Vol.

6 May 2011 ISSN 20123981

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v6i1.136 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Journal

Development and Validation of Modules in

English 2: Writing in the Discipline
MARDIE D.EMOTIN-BUCJAN
mardie_bucjan@yahoo.com.ph
Surigao del Sur State University
Tandag Campus, Philippines

Abstract - Writing is one of the four macro-skills

to be developed in language among the students. This
paper focused on the Development and Validation of
Modules in English 2: Writing in the Discipline. The
modules aimed to enhance the basic organizational,
judgmental and mechanical writing skills of students
as they follow the writing process while performing
written tasks and assignments required for their
academic pursuits. The study utilized a content
validated feedback questionnaire for the pool of experts,
instructors and students. The study employed the
descriptive method of research. The study underwent
the four phases of material development namely:
design phase, development phase, field-try out phase,
and evaluation phase based on Johnson’s Model (1998).
The gathered data were statistically treated using
the arithmetic mean and analysis of variance. The
results of the study reveal that the contents; activities,
exercises and techniques used in the modules were
varied allowing the students to work independently
and creatively; the over-all assessment of the pool
of experts, teachers and students revealed that the

65
JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Journal

modules were appropriate to the level and needs of the

students; These conclusions were drawn: the varied
activities and techniques used in the modules were very
helpful to the learners, and the tandem of teaching and
learning was evident allowing the students to work
independently; the modules were very relevant and
very useful for use in the class because these answer
the need of the students to improve writing skill.(3.)
The format, contents and organization of the modules
were generally commendable as perceived by the
three- group of evaluators.

INTRODUCTION

Writing is one of the four macro-skills to be developed in language

among the students. It is vital for every student to develop this skill
because as part of his academic training, a college student is required
to write research papers, summarize articles, and write book reports,
movie reviews and other related activities which need the ability to
write accurately and clearly.
The primary purpose of writing is communication (Alcantara, et. al
2003). Business world, academic world and the like require the ability
in writing so that one can cope with the rapid increase of technological
know-how due to the continuously changing world. The present age
requires a great deal of writing skills.
The students communicate with people from outside their
classrooms like their family, peers, officials and the like wherein they
convey information that is real and necessary for their existence. As
explained by Giddens & Lobo (2008) writing is a fundamental skill and
valuable learning that involves application, analysis and synthesis. The
essence of writing underlies with the communicative task. For Worley
(2008), writing is an important communication skill that encompasses
much more than technology education- it is a life skill.
The need for the language teachers to make their students feel
the importance of mastering the skill, CHED issued Memorandum 30
series of 2004 specifying certain courses to be included in the General
Education Curriculum which cater to the development of the Filipino

66
 Development and Validation of Modules
in English 2: Writing in the Discipline

learners in writing skill. This is English 2: Writing in the Discipline.

This course aims to develop the student’s competence in writing.
Writing in the discipline is based on the premise that each learner must
be equipped with this very important skill- writing.
According to Nicosia (2005), one attempt to meet the challenge
with the need to improve students’ basic language skills in writing
is to incorporate more writing assignments into classrooms across all
disciplines. On the other hand the learning of students is well facilitated
when the teacher is on the right pace of teaching his/ her students.
The mark of a teacher who has grown in chosen area of specialization
is his/her ability to organize and develop curriculum materials suited
to children’s level of readiness and understanding (Salandanan 2009).
Salandanan further stressed that instructional materials offer the best
means by which a teacher can provide direction in her student’s daily
search for new understanding and verifications, particularly by the
use of printed materials. The researcher advocates the need to develop
instructional materials such as modules to further help the learners
acquire basic skills. Teachers are encouraged to create modules in such
away strategies and activities that are readily available would help
eliminate their inferiority in developing the writing skill in them. The
researcher contest the idea of developing modules as teaching materials
for English 2 because there is no main textbooks or prescribed books to
be used by the students. In so doing, in this way the students can have
readily available materials for the course. This is supported by Vitasa
(2006), who stresses that the development and the use of self-made –
instructional materials as one strategy can help develop their skills in
writing. The study is purposely made to answer the call for the need
of instructional materials which help students develop confidence
in writing because a good hand at writing is apparently an edge in a
competitive world where ability and proficiency in English language
is called for.

