretest
and posttest. The experimental method determined the effectiveness of the
proposed sentence writing module in respondents’ most persistent error in each
category and scores in sentence writing pretest and posttest.

Respondents
The population of the study consisted of 70 students who were in their grade
nine of secondary education, aged between 14 to 15 years. Total enumeration
was employed in this study. They were the grade nine classes being handled
by the researcher as their English teacher. The sections were 9-Dalton with 36
students and 9-Aristotle with 34 students and both considered a heterogeneous
group at Dolores National High School, Magalang, Pampanga Academic Year
2016-2017. The participating students were enrolled in English 9 which is taught
five times a week for an hour a day starting from Monday to Friday. Their native
language is Kapampangan but English is being taught as their second language.
They were chosen since the researcher, as their English teacher, found out that
the students were having difficulties in composing good sentences whenever
the students were asked to write short compositions in English.
Furthermore, this study sought the assistance of three experts as validators
for the intervention prepared by the researcher and two English teachers as
validators for the checked, rated, and labeled errors of the written sentences of
the students. The three validators are the teachers/professors who have Ed.D. or
Ph.D. units and who have expertise related to Education/English. They validated
the module in terms of its learning objectives, learning content, organization,
and learning experience. The two module validators are active professors
employed in Pampanga State Agricultural University and one is a DepEd
elementary teacher. However, the other two validators that checked and rated
written sentences are active English teachers in Justino Sevilla High School and
Pampanga State Agricultural University.

Instruments
The writing samples were primary instrument that would show the actual
performance and difficulties of students in sentence writing. The 9 minute audio-
visual prompts entitled, “Harmony of Man and Environment” and “The Battle

15
 The ASTR Research Journal

With Grendel” from the DepEd Grade Nine Learner’s Material were used to watch
and listen by the respondents in their sentence writing pretest and posttest.
To describe the performance of the respondents in their sentence writing
in pretest and posttest, an adopted standardized sentence holistic rubric of
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) prepared by California
Department of Education (2012) was utilized.
This rubric was administered for non-native English speakers such as the
respondents of this study. The researcher and validators were guided with the
specific characteristics of this rubric where it assessed primarily the subject and
predicate of the students’ sentence and other characteristics may be seen as
well such as the content, response, grammar and syntax, articles, possessives,
prepositions, or plural endings, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation and/or
capitalization of the students’ sentences. This instrument was for level starting
grade two to twelve which was applicable to the respondents of this study who
were in grade nine. It has four performance levels which are no communication
(0), emerging communication (1), basic communication (2), and fully competent
communication (3) (See Appendix C for sentence holistic rubric pp.40-41).
Scale in gathering the grand mean of the students’ performance in sentence
writing was interpreted as follows:
Numerical Rating Descriptive Rating
2.50-3.00 Fully Competent Communication (FCC)
1.50-2.49 Basic Communication (BC)
0.50-1.49 Emerging Communication (EC)
0.00-0.49 No Communication (NC)

The sentence writing module served as the instrument in this study

which covered the lessons of the most persistent sentence error in mechanical,
grammatical, and structural category and these were the use of capitalization, use
of prepositions, and word choice. The learning module followed the scaffolding
approach of Lev Vygotsky where each lesson was patterned into four steps: focus
lesson, guided practice, group collaboration, and independent practice (See
Appendix I for sentence writing module pp.61-121).
For the validation of the learning module, the researcher modified the
evaluation form of the Department of Education for the acceptability of the
proposed sentence writing module. It consisted of the profile of the validators
such as their names, designation, highest educational attainment, and the
college/university they are affiliated with. They were asked to rate the module
in terms of its learning objectives, learning content, organization, and learning

16
 Volume 2 · November 2018

experience. They were guided with the numerical value with rating descriptions
such as 5-Strongly Agree (SA), 4-Agree (DA), 3- Neutral (N), 2-Disagree (DA),
1- Strongly Disagree (SDA), and 0-Not Applicable (NA) (See Appendix G for
evaluation form for the module pp.49-51).

Procedure

Pretest
At the initial stage of data collection, permission was sought from the
principal of Dolores National High School Magalang, Pampanga for the chosen
grade nine classes. For the pretest, it was administered to respondents on
November 3, 2016. The audio-visual prompt entitled “Harmony of Man and
Environment” was watched and listened first by the respondents for nine minutes.
After that, the researcher asked the students to write ten sentences about
the content or their reactions about the audio-visual prompt for 30 minutes.
The writing samples of the students in pre-test were collected, corrected, and
analyzed by the researcher and was validated by the two English teachers with
the use of standardized sentence writing holistic rubric.

