Colegio de San Gabriel of Caloocan

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Phase 10 Pkg. 6 Blk. 1 Lot 1-5 Bagong Silang, Caloocan City

Utilizing Facebook as a Tool for Developing Writing Competence

of Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel Education Students

A Research Paper
Submitted to the Research and Planning Development Office
Academic Year 2017-2018

Submitted by:

Mary Jane N. Murillo

Faculty Member
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 1

Abstract 3

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 6

Introduction 6

Significance of the Study 9

Conceptual Framework 10

Statement of the Problem 15

Hypotheses 17

Scope and Delimitations 18

Limitations 18

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES 19

Language Ability and Learning

of College Bilingual Learners 19

Writing: Definition, Process and College Instruction 22

Facebook Behaviors of Filipinos 25

Facebook for Educational Purposes 27

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 36

Instruments and Tools 36

Population and Sampling Techniques 37

Instrument of the Study 38

Data Gathering Procedures 39

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment 40

1|Page
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION OF DATA 44

Question # 1 44

Question # 2 48

Question # 3 57

Question # 4 59

Question # 5 61

Question # 6 62

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 65

Summary of Findings 65

Conclusion 67

Recommendation 67

References 69

Appendices 77

2|Page
 ABSTRACT

This study aims to examine how Facebook posting can be utilized

as a tool for developing writing competence. Among the questions

addressed were the following: (1) What is the demographic profile of

the COSGA Education students in terms of gender, age, civil status,

socio-economic status, years in college, and current year level?; (2)

What is the Facebook behavior of the respondents before the pre-test

in terms of name in Facebook, frequency of posts, language used in

posting, type of material being posted, reason for posting, feedback

received from posting, and other Facebook activities?; (3) What is the

performance of the students in the writing pre-test and post-test

based on the ESL Composition Profile?; (4) To what extent do the

students engage in the Facebook group to enhance their writing

skills?; (5) How significant is the difference between the performance

of the respondents in the writing pre- test and post-test based on the

ESL Composition Profile?; and, (6) Is there a significant relationship

between the students’ resulting writing competence and the following

variables: age and frequency of their Facebook group use?

Percentage rate was used in the treatment of data composed of

the demographic profile of teachers and their Facebook behaviors. On

the other hand, weighted mean is used to identify the students’

performance in every component of the ESL Composition Profile for the

3|Page
pre-test and the post-test. Then, to determine the extent of the

students’ engagement in the Facebook group Quill, Quest and Query

(3QG), percentage rate was also used with a descriptive interpretation.

Meanwhile, to determine how significant the difference is between the

pre-test and post-test, z-test was applied using Excel Data Analysis

Toolkit. Finally, for establishing the relationship between the students’

improvement in the post-test from the pre-test and the variables of

age and frequency of Facebook group use, Pearson r correlation

coefficient was used.

Results indicate that the respondents are predominantly female,

aged 23.5, single, middle-income earner and 4th year students, and

their Facebook engagement involves using one’s true name, with an

account since 2011 to 2013, going online once or twice weekly to post

own captioned photos using mixed languages, which they do to share

ideas, where they received mostly likes and responses and some

comments and mostly for chatting. Based on the ESL Composition

Profile, the result of the writing pre-test reflects a “FAIR to POOR”

writing performance, while the post-test shows a small improvement in

all components, particularly in language use, resulting to a better

overall post-test result of 73.58 (AVERAGE). All in all, it was found that

there was no significant difference in the specific components and in

the overall writing pre-test and post-test results, thus the null

4|Page
hypothesis cannot be rejected. Neither was there a significant

relationship between the students’ age and the resulting difference

between the pre-test and post-test, which confirms other researches

that age is not a relevant variable. More notably, positive correlation

cannot be established between the frequency of Facebook engagement

in 3QG, which was identified at a rate of 68% with a standard

deviation of 3.19, and the respondents’ writing performance.

In conclusion, it is found that there is no concrete evidence of

the effectiveness of the Facebook posting as a tool for developing

writing competencies. Recommendations were proposed as a result of

the study.

5|Page
 CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Introduction

Communication is one of the most important activities for

humans. This is especially true for the youth and young adults who are

in the process of establishing their identity and/ or building

relationships and pursuing careers. Nowadays, the communication

process has taken forms beyond the normal face to face conversation

and interaction. Technological advancement has opened a wide variety

of options. Among the most popularly used are made available through

the Internet.

Indeed, the internet has been a very useful means of sending

messages. In this generation, many have electronic mail or email for

short, and have utilized applications such as Yahoo messenger, chat,

shout-out, comment, tweet and reply.

Among the most popular feature of the Internet are the social

networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and

Snapchat. The most popular of which was Facebook, a site founded by

Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, with a reported 2 billion monthly users as of

June 2017 by www.techcrunch.com. It was followed by Youtube with

1.5 billion and Instagram with 700 million patrons.

6|Page
 Facebook enjoys its popularity owing to its various features.

Users of this platform can create a personal profile, add other users

(friend them), share pictures, personal information, and receive

notifications when friends update their profiles. Users may also join

common interest groups organized by research interests, nationalities,

age cohorts and other characteristics (O'Bannon et al., 2013).

Filipinos, having been considered a friendly nation, seem to have

seen the advantage of Facebook. Alvarez (2013) in her master’s thesis

cited that in a survey conducted in 2010 posted by

www.comcore2010.com, the Philippines had the highest usage rate of

SNS in the Asia Pacific Region, which is 90 percent of the users’

population, followed by Australia at 89.6 percent and Indonesia at

88.6 percent. Moreover, she mentioned that users spent 5.5 hours per

visit.

True enough in 2011, Asian correspondent dubbed the

Philippines as the SNS Capital of the World with 93.9% of the

population having logged on to Facebook, followed by Israel at 91%.

One of the most recent report posted in Philippine Daily Inquirer

Online by Miguel R. Camus in January 24, 2017, which presented the

result of surveys conducted by social media management platform

Hootsuite and United Kingdom-based consultancy We Are Social Ltd,

showed the same results regarding SNS activity of the nation.

7|Page
Philippines was leading in terms of the amount of time spent in SNS like

Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter at 4 hours and 17 minutes, followed by

Brazil (3 hours and 43 minutes) and Argentina (3 hours and 32

minutes). According to the same report, the Philippines’s internet and

social media users increased by over 25 percent. This is despite among

having the slowest broadband speed at 4.2 megabits per second

(mbps). The report, however, pointed out that there is a correlation

with the amount of time spent over the internet with the internet speed.

In terms of actual number of Facebook users, Statista reported

that as of April, 2017, Philippines ranked 6th all over the world after

United States, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico with 63 million users.

It is interesting to note the demographics of Filipino Facebook

users. According to Castro (2016), 20 to 29-year olds now top the

demographics on Facebook usage. This age range is consistent with

the report on American users. In Social Media Update of 2016, it was

reported that 88 percent of US Facebook users are between 18 to 29

years old. This shows the part Facebook plays in the lives of our youth,

particularly among college students and young professionals.

Oftentimes, Facebook visit is associated with updating on social

trends, interacting with friends and mingling with the community

locally and abroad, doing business and even promoting advocacies.

Recently, however, a growing body of literature shows using Facebook

8|Page
for educational purposes. Through Facebook Groups and Group Chats

with features for uploading files, photos and videos and sharing links

to other internet sites, teachers and students alike make use of

Facebook not just to communicate schedules and requirement updates

but in giving instruction and sharing educational resources.

For this reason, the researcher would like to inquire into the

activities of college students in Facebook and experiment on using this

particular SNS as a tool to develop their written communication

competence.

Significance of the Study

This study on the use of Facebook towards developing written

communication competence will have benefits on the following groups:

Educators. Instructors and teachers will get an idea on how to

maximize the use of Facebook in facilitating their students’ learning.

Since classes are often suspended due to inclement weather condition,

using Facebook to share lessons and ideas, give instruction for and

collect student outputs and communicate feedback can be a welcome

alternative to having makeup classes.

Students. Learners, particularly with ready access to the Internet, can

also benefit from the study as they will learn how to use Facebook for

self-improvement and getting more substantial materials across.

9|Page
Administrators. Administrators may also benefit from the study since

using Facebook for makeup instruction will help them cut the cost for

doing it on Saturdays. Likewise, they can be guided with this research

on their conduct of In-Service Training including the topic of Online

Instruction.

Facebook Developers. Facebook developers can gain advantages in

this study as they can improve features that aid instruction such as

Facebook groups and apps to make them more interactive and

engaging for the users.

Researchers. Other researchers may find ideas in this study to use in

their own research particularly on developing materials to use that are

compatible and will maximize the features of Facebook.

Theoretical/ Conceptual Framework/ Research Paradigm

Developing written communication competence in English is

essential especially in the field of education, wherein outputs are

always expected to be coded in academic terms. Since technological

development occurs fast and the international community becomes

increasingly small through social networking sites, it is better to use

these factors to the advantage of the students.

This study is based on Koehler and Mishra’s (2009)

Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

Framework on technology integration into the classroom (shown in

10 | P a g e
Figure 1), the proposed model by Munoz and Towner as cited by Yunus

et al. (2012), and Lara’s (2011) in reinforcing the written discourse

competence.

The TPACK framework builds on Lee Shulman’s construct of

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge

to provide a model for effective teaching with technology.

Figure 1. The TPACK Framework

The steps presented in the study of Munoz and Towner are

shown in Figure 2.

11 | P a g e
 Create a group in Facebook using Group tool.

Make the group private once every member has joined.

Inside the group, the teacher can post discussion topics, video links and other related topics.

Invite Guests into the group so that other experts could contribute to the discussion board.

Make sure students always respond to teachers' post and give opinions.

When the class is over, the teacher can decide to shut down the group or not depending on the
students' needs.

