Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Final Manuscript
Final Manuscript
NOVEMBER 2023
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO
Kabacan, Cotabato
Philippines
USM-EDR-F05-Rev.4.2020.11.16
ii
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO Colleg
e Seal
Kabacan, Cotabato
Philippines
ACCEPTANCE OF THESIS
accepted.
________________________
Date
_________________________
Date
iii
USM-EDR-F10-Rev.3.2020.02.24
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
25, 2002. She is the only child of Ernesto Valdez and Lellibeth Valdez.
took up her Junior High School at Sinawingan High School and completed it in
2017. At the same school, she graduated taking the track Technical,
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
everything in His name and bows down for His love has consistently provided
this study;
Her research adviser, Dr. Jacinta T. Pueyo, for granting the opportunity
to delve into the realm of research and offers guidance in the field of research;
are extended to her statistician, Eziel Mae E. Ursabia, for their expertise that
Her parents, Mr. Ernesto Valdez and Mrs. Lellibeth Valdez for their
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
([SHORTCUT to create page numbers: right click the table of contents below and select UPDATE FIELD,
then UPDATE ENTIRE TIABLE. Delete this instruction in your final paper.]
Page
PRELIMINARIES
Title Page
Biographical Data........................................................................................iv
Acknowledgement........................................................................................v
Table of Contents........................................................................................vi
List of Figures..............................................................................................ix
List of Appendices........................................................................................x
Abstract....................................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................4
vi
Statistical Analysis.......................................................................................5
LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................11
APPENDICES.................................................................................................13
CURRICULUM VITAE.........................................................................................18
vii
LIST OF TABLES
(Delete this page if you do not have tables)
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
(Delete this page if you do not have figures)
ix
LIST OF APPENDICES
x
ABSTRACT
repetition, and clarification request. This study aimed to determine the beliefs
beliefs and observation checklist was utilized to determine the type of oral
teachers’ beliefs and linear regression was used to determine the significant
feedback, and beliefs of oral corrective feedback to the type used. The data
found that there is a significant relationship between teachers’ beliefs and the
xi
INTRODUCTION
learners improve their linguistic accuracy and fluency. This concept is being
of this study, specifically in our context, there are instances wherein students
derision. These occurrences are of particular interest to the study as they can
linguistic ability. Choi (2018) has suggested that OCF can be highly beneficial in
struggle to identify their own error and may continue to repeat these errors
unless they receive targeted feedback from their instructor. Providing feedback
on specific mistake can help learners to develop more accurate and natural
12
sounding spoken language. This can have an opportunity to learn and use new
vocabulary which will help them improve their language proficiency. The result
that help teachers improve their feedback practices. Dealing with its
pedagogical implication, the result of this study may shed light on the factors
that may influence the success of oral corrective feedback strategies in the
add to the existing knowledge on oral corrective feedback. The study’s findings
may allow policy makers to implement instructional strategies that promote the
same field.
This present study aimed to investigate the beliefs, and types of oral
13
dynamics. Specifically, this study aimed to determine teachers’ socio-
determine the beliefs of teachers towards the use of oral corrective feedback in
experience, the teachers’ beliefs towards the use of oral corrective feedback,
study gathered data from October to December of the academic year 2023-
2024.
14
Operational Definition of Terms
The given terms are defined based on how they will be used in the
study.
16
Hypotheses of the Study
types
of its types, focus on each form, and look on how it contributes to an in-depth
these areas, the researcher can determine which type of oral corrective
linguistic features.
Finally, Theory of Planned Behavior of Ajzen (1991) will be
feedback. This theory suggests that behavior is influenced by beliefs thus, the
aim of this theory in this study identify the fundamental beliefs that affect
their beliefs about its effectiveness which includes exploring the perceptions of
Beliefs in Oral
Socio-demographic Corrective
characteristics Feedback
a. age;
b. sex; and
c. length
of service.
