INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORS OF THE SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

IN
CRITICAL READING AND EFFECTIVE WRITING AS DETERMINANTS
TO STUDENTS’ LEARNING ACHIEVEMENTS
 ABSTRACT:

• This study inferentially analyzed: The significant differences in students’ learning achievements, instructional components,
critical reading and effective writing skills when grouped according to colleges. The significant correlations among the
components of learning achievements and instructional factors. The significant components contributory to the English
Teachers’ instructional factors. The significant model for students’ learning achievements as explained by the teachers’
instructional factors, critical reading and effective writing skills. Findings revealed highly significant differences in the majority
of the components of students learning achievements, the teacher’s instructional factors, the critical reading and effective
j8778writing with the students in either of the College of Engineering and College of Education that took the lead at low to
average levels which proved to have the feasibility of enhancing the instructional capabilities of the Teachers to provide
interventions that would suit to the needs of the students in enhancing their critical thinking skills. Nine pairs of significant
components were found from Low to High strengths of positive correlations to infer that there existed significant
correlations among instructional factors, learning achievements and GPA. These significant bivariate relationships attested the
increasing trends at average to high level trends of scores. Significant components that contribute most to the Teacher’s
Instructional Factors were extracted with three items of strategies in the first three domains such as Mastery of the Subject
Matter with the maximum rotated variance of 74.11%. For the Teacher’s Personality Traits, three significant components
contribute most a total Eigenvalues of 56.59% as maximum rotated variance. Teaching Means at 50.10% and Student’s
Independent Learning at 49.93%. The Teachers’ instructional model in the acquisition of the second language through
critical reading and effective writing proved to be weak at an adjusted R2 of 8.20% which implied of unexplained variables at
91.80% worthy for the inclusion in future research.
 1. INTRODUCTIONS
• In the quest to maximize students’ learning achievements, the best tools for educators are teaching materials with syllabus design, teaching
means, teaching quality through explicit instructions and teachers’ personality traits to influence second language acquisition (Braun et al.,
2017; Scott and Beadle, 2014).
• English language acquisition in college involves critical reading and effective writing which are the most important language skills our students
must advocate to critically think. These skills are necessary for engaged learning in all other academic subjects that eventually create many
opportunities to increase their chances of school success (Moon, 2014; International Literacy Association 2017).
• Employers have reported that critical reading and writing skills are essential in the preparation for today’s workplace. Additionally, 75% of
these employers have wanted employees with stronger focus on written communication skills (Moore, 2017).
• On the other hand, the study of Arum (2013) has followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college and found that
large numbers do not learn the critical reading and writing skills that are assumed to be at the core of college education.
• In Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental two researches revealed the same scenarios, to wit: Bolo (2014) found average rating of senior high
school students in English Proficiency Test in six selected secondary schools. Emoy (2014) also disclosed low ratings of CPSU-Main freshmen
in English Proficiency Test.
• There is a need to examine the instructional factors that may influence the acquisition of critical reading and effective writing for the alarming
high percentage of students’ deficiency with these skills (Breaky, 2017).
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