Figure 2. Steps to Construct a Virtual Classroom through Facebook

The afore-mentioned procedures only require the teacher to add

at least one member of the class as friend. That particular member of

the class will be tasked to add the other members of the class into the

Group once it has been created. Once the Group has been created, the

interaction can start. It is necessary that every member of the class

goes online to profit from the shared materials and take part in the

discussion.

In order to measure the improvement in the students’ writing

ability, the researcher also consulted the paradigm by Lara (2011)

which is shown in Figure 2.

12 | P a g e
 Pre-Writing

Discussion Techniques Performance Evaluation

Reinforcing the Written Discourse Abilities of College Freshmen

Post Writing

Improved Written Discourse Abilities of College Freshmen

Figure 3. Lara’s (2011) Conceptual Framework

Lara (2011) gave her respondents a pre-writing activity.

Following that activity, she held lecture-discussions on written

discourse techniques and rules and writing exercises to reinforce the

abilities of her respondents. After her reinforcement was done, she

conducted a post-writing test. To evaluate the students’ progress, she

used the ESL Composition Profile, a standardized tool that scores

compositions on content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and

mechanics. Based on her research findings, no significant difference

was established between the writing pre-test and post-test even with

the lecture intervention she has provided on the students’ writing

errors. Thus, she recommended researchers to try to come up with

better strategies such as a modular intervention.

13 | P a g e
 In this research, Facebook Group is used as an alternative venue

for providing students knowledge on writing techniques and rules.

Through posting albums that deliver information in photo format, the

researcher intends to capture the students’ interest and enable them

to gain the necessary information for developing their writing

competence. The researcher has also posted her written compositions

as sample for the students and opened her wall so that students could

see samples of her posts. The researcher is also prepared to affirm

students who strive to write by striking the “Like” button and respond

to queries whether in private messages or on posts.

With the Facebook Group created for the purpose of this study,

the researcher analyzes the frequency of Facebook use of the students

of Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel of Caloocan by tallying the number

of postings they have “seen” and “liked” and the quality of the

students’ participation by their own postings, which the researcher

“liked”.

Patterned after Lara’s conceptual framework, the researcher

utilizes a writing pre-test and post-test, which are likewise evaluated

using the ESL Composition Profile. Figure 3 shows the paradigm of this

study.

14 | P a g e
 Pre-Writing

Facebook Group

Posting Responding to Feedback

Developing the Written Communication Competence

of College Students through 3QG

Post Writing

Improved Written Communication Competence of

College Students

Figure 3. The Research Paradigm

15 | P a g e
Statement of the Problem

With Facebook’s popularity as a social networking site, its use as a

tool for academic purposes have been tested and subjected to

research in several circles. For this reason, the researcher would like

to examine how Facebook posting can be utilized as a tool for

developing writing competence. This research specifically intends to

address the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the COSGA Education

students in terms of:

1.1. Gender;

1.2. Age;

1.3. Civil Status;

1.4. Socio-economic Status;

1.5. Years in College;

1.6. Current Year Level?

2. What is the Facebook behavior of the respondents before the

pre-test in terms of:

2.1. Name in Facebook;

2.2. Frequency of posts;

2.3. Language used in posting;

2.4. Type of material being posted;

2.5. Reason for posting;

16 | P a g e
 2.6. Feedback received from posting;

2.7. Other Facebook activities?

3. What is the performance of the students in the writing pre-test

and post-test based on the ESL Composition Profile?

4. To what extent do the students engage in the Facebook group to

enhance their writing skills?

5. How significant is the difference between the performance of the

respondents in the writing pre- test and post-test based on the

ESL Composition Profile?

6. Is there a significant relationship between the students’ resulting

writing competence and the following variables:

6.1. Age; and,

6.2. Frequency of their Facebook Group use?

Null Hypotheses

Ho1: There is no significant difference between the performance of the

respondents in the writing pre-test and post-test based on the ESL.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’

written communication competence and their age.

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between the respondents’

written communication competence and the frequency of their

Facebook use.

17 | P a g e
Scope and Delimitations

The study focused on the effectiveness of utilizing Facebook to

improve the written communication competence of college students of

Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel of Caloocan, Inc.

Limitations

This study is limited to 38 selected Education students who are

enrolled in the first semester of 2017-2018. The result of the study

applies only to them and should not be generalized to all Education

students.

18 | P a g e
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter discusses the review of related literature and

studies on the following topics: Language Ability and Learning of

College Bilingual Learners; Writing Definition, Process and Instruction;

and Facebook’s Use for Educational Purposes.

Language Ability and Learning of College Bilingual Learners

Most college students fall in the late adolescence and early

adulthood. This is a period wherein physical development is almost

done. In terms of linguistic and communicative abilities, they are

expected to perform better than younger students. According to the

U.S. Department of Education, “language development shifts in the

teen years from basic grammar mastery to the use of language on a

higher level.” Adolescent individuals should be able to use more

complex syntax and adapt her oral and written communication to her

audience (Bauer 2015).

Rosselli et al. (2014), in their study, suggests however that

language development can be hampered by certain factors including

gender, level of education and bilingualism.

19 | P a g e
 Since the Philippines is a home to various languages, the

challenge of bilingualism is most apparent. Although from students are

exposed to more than one tongue from childhood and may be required

to speak at least two or three languages particularly when they start

formal schooling, it does not assure competence in any of these

languages.

Linguists have always claimed that, universally speaking,

linguistic competence is achieved in the children’s “first” or “native”

languages. According to Giron et.al (2016), the favorable results

ascribed to the use of the vernacular in language learning can be

explained by Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, which states

that children learn from each other and from others through

observation, imitation and modeling. Having used it at home and

immediate community and with additional instruction in school,

children develop increasing fluency and efficiency in the command of

the vernacular. It is more difficult to learn a second language since it

follows a biological timetable.

Sousa (2016) stated that proficiency in language learning

depends in how early in life an individual begins it. This contradicts the

Lenneberg and Bickerton who view that optimal second language

learning takes place among adolescents and young adults because of

20 | P a g e
their effort to acquire another language. Both theorists are proponents

of the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH).

Vanhove (2013) critiques the said theory in his study which

reveals that the specific age patterns predicted by the CPH are not

applicable to all possible second languages. He concludes using the

principle of parsimony that age patterns in second language acquisition

are not governed by a critical period.

Instead of a critical period, other theorists propose stages of

second language acquisition. Giron (2016) cited Stephen Krashen’s

Natural Approach to Second Language Acquisition to explain how

bilinguals can develop skills through their first language with his four

principles:

1. Language production results from comprehension;

2. Stages govern language production;

3. Learning the language takes place by using communication and

interaction in the target language;

4. The tasks should be based on the students’ interest.

College students in the Philippines are expected to have

developed the necessary language competencies from secondary

school. Thus, their participation in communication activities is

21 | P a g e
encouraged for further improvement. They are also made to write

compositions on various topics of interest.

Writing: Definition, Process and College Instruction

Wikipedia (2017) provides the following definition for writing:

“Writing is a medium of human communication that

represents language and emotion with signs and symbols. In most

languages, writing is a complement to speech or spoken language.

Writing is not a language, but a tool developed by human society.

Within a language system, writing relies on many of the same

structures as speech, such as vocabulary, grammar, and semantics,

with the added dependency of a system of signs or symbols. The result

of writing is called text, and the recipient of text is called a reader.”

Indeed, writing is heavily dependent on several factors.

However, aside from grasp of one’s spoken language and its symbolic

system, writing has to be purposeful. The writer always has a reason

behind putting his or her thoughts on paper, which according to

Craswell and Poore (2012) can be either of these four: to inform,

entertain, narrate or persuade.

Knowledge of material to write about is also a significant factor.

This is true particularly for academic writing, where topic knowledge is

often comes from other resources. Thus, in order to write, one must

undergo at least the four steps in the process, namely: prewriting,

22 | P a g e
drafting, revising, and editing. It is known as a recursive process. A lot

of online resources describe each of the steps in the writing process. It

is noteworthy to mention one fact about it mentioned in

http://cmsw.mit.edu/writing-and-communication-center/resources/

writers/writing-process/: “Writing is a recursive process. While you are

revising, you might have to return to the prewriting step to develop

and expand your ideas.”

As writers grow into maturity in the process, they develop their

own voice. Craswell & Poore (2012) stated that voice is formed by the

person’s style, which include the “tonal qualities of text or presentation

and diction choices” along with the ability to play with academic and

disciplinary writing practices.

Writing has always been a part of the tertiary learning

requirement. Communication Arts subjects are part of the General

Education (G.E.) curriculum, and based on the Commission on Higher

Education Memorandum Order No. 30 series of 2004 and No. 52 series

of 2007, Education students have to complete nine (9) units of such

course of studies. The three subjects’ nomenclature for most higher

education institutions are Study and Thinking Skills, Writing in the

Discipline and Speech and Oral Communication. All of these have

writing components. Aside from these required G.E. courses, college

students are always bombarded with essay projects and assignments,

23 | P a g e
including different kinds of papers. Even examinations are essay type.

Thus, a student’s fate heavily depends on his/ her ability to put his/

her thoughts on paper in a coherent way.

Often, college writing instruction includes the traditional methods

of lecture. The professor would discuss the skill then give assignments.

Based on the study of Lara (2011), however, it was revealed that

lecturing on common errors of college students in writing was not an

effective intervention so the researcher proposed a modular

intervention program to reinforce the written discourse analysis.

Another strategy developed by instructors is collaboration,

wherein students are grouped together to help each other in their

writing task. Albesher (2012) conducted a study to investigate the

effectiveness of this technique in improving the writing skills of

students of English as a second language. The test is in terms of

organization, development, coherence, structure, vocabulary and

mechanics. The study results indicated that collaborative writing

benefitted the students a great deal in terms of the quality of their

writing (development, cohesion and organization) but not much in

terms of the accuracy of their writing (mechanics and structure).

