The document summarizes a study that assessed the writing proficiency of 20 junior Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students in Catanduanes State University in the 2012-2013 school year. The students were given a writing proficiency test and their essays were rated based on criteria like mechanics, content, grammar, vocabulary, and organization. The results showed that 15 of the 20 students demonstrated an advanced level of writing proficiency. Specifically, 11 students were found to have advanced proficiency while 5 students were rated as superior. Tables with the ratings given by 3 professors on the students' mechanics, content, organization, vocabulary, and grammar are also included.

1. Abstract
Junior Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED) and Bachelor of Elementary
Education (BEED) students inCatanduanes State University S.Y.2012-2013have an
advanced writing proficiency. With an attempt to prove this claim, this study aims to
determine the writing proficiency of the students with the use of a writing proficiency test
made by the researchers. Based on the results, it was found out that eleven of the twenty
respondents have an advanced writing proficiency. The help of three English professors
was sought in rating the essays of the respondents. They rated them by the following
criteria: mechanics, content, grammar, vocabulary, and organization. After checking, the
results showed that fifteen of the respondents from the Junior Bachelor of Secondary
Education (BSED) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students in
Catanduanes State University S.Y. 2012-2013 have an advanced writing proficiency.
This means that they can write routine, informal and some formal
correspondence, narrative, descriptions and summaries of a factual nature in all major
time frames in connected discourse of a paragraph in length. They also have good
vocabulary and good control of the most frequently used structures. The results also
showed that only five of the twenty respondents are leveled superior. This means that the
5 respondents can produce informal and formal writing on topics treated both abstractly
and concretely. They can present well-developed ideas, opinions, arguments and
hypotheses through extended discourse; can control structures, both general and
specialized vocabulary,spelling, punctuation, cohesive devices and all other aspects of
written form and organization with no pattern of error to distract the reader.

2. Introduction
Communication is essential in life. Through it, people learn a lot of things. They
are able to express their reactions and share information with others. Writing is one form
of communication. Go and Posecion (2011) state that writing communication is an
application of knowledge obtained from learning a language. In school, students writing
ability is crucial to their academic performance since a greater part of school activities
from examinations, to assignments, reports, and researches are written.
―Learning to write well is important, one of the most important things you will do
in your education‖, say Glaizier and Paige (2003). Nevertheless writing is generally
regarded as a difficult skill and a complex task (Jahin and Wafa, 2012). This is often
attributed to its inherently complex characteristics which according to Graham and
Rogers (2008) "range from mechanical control to creativity, with good grammar,
knowledge of subject matter, awareness of stylistic conventions and various mysterious
factors in between." Writing is a process through which writers explore thoughts and
ideas, and make them visible and concrete. It is a difficult skill for native and non-native
speakers alike, for writers should balance multiple issues such as content, organization,
purpose, audience, vocabulary, punctuation, spelling, and mechanics. Moreover, it
encourages thinking and learning, motivates communication and makes thought available
for reflection. When thought is written down, ideas can be examined, reconsidered, added
to, rearranged, and changed. Writing is especially difficult for nonnative speakers
because they are expected to create written products that demonstrate mastery of all the
aforementioned issues in a new language (Wells, 2008). Vega (2000) investigated the
student related factors and the composition writing performance of college freshmen in

3. Catanduanes Agricultural and Industrial College, Panganiban, Catanduanes. The findings
of the study tell that the level of composition writing performance of the college
freshmen as to all the writing components is ‗good‘ and that there exist a high correlation
between the final grade of the students and their level of performance in composition
writing.
Lim (2001) investigated the effect of training Saudi English major student
teachers in discourse parameters and text types on developing prospective English
teachers' knowledge of and ability to apply the principles of discourse parameters and
text types in their communicative writing production. Procedures of the study came
through an essay-writing test directed to a sample of 30 EFL prospective teachers
studying in the Department of English, Teachers' College, Taibah University, Saudi
Arabia, and belonging to an intermediate language proficiency level. Results of the pilot
study indicated that participants faced a set of problems including lack of knowledge of
and inability to apply the principles of discourse parameters and text types in
communicative writing production.
Likewise, Braddrock and Jones (2003) looked into English writing problems at
the university level, trying to point out the major difficulties Iranian students face when
writing their reports and determine the defects in writing skill of medical students. They
further explored whether language skills or writing skills are the major problematic areas
to which fifth year medical students and interns are confronted. Data analysis indicated
that Iranian EFL medical students had problems both in language and writing skills, but
with a higher percentage of problems in writing skills.

