1

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Most people never consider the complexity and difficulty of writing.

Even during earliest handwriting exercises, children must combine complex

physical and cognitive processes to render letters precisely and fluidly. As

writing tasks become more difficult, students must call on an increasingly

wide range of skills to not only write legibly, logically, and in an organized way

but also to invoke rules of grammar and syntax. This combination of

requirements makes writing the most complex and difficult use of language.

Learners need to ameliorate their writing skills at the beginning

of their academic life to ensure their future success. For this reason, they

should be taught the contextual, structural, and educational principles (Sever,

2011) of writing in a strategy-focused way, taking into account learners’

writing skills and proficiencies. Recent researches show that learners who

use the metacognitive strategy in writing focus more on linguistic elements,

content, knowledge of task requirements, the personal learning process, text,

accuracy, and discourse features (Magogwe, 2013; Mekala, Shabitha, &

Ponmani, 2016). This proves the necessity of variables such as selecting,

organizing, and connecting information (Hayes & Flower, 1980).

Writing is the least like activity among language students. Most find it

tough to process information by themselves, express ideas and convey

 2

messages to the readers. In addition, they do not want to bother pay attention

to formal aspects like neat handwriting correct spelling, and punctuation along

with acceptable grammar and careful choice of words. Moreover, there is

more serious concept to consider, organization of thoughts. This truth

obviously requires metacognitive strategy developed based on cognitive

knowledge and skills creates an awareness of learning as a prerequisite for

planning, monitoring, evaluating, and self-regulating the learning process

(Roeschl-Heils, Schneider, & van Kraayenoord, 2003).

Background of the Study

The importance of English is truly overwhelming all over the

world. English has been the language Franca in various areas of

communication, business sectors, whether local or international, and

educational institutions. With regards to this, the call for English skills in all

aspects is vital in answer to the importance of English and impact of

globalization. The consciousness of the significance of English highlights the

necessity at every individual to become better equipped with the mechanisms

of writing in English.

Activities including self-planning, self-monitoring, selfregulation, which

are included in the metacognitive strategy, may contribute to secondary

education pupils’ creating a quality text (Harris, Santangelo, & Graham, 2010)

because these activities may help learners develop and regulate awareness

of linguistic and cognitive levels for writing. Recent research has remarked on
 3

the effectiveness of this condition (Guo & Huang, 2018; Liberty & Conderman,

2018; Samanian & Roohani, 2018; Siamak & Mona, 2018). Taking these

factors into consideration, this study focused on a group of pupils who were

instructed using the metacognitive strategy to determine whether competent

writing skills is oobserved.

Theoretical Framework

Since metacognitive thinking is a process that reveals how cognition

should be controlled and monitored (Pintrich, 1999), it constitutes a significant

part of learning. The metacognitive strategy developed based on cognitive

knowledge and skills creates an awareness of learning as a prerequisite for

planning, monitoring, evaluating, and self regulating the learning process

(Roeschl-Heils, Schneider, & van Kraayenoord, 2003). However, the

metacognitive strategy constructs many relationships depending on the

purpose of learning to learn (Pressley, 2002). Thus, learners should use the

metacognitive strategy to self-regulate and self-control (Perfect & Schwartz,

2002). As writing skills also constitute an important aspect of learning and

teaching, they should be improved through metacognitive strategy based

writing instruction.

In Hayes and Flower’s (1980) model, it is assumed that writing is

basically a problem-solving activity. Problem solving in this model means that

the writer has to tackle the ongoing problem of formulating, organizing, and

producing text. To put it simply, the problem for a writer is the act of producing
 4

the text for which he has to set goals and find a solution. To do so, based on

Hayes and Flower’s model, writers has to constantly make decisions

regarding their cognitive recourses (Wong 1991). This necessitates the use of

a higher order process which seems to control cognitive processing. In Hayes

and Flower’s (1980) model, the monitor assumes such a responsibility and

checks the progress of planning, translating and reviewing. Therefore,

although not explicitly stated in the model, the monitor plays the role of

metacognitive awareness.

Conceptual Framework

This part presents the paradigm of the study which considers the

independent and dependent variables. This study focuses on the Impact of

Metacognitive Strategy on students’ Writing Skills.

Metacognitive Strategy English Writing Skills

Planning Capitalization
Monitoring

Evaluating Punctuation

Self-regulating
Spelling

Frame 1 Frame 2

Figure 1: Research Paradigm of the Study

 5

The research paradigm shows Frame 1 which is the independent

variable as follows: The metacognitive strategy which is as follows, planning,

monitoring, evaluating, and self-regulating the learning process. The frame 2

consist the English Writing skills involves the following; basic writing norms

which include capitalization, punctuation and spelling.

