COPING STRATEGY ON USING WRITTEN TEXT AS A FORM OF SOCIAL

INTERACTION OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OF

OLD CABALAN INTEGRATED SCHOOL

RAMIL V. GARRIDO

A Thesis Proposal submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School President

Ramon Magsaysay State University, Iba, Zambales in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education Major in Educational
Administration

June, 2020
CONTENT PAGENUMBER

Title page i

Table of contents ii

Chapter I Introduction

Background of the Study 1

Significance of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 4

Scope and Limitation 4

Chapter II Framework of the Study

Review of Related Literature 5

Conceptual Framework 7

Paradigm of the Study 8

Hypothesis 8

Definition of Terms 10

Chapter III Research Methodology

Research Design 11

Respondents and Location 11

Research Instruments 12

Data Collections 12

Data Analysis 12

Interpretation of Data 12

References 13
Appendix A

Survey questions for the Respondents 14

Appendix B

Rubrics used in measuring respondents’ 16

Written works
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

In this decade, writing researchers have shown increasing interest in the social

aspects of written communication as a form of social interaction. This interest has

largely been stimulated by interest in writing-across-the-curriculum programs, peer

conferencing, and dialogue journal keeping, as well as such pressing issues as the

relationship of process to text, the relationship of process to the social contexts of writing,

and the problem of genre. This research outlines a social-interactive model of written

communication, highlighting the writer's role in negotiations with readers in the medium

of text. Formalist theories of text meaning (meaning is in the text) and idealist theories of

meaning (meaning in the reader) are reviewed and challenged. In social-interactive

theories of discourse, which are proposed as an alternative to formalist and idealist

theories, meaning is said to be a social construct negotiated by writer and reader through

the medium of text, which uniquely configures their respective purposes. In the process

of communicating, writers and readers may be said to make various "moves," which

achieve progressive and sequential "states" of understanding between them. Writers

make three essential kinds of moves: they (1) initiate and (2) sustain written discourse,

which they accomplish by means of (3) text elaboration. The rules for writer's moves are

spelled out in a fundamental axiom and seven

 2 corollaries.

If the 1970s were the decade that discovered the composing process, the 1980s are

the decade that has discovered the important role of social context in the composing

process. In short, there has been a shift in perspective from things cognitive to things

social. This shift has arguably been brought about by the new role writing has come to

play in Philippine schools. As Bizzell (1986) notes, writing became a respectable object

for serious academic inquiry in the 1970s partly in response to the needs of composition

faculty to achieve legitimacy in departments of English and partly because of their

pressing needs to understand the dimensions of the literacy problems brought on by open

admissions in the late '60s and early '70s. Among the most important objectives of the

new writing scholars and researchers was their dissociation from a prescriptiveness

focused on good texts espoused by earlier writing teachers, and alternatively, their

commitment to an objective and systematic description of composing. The new

researchers' eagerness to supercede pedagogues' prescriptive concerns about exemplary

texts and engage in accurate descriptions of ordinary writing echoed an analogous

struggle among students of language earlier in the twentieth century, viz. linguists'

wrenching control of the study of language from philologists in establishing speech and

not writing as the principal domain of linguistics.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This researchwill definitely help the students, parents, teachers and the school.
 3

For the students, this research will address how well they socially interact with

one another in class through written text. Classes where students have opportunities to

communicate with each other help students effectively construct their knowledge. By

emphasizing the collaborative and cooperative nature of scientific work, students will be

sharing responsibility for learning with each other, discussing divergent understandings,

and shaping the direction of the class.

For teachers, it will encourage them to motivate students to work together as a

class to contribute to a comprehensive answer to an open-ended problem and at the same

time, in-depth conversations among students (and between students and teachers).

In-class assignments where students think individually about a question, talk to

their peers about an idea, and then report their findings back to the class. These work best

when there are multiple answers to a question (nurturing and valuing divergent thinking).

This research will also teach to judge fairly in which small teams of students learn

about a controversial issue from multiple perspectives and attempt to come to consensus.

For the parents, they will have new realization that achieving full socialization in

school is not only through verbal connection and subsequently lead them to other way of

understanding their children.

For the school, it will let them channel other styles on assessing the students’

capability in conveying ideas that will benefit the other organizations in the school.
 4

Statement of the problem

This study aims to identify the following variables as contributing factors; hence,

it also seeks how the respondents perform social interaction that engages writing.

1. What is the profile of the LEARNER- respondents in terms of:

1.1 Sex

1.2 Age

1.3 Grade level

2. How is written text used as a form of social interaction?

3. Is there a significant difference on the coping strategies of the respondents when

grouped according to profile variables?

