“Cowrite me if I’m wrong:” Effectiveness of proofreading activity + written corrective feedback in improving the writing mechanics proficiency of grade 5 learners

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 5, 1 - 22, 01.09.2025

Prince Dave Llaneza

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.61.12.5

Abstract

Developing strong writing proficiency empowers young minds to engage with the world around them in meaningful ways. The main goal of this study was to determine the effectiveness of ProAct Feedback (Proofreading Activity + Written Corrective Feedback) on grade 5 learners’ writing mechanics proficiency in Filipino. The study employed the one-group-pretest-posttest experimental research design. The researcher also utilized four-day proofreading progress scores, which were used to assess the writing mechanics proficiency of grade 5 pupils per day in the treatment phase. The participants in this study were the 20 purposively sampled grade 5 pupils in one section at the University of Saint Louis. Results show that the ProAct Feedback intervention substantially improves the pupils’ writing mechanics proficiency. The progression from "moderate" to "excellent" progress over the four-day treatment phase indicates that the ProAct Feedback is effective in enhancing writing mechanics proficiency levels, helping the participants reach and maintain high levels of competency from the third to the fourth day. Additionally, the analysis of the proofreading activity progress scores indicates that the intervention had a larger significant effect at the beginning of the intervention phase, with smaller effects over time. From the study’s findings, it can be inferred that learners instantly improve their writing proficiency through the use of innovative, engaging, self-corrective, and informative techniques such as ProAct Feedback. Hence, this research provides guidance for new policies intended to improve elementary learners’ writing proficiency.

Keywords

Filipino , Proficiency , Proofreading , Writing Mechanics , Written Corrective Feedback