• Generally this study investigates the instructional components of the second language acquisition of the Teachers and the
critical reading and effective writing skills of the third year college students across the college departments in Central
Philippines State University (CPSU) Main Campus. Specifically, this addresses to answer the following questions:
• 1. What is the profile of the third year college students when grouped according to colleges?
• 2. What are the levels of students’ learning achievements, perceived levels of the English teachers’ instructional factors,
critical reading and effective writing skills when classified according to colleges?
• 3. Is there a significant difference in students’ learning achievements, perceived instructional factors, critical reading and
effective writing skills when classified according to colleges?
• 4. Is there a significant correlation among the components of learning achievements and instructional factors?
• 5. Is there a significant component contributory to the English Teachers’ instructional factors?
• 6. Is there a significant model for students’ learning achievements as explained by the teachers’ instructional factors, critical
reading and effective writing skills?
 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE
STUDY
• This study takes its theoretical leanings to two frameworks. The first is constructivist teaching-learning
• theory as presented by Saskatchewan School Boards Association Research Center (SSBA RC, 2012) and next is the second language reading
comprehension curriculum and instructional framework established by Ghaith (2018).
• SSBA RC (2012) avers that constructivist teaching-learning theory is based on the belief that learning occurs when the students are actively
involved in a process of constructing meaning and knowledge rather than passively receiving information.
• According to North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL, 2013), constructivist teaching fosters explicit instructions with
critical thinking and creates motivated, engaged and empowered independent learners by Teachers as facilitators. Classroom instructions are
explicit with the construction of lessons in small groups whose environment is democratic, interactive and student centered (Azariah, 2013).
• The next is the second language reading comprehension curriculum and instructional framework is based on Ghaith (2018). This considers
strategies in Fluency, Vocabulary, Metacognitive Awareness as well as Critical Thinking.
• Schmitt (2014) presents vocabulary strategy as learning by using dictionaries, asking questions to others with cognitive and metacognitive
skills. Skills in grammatical complexities provide automaticity in word recognition and better textual comprehension (Fatemipour and
Moharamzadeh, 2015; Schano, 2015).
• Background knowledge is students’ direct experiences from parents and teachers with the existing clusters of information called schemata.
Teachers of reading use graphic organizers to effectively build text structures to enhance metacognitive and critical reading strategies
(Keshavarz and Assar, 2011; Roe and Smith (2012).
 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE
STUDY
• The conceptual frameworks are pinned to three models. First is the teachers’ effective
characteristics model by Kural (2008) with domains, such as: Mastery of the Subject Matter,
Teacher’s Personality Traits, Teaching Methods, Teaching Students’ Independent Learning.
Second is the explicit instructional model as presented by the National Center on Accessing
the General Curriculum [NCAC] in Wenku Baido (2013) which is a systematic instructional
approach that includes set of delivery and design procedures derived from effective schools
research merged with behaviour analysis. Third is the model of the Theory of the
Excessive by the Dome Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Reviewer (2012) which assumes
that the test maker is not as creative as the test taker might assume. Whenever a taker
approaches a SAT reading and writing based passage questions, one must focus on the
language. Each reading and writing based passage questions are connected to five possible
answer choices.
 2. METHODOLOGY

• Research Design
• This study used inferential analyses with the factors influencing the second language
acquisition and as determinants for students’ learning achievements. There were five
components for English language acquisition, these were: 1. Teacher’s Personality Traits. 2.
Mastery of the Subject Matter. 3. Teaching Materials and Syllabus Design. 4. Teaching
Means and Methods. 5. Teaching Quality and Students’ Independent Learning. All of these
five domains had 15 strands as rated by the respondents.
• As to students’ learning achievements, these were the last school year’s second semester
subjects with general percent average (GPA), to wit: Mathematics, English, Social
• Science and General Science (Chemistry or Biology).
 LOCALE OF THE STUDY

• This study was conducted in Central Philippines State University (CPSU)-

Main Campus in Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental in April to May 2018.
 RESPONDENTS OF THE STUDY

• There were 200 third year students out of 525 or 35% in five colleges of
CPSU-Main who participated in this study by convenient sampling. These
were: 1. College of Agriculture, 40. 2. College of Arts and Sciences, 40. 3.
College of Engineering. 4. College of Criminal Justice Education, 40. And, 5.
College of Education, 40. They had accomplished in filling in the
questionnaire and had rated the checklists for the instructional factors of the
second language acquisition with the Critical Reading and Writing.
 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