Oral Corrective
Feedback
respondents’ beliefs on oral corrective feedback and its types used in the
This chapter discussed the related literature of the study. This part
presents the set of authors and their studies related to oral corrective
feedback
There is a plethora of studies that have dealt with the beliefs and
beyond their current level of knowledge, but with the assistance of a more
context of OCF, this means that feedback should not merely provide the
collaborative effort between the teacher and the learner to identify and solve
feedback that is tailored to the learners’ individual needs and abilities. This
skills in a way that is more meaningful and relevant to their own learning
prompted to self-correct rather than rely solely on recasts, which are less
environment that empowers learners to take control of their own learning. This
skill-acquisition theory. This theory suggests that simply correcting the original
8
the correction depends upon primarily on the input provided. In other words, it
is not enough to simply point out the error; rather, the correction should be
English has become one of the languages used for instruction thus students
and syntax. The study of Sa’adah et., al (2018) revealed the efficacy of
study of Ellis (2021) pointed out that the perception that oral corrective
a result of this, instructors need to have the capacity to furnish learners with
insight into their language inaccuracies and guide them with direction on how
practical experiences which supports the idea that one’s background and
experiences can influence their beliefs. Research has shown that teachers’
belief about oral corrective feedback can influence their teaching practices,
that teachers hold the view that is to rectify students’ oral inaccuracies. By this
means, teachers provide learners with information about their errors and helps
them notice the gap between their own utterances and the target language
the rules and patterns on the underlying language. Similarly, teachers in the
study of Sakrak-Ekin and Balcikanli (2019) believes that they play a crucial
role in correcting their students’ spoken errors. This belief is often grounded in
the idea that language accuracy is important for effective communication and
10
that the teacher has a responsibility to help students achieve this goal. In
addition, teachers view error correction as an essential part of their job and
learning. Along with this, Mendez and Cruz (2012) concluded that teachers of
approximately 80%, agreed that correcting learners’ errors is necessary for the
development of their fluency and accuracy in the target language. This finding
is in line with the assertion made by Kartchava et al (2018) that teachers have
out that in Asian pedagogy, and in general, teachers should exercise caution
highlighting every single error made by students. This was suggested since
during the initial stages of learning, students frequently experience a need for
feedback and correction until they develop greater proficiency and confidence.
minority of teachers, specifically 20% of the teachers or 3 out of 15, held the
belief that oral corrective feedback does not hold significant value in facilitating
11
consequences that can disrupt the natural flow of conversation and have a
feedback because if the curriculum is heavy and the time is limited, there may
rushed or inadequate, which can limit its effectiveness in helping the learners
may be a tendency to prioritize breadth over depth of learning. This can lead
learners prefer to correct their own mistakes rather than relying on the
correction was supported by the data gathered from the participants of this
autonomous in their learning and take greater responsibility for their own
this, when learners correct their own errors, they are more likely to remember
the correct form of structure than if the correction comes from the teacher.
The types of oral corrective feedback by Lyster and Ranta (1997) were
cited on the study of Yang (2016), which are: explicit correction, recasts,
correction arises when a teacher explicitly informs the students that their
revealed that the respondents prefer explicit correction since 90% of them
likes to be corrected when they had errors during the process of speaking.
such actions could potentially heighten their anxiety levels. With this, it is
not given in a supportive and constructive way. It can also be less effective for
learners who are more sensitive to criticism or who prefer to learn through trial
and error. This finding is similar of Westmacott (2017) which concluded that
explicit correction does not allow students to study why the utterance said is
wrong and the supplied correction was right. Through the questionnaire and
mistakes made, without explicitly highlighting that the original utterance was
incorrect. The findings on the study of Brown (2016), indicated that recasts
agreed that recast is done to value affective aspect of students while doing
oral corrective feedback. This result is parallel to the study of Tavakoli and
learners might react to the corrections made. In this type of oral corrective
(Mulati et al, 2020). By this means, when the teacher offers the correct form to
them to reformulate their initial utterance, which involves the use of three
distinct methods for eliciting desired response from the learner (Sultana,
2015). This involves asking questions to the learners and waiting for them to
time and students that are not yet proficient in the language may not be able
to self-correct their errors. Due to this, the study of Calsiyao (2015) concluded
During the classroom observation, the researchers found that this type of oral
teachers’ use of questions or comments that are related to the formation of the
provides students with specific information about the language, they are using
students’ language use, rather than just the content of their message. In the
study of Amoli (2020), 60 learners were randomly divided into two groups;
one received metalinguistic feedback, and the other group explicit correction
feedback works best for learners’ improvement. It was revealed on the result
language learning. Along with this, the study of Sa’adah et, al. (2018) showed
(2021) revealed that metalinguistic feedback received the highest mean score
when a teacher asks the student to repeat or rephrase their utterance because
it was unclear or not fully understood, which often arises when a learner
instance, the teacher is not seeking for clarification because he or she has
identified in the sentence. The teacher may ask the student to reformulate the
17
sentence to correct the error and reinforce the correct grammar or language
use. The finding on the study of Suryoputro and Amaliah (2016) revealed that
this type of oral corrective feedback less effective unlike explicit correction with
45.5%.
students that clarification request has least occurrences compared to the other
researcher, it was found that only 1 utterance out of 132 moves was corrected
less effective.
the teacher to repeat the students’ error while changing the intonation to
highlight the mistake and draw the students’ attention to it (Sultana, 2015).