One more technique was the use of journalistic questions like

who, what, where, when, why and how (Verner 2017). Proske & Kapp

(2013) said that this is a way to develop content knowledge as it

24 | P a g e
facilitates the construction of an adequate situation model by taking

note of smaller details. In their study, they conducted a formal

experimental study involving two groups, one with questions while

the other using the usual strategy. Results revealed that students

provided with interactive learning questions wrote longer essays and

spend significantly more time prewriting and writing/revising their

essays than did the students of the study-only group. Moreover,

studying source texts with learning questions resulted in text

products of better readability and partly better accuracy and coverage

of content. These findings suggest that engaging students in

answering learning questions when reading source texts can

positively affect both writing process and performance.

Finally, teachers can also model the writing behavior. David

Cutlet (2015), a Boston journalism teacher, said in his blog that to

teach writing, one must model it: “Writers are the best writing

teachers.” It is important that teachers share their written pieces and

seek their students’ feedback. Likewise, they can invite their students

to share their own writings whether in class or online. Most important

of all is to convince students of the value of writing.

Facebook Behaviors of Filipinos

Of all online sites, Facebook leads in terms of popularity and

utility. Filipinos are among its main supporters.

25 | P a g e
 Based on the study of Minges et al. (2002), the first Filipino to

use the Internet did so on March 29, 1994. At that time, the Philippine

Network Foundation, a conglomerate of private and public institutions,

acquired the country’s first public permanent connection to the

Internet. From then on, the number of Filipino Internet users has

increased, little by little at first but drastically fast in the recent years.

As of 2013, there are 30 million Filipino users of Facebook, with 46%

among the females and 43% male.

The main drivers behind Facebook in the Philippines are the

youth, the median age being 24. Majority, 40% of the Filipino users

are between the age of 18-24 while 26% are from 25-34, which

reflects the young adulthood stage. Teenage population ranks 3rd place

with 15% participation. It is remarkable to note that those aged 35-44

still comprise 11% of the users. This pattern clearly validates

stereotype of younger individuals as bigger Internet user than the

older individuals.

As for civil status, a US survey revealed 37.1% of Facebook have

not identified whether their married or single. Majority of those who

did are married, and 20% are single. It shows how Facebook users

tend to hide their relationship status, which may diminish the

opportunities to interact with people. In the Philippines, no such

26 | P a g e
survey has yet been done, since civil status seems to be an irrelevant

demographics among users.

Socio-economic background can influence a person’s actions and

behaviors. In terms of Facebook use, Labucay (2011) found out that

those who are from higher socio-economic classes, who are college

graduates, and have computer and Internet connection in the

household tend to use the Internet more frequently than other socio-

demographic groups. About three-fifths of classes ABC are frequent

users, contrary to majorities of classes D and E or low-income earners,

who use the internet less often. Two-fifths of the college graduates are

frequent users, compared to about one-fourth of the less educated

who are also daily users. About half of Internet users in households

who own computers and 54% of those in households with Internet

connection are also frequent users. Urban users are less likely than

rural users to use the Internet on a daily basis.

Facebook for Educational Purposes

In 1984, Alexander Astin proposed his developmental theory of

college student involvement, which he later renamed “engagement.”

He defined engagement as “the amount of physical and psychological

energy that the student devotes to the academic experience.” His

theory of student engagement was based on five principles:

27 | P a g e
 (1) Engagement refers to the investment of physical and

psychological energy;

(2) Engagement occurs along a continuum (some students are

more engaged than others and individual students are engaged in

different activities at differing levels);

(3) Engagement has both quantitative and qualitative features;

(4) The amount of student learning and development associated

with an educational program is directly related to the quality and

quantity of student engagement in that program; and, 5) The

effectiveness of any educational practice is directly related to the

ability of that practice to increase student engagement.

The effective use of Facebook as a learning tool for engaging the

youth has been the subject of debate in the educational field and

raised supporters on both sides of the debate. Much of the literatures

have shown the advantages of using this particular social networking

site, but there are also those that show the disadvantages and

negative effects.

Among different websites, Abanador (2012) identified Facebook

as one of the “Best of the Best Web 2.0” for classroom use because it

has been effective in establishing links not just between family and

friends but students as well.

28 | P a g e
 Indeed, blending conventional instruction with online instruction

via Facebook has been subject for various studies for various reasons

and with different results.

Sumbo (2015) examined fourteen lecturers’ perspectives on the

academic use of Facebook, specifically for teaching, in a higher

education institution in Gauteng, South Africa. It has emerged that

lecturers are not, for the most part, utilizing Facebook as an academic

teaching tool.

Clements (2015) conducted a case study to assess the efficacy

of online communication tools for enhancing independent student

engagement in a first-year undergraduate class. Material relevant to

course topics was shared with students through three communication

platforms. Online results revealed that Facebook was the primary

platform for student engagement where they feel most comfortable.

Students primarily engaged with material on Facebook by "liking"

posts and used Facebook to share relevant material that they came

across personally. There was no significant difference in student

engagement with shared material between instructor-shared and

student-shared posts, although instructor’s feedback increased

Facebook engagement by 29%. On the other hand, weakly positive

relationships were established between academic performance vs.

29 | P a g e
overall engagement and engagement level. This study suggests that

Facebook can be used to enhance independent student engagement.

Another research by Buga and Chirasnel (2016) developed with

a group of students in French and another one in English, which

consisted in creating a Facebook account for a foreign language class

where digital “home assignments” were displayed to stimulate more

student involvement showed that Facebook has indeed a great

potential as a means for teachers to reach to their class and

experiment with learning methods. The research findings indicate that

students who had never written their homework before started

responding on Facebook to a variety of communicative assignments.

This implies that Facebook creates an environment of genuine

communication.

Espinosa (2015) examined how Facebook can motivate students

and improve their English language learning. He identified benefits for

both teachers and students. Among the benefits for teachers include

readily available sources of information and current trends through

various educational institutions with FB pages, a wide array of

resources to employ, and opportunities to connect with fellow

educators for professional consultation and sharing of experiences. For

students, on the other hand, utilizing FB results to enhanced

communicative competence particularly in English language learners

30 | P a g e
due to greater social exposure, better cooperation among students

through same-interest groups and group chats.

Similar studies by Blattner and Lomicka (2012) explored 24

American and French university students’ reactions to using Facebook

in a language course (French and English) with a goal for the

participating students was to learn English and communicate with

other learners of English. The students were required to write postings

and respond to others’ postings in English. The activity resulted to

improvements in the communication skills as well as their reading and

writing abilities in English (Blattner & Lomicka, 2012).

Online discussion in SNS like Facebook has been found to be less

frightening for many students. Based on the findings from Stacey and

Gerbie (2007) learners who struggled with fast-paced class discussions

indicated preference for online activities, which for them is more

understandable and participated more with the latter. For this reason,

Mills (2009) claimed that using Facebook can truly enhance students’

communication and interaction in the target language.

According to Grgurovic (2010), Facebook can likewise provide

students meaningful learning experiences wherein they have the

chance to practice their language skills in a more incidental and

informal manner. Godwin-Jones (2008) claimed that this enables

teachers to establish links between instructional and real-life tasks,

31 | P a g e
which in turn aid students to apply the skills learned in the classroom

to real situations outside of class. Manan et al. (2012) noted that

connecting the theories and concepts learned in class to real life

contexts using Facebook is a good way to enhance students’

understanding. In their research involving 535 adolescents of different

EFL classrooms in Malaysia, they found out that Facebook was a

powerful pedagogical tool that helped students to improve their

English language skills. Although this study was conducted in an ESL

environment, the results are also practical for EFL classrooms.

Students also have positive views and opinions regarding the use

of Facebook as an educational tool to facilitate English language

learning. According to Wang & Chen (2007), learners consider that

Facebook provides opportunity for authentic interaction and

communication that they have not experienced before. They also think

that it increases confidence in language acquisition and sense of

connectedness among themselves.

The findings of Kasuma (2017) reflected the same results. In his

study that identified Malaysian university students’ needs and

preferences for online English language activities on a Facebook group

that supports their formal learning, he found that passive students

found the activity beneficial in improving their online communication

ability while the more active students felt a boost of confidence to use

32 | P a g e
English in a more public space like Facebook. They exert selective

interests in learning topics and content, and demonstrate partial

autonomy in negotiating the online group’s structure. This shows the

students’ need of technological changes in learning although they are

still dependent on teachers’ instructions to initiate the process.

Kho and Chuah (2012) conducted a research on Encouraging ESL

Discourse Exchanges via Facebook. From the study, the students

involved actively in exchanging ideas or opinions through Facebook

compared to traditional classroom. Apart from that, the students

claimed that their vocabulary storehouse was enhanced by reading the

comments by their friends in the group. Based on these results, the

researchers came up with the recommendation for educators to use

online social networks such as Facebook in integrating the teaching

and learning activity to create more enjoyable and interactive lessons.

In the local setting, a study conducted by Mabuan et al. (2017)

on integrating Facebook in facilitating English language classes at a

private university in Manila suggests that despite some access

concerns and technological limitations students view and respond

positively to the use of Facebook as an alternative platform for English

language learning and as an innovative and strategic tool in enhancing

lesson delivery, engaging students with the material, and creating a

discourse space for self-expression.

33 | P a g e
 In her research, Barrot (2016) described the impact of

Facebook-based e-portfolio on 171 first-year university ESL students’

writing practices and the challenges they encountered in implementing

this type of e-portfolio. Results indicate that Facebook-based e-

portfolio had a positive impact on students’ writing practices, making it

a viable tool for e-portfolio assessment.

Lacida and Murcia (2015) examined the extent of addiction in

using Facebook of 400 college students from Davao, the extent of their

study habits (time management, test-taking, note-taking, reading, and

writing), and if significant relationship exists between the two. Findings

of the research show that college students have predominantly low

extent of addiction in Facebook. On the other way around, they are

found to exhibit high extent of practicing study habits. Correlation

analysis revealed significant yet negative coefficient values of the six

Facebook addiction elements with overall study habits.