Statement of the Problem

In order to find out the impact of metacognitive strategy on students’

writing skills, this study will answer the following questions:

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the frequency of students’ use of metacognitive strategy in

terms of:

a. Planning;

b. Monitoring;

c. Evaluating; and

d. Self-regulating the learning process?

2. What is the mean level of students’ writing skills in terms of:

a. Capitalization;

b. Punctuation; and

c. Spelling?

3. Is there any significant impact on using metacognitive strategy which

are planning, monitoring, evaluating, and self-regulating the learning process

 6

with students’ writing skills in terms of capitalization, punctuation, and

spelling?

Hypothesis

There is no significant impact on using metacognitive strategy which

are planning, monitoring, evaluating, and self-regulating the learning process

with students’ writing skills in terms of capitalization, punctuation, and

spelling.

Significance of the Study

This study may be helpful to the following:

Students. This study may help the students maximize their writing

skills in English in terms of capitalization, punctuation and spelling. This may

also help them to strive more in learning English as their second language.

Teachers. This study can help the teachers assess their student’s

strength and weaknesses in English writing skills. It would also help them

realize the other means to help their student’s academic needs to become

globally competitive.

Curriculum Planners. This study can be helpful to them in

conceptualizing and designing the curriculum that will bring education to a

higher level. It may gave them idea to propose an appropriate curriculum for

students in using metacognitive strategy to improve writing skills.

School and Community. This study may help the school in providing

student’s academic needs in improving their English writing skills. It may also
 7

help to improve their comprehension that would positively affect the results of

their examinations. The community can be motivated to send their children to

school to further equip them not only with knowledge but also necessary skills

for future employment. There will be proficient, efficient, and effective agents

of language in the community especially in the business sectors.

Future Researchers. This study can be a basis of future studies of

similar area of concentration.

Scope and Limitation

This study is limited only to the impact on using metacognitive strategy

which are planning, monitoring, controlling, evaluating and self-regulating the

learning process with students’ writing skills in terms of capitalization,

punctuation, and spelling.

Definition of Terms

The following words are the terms used in this study with their

functional meaning.

Capitalization. The writing of a word with its first letter is in upper case

and the remaining letters in lower case. It is making the proper nouns and the

beginning letter of each sentence big or capital.

English writing skills. It refers to the students’ ability to organize

writing, unified a paragraph or thought, use correct punctuations, observe

correct capitalization, punctuation and spelling.

 8

Evaluating. The process where students determine how successful

the strategy they used was in helping them to achieve their learning goal.

Metacognitive strategy. Refers to methods used to help students

understand the way they learn; in other words, it means processes designed

for students to 'think' about their thinking.

Monitoring. The process where learners implement their plan and

monitor the progress they are making towards their learning goal.

Planning. The process where learners think about the learning goal

the teacher has set and consider how they will approach the task and which

strategies they will use.

Punctuation. It refers to the symbols that indicate the structure and

organization of written language. It is used in long sentences, discussion,

speeches to separate the words or sentences and such on.

Self- regulation. The fact of something such as an organization

regulating itself without intervention from external bodies.

Spelling. Refers to the forming of words with the letters in the correct

order, or the way in which a word is forme

 9

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

A review of related literature and studies which proved significance

and relevance to the present investigation is presented in this chapter.

Related Literature

Students’ profiles considered in this study are the following

variables: age, gender, educational institution attended whether public or

private school and language spoken at home or school.

According to Tingee (2008) as cited by Janolino (2015), age refers

to chronological age. It also refers to the number of years an individual

existed on earth which began form the date of birth until the very moment

he/she is alive.

On the Other hand Children’s experiences with writing and creating

texts is an important avenue for self-expression in early childhood. These

experiences also support precursors to their later reading and writing

development (Saracho, 2017; Puranik & Lonigan, 2011).

It was seconded on the study of Fellowes and Oakley (2014) that

Children need continuous experience in writing. They need the chance to

experiment using what they know about writing and the opportunity to

apply and practise their developing skills and knowledge. The

opportunities to write should be available during free play.

A learner’s age is one of the important factors affecting the

metacognitive writing skills. The above mentioned literatures are related in

this study for it is one of the variables to be considered.

 10

Another variable to be considered is gender. It is the autonomical and

physiological distinction between male and female.

Gender is one of the variables affecting the performance of grade

school and high school students. Brantmeier (2003) indicates that reading

comprehension, as measured by recall comprehension is significantly

influenced by passage content and reader’s gender, whereas enjoyment

and interest mattered. Likewise, Mead (2001) stated that in addition to

age, gender

is one of the universal dimensions on which status differences are based.

Studies on cognitive abilities of males and females have suggested

that males are more spatial while females are more verbal (Halpern and

LaMay, 2000). Females tend to surpass memory tasks, language use,

reading comprehension, spelling, writing, arithmetic calculation, and the

spatial location of objects. Whereas males tend to surpass verbal analogy

tasks, mathematical problems, and activities involving the recall of

geometric arrangement of an environment (Boone and Lu, 2000).