4. Greenberg (2005) conducted a 3-year study of teacher judgment of student
writing. It analyzed teachers' talk to discover the processes teachers used as they read and
appraised student writing, as distinct from judgments recorded as numerical or letter
grades. It identified and discussed a set of data-based indexes the teachers relied on to
form their judgments. In so doing, the 'global' standard-setting of external assessment
(judging the quality of student work against stated standards), and the 'local' of teacher
judgment (based on the richness of what teachers bring to the task) were reconsidered.
This study noted how teacher judgment of student coursework may be intertwined with
and shaped both by officially authorized curriculum materials, syllabus documents, and
assessment practices, and by other essentially private, local ways of knowing.
Alsmandi (2010) evaluated English language proficiency of college students in 18
colleges in Saudi Arabia with focus on the main language skills. He found out that
college students were low proficient in all four-language skills, especially in writing. His
study concluded with desperate and immediate need for remedial programs sided by an
overall review of all teaching and learning processes at the teachers' colleges.
Zara-ee (2011) examined the strengths and weaknesses of holistic and analytic
scoring methods used in assessing writing. He explored how holistic or analytic scales
could be used to better assess students' compositions. He found that there were no
misfitting raters when analytic scales were used. The study explored the raters'
consistency in rating and that analytic ratings were more reliable and thus was preferred
to holistic scales.
The present study is unique because the respondents consist of college-level
students majoring in English. The researcher believes that college-level students majoring

5. in English best meet the threshold and transfer theory assumptions because these students
have already attained a minimum level of L2 linguistic competence, which is more likely
to be met at this level of education than at the secondary school level.
The investigation of the role of writing proficiency continues to be revealing for
the better understanding of the present and future performance of students. The present
study addressed the writing proficiency of junior Bachelor of Secondary Education
(BSEd) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students in Catanduanes State
University. This kind of study is needed in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) settings
like Philippines for the better specification of the actual role of EFL writing instructions.
This study can be an attempt to test one of the taken-for-granted predispositions
related to college students, which implies that just because these students are already in
college, they have positively high proficiency in writing using the language. The
researcher hopes that this study will be of significance to the following:
The teachers. The study will help educators to adopt appropriate teaching
strategies and set up more relevant remedial measures to enhance students'
knowledge of the subject matter (i.e. English language) in general and their
writing proficiency in particular. It will also enable them know the results of their
instructions and be able to assess themselves on how they contributed to the
writing proficiency of their students.
The school administration. For them to be aware of the level of writing
proficiency of the students enrolled in their school and for them to find
appropriate measures to help the students to improve their writing performance.

6. The parents. For them to recognize the writing proficiency of their children and be
able to realize their needs.
The students. For them to be able to assess themselves in their writing
competence and to be able for them to improve their own performance.
The researcher. By which full effort and interest is dedicated to conduct a richer
study on the writing proficiency of students taking up the same course which she
is enrolled in and use this knowledge to be one of her basis on evaluating her own
performance towards the subject.
Finally, this study will serve as a start for further research activities by those
whose interests are similar to those of the researcher, since this is first of its kind
to be conducted to the said college. In one way or the other this may motivate
them to conduct researches that will deals into the other aspect of writing
proficiency.
This study focused mainly on the writing proficiency of junior Bachelor of
Secondary Education (BSEd) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students in
Catanduanes State University 2012-2013. It involvedtwenty BSED and BEED students in
Catanduanes State University school year 2012-2013. Data gathering employed test
which the researcher believed to give highlight on the level of writing proficiency of the
respondents. This study was limited to the writing proficiency of junior Bachelor of
Secondary Education (BSEd) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students in
Catanduanes State Universityschool year 2012-2013.

7. Method
Research Design
Since the study aims to determine the writing proficiency of junior Bachelor of
Secondary Education (BSED) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students in
Catanduanes State University S.Y.2012-2013, the researchers used the descriptive
method of research with writing proficiency test as research instruments. Descriptive
method of research is a fact-finding study with adequate and accurate interpretation of the
findings.
Participants
The respondents of the current study comprisedTwenty (20) junior students—ten
(10) BSED students and ten (10) BEEDstudents from the College of Education
Catanduanes State University school year 2012-2013.
Instruments
The writing proficiency test was the most appropriate tool to use in
gathering data regarding respondents‘ writing proficiency. The purpose of the research
was not directly explained to the participants since it would affect their responses if
otherwise. The writing proficiency test was used to assess their writing ability. The data
which was used in this study came from the results of the writing proficiency test that
was administered to the respondents.