FRAMEWORK

The development of modules and other teaching materials is a

better initiative of a teacher who is very concern on every learning
output of the students. Vitaza (2006) cited The Richard Arrend’s

67
JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Journal

Theory on effective teaching. This stresses the characteristics of an

effective teacher as “one who has the repertoire of best strategies that
can help them improves the teaching learning process”. The teacher’s
innovative style and creativity help the students to acquire necessary
skills in language.
In coming up with the idea of designing the instructional
materials, the researcher referred to some models and theories such
as that of Collin (1998) in Prado (2004) which discusses four steps
intended to respond to the learning needs of the students. Others
like the instructional design theory, Johnson’s model and Dosinaeg’s
writing skills development model gave the researcher insights in
designing modules for a writing class. The present study is adapting
the instructional design theory. According to Smith (2009) instructional
design theory is the study of how to best design instruction so that
learning will take place.
The most common model used for creating instructional materials is
the ADDIE model; these acronym stands for five phases of the material
development; A stands for Analyze - analyze learner characteristics,
and task to be learned, D for Design - develop learning objectives and
choose an instructional approach, D for Develop - create instructional
or training materials, I for Implement - deliver or distribute the
instructional materials and E for Evaluate - make sure the materials
achieved the desired goals. This is also anchored on Johnson’s model
as used by Delfin (2004). The model shows the four phases of material
development namely: Design phase, development phase, field try-out
phase and evaluation phase.
Another important model considered in this study is the Dosinaeg’s
writing skill development model in Clarpondel (2002) which stresses
that materials should provide stimulus to learning. It says that
learning is really about the increased probability of a behavior based
on stimulus. The instructional materials make available the ability to
write and empower students with sense of efficacy and achievement.
Therefore the need to see learning as an activity without beginning or
end and to create the right environment and materials for continued
learning is a good stimulus to the learning process of the students.
This is anchored on the theory of Krashen as cited by Schutz
(2007), the theory of second language acquisition in one of his five

68
 Development and Validation of Modules
in English 2: Writing in the Discipline

major hypotheses; the input hypothesis which suggests the idea that
“comprehensible input +1” a kind of formula in the selection of text,
tasks and activities for the learners to be challenging and motivating
for their optimum learning. The modules must bear tasks and activities
something beyond the familiar and a little beyond their experience. In
writing, the students must have the schema on other language skills
such as grammar, spelling, vocabulary and punctuations so that he
can process and organize his thoughts on paper. Writing requires
knowledge and focuses thought. Meanwhile, in order to write
students must have something to say and he must have the schema on
the different stages of process approach in writing. According to Kroll
(19991) in Rico and Weed (2006) the process approach is particularly
important for English learners who are developing their oral language
skills at the same time their written skills because it involves more
interaction, planning and reworking.
The process approach is a very significant approach as to give the
learners opportunities to explore in processing their thoughts and
ideas into their papers. It is therefore practical to consider that there is
actually a writing procedure involved in composition writing. These are
the three general stages; pre-writing, writing and post- writing. These
allow the students to organize, develop and refine concepts and ideas
that make writing a rewarding activity. Writing is a very essential skill
to be mastered among the learners. However, learning to write is not an
overnight task. As Gershovich in Warner (2008) points out, “Freshmen
English isn’t a magic pill you take to make yourself write well for the
rest of your college career”. Mastery of this language skill is long and
a continuous process. In this sense, college instructors play the very
significant role in helping their learners achieve and master the skill.
To design self-instructional materials needed in a particular discipline
is tough but challenging so that students from the different walks of life
are able to benefit from it. The development of instructional materials
provide the students a variety of activities of academic writing that
enable them to articulate their ideas properly even with considerable
attention of accuracy rather than on the fluency of the language use.
Most people agree that writing skills are equally important and yet
oftentimes not adequately taught in the classrooms. It is in this view
that the researcher has conceptualized and to this effect the researcher

69
JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Journal

is inspired to develop teaching modules for writing. These modules

provide the students a unique avenue to learn writing process which is
based on the premise of writing in the discipline of CMO no. 30 s.2004.
This is on the concept that learners must be equipped with this very
important language skill - writing.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the study is the development and validation

of teaching modules for English 2: Writing in the discipline. Specifically
this study aimed to: identify the contents and activities of the lessons
to be developed in the modules;point out the appropriateness of the
developed lessons in the modules as perceived by the pool of experts,
instructors and students; determine the significant difference between
the perceptions of the students, instructors and the experts on the
modules format, content and organizations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study employed the descriptive method of research. The

descriptive type of research is appropriate for gathering information
about existing condition and determines and reports the way things are
(Sevilla, 1994 as cited by Emotin, 2003). The study underwent the four
phases of material development namely: design phase, development
phase, field-try out phase, and evaluation phase based on Johnson’s
Model (1998) (in Delfin 2004).
The subjects of the study were the first year students of Surigaodel
Sur State University, Tandag Campus for the SY 2009-2010. This study
utilized the simple random sampling technique. This is a technique
where each member of the population has an equal chance of being
selected as subject. The entire process of sampling is done in a single
step with each subject selected independently of the other members
of the population (http://www.experiment-resources.com/simple-
random sampling.html). Out of the 10 sections for English 2 classes,
the researcher randomly chose the group of subjects for the study.
There were three sections of English 2 classes which were utilized as
subjects for the field try-out phase of the modules. Table 1 shows the

70
 Development and Validation of Modules
in English 2: Writing in the Discipline

total number of students per class.

