THIRD MODULE IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 2

(April 18, 2022- April 29, 2022)

Course Learning Outcome: In this course, the pre-service teachers will be able to
demonstrate skills in writing summary, findings, conclusion and recommendation based
on the data gathered and analyzed

In this week, the pre-service teachers are expected to:

 write a summary of the study;

 list down the findings to answer the questions in the statement of the problem;
 write a valid conclusion based on the findings; and
 present recommendations based on the findings and conclusion of the study.

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Guide Questions:
 How do we write summary, findings, conclusion and recommendations?
 What does each of them contain?

Introduction
Hello, researchers! You’re almost there! In this third module, you will be taught how to craft the
last chapter of your research, Chapter 3 which includes the summary, findings, conclusion and
recommendations of your study.

What is a summary?

 It is brief statement about the salient details of Chapter 1.

 It includes the important findings of the study which follow the order of the questions in
the SOP.
 Your summary may include the following:
1. objectives of the study
2. statement of the problem
3. participants
4. sampling procedure/s
5. methods/ design/s employed
6. statistical treatment applied (or hypotheses tested if there’s any)
7. results If you notice, all the parts mentioned above are already included in your
Chapters 1-2. So, the challenge is on how you are going to briefly write and present it.
What is a conclusion?

 Logical valid outgrowths based upon the findings

 Synthesis of arguments
 Response to the question “so what?”
 New insight, not new information
 Comment on larger, more significant issues

Basic Reminders

1. Show how the findings either support or contradict the existing body of literature.

2. Show what the findings mean in relation to the gap or issue stated in the rationale.

3. Speculate a bit but do not move beyond hard evidence and strict logic.

> Once you have written the summary, draw out a conclusion from each finding or result. It can
be done per question or you may arrange the questions per topic or sub-topic, if there is any. But if
your research is quantitative in nature, answer directly he research question and tell if the
hypothesis is rejected or accepted based on the findings.

> As to grammar, make sure that you use the present tense of the verb because it consists of
general statement of the theory or the principle newly derived from the present study. So, do not
be confused in your summary, you use past tense while in conclusion, you use present tense.

What is a recommendation?

 It is a course of action based upon the findings.

 It can be a suggestion for future research.
 The recommendation must contain practical suggestions that will improve the situation or
solve the problem investigated in the study.
1. First, it must be logical, specific, attainable and relevant.
2. Second, it should be addressed to persons, organization, or agencies directly concerned
with the issues or to those who can immediately implement the recommended solutions.
3. Third, present another topic which is very relevant to the present study that can be
further investigated by future researchers. But never recommend anything that is not part of
your study or not being mentioned in your findings.

<> After organizing your thoughts as to what would be the content of your recommendations,
you should write it using the imperative mood of the verb. Imperative mood is used to express a
request or command. Hence, the tense is also simple present tense.
 TECHNICALITIES TO CONSIDER IN WRITING THE OUTPUT TO HAVE A GOOD AND
PRESENTABLE RESEARCH REPORT
1. A suitable font is Arial 12.
2. A uniform verb tense should be used throughout the report, preferably past tense, except for
general truths, historical present and recommendations.
3. The imperative mood (e.g. as if giving orders) should not be used. The purpose is to state what
was done, not to tell other people what to do.
4. Since the report is academic and formal, the FIRST and SECOND person ( e.g. I, We, You,
Your, Us, My, etc.) should not be used. Only the third person is used. (e.g. He, She, They, It,
Their, etc.).
5. All texts should be double-spaced except the abstract which is single spaced.
6. All paragraphs should be JUSTIFIED.
7. Capitalize proper nouns, personal names, names of specific departments within a college/
university, and complete names of specific courses; but the names of laws, theories and
hypothesis are written in small letters.
X (wrong): Cognitive Development Theory
X (wrong): Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
X (wrong): Law of Exercise
/ (correct): Law of Exercise
/ (correct): Republic Act 7836
8. Capitalize on academic grade level when using it as a noun but not when using it as an
adjective.
X- The finding indicates that dropout rate is lowest in grade 6.
/- The finding indicates that dropout rate is lowest in Grade 6.
9. Use numerals to express numbers 10 and above. Use words to express numbers below 10. But
when numbers 10 and above are grouped together in the same sentence with numbers below 10,
all have to be expressed in numerals.
X- four of the 29 cases
/- 4 out of the 29 cases
10. All numbers denoting time should be in numerals but this does not apply for approximate
designations of days, months and years.
11. Margining format- Left and Top Margin: 1 and ½ inches
- Right and Bottom Margin: 1 inch
12. Pagination- All pages including figure spaces should be numbered consecutively.
13. Overly long paragraphs should be avoided because it is not reader-friendly. However,
paragraphs that are too short should be fused.
14. Avoid jargons. (slang words)
15. Write the full word for the acronyms. Commonly understood or accepted acronyms can be
used without explanation. (e.g. UN, HIV, USA)
16. Avoid contractions.
X- Don’t, Can’t, Won’t, Didn’t
/- Do not, Will not, Did not
17. Needlessly fancy presentation like colors in text or figures should be avoided unless it truly
enhances the clarity of the report. Figures or drawings should be kept simple. Artworks and three -
dimensional renditions can be distracting, so try to avoid it.
18. Numerical date should be reported in descending order (from greatest to least). However, the
reverse order is equally acceptable.
Example: When asked to indicate their favorite subject, 65 students preferred science, 35
preferred language, 28 preferred social studies and 10 preferred mathematics.
19. Tables should be well-organized, with unshaded backgrounds. It should be numbered
consecutively, and above each table should be a caption describing the content of the table.
20.Insert in-text citations using APA style for data or information taken from other sources
especially in Chapter 1.
21. Avoid redundancy. In research, it’s a big no-no.
22. Words denoting indefinite quantity/ amount should be avoided.
X- Some students had experienced bullying in their classrooms.
/- A considerable number of students, that is, 48 or 62% had experienced bullying in their
classrooms.
Note: Expression like “a handful, or a few, a significant number” and the like may be used if they
are followed by the exact figure, which is prefaced with “that is”.
Example of Chapter 3