Gender is considered as a variable for the equal opportunities in the

educational system for male and female, specifically for their basic writing

norms.

Another variable in the students’ profile is Another variable in the students’

profile is the socio-economic status. Children from poor families, children

attending rural schools have greater risk of poor language acquisition than

are middle-class, and suburban children.

Kucer in his book, “Dimensions of Literacy”, mentioned that “in the

lower-income neighbourhoods, there were relatively few children books,

 11

magazines, comics, etc. available in such local businesses as drug stores,

grocery stores, and bodegas. Many of the eating establishments in the

lower-income neighbourhoods were not conductive to reading. Libraries,

both public and private schools, were limited in the quantity and quality of

reading materials.

The amount and quality of print available to individuals living in the

middle-class communities were also numerous sites that encouraged

reading. School and public libraries contained far more reading materials

in terms of kind- books, magazines, newspapers and quality.

Unfortunately, such in the quality of print exercises and environments

based on socio-economics too often continue within the schools.

Lamug (2000) made an account concerning the status of the family

in the community. According to her certain families in the community have

prestige, prominence and power while others are looked down on and

shammed. Such social stratification results from circumstances such as

length and place of residence in the community, type of occupation source

of income, level of education, national background and religion. Other

similar circumstances determined the position of a family in the social

scale of a given community, and the social position of the family affects the

children’s development as human beings.

Upper class families are generally more secured both economically

and socially than families belonging to the other classes.

Socio-economic status has usual effect on learning of an individual.

Literacy is a fundamental tool that students must have in order to further

 12

their academic success. Many problems in literacy may have a

devastating effect on their later academic motivation and achievement.

In his research, Slavin (2006) indicated that there are some

compensatory programs which are designed to help students from low

income families to overcome learning problems which can be associated

with their social economic status that have been success.

This is long before they ever enter preschool or kindergarten. It is

important that children begin their formal education as developmentally

ready as possible. These are for all fundamental skills that provide an

important foundation for all education skills - - reading, writing, and all

other Subject areas.

It has been well documented that there is an association between

family poverty and children's heath, achievement and behaviour. Family

income appears to be more strongly related to children's ability and

achievement that to their long term emotional outcomes. However, the

association between income and a child's educational outcomes is must

more complex than a simple of association between these factors.

The above mentioned literature is related to the present study in the

sense that socio-economic status is necessary part of students’ profile

which is included in the study.

Another variable discussed in this study is the language spoken of the

student at home or at school. It may be Filipino, English or any other

language.

The task of developing erudite speakers of English among Filipinos

is a herculean task believed upon the language educators of the country.

 13

This is not withstanding the heavy impact and influence of the language of

the mass media that moves the taste even more demanding.

To speak and maintain an atmosphere of good talking, the sender

must put his heart into talks. He must be natural and sincere in telling

stories. The receiver must feel that there is a message being delivered

from the mind and heart of the speaker. To communicate is to share a part

of oneself and time to others. According to Webster, learning to

communicate is one of the greatest steps in student's development to their

hindrance. He added that their communicative ability may be influenced by

their intelligence economic status reading materials available. This is

related to the present study because it recognizes individual profile of the

learners as factors that affect the speaking and writing skills.

Another major variable in this study is the

English Writing Mechanisms of the students. For most people, writing is

the most difficult skill to develop in language learning. For as Bacon as

cited by Fernandez (2015), claimed as well written piece of works speaks

writer’s ability to think clear and organize the thinking in his logical

sequence.

According to Black (2008) in tumefaction – net make it possible for

people to post stones they’ve written themselves collaboration with others

and receive feedback on their narrative structure, writing style, spelling

and grammar.

Gold Burge (2013), claim that writing is the central part of any

design activity where the quality is improved since writing an explanation

of the designer is to be considered it more fully.

 14

Klein (2012) as cited by Fernandez (2015), states that writing skills

are skills by putting pen and paper to convey the meaning and content

with its readers.

The National Council of Teachers of English (NCT) in the United

States defined writing as process of selecting, combining, arranging, and

developing ideas in sentences, paragraphs and often longer units in

communication.

“Writing should help students keep their writing skills sharp as they

become more and more practiced at using writing as a communication

tool.” (Kiefer, 2009) as cited by Fernandez (2015).

While Patrick and Cragnolini (2004) as cited by Ambrocio (2015),

claims that writing is the ability to use the conventions of disciplinary

discourse to communicate effectively in writing. Toolkit is intended to

provide some useful suggestions, strategies and checklist to help your

students improve their writing skills.

The above statement is relevant to present study because

nowadays, students are now having difficulties in their writing skills.

Students should always be exposed in different writing activity for the

improvement of their skills in English writing mechanism.

