TEACHER-STUDENT CONFERENCE AS ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY

FOR WRITING ACCURACY Frema Trixia D. Limbo

Jean M. Angulo

Learners learn best when they understand clearly what they are trying to learn and what is expected of them, when they are given feedback about the quality of their work and what they can do to make it better, when they are given advice about how to go about making improvements and when they are fully involved in deciding what needs to be done next, and who give them help if they need it (Go and Posecion, 2010).

This study aimed to test the effectiveness of teacher-student conference as enhancement strategy for writing accuracy of the selected junior students in Perez National High School, School Year 2013-2014.

Specifically, this study aimed the following:

1.Determine the level of writing accuracy of the control and experimental group based on the Pre-test.

2.Determine the level of writing accuracy of the control and experimental group based on the Post-test.

3.Find out if there is a significant difference between level of writing accuracy of the control and experimental group on the Pre-Test and Post Test.

After data had been gathered, analysed and interpreted, the following findings were drawn:

1. Based on the pre - test mean score the control group got 85.15 and experimental group got 83.92, the control group has higher mean however, both fell in the same level of writing accuracy which was level 4 and there was no significant difference between their means.

FIRST OBJECTIVE: Determine the level of writing accuracy of the controland experimental group based on

the Pre-test

Level of writing accuracy before applying enhancement strategies PRE-TEST

LEVELCONTROL GROUP EXPERIMANTAL GROUP

FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

5 12 40 7 23.34 13 43.33 16 53.33 3 10 6 202 2 6.667 1 3.33

Sum of Scores 2554.43 2517.57

Mean 85.15 83.92Interpretati

on 80%-89% ACCURATE 80%-89% ACCURATE6- 100% accurate5- 90%-99% accurate4- 80%-89%accurate

3-70%-79%accurate2- 60%-69% accurate1- 0-59% accurate

PRE-TEST

LEVEL

CONTROL GROUP

EXPERIMANTAL GROUP

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

5 12 40 7 23.34 13 43.33 16 53.33 3 10 6 202 2 6.667 1 3.33

Sum of

Scores

2554.43 2517.57

Mean 85.15 83.92Interpretati

on

80%-89% ACCURATE

80%-89% ACCURATE

In control group, there were 12 students or 40% of the respondents in the control group was in level 5 of writing accuracy. Moreover, 13 students or 43.3% of the respondents were in level 4 of accuracy; 3 or 10% were in level 3 of accuracy; and 2 or six and 6.7% of the respondents in the control group were in level 2 of writing accuracy. This data is based on the pre-test results further show that the majority of the students in the control group were in level 4 of writing accuracy. However, the overall mean score of 85.15 implied that based on the pre-test results, students in the control group were in level 4 of writing accuracy which means 80%- 89% accurate. (Fig.3)

5 4 3 20

10

20

30

40

50

40 43.3

10 6.7

Percentage of the Pre-test Result of Control

Group

Control group

PRE-TEST

LEVEL

CONTROL GROUP

EXPERIMANTAL GROUP

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

5 12 40 7 23.34 13 43.33 16 53.33 3 10 6 202 2 6.667 1 3.33

Sum of

Scores

2554.43 2517.57

Mean 85.15 83.92Interpretati

on

80%-89% ACCURATE

80%-89% ACCURATE

5 4 3 20

20

40

60

23.3

53.3

203.33

Percentage of the Pre-test Result of

Experimantal Group

Experimental Group

In the experimental group, there were 7 or 23.3% were in level 5 of writing accuracy. Moreover, there were 16 or 53.3% of the students were in level 4; 6 or 20% were in level 3 of writing accuracy; and 1 or 33.3% was in level 2 of writing accuracy. Based on the results of the pre-test of the experimental group, the majority of the students were in level 4. However, the sum up score or the mean score of 83.92 of the group based on the pre-test result was in level 4 also which means they have 80% - 89% accurate writing.

Based on the results of pre-test in control and experimental group, respondents in both group was in the same level of writing accuracy. However, control group has higher mean than in experimental. This result proved that the pairing of the students in control and experimental group was valid because it showed that they were in the same level of writing accuracy. According to the book of Go and Posecion (2010), assessment for learning (a diagnostic test/ pre-test) focuses on the gap between where the leaner is in her/his learning and where she/he needs to be- the desired goal.

2. Based on the post – test mean score of the control group 89.10 and experimental group got 93.67, the experimental group outperformed and moved up to level 5 of writing accuracy. There had a significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups wherein experimental group got higher level of writing accuracy.