On the other hand, the study of Bayucan (2015) revealed a

different result. With high school students as respondents, he

concluded that Facebook is not effective in attaining proficiency in the

English language despite the fact that students are highly motivated to

use Facebook and their teachers are highly competent in using

Facebook as educational material. Students utilized Facebook to

34 | P a g e
explore its different features especially gaming and chatting, which

made them lose their focus on the given academic activities.

35 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the method employed in this study to

examine how Facebook posting can be utilized as a tool for developing

writing competence. First, this chapter explains the instruments and

tools. This is followed by participants and sampling techniques. Then,

research designs and procedures are discussed. Finally, it looks into

the treatment of data.

Methods and Techniques Used

This study made use of a descriptive and quasi-experimental

study with a pre-test and post-test to check the research hypothesis.

According to Kothari (2007), experimental design refers to the

framework or structure of an experiment. Due to time constraints, an

informal, before-and-after without control technique was employed for

this study. In this design, there is a single test group, and

measurement of the dependent variable is done before the

introduction of the treatment, which is exposure to Facebook Group

intervention. After the introduction of the treatment, the dependent

variable is measured again. The effect of the treatment would be equal

to the level of the phenomenon after the treatment minus the level of

the phenomenon before the treatment.

36 | P a g e
Population and Sampling Techniques

Since the data required in this research are directed to a certain

group, respondents were chosen intentionally through convenient

sampling. They were Education students of Colegio de San Gabriel

Arcangel of Caloocan.

To gather the students, they were invited to a meeting. The

purpose of the meeting was not previously given. Out of the 45

Education students, 38 came and participated in answering the survey

questionnaire and the pre-test.

Upon answering the questionnaire, the students were told that

their names were added in a Facebook Group with a purpose of

helping them improve their written communication skills. The

researcher told the respondents that their Facebook posts will also be

read and given necessary feedback.

For the post-test, all those who took the pre-test were again

invited to a meeting. However, for various reasons, only 25 students

came and did the activity.

37 | P a g e
Instrument of the Study

In order to learn the respondents’ demographic profile, a

questionnaire was utilized. The researcher considered the primary

benefits of this tool: requires less time to prepare; is low cost; can be

implemented remotely; can have several respondents; and, can

contain several questions about a topic (Wyse, 2012). The

questionnaire sought basic information about the students’ age,

gender, civil status, socio-economic status, years in college, current

year level, and year started using Facebook. It also provides multiple-

choice questions on the following Facebook behavior of students:

frequency of posts, language used in posting, type of material being

posted, reason for posting, feedback received from posting, and other

Facebook activities.

To measure the students’ writing ability before and after the

intervention, the researcher conducted a writing pre-test about

“Facebook” and a post-test about the Writing Process.

As an intervention tool, the researcher opened a Facebook

Group, named “Quill Quest and Query”. Here the researcher served as

the Group Admin and posted albums containing lecture slides

converted into photos. The slides were topics about the writing

38 | P a g e
process. The lessons were patterned after Academic Writing for

College Students.

Data Gathering Procedures

This study makes use of both qualitative and quantitative

approaches in answering the research questions.

For the quantitative part of the research, information regarding

the students’ Facebook behaviors was collected through the survey

questionnaire.

Then, the students’ writing ability was tested by making them

write an essay about Facebook. This served as their pre-test, and was

evaluated using the ESL Composition Profile.

The Facebook Group “Quill Quest and Query” was created at the

start of the research for a dual purpose. Firstly, it is where writing

lessons were posted (See Appendix D). At the same time, the

researcher used it to identify those who check into the Group since

Facebook Groups show who have “seen” and “not seen” the posts. The

researcher tallies the number of times the students have seen the

posts in the group and which albums they have encountered.

To ascertain the students’ learning and answer the research

questions, the researcher conducted a writing post-test about

39 | P a g e
“Writing” two months after the Group was started. Like the pre-test, it

is evaluated with the ESL Composition Profile.

The pre-test and post-test provide not only quantitative data but

qualitative information as well.

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment

The data collected were organized according to two major

categories: Qualitative data, which refer to the information collected

from the interviews; and Quantitative data which includes information

generated from the questionnaires.

Quantitative data, which were gathered from the survey

questionnaires, were entered into a simple Excel File for descriptive

and comparative analysis.

The first focus was on the student respondents’ demographics:

age, gender, civil status, socio-economic status, years in college,

current year level, and year started using Facebook. The demographics

were categorized, and the percentages of representatives were

identified. Information on the students’ Facebook behaviors were

treated in the same way, and explanations behind such were

identified.

The next focus was the writing pre-test. The researcher carefully

checked each essay in terms of content, organization, vocabulary,

language use, and mechanics. The students’ scores were carefully

40 | P a g e
recorded. Weighted mean is used to identify the class norm in every

component of the ESL Composition Profile. The computation is done

through Excel. However, manual calculation is done to countercheck

the result. The formula for finding the weighted mean is as follows:

Where:

∑fx refers to the summation of the product of weights and scores

∑f refers to the summation of the frequencies or the total

number of respondents

Measure of variance was also taken to see the distribution of

scores within the group. This is also done using the Excel and manually

with the following formula:

Where

∑ means “sum of”

X refers to each value in the data set

refers to mean of all values in the data set

N is the number of values in the data set.

41 | P a g e
 The writing post-test was treated in the same way as the pre-

test wherein the mean and the standard deviation were also identified

and interpreted.

To answer the fourth question, “To what extent do the students

engage in the Facebook group to enhance their writing skills”, the

researcher counted the number of times the students have seen the

posts in “Quill Quest and Query.” The frequency of usage is reflected

by getting the rate with the following formula: number of times seen ÷

number of posts x 100%.

Finally, in addressing the fifth question, “How significant is the

difference between the performance of the respondents in the writing

pre-test and post-test based on the ESL Composition Profile”, z-test

was utilized. The data were run using the Excel Data Analysis tool.

However, the outcome was counterchecked manually using the

formula for z-test, which is as follows:

Z=

Where:

is the mean of first data set

is the mean of second data set

S12 is the standard deviation of first data set

42 | P a g e
 S22 is the standard deviation of second data set

N1 is the number of elements in the first data set

N2 is the number of elements in the second data set

For quantitative data, the researcher also noted the students’

perspective on Facebook use from the writing pre-test as reference for

their behavior and their learning about the writing process from the

writing post-test to check their comprehension of the postings in the

Facebook group.

43 | P a g e
 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter reports on the findings from the current study. It is

organized by research question in order to present fully the themes

that emerged within each category. These categories include the

students’ demographic profile, their Facebook behavior, performance

in the writing pre-test and post-test and relationship between writing

performance and frequency of Facebook use.

Question 1: What is the demographic profile of the COSGA

Education students?

The data below gives the demographic profile of the COSGA

Education students in terms of gender, age, civil status, socioeconomic

status, years in college and current year level.

1.1. Gender

Table 1 below presents the summary of the students’ gender.

Table 1: Respondents’ Gender

Gender Frequency Percent
Male 4 11%
Female 34 89%

Based on the table above, 89% of the respondents are female,

which also corresponds to the actual population ratio of the College.

Although, in most researches and theoretical studies, gender is not

given emphasis as it creates biases and ethical issues, the research

44 | P a g e
considers it interesting to look into the Facebook behaviors of students

of both genders.

1.2. Age

Table 2 shows the summary of the students’ age profile.

Table 2: Respondents’ Age

Age Frequency Percent
Teens 15 39%
20s 19 50%
30s 3 8%
40s 1 3%

In terms of age, it was found that 50% of the respondents are in

their 20s. Only 39% are in their teens. Some of the students are in

their 30s and 40s, which comprise 8% and 3% of the respondents

respectively. The average age of the respondents is 23.5 with a

standard deviation of 6.07. This result implies that majority of the

students are in their early adulthood, which means that they have

started college later than usual. Age can be a predictor of the

frequency of Facebook use as well as the ability to use this

technological trend.

1.3. Civil Status

Table 3 looks into the civil status of the student respondents.

Table 3: Respondents’ Civil Status

Civil Status Frequency Percent
Single 31 82%
Married 7 18%

45 | P a g e
 Based on the table, 82% of the students are single, but 18% are

already married. This almost corresponds to the age range of the

students, who are mostly in their 20s, 30s and 40s. Civil status is

included in this study since this is connected to the purpose of

Facebook posting and other uses.

1.4. Socio-economic Status

Table 4 gives the socioeconomic status based on the monthly

gross family income.

Table 4: Monthly Gross Income

Socio-Economic Status
Frequency Percent
(based on monthly gross family income)
40,000 or higher 0 0%
20,000 to 39,999 23 61%
19,999 or less 15 39%

In terms of socioeconomic status, majority of the students, 61%,

belong have an income that range from ₱20,000 to ₱39,999 and the

rest, 39% have earnings ₱19,999 or lower.

Although the school is private, the community where the

students live is an urban poor area, wherein very little of the

population belongs to the higher social strata. The low-income earners

are self-supporting working students, usually employed as teacher

aides or household industry workers.

46 | P a g e
 The socio-economic profile is included in this study since it can

affect the frequency and amount of Facebook use as indicated by

Labucay (2010).

1.5. Years in College

Table 5 presents the respondents’ residency in the college.

Table 5: Students’ Residency in College

Residency/ Years in the College Frequency Percent
1 year 3 8%
2 years 4 11%
3 years 7 18%
4 years 4 11%
5 years 3 8%

Based on the Table 5, majority of the participants have been in

the institution for 3 years. An equal number of students, both 11%,

have two and four years of tertiary studies with the College while 8%

have one year and five years of residency. The latter include those

who have changed courses or transferred from another higher

education institution.