Identification of Errors
From the writing samples also, the most persistent sentence error in
each category was identified through frequency count. Ranking of sentence
errors determined the most persistent sentence error in each category of the
respondents. The researcher considered and included all the errors committed
by the respondents from the sentence writing samples of the students.

Development of Module
The most persistent sentence error in mechanical, grammatical and
structural category were the lessons in developing a learning module and these
were the use of capitalization, use of prepositions, and word choice. The lessons
and activities were designed in a scaffolding approach with four parts or steps
such as teacher modeling where the ideas of the lessons were explained; guided
practice where the teacher helped the students in doing the activity; group
collaboration where the students were grouped or paired in doing the activity;
and independent practice where the student accomplished the activity alone.

Validation of the Module

When the module was done, the researcher sought the expertise of the
validators with the modified evaluation form for the agreeability of the proposed
sentence writing module. The comments and suggestions of the validators were

17
 The ASTR Research Journal

incorporated for the improvement of the module (See Appendix H pp.52-60 for
evaluated validation sheet of the module).

Administration of the Module

After the validation, the researcher facilitated and discussed the sentence
writing module to the respondents. Nine school days were allotted for the
utilization of the lessons of the module starting January 3 until January 16, 2017
for one hour and twenty minutes each day (See Appendix Q page 132 for the
schedule in administration of the module).

Posttest
When the module had been utilized, the researcher administered the
posttest to the respondents to see if the learning module had an effect in the
learners’ performance and most persistent error in each category. The posttest
was also like the pretest but this time, a different audio-visual prompt was used.
It was entitled “The Battle with Grendel” which is 9 minutes as well. After that,
30 minutes was given to respondents to write ten sentences about the content
or their reactions in the audio-visual prompt. The tests were checked, recorded,
analyzed by the researcher and were validated by two English teachers and
were compared to respondents’ scores and most persistent sentence error in
each category in the pretest. The post-test of the 36 students in 9-Dalton were
verified by the first validator while the post-test of the 34 students in 9-Aristotle
were verified by the second validator. The validators were guided with the tally
and frequency sentence error sheet as well as sentence holistic grading sheet
of the researcher and they were given separate sheets to write their counted
tally and frequency of errors and also their score to each written sentence of the
respondents which were then followed by the researcher.
The data gathered were analyzed and treated statistically using Mean
to describe the scores of the respondents in pretest and posttest and also to
describe the rate of the proposed agreeability of sentence writing module in
terms of learning objectives, learning content, organization, and learning
experience. Frequency and Ranking were used to determine the most persistent
sentence error in each category and T-Test Independent Variable to identify if
there was a significant difference between the most persistent sentence error
in mechanical, grammatical, and structural category in pretest and posttest of
the respondents and to identify if there was a significant difference between the
scores of the respondents in the pretest and posttest.

18
 Volume 2 · November 2018

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1.1 Frequency distribution of errors encountered by the respondents in

pretest and posttest under mechanical category
Pretest Posttest
Errors
f Rank f Rank

Punctuation 369 2 57 3

Spelling 148 3 102 2

Capitalization 487 1 154 1

Table 1.1 shows the frequency and rank of errors in pretest and posttest
under mechanical category. It shows that the respondents’ error in the use of
capitalization ranked first in both pretest with 487 errors (Sample: the people died
because the climate change.) and posttest with 154 errors (Sample: The grendel
was fight of beowulf.). The use of punctuation ranked second in pretest with 369
errors (Sample: Dont use dynamite to fishing) while ranked third only in posttest
with 57 errors (Sample: Grendel eat the people). Lastly, the error in spelling
ranked third in pretest with 148 errors (Sample: The ozone layer is distroid.) and
ranked second in posttest with 102 errors (Sample: Grendel is screeming.). It also
presents that the numbers of respondents’ mechanical errors in pretest were
lessened in their posttest after the utilization of the module even though the
use of capitalization was the only error that was given an intervention through
the module since the researcher was delimited in choosing the most persistent
sentence error in pretest under mechanical category (See Appendix R and S
pp.133 and 138 for the sample checked pretest and posttest).
The findings revealed that the respondents’ most persistent error in
mechanical category was the use of capitalization with a total of 487 errors in
pretest and 154 errors in posttest. This indicated that students are generally
weak in the rules of capitalization based in frequency tabulation. Students are
not well familiar with the different rules on capitalization. Considering that these
students are already in their grade nine, it is expected that they are familiar with
the different rules on capitalization but the findings revealed that they still do
not. This is similar with the findings of Cabansag (2013) where capitalization
as well is the most persistent written language error of his respondents under
mechanical category.