Marcelo (2010) cited by Magbuhos (2015) stated that the

Philippines’ biggest competitive advantage in the global market is the

proficiency of their skilled workers in English writing mechanisms which is

being eroded by rising competition from other countries coupled with

declining mastery of the English language and writing of the students.

 15

It is with this problem that the researcher wishes to help students

attain proficiency level on the second language especially in terms of

English writing mechanism.

According to Mclean (2010) as cited by Tuico (2013), as the

economy declines so as the skills in the English writing. For about 43

percent of students who finish high school, according to him only two

percent finish college. The department of Education study in 2004 showed

that only 1 in 5 public high school teachers were truly skilled in English.

The government recognizes the decline, which is widely bemoaned

in the local media. In 2003, the government ordered the teaching of

English as a second language in elementary schools and made it the

medium of instruction for 70 percent of teaching in high schools. It has

since mandated remedial English classes for teachers.

The above article stated that English writing mechanism is

demanded and needs mastery as it is the major variable being sought in

this study.

Tierra (2010) as cited by Tuico (2013) stated that good

communication creates a good ambiance and relationship between

everyone in every organization most especially if it is inside a business

while English is required in every company; as according to Ms. Bambina

Buenaventura, language is now considered a skill, in fact, big companies,

both here and abroad, are now looking for good English communication

skills among potential employees.

 16

The above literature is related to the present study because many

sectors are requiring skills in English language which involves English

writing mechanism as it is one of the variables sought in this study.

English Writing Mechanisms involves basic writing norms in terms

of capitalization and punctuation; and coherence in terms of unity and

organization.

Pelz (2013) claims that mechanics of language operates in the

graduated levels through the four basic skills in listening, speaking,

reading, and writing, as off schools of governing principles of

capitalization, margin, syllabication, and abbreviations. Apparently,

capitalization is a practical device that shows that certain words are more

important with dignity and worth than others. Margins play an important

role in the proper format of a composition. On one hand, syllabication

means dividing words into syllables to indicate either pronunciation or

word-division at the end of the line. Abbreviations go with the tempo of life

that is becoming faster, and therefore there is a need for short-cuts to be

used to make communication swifter and more effective.

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.

Commas indicate caution-slowdown or pause to comprehend the

meaning. Semicolons tell the readers to yield for the next thought. Period

and question mark means that the readers should come to complete stop

before they proceed to the next sentence. Punctuation marks work

according to punctuation rules. When one inserts an appropriate

 17

punctuation in the current location, he maintains the clarity of his work to

the readers.

Beside the basic writing norms, coherence in writing is also

included as one of the variables in this study. Coherence describes the

way anything, such as an argument (or part of an argument) “hangs

together.” If something has coherence, its parts are well-connected and

heading in the same direction. Without coherence, any discussion is

difficult for a reader to follow and may not make sense. It’s an extremely

important quality of formal writing.

Uta Lenk (1998), in her book “Marking Discourse Coherence” stated

that the hearer's understanding of coherence is influenced by the degree

and kind of guidance given by the speaker: the more guidance is given,

the easier it is for the hearer to establish the coherence according to the

speaker's intentions.

According to Thomas S. Kane (1998), flow those visible links which

bind the sentences of a paragraph, can be established in two basic ways. .

. . The first is to establish a master plan at the beginning of the paragraph

and to introduce each new idea by a word or phrase that marks its place in

the plan. The second concentrates on linking sentences successively as

the paragraph develops, making sure that each statement connects with

the one or ones preceding it.

Theresa Enos (1996) stated in his book Encyclopedia of Rhetoric

and Composition: Communication From Ancient Times to the Information

Age, "Texts can be coherent at what is called the 'local level' and the

'global level.' Local-level coherence is that which occurs within small

 18

portions of texts, usually within texts no longer than a paragraph. A text is

said to have global coherence, on the other hand, if the text hangs

together as a whole."

Edda Weigand (2009) in her book Language as Dialogue: From

Rules to Principles stated that ,"The Coherence Principle accounts for the

fact that we do not communicate by verbal means only. The traditional

concept of coherence, which is solely based relationships between verbal

textual elements, is too narrow to account for coherence in interaction.

Ultimately, coherence in interaction is not established in the text but

created in the minds of the interlocutors in their attempt to make sense of

the different verbal, perceptual, and cognitive means at their disposal.”

Other Variables that consider in this study is the Metacognitive

Writing Strategies According to the Inclusive Schools Network (2014),

“Metacognitive strategies refers to methods used to help students

understand the way they learn; in other words, it means processes

designed for students to 'think' about their 'thinking'.” Teachers who use

metacognitive strategies can positively impact students who have learning

disabilities by helping them to develop an appropriate plan for learning

information, which can be memorized and eventually routine. As students

become aware of how they learn, they will use these processes to

efficiently acquire new information, and consequently, become more

independent thinkers.