Scope and limitation

This study will utilize the descriptive research design using the sample Grades 7-

9 learners of Old Cabalan Integrated School (Junior Department) as respondents of this

study. A self-constructed questionnaire, validated by pool of experts and tested for its

reliability in schools not included in the study will be used in gathering relevant

information vital to the study. Likewise, a teacher-made rubric will be applied to measure

the effectivity and efficiency of the respondents’ written text. Frequency counts, means

were used in analyzing descriptive questions in the statement of the problems. Inferential

statistics such as Pearson r and ANOVA were used to test the significant relationships

and differences among variables.

 5

Chapter 2

FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

In this chapter, the literature and studies relevant to the present study will be

reviewed. It will include both conceptual and research literature from the internet and

books from both foreign and local sources.

Written Text as Social Interaction

The purpose of this study is to explore the nature of meaning as developed by

human beings through interaction with each other. This interaction is obvious enough in

the give and take of talk where conversants make themselves understood. But it is true of

writing, too. When readers understand a text, an exchange of meaning has taken place.

Writers have succeeded in speaking to readers.

Because the concept of text is central to this interaction- it is the bridge between

the producer and the receiver in both written and spoken communication – it is chosen to

focus on elements of text functioning as they relate to this interaction. By “text” we mean

any example of language no matter whether it is spoken or written, whether it is long

(like a book) or short (like an “EXIT” sign). Although our examples deal mainly with

written language, our framework is equally useful for any aspects of spoken discourse.

It is focused mainly on writing because the interactive character of writing is both

less obvious and less studied than speech. Indeed, common wisdom has it that the major

difference between them is , and that spoken discourse is interactive whereas written texts

are non-interactive and autonomous. It is believed that these analyses are misconceived
on this point, and that, as discourse, both writing and speaking are fundamentally

interactive.

How Language is Interactive?

Interactive views and language are by no means universal and are indeed

uncommon in writing research. The most important work has been largely done on the

West Coast and in England. Nonetheless, most research on the composing process depicts

language production essentially as an affair between writer and text. It is not immediately

clear in what sense the private activity of writing might be aptly termed interactive.

Indeed, many educators and researchers believe the chief challenge of writing instruction

is teaching students to compose autonomous texts, such as texts that stand on their own

and succeed in their own rhetorical function without the need for interaction between

writers and their readers.

Writing is obviously not interactive in the behavioral sense that writers and

readers take turns as do speakers and listeners. But then spoken language is not

interactive simply because the participants take conspicuous turns. All language, whether

written or spoken is interactive in the abstract sense that its use involves an exchange of

meaning and the text is the means of exchange.

Cognitive models of writing depict writers as solitary individuals struggling

mainly with their thoughts. While audience has been viewed as a relevant constraint by

composition theorists (e.g., as part of Flower and Hayes' task environment), it is usually

not seen as central to the writing process. For some theorists, the audience is a fiction

( Ong, 1975). For others (e.g., Elbow, 1987), it is too often a debilitating factor that

unskilled writers would do well to ignore, at least temporarily. A major postulate in

 6

composition theory, moreover, has been that writing significantly differs from speech in

the sense that writers, unlike speakers, cannot interact with their addressees (cf. Olson

1977). Entire developmental theories of writing (e.g., Kroll, 1981) have been based on

this idea, arguing that learning to write requires learning to produce "autonomous" texts

that somehow have meaning only independently of writers' interaction with readers.

These ideas have been recently called into question. Increasingly the nature of writing,

like all language, is viewed as inherently interactive and social. Partly because of writing

across the curriculum programs, writing theorists now recognize that writing involves

more than the generation, organization, and translation of ideas into text. More

fundamentally, each act of writing is an episode of interaction, ideally exhibiting

intertextuality (cf. Porter, 1986), with a particular scholarly community or discipline

typified by particular premises, issues, and givens. For writing researchers, key questions

include: What determines the issues the writer examines? How much evidence is

enough? Which evidence is essential? What is a suitable conclusion? To contend that it

is the writer alone who determines each of these in accordance with his or her purpose

does not adequately explain the principles involved in the behavior. Nor does postulating

a black-box monitor as the key element of the composing process do more than beg

questions about the organization of discourse. Other issues for writing researchers

include: What criteria are relevant to the writer's making these evaluations? What

principles bear on the writer's regulation of discourse? How do the character and

possibilities of written text shape the writer's options? What principles govern the

production of discourse? How shall we characterize these principles? Clearly, for skilled
 7

writers, the very points they make, the examples they choose, the form of their

conclusions — each of these will vary substantially depending on just whom they address

as well as the context of the argument. And note that it is not just the presentation of

some presumably intact semantic textbase that is reinterpreted for particular readers on

particular occasions. Rather, it is the very substance of the argument which is shaped by

such exigencies. Just whom one addresses, just which points need elaboration, just which

need not be mentioned, etc., are all considerations that shape discourse not just in its

presentation, but at the most fundamental levels of planning and organization.