8. Data Gathering Procedure
Once the researches have prepared the research instrument, the researchers have
chosen the respondents of the study. The respondents were given thirty minutes to write
an essay out of the given topic. Detailed instructions on how to answer the writing
proficiency test was provided to participants during their actual administration. Careful
attention was given to the presentation of enough and clear writing prompts on the test.
The test was administered in English.
Data analysis
The measure of central tendency—the mean—was used to process the
quantitative data that was gathered from the result of the writing proficiency test that
administered. Three raters will check the essays written by the respondents based on the
criteria that were made to rate the essays in the written test to determine their writing
proficiency level namely content, mechanics, organization, vocabulary and grammar. The
score given by the three raters will be averaged to determine the writing proficiency of
the respondents.
Results
The results of the writing proficiency test of junior Bachelor of Secondary
Education (BSED) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students in
Catanduanes State University S.Y.2012-2013 were reported. The mean of these results is
then obtained to determine the writing proficiency level of the students. The data were
obtained by letting the respondents write an essay with the topic, ―LOVING: The
Greatest Risk Yet the Bravest Act‖.

9. Table 1 mechanics
RESPONDENT RATER A RATER B RATER C AVERAGE
1 10 9 15 24.00
2 12 11 18 29.00
3 18 17 18 41.00
4 12 13 19 31.33
5 10 10 15 25.00
6 10 11 18 27.00
7 12 13 17 30.67
8 16 17 10 36.33
9 12 11 15 28.00
10 19 14 15 38.00
11 20 20 19 46.33
12 20 20 19 46.33
13 16 15 18 37.00
14 14 13 15 32.00
15 16 15 10 34.33
16 14 13 12 31.00
17 18 18 18 42.00
18 11 11 15 27.00
19 12 12 13 28.33
20 14 14 12 32.00
CONTENT
respondent rater A rater B rater C average
1 15 14 20 16.33
2 20 19 15 18.00
3 25 24 25 24.50
4 15 14 25 18.00
5 10 9 15 11.33
6 14 13 17 14.67
7 20 19 21 20.00
8 22 23 15 20.00
9 19 19 15 17.67
10 22 20 21 21.00
11 24 22 27 24.33
12 28 27 23 26.00
13 20 19 26 21.67
14 20 19 22 20.33
15 20 19 21 20.00

10. 16 6 6 20 10.67
17 20 20 25 21.67
18 20 19 20 19.67
19 20 19 17 18.67
20 18 17 20 18.33
ORGANIZATION
respondent rater A rater B rater C average
1 10 11 15 12.00
2 12 11 10 11.00
3 16 17 17 16.67
4 10 10 18 12.67
5 10 10 10 10.00
6 9 9 12 10.00
7 11 12 14 12.33
8 16 15 18 16.33
9 12 10 10 10.67
10 12 13 14 13.00
11 20 20 16 18.67
12 16 17 17 16.67
13 20 20 17 19.00
14 15 15 13 14.33
15 12 10 10 10.67
16 8 7 15 10.00
17 16 15 10 13.67
18 11 11 13 11.67
19 16 16 12 14.67
20 13 13 18 14.67
VOCABULARY
RESPONDENT RATER A RATER B RATER
C
AVERAGE
1 7 8 10 8.33
2 10 9 10 9.67
3 13 14 13 13.33
4 10 10 13 11.00
5 11 12 10 11.00
6 9 9 10 9.33
7 9 9 13 10.33
8 8 8 10 8.67
9 9 10 10 9.67
10 11 11 10 10.67
11 12 10 13 11.67

11. 12 10 11 14 11.67
13 10 11 11 10.67
14 10 10 12 10.67
15 10 9 11 10.00
16 8 7 9 8.00
17 10 9 11 10.00
18 7 6 11 8.00
19 8 8 10 8.67
20 8 9 11 9.33
7 6 6 10 7.33
8 8 9 5 7.33
9 6 5 10 7.00
10 9 8 10 9.00
11 15 15 12 14.00
12 10 10 13 11.00
13 10 11 10 10.33
14 10 9 9 9.33
15 12 12 8 10.67
16 10 9 9 9.33
17 8 9 10 9.00
18 9 9 10 9.33
19 8 8 12 9.33
20 8 9 8 8.33
respondent rater A rater B rater C average
1 49 50 73 57.33
2 63 59 63 61.67
3 82 82 83 82.33
4 53 52 85 63.33
5 50 50 63 54.33
6 48 47 66 53.67
7 48 59 75 60.67
8 70 67 58 65.00
9 58 54 60 57.33
10 73 66 71 70.00
11 91 87 87 88.33
12 84 85 86 85.00
13 76 76 82 78.00

