TEACHER- STUDENT CONFERENCE AS ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY FOR WRITING ACCURACY

TEACHER-STUDENT CONFERENCE
AS ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY
FOR WRITING ACCURACY
FremaTrixia 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.

Level of writing accuracy before applying enhancement strategies
PRE-TEST
LEVEL
CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMANTAL GROUP
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
5 12 40 7 23.3
4 13 43.33 16 53.3
3 3 10 6 20
2 2 6.667 1 3.33
Sum of Scores 2554.43 2517.57
Mean 85.15 83.92
Interpretation 80%-89% ACCURATE 80%-89% ACCURATE
6- 100% accurate
5- 90%-99% accurate
4- 80%-89%accurate
3-70%-79%accurate
2- 60%-69% accurate
1- 0-59% accurate

PRE-TEST
LEVEL
CONTROL
GROUP
EXPERIMANTAL
GROUP
5 12 40 7 23.3
4 13 43.33 16 53.3
3 3 10 6 20
2 2 6.667 1 3.33
Sum of
Scores
2554.43 2517.57
Mean 85.15 83.92
Interpre
tation
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)
0
10
20
30
40
50
5 4 3 2
Percentage of the Pre-test
Result of Control Group
Control group

PRE-TEST
LEVEL
CONTROL
GROUP
EXPERIMANTAL
GROUP
5 12 40 7 23.3
4 13 43.33 16 53.3
3 3 10 6 20
2 2 6.667 1 3.33
Sum of
Scores
2554.43 2517.57
Mean 85.15 83.92
Interpre
tation
80%-89%
ACCURATE
80%-89%
ACCURATE
0
20
40
60
5 4 3 2
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.

Level of writing accuracy after applying
enhancement strategies
POST-TEST
LEVEL
CONTROLGROUP EXPERIMANTALGROUP
6 0 2 6.67
5 17 56.67 21 70
4 12 40 6 20
3 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- 100% accurate
5- 90%-99% accurate
4- 80%-89%accurate
3-70%-79%accurate
2- 60%-69% accurate
1- 0-59% accurate

POST-TEST
LEVEL
CONTROL GROUP
EXPERIMANTAL
GROUP
6 0 2 6.67
5 17 56.67 21 70
4 12 40 6 20
3 1 3.333 1 3.33
Sum of
level
2672.91 2810.04
Mean 89.1 93.67
Interpretat
ion
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)0
20
40
60
5 4 3
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.
12
13
2 2
17
12
1 0
5 4 3 2
Control Group Frequency
Pre-test Post-test

POST-TEST
LEVEL
CONTROL GROUP
EXPERIMANTAL
GROUP
6 0 2 6.67
5 17 56.67 21 70
4 12 40 6 20
3 1 3.333 1 3.33
Sum of
level
2672.91 2810.04
Mean 89.1 93.67
Interpretat
ion
80%-89% ACCURATE 90%-99%ACCURATE
0
20
40
60
80
6 5 4 3
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)
0
7
16
6
1
2
21
6
1 0
6 5 4 3 2
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)
85.15
83.92
89.1
93.67
CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
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.

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 Mean
t-
value
Significant
Value
Interpretati
on
Pre – test Score of Control Group 30 85.15
.782 .440 > .05
No
SignificancePre – test Score of Experimental
Group
30 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-
value
Significant
value
Interpreta-
tion
Post – test Score of Control Group 30 89.10
3.543 0.001 < 0.05 Highly
Significant
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 Mean
t-
value
Significant
Value
Interpretation
Gain Score of Control
Group
30 3.95
3.719 0.001 < 0.05
Highly
SignificantGain Score of
ExperimentalGroup
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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to TEACHER- STUDENT CONFERENCE AS ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY FOR WRITING ACCURACY

Similar to TEACHER- STUDENT CONFERENCE AS ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY FOR WRITING ACCURACY (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

TEACHER- STUDENT CONFERENCE AS ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY FOR WRITING ACCURACY