On Coping Strategies

Lupien (2017) stated that coping refers to the thoughts and actions we use to deal

with a threatening situation.

While adaptive coping methods improve functioning, a maladaptive coping

technique will just reduce symptoms while maintaining and strengthening the disorder.

Maladaptive techniques are more effective in the short term rather than long term coping

process. Examples of maladaptive behavior strategies includedissociation, sensitization,

safety behaviors, anxious avoidance, and escape(including self-medication). These

coping strategies interfere with the person's ability to unlearn, or break apart, the paired

association between the situation and the associated anxiety symptoms. These are

maladaptive strategies as they serve to maintain the disorder. Dissociation is the ability of

the mind to separate and compartmentalize thoughts, memories, and emotions. This is

often associated with post- traumatic stress syndrome. Sensitization is when a person

seeks to learn about, rehearse, and/or anticipate fearful events in a protective effort to
 8

prevent these events from occurring in the first place. Safety behaviors are demonstrated

when individuals with anxiety disorders come to rely on something, or someone, as a

means of coping with their excessive anxiety. Anxious avoidance is when a person avoids

anxiety provoking situations by all means. This is the most common strategy. Escape is

closely related to avoidance. This technique is often demonstrated by people who

experience panic attacks or have phobias. These people want to flee the situation at the

first sign of anxiety.

When we are stressed, we tend to become inward looking and focus our concerns

only on immediate problems and ourselves. There is limited outlook in terms of goal

setting and future development.

Only when we are able to deal with our stresses and work pressures are we then

able to look to the future for development.

Teamwork is very important in the teaching institution, as it allows us to learn

from one another as well as provide ideas for areas in which we are weak. With

teamwork, there will be equal opportunities for all teachers to work and develop in both

the academic and administrative fields.

Conceptual Framework

This part aims to explain how variables such as the respondents’ profile and

written text for social interaction affect and develop strategies to successfully convey

meaningful ideas necessary for their self actualization since, throughout students'

academic lives, the ability to write well is essential to success.

 9

IV DV

PROFILE

- Sex
- Age
COPING STRATEGIES
- Grade level

Written text as a form of

Social Interaction

Figure 1
RESEARCH PARADIGM

The figure shows how dependent and independent variables inter-relates with one

another to come up with a solution necessary for the issues concerning written form of

social-interaction.

The profile variables provide data regarding research participants and is necessary

for the determination of whether the individuals in a particular study are a representative

sample of the target population for generalization purposes.

The sample written text of the respondents will determine how effective and

efficient they are in performing social interaction with one another.

Coping strategies might be compared and developedbased on the two independent

variables presented in this research.

This study, otherwise assumes that the independent variables are related

to their dependent variables which are the coping mechanisms of the respondents towards

their problems encountered.

 10

Hypothesis

The following hypotheses were formulated in the study:

1. There is no significant relationship between the problem encountered and coping

strategies of the respondents when grouped according to their demographic profiles.

2. There is no significant difference between the problem encountered and coping

strategies of the junior high school learners grades 7-9.

Definition of terms

Curriculum- refers to the lessons and academic content taught in a school or in a

specific course or program.

Social interaction- an exchange between two or more individuals and is a building

block of society.

Formalist- a person who adheres excessively to prescribed forms.

Idealist- a person who is guided more by ideals than by practical considerations.

Stimulate-encourage development of or increased activity in (a state or process).

Demographic- a particular sector of a population.

Corollary- a proposition that follows from (and is often appended to) one already

proved.

Sequential- forming or following in a logical order or sequence.

Prescriptive- relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method.

Supplementary- completing or enhancing something.

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 11

This chapter presents discussion of the research designs, time and place of

respondents of the study, sample size and sampling techniques, research instrument, data

gathering procedures and data analysis procedures.

Research Design

This study used descriptive research design. According to Gay (1992) descriptive

research design aims to describe the nature of situation as it exists in time of the study

and explore the relationships among variables under study.

This research design is appropriate for this present study because it focuses on

respondents’ perception on the problems encountered and effectivity of written text as a

form of social interaction.

Respondents and location

This study was conducted in Old Cabalan Integrated School Junior High School

Departmentwith star sections of Grade 7, 8 and 9 as the subjects. Figure 2 shows the map

of Old Cabalan where the Old Cabalan Integrated School is located. The study was

conducted from January- March 2020.

Figure 2
Map of the Municipality of Olongapo where the Old Cabalan Integrated School is
located.
 12

GRADE LEVEL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS

7 15
8 15
9 15
Figure 3
Table showing how the number of respondents are distributed among grade levels.