SECOND OBJECTIVE: Determine the level of writing accuracy of the controland experimental group based on

the Post-test

Level of writing accuracy after applying enhancement strategies

POST- TEST

LEVELCONTROL GROUP EXPERIMANTAL GROUP

FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE6   0 2 6.675 17 56.67 21 704 12 40 6 203 1 3.333 1 3.33

Sum of level

2672.91 2810.04

Mean 89.1 93.67Interpretat

ion80%-89% ACCURATE 90%-99%ACCURATE6- 100% accurate

5- 90%-99% accurate4- 80%-89%accurate

3-70%-79%accurate2- 60%-69% accurate1- 0-59% accurate

POST- TEST

LEVELCONTROL GROUP

EXPERIMANTAL GROUP

FREQUENCYPERCENTAG

EFREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

6   0 2 6.675 17 56.67 21 704 12 40 6 203 1 3.333 1 3.33

Sum of level 2672.91 2810.04

Mean 89.1 93.67

Interpretation

80%-89% ACCURATE

90%-99%ACCURATE

In control group were 17 students or 56.7% of the respondents were in level 5 of writing accuracy. Then, there were 12 or 40% of the students were in level 4 of writing accuracy. and 1 or 3.33% (3.33%) were in level 3 of accuracy. The majority of the students in the control group, based on the post-test result were still in the level 4 of writing accuracy. However, the overall mean of 89.10 implied that the result of the control group based on the post-test result was still in level 4 or 80% - 89% accurate writing. (Fig.5)

5 4 30

20

40

60

56.740

3.33

Percentage of the Post-test Result of

Control Group

CONTROL GROUP

After the implementation of written corrective feedbacks to control group, the number of students in level 5 increased from 12 to 17; students in level 4 decreased from 13 to 12, students in level 3 decreased from 3 to 1; and the number students in level 2 decreased from 2 to 0 which means that the student’s level of writing accuracy of the control group based on the pre-test and post-test results have slightly improved.(Fig.7)

This proved that written corrective feedback (Dr. Ellis, 2012) enables learners to revise their own writing in order to produce a better draft and assists them to acquire correct English.

5 4 3 2

12

13

2 2

17

12

1

0

Control Group Frequency

Pre-test Post-test

POST- TEST

LEVELCONTROL GROUP

EXPERIMANTAL GROUP

FREQUENCYPERCENTAG

EFREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

6   0 2 6.675 17 56.67 21 704 12 40 6 203 1 3.333 1 3.33

Sum of level 2672.91 2810.04

Mean 89.1 93.67

Interpretation

80%-89% ACCURATE

90%-99%ACCURATE

6 5 4 30

20

40

60

80

6.67

70

203.33

Percentage of the Post-test Result of Experimental Group

Experimental Group

In the experimental group, there were 2 or 6.67% of the students were in level 6 of writing accuracy; 21 or 40% of the students were in the level 5) of writing accuracy; 6 or 20% of the students were in level 4 and 1 or 3.33% of the respondents was in level 3 of writing accuracy. The majority of students of the experimental group were in level 5, however, 2 of then fell in level 6 of accuracy. Moreover, the overall mean of the group which is 93.67 based on post –test implied 90% - 99% accurate writing. (Fig.6)

However, after the having a teacher- student conference as enhancement strategy to the experimental group, the number of students in level 6 have increased from 0 to 2; students in level 5 from 16 to 21; students in level 4 decreased from 16 to 6; students in level 3 remained 6; and students in level 3 decreased from 3 to 1; students in level 2 decreased from 1 to 0; which means that the student’s level of writing accuracy of the experimental group based on pre-test and post-test results have greatly improve. (Fig.8)6 5 4 3 20

7

16

6

12

21

6

10

Experimental Group Frequency

Pre-test Post-test

This proved that writing conferences, in which independence and ownership are promoted, increase students’ achievement in writing (Jacobs & Karliner, 1977; Koshik, 2002) as cited by Bayraktar (2009) and that the role of teachers in the conferences is “to help children expand thinking by asking questions, making comments, or introducing new ideas which challenge their thinking or provide additional food for thought” (Keebler, 1995). With the help of writing conferences, students gain higher-order thinking skills, and become independent, critical, and open-minded writers. All of these advanced skills help students increase their writing achievement and their perceived self-efficacy in relation to their achievement in writing.

Based on the result, the mean of the control group based on pre-test is 85.15 and increased to 89.10 as the result in the post-test. However, the mean of the experimental group is 83.92 based on the pre-test and increased to 93.67 as the result of post-test. (Fig.9)

Control Group Experimental group

85.15 83.92

89.1

93.67

Mean

Pre-test Post-test

3. The difference between the pre-test and post test scores were as follows: mean score of the control (85.15) and experimental (83.92) groups as shown by the computed t-value of 0.782 and significance value of .440; and there was a highly significant difference between the post-test mean score of the control (89.10) and experimental (93.67) groups as shown by the computed t-value of 3.543 and significance value of .001.

3.1.There was a highly significant difference between the mean gain scores of the control (3.95) and experimental (9.75) groups as shown by the computed t-value of 3.719 and significance value of 0.001.

