SOP #1

Table _. Demographic profile of the respondents

Profile Frequency Percentage
Sex
 Male 30 22.6
 Female 103 77.4

Program
 ABEL 44 33.1
 ABSS 81 60.9
 BS Stat 8 6.0

Total 133 100.0

SOP #2

Table _. Level of respondents perceived language difficulty in terms of academic factor

M SD Int
1. Lectures are helpful to solve my academic difficulties. 4.32 .801 High
2. Academic difficulties are affecting my achievement. 3.85 .883 High
3. Instructors meet students’ academic success. 4.08 .765 High
4. I face academic difficulties in meeting academic demands 3.71 .934 High
(assignments, papers projects).
5. Learning English helps me in my academic study of other courses. 4.29 .726 High
Academic Factor 4.05 .584 High
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high
Table _. Level of respondents perceived language difficulty in terms of instructional factor
M SD Int
6. My instructor encourages me to participate. 4.1 .821 High
7
7. There are grades for classroom participation 4.2 .762 High
8
8. My instructor encourages me towards self-learning in 4.0 .793 High
English 9
9. My instructor doesn’t allow me to speak Native language 3.1 1.062 Moderate
(Hiligaynon) in the English class. 5
10. Three hours of learning English per week is not enough. 3.3 .941 Moderate
7
Instructional Factor 3.8 .595 High
1
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high

Table _. Level of respondents perceived language difficulty in terms of linguistic factor

M SD Int
11. English language listening skill is a challenge for me. 3.77 .937 High
12. Grammatical errors are a serious problem for me. 3.73 .897 High
13. Writing is a major problem for me. 3.15 .996 Moderate
14. Pronunciation of words in English is difficult. 3.03 1.080 Moderate
15. Reading and understanding English texts are not easy. 3.21 1.023 Moderate
Linguistic Factor 3.38 .691 Moderate
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high

Table _. Level of respondents perceived language difficulty in terms of personal factor

M SD Int
16. If I use English my status is raised. 3.3 .868 Moderate
8
17. My attitudes to the English language affect learning the 3.4 .979 Moderate
 language. 3
18. I feel uneasy and lack confidence when I speak English. 3.2 1.112 Moderate
9
19. I will not need English in the future 2.2 1.265 Low
6
20. I am forced to learn English by the people around me. 2.8 1.244 Moderate
6
Personal factor 3.0 .718 Moderate
4
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high

Table _. Level of respondents perceived language difficulty as a whole

M SD Int
Academic Factor 4.05 .584 High
Instructional Factor 3.81 .595 High
Linguistic Factor 3.38 .691 Moderate
Personal Factor 3.04 .718 Moderate
Perceived Language Difficulty 3.57 .462 High
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high

SOP #3
Table_. Level of the respondents perceived writing ability in terms of writing introduction

M SD Int
21.I can write research introduction without the guidance of my 2.8 1.041 Moderate
research adviser. 0
22 I consume much time in writing the introduction part. 3.2 .947 Moderate
4
23.I find it difficult to identify the beneficiaries of my paper. 2.9 .977 Moderate
8
24.I am not sure of what to include in my introduction. 2.8 .957 Moderate
8
 25.I have problem on how to state the problem. 3.1 .889 Moderate
7
Introduction 3.0 .640 Moderate
2
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high

Table_. Level of the respondents perceived writing ability in terms of review of related literature

M SD Int
26. I can easily identify which theory to use that will support my 3.3 .841 Moderate
research. 8
27. There is a vast collection of books that are available for 3.5 .813 High
researchers. 2
28. There are few related studies that are available. 3.2 .920 Moderate
6
29. I know that independent variable is also a criterion variable. 3.3 .860 Moderate
9
30.Internet access is available for the researchers. 3.6 .959 High
2
Review of Related Literature 3.4 .588 Moderate
3
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high

Table_. Level of the respondents perceived writing ability in terms of writing methodology

