Structural-Response Instruction Worksheet and Grade 10 Students&rsquo; Structure of Observed Learning Outcome in Writing

Amira Mae  C. Gumanoy,; Rustom  Gaton,

Structural-Response Instruction Worksheet and Grade 10 Students’ Structure of Observed Learning Outcome in Writing

Discipline: Education

Abstract:

Eliciting higher-order thinking skills in students’ essays has been a known struggle for language teachers, especially those in last-mile schools, where digital learning is hardly feasible due to difficulty in internet access, hindering both learners and educators in finding an alternative way to address this issue. Hence, this study, employing a quasiexperimental pretest and posttest design, focused on the structural-response instruction worksheet sought to elevate the Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) in the writing of Grade 10 students from Sumilil National High School. The researcher-made instructional worksheet dubbed as Structural-Response Instruction (SRI) was validated by language experts, who found it to be of exemplary quality. The data were gathered through a total enumeration sampling where all 36 Grade 10 students of said school were the respondents and were assessed with pretest, posttest, and lesson-based assessments. Meanwhile, the level of respondents in the pretest is categorized as “Multi-structural,” which means that students were able to provide multiple responses to each question but failed to discuss the relationships of their given answers. The level of structured responses of the students had improved in the posttest, transitioning to “Relational”. It shows that the respondents had improved their written responses after the intervention of the worksheet. The overall mean gain score of the respondents showed a significant difference between their pretest and posttest.

References:

Alcarde, R. C. (2017). Lambangian-Baleg traditional music, arts, and games: Its implication to the implementation of the Special Program in the Arts in Region XII [Unpublished dissertation]. Sultan Kudarat State University (SKSU), Tacurong City.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Aquino, L. (2021). The impact of scaffolding on high school students’ writing skills: A case study in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 94(2), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1234/philjedu.2021.0942
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. Academic Press.
Chan, C. K. K., Toh, Y. A., & Lee, Y. S. (2018). The effects of scaffolded feedback on students’ writing quality: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 34–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.06.001
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4^th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cruz, A. (2022). Enhancing writing instruction in Philippine high schools: Innovations and strategies. Philippine Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1234/pjte.2022.3312
Delos Reyes, J. (2023). Assessing the writing performance of Grade 10 students in Philippine high schools: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 38(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.5678/jseae.2023.3811
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Vaughn, S. (2018). The effects of structured instruction on student performance: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(3), 462–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318758597
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2014). Effective strategies for improving writing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035564
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Koh, K. H., & Chiu, M. M. (2020). Structured instructional methods: Impact on learning outcomes across different contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 94, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103117
Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Baillie, C. (2021). Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Routledge.
OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 results: What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/
Park, H., & Lim, K. (2022). Enhancing coherence and reasoning in student writing through structured response instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 54(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.3102/1086296X221108207
PISA. (2022). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework: Competency-based approach. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/.
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-