19
 The ASTR Research Journal

Table 1.2 Frequency distribution of errors encountered by the respondents in

pretest and posttest under grammatical category
Pretest Posttest
Errors
f Rank f Rank

Wrong Tense/Form of Verbs 128 2 201 1

Incorrect Use of Prepositions 153 1 83 2
Wrong Subject-Verb Agreement 105 4 44 6
Wrong Use/Lack of Articles 110 3 60 3
Incorrect Possessives 7 14 25 8

Incorrect Pluralization 16 9 1 15
Incorrect Pronoun Reference 45 6 3 12
Incorrect Linking Verbs 82 5 31 7
Lack of Relative Pronouns 8 13 0 16
Incorrect Conjunctions 38 7 9 10
Incorrect Adjectives 9 11 8 11
Incorrect Adverbs 6 15 11 9
Incorrect/Lack of Helping Verbs 33 8 46 5
Lack of Prefixes 1 18 0 16
Incorrect Plural Endings 5 17 0 16
Incorrect/Lack of Transitions 12 10 3 12
Incorrect Participles 6 15 0 16
Incorrect Pronouns 9 11 56 4
Incorrect Gerunds 1 18 3 12
Lack of Objects 1 18 0 16

Table 1.2 presents the grammatical errors committed by the respondents

in sentence writing in pretest and posttest. It reveals that among the twenty
identified errors in grammar, the significant errors were incorrect use of
prepositions which ranked first in the pretest with 153 ( Sample: We need to be
responsible and use the things that given to us from god) and ranked second only
with 83 in the posttest (Sample: The lesson on that battle is always be brave.),
the wrong tense /form of verbs ranked second in pretest with 128 (Sample: The
factories are cause air pollution.) and ranked first in posttest with 201(Sample:

20
 Volume 2 · November 2018

When Beowulf close the door, the hand of Grendel was cut.). The wrong articles
ranked third in both pretest with 110 (Sample: Decrease vehicle to avoid a
accident.) and posttest with 60 (Sample: The warriors are drinking a alcohol.)
followed by the subject-verb agreement with 105 errors in pretest (Sample:
The people was the reason why the climate was change.) and with 44 errors in
posttest (Sample: The warriors was singing.), and the incorrect linking verbs
with 82 errors in pretest (Sample: The people are need abundant life.) and with 31
errors in posttest (Sample: Beowulf and is monster that fight.). However, the error
in pronouns ranked eleventh only with nine errors in pretest (Sample: Farmers
they hate El niño because their planting area dry is dry.) while it ranked fourth
with 56 errors in posttest (Sample: Beowulf he cut the arm of Grendel.) The rest
of the identified grammar errors had minimal number of errors in both pretest
(1-45) and posttest (0-46) specifically the errors in possessives, pluralization,
pronoun reference, relative pronouns, conjunctions, adjectives, adverbs, helping
verbs, prefixes, plural endings, transitions, participles, gerunds and objects. It
also reveals that most of the number of respondents’ grammar errors in pretest
were lessened in their posttest after the utilization of the module except for the
wrong tense/form of verbs, possessives, adverbs, helping verbs, and pronouns
which the number of errors increased in posttest. This is because these errors
were not included in the learning module and it denotes that an error will remain
persistent once there is no intervention made. The use of prepositions was the
only error included in the module since the researcher was delimited in choosing
the most persistent sentence error in pretest under the grammatical category.
The findings revealed that in terms of grammatical category, the incorrect
use/lack of prepositions had the highest number of errors in pretest only with a
total of 153 errors in pretest and became second only in posttest with 83 errors.
However, the wrong tense/form of verbs became the most persistent sentence
error in posttest with 201 errors while 128 errors only in pretest. The wrong
articles were also a persistent error which had 110 errors in pretest and 60 errors
in posttest. This implies that majority of the students do not know the correct
preposition to use in the sentence even the common prepositions. The students
are poor in the construction of grammar tense and they do not know what form
of verb to use, and students do not use articles in the sentences as observed
by the researcher. This only implies that they have inadequate knowledge on
prepositions, tense/form of verbs, and articles. This finding is related with the
study of Quibol-Catabay (2016); however the error in the use of prepositions
ranked second only in grammatical category in her study probably because
her respondents were more advanced in grade level since they were college
students where in the present study, it ranked first in grammatical category in
pretest since the respondents were high school students only. It is also similar to

21
 The ASTR Research Journal

the study of Cabansag (2013) that the wrong tense/form of verbs was a persistent
language error of his respondents in grammar.

