Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data gathered on

the study entitled, “The impact of metacognitive strategies on Students’ Writing

Skills.”

Statements Mean Rank SD Remarks

1. I plan the goals of my 4.11 4 0.92 Usually
writing tasks.
2. I think about the steps 4.24 3 0.72 Always
before writing something.
3. I write drafts before 4.08 5 1.04 Usually
writing something.
4. I know what I should do 4.25 2 0.89 Always
first before writing.
5. I understand that 4.51 1 0.82 Always
planning is important in
writing.
Overall Mean = 4.24
Standard Deviation = 0.60
Verbal Interpretation = Very High
Table 1.1. Frequency of Students’ use of Metacognitive Strategy in terms of
Planning

Table 1.1 shows the frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy

in terms of planning.

The statement “I understand that planning is important in writing” got the

Legend:
highest (M = 4.51, SD = 0.82). Followed by the statement, “I know what I should
Scale Range Remarks Verbal Interpretation
5 4.20-5.00 Always Very High
4 3.40-4.19 Usually High
3 2.60-3.39 Sometimes Fairly High
2 1.80-2.59 Rarely Low
1 1.00-1.79 Never Very Low
do first before writing” (M = 4.25, SD = 0.89). While the statement “I write drafts

before writing something” got the lowest (M = 4.08, SD = 1.04).

The overall mean of 4.24, standard deviation of 0.60, indicates that the

frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy has a remark of always and

verbally interpreted as very high in terms of planning. As noted by Christie (2016,

n.p.), “As teachers and students together initiate writing activities in school, the

composition of considered pieces of writing that we intend others to read, the first

writing process usually takes the form of Planning and rehearsing: the

generation, selection and sorting of ideas to write about, consideration of

purpose and audience which will influence genre selection and organization.

Statements Mean Rank SD Remarks

1. I make sure that I am on 4.29 2 0.75 Always
the right track when I am
writing.
2. I understand the 4.12 4 0.81 Usually
concepts well in writing.
3. I know the things that 4.24 3 0.85 Always
confuse me when it comes
to writing.
4. I make my writings 4.07 5 0.87 Usually
relevant to myself.
5. I understand that 4.42 1 0.73 Always
monitoring the way I write
is important in writing.
Overall Mean = 4.23
Standard Deviation = 0.73
Verbal Interpretation = Very High
Table 1.2. Frequency of Students’ use of Metacognitive Strategy in terms of
Monitoring
 Table 1.2 shows the frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy

in terms of monitoring.

The statement “I understand that monitoring the way I write is important in

writing” got the highest (M = 4.42, SD = 0.73). Followed by the statement, “I

make sure that I am on the right track when I am writing” (M = 4.29, SD = 0.75).

While the statement “I make my writings relevant to myself” got the lowest (M =

4.07, SD = 0.87).

The overall mean of 4.23, standard deviation of 0.73, indicates that the

frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy has a remark of always and

verbally interpreted as very high in terms of monitoring. Based on the article from

Hedge T. “The Process of Writing” the process of monitoring is in operation right

through the three sages of composition. As we plan, we monitor our ideas; while

drafting, we monitor the mechanics, including punctuation, vocabulary and

grammar. Editing and reviewing are also forms of monitoring.

Table 1.3. Frequency of Students’ use of Metacognitive Strategy in terms of

Evaluating
Table 1.3 shows the frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy

in terms of evaluating.

The statement “I understand that evaluating my writing skills is important”

got the highest (M = 4.46, SD = 0.82). Followed by the statement, “I make sure to

meet the goals I planned before writing” (M = 4.35, SD = 0.76). While the

statement “I am aware of my mistakes when I write something” got the lowest (M

= 4.15, SD = 0.89).
 Statements Mean Rank SD Remarks
1. I make sure to meet the 4.35 2 0.76 Always
goals I planned before
writing.
2. I know my weakness in 4.30 4 0.93 Always
writing.
3. I am aware of my 4.15 5 0.89 Usually
mistakes when I write
something.
4. I correct my mistakes in 4.32 3 0.81 Always
writing.
5. I understand that 4.46 1 0.82 Always
evaluating my writing skills
is important.
Overall Mean = 4.32
Standard Deviation = 0.64
Verbal Interpretation = Very High

The overall mean of 4.32, standard deviation of 0.64, indicates that the

frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy has a remark of always and

verbally interpreted as very high in terms of evaluating. According to Isaacson

(2021), anchored on the studies of Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, and

Stevens (1991) provided a model of a five-step writing process using the

acronym POWER: Plan, Organize, Write, Edit, and Revise. Having students
Legend:
Scale their own
assess Range
writing process isRemarks
also important forVerbal Interpretation
two reasons. First, self-
5 4.20-5.00 Always Very High
4
assessment 3.40-4.19
allows Usually to observeHigh
students an opportunity and reflect on their own
3 2.60-3.39 Sometimes Fairly High
2
approach, 1.80-2.59
drawing Rarelysteps that mayLow
attention to important be overlooked. Second,
1 1.00-1.79 Never Very Low
self-assessment following a conceptual model like POWER is a means of
internalizing an explicit strategy, allowing opportunities for the student to mentally

rehearse the strategy steps.