Instrument

In order to facilitate the process of gathering information for the paper, the

researcher constructed 20 survey questions to be answered by shading one of the

options as never, rarely, sometimes, usually and always. On the other hand, a

teacher- made rubric is also constructed to measure the respondents’ to convey ideas

through written text.

Data Collection

The researcher will be seeking permission from the Schools Division

Superintendent, District Supervisor and School Principal pertaining to the conduct of this

study and use the identified students as respondents. The survey questions will be sent

online or delivered to their residences as the new normal in education comes in to counter

COVID-19 that heavily hit the country.

Data Analysis

The study will use descriptive measures such as:

(1) Weighted means will be used to obtain the average of coping strategies applied in

resolving issues concerning written text as a form of socialization.

13
 (2) Percentage- will be used to determine the extent of the problem encountered by

the learner with regards to the subject presented.

(3) ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE- will be used to determine the significance

DIFFERENCE ON WHEN GROUPED between the independent and dependent

variables in the study.

(4) Likert scalewill be utilized to measure the response made by the selected learners

of Old Cabalan Integrated School.

Reference

Almasi, J.F., & Gambrell, L.B. (1997). Peer talk in the classroom: Learning from

research. Retrieved on March 5, 2020 from Newark, DE: InternationalReading

Association.

Analysis of discourse and interaction. Retrieved on March 5, 2020 from

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1347

Bakkenes, I., De Brabander, C., & Imants, K. (1999). Teacher isolation and

communication network analysis in primary schools. Retrieved on March 17,

2020 from the issue of Education AdministrationQuarterly.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Retrieved on March 17, 2020 from Educational ResearcherElements of Social

Interaction. Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-

sociology/chapter/elements-of-socialinteraction

14
Haggard, M.R. (1982). The vocabulary self-collection strategy: An active approach to

word learning. Retrieved on March 25, 2020 from the issue of Journal of

Reading.

Kroll, B. (1981). Developmental relationships between speaking and writing. Retrieved

on April 12, 2020 fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41405595

Written Text as Social Interaction. Retrieved on March 7, 2020 from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00405848409543114

Appendix A

Survey Questions for the Respondents

1. Do you often feel inhibited in social interactions using written text?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

2. Do you often worry that others may disapprove you?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

3. Do you find it hard to start a written conversation?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

4. Do you feel insecure when you don’t know another person’s thought on you?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

5. When socializing, do you find the right thing to talk about?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

15
6. Do you hide your feeling most of the time when you write?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

7. Do you avoid saying what you think for fear of being rejected?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

8. Do you have difficulty talking with other people?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

9. Do you avoid talking to people you don’t know?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

10. Are you afraid of being criticized by others?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

11. Do you avoid writing a letter to a person in authority?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

12. Are there times that you rather write to someone than to talk with them?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

13. Do you spend more time writing than talking with others?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

14. Do you think you are more confident when you write your thoughts

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

15. Do you feel excited when someone praises your written works?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

16. Do most people understand your personality based on how you write?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

16
 17. Do you think people perceive the same thing when you write or vice versa?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

18. Do you think written text is an effective way of socializing?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

19. Are you comfortable when you express your feeling through writing?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

20. Do you keep in touch more through writing or talking?

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

1- Never

2- Rarely

3- Sometimes

4- Usually

5- always

Appendix B

Basic Writing Rubric

Feature 4 3 2 1 Score
Strong Developing Emerging Beginning
Ideas Establishes a Develops a focus Attempts focus Lacks focus
clear focus Uses some Ideas not fully and
Uses descriptive developed development
descriptive language
language Details support
Provides idea
relevant Communicates
information original ideas
Communicates
creative ideas
17

Organizatio Establishes a Attempts an Some evidence Little or no

n strong adequate of a beginning, organization
beginning, introduction and middle, and Relies on
middle, and ending end single idea
end Evidence of Sequencing is
Demonstrates logical attempted
an orderly flow sequencing
of ideas
Expression Uses effective Diverse word Limited word No sense of
language choice choice sentence
Uses high-level Uses descriptive Basic sentence structure
vocabulary words structure
Use of Sentence variety
sentence
variety
Conventions Few or no Some errors in: Has some Little or no
errors in: grammar, difficulty in: evidence of
grammar, spelling, grammar, correct
spelling, capitalization, spelling, grammar,
capitalization, punctuation capitalization, spelling,
punctuation punctuation capitalization
or
punctuation
Legibility Easy to read Readable with Difficult to read No evidence
Properly some due to of
spaced spacing/forming spacing/formin spacing/formi
Proper letter errors g letter ng letters
formation