Table 1.3 Frequency distribution of errors encountered by the respondents in

pretest and posttest under structural category
Pretest Posttest
Errors
f Rank f Rank
Fragments 27 2 5 3
Faulty Parallelism 10 5 3 4
Wrong word choice 344 1 101 1
Run-on sentences 14 3 1 6
Dangling modifier 2 8 1 6
Misplaced modifier 9 6 8 2
Comma splice 1 10 0 8
Loose Sentences 3 7 0 8
Choppy Sentences 11 4 0 8
Wordy Phrasing 2 8 2 5
Excessive Subordination 1 10 0 8

Table 1.3 presents the structural errors made by the students in writing
sentences in pretest and posttest. It reflects that respondents’ highest number
of error was the wrong word choice with 344 mistakes in pretest (Sample:
Wrong disposal that causes the canals don’t move.) and 101 mistakes in posttest
(Sample: After the fighting, we celebrate to won with Grendel.). The rest of the
structural errors had only minimal number of errors both in pretest with 1 to
2 number of errors and posttest with 0 to 8 number of errors specifically the
errors in fragments, parallelism, run-on sentences, dangling modifier, misplaced
modifier, comma splice, loose sentences, choppy sentences, wordy phrasing
and excessive subordination. This transpired because students did not use these
structures while composing their sentences as observed by the researcher. It also
reflects that the number of errors of the respondents in pretest under structural
category was lessened in their posttest after the utilization of the module except
for the error in wordy phrasing which remained the same number of error since
the wrong word choice was the only error given an intervention through the
module (See Appendix R and S pp.133 and 138 for the sample checked pretest
and posttest).
The findings revealed that the wrong word choice was the most persistent
error with a total of 344 errors in pretest and 101 errors in posttest. This signifies
that students lack appropriate vocabulary to use in sentences despite of their

22
 Volume 2 · November 2018

grade level. Good writing is all about good word choice and proper ordering of
these words to attain accuracy. Wrong choice of words indicates inaccurate word
choice involving words that are commonly misused. It may also refer to use of
words that are misused because the writer does not understand the meaning of
the words (Quibol-Catabay, 2016).
With these, it suggests the claim of Chen (2006) that sentence errors are still
a serious problem when students are asked to write and Filipino students have
weaknesses in their written language proficiency (Cabansag, 2013). However,
the total number of errors in capitalization, preposition, and wrong word choice
in pretest was lessened in their posttest after the utilization of the module which
helped the students to minimize their written errors.

Table 2 Level of writing performance of the respondents in pretest and posttest

Pretest Posttest
Sentence
Mean DR Mean DR
Sentence 1 1.56 BC 1.71 BC
Sentence 2 1.63 BC 1.79 BC
Sentence 3 1.57 BC 1.86 BC
Sentence 4 1.47 EC 1.76 BC
Sentence 5 1.51 BC 1.89 BC
Sentence 6 1.41 EC 1.83 BC
Sentence 7 1.33 EC 1.81 BC

Sentence 8 1.40 EC 1.80 BC

Sentence 9 1.26 EC 1.73 BC

Sentence 10 1.27 EC 1.74 BC

Overall Mean 1.44 EC 1.79 BC

Legend:

Numerical Rating Descriptive Rating

2.50-3.00 Fully Competent Communication (FCC)
1.50-2.49 Basic Communication (BC)
0.50-1.49 Emerging Communication (EC)
0.00-0.49 No Communication (NC)