THIRD OBJECTIVE: Find out if there is a significant difference between level of writing accuracy of the control and experimental group on the Pre-Test and Post Test

Significant Differences

Results based on the pre - test and post - test scores were

considered to determine the significant difference on the student

performance of the control and experimental groups.

Pre – Test. Table 3 shows the data to determine the significant difference of control and experimental groups based on the pre – test score. The control group obtained pre – test mean score of 85.15 while the experimental group obtained pre – test mean score of 83.92. The data revealed that the experimental group has higher level of writing accuracy compared with that of the control group.

Variable N Meant-

value

Significant

Value

Interpretation

Pre – test Score of Control Group

30 85.15

.782.440 > .05

No

SignificancePre – test Score of

Experimental Group30 83.92

As for computed t-value of .782, this was highly significant (.440 > .05). This means that there was no significant difference between the scores of the control and experimental groups in the pre-test.

Post – test. Table 4 shows the data to determine the significant difference of control and experimental groups based on post – test scores. The control group obtained post – test mean score of 89.10 while the experimental group obtained post – test mean score of 93.67. The data revealed that the experimental group has higher performance compared with that of the control group.

Variable N Mean

t-valu

e

Significant value

Interpreta-tion

Post – test Score of Control Group

30 89.10 3.54

30.001 < 0.05

Highly Significan

t

Post – test Score of Experimental Group

30 93.67

As for the computed t-value of 3.543, this was significant (0.001 < 0.05). This means that there was a significant difference between the scores of the control and experimental groups. This further implies that having a one- on- one teacher-student conference for writing accuracy was an effective enhancement strategy for writing accuracy.

Gained Score. Table 5 showed the data to determine the significant difference of control and experimental groups based on the gained scores. The control group obtained gained mean score of 3.95, while the experimental group obtained gain mean score of 9.75.

The data revealed that the experimental group has higher performance compared with that of the control group.

Gain score based on the pre- test and post – test scores were considered to determine the significant difference of the student performance between the control and experimental groups.

Variable N Meant-

value

Significant Value

Interpretation

Gain Score of Control Group

30 3.95 

3.719

 

0.001 < 0.05

Highly SignificantGain Score of

Experimental Group

30 9.75

As for the t-value of 3.719, this has significance (0.001 < 0.05). This means that there was a significant difference between the writing accuracy of the control and experimental groups. This further implied that having a one- on- one teacher-student conference for writing accuracy was an effective enhancement strategy for writing accuracy.

Therefore, based on this study, the conclusion of Bitchener, 2005 that “many writing teachers consider one-on-one teacher–student conferences to be potentially more effective than written corrective feedback because they provide an opportunity for clarification, instruction, and negotiation” was proven and “the absence of published empirical research on this option means that this popularly held belief cannot be taken as evidence of effectiveness” was now answered.

Based from the findings, the researchers concluded the following:

Conducting a one- on – one teacher- student conference really enhance writing accuracy of the students more effectively. “We have tried conferences for three years, and we are convinced they represent the most valuable innovation in the enrichment of the high school curriculum in English” said Janet Emig.

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

Students have known their writing skill level, their mistakes and how those will be corrected and have become more aware on the writing conventions which are the grammar/ usage of words, spelling, punctuations and capitalisations for their accuracy. "We should set up collaborative sessions and conferences during which important discoveries can be made by both reader and writer" said, Zamel (1985).

CONCLUSION

Students become motivated to improve their writing skill level and become more accurate in writing. In the information that we have read in http://www.jobs.ac.uk/careers-advice/working-in-higher-education/1828/teaching-skills-giving-constructive-feedback-and-assessment/ which stated that giving effective feedback can build a students’ confidence, transform their understanding and motivation and also help them develop key critical skills and feedback, especially when linked to tutorials or seminars should focus on looking forward and on how to enhance learning, we decided to compare tutorial-type as way of giving feedback to our first variable which is written corrective feedback in enhancing students’s outputs for writing accuracy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Teacher- student conference would be more effective if it would be conducted not just once and in a short time but more often and in a longer period of time. Based on the result of the score of the experimental group, there was a large increase of scores from the pre-test results up to the post-test of the group respectively within a short period of time, what’s more if it would be conducted regularly as the school year progress. As what have been said: “Perhaps the most successful practice in the teaching of composition has been the regular conference to discuss the problems and progress of the individual student” (James Squire and Roger Applebee).

RECOMMENDATIONS

It would be best if future researchers would have a time pattern and more writing activities in conducting giving feedback- related studies in the future to find out and answer other questions regarding enhancement strategies for writing accuracy. “We should spend nearly all of our time conferring with individual writers. That seems to be what they need most supportive response and help with their problems in the particular piece they are working on” said Charles Cooper.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Conduct another research using the same strategy and considering alternate methods in teaching the control and experimental groups in a longer extent of study.

TEACHER-STUDENT CONFERENCE AS ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY

FOR WRITING ACCURACY Frema Trixia D. Limbo

Jean M. Angulo