Wenden (1991) states that metacognitive strategies are mental

operations or procedures that learners use to regulate their learning. They

are directly responsible for the execution of a writing task and include
 19

three main kinds: planning, evaluating and monitoring. Cognitive strategies

are mental operations or steps used by learners to gain new information

and apply it to specific learning tasks.

They are used to deal with the obstacles encountered along the

way. They are auxiliary strategies that help in the implementation of the

metacognitive strategies. In contrast to the metacognitive strategies, the

function of cognitive strategies is narrower in scope. In short, cognitive

strategies are strategies which are used to solve problems, whereas

metacognitive strategies are employed in order to plan, monitor, evaluate,

control and understand these strategies.

Metacognitive Strategies are employed for managing the learning

process overall (e.g., identifying one’s own learning style preferences and

needs, planning for an L2 task, gathering and organizing materials,

arranging a study space and a schedule, monitoring mistakes, evaluating

task success and the success of any type of learning strategy). Purpura

(1999) states that among native English speakers learning foreign

languages metacognitive strategies have "a significant, positive, direct

effect on cognitive strategy use, providing clear evidence that

metacognitive strategy use has an executive function over cognitive

strategy use in task completion” (p.289).

Studies of EFL learners in various countries revealed evidence that

metacognitive strategies are often strong predictors of L2 proficiency

(Dreyer & Oxford, 1996). Metacognitive strategy is a term used in

Information Processing Theory to indicate an “executive” function and it

 20

refers to the strategy that is used by learners as the means to manage,

monitor and evaluate their learning activities.

To put it simply, metacognitive strategies are skills, approaches,

and thinking and actions that learners use to control their cognition and

learning process.

Metacognitive Strategies in Writing has a big impact on students’

Academic Performance. According to (Xing, Wang, &Spenser, 2008)

Metacognitive strategies are mental executive skills that serve to “control

cognitive activities and to ensure a cognitive goal is achieved” Different

classifications of metacognitive writing strategies have been created,

however, in this research the model pursued involves the Planning,

Monitoring and Evaluating taxonomies (Mu, 2005; Diaz, 2013).

Metacognitive writing strategies, correspondingly, involve thinking about

the writing process, its planning, monitoring, and self-evaluating of what

has been written. More explicitly, via the skills of planning, monitoring, and

evaluating the writer manages, directs, regulates and guides his/her

writing production.

Concisely, metacognition can be understood as how learners think

about thinking (King, 2004). When it comes to writing specifically,

metacognition deals with how students understand their own writing

processes, and how they adapt their processes to evolving demands. This

paper also intends to promote the integration of metacognition into

academic writing instruction to benefit writing instruction by laying

emphasis on both approaches to writing instruction (i.e., process and

 21

product approaches), and to train teachers as well as students to teach

and learn with metacognition.

Historically, writing was viewed as a linear and a simplistic activity.

However, contemporary models of writing explain it as a process rather

than a product. The process of writing involves cognitive, linguistic,

affective, behavioral and physical components. The application of MLSs in

writing should be viewed as part of ‘process writing’ research (Manchon,

De Larois, & Murphy, 2007) because MLSs are used in the process of

writing and are only useful when used during the writing activity.

Thus, metacognitive writing strategies are as follows:

Planning involves finding focus concerning purpose, audience,

ideas, and strategies to be used, among others. It often takes places

before writing, but some writers also plan their compositions even while

writing their composition. Planning writing is more efficiently done via

whole-class or small group brainstorming. If done in a group, each student

is recommended to have his/her function: idea generator, writer, or

criticizer. However, planning can be done individually, too. The draft plan

is made up, later, in the process of writing, it may be reviewed and

undergo changes concerning constituent parts (adding or omitting) and

their order. Planning may also involve brainstorming some key words and

choosing the basic tense for the writing piece.

Monitoring involves controlling the writing process while writing the

text. It refers to checking and verifying progress in terms of global features,

such as content and organization, and also in terms of local aspects such
 22

as grammar and mechanics. It can be more effectively done by individual

writers. Evaluating: Evaluating takes place after writing, and consists of

reconsidering the written text in terms of both global and local writing

features, and also concerning the strategies used to complete the writing

tasks.

Evaluating is more effectively done in pairs (peer assessment): two

writers exchange their papers and, having viewed them, discuss the

improvements to be made. However, students need to be taught to do

self-editing and correction, too. They need to develop a strategy for it

(what to check first: contents, structure of language, as it is confusing,

especially for less experienced writers to do all three simultaneously).

Self-regulating help to prepare learners for lifelong learning and the

important capacity to transfer skills, knowledge, and abilities from one

domain or setting to another.

Related Studies

Student’s Profile considered in this study that includes age, gender,

socio-economic status, educational institution attended whether public or

private school, language spoken, reading preference and interest.