Residency in the college reflects the students’ tendency to move

from one higher education institution to another for various reasons,

mostly economics.

47 | P a g e
1.6. Current Year Level

Table 6 presents the respondents’ current year level.

Table 6: Students’ Current Year Level

Year Level Frequency Percent
First Year 4 11%
Second Year 7 18%
Third Year 8 21%
Fourth Year 19 50%

Based on the table above, half of the students or 50% are in

Fourth Year already; 21% are in Third Year; 18% are Second Year;

and, 11% are College Freshmen. This declining trend is due to the

introduction of the Senior High School in the past two years.

The year level of the students can affect their writing abilities

since in effect it is expected that those who have been longer in

college have more experiences in different forms of communication.

2. What is the Facebook behavior of the respondents before

the pre-test?

The data below shows the Facebook behaviors before the pre-test

including the selected name, year started using Facebook, frequency

of usage, language used, types of materials posted, reason for

posting, feedback received and other Facebook activities.

48 | P a g e
2.1. Name in Facebook

Graph 1: Facebook Name

Alias, 26%

True Name,
74%

Graph 1 above shows that a small number, 26% of the

respondents use an alias or a nickname in Facebook, which can be

indicative of a preference for privacy or just a tendency to follow the

trend.

2.2. Year Started Using Facebook

Graph 2 presents the year when the respondents they started

using Facebook.

49 | P a g e
 Graph 2: Year Started Using Facebook

3% 3%
18%

2014-2016

34% 2011-2013
2008-2010
2005-2007
No Answer

42%

Based on the figure, most of the students, 42%, have had an

account since 2011 to 2013. Thirty-four percent opened an FB in 2008

to 2010 while 18% have been active since 2014 to 2016. The year

they started is indicative of the age range of the respondents. Notably,

2011 is the year when Asian correspondent dubbed the Philippines as

SNS capital.

2.3. Frequency of Posts

Graph 3 indicates the frequency of Facebook use among the

respondents.

50 | P a g e
 Graph 3: Frequency of Facebook Use

5% 3% 8%
16% Several times daily
21% Once/ twice daily
A few times weekly
18%
Once/ twice weekly
A few times monthly
29%
Once/ twice monthly
Varied Answers

Graph 3 reflects the frequency of Facebook use, wherein

majority or 29% go online once or twice weekly while 21% have a few

times weekly often during weekends. Eighteen percent claim that they

access their account only a few times monthly while 16% do it only

once or twice monthly. Only a few of the respondents admit to using

Facebook daily: 8% for once or twice daily and 3% for several times

daily. Those who have daily access do it through their mobile phone,

which has the Facebook Lite app.

This result is contrary to researches that show that college

students are frequent users of this SNS, which entail an adverse effect

to their emotional well-being (Duggan et.al 2014; Leodoro 2014).

51 | P a g e
2.4. Type of Material being Posted

Types of materials posted are presented in Graph 5 below with

their corresponding percentage distribution.

Graph 5: Types of Materials Posted

Quotes

- Own 37%

- Others 47%

Photos

- Own, captioned 63%

- Own, not captioned 42%

- Others, captioned 39%

- With others, captioned 5%

News 16%

Inspirational Stories 45%

Links to other websites 13%

Funny quotes 5%

Christian music 5%

Bible Verses 5%

Arts 3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Based on Graph 5, the top three most posted materials by the

respondents are own captioned photos (63%), other people’s quotes

(47%) and inspirational stories (45%). All of the said materials have

52 | P a g e
textual content. The leading item provides the students an opportunity

to write while the next two materials expose them to discourses of

various types.

As for the reason for posting, Graph 6 presents the outcomes.

Most of the respondents or 87% claim that they post to share ideas.

Sixteen percent admit that their reason is to get likes while 3%

indicate that she has no reason in particular.

2.5. Language Used in Posting

Graph 4 shows the language/s or medium/media used in

posting.

Graph 4: Language Used in Posting

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
English Tagalog Taglish Others Symbols Mixed Pure Varied
Only Only English and Answers
Tagalog

53 | P a g e
 Based on Graph 4, Taglish and mixed languages and symbols are

the most commonly used media of expression, with equal rate of 42%

of the respondents. Pure Tagalog only ranks next, as it is being used

by 16% of the students while English only follows closely, being

utilized by 13%. Both languages independent of each other are the

media of 8% while a very few use, 6% combined apply symbols and

other means of expression.

2.6. Reason for Posting

Graph 6 gives the distribution of the respondents according to

the reasons for posting.

Graph 6: Reasons for Posting

Share ideas 87%

Get likes or comments 16%

None in particular 3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2.7. Feedback Received from Posting

Another variable examined is the nature of the feedback the

students received. As presented in Graph 7 on the next page, majority

of the respondents, 53% declare that they receive mostly likes and

54 | P a g e
responses (emoticons) and some comments. Twenty-seven percent

(27%) have the same feedback except for having fewer comments.

Thirteen percent (13%) claim of getting more likes than the majority

while very little say that they receive no comment at all. Based on

research, the feedback received from Facebook is directly correlated to

the frequency and even duration of engagement (Duggan et al. 2014).

Graph 7: Feedback Received

Feedback Received

0%
5% Lots of likes and responses,
13%
some comments
29% Mostly likes and responses,
some comments
Mostly likes, some response,
few comments
53%
Mostly likes, few response,
almost no comment
Little to no feedback

55 | P a g e
2.8. Other Facebook activities?

Engagement in Facebook does not only include posting but a

variety of activities. Graph 8 shows these.

Graph 8: Other Facebook Activities

100%

80%

60%
84% 84%
40%
55% 55% 50%
20%
8% 8%
0%

Based on the graph above, 84% of the study participants utilize

Facebook for chatting and reading posts. Fifty-five percent are equally

engaged in commenting on posts and studying. Half of the students

admit that they spend their Facebook time on liking posts while a

minority, 8% of them either play games or do other activities such as

research or following FB pages. Notably, the top activities involve

working with various kinds of discourses.

56 | P a g e
3. What is the performance of the students in the writing pre-

test and post-test based on the ESL Composition Profile?

The students’ engagement in Facebook was examined in terms

of its impact on their writing performance based on the ESL

Composition Profile. During the pre-test, 38 respondents participated.

Table 3 below shows the weighted mean of the writing pre-test on the

various components of the tool and the general weighted mean.

Table 7: Writing Pre-Test Performance

Content Organization Vocabulary Language Mechanics

Total Score
Use
21.45 14.29 14.79 15.55 3.53 69.61

Based on the ESL Composition Profile rubrics, a score of 21.45 on the

Content indicates “FAIR TO POOR” development with limited

knowledge of subject, little substance and inadequate development of

topic.

In terms of organization, the score 14.29 on Organization

reflects “GOOD TO AVERAGE” ability to put ideas in order, which are

somewhat choppy, main ideas stand out but are loosely organized

with limited support, and somehow logical though with incomplete

sequencing.

As for Vocabulary, a mean score of 14.79 shows “GOOD TO

AVERAGE” storehouse of words with adequate range and

57 | P a g e
comprehensible meaning having occasional errors of word or idiom

form, choice and usage.

Meanwhile, a score of 15.55 in Language Use implies “FAIR TO

POOR” grammar: There are major problems in simple and complex

constructions, frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense,

number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions

and/or fragments, run-ons, and deletions, which can result to a

confused or obscured meaning.

Finally, a weighted mean of 3.53 in Mechanics involves “FAIR TO

POOR” observance of technicalities, wherein there are frequent errors

of spelling, punctuation, capitalization and paragraphing and poor

handwriting, which can also negatively affect expression.

All in all, a total score of 69.61 gives a FAIR to POOR writing

performance. The group’s standard deviation is rather large (12.66),

which shows how far the highest score is from the lowest score.

Table 8: Writing Post-Test as Compared to Pre-Test

Performance

Content Organization Vocabulary Language Mechanics Total

Use Score
Post 22.11 15.29 15.39 17.11 3.68 73.58
Pre 21.45 14.29 14.79 15.55 3.53 69.61
Diff. 0.66 1.00 0.60 1.56 0.15 3.97

On the other hand, Table 4 shows the Writing Post-Test

Performance of the students as compared to the Pre-Test. The table

58 | P a g e
shows that there was an increased mean in all components of the

profile. The highest increase is in Language Use with a difference of

1.56. However, the difference of the post-test from the pre-test does

not necessarily imply a raise in the level of the students’ writing

ability.

In terms of Content, the post-test weighted mean of 22.11 has

raised the students’ level from “FAIR to POOR” to “GOOD TO

AVERAGE” or “some” knowledge of the subject, which can have limited

development of thesis or key statement.

For all the other aspects of writing, the students have kept the

former level. However, the general weighted mean of 73.58 is now

approaching the AVERAGE level.

4. To what extent do the students engage in the Facebook

group to enhance their writing skills?

Table 9 shows the frequency of the students’ engagement in the

Facebook group Quill, Quest and Query (3QG).

Table 9: Frequency of Student Engagement in 3QG

Number of
% Interpretation
Frequency Respondents
21 to 23 times 8 21% Always Engaged
16 to 20 times 9 24% Often Engaged
11 to 15 times 5 13% Frequently Engaged
6 to 10 times 5 13% Sometimes Engaged
1 to 5 times 8 21% Rarely Engaged
non-member 3 8% Never Engaged

59 | P a g e
 Based on the data, 24% of the respondents have OFTEN

ENGAGED in the group. Twenty-one percent have ALWAYS ENGAGED,

but the same number has likewise RARELY ENGAGED in the group.

This reflects the frequency of the students’ actual Facebook use.

Greatest rate of participation was noted in August 9 and August

8 with the topics “Transitions” and “Pre-Writing: Outlining” with 30 and

29 respondents are identified as having seen the post, respectively.