Table 1. Subjects of the Study

Number of
Sections/ Course
Respondents
Bachelor of Secondary Education -BSED 44
Bachelor of Elementary Education -BEED 40
Bachelor of Science in Banking Administration- BSBA 51
Overall Total 135

The researcher tapped eight (8) English Language Experts from

the four accredited Higher Education Institutions of CARAGA Region
namely: PNU (Philippine Normal University)-Agusan Campus, FSUU
(Father SaturninoUriosUnivesrity, Butuan City, ASSCAT (Agusan del
Sur State College of Agriculture and Technology) Bunawan, Agusan
del Sur and SSPSC ( Surigao del State University) Tandag Campus,
there were two from each institution who were requested to scrutinize
the modules for content validation. The study utilized a content
validated feedback questionnaire for the pool of experts and students
to gather feedback on the modules developed and used in the class. The
researcher adapted the instrument of Kilem (2000). Adaptations were
made to fit the present study. The instrument went through content
validation from three English language experts. The three experts were
Professors coming from the SDSSU systems, one from SDSSUTagline,
Sand two from SSPSC Main Campus. In pursuing this development
and validation research, the researcher adapted and modified the
Johnson’s model of materials development. The study underwent
the four phases of material development: design phase, development
phase, field-try out phase, and evaluation phase. The gathered data
were statistically treated using the arithmetic mean and analysis of
variance. The weighted mean was used to get the general feedback of
the pool of experts who evaluated the modules and the instructors and
students who used the modules. The analysis of variance was used to

71
JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Journal

answer problem 3 and the hypothesis of the study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The contents and activities of the developed modules. T h e

study revealed that the activities and contents of the modules were
varied and very helpful to the learners. Teaching style and learning
style were in tandem allowing the students to work alone on the
different tasks presented in the modules.

The appropriateness of the developed modules as perceived by

the pool of experts, students and instructors. The second question
called for the appropriateness of the modules as perceived by the pool
of experts, students and instructors. To find out the appropriateness of
the materials; the modules were evaluated in two general parameters;
the format of the modules and the organization and contents.

The feedback of the experts; the grand mean of 4.66 which

gained a descriptive rating of outstanding based on the Likert’s
scale is the general expert’s feedback. There were six specific criteria
where the experts rated it very satisfactory and came out that the
“appropriateness of illustrations” got a mean of 4.38 a very satisfactory
rating when entire section is taken as one and the rest were rated
outstanding. This reflects the expert considered the varied activities
and exercises of module’s lesson appropriate and useful. As the other
experts commented; “the choice of reading text relating to sports, politics,
environment, entertainment and arts, culture and heritage is commendable.”
While other experts added; “the tasks are varied and well-organized;
teachers would have an easier time to adjust the activities to the level of the
learners.” The format and the contents and organization are generally
acceptable as perceived by the experts.
The feedback of the students; the two criteria set to measure
the modules show that the perceptions of the students resulted to
outstanding. The resulting grand mean of 4.71 is the general feedback
of the students. All of the 23 specific statements of the criteria set,
revealed that all of the students’ responses fall to outstanding. This
implies that the student’s enjoyed the activities and found the modules
as very useful materials, as they commented that the modules help

72
 Development and Validation of Modules
in English 2: Writing in the Discipline

them to develop their skill in writing. “It is good; it will not consume time
for nothing because of the many activities that will make our time useful in
improving our learning especially in writing”, one student commented.
“The modules are very interesting and very challenging to use for learning
process. It enhanced my writing skill and it developed more my critical
thinking ability. It stirred up my curiosity and insightful understanding about
the subject that were thoroughly explained in these modules. It motivated me
a lot,” other students added.

The teacher evaluation result; this is the feedback of the

instructors who implemented the modules in class. The specific
components on “the appropriateness of illustrations gained 4.33 and
topics which gained 4.45 a very satisfactory rating. This revealed that
very satisfactory rating is the lowest rating gathered so far. It can be
deduced that the over-all assessment of 4.68 is outstanding. This also
implies that the modules possessed the appropriate activities, exercises
and techniques in teaching and somehow very useful material to use
in the class. As one of them commented,” the module is cost-effective to
the learners, it allows independent teaching and learning, the activities and
exercises cater to the level of the student’s understanding”. “The teacher‘s
role is a facilitator and the class is very manageable, it lessened the teacher’s
burden in preparing instructional materials for the day’s lesson “, one of the
instructors added. The Grand mean of 4.68 is the over-all mean, which
is an outstanding rating. This goes to show that the three evaluators
have similar assessment on the modules format, organization and
contents.