M SD Int
31.I know that research design is also known as research 3.3 .761 Moderate
methodology. 1
32.I know what statistical tool to use in particular research. 3.3 .829 Moderate
2
 33.Validation of Research instrument is easy because experts are 3.1 .889 Moderate
rapidly available. 9
34.I can develop a self-made questionnaire instrument like 3.5 .884 High
questionnaire based on the identified indicators in the statement 3
of the problem.
35. I know how to get the sample if the population of the target 3.4 .828 Moderate
respondents happens to big. 2
Methodology 3.3 .564 Moderate
5
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high

Table_. Level of the respondents perceived writing ability as a whole

M SD Int
Introduction 3.02 .640 Moderate
Review of Related Literature 3.43 .588 Moderate
Methodology 3.35 .564 Moderate
Perceived Writing Ability 3.27 .506 Moderate
Interpretation (Int):
1.00 – 1.49 Very low
1.50 – 2.49 Low
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate
3.50 – 4.49 High
4.50 – 5.00 Very high

SOP #4

Table _. Significant difference on respondents’ perceived language difficulty when grouped

according to sex

Profile Test Statistic p-value Decision for Ho Conclusion

Academic Factor Do not reject Not significant
1536.000 .961
Ho
  Male (MR = 67.30)
 Female (MR = 66.91)

Instructional Factor Do not reject Not significant

1442.000 .577
Ho
 Male (MR = 63.57)
 Female (MR = 68.00)

Linguistic Factor .791 Do not reject Not significant

1496.000
Ho
 Male (MR = 68.63)
 Female (MR = 66.52)

Personal Factor Do not reject Not significant

1358.000 .312
Ho
 Male (MR = 73.23)
 Female (MR = 65.18)

Perceived Language .974 Do not reject Not significant

1539.000
Difficulty Ho
 Male (MR = 67.20)
 Female (MR = 66.94)
Not significant if p-value is greater than 0.05
Significant if p-value is lesser than 0.05
Highly significant if p-value is lesser than 0.01

Mann-Whitney Test was used to determine if there is a significant difference on respondents’

perceived language difficulty when grouped according to sex. At the 5% level of significance,
results reveal that there is no significant difference on the respondents’ language difficulty
between sexes (U = 1539.000, p-value = .974). This suggests that both male and female
respondents experience the same level of language difficulty.

Table _. Significant difference on respondents’ perceived language difficulty when grouped

according to program

Profile Test p-value Decision for Ho Conclusion

Statistic
Academic Factor 8.670 .013 Reject Ho Significant
 ABEL (MR = 55.08b)
 ABSS (MR = 74.82a)
 BS Stat (MR = 53.38b)
 Instructional Factor 6.983 .030 Reject Ho Significant
 ABEL (MR = 66.56b)
 ABSS (MR = 63.85b)
 BS Stat (MR = 101.31a)

Linguistic Factor 1.156 .561 Do not reject Ho Not significant

 ABEL (MR = 63.83)
 ABSS (MR = 69.64)
 BS Stat (MR = 57.69)

Personal Factor 2.495 .287 Do not reject Ho Not significant

 ABEL (MR = 60.64)
 ABSS (MR = 69.09)
 BS Stat (MR = 80.88)

Perceived Language Difficulty 2.566 .277 Do not reject Ho Not significant

 ABEL (MR = 59.58)
 ABSS (MR = 70.22)
 BS Stat (MR = 75.25)
Not significant if p-value is greater than 0.05
Significant if p-value is lesser than 0.05
Highly significant if p-value is lesser than 0.01
Mean ranks (MR) with the same letter are not significantly different

Kruskal – Wallis Test was used to determine if there is a significant difference on respondents’
perceived language difficulty when grouped according to program. At the 5% level of
significance, results reveal that there is a significant difference on the respondents’ language
difficulty in terms of academic factor between programs ( χ 2 = 8.670, p-value = .013). Multiple
comparison revealed that ABSS students experience higher level of language difficulty than
ABEL and BS Stat students.
Meanwhile, there is a significant difference on the perceived language difficulty in terms of
instructional factor between programs ( χ 2 = 6.983, p-value = .030). Multiple comparison
revealed that BS Stat students experience higher level of language difficulty than ABEL and
ABSS students.
Overall, there is no significant difference on the perceived language difficulty between programs
( χ 2 = 2.566, p = .277).