23
 The ASTR Research Journal

Table 2 shows the level of writing performance of the respondents in

pretest and posttest. It reveals that based from the ten written sentences of the
respondents in pretest with their mean score, six fell on the level of emerging
communication specifically sentences 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (1.26-1.47). The other
four sentences fell on the basic level of communication specifically sentences
1, 2, 3, and 5 (1.51-1.63). In the posttest, all ten sentences fell on the basic level
of communication (1.71-1.89). It also reveals that the obtained overall mean
of the ten sentences in pretest was 1.44 with a descriptive rating of emerging
communication while the posttest gained 1.79 with a descriptive rating of basic
communication.
The findings revealed that the level of sentence writing performance
of the respondents in pretest was 1.44 which fell on the emerging level
of communication. As reflected in the rubric, this means that most of the
respondents’ sentences contained a simple subject and a simple predicate and
many errors were committed that might affect with meaning such as the errors
in grammar and syntax, spelling, punctuation and/or capitalization. Also, the
response contains awkward clauses and/or non-standard wording that affect
meaning and articles, possessives, prepositions, or plural endings are often
missing or incorrect. This implies that the sentence writing performance of the
students was weak and not parallel with their grade level because they were
already in their grade nine and they are expected to master this level but they
still do not. However the obtained overall mean in posttest is 1.79 which fell
on the basic level of communication. This means that most of the respondents’
sentences had subject and predicate which were in the correct word order and
had minimal errors only which do not affect the meaning of the sentence. This
indicates that the sentence writing performance of the students in posttest has
improved after the utilization of the module which suggests that the module
helped the students to improve their performance in sentence writing. This is
similar to the study of Reiss (2010) that conducting remedial intervention has
increased the performance of the students in writing.

Table 3 Significant difference between the most persistent error of the

respondents in pretest and posttest in every category
Variable p-value Sig. (2-tailed) Interpretation

Mechanical Category **0.000 Highly Significant

Pretest vs
Grammatical Category **0.002 Highly Significant
Posttest
Structural Category **0.000 Highly Significant
** highly significant at 1% level of significance

24
 Volume 2 · November 2018

Table 3 shows the significant difference between the most persistent error
of the respondents in pretest and posttest in every category. It reveals that the
most persistent sentence error in pretest in every category was highly significant
to the respondents’ most persistent error in posttest with probability value
of 0.000 for both mechanical and structural category while 0.002 p-value in
grammatical category.
The findings revealed that the most persistent sentence error in pretest
in every category had highly significant difference to the respondents’ most
persistent sentence error in posttest. This implies that the most persistent error
in each category of the respondents in posttest was less persistent than their
pretest errors. This also implies that the learning module significantly lessened
the students’ persistent errors in capitalization, use of preposition, and wrong
word choice which suggests that remediation for sentence errors must be done
when identifying errors (Gass and Selinker, 1994 as cited by Hourani, 2008) and
the module that was designed in scaffolding approach helped remedy the
students in their most persistent sentence error in every category (Veerappan et
al., 2011; Troja, 2014; Faraq, 2015; and Sinaga et al., 2015).

Table 4. Significant difference between the scores of the respondents in pretest

and posttest
Variable p-value Sig. (2-tailed) Interpretation

Pretest vs Posttest **0.000 Highly Significant

** highly significant at 1% level of significance

The 4 shows the significant difference between the scores of the

respondents in pretest and posttest. The scores of the respondents in pretest
were highly significant to respondents’ scores in posttest with a probability value
of 0.000.
The study also showed that the scores of the respondents in pretest had
highly significant difference to respondents’ scores in posttest. This affirms that
the posttest mean score of the respondents was significantly higher than their
pretest mean score. This also affirms that the learning module that was designed
in a scaffolding approach significantly improved the performance of the
students in the use of proper capitalization, use of preposition, and correct word
choice. This finding supports the claimed of Lev Vygostsky in his theory of Social
Constructivism that the module that was based in the needs of the learners and
was done with social interaction as part of the scaffolding approach enriched the
learning experiences of the students.

