Error reduction strategies in composition writing and teaching styles of language teachers in asist
Keywords:modeled strategy, guided strategy, independent strategy, writing, error reduction
This study determined the respondents' list of errors, as well as syntactic rules, lexical rules, mechanics, and the best writing strategies, such as modeled, guided, and independent writing, as well as their teachers' diverse teaching styles. For modeled writing, comma splice had 14 occurrences, while run-on had 0 instances, however for modeled writing, comma splice had 15 occurrences, while run-on sentences had 8 occurrences. Comma splice appeared 31 times in the independent writing, whereas run-on appeared 18 times. In modeled writing as for lexical rules, inconsistency of tense had the highest number of instances (47), whereas misused pronoun had the lowest number of occurrences (9). Still, in guided writing, inconsistency of tense has the largest frequency (50), followed by misused pronoun (eight). In independent writing, there were 32 instances of incorrect subject-verb agreement, but only two occurrences of misused prepositions. As to mechanics, for modeled writing, misspelling had 37 occurrences, while incorrect capitalization had 23 and incorrect punctuation had 21. Misspelling received 30 in guided writing, whereas incorrect capitalization received 7. Misspelling occurred 110 times in independent writing, whereas incorrect punctuation occurred 49 times. Although there was no significant difference in the errors made by respondents when creating compositions utilizing the various writing strategies—modeled, guided, and independent—there was a significant difference in syntactic rules and mechanics. For syntactic rules, modeled and independent writing have -.351 and guided and independent writing have -0.255, which are both greater than the index of 0.209. However, guided and independent writing had -0.452, which was higher than the mechanics index of 0.298. The facilitator had the highest frequency of three, while expert, formal authority, and delegator had the same two, and the personal model had only one. This suggests that the Laboratory High School language instructors place a premium on the teacher and student interactions personal aspect. A facilitator, according to Grasha (1995), directs and encourages students to ask questions, explore options, give alternatives, and encourage them to create criteria to make informed decisions. His ultimate purpose is to help them develop the ability to take initiative, behave independently, and be responsible. He consults with students on their projects and attempts to provide as much support and encouragement as possible. Furthermore, facilitator model teachers are more likely to focus on activities. This teaching method emphasizes student-centered learning, and students are given significantly greater responsibility for satisfying the needs of various learning tasks. Teachers frequently make activities for the group which requires active practicing, to solve problem and peer partnership. The personal model was the least popular of the teaching techniques employed by language instructors in their classes. Teachers who teach in a demonstrator or personal model style are more likely to provide teacher-centered lessons that emphasize demonstration and modeling. This sort of instructor serves students via a role model to display procedures and their skills as a guide or coach in assisting them to develop and apply the skills with a knowledge. The study concluded that independent writing can reduce errors in syntactic rules and mechanics but not in lexical rules. In addition, the facilitator as a language teacher's teaching style contributes to the decrease of syntactic rules and mechanics errors. Teachers should be encouraged to look into alternative error reduction writing strategies in order to acquire valuable feedback and use it for better and enhanced classroom instruction as a result of the findings and conclusions.