Title: Writing Proficiency and English Language Errors in Context

Statement of the Problem:
THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

This study investigated the Grade 9 English learners’ writing proficiency and identified the

common English language errors in context in their written outputs.

Specifically, this research sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the writing proficiency of the Grade 9 learners?

2. What are the English language errors in context identified from the

participants’ outputs in terms of;

2.1 syntax;

2.2 semantics; and

2.3 morphology?

3. What are the implications of these language errors in English language

learning and English language teaching?

 Chapter 3

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Presented in this chapter are the summary, findings, conclusion and recommendations based

on the results of the participants’ writing proficiency level and the language errors in context identified

from their outputs.

Summary

This qualitative research study titled “Writing Proficiency and English Language Errors in

Context”, employing content analysis was conducted at Mater Dei College, Tubigon, Bohol. Thirty

(30) literary analysis outputs were evaluated to measure the writing proficiency of the participants,

and the same outputs were subjected to analysis, following Corder’s Error Analysis to extract the

errors in semantics, morphology and syntax present in the outputs.

The units of analysis chosen were by phrases, clauses and sentences. Sub-categories for

errors in semantics, morphology and syntax were specified. A priori coding was done, where

categories for coding were already established prior to the analysis based on James’ taxonomy of

errors. After errors had been categorized and tabulated, coding for frequency was done to identify the

most common language errors in context. The results revealed that more than half of the participants

were at their developing level of writing proficiency. The criteria components in writing proficiency

where the participants fell short were in grammar and mechanics, organization and focus, sentence

structure, and vocabulary usage. Such findings were reinforced in the error analysis since among all

sub-categories of errors, misselection, omission, subject-verb agreement and verbosity errors were

the top four common errors identified. The least frequently occurring errors were errors on collocation,

adjective morphology, pronoun morphology and adverb morphology.

 To capsulize the results, majority of the participants had inadequate writing skills in English,

specifically in the four mentioned components, signifying the need to address such dilemma based on

the emerging language errors in context identified from their outputs. It was further generalized that

the participants lacked in the immersion in the English language. The results of the study were,

however, inconclusive to affirm or negate the assumptions of the Contrastive Analysis. Nonetheless,

it was evident that the participants had the prime need to enrich their interlanguage continuum

through comprehensible inputs for them to become proficient in the use of English language,

specifically in writing. The role of grammatical competence must not be ruled out in English classroom

instruction. Even if there was only a minimum frequency for semantic and morphology errors, both

students and teachers must not tolerate such errors to prevent fossilization.

Hence, the participants were recommended to immerse themselves in the English and

language and learn it in context. The English macro skills and micro skills needed to be taught

holistically, not in isolation. There was a need to teach the learners to develop both accuracy and

fluency, so they could achieve communicative competence.

Findings

Based on the data presented and interpreted in Chapter 2, the findings are hereby presented.

1. Majority of the total number of participants, were categorized under developing level of writing

proficiency. The participants were weakest at grammar and mechanics, organization and focus,

sentence structure, and vocabulary usage in their written outputs.