The average frequency of engagement is 25.83 or 68% with a

standard deviation of 3.19, which means that the numbers of “seen”

when posts are made have little variation.

Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents have not been

included in the Group accidentally, which means that they had no

exposure to the postings.

Those who RARELY ENGAGED or seldom saw the posts had one

of the following reasons:

a. Limited budget for internet

b. Pre-occupied with on-job-training/ in-campus practicum

c. Doing domestic duties

60 | P a g e
5. How significant is the difference between the performance

of the respondents in the writing pre- test and post-test

based on the ESL Composition Profile?

The results in Table 10 show the comparison of the writing

performance in the pre-test and post-test using the z-test at 0.05 level

of significance.

Table 5: Comparison of the Writing Pre-Test and Post-Test

using the z-Test
Criteria based on the ESL z-Test Interpretation
Composition Profile
Content -0.8863 Not Significant
Organization -1.4028 Not Significant
Vocabulary -0.9381 Not Significant
Language Use -1.4861 Not Significant
Mechanics -1.0557 Not Significant
Overall Writing Competence -1.3420 Not Significant

Based on Table 5 above, there was no significant difference in

the specific components and in the overall writing pre-test and post-

test results at a computed t-value of -1.3420 [df = 74, α = 5%].

Hence, the first null hypothesis, “There is no significant difference

between the performance of the respondents in the writing pre-test

and post-test based on the ESL,” cannot be rejected.

The outcome reflects in the effectiveness of the Facebook

intervention provided, which results from the limited time and the

various aspects relative to the students’ demographics.

61 | P a g e
6. Is there a significant relationship between the students’

resulting writing competence based on selected

demographic variables and frequency of their Facebook

engagement?

6.1. Age

Table 10 shows the relationship between the students’ age and

the difference between the pre-test and post-test results.

Table 10: Correlation of Age and Resulting Writing Competence

Sample Degree Level of Computed Critical Decision
Size (n) of Significance P- value t- value
Freedom (α)
(df)
38 37 5% -0.22573 0.257 Accept
Ho

The table shows that there was no relationship between the

respondents’ age and the resulting difference between the pre-test and

post-test at a computed t- value of -0.22573 [df = 37, α = 5%].

Hence, the null hypothesis must be accepted. It confirms a study

conducted by Bayucan (2015) that age is not a considerable variable.

A person can improve his or her skill no matter how old he or she is.

6.2. Frequency of their Facebook Group Use

Table 11 presents the relationship between the students’

engagement in the Facebook group Quill, Quest and Query, and the

difference between the pre-test and post-test results.

62 | P a g e
 Table 11: Correlation of Facebook Engagement
and Resulting Writing Competence
Sample Size Degree of Level of Computed Critical Interpretation
(n) Freedom Significance P- value t- value
(df) (α)
38 37 5% - 0.257 No
0.06713 Relationship

There was a somewhat negative correlation between the

frequency of the respondents’ Facebook engagement and the resulting

difference between the pre-test and post-test at a computed t- value

of -0.06713 [df = 37, α = 5%]. Hence, the null hypothesis, “There is

no significant relationship between the respondents’ written

communication competence and the frequency of their Facebook use,”

can be accepted.

Indeed, studies have shown that an extended presence on

Facebook can have harmful effects on students’ academic

performance. Doing several activities in this SNS indeed increases

distraction, something detrimental to one’s educational outcomes

(Bayucan 2015).

In the case of the respondents of this study, their other

Facebook activities such as chatting, particularly in mixed languages or

media of communication have limited their ability to develop content

and correctly use either English or Filipino. Facebook discourses are

often characterized by personal conversations and reactions, which

lack range and depth as confirmed by Lara (2011).

63 | P a g e
 The quality of the postings in the 3QG may also have resulted to

a decline in the engagement (See Appendix D). Likewise, the amount

of time between posts, an average interval of 2.2 days and the

duration of the study, which is just one month and a half, are also

inadequate to derive any significant improvement.

Although there was an improvement in the total score of the

respondents in the post-test from the pre-test, this does not

necessarily mean a significant difference. Thus, the effectiveness of

Facebook as a tool to develop the students’ writing competence needs

further test.

64 | P a g e
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusion and

recommendations in this study that aims to examine the effectiveness

of Facebook as a tool in improving the written communication

competence of college students.

Summary of Findings

The following are the key findings of the study:

1. The demographic profile of this research’s respondents is

predominantly female, aged 23.5, single, middle-income earner and

4th year students;

2. Facebook behaviors of the respondents include using one’s true

name, with an account since 2011 to 2013, going online once or

twice weekly to post own captioned photos using mixed languages,

which they do to share ideas. As a result of posting, they received

mostly likes and responses and some comments. They also utilize

this SNS primarily for chatting;

3. Based on the ESL Composition Profile, the result of the writing pre-

test indicates “fair to poor” content, “good to average” organization

and vocabulary, “fair to poor” observance of language use and

mechanics with an overall score of 69.61 gives a “FAIR to POOR”

65 | P a g e
 writing performance. On the other hand, the writing post-test

shows a small improvement in all components, particularly in

language use with a difference of 1.56 from the pre-test. Other

values remained in the same level, but the overall post-test

performance shows a total score of 73.58 that is now approaching

the AVERAGE level.

4. Participation in the Facebook group Quill, Quest and Query is at a

rate of 68% of the respondents with a standard deviation of 3.19.

Majority of the respondents, 24%, have OFTEN ENGAGED in the

group while 21% have ALWAYS ENGAGED, which corresponds to

the frequency of their Facebook use, which is once or twice a week.

5. There was no significant difference in the specific components and

in the overall writing pre-test and post-test results, thus the first

null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

6. Neither was there a significant relationship between the students’

age and the resulting difference between the pre-test and post-test,

which confirms other researches that age is not a relevant variable.

More notably, positive correlation cannot be established between

the frequency of Facebook engagement in 3QG and the

respondents’ writing performance. Both Ho2 and Ho3 are

confirmed.

66 | P a g e
Conclusion

Although the students have shown some improvement in their

writing skills, this study shows that there is no conclusive evidence of

the effectiveness of Facebook posting as a tool for developing writing

competencies. Outcomes of this research may have been affected by

the students’ usual Facebook behaviors as well as limitations on the

part of the researcher to provide varied content on a consistent and

timely basis. The duration of the study could also have shaped the

results.

Recommendation

With the outcomes of this study, the research proposes the

following recommendations:

1. For English language teachers to provide a more varied content in

the Writing Group, which include actual sample excerpts from

different genres that will serve as guide to the students, to

encourage the students to react on the postings by writing their

comments in the standard form, and ask the students to share their

own write-ups for others to peruse;

2. For College students to do their own research on how to write more

effectively, try writing themselves using the standard form of the

language, and seek their teachers’ guidance if they need it;

67 | P a g e
3. For book authors to integrate responsible social media use among

the activities by developing a corresponding Facebook page for their

book, where interaction in the standard form are encouraged;

4. For Facebook developer to develop an app that checks the postings

and reply messages for quality of content, organization, vocabulary,

grammatical and technical errors; and,

5. For the telecommunication networks to make Facebook access and

data use more affordable for students’ accessing educational pages

and groups.

68 | P a g e
REFERENCES

Books and Printed Media:

1. Abanador, P. (2012). Exploring New Trends in Educational

Technology. Manila: Purely Books Trading and Publishing Corp.

2. Albesher, K. B. (2012). Developing the writing skills of ESL students

through the collaborative learning strategy (A Thesis). Newcastle

University.

3. Blattner, G., & Lomicka, L. (2012). Facebooking and the social

generation: A new era of language learning. Alsic, 15(1), 1-36.

4. Craswell, Gail & Poore, Megan. (2012). Writing for Academic

Success (2nd edition). New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

5. Espinosa, Ligia F. (2015 November). The Use of Facebook for

Educational Purposes in EFL Classrooms. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, Vol. 5, No. 11, pp. 2206-2211.

6. Giron, P., Aguirre, R., Flojo, O., Gutierrez, M.R. & Llagas, A. (2016).

Teaching and Learning Languages and Multiliteracies: Responding

to the MTB-MLE Challenge. Quezon City: Llomar Publishing, Inc.

7. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological

pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in

Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

69 | P a g e
8. Lara, Evangelista S. (2011). Towards the Reinforcement of the

Written Discourse Analysis of the College Freshmen (Unpublished

Thesis). The National Teachers College, Manila.

9. Munoz, C., & Towner, T. (2009). Opening Facebook: How to use

Facebook in the college classroom. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.),

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher

Education International Conference. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

10. Ramos, Amado C. (2015). Methods and Teaching Strategies

Used by Teacher Education Faculty Members in one State University

in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,

Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 36-44

11. Sousa, David A. (2016). How the Brain Learns (5th Edition).

California: Corwin.

Web:

1. Barrot, Jessie S. (2016). Using Facebook-based E-portfolio in ESL

Writing Classrooms: Impact and Challenges. Language, Culture and

Curriculum vol. 29: 3. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from

http://www.tandfonline.

com/doi/abs/10.1080/07908318.2016.1143481?src=recsys&journal

Code=rlcc20.

70 | P a g e
2. Bauer, Mary. (2015). Language Development in Teenagers.

Retrieved September 9, 2017 from

http://www.livestrong.com/article/93181-effects-language-

cognitive-development.

3. Bayucan, Ruel M. (2015). The Influence of Facebook in English

Language Proficiency (Unpublished Dissertation). University of Saint

Louis, Cagayan. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from

https://www.academia.edu/30851487/The_Influence_of_Facebook_

in_the_English_Language_Proficieny.

4. Buga, Roxana & Chirasnel, Carmen. (2016). Facebook in Foreign

Language Teaching – A Tool to Improve Communication

Competences. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from

https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/262306422_Facebook_in_Foreign_Language_Teaching_

-_A_Tool_to_Improve_Communication_Competences.