Table 1.4. Frequency of Students’ use of Metacognitive Strategy in terms of

Self-Regulating the Learning Process
Statements Mean Rank SD Remarks
1. I am aware of my 4.28 2 0.77 Always
learning process when It
comes to writing.
2. I can write by myself 3.99 5 0.90 Usually
without the help of my
teacher.
3. I know my strengths in 4.18 4 0.85 Usually
writing.
4. I make sure to make my 4.22 3 0.82 Always
learnings in writing relevant
to myself.
5. I understand that I must 4.36 1 0.77 Always
regulate my self-learning
process when it comes to
writing.
Overall Mean = 4.21
Standard Deviation = 0.62
Verbal Interpretation = Very High

Table 1.4 shows the frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy

in terms of self-regulating the learning process.

The statement “I understand that I must regulate my self-learning process

when it comes to writing” got the highest (M = 4.36, SD = 0.77). Followed by the

statement, “I am aware of my learning process when It comes to writing” (M =

Legend:
Scale Range Remarks Verbal Interpretation
5 4.20-5.00 Always Very High
4.28, SD = 0.77). While the statement “I can write by myself without the help of

my teacher” got the lowest (M = 3.99, SD = 0.90).

The overall mean of 4.21, standard deviation of 0.62, indicates that the

frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy has a remark of always and

verbally interpreted as very high in terms of self-regulating the learning process.

Table 2.1 Level of Students’ Writing Skills

Writing Skills Mean Rank SD Interpretation
1. Capitalization 3.75 1 1.35 Very Satisfactory
2. Punctuation 2.84 3 1.27 Satisfactory
3. Spelling 3.61 2 1.05 Very Satisfactory
Overall Mean = 3.40
Standard Deviation = 0.93
Interpretation = Very Satisfactory

Legend:
ScaleTable 2.1 shows the level
Range of students’ writing skills in terms of
Interpretation
5 4.20-5.00 Outstanding
capitalization,
4 punctuation
3.40-4.19 and spelling.
Very Satisfactory
3 2.60-3.39 Satisfactory
2 1.80-2.59
Capitalization got the highestFair
(M = 3.75, SD = 1.35) with an interpretation
1 1.00-1.79 Needs Improvement
of Very Satisfactory. Followed by Spelling (M = 3.61, SD = 1.05) with an

interpretation of Very Satisfactory. While Subject-Verb agreement got the lowest

(M = 2.84, SD = 1.27) with an interpretation of Satisfactory.

The overall mean of 3.40, standard deviation of 0.93, indicates that the

respondents’ writing skills was verbally interpreted as Very Satisfactory.

Apparently, capitalization is a practical device that shows that certain words are

more important with dignity and worth than others (Pelz, 2013). According to

Odavar (2012) as cited by Tuico (2013), cited that linguists use it as much more

specific sense. In the book of effective communication, punctuation mark serves

as the traffic sign to the readers. Based on Moats (2021), Research also bears

out a strong relationship between spelling and writing: Writers who must think too

hard about how to spell use up valuable cognitive resources needed for higher

level aspects of composition. Even more than reading, writing is a mental

juggling act that depends on automatic deployment of basic skills such as

handwriting, spelling, grammar, and punctuation so that the writer can keep track

of such concerns as topic, organization, word choice, and audience needs.

Table 3.1 Impact on using Metacognitive Strategy with Students’ Writing

Skills.
Metacognitive Writing Skills F- Value F- Critical Analysis
Strategy
Planning Capitalization 15.99 Significant
Punctuation 143.81 Significant
Spelling 37.68 Significant
Monitoring Capitalization 15.42 Significant
Punctuation 142.83 Significant
Spelling 36.82 Significant
3.87
Evaluating Capitalization 21.09 Significant
Punctuation 156.65 Significant
Spelling 46.33 Significant
Self-Regulating Capitalization 13.89 Significant
the Learning Punctuation 136.10 Significant
Process Spelling 33.55 Significant
 The computed F- value between planning and capitalization is 15.99.

Since the computed F- value is greater than the value of F- critical 3.87, the

analysis is “Significant”. Between planning and punctuation, the computed F-

value is 143.81. Since the computed F- value is greater than the F- critical 3.87,

the analysis is “Significant”. Between planning and spelling, the computed F-

value is 37.68. Since the computed F- value is greater than the F- critical 3.87,

the analysis is “Significant”.

Moving on, the computed F- value between monitoring and capitalization

is 15.42. Since the computed F- value is greater than the value of F- critical 3.87,

the analysis is “Significant”. Between monitoring and punctuation, the computed

F- value is 142.83. Since the computed F- value is greater than the F- critical

3.87, the analysis is “Significant”. Between monitoring and spelling, the computed

F- value is 36.82. Since the computed F- value is greater than the F- critical 3.87,

the analysis is “Significant”.

On the other hand, the computed F- value between evaluating and

capitalization is 21.09. Since the computed F- value is greater than the value of

F- critical 3.87, the analysis is “Significant”. Between evaluating and punctuation,

the computed F- value is 156.65. Since the computed F- value is greater than the

F- critical 3.87, the analysis is “Significant”. Between evaluating and spelling, the

computed F- value is 46.33. Since the computed F- value is greater than the F-

critical 3.87, the analysis is “Significant”.

Lastly, the computed F- value between self-regulating the learning

process and capitalization is 13.89. Since the computed F- value is greater than
the value of F- critical 3.87, the analysis is “Significant”. Between self-regulating

the learning process and punctuation, the computed F- value is 136.10. Since the

computed F- value is greater than the F- critical 3.87, the analysis is “Significant”.

Between self-regulating the learning process and spelling, the computed F- value

is 33.55. Since the computed F- value is greater than the F- critical 3.87, the

analysis is “Significant”.