Teachers profile and editing patterns in students composition : implication for feedback guide design / by Agnes C. Francisco.

Thesis (Master of Arts in Education with Specialization in English Language Teaching) Philippine Normal University.

Includes bibliographical references.

College of Languages, Linguistics & Literature. Department of English.

Title: TEACHERS’ PROFILE AND EDITING PATTERNS IN STUDENTS’ COMPOSITION: IMPLICATIONS FOR FEEDBACK GUIDE DESIGN

Researcher : Agnes Catalan Francisco
Degree : Master of Arts in Education
Specialization : English Language Teaching
Adviser : Prof. Alice M. Karaan
Co-Adviser _ : Prof. Ma. Concepcion Y. Raymundo
Key Concepts : Teachers’ Written Feedback, Editing Patterns, Argumentation in Writing

A. Statement of the Problem

This study was conducted to describe the teachers’ profile and editing patterns in
the eomiositions of selected freshman students of Cavite State University, Main Campus
(CvSU), and their implications towards devising a feedback guide in English One.

Specifically, it attempted to answer the following questions:

1) What is the profile of the DLMC faculty members in terms of:

1.1 Age;
1.2 Gender;
1.3 Educational Qualification;
1.4 Status of Appointment,
1.5 Academic Rank; and
1.6 Length of Teaching Experience? data. Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, means, and percentages were used to describe the teachers’ profile, to determine their editing pattern and its level of effectiveness. Mean scores and standard deviation were used to determine the teachers’ feedback focus in D1, D2, and D3. Friedman test was used to determine if significant differences among the teachers’ editing pattern existed. Spearman Rank Order Correlation and t-test were used to determine the relationship between the teachers’ profile and their editing patterns in the English One composition of students.



C. Findings of the Study
The result of the study revealed the following:

1) Profile of the respondents was identified in terms age, gender, educational qualification, status of appointment, academic rank, and length of teaching experience. In terms of age, seven or 38.9 percent of the respondents were aged 25 and below, four or 22.2 percent were aged 26 to 30, four were likewise aged 41 and above, two were 36 to 40 years old, and only one was 31-35 years old. There were 13 female teachers and five male teachers. Three (3) teachers were BSE graduates; three (3) were AB English graduates; eleven (11) with MA/MA Units; and only one PhD unit earner. Fifteen (15) teachers were hired on contractual basis, two (2) were holding temporary items, and only one was permanent. Sixteen (16) teachers had Instructor as academic rank, and only two (2) were Associate Professors. There were six who have been teaching for more than 10 years; five teachers, 1 to 3 years; four teachers, less than a year; and three who had 4 to 6 years of teaching.

Focus of written feedback in terms of form and content yielded the following data. In terms of Form, specifically on mechanics, corrections on the use of punctuation ranked first and got the highest mean score of 9.33, while errors on format (x=3.33) getting the least. In terms of grammar, corrections on nouns ranked first and got the highest mean score of 9.78. The use of clauses got x=1.11 and x=0.44, which shows that there were only few students who used clauses in the first and second draft. In terms of Content, adequacy or supply of more words ranked first in D1 with a mean score of 8.11, accuracy got the highest rank in D2 (x=6.44), and use of praise or complement was ranked number 1 in D3 (x=8.44).

Differences among the teachers’ editing pattern in three drafts were as follows: terms of Form, the over-all mean score of 80.78 was obtained in D1, with a mean rank of 2.89; x=45.44 with a mean rank of 2.11 in D2; and X=10.00 with a mean rank of 1.00 in D3. This discloses the fact that there were significant differences in the editing patterns of teachers in D1 and D2. Having the result (32.444) of the Friedman test with a significant value of 0.000 which is significant at .01 level, the null hypothesis of no significant differences in the teachers’ editing focus on form in the three drafts was rejected. In terms of Content, an over-all mean score of 45.11 in D1 with a mean rank of 2.25 was obtained; x=50.94 with a mean rank of 2.53 for D2; and x=18.61 with a mean rank of 1.22 in D3. Having the finding (17.268) on the Friedman test conducted with a significant value of 0.000, at 0.01 level of significance, it was found that the teachers significantly differ in editing


D1.and D2, but not in D3. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant differences in the teachers’ editing pattern in the three drafts as to content was rejected.

Seventeen (17) or 94.4 percent of the respondents focused their corrections on form while only one focused on content in the first draft. For the second draft, those who focused editing on content (10 or 55.6 %) exceeded those who focused on form (8 or 44.4 %). For the third or final draft, there was a big difference in number between those who focused editing on content (15 or 83.3 %) and those who focused on form (2 or 11.1 %). However, there was one (11.1%) who focused on both form and content. It can be gleaned from this finding that the English teachers used the Form-Content-Content (F-C-C) pattern in editing the argumentative essays of the students. This finding opposes the process approach to writing, which presupposes that teachers should attend to content in preliminary drafts before switching to focus on form on later drafts, one of

Ashwell’s (2000) notion on teacher response and editing patterns. However, Sommers’ (1982) teacher response theory justifies this notion in a way that teachers must respond to students’ texts thoughtfully and must also reinforce written comments with class goals, explanations of responses, and the attitude he/she takes toward teaching and students. Further, White and Armdt’s (1991) model of the process writing approach is one that makes up an interrelated set of recursive stages, which include drafting, structuring (ordering information, experimenting with arrangements, etc.), reviewing (checking context, connections, assessing impact, editing), focusing (that js making sure one is getting the message across he/she wants to get across), generating ideas and evaluation (assessing the draft and/or subsequent drafts).

Teachers’ profile in terms of age, gender, educational qualification, status of appointment, academic rank, and length of teaching experience were not significantly related to the editing pattern used by teachers both on form and content.

As to the level of effectiveness of the teachers’ editing pattern, teacher respondents somewhat agreed on almost all of the criteria given, which only shows that the editing pattern they used was effective. Student respondents, on the other hand, strongly agreed on almost all of the criteria given, which only shows that the teachers’ editing pattern was very effective. This was substantiated by the decreasing number of errors committed by the students both on form and content in later/subsequent drafts.

Conclusions

Based on the summary of findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1) For the profile of the respondents, it can be concluded that the Department of Languages and Mass Communication (DLMC) is comprised of young and beginning teachers; most of them are female, and have earned units in the master’s program, which is a minimum requirement for teachers in the tertiary level. Almost all English teachers of CvSU were hired on contractual basis..

Submitted to the University Library 06-16-2009 T-4052