5. Clements, Jeff C. (2015). Using Facebook to Enhance Independent

Student Engagement: A Case Study of First-Year Undergraduates.

Retrieved from August 2, 2017 from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/ index.php/hes/article/view/49913.

6. Cutlet, David. (2015). To Teach Effective Writing, Model Effective

Writing.

71 | P a g e
 Retrieved September 17, 2017 from

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/ teach-and-model-effective-writing-

david-cutler.

7. Duggan, M., Ellison, N.B., Lampe C., Lenhart, A.& Madden, Mary

(2014). Frequency of Social Media Use. Retrieved October 8,

2017 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/frequency-

of-social-media-use-2/

8. Lacida, Acegen P. & Murcia, John Vianne B. (2016). Influence of

Facebook Addiction on the Study Habits of College Students.

Retrieved September 18, 2017 from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

301821746_Influence_of_Facebook_Addiction_on_the_Study_Ha

bits_of_College_Students.

9. Kasuma, Shaidatul Akma Adi. (2017). Four Characteristics of

Facebook Activities for English Language Learning: A study of

Malaysian University Students’ Needs and Preferences. Retrieved

September 17, 2017 from

http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/ view/3586

10. Kamnoetsin, Tharinee. (2014). Social Media Use: A Critical

Analysis of Facebook’s Impact on Collegiate EFL Students’ English

Writing in Thailand. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from

72 | P a g e
 http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3075&cont

ext=dissertations.

11. Mabuan, R.A., Ebron, Jr. G.P. & Navarra, A.M. (2017).

Facebook Integration into University Classes: Opportunities and

Challenges. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from

http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/conferences/dlsu-research-congress-

proceedings/2017/LLI/LLI-I-013.pdf.

12. O'Bannon, B., Beard, J. & Britt, V. (2013). Using Facebook as

an Educational Tool: Effects on Achievement. In Proceedings of

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference 2013. Retrieved September 18, 2017

from https://www.learntechlib. org/p/48606/.

13. Proske, Antje & Kapp, Felix. (2013). Fostering topic knowledge:

essential for academic writing. Retrieved September 17, 2017

from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-012-9421-

4.

14. Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Matute, E. and Vélez-Uribe, I. (2014).

Language Development across the Life Span: A

Neuropsychological/Neuro-imaging Perspective. Neuroscience

Journal. Retrieved September 9, 2017 from

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/neuroscience/2014/585237/

73 | P a g e
15. Sumbo, Yannick António. (2015). Examining Lecturers’

Perspectives on the Use of Facebook for Academic Purposes

(Unpublished Dissertation). University of South Africa. Retrieved

September 18, 2017 from

http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/21796/dissertation_

sumbo_ya.pdf?sequence=1.

16. Suthiwartnarueput, Thanawan and Wasanasomsithi, Punchalee.

(2012). Effects of Using Facebook as a Medium for Discussions of

English Grammar and Writing of Low-Intermediate EFL Students.

Retrieved September 16, 2017 from http://e-

flt.nus.edu.sg/v9n22012/ suthiwartnarueput.pdf.

17. Vanhove, John. (2013). The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second

Language Acquisition: A Statistical Critique and a Reanalysis.

Retrieved September 1, 2013 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pmc/articles/PMC3723803/

18. Verner, Susan. How to Teach Writing. Retrieved September 23,

2017 from http://busyteacher.org/4650-how-to-teach-writing-6-

methods-for-generating.html

19. Writing. Retrieved September 17, 2017 from

https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Writing.

74 | P a g e
20. The Writing Process. Retrieved September 17, 2017 from

http://cmsw.mit.edu/writing-and-communication-center/resources/

writers/writing-process/.

21. Yunus, Melor Md, Salehi, Hadi & Chenzi, Chen. (2012).

Integrating Social Networking Tools into ESL Writing Classroom:

Strengths and Weaknesses. Retrieved September 16, 2017 from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/1861

3/12330.

75 | P a g e
 APPENDICES

76 | P a g e
APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Complete Name________________________________________________
Age: ____________ Gender: _____________ Civil Status: _____________
Monthly Gross Family Income:
<19,999  20,000 to 39,999  40,000 up
Years in College (including other courses): _____ Year Level: ___________

I. Please complete the following survey about your Facebook

behaviors. Provide answers on the blank. If a box is provided,
put a check () on the one before your response.
1. Facebook Name: _____________________________________________
Is it True Name?  Yes  No
2. Year Started Using FB: __________ Number of Facebook Accounts:
_________
3. Frequency of Posts:  Once or twice daily  Several times daily
 Once or twice weekly  A few times weekly
 Once or twice monthly  A few times monthly
 Rarely in a year
4. Type of materials being posted most of the time (all that apply):
 Self-constructed quotes  Other people’s quotes
 Own photos without Caption  Own captioned photos
 Other Photos  News
 Inspirational Stories  Links to other websites like blogs
 Others (Indicate here): ______________________________________
5. Language Used in Posting:  Tagalog  English  Taglish
 Other Dialect  Other Symbols
 Mixed
6. Reason for posting (all that apply):
 Share ideas and experiences  Get likes or responses  None in particular
7. Feedback received from posting:
 Lots of likes, facial expressions and comments
 Mostly likes and facial expressions, some comments
 Mostly likes, some facial expressions, and a few comments
 Mostly likes, a few facial expressions and almost no comment
 No feedback at all
8. Other Facebook Activities aside from Posting (all that apply):
 Chatting  Reading posts  Liking Posts
 Commenting on Posts  Studying  Playing Games
 Others (Specify) ____________________________________________
II. Write a composition about Facebook here. Elaborate, and
organize your thoughts. Mind your grammar and the
mechanics.

77 | P a g e
 APPENDIX B

ESL COMPOSITION PROFILE

STUDENT DATE TOPIC

SCORE LEVEL CRITERIA COMMENTS

30-27 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable • substantive • thorough development of thesis • relevant
to assigned topic
CONTENT

26-22 GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject • adequate range • limited development of thesis •
mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail
21-17 FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject • little substance • inadequate development of topic
16-13 VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of subject • non-substantive • not pertinent •
OR not enough to evaluate
20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression • ideas clearly stated/supported • succinct •
ORGANIZATION

well-organized • logical sequencing • cohesive

17-14 GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy • loosely organized but main ideas stand out •
limited support • logical but incomplete sequencing
13-10 FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent • ideas confused or disconnected • lacks logical sequencing and
development
9-7 VERY POOR: does not communicate • no organization • OR not enough to evaluate
20-18 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range • effective word/idiom choice and usage •
VOCABULARY

word form mastery • appropriate register

17-14 GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range • occasional errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage
but meaning not obscured
13-10 FAIR TO POOR: limited range • frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage •
meaning confused or obscured
9-7 VERY POOR: essentially translation • little knowledge or English vocabulary, idioms, word
form • OR not enough to evaluate
25-22 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex constructions • few errors of arrangement,
LANGUAGE USE

tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions

21-18 GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions • minor problems in complex
constructions • several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles,
pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured
17-11 FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/complex constructions • frequent errors of
negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns,
prepositions and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions • meaning confused or obscured
10-5 VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules • dominated by errors •
does not communicate • OR not enough to evaluate
5 EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of conventions • few errors of spelling,
MECHANICS

punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

4 GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
but meaning not obscured
3 FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing • poor
handwriting • meaning confused or obscured
2 VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions • dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, paragraphing • handwriting illegible • OR not enough to evaluate
TOTAL SCORE READER COMMENTS

78 | P a g e
APPENDIX C

Facebook Behaviors before the Pre-Test

Variable Frequency Percent

True Name 28 74%
Name in Facebook
Alias 10 26%
2017 0 0%
2014-2016 7 18%
Year Started Using 2011-2013 16 42%
Facebook 2008-2010 13 34%
2005-2007 1 3%
No Answer 1 3%
Several times daily 1 3%
Once/ twice daily 3 8%
A few times weekly 8 21%
Frequency of
Once/ twice weekly 11 29%
Usage
A few times monthly 7 18%
Once/ twice monthly 6 16%
Varied Answers 2 5%
English Only 5 13%
Tagalog Only 6 16%
Taglish 16 42%
Others 1 3%
Language Used
Symbols 1 3%
Mixed 16 42%
Pure English and Tagalog 3 8%
Varied Answers 1 3%
Quotes
- Own 14 37%
- Others 18 47%
Photos
Type of Material - Own, captioned 24 63%
Posted - Own, not captioned 16 42%
- Others, captioned 15 39%
- With others, captioned 2 5%
News 6 16%
Inspirational stories 17 45%

79 | P a g e
 Links to other websites 5 13%
Other types of materials 6 16%
- Funny quotes 2 5%
- Music (Christian) 2 5%
- Bible verses 2 5%
- Arts 1 3%
Share Ideas 33 87%
Reason for Posting Get likes or responses 6 16%
None in particular 1 3%
Lots of likes and responses,
some comments 5 13%
Mostly likes and responses,
some comments 20 53%
Feedback Received Mostly likes, some response,
few comments 11 29%
Mostly likes, few response,
almost no comment 2 5%
Little to no feedback 0 0%
Chat 32 84%
Commenting 21 55%
Reading posts 32 84%
Other Facebook Studying 21 55%
Activities Liking posts 19 50%
Playing games 3 8%
Others (research in Google,
3 8%
following Facebook pages)