Fathman (2000) found that 11- to 15-year-olds were significantly

better at acquiring English as a second language than 6- to 10-year-olds in

pronunciatIon, morphology, and syntax. As to academic purposes,

students need to acquire as complete to a range of skills in the second

language as possible En school, language becomes abstract and focuses

 23

of every content area task, with all meaning arid all demonstration of

knowledge expressed through oral and written forms of language as

students move from one grade level to the next.

Researchers made comparisons on the performance of students of

different ages on language tasks associated with school skills, including

reading and writing. Some researchers have been conducted by

comparing the performance of students of different ages on language

tasks associated with language skills, including reading and writing. In

some of these studies, both short-term and long term was found that

students between the ages of 8 and 12 are faster early acquisition of

second language skills, and over several years’ time they maintain this

advantage over younger students at t age of 4 to 7 years (Collier, 2000).

From these studies, it can be asserted that older students between

ages are faster, more efficient acquires of school language than younger

students between the ages 4 to 7.

The studies above show the level of language acquisition. So if a

student is matured there is a possibility that he can understand and

perform better in English. Literatures cited are important to test if the

students’ age is a determinant in their academic performance in this study.

According to Peterman as cited by Gabinete (2009), age can often

be used as a tool but is frequently squandered. Spending many years on

this Earth gives on opportunity to experience many things, observe, listen

and draw conclusions.

Gardner as cited by Mandanas (2007), believed that all children

possess intelligence to a high level proficiency. He stated that children

 24

begin to demonstrate different activities at a very young age. As a result of

these activities, by the time they begin school, children have established

methods of learning that tend to favour certain forms of intelligence among

others.

Gender is also considered as one of the variables of this study.

Samontheza et.al. (2003) as cited by Aguinaldo (2014) investigated

the difference between the perception in the performance of boys and girls

in Industrial Arts. They found out that boys performed better in Industrial

Arts. They found out that boys performed better in girls based on the

perception of their teachers. But there are also some aspects that girls

performed better than boys especially on submitting their projects on time,

more creative in their individual projects and perform better in written

examinations. That could be attributed fact that boys do better on practical

aspects while girls are good in theory. Therefore, they recommended that

there must be no discrimination between boys and girls; but individual

differences must be considered. The students must study their lessons

well and participate in all activities and that another study must be using

the same set of respondents and correlate their study in order to

determine if there is a change in the perceived performance of boys and

girls.

Both boys and girls learn the second Language, but in parallel to

the present study, it is said that girls speak and excel more in verbal

grammar spoken English as well. Most of the girls have higher grades in

English than boys even If there had been discoveries that gender affects

the English performance of students, gender difference is still considered

 25

in this study particularly to find out if studies about language conducted in

other countries would have same findings in this study.

The report written by Swarthmore, College Economics Professor as

cited by Thomas Dee (2007) as cited by Panaglima (2011), it was stated

that female teachers treat students differently than female students, and

vice versa Female teachers depress boy’s achievement. Most elementary

school teachers are female as.

Apolinario (2009) as cited by Tuico (2013), presented on his study

the role of gender differences on certain issues concerning studies. He

stated that considerable evidence supports the notion that girls learn

differently than boys. Girls are said to favour cooperation over competition,

teamwork over individualism, intuition over analysis, tentativeness over

assertiveness, compromise over victory.

Salvador (2006) as cited by Janolino (2015) found out that when it

comes to gender, it is usually the boys that are more playful and may

neglect their studies than girls.

Pimentel (2006) as cited by Janolino advanced the idea of

equalized opportunities to make learning of English language more

meaningful to the Filipino learners. Equalized opportunities refer to equal

opportunity in education, non-traditional livelihood, or occupation, health

services, credit and loan programs for both male and female. Both male

and female should have access to resources, i.e, information, training,

technology and credit. The entire educational system must be a model for

equalized opportunities through collaborative classroom activities

emphasizing cross-sex cooperation.

 26

The mentioned studies are related to this study for it is one of the

variables to be considered. Another variable is the socio-economic status

of the student.

Parent’s attitude and the kind of education are reflected much on

student’s willingness to learn. The home plays an important role in the

early childhood education if the children (Basil, 2007)

Children from poor families, children attending rural schools have

much greater risk of poor outcomes than are middle-class, and suburban

children.

Javier (2001) investigated the relationship of socio-economic status

of the students and their reading ability. Her findings are as follow the

trend of education and occupation of parents. A child who comes from a

poor family has a different set of values than expected by the school and

as a result, his performance is considered below standard.

It was confirmed in the study conducted by Santos (2000) that

parent’s family income and socio-economic status also correlated with the

student’s academic performance. The financial standard of the family, its

inability to cope with the financial demands of education is a deterning

determinant to attain higher performance

On the contrary, John (2006) as cited by Panaglima (2011), studied

disadvantaged children and he found out that socio-economic status of the

students affected their performance.