2. The English language errors in context identified from the thirty outputs were categorized into

syntax, morphology and semantics. Among the syntax errors were misselection on prepositions,

articles, pronoun, quantifiers and verb forms; omission of articles, verbs and subjects; subject-verb

agreement error, coordination error, specifically parallelism, verb consistency, run-on sentences and

sentence fragments; misordering of words; and overuse on prepositions, articles and conjunctions.
The morphology errors identified ranged from noun morphology, pronoun morphology, verb

morphology, adjective morphology and adverb morphology. Lastly, confusion on sense relations,

errors on collocation and verbosity were identified under the category semantic errors.

3. Among all the categories of language errors, misselection, omission, subject-verb agreement and

verbosity errors were the top four common language errors in context identified in descending order.

The least frequently occurring errors were errors on collocation, adjective morphology, pronoun

morphology and adverb morphology.

4. The language errors identified from the participants’ outputs were not new. They were those

features that were totally or partially absent in the native language. They were old-aged lapses in

using a target language that remained unsolved and rolled over their current level due to poor

language modelling in their elementary years. If these errors were not addressed correctly, they

would fossilize in the learners’ interlanguage continuum. Moreover, the results implied that the

language learners spoke English as a translation to the native language, which defied the principle “If

you speak in English, think in English because no two languages are the same.” Lack of focus on the

ultimate goal of teaching English, which is communicative competence, has been missed by most

English language teachers. The errors implied that there was a failure for the English language

teachers to completely immerse the students in the language and to teach the language in context by

teaching English language as a whole, not in isolation since language is used a whole never in parts.

Language immersion is not optimized.

Conclusion

The results of this study were inconclusive to affirm or negate the assumptions of Contrastive

Analysis. However, the findings on the participants’ writing proficiency and language errors in context

evidently showed their inadequate learning and lack of immersion in the English language, hence
wanting for comprehensible inputs to improve their interlanguage continuum as posited in Selinker’s

interlanguage theory, so they would achieve the proficient level, particularly in writing. Moreover, the

strategies in English language teaching used by the participants’ English language teachers and the

participants’ strategies in English language learning failed to achieve the end-goal of English

language teaching and learning, which is communicative competence as reflected on their writing

proficiency. Since language errors in second language are inevitable, but they have to be minimized

until proficiency is achieved.

Recommendations

In the light of the findings of the study, the researcher strongly recommends the following:

1. The English language teachers need to engage learners with constant writing activities with timely

feedforward and feedback. Teachers need to address the learners’ inadequacies, particularly in

grammar and mechanics, organization and focus, sentence structure, and vocabulary usage. English

language teachers have to emphasize the achievement of communicative competence in whatever

teaching-learning activities they employ in the class by teaching language as whole, not in isolation

through whole language approach. Macro skills and micro skills in English language need to be

taught simultaneously, not sequentially. Class size must be regulated in order to monitor the

individual language performance of the students.

2. The teachers need to further immerse the students in the English language and to provide them

with the comprehensible inputs to improve their interlanguage continuum through giving them

authentic language materials and genuine activities that allow them to learn the language in context,

thereby achieving accuracy and fluency. Language immersion includes any meaningful activity that

engages the students in receiving English language inputs and producing English language outputs.

The former can be done through implementing regular, not occasional, reading activities with tasks
before, during and after reading, listening English audios like songs, stories, poems and the like, and

watching English movies. These activities can provide students learning inputs in their language

continuum that they may use in oral and written performances. The latter, however, can be done

through consistent activities that engage the students in using the language in written and spoken

discourse like writing summary, reaction, analysis and reflection based on a text or a movie. The

participants may also engage in conversing with those who speak the language, especially with the

native speakers of English through online platforms, if not face to face. The participants have to use

the language as often as they can because there is no other way to improve one’s language skills

other than using it.

3. The English curriculum designers of English need to realign the English language teaching

methodologies, teaching-learning activities, and assessment towards the achievement of the end-

goal, which is communicative competence. Students in lower grades until college must be taught to

learn the language as a whole, not in parts. The entire school, administrators, teachers and students

have to mandate the use of English language as they enter the portals of the school. In this way, the

parts the students master in the classroom are put into practice as whole, hence, they spontaneously

use the language in context, not as rules memorized.

4. The future researchers may further investigate the causes of the learners’ language errors and the

strategies for effective corrective feedback on the students’ outputs or performances. They may also

further investigate the areas of writing where students are inadequate and their corresponding

causes.

Note: As you can see on the example, the findings, conclusion and recommendation validly
correspond the statement of the problem to preserve alignment.
Activity.
A. In your group, write the first draft of the Chapter 3 of your study following the guidelines and
example presented in this module. Submit your first draft of Chapter 3 on or before April 30, 2022
via Google-Classroom.
For any clarification, message your teacher via Messenger.