• One set of instrument was administered for demographic profile and the
components influencing the second language acquisition accomplished and rated by
the respondents. The means and descriptive levels of the GPA were as follows:
75%-79%: Low (L) level; 80%-84%: Average (A); 85%-89%: High (H); 90%-94%:
Very High (H); 95%-100%: Excellent (E) level.
• For the 5 domains in the influencing factors of the
• second language acquisition, the mean and the descriptive
• levels were as follows: 4.21-5.00: Very High (VH) level; 3.41-4.20: High (H); 2.61-
3.40: Average (A); 1.81-2.60: Low (L); 1.00-1.80: Very Low (VL) level.
 Summary of Findings
• There are 200 students as participants of this study
• equally flow rated in five Colleges at 40 students per college by convenient
sampling. The sample size of the Females and Males is apparently distinct
depending on the particular college where these students dominate. More
female students are found by more than 30% in College of Arts and College
of Education. And males are in greater numbers in College of Agriculture,
College of Engineering and College of Criminal Justice Education.
• In students’ academic performance in general percent average (GPA), three
Colleges have settled for Average levels with College of Agriculture (CA) at
82.65%, College of Arts and Sciences, 83.90%, and, College of Criminal
Justice Education at 80.95%. Students with High GPA are found in College
of Engineering with 87.41% and College of Education at 87.80%.
• There is a total mean of 84.04% for Average level in students’ learning
achievements based on the second semester’s average grades in school year
of 2017 to 2018 paving the way to the students in College of Education and
Engineering to score High respectively at 87.22% and 86.94%. While those
students in College of Agriculture, College of Arts and Sciences and College
of Criminal Justice Education register at Average levels accordingly at
82.24%, 83.18% and 81.08%.
• There is a Low level at 2.58 of the English Teachers instructions with respect
to critical reading and effective writing of the third year students across the
disciplines in five different colleges. In particular, of the five colleges, low
levels are found to Mastery of the Subject Matter with 2.25; Low level at 2.44
for Teacher’s Personality Traits. Average levels in Teaching Means at 2.93 and
Teaching for Students’ Independent Learning with 2.69 to make a Total
Mean of 2.58 for Low level. For all the five colleges, except for College of
Educaton, all of them have rated Average for the English Teachers
instructional applications to critical reading and effective writing.
• The Total Mean score for the students’ Critical
• Reading and Effective Writing is 6.08 for Average level. Specifically, two colleges
have garnered the scores at Low levels such as: The College of Agriculture, 4.39 and
College of Criminal Justice Education at 5.49. While three colleges have registered
at Average levels at 6.48, 6.39 and 6.52 respectively for College of Arts and
Sciences, College of Engineering and College of Education.
• There are perfect significant mean differences of the five components in terms of
GPA, Mathematical Sciences (ms), English Subjects (ss), Social Sciences, and,
General Sciences when grouped according to Colleges. These results have made the
null hypotheses rejected to conclude that Students of College of Education have
taken the lead in the GPAs at 87.80% among the colleges and between the Students
in the College of Engineering with 87.41% a Mean Difference (MD) of .30,
followed by the College of Arts and Sciences and the fourth is College of
Agriculture.
• As to Mathematical Sciences, the College of Education students have
emerged the highest at 87.65% followed by the Engineering students as
86.66% with a difference of .99, then followed by College of Arts and
Sciences, College of Agriculture then the College of Criminal Justice
Education. Using stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, Model 2
provides the two highly significant variables at p=.000 and p=.001 with the
constant at p=000 out of eight components used in this study to reject the
null hypothesis and infer that there exists a significant model of the third
year students’ learning achievement in CPSU-Main. Generally the
qualification of its significance is based on the F-test or the analysis of
variance value at 14.86 which is highly significant (p=.000) for all the
variables to be analyzed in the model estimation. Based on its predicted
value, this is not a good estimation model to be used for prediction of third
year students’ learning achievements for the next period of assessment.
 CONCLUSIONS
• Based on the inferentially analyzed results, the following conclusions are drawn.
• The highly significant differences in the majority of the components of students learning achievements, the teacher’s
instructional factors, the critical reading and effective writing with the students in either of the College of Engineering and
College of Education that takes the lead at low to average levels prove to have the feasibility of enhancing the instructional
capabilities of the Teachers to provide interventions that will suit to the needs of the students to enhance their critical
thinking skills.
• Nine pairs of significant components that are extracted from low to High strength of positive correlations to infer that
there exist significant correlations among instructional factors learning achievements and GPA. These significant bivariate
relationships attest the increasing trend at average to high trends of directions also.
• Significant components that contribute most to the Teacher’s Instructional Factors are extracted with three items of
strategies in the first three domains such as Mastery of the Subject Matter with the maximum rotated variance of 74.11%.
For the Teacher’s Personality Traits, three significant components contribute most a total Eigenvalue of 56.59% as
maximum rotated variance. Teaching Means at 50.10% and Student’s Independent Learning at 49.93%. These have made to
conclude that the three components have influenced most of the Teacher’s Instructions in Critical Reading and Effective
Writing.
• The two significant explanatory variables in terms of Building Vocabulary
and Passage-Based Reading have proved to explain only at their very low
effect and with very low adjusted coefficient of determination. Therefore
this a weak prediction model, however would serve a bases for policy
formulaton and strategy implementation particularly with other variables not
included in the investigation.