One of the major variables in this study is the English writing

mechanisms that include the basic writing norms and the Metacognitive

Writing Strategies.
 27

Pagets (2008) as cited by Fernandez (2015), Writing is a variable

means of communication with one another. It is a good way of instilling

ideas in the minds of the readers.

He discloses that to produce a polished piece of work free from

common grammatical errors which uses punctuation correctly. It is

necessary to create paragraphs that keep strong focus on the question

and which link to each other to produce a flowing line.

According to Miniano (2016), Writing is one of the macroskills in

language in which students are expected to be exposed all through-out

their period of language learning.

Kiefer (2009) as cited by Ambrocio (2015), Assigned writing in all

courses helps students keep their writing skills sharp as they become

more and more practiced at using writing as a communication and learning

tool.

According to Pobywajilo (2010), “what students are able to put into

writing represents what they really know about the subject. The student is

constructing an answer rather than memorizing one.”

Lamdagan as cited by Macabato (2009), views writing as an

integral skill, a process of constructing meaning to written text, a complete

skill requiring coordination or related sources of information.

Writing is one of the difficult to master as a student, especially on

our second language. Hence, the metacognitive writing strategies are

need to be considered.

Few research is held nowadays dealing with the application of

metacognitive strategies for the development of writing skills (research

 28

dealing with reading and listening skills prevails). Recently, some research

has been held concerning the application of metacognitive strategies for

teaching writing.

Surat et al. (2014) 18 secondary school students in Malaysia were

asked to do metacognitive reflection on the essay they wrote. It revealed

that students practically had no idea how the writing process should be

organized.

On the other hand, Raoofi et al. (2014) found that 21 undergraduate

interviewed Malaysian students possessed well-developed writing

strategies.

The results seem contradictory, but the little number of the

respondents make the study results non-generalizable in both cases.

Stewart, Seifert, & Rolheiser (2015) held a research with 795 Canadian

undergraduate students, which showed that the application of

metacognitive strategies for the development of writing skills yielded a self-

confidence increase and a decrease in anxiety.

Lv and Chen (2010) carried out a research with 86 vocational

college students in China, which showed that teaching the experimental

group writing strategies has a positive impact on their writing skills.

Although not numerous, the analyzed research shows that many

students (and probably teachers) are not aware of the advantages of

writing strategies, however, when these strategies are applied, they have a

positive impact on the development of writing skills.

 29

Pagets (2008) as cited by Fernandez (2015), Writing is a variable

means of communication with one another. It is a good way of instilling

ideas in the minds of the readers.

He discloses that to produce a polished piece of work free from

common grammatical errors which uses punctuation correctly. It is

necessary to create paragraphs that keep strong focus on the question

and which link to each other to produce a flowing line.

According to Miniano (2016), Writing is one of the macroskills in

language in which students are expected to be exposed all through-out

their period of language learning.

Kiefer (2009) as cited by Ambrocio (2015), Assigned writing in all

courses helps students keep their writing skills sharp as they become

more and more practiced at using writing as a communication and learning

tool.

According to Pobywajilo (2010), “what students are able to put into

writing represents what they really know about the subject. The student is

constructing an answer rather than memorizing one.”

Lamdagan as cited by Macabato (2009), views writing as an

integral skill, a process of constructing meaning to written text, a complete

skill requiring coordination or related sources of information.

Writing is one of the difficult to master as a student, especially on

our second language. Hence, the basic writing norms and coherence are

some to be considered in writing.

Basic writing norms includes capitalization which according to

Bruce (2005), capitalization is basic, surface features of written

 30

communication are relatively standardized. Because of the large number

of rules, however, errors can be expected—even among good writers. For

most writers, the smaller set of rules that they know may be sufficient for

adequate written communication. Nevertheless, sentence fragments, run-

on sentences, and the punctuation of relative clauses are three problems

that occur frequently.

Bruce (2005), Punctuation is basic surface feature of written

communication. However, it was not until the nineteenth century that

authorities insisted and concluded that punctuation marks should be

primarily an integral part of the sentence pattern, not an indicator of

pauses. Throughout literature in punctuation two major purposes recur—to

bring together and to separate. More recently, five major purposes for

punctuation have been identified to terminate and separate, to combine

and separate, to introduce, to enclose and to indicate omission. Generally,

the rules for punctuation and capitalization are relatively standardized.

 31

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter includes the design which employed in the conduct of

study, the sampling techniques which determined the respondents out of a

target population, the instruments used in the gathering of pertinent data

and the procedure followed. Included also are the statistical tools used in

treating the data gathered.

Research Design

The type of research that was used by the researchers is the

descriptive method. This method describes data and characteristics about

the population or phenomenon being studied (Calderon 2016).