25
 The ASTR Research Journal

Table 5. Module agreeability by the experts

Statement Mean Interpretation
I. Learning Objectives
1. I clearly understood the objectives of the module. 5.00 SA
2. The objectives of the module are specific, achievable, and
5.00 SA
relevant.
3. The expected results of the module are well-described. 4.67 SA
4. The objectives of the module are all achieved at the end of
4.67 SA
the lesson.
II. Learning Content
1. The Learning Content of the module is aligned with the ob-
5.00 SA
jectives.
2. The Learning Content of the module is suited to the needs of
4.67 SA
the learners.
3. The Learning Content of the module is suited to the level of
4.67 SA
understanding of the learners.
4. The Learning Content of the module is suited to the level of
4.67 SA
appreciation of the learners.
5. The assignments given are useful and complement the objec-
3.00 N
tives of the module.
III. Organization
1. The module is well-organized in terms of content and flow. 5.00 SA
2. The activities in the module are sequenced in a logical man-
5.00 SA
ner.
3. The time given in conducting the module is appropriate. 4.00 A
IV. Learning Experiences
1. I believe my learners will enjoy the module’s activities. 5.00 SA
2. I find the module challenging and stimulating. 4.67 SA
3. I believe the learning activities are completely aligned to the
4.67 SA
module’s objectives.
4. I find the activities essential to the needs of my learners. 4.67 SA
5. I find the learning activities easy to conduct but very mean-
5.00 SA
ingful.
6. The materials needed in the module are easy to access. 4.33 SA
Overall Mean 4.65 SA
Legend:
Numerical Rating Descriptive Rating
4.16-5.00 Strongly Agree (SA)
3.33-4.15 Agree (A)
2.50-3.32 Neutral(N)
1.67-2.49 Disagree (D)
0.84-1.66 Strongly Disagree (SD)
0.00-0.83 Not Applicable (NA)

26
 Volume 2 · November 2018

Table 5 presents the agreeability of the module based on the mean rating
of the assessment expressed by the evaluators in the questionnaire. It reveals
that based on the mean score of each statement, the evaluators strongly
agreed mostly with the statements in learning objectives, learning content,
organization, and learning experiences of the module with 4.67-5.00 except
with the fifth statement in learning content that the assignments given are
useful and complement the objectives which was interpreted as neutral (3.00)
because the module doesn’t have assignments since it was only grounded in the
four parts of the lesson in scaffolding approach and with the third statement in
organization that the time given in conducting the module is appropriate which
had an interpretation of agree (4.00) since the number of minutes in doing the
activities was not indicated in the module because it was only given orally by
the researcher. It also reveals that the obtained overall mean of the module was
4.65 which have a descriptive rating of strongly agree which reflected that the
evaluators strongly agreed in terms of the learning objectives, learning content,
organization and learning experiences of the module. This infers that the module
was strongly agreeable to be utilized by the researcher to the respondents for
the remediation that is mandated in DepEd. Order no. 39 series 2012 on Policy
Guidelines on Addressing Learning Gaps and Implementing a Writing Program
in Secondary Schools.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1)
the respondents are generally weak in sentence construction. This implies that
the errors committed in sentence writing could also be due to their inadequate
knowledge in English language; 2) the respondents lack knowledge in the use
of the rules governing the correct capitalization and the use of prepositions; 3)
most of the respondents have limited vocabulary on what appropriate words to
use in the sentences; and 4) the respondents’ sentence writing most persistent
errors are lessened and eventually improve their sentence writing performance
after utilizing the validated sentence writing module that was designed in
scaffolding approach.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations

are hereby suggested: 1) The English teachers should educate and engage
students further in the lessons of correct use of capitalization, prepositions, and
word choice; 2) English teachers should keep on enhancing the sentence writing

27
 The ASTR Research Journal

performance of the students and they may integrate scaffolding approach in

writing activities; 3) English teachers should further develop learning modules in
sentence writing that are specially designed for students’ weaknesses and that
is based on an effective writing approach ; 4) Future researchers may consider
conducting similar studies along with the present study; and 5) The sentence
writing module may be adopted by the schools in Department of Education,
Division of Pampanga to better improve the sentence writing performance of
the students.

LITERATURE CITED

ACT. (2007). Aligning postsecondary expectations and high school practice: The gap
defined. Policy implications of the ACT national curriculum survey results 2005-
2006. Retrieved on March 7, 2018 from https://goo.gl/zD11RD

Afrin, S. (2016). Writing problems of non-English major undergraduate students in

Bangladesh: An observation. Open journal of social sciences, 4(03), 104. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.43016

Al-Buainain, H. A. (2011). Researching Types and Causes of Errors in Arabic Speaker's

Writing. QNRS Repository, 2011(1), 2571. Retrieved on January 23, 2018 from
https://goo.gl/s4s9EK

Cabansag, J. N. (2013). Written language proficiency of laboratory High School Students

in a State University in Cagayan Valley Philippines. International Refereed Research
Journal, 4(2), 87. Retrieved on January 23, 2018 from https://goo.gl/ckABk4

California Department of Education. (2012). California English language development

test. Retrieved on February 3, 2018 from http:/www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/resources.
asp