Amongst the types of oral corrective feedback, this is the most used by
study of Sari et al. (2022) revealed that repetition appeared as the type of oral
was known that the respondents of the study usually repeated student’s ill-
formed sentence and allows the student to repeat the correct form afterwards.
This helps to focus learners’ attention on the specific form or structure that
18
needs to be corrected since the learner can able to notice the difference
participated in the study, it was found that repetition leads to students’ own
repair. This allows effective learning repair and increases students’ critical
thinking ability. The result of the grammar test conducted by the researcher
revealed that repetition positively affects the result of the test that is why
teachers are encourages to use this type of corrective feedback more often.
Apart from grammar, it was concluded by the author that repetition can also be
used for the repair of vocabulary and pronunciation. However, this type of
motivation, which can hinder language learning progress. As a result, this form
of oral corrective feedback has become the least used by English language
Philippines. One possible reason for this is that the focus of research in this
area has been primarily on the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback rather
than on teachers’ beliefs about it. Additionally, research in this area may be
focus specifically on this topic beyond classroom dynamics (Bulusan et. al,
seeking to design effective oral corrective feedback strategies that are tailored
to the unique needs and perspectives of the Filipino learners. To address this
gap, it is vital to conduct further research on the teachers’ beliefs and types of
identity. Along with this, the findings of this study indicated that in a
pointed out.
On the other hand, the study of Asonto et., al (2021) revealed that oral
study of Fahim and Montazeri (2013) indicates that providing oral corrective
found out that those who prefer oral and positive corrective feedback has the
higher metacognitive awareness that those who prefer negative and written
one. However, it was found that their preferred corrective feedback has no
effect on their critical thinking ability since both types of feedback has a
Finally, the data from the study of Gornez (2022) indicated that various
feedback. Among these, indirect feedback was the most commonly used,
while reformulation feedback was the least utilized. Almost all the given
teachers in this context, this research can help identify effective feedback
to examine the beliefs, and types of such feedback from the perspective of
language teachers.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
computational techniques for analysis (Babbie, 2010). The research used the
The study focused on teachers as the target population and utilized the
who have given their informed consent form. The respondents are from the
Sampling Procedure
Research Instrument
questionnaire which will elicit the participants’ basic demographics (e.g. age,
the study adapted survey questionnaires. The reason for doing so is to obtain
essential details such as the purpose of the study, the definition of oral
with each statement, using the scale of one to five, where 5 indicates strongly
natural setting. The same method was used in the study of Sultana (2015).
The researcher gathered data for this study by initially sending a letter
addressed to the Campus Director to request approval for the research. Once
24
participants.
compliance with ethical guidelines and standards, and to obtain the necessary
the study.
feedback provided by teachers and their beliefs about this. To achieve this,
to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. The data gathered from
for the respondents to verify the correctness of the notes. This verification
25
process enhanced the reliability and validity of the data that contributed to the
with the data obtained from the survey questionnaire to provide a more
validity of the findings, and provide a more in-depth analysis of the results.
Statistical Analysis
feedback, and the type of feedback used in the classroom. On the other hand,
This chapter presents the results and discussion of the study. The first
the classroom. On the other hand, the last part includes the significant
included their sex, age, and length of service are shown in Table 1. Surveyed
teachers with 58% (14) identified as female, while 42% (10) as male. Majority
between the ages of 26-30. On the other hand, 13% or 3 of the respondents
were age 20-25 and 31-35, 8% or 2 of the respondents are aged 41-45 and
46-50. Lastly, the result shows that in terms of length of service, 87% or 21 out
of 24 of the respondents are in the field of service for 1-5 years. A smaller
feedback. The result of this study revealed that teachers expressed a strong
that second and foreign language learners can acquire some of the unknown
communicate. This indicates that teachers value the role of explicit grammar
class discussions can potentially lead to a loss of focus on the main topic
which could impact the overall engagement and participation of students. This
and Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback which stated that correcting
every grammatical error have adverse effects on the exchange of ideas during
technique to correct learner’s spoken errors which got the mean of 4. Even
with a slightly lower mean compared to the previous statement, this still
they play a crucial role in correcting their students’ spoken errors. Another
study is providing that the implications of the researcher and the result of the
study is valid; this belief got the second highest mean value on the study titled
Beliefs and Practices at Taif University. This stated concluded that learner’s
spoken errors require the use of appropriate technique that best address
particular types of error (Alkhammash and Gulnaz, 2019) because one type of
oral corrective feedback can never address the needs of all learners equally.