This research method is also used for frequencies, averages and

other statistical calculations. Often the best approach to writing descriptive

research, is conducting a survey investigation.

In addition, the goal of descriptive research is to describe a

phenomenon and its characteristics. This research is more concerned with

what rather than how or why something has happened. Therefore,

observation and survey tools are often used to gather data (Gall, Gall, &

Borg, 2015).

Since the researcher will survey questionnaires, the method to be

used will be descriptive method in order gather data and reliable sources

of information to determine the impact of using metacognitive skills to the

students’ writing skills.

 32

Respondents of the Study

Figure 2. Locale of the Study

Figure 2 shows the map of the Province of Laguna taken from

google maps where the study was conducted.

The population of the respondents was composed of three (3)

public selected secondary schools in the Division of Laguna.

The researchers used purposive sampling in choosing the

respondents. Creswell (2015) asserts that purposeful sampling, which is

the intended selection of persons in a particular subgroup who share

defining characteristics. Patton (2012) explains how using purposive

sampling allows a researcher to choose “information rich cases” which

illuminates the research question being explored.

 33

Research Procedure

The research started by group collaboration on the title formulation.

After coming up with the research title, the researchers proceeded with the

gathering of related literature and studies through internet sources.

After the gathering of the related literature and studies, the

researchers formulated the research instruments through google form then

distributed to the selected junior and senior high schools in the Division of

Laguna.

Upon completing the number of accomplished survey-

questionnaires retrieved, the researchers analyzed and tabulated the data

gathered. These data were treated using the statistical tools.

Research Instrument

For the purposes of this research, a validated survey-questionnaire

was the most essential and valid instrument to be used. It is simply a set of

questions which will be answered by the respondents in order to supply

the necessary information about this study.

The researchers used survey questionnaire specifically checklist

type of survey as the primary instrument in this study. A checklist also

known as ticklist or chart works as an inventory of behaviors or skills

where the researcher checks indicators that are being observed (Hodder

Education & Hachette UK Company, 2017). In addition, a checklist

provides more information if the researcher records additional comments

on the context.

For part I, the instrument focused on the frequency of students’ use

of metacognitive strategy in terms of planning, monitoring, controlling,

 34

evaluating and self-regulating the learning process. In each statement, the

respondents are expected to tell how frequent they use their metacognitive

skills by ticking in the appropriate box such as always (5), usually (4),

sometimes (3), rarely (2), or never (1).

Part II focused on the mean level of students’ writing skills in terms

of capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. For capitalization and

punctuation, respondents were asked to proofread some sentences.

While, for spelling, the respondents were asked to click the correct spelling

of a particular word.

Statistical Treatment of Data

To provide information on the Impact of metacognitive strategies to

the Students’ writing skills, which were rated through planning, monitoring,

evaluating and self-regulating the learning process, the responses were

tabulated as basis for statistical treatment of the data.

In order to analyze and interpret the data gathered, the following

statistical tools were used in the study.

Relative frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation and one way

ANOVA were as follows:

Relative Frequency

x 100
 35

Mean

Where:

One Way ANOVA

 36

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.”

Table 1.1. Frequency of Students’ use of Metacognitive Strategy in

terms of Planning

Statements Mean Rank SD Remarks

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

Legend:
Scale Range Remarks Verbal Interpretation
5 4.20-5.00 Always Very High
4
Table 1.1 shows the frequency of
3.40-4.19
students’ use of metacognitive
Usually High
strategy

3 in terms of planning.
2.60-3.39 Sometimes Fairly High

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

got the highest (M = 4.51, SD = 0.82). Followed by the statement, “I know

 37

what I should 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.

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

Statements Mean Rank SD Remarks
1. I make sure that I am 4.29 2 0.75 Always
on 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 4.24 3 0.85 Always
that 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
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).

 38

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.

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

terms of Evaluating

Statements Mean Rank SD Remark

s
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

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).

 39

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.

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 = 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

 40

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

Table 2.1 shows the level of students’ writing skills in terms of

capitalization, punctuation and spelling.

Legend:
Capitalization got the highest (M = 3.75, SD = 1.35) with an
Scale Range Interpretation
5 4.20-5.00 Outstanding
interpretation of Very Satisfactory. Followed by Spelling (M = 3.61, SD =
4 3.40-4.19 Very Satisfactory
3 an interpretation
1.05) with 2.60-3.39of Very Satisfactory.
Satisfactory While Subject-Verb
2 1.80-2.59 Fair
1 1.00-1.79
agreement got the lowest (M = 2.84, SD = Needs
1.27)Improvement
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.

Table 3.1 Impact on using Metacognitive Strategy with Students’

Writing Skills.
Metacognitive Writing Skills F- Value F- Critical Analysis
Strategy
 41

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

 42

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”.