12. 14 69 66 71 68.67
15 70 65 60 65.00
16 46 42 65 51.00
17 71 71 74 72.00
18 57 56 69 60.67
19 64 63 64 63.67
20 60 62 69 63.67
13
78 superior
14 69 advanced
15 65 advanced
16 51 advanced
17 72 advanced
18 61 advanced
19 64 advanced
20 64 advanced
Discussions
The writing proficiency of junior Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED) and
Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students in Catanduanes State University
S.Y.2012-2013 was assessed by letting the respondents write an essay with the topic,
―LOVING: The Greatest Risk Yet the Bravest Act‖ to prove the researchers‘ claim. They
assert that the junior Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED) and Bachelor of
Elementary Education (BEED) students have an advanced writing proficiency.
The mean of writing proficiency test results was obtained to determine the writing
proficiency level of the students. The researchers checked the essay test. In checking, the
researchers used the following criteria:
Content 30 points
Mechanics 20 points

13. Organization 20 points
Vocabulary 15 points
Grammar 15 points
Total 100 points
Discussion is divided into seven parts: the test results according to the five
criteria, the average score obtained by the respondents and their level of proficiency.
TABLE 1 MECHANICS
Table 1 show the score of the respondents when it comes to mechanics.
Mechanics refers to the indention, capitalization, margining, spacing, punctuation,
spelling and syllabication errors or run-on sentences. The perfect score for mechanics is
20. Of the 20 respondents, only 2 respondents, 11 and 12 obtained a perfect score from
Rater A and Rater B while Rater C gave them a score of 19. The lowest score was 9
which was obtained by Respondent 1 given by Rater B. the other score range from 10-19.
This means that most of them still made mistakes when it comes to the mechanics.
TABLE 2 CONTENT
Table 2 presents the rating the Respondents received when it comes to the content
of their essays. The highest score for contents is 30. The highest score was 28 given by
Rater A while the lowest score was 6 given by Rater A and B to Respondent 16. This
means that Respondent 12 can present can present his thought in an organized way while
Respondent 16 has a very weak presentation. The highest average was obtained by
Respondent 12.

14. TABLE 3 ORGANIZATION
Table 3 summarizes the scores of Respondents in organization. The highest score
for organization is 20 points. Gaining 20 from Rater A, 20 from Rater B and 16 from
Rater C, Respondent 11 received the highest average of 18.67. This means that each part
of the essay was well developed and organized. The lowest average was 10 received by
Respondents 5, 6 and 16. The averages range from 10-18.67.
TABLE 4 VOCABULARY
Table 4 which are for vocabulary presents the scores that the Respondents
received for the choices and uses of words in their essay. The perfect score for
vocabulary was 15. The highest average, which was 13.33, was achieved by Respondent
3. The averages range from 8-13.33.
TABLE 5 GRAMMAR
Table 5 offers the score that the Respondents garnered for grammar. Getting the
perfect score from rater A and Rater B, Respondents 11 got the highest average of 14.
Obtaining half of the highest average was the Respondent 9 having 7 percent average.
This may implied that Respondent 9 needs some improvisation.
TABLE 6 LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY
Table 6 reveals the level of Proficiency of the Respondents in writing essay.
There were 5 Respondents who were leveled superior. This means that the 5 Respondents

15. can produce informal and formal writing on topics treated both abstractly and concretely.
They can present well-developed ideas, opinions, arguments and hypotheses through
extended discourse; can control structures, both general and specialized vocabulary,
spelling, punctuation, cohesive devices and all other aspects of written form and
organization with no pattern of error to distract the reader. Among those 5 Respondents,
it was Respondent 11 who got the highest level of Proficiency which was 88.33 percent.
The other 15 Respondents left fall on Advanced level. This only shows that they can
write routine, informal and some formal correspondence, narrative, descriptions and
summaries of a factual naturein all major time frames in connected discourse of a
paragraph in length. They also have good vocabulary and good control of the most
frequently used structures. Respondent 16, getting the average of 51 was the lowest
among the 15 Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION
Teachers: provide more reasons for the student to read. Based on the four macro
skills, students will have difficulty on writing – what to write and how to write them, if
they have little background, knowledge or influence from reading stories, novels, essays,
poetry, etc.
Let the students have more writing activities and encourage proper correction on
students‘ written output and on formal theme writing for them to be aware of the
common mistakes in punctuation marks, grammar, coherence on structuring their piece,
etc.