the language learning process. This implication and result are supported by
30
the study conducted by Ezeh et al. (2022), where teachers believe that
resource in an ESL environment, and its maximal benefits when students are
proactively trained to use it. With similar statement from Kauffmann (2018), the
On the other hand, the belief with the lowest belief had the mean score
incorporated into classroom activities where teacher can highlight its elements
such as sounds, syllables, stress and intonation. By doing so, teachers aim to
help learners develop clear and accurate pronunciation skills, enhancing their
Moreover, this holds true by O’brien and Levis (2017) found out in their
builds skills in pronunciation. With the mean of 2.71, the belief that correcting
learners can negatively affect their self-esteem and discourage them ranked
second to the lowest with a neutral stance. This means that teachers have
conducted by Torres et al. (2020) which found that the act of pointing out
errors in class has adverse effects on learners which hinder rather than help
beliefs. This aligns with the Theory of Planned Behavior, acknowledging that
L2/FL.
Explaining grammar rules helps
in gaining competence needed 4.2 Agree
to communicate.
I feel it is important to use a
particular technique to correct 4 Agree
learner’s spoken errors.
The use of bilingual (L1-L2)
dictionary promotes learners’ 4 Agree
success in learning L2.
Teachers should correct
learners’ error immediately 3.79 Agree
after the error has been made.
A teacher should correct
3.75 Agree
learners’ spoken errors.
Error correction is essential in
3.71 Agree
promoting L2/FL.
The study of grammatical rules
is essential to learning a 3.67 Agree
second language.
I feel students commit
excessive errors in extempore 3.54 Agree
speaking tasks.
Teachers should correct
persistent errors in the 3.54 Agree
learners’ language production.
Teachers should deal learners’
3.46 Agree
errors at the end of a lesson.
Teacher providing correct form
without signaling the error 3.33 Neutral
keeps the anxiety level low.
Second language (L2)/Foreign
language (FL) learners are 3.08 Neutral
afraid of being corrected.
Working in groups with
classmates who do not speak 2.83 Neutral
English well is detrimental.
Most learners like being
2.83 Neutral
corrected in class.
Pointing out learners’ errors
2.83 Neutral
raises their anxiety level.
Learners like the study of
2.79 Neutral
grammar.
Teachers should never use the 2.75 Neutral
33
Elicitation
Table 3 shows the types of oral corrective feedback that teachers utilize
in the classroom. With the frequency of 22, elicitation ranked the most used
type of corrective feedback in the classroom. This implies that teachers extract
utterance. The result of this study is similar to Ayouni and El-Sukny (2022),
which found that classrooms only used elicitation where teachers prompted a
“live” as [laɪv] even if she is referring to the verb form [lɪv] and not the
adjective. As a result, the teacher asked “is it [laɪv] or [lɪv] ?” then eventually,
are discussing Life and Works of Rizal, it was noted that one student struggle
to pronounce the word “juventud” then the teacher guide the student through
saying “say it by syllable first before reading the word, say ju-ven-tud.”
must have knowledge about corrective feedback and consider it not just in
integrate elicitation in the correction, the teacher said “can you tell more about
the content you mentioned?”, “what are the religious practices of Hinduism?”
and “so when we say fundamentals of religion, from the word fundamental,
what does it mean?”. Through interruption, the teacher applied this type of
further explanation for their answer by saying “is there a universal religion? Do
Processing, the teacher was observed using this type of oral corrective
DBM by saying “it is Department of… Bud.. get.. and what? Manage… yes,
operational procedures. Are you sure that Alamada is already double A?"
after realizing that Alamada had only minimal adequacy, allowing the
is a useful tool for teachers looking to improve student learning and correct
elementary and high school pre-service teachers prefer this type of corrective
36
feedback because they can pose questions that can help students share their
initial ideas wherein teachers can just add probing questions to further
students.