80 | P a g e
APPENDIX D

Posts No. Date Posts Seen by

1 1-Aug Read before You Write 29
2 5-Aug Types of Paragraph 29
3 5-Aug Meaning of Paragraph 29
4 5-Aug Narrative Paragraph 29
5 5-Aug Expository Paragraph 28
6 5-Aug Descriptive Paragraph 27
7 5-Aug Persuasive Paragraph 27
8 6-Aug Pre-Writing: Outlining 29
9 8-Aug Paragraph Development 25
10 8-Aug Transitions 27
11 8-Aug More Transition Words 30
12 14-Aug Vocabulary Building 28
13 22-Aug Idioms (Video) 25
14 22-Aug Nouns 25
15 28-Aug Articles 23
16 28-Aug Subject-Verb Agreement 25
17 1-Sep Order of Adjectives 25
Irregular Forms of
18 1-Sep Adjectives 25
19 3-Sep Prepositions 20
20 10-Sep Spelling 21
Varying Setence
21 10-Sep Structure 20
22 11-Sep Punctuation 20
23 18-Sep Margin and Indention 28

81 | P a g e
 APPENDIX E
WRITING PRE-TEST RESULT
Language
Respondent Content Organization Vocabulary Use Mechanics Total
1 26 16 18 18 4 82
2 22 15 15 17 4 73
3 27 18 15 17 4 81
4 22 14 14 18 3 71
5 17 14 13 18 3 65
6 24 14 16 20 4 78
7 20 14 13 15 4 66
8 17 8 7 6 3 41
9 21 16 13 13 4 67
10 20 18 17 21 4 80
11 17 7 7 5 3 39
12 22 10 15 13 4 64
13 23 15 17 13 3 71
14 20 14 15 18 3 70
15 22 14 15 19 4 74
16 21 13 16 21 4 75
17 20 10 14 11 3 58
18 20 12 15 12 4 63
19 22 16 14 17 2 71
20 19 13 15 12 3 62
21 18 11 14 10 3 56
22 27 19 18 21 4 89
23 21 14 15 15 3 68
24 19 16 15 13 4 67
25 21 12 15 13 3 64
26 24 15 15 14 3 71
27 29 18 19 23 3 92
28 20 14 14 13 4 65
29 17 7 10 10 3 47
30 19 11 10 11 3 54
31 20 14 14 13 3 64
32 24 18 18 18 4 82
33 17 14 14 14 3 62
34 24 18 17 22 4 85
35 28 20 19 24 5 96
36 20 16 17 19 4 76
37 20 17 16 14 4 71
38 25 18 18 20 4 85
TOTAL 815 543 562 591 134 2645
MPS 21.45 14.29 14.79 15.55 3.53 69.61

82 | P a g e
APPENDIX E
WRITING POST-TEST RESULT

Language
Respondent Content Organization Vocabulary Use Mechanics Total
1 26 16 18 18 4 82
2 22 15 15 17 4 73
3 27 18 15 17 4 81
4 22 14 14 18 3 71
5 17 14 13 18 3 65
6 24 14 16 20 4 78
7 20 14 13 15 4 66
8 17 8 7 6 3 41
9 21 16 13 13 4 67
10 20 18 17 21 4 80
11 17 7 7 5 3 39
12 22 10 15 13 4 64
13 23 15 17 13 3 71
14 20 14 15 18 3 70
15 22 14 15 19 4 74
16 21 13 16 21 4 75
17 20 10 14 11 3 58
18 20 12 15 12 4 63
19 22 16 14 17 2 71
20 19 13 15 12 3 62
21 18 11 14 10 3 56
22 27 19 18 21 4 89
23 21 14 15 15 3 68
24 19 16 15 13 4 67
25 21 12 15 13 3 64
26 24 15 15 14 3 71
27 29 18 19 23 3 92
28 20 14 14 13 4 65
29 17 7 10 10 3 47
30 19 11 10 11 3 54
31 20 14 14 13 3 64
32 24 18 18 18 4 82
33 17 14 14 14 3 62
34 24 18 17 22 4 85
35 28 20 19 24 5 96
36 20 16 17 19 4 76
37 20 17 16 14 4 71
38 25 18 18 20 4 85
TOTAL 815 543 562 591 134 2645
MPS 21.45 14.29 14.79 15.55 3.53 69.61

83 | P a g e
APPENDIX F
z-Test: Two Sample for Means

1. For Content

Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 21.44737 22.10526
Known Variance 10.09 10.85
Observations 38 38
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Z -0.88626
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.187739
z Critical one-tail 1.644854
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.375479
z Critical two-tail 1.959964

2. For Organization

Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 14.28947 15.28947
Known Variance 10.67 8.64
Observations 38 38
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
Z -1.40282
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.080336
z Critical one-tail 1.644854
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.160672
z Critical two-tail 1.959964

84 | P a g e
 3. For Vocabulary

Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 14.78947 15.39474
Known Variance 7.63 8.19
Observations 38 38
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
z -0.93806
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.174106
z Critical one-tail 1.644854
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.348211
z Critical two-tail 1.959964

4. For Language Use

Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 15.55263 17.10526
Known Variance 20.04 21.44
Observations 38 38
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
z -1.48608
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.06863
z Critical one-tail 1.644854
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.137259
z Critical two-tail 1.959964

85 | P a g e
 5. For Mechanics

Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 3.526316 3.684211
Known Variance 0.36 0.49
Observations 38 38
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
z -1.05572
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.145547
z Critical one-tail 1.644854
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.291095
z Critical two-tail 1.959964

6. for the Overall Pre-Test and Post-Test

Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 69.60526 73.57895
Known Variance 160.25 172.9
Observations 38 38
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
z -1.34204
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.089792
z Critical one-tail 1.644854
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.179583
z Critical two-tail 1.959964

86 | P a g e
APPENDIX G CURRICULUM VITAE

MARY JANE N. MURILLO

Phase 9 Package 3 Blk. 31 Lot 5 &7 Bagong Silang, Caloocan City
Email address: mjnmurillo@gmail.com
Mobile no.: (0923)856-4129/ (0905)351-8564

OBJECTIVE: To share my life as an educator who has a passionate commitment to

student development and learning experiences

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
Instructor/Acting Assistant Dean June 2017 to present
School of Education
Escuela San Gabriel de Arcangel Foundation, Inc.
Phase 9 Pkg. 6 Bagong Silang, Caloocan City

Elementary Principal March 2015 to March

2017
Escuela San Gabriel de Arcangel Foundation, Inc.
Phase 9 Pkg. 6 Bagong Silang, Caloocan City

Part-Time College Instructor June 2015 to June

2016
Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel of Caloocan, Inc.
Phase 10 Pkg. 6 Bagong Silang, Caloocan City

Customer Service Representative Nov 2014 to Feb 2015

Teletech, Robinson’s Place Novaliches
Quirino Highway, Novaliches, Quezon City

Elementary Grade Teacher 1 June 2004 to June

2014
Department of Education – Kalayaan Elementary School
Phase 10 Package 3 Bagong Silang, Caloocan City

Special Education Teacher May 2003 to March

2004
RGS-Bukid Kabataan Center
Bo. Del Fuego, General Trias, Cavite

Part-Time Receptionist June 2001 to April

2003
Religious of the Good Shepherd - Province House
1043 Aurora Blvd., Quezon City

87 | P a g e
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Graduate Student, thesis writing (on-going) June 2016 to present
Master of Arts in Educational Management
The National Teachers College
Quiapo, Manila

Religious Studies, 9 units June to October 2014

Institute of Formation and Religious Studies
N. Domingo St. cor. Acacia St, Cubao, Quezon City

Graduate, Bachelor in Elementary Education June 1999 to April 2003

w/ specialization in Special Education, cum laude
University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City

GOVERNMENT EXAMINATION TAKEN

Licensure Examination for Teachers Rating of 89.4

October 2003
License No. 0839265

SEMINARS/ TRAINING ATTENDED

Strengthening Learner’s Problem Solving and Critical Thinking Skills: February 2016
Singaporean Math Training Program for Educators
Rex Bookstore Para sa Bata Academic Conference
Notre Dame School of Greater Manila, Caloocan City

Animating Youth Groups May 2012

8th Blessed John Paul II Catechetics and Youth Ministry Conference
Don Bosco Technical Institute, Makati City

Seminar Workshop in Turning around Low Performance in English December

2008
Division of City Schools, Caloocan City

Whole Brain Literacy/ Communicative Language Teaching September

2008
Department of Education – National Capital Region
Philippine Normal University Alumni Association
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City

Seminar Workshop on Enhancing Reading Skills October 2006

Department of Education – National Capital Region
Philippine Normal University Alumni Association
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City

Seminar Workshop on Commitment towards Quality Education September

2006

88 | P a g e
The Philippine Women’s University
EDSA, Quezon City

First DepEd-NCR Leadership Conference January 2006

Philippine International Convention Center
Pasay City

Seminar Workshop on the Power of Communication May 2005

Huwarang Pilipino Foundation, Inc., DZRB Radyo ng Bayan
Department of Education – National Capital Region
Caloocan City High School, Caloocan City

Lecture-Forum on Learning Disability January 2004

Philippine Mental Health Association
#18 East Avenue, Quezon City

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION
Philippine Association for Teachers and Educators 2017
School of Education, Centro Escolar University
Mendiola, Manila 1005

VOLUNTEER WORKS
Catechist 2011 to present
San Roque Parish
Phase 9 Pkg. 5 Bagong Silang, Caloocan City

PERSONAL DATA
Date of Birth: October 26, 1982 Birthplace: Manila
Civil Status: Single
Language Spoken: English and Filipino
Computer Skills: MS Word, Excel, Publisher, Powerpoint, Moviemaker,
Internet (Research and Navigation)

CHARACTER REFERENCES
MR. PEDRO P. INOCANDO DR. ROSA LITA MONTARDE
Principal IV Guidance Counselor
Kalayaan Elementary School Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel of Caloocan, Inc.
(02) 962-8204/ (0999) 590-4229 (0922) 918-7189

FR. ELPIDIO Z. LUZA, SCJ DR. EUGENIO V. DAUZ

Parish Priest School President
San Roque Parish Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel of Caloocan, Inc.
(02) 962-8204/ (0921) 241-2249 (0921) 416-2822

89 | P a g e