Chen, L. (2006). The effect of the use of L1 in a multimedia tutorial on grammar learning:
An error analysis of Taiwanese beginning EFL learners’ English essays. The Asian
EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(2), 76-110. Retrieved on February 23, 2018 from https://
goo.gl/G8qxLo

DepEd. Memo no. 161, series 2016. Career guidance program monitoring and evaluation
form. Retrieved on January 21, 2018 from https://goo.gl/6gqUfx

DepEd. Order no. 39, series 2012. Policy guidelines on addressing learning gaps and
implementing a reading and writing program in secondary schools. Retrieved on
January 3, 2018 from https://goo.gl/93dbjC

28
 Volume 2 · November 2018

DepEd. Order no. 73, series 2012. Guidelines on the assessment and rating of learning
outcomes under the K to 12 Basic Education Program. Retrieved on February 23,
2018 from https://goo.gl/8Ay5ih

Eberhardt, N. (2014). Syntax: Somewhere between words and text. Perspectives on

language and Literacy. Retrieved on January 21, 2018 from https://goo.gl/nWuhP2

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework
for the gradual release of responsibility. ASCD. Retrieved on January 3, 2018 from
https://goo.gl/b9kcQM

Gugin, D. (2014). A Paragraph-First Approach to the Teaching of Academic Writing. In

English Teaching Forum (Vol. 52, No. 3, p. 24). US Department of State. Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of English Language Programs, SA-5, 2200
C Street NW 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037. Retrieved on February 3, 2018 from
https://goo.gl/yLjiN6

Gustilo, L. & Magno, C. (2012). Learners’ errors and their evaluation: The case of Filipino
ESL writers. Retrieved on February 1, 2018 from https://goo.gl/BiLH1K

Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on January 8, 2018
from https://goo.gl/BiLH1K

Hinkel, E. (2003). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and
grammar. Routledge. Retrieved on March 7, 2018 from https://goo.gl/yte9uy

Hougen, M. C., & Smartt, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Fundamentals of literacy instruction and
assessment, pre-K-6. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Retrieved on February
1, 2018 from https://goo.gl/fbB5fM

Hourani, T. M. Y. (2008). An analysis of the common grammatical errors in the English

writing made by 3rd secondary male students in the Eastern Coast of the UAE.
Retrieved on February 3, 2018 from https://goo.gl/S4Bw4P

Hussen, M. O. H. A. M. M. E. D. A. M. I. N. (2015). Assessing Students' Paragraph Writing

Problems: The Case Of BEDENO Secondary School, Grade 10 English Class In
Focus. Unpublished Master thesis), Malaysia. Retrieved on March 7, 2018 from
https://goo.gl/p4EgNK

Mayville, H. W. (2012). Six traits of writing for English language learners: A guide to
effective writing instruction for low-proficiency ELLs. Retrieved on March 7, 2018
from https://goo.gl/p51PeJ

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.merriam webster.

com/dictionary/remedial

29
 The ASTR Research Journal

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation's report card: Writing 2011
(NCES 2012–470). Retrieved on January 21, 2018 from https://goo.gl/4GjvNR

Quibol-Catabay, M. (2016). Error analysis in students’ writing. International Journal of

Advanced Research Management and Social Sciences, 5(1), 131-148. Retrieved on
January 28, 2018 from https://goo.gl/5ocr5H

Reiss, E. (2010). Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Tier 2 Vocabulary Intervention on the

Writing and Spelling of Elementary Students with Dyslexia: A Formative Case
Study(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved on January 15, 2018 from https://goo.
gl/2mYVyo

Sinaga, P., Suhandi, A. & Liliasari (2015). The Effectiveness of Scaffolding Design in Training
Writing Skills Physics Teaching Materials. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1),
19-34. Retrieved on (date) from https://goo.gl/Y1JQu4

University of South Florida Writing Center. (2013). Tutoring and learning services.
Retrieved on January 15, 2018 from https://goo.gl/M3Rz4N

Veerappan, V. A., Suan, W. H., & Sulaiman, T. (2011). The Effect of Scaffolding Technique
in Journal Writing among the Second Language Learners. Journal of Language
Teaching & Research, 2(4). doi:10.4304/jltr.2.4.934-940

Vernon, L. (2014). The considerations packet: The writing process: A scaffolding

approach. Retrieved on January 23, 2018 from https://goo.gl/zuybws

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Harvard university press. Retrieved on January 15, 2018 from https://
goo.gl/F9FNEv

30