Explicit Correction
With a frequency of 20, the result showed that explicit correction, which
involves directly pointing out and correcting errors is second most frequently
used type of corrective feedback. This implies that teacher value immediate
Suryoputro and Amaliah (2016), which found that explicit correction is used by
immediately after they found the error rather than in the end of discussion. In
this study, this type of oral corrective feedback was observed in a Technical
Writing class when the teacher asked the students to describe the brochure
presented, and one student said that it is crowded. Then the teacher affirmed
the response and further ask to elaborate their observation by saying “correct,
it is crowded because… what have you observed from the text? What about
images?” Then the student said that there’s an excessive amount of text and
teacher said “it’s [ˈbʊd.ɪ.zəm], do not emphasize the sound of letter h” when
pronunciation of the word “vital” was corrected into by saying “say [vaɪ.təl] not
vi-tal.” Furthermore, the teacher said “its [sæl.ər.i] not [sel.ər.i]” after the
student pronounced the word that refers to a vegetable with long pale green
employer.
corrected with direct feedback was higher than the outcomes of students
said that the next step is called “cancellation”, the teacher corrected them
through saying “when you divide any number by itself, it is always equals to 1,
and not about cancellation. In this case, 3 divided by 3 equals 1.” Another
correction done by the teacher saying “No, the answer is 500 and not 525.”
With this, it can be implied that the teacher is considering this type of
feedback that is provided to them by their instructor. This result contradicts the
findings of this study wherein the teacher only provides oral corrective
history of Asian Agriculture when a student was unable to provide the correct
term for the place where people exchange goods, and the teacher supplied
Repetition
repetition, where the teacher repeats students’ error while changing intonation
to highlight the mistake, is the least frequently used type of oral corrective
more often.
In this study, it was noticed that the teacher frequently provided oral
when student said "my-rad" instead of "myriad", the teacher would say the
repeated the error with a different intonation, leading the student to correct
their pronunciation to "/ˌlōˈkal/". This holds true with the study conducted by
39
between the students’ mispronunciation and the correct one. This contrastive
focus draws attention to the specific phonetic elements that need correction,
making it clear for the student what aspect of their pronunciation needs
improvement.
this model, it determines which type of oral corrective feedback aids in the
The result shows that there is a very weak positive relationship between
age and corrective feedback (0.121), sex and corrective feedback (0.113), as
This result contradicts the study of Wood (2012), which stated that female
teachers are more inclined to provide feedback that is nurturing and sensitive
On the other hand, it shows that older teachers and teachers with
longer length of service are more likely to provide corrective feedback in the
to the younger ones. This is primarily because older teachers are more familiar
value>0.05). Therefore, results are only limited to the respondents and cannot
be generalized.
41
Sex and
Corrective 0.113 very weak 0.598 Not Significant
Feedback
Length of service
And Corrective
Feedback 0.066 very weak 0.761 Not Significant
beliefs and corrective feedback (0.824), this tells us that that teachers with
feedback in the classroom. This finding aligns with the research carried out by
beliefs.
42
students in this specific setting, leading them to believe that offering correct
was observed that teacher corrects students’ pronunciation most of the time
revealed that there is very strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis since
On the other hand, this result contradicts the study conducted by Kim
and Mostafa (2021) which revealed that teachers’ beliefs are not always in line
with their actual classroom practices related to the use of different types of oral
corrective feedback. With this it was suggested that other factors may play
feedback. These factors could include error type, instructional context, and
Feedback
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
aimed to determine the beliefs and types of oral corrective feedback employed
influence their beliefs and types of oral corrective feedback used in the
emphasize the need for specific techniques to correct spoken errors and
illustrating the diversity in teachers' beliefs and how these beliefs influence
teachers’ beliefs and the types of oral corrective feedback used in classroom.
recognizing specific techniques for error correction. This implies that a one-
context and investigate how cultural factors my influence teachers’ beliefs and
LITERATURE CITED
Asonto, S. M., Calleja, S. J., Panza, C. A., Reynoso, Z., & Rocha, N. E.
(2021). Effects of corrective feedback to improve second language (l2)
learners’ performance in communication.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the
L2.
Choi, S.-Y., & Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in a child
ESOL classroom. RELC Journal, 43(3), 331–351.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212463274
DeKeyser. (2007). Skill acquisition theory and its important concepts in SLA.