The significant differences in perceptions

Table 2. Analysis of variance of the perceptions

Mean Perception Analysis of Variance

Decision
CRITERIA Critical Conclusion
Expert Instructors Students Computed on Ho
at 5%

Not Not
Format 4.48 4.60 4.65 0.77030 3.89
Rejected Significant

73
JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Journal

Organization Not Not

4.72 4.74 4.72 0.00495 3.15
and Content Rejected Significant

To determine if a significant difference exists in the perception of

the students and pool of experts on the format and organization and
content of the developed module, analysis of variance was applied and
the results of the analysis are presented in Table 7. With respect to
format, the analysis of variance yielded a computed value of 0.77030
which is lower than 3.89, the critical value at 5% significance level.
Thus, the null hypothesis is not rejected. This implies that the three
groups of evaluators of the modules have similar perceptions relative
to the format. In terms of the organization and content of the modules,
the analysis of variance yielded a computed value of 0.00495 which
is very much lower than 3.15, the critical value at 5%. Therefore,
null hypothesis is not rejected. This result would indicate that the
perceptions of the pool of experts, the instructors and the students
are relatively the same relative to the organization and content of the
modules.

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that the varied activities and techniques used
in the modules were very helpful to the learners, and the tandem of
teaching and learning was evident allowing the students to work
independently;the modules were very relevant and very useful for use
in the class because these answer the need of the students to improve
writing skill; the format, contents and organization of the modules
were generally commendable as perceived by the three- group of
evaluators.

LITERATURE CITED

Alcantara, R. D.
2003 Teaching Strategies for the Teaching of Communication Arts:
Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing. Katha Publishing
Co. Inc. Makati City

74
 Development and Validation of Modules
in English 2: Writing in the Discipline

Clarpondel, J.C.
2002 Proposed materials in Teaching Writing for Second Year High
School Students. Unpublished Thesis. PNU, Manila.
Delfin, L. B.
2004 Development and Validation of Modules for Supplementary
Reading for Grade IV Pupils. Unpublished Thesis. PNU,
Manila.

Emotin, M.D.
2003 Pronunciation Difficulty of Kamayo Students of Barobo
National High School: Basis for the Development of Oral
English materials. Unpublished Thesis. PNU, Agusan del Sur.

Gayeta, M. S.
2002 Improving the Compositions of Students through process
Approaching Writing. Unpublished Thesis. PNU, Manila.

Giddens, J.F. and Lobo, M.

2008 Analyzing Graduate Student Trends in Written Paper
Evaluation. Journal Nursing Education 47 no.10, 480-30

Kilem, MJ.G.
2000 The Development, Validation and Effectiveness of a Workbook
on the Reading Skills Achievement Level of College Freshmen
Students. Unpublished Dissertation. Cagayan Capitol College,
Cagayan de Oro C ity.

Nicosia, G.
2005 Developing an On-line Writing Intensive Course: Will It Work
for Public Speaking? Retrieved from http:// www.adprima.
com/ijim.htm.

Prado, J.O.
2004 Reading- based Instructional Materials and the Development
of the Language Proficiency of College Freshmen Students

75
JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Journal

of St. Theresa College in the CARAGA Region. Unpublished

Dissertation. UST. Manila

Rico, L D. and K. Z. Weed

2006 The Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development
Handbook Third Edition. Person Education, Inc. United State
of America.

Salandanan, G.
2009 Teacher Education ( Revised Edition) Katha Publishing
Co. Inc. Makati City

Schutz, R.
2007 Stephen Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition
retrieved from http://www.sk.com/br/sk-krash.html.

Smith, K.J
2009 Instructional Design Theory retrieved from http://www.
ic.arizona.edu/ic/edp511/isd1.html.

Vitasa, Z. O.
2006 Development and Validation of Prototype Instructional
Materials in Reading for Freshmen Engineering Students.
Unpublished Thesis. PNU, Manila.

Warner, F.
2008 Improving Communication Is Everyone’s Responsibility.
Retrieved from http:// www.heldref.org.

Worley, P.
2008 Not Just for English Classes: Writing Skills Essential in Tech Ed
Today. Retrieved from http:// www. Techdirections.com/

76