16. Students: encouraged to read more books to widen their knowledge on different
topics, wit on presenting and structuring ideas, and to increase vocabulary power. Aside
from reading, they should also watch videos or English movies. They can learn by
imitating the things they have listened to, and have insights on new wisdom.
Try also interactive games and drills online, it can enhance their skills on
grammar, proficiency, vocabulary, etc.
And of course, practice writing to further develop skills.
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATION
Writing is one of the forms of communication. It is an essential skill one must
acquire. A person equipped with proficient writing skill is evidence that he/she had
gained knowledge or had been educated about the essence of writing. Every person must
be equipped with this proficiency in writing so that he/she can have effective
communication which is a great help when we step out in the world of works.
Junior College of Education students show a remarkable result in the study
conducted. The study has shown that CED students have an advance writing proficiency.
With this result it can be asserted that CSU gives full instruction to the student in order
for them to have mastery in the macro skills specifically the writing skill. It is shown that
these future teachers will truly be an asset to teach young children to teach them the basic
skill they must acquire.
The result shows that the respondents acquire low scores in the mechanics while
they have shown high scores in the other four criteria. This means that CED students are
poor in terms of mechanics. Mechanics include the proper spacing and margining,

17. indentation, capitalization, spelling and syllabication. In this case, we can say that
students are not thought well with the basics of mechanics. Therefore, students at the
basic education must be thought well with the basics of mechanics because it is one of the
essential skills that one must master in terms of writing.
However, the respondents show relatively high scores in the other criteria, which
makes their level advanced. This means that they are equipped with knowledge in terms
of grammar, vocabulary, organization and content. Students can write their thoughts in an
organize way with proper terminologies. However, they must be given more
enhancements in term of exercises in the modules or in the subject that they are taking or
will be taking. Even though the overall percentage is high, other respondents show poor
result in these criteria.
At the basic education or in the elementary level, children must be taught properly
about the basics or essential part of writing. At this level, basics are taught and they must
master it because these skills will be brought on to college or even someday at their work.
Writing is an essential skill that is why it must be given importance in teaching in the
basic level.

18. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alsamadani, Hashem Ahmed. (2010). ―The Relationship between Saudi EFL Students‘
Writing Competence, L1 Writing Proficiency, and Self-regulation‖.European
Journal of Social Sciences.Vol. 16.No. 1. pp. 53-63.
Braddock, Richard and Richard Lloyd-Jones.(2003). Research in Written Composition.
Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
―College Writing Proficiency (CWP) Criteria‖.Retrieved from
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~garrett/104cwp.html on September 11, 2012.
Graham, Steve and Leslie Ann Rogers.(2008). ―A Meta-Analysis of Single Subject
Design Writing Intervention Research‖.Journal of Educational Psychology.Vol.
100.No. 4. pp. 879-906.
Greenberg, Karen L. (2005). ―Writing Assessment Test Design: Response to Two WPA
Essays‖.WPA: Writing Program Administration. Vol. 9. No. 1-2. pp. 31-40.
Go, Mildred B. and Ofelia T. Posecion. (2011). Language and Literature Assessment: A
Comprehensive Guide. Quezon City: Lorimar Publishing Inc.
Jahin Jamal Hamed and Mohammad Wafa.(2012). ―EFL Major Student Teachers'
Writing Proficiency and Attitudes Towards Learning English‖.Mohram Journal.
Vol. 4. No. 1-1433. pp. 9-72.

19. Lim, Ho-Peng. (2001). ―Measuring Writing Proficiency of College ESL Students‖. Jalt
Journal. Vol. 6. pp. 83-95.
Vega, Natividad V. ―Student-Related Factors and the Composition Writing Performance
of College Freshmen in the Catanduanes Agricultural and Industrial College,
PanganibanCatanduanes, First Semester, S.Y. 1999-2000,‖ (Unpublished Master
Thesis, Virac, Catanduanes, 2000)
Wells, Jennifer. (2008). ―They Can Get There From Here: Teaching For Transfer
Through A ‗Writing About Writing‘ Course‖. English Journal.Vol. 101.No. 2. pp.
57-73.
Wilson, Paige and Teresa FersterGlaizier. (2003). Writing Essentials. Massachusetts:
Thomson Heinle.
―Writing Proficiency Exam‖.Retrieved September 11, 2012 from
http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/languagelearning/mangngyrlngglrnngprgrm/Testin
gYourWritingProficiency.htm.
Zare-ee, Abbas. (2011). ―Does English Proficiency Level Predict Writing Speed, Length,
and Quality?‖ Arab World English Journal.Vol.2 No. 3. pp. 128-140.