Dela Cruz, G. & Wong, J. (2022). Exploring the role of corrective feedback
preference on the senior high school’s metacognition and critical
thinking skills. Professional Journal For, By and Of Teachers, 3(1), 12.
48
Ha, X., Nguyen, L., & Hung B. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a
foreign language classroom: A teaching and learning perspective.
Heliyon. 7(7), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550.
Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Ammar, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2018). Oral
corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language
teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research,
24(2), 220– 249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818787546
Kim, Y & Mostafa, T. (2021). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs and perspectives
about corrective feedback. Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Corrective feedback and learner’s uptake.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66.
https://doi.org/10/1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00019.x.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2012). Oral corrective feedback in second
language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000365
49
Méndez, E., & Cruz, M., (2019). Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective
feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms.
Mulati, D. F., Nurkamto, J., & Drajati, N. A. (2020). The teachers’ beliefs in
teacher written corrective feedback on the students’ writing. Journal of
Applied Linguistics and Literature, 5(1), 1-10.
https://dx.doi.org/10.33369/joall.v5i1.7644e
Sa'adah, L., Nurkamto, J., & Suparno, S. (2018). Oral corrective feedback
exploring the relationship between teacher’s strategy and students’
willingness to communicate. Studies in English Language and
Education, 5(2), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i2.11532
Saeb, F. (2017) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions and preferences for Oral
corrective feedback: Do they match? International Journal of Applied
Linguistics & English Literature 6(4).
http://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.4p.32.
50
Sari, D., Kasim, U., & Achmad, D. (2022). An analysis of oral corrective
feedback applied by the English teachers in EFL classrooms. Research
in English and Education, 7(4), 180-187.
Sepehrinia, S., Fallah, N., & Torfi, S. (2020). English language teachers’ oral
corrective preferences and practices among proficiency groups. Profile:
Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 22(2), 163-177.
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v22n2.82369.
Zaire, N. (2015). The relationship between genre and age and corrective
feedback. ICT for learning.
Zubaidah, R., Fitriawan, D., Yusmin, E., Nursangaji, A & Mirza, A. (2021).
Corrective feedback, Self-Esteem and Mathematics Learning
Outcomes. Al-Jabar: jurnal Pendidikan Matematika 12(132). ISSN:
2540-7562
APPENDICES
53
If applicable
Appendix A. Application for Change of Research Adviser
Date: ______________________
Sir / Madam:
I would like to request for change of thesis adviser for the following reasons:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________.
I am hoping for your favorable approval on this request. Thank you very much.
_________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of Student
______________________________ _______________________________
Department Research Coordinator Department Chairperson
_______________ _______________
Date Date
APPROVED CONFORME
_________________________________ _____________________________________
Adviser (New) Adviser (Old)
______________ ______________
Date Date
USM-EDR-F12-Rev.3.2020.02.24
54
Appendix B. Application for Change Research Title (if applicable)
______________________________________________
Chairperson, Department of ______________________
SIR/MADAM:
I would like to request your office to allow me to research on the study entitled
“____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________.”
_________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of Student
NOTED
______________________________ ________________
Adviser Date
______________________________ ________________
Department Research Coordinator Date
_____________________________ ________________
College Research Coordinator Date
APPROVED
_____________________________ ________________
Department Chairperson Date
Appendix
USM-EDR-F03-C. Actual Budget of the Research (additional form)
Rev.3.2020.02.24
55
Grand Total
_______________________________________
Printed Name and Signature of the Student
NOTED
_______________________________________ ___________________________
Adviser Date
_______________________________________ ___________________________
Department Research Coordinator Date
_______________________________________ ___________________________
Department Chairperson Date
Appendix D. Application for Manuscript Defense
56
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL:
JACINTA T. PUEYO, PhD _______________________________
Adviser Co-Adviser (Optional)
APPROVED:
APPROVED:
_____________________
Date
USM-EDR-F08-Rev.3.2020.02.24
CURRICULUM VITAE
57
CURRICULUM VITAE
(You may add
HONEY GENE V. VALDEZ some more
Batiocan, Libungan, Cotabato appendices for
raw or processed
09751971289 data, pictures
hvvaldez@usm.edu.ph etc.. as Appendix
E, Appendix F
and so and the
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Last Name
First Name
Middle Name
Nickname
Age
Nationality
Religion
Civil Status
Father’s Name
Mother’s Name
Educational Background
Elementary
Tertiary
58