Supporting Institution

University of Saint Louis

References

• Abbas, M. F. F., & Asy’ari, N. F. (2019). Mixed method: students’ ability in applying writing mechanics in analytical exposition text. ELT-Lectura [ELT-Reading], 6(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.31849/elt-lectura.v6i2.3138
• Akhtar, R., Hassan, H., & Saidalvi, A. (2020). The effects of ESL student's attitude on academic writing apprehensions and academic writing challenges. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(5), 5404-5412. https://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I5/PR2020247
• Avram, C., & Mărușteri, M. (2022). Normality assessment, few paradigms and use cases. Revista Română De Medicină De Laborator [Romanian Journal of Laboratory Medicine], 30(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.2478/rrlm-2022-0030
• Batalla, A. V., & Vera, P. V. (2019). Difficulties in English writing skills of sophomore college students. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles, 2(50), 232. Retrieved from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ferdinand-Bulusan/publication/333038112_Selecting_Potential_Instructional_Materials_ for_Literature_Teaching_in_the_21st_Century_Milieu_Findings_from_a_Systematic_Review_of_Literature/links/5cf9c531299bf13a38432b60/Selecting-Potential-Instructional-Materials-for-Literature-Teaching-in-the-21st-Century-Milieu-Findings-from-a-Systematic-Review-of-Literature.pdf
• Ben Mahria, B. B., Chaker, I., & Zahi, A. (2021). An empirical study on the evaluation of the RDF storage systems. Journal of Big Data, 8(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-021-00486-y
• Brown, D., Liu, Q., & Norouzian, R. (2023). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 27(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374
• Bruneforth M. (2018). The role of language of instruction in achieving SDG goal 4.5. European Educational Research Association. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2023), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. Retrieved from https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/23/contribution/46473
• Bülbül, S. (2020). Kruskal-Wallis testi ve Friedman testinin alternatif parametrik tekniklerle karşilaştirilmasi ve bazi parametrik ve parametrik olmayan çoklu karşilaştirma yöntemleri ile incelenmesi. Öneri Dergisi [Comparison of Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman tests with alternative parametric techniques and examination of some parametric and non-parametric multiple comparison methods. Honorary Journal], 4(15), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.735494.
• Charalampous, A., & Darra, M. (2023). The contribution of teacher feedback to learners’ work revision: a systematic literature review. World Journal of Education, 13(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v13n3p40
• Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Sustaining University English as a foreign language learners’ writing performance through provision of comprehensive written corrective feedback. Sustainability, 13(15), 8192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158192
• Ekanayaka, W. I., & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? System, 94, 102341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341
• Endley, M. J., & Karim, K. (2022). Effects of focused written feedback and revision in the development of explicit and implicit knowledge in EFL writing. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 30, 32–49. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2022.30.03
• Esmaeeli, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2020). The effect of direct versus indirect focused written corrective feedback on developing EFL learners’ written and oral skills. Language Related Research, 11(5), 124–189. https://doi.org/10.29252/lrr.11.5.124
• Garduce, S. J. S., & Baluyos, E. L. (2023). Common errors in grammar and mechanics in academic writing by senior high school students. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 5(6), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2023.v05i06.9135
• Garren, S. T., & Davenport, G. H. (2022). Using kurtosis for selecting one-sample t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 41(18), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.9734/cjast/2022/v41i1831737
• Ginting, R. R., Ginting, E. V., Hasibuan, R. J., & Perangin-angin, L. M. (2022). Analisis faktor tidak meratanya pendidikan di SDN 0704 Sungai Korang. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia [Analysis of the factors behind the unequal distribution of education at SDN 0704 Sungai Korang. Indonesian Journal of Education], 3(4), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.59141/japendi.v3i04.778
• Hikmah, N., Akmal, A., & Buffe, F. (2019). Writing skills of junior high school students of the University of Saint Anthony, Iriga City, Philippines. In Proceedings of the 2019 Ahmad Dahlan International Conference Series on Education & Learning, Social Science & Humanities (ADICS-ELSSH 2019) (pp. 156–159). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/adics-elssh-19.2019.8
• Jafary, M., Amani, S. F., & Benoit, B. (2023). Enhancing writing proficiency: the role of model essays as corrective feedback tools in IELTS writing task achievement and coherence/cohesion. English Language Teaching, 16(11), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v16n11p1
• Kadar, A. S., Darmuh, M. M., & R, W. a. U. (2023). Enhancing students’ writing proficiency through extended writing projects. Klasikal Journal of Education Language Teaching and Science, 5(1), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.52208/klasikal.v5i1.864
• Kaweera, C., Yawiloeng, R., & Tachom, K. (2019). Individual, pair and group writing activity: a case study of undergraduate EFL student writing. English Language Teaching, 12(10), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n10p1
• Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
• Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444819000247
• Lee, S. Y., & Yoo, S. A. (2023). The development of expository and narrative writing skills in upper elementary school students. Korean Association for Literacy, 14(2), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.37736/kjlr.2023.04.14.2.15
• Lee, Y. (2020). The long-term effect of automated writing evaluation feedback on writing development. English Teaching, 75(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.1.202003.67
• Li, C., Jiang, L., & Xu, W. (2019). Noise correction to improve data and model quality for crowdsourcing. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 82, 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.04.004
• Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004
• Mohsen, M. A. (2022). Computer-mediated corrective feedback to improve L2 writing skills: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(5), 1253–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211064066
• Münnich, R. (2023). Discussion of “probability vs. nonprobability sampling: from the birth of survey sampling to the present day” by Graham Kalton. Statistics in Transition New Series, 24(3), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.59170/stattrans-2023-033
• Pamungkas, R. D., & Amroni, A. (2021). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching writing cause effect at the eleventh grade of SMA Negeri 1 Grogol Kediri. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Proficiency [Journal of English Language Teaching Proficiency], 3(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.32503/proficiency.v2i2.1385
• Patwary, M. N., Alam, M. S., & Reza, M. M. (2023). exploring nuanced errors in Bangladeshi tertiary EFL students’ writing mechanics: a pedagogical implication. Bulletin of Advanced English Studies, 8(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.31559/baes2023.8.2.5
• Privado, N. R., & Hermosa, J. F. (2023). Audio–visual input for improving the cognitive skills of grade 10 students in Araling Panlipunan. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Applied Business and Education Research, 4(5), 1632–1637. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.05.24
• Puengpipattrakul, W. (2021). Modeling the determinants of English writing performance: directions to interdisciplinary writing instruction. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 18(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.56040/wpmd1822
• Rahimi, M. (2019). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners’ writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 687–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819879182
• Rasool, U., Mahmood, R., Aslam, M. Z., Barzani, S. H. H., & Qian, J. (2023). Perceptions and preferences of senior high school students about written corrective feedback in Pakistan. SAGE Open, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231187612
• Sachar, C. O. (2020). Revising with metacognition to promote writing achievement. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v20i3.28675
• Sandrawati, A. A., & Jurianto, J. J. (2021). Investigating errors in writing mechanics in university students’ essays. Linguamedia Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.56444/lime.v2i1.2308
• Shinta, L. G. B., Astuti, U. P., & Ariani, N. (2023). College students’ preferences for written corrective feedback. ELT Forum Journal of English Language Teaching, 12(2), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.15294/elt.v12i2.57475
• Spink, J., Cheng, J., & Schwantner, U. (2021). Monitoring progress towards SDG 4 in Southeast Asia. Discover – School Education. Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://www.acer.org/ae/discover/article/monitoring-progress-towards-sdg-4-in-southeast-asia
• Syting, C. J. O., Malisobo, J. R., Salce, M., & Roasol, M. (2023). Teachers’ written corrective feedback strategies through the lens of the students. Journal Corner of Education Linguistics and Literature, 3(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.54012/jcell.v3i2.227
• Toba, R., & Noor, W. N. (2019). The current issues of Indonesian EFL students’ writing skills: ability, problem, and reason in writing comparison and contrast essay. Journal of Education, 19(1), 57-73. http://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1506
• UNESCO (2018). Meet the SDG 4 data: measuring youth and adult literacy and numeracy. Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/meet-sdg-4-data-measuring-youth-and-adult-literacy-and-numeracy
• Vacalares, N. S. T., Clarin, N. E., Lapid, N. R., Malaki, N. M., Plaza, N. V., & Barcena, N. M. (2023). Factors affecting the writing skills of the education students: a descriptive study. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(2), 1192–1201. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.18.2.0931
• Wirantaka, A. (2022). Effective written corrective feedback on EFL students’ academic writing. Eralingua: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Asing dan Sastra [Eralingua: Journal of Foreign Language and Literature Education], 6(2), 387. https://doi.org/10.26858/eralingua.v6i2.34996.
• Yuantini, G., & Suryani, Y. (2022). Teacher's perception of early writing as a readiness skill in kindergarten. ThufuLA: Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Guru Raudhatul Athfal [ThufuLA: Raudhatul Athfal Teacher Education Innovation Journal], 10(2), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.21043/thufula.v10i2.17457.
• Yuliah, S., Widiastuti, A., & Meida, G. (2020). The grammatical and mechanical errors of students in essay writing. Jurnal Bahasa Inggris Terapan [Journal of Applied English], 5(2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.35313/jbit.v5i2.1763.
• Yuliawati, L. (2021). The mechanics accuracy of students’ writing. English Teaching Journal: A Journal of English Literature, Language and Education, 9(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.25273/etj.v9i1.8890
• Zabihi, R., & Erfanitabar, D. (2024). The revision effects of varying degrees of written corrective feedback explicitness on L2 learners’ writings. RELC Journal, 55(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211054649
• Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043