SOP #5
Table _. Significant difference on the respondents perceived research writing ability when
grouped by sex
 Profile Test Statistic p- Decision for Ho Conclusion
value
Introduction 1515.500 .873 Do not reject Ho Not significant
 Male (MR = 67.98)
 Female (MR = 66.71)

Review of Related Literature 1376.000 .360 Do not reject Ho Not significant

 Male (MR = 72.63)
 Female (MR = 65.36)

Methodology 1264.500 .128 Do not reject Ho Not significant

 Male (MR = 76.35)
 Female (MR = 64.28)

Perceived Writing Ability 1375.000 .360 Do not reject Ho Not significant

 Male (MR = 72.67)
 Female (MR = 65.35)
Not significant if p-value is greater than 0.05
Significant if p-value is lesser than 0.05
Highly significant if p-value is lesser than 0.01

Mann-Whitney Test was used to determine if there is a significant difference on respondents’

perceived research writing ability when grouped according to sex. At the 5% level of
significance, results reveal that there is no significant difference on the respondents’ perceived
research writing ability between sexes (U = 1375.000, p-value = .360).

Table _. Significant difference on the respondents perceived research writing ability when
grouped by program

Profile Test p- Decision for Conclusion

Statistic value Ho
Introduction .085 .958 Do not reject Not significant
 ABEL (MR = 65.67) Ho
 ABSS (MR = 67.56)
 BS Stat (MR = 68.69)

Review of Related Literature 5.963 .051 Do not reject Not significant

 ABEL (MR = 58.42) Ho
 ABSS (MR = 69.16)
  BS Stat (MR = 92.31)

Methodology 10.521 .005 Reject Ho Highly

 ABEL (MR = 52.43b) significant
 ABSS (MR = 72.95a)
 BS Stat (MR = 86.88a)

Perceived Writing Ability 4.641 .098 Do not reject Not significant

 ABEL (MR = 57.77) Ho
 ABSS (MR = 70.37)
 BS Stat (MR = 83.63)
Not significant if p-value is greater than 0.05
Significant if p-value is lesser than 0.05
Highly significant if p-value is lesser than 0.01
Mean ranks (MR) with the same letter are not significantly different

Kruskal-Wallis Test was used to determine if there is a significant difference on respondents’

perceived research writing ability when grouped according to program. At the 5% level of
significance, results reveal that there is a highly significant difference on the respondents’
perceived research writing ability in terms of methodology writing between programs ( χ 2 =
10.521, p-value = .005). Multiple comparison revealed that ABSS and BS Stat students have
higher perceived research writing ability in writing methodology than ABEL students.
Overall, there is no significant difference on the perceived research writing ability between the
three programs ( χ 2 = 4.641, p = .098).

SOP #6

Table _. Significant association between the respondents perceive language difficulty and
research writing ability
Profile Spearman’ p- Decision for Conclusion
s rho value Ho
Perceived Language Difficulty Do not reject Not significant
0.517 0.000
and Perceived Writing Ability Ho
Not significant if p-value is greater than 0.05
Significant if p-value is lesser than 0.05
Highly significant if p-value is lesser than 0.01
Spearman’s rho was used to determine if there is a significant relationship between perceived
language difficulty and perceived writing ability. At the 5% level of significance, results reveal a
positive relationship between the two variables (rho = 0.517, p-value = 0.000). This suggests
that the higher the perceived language difficulty, the higher the perceived writing ability and vice
versa.