The study examined the writing proficiency and learning activities of first-year college students. An

experimental research design was employed, involving two groups: the problem-based learning (PBL) group

and the cooperative learning (CL) group. Participants were randomly selected from sections A1B, C1C, and

E1F, with 10 respondents from each section. Both groups underwent a treatment or intervention program, and

their writing competency was assessed before and after the intervention using rubric. The Mann-Whitney U

test was used to determine any significant differences in their scores.

Based on the rubric-based evaluation, most students in both the PBL and CL groups demonstrated good

performance in writing, particularly in content, organization, vocabulary, sentence construction, and

mechanics. While their posttest results showed similar interpretations to the pretest, there was a notable

effectiveness of the activities. As for mechanics, problem-based learning showed a significant difference and

was found to be more effective than cooperative learning.

Overall, the use of problem-based and cooperative learning strategies contributed positively to students’

writing performance, suggesting that these approaches can be valuable tools for English teachers and

professors to enhance writing instruction.

Writing is one of the essential skills every individual should possess. It plays a crucial role in effectively

communicating information, whether in the public or private sector and views as a culturally and individually

intentional act (Berge, et al., 2016). However, writing requires adherence to specific guidelines and

solving.

According to Arends (2015), problem-based learning promotes higher-order thinking skills in contexts that

require learners to engage in critical and reflective problem-solving. This approach is also known as project-

based instruction, authentic learning, or anchored instruction. In contrast, cooperative learning was designed to

achieve multiple instructional goals: improving academic performance, fostering tolerance and appreciation for

diversity, and enhancing social skills.

Recognizing that writing is a social activity, the researcher developed a keen interest in exploring the impact of

learning strategies, specifically, problem-based learning and cooperative learning on students' writing

composition proficiency. This investigation aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of how these

instructional methods influence current and future writing performance among students. Thus, the study

With this, the study sought answers to the following questions:

1. What are the pre-test scores of problem-based learning group and cooperative learning group in writing

1.1. Content,

1.2. Organization,

1.3. Vocabulary,

1.4. Sentence construction, and

1.5. Mechanics?

2. What are the post-test scores of problem-based learning group and cooperative learning group in writing

4. Based on the result of the study, what work plan can be proposed to develop their proficiency in writing

The study focused on the writing proficiency and the learning activities among first year college students. The

students who were enrolled in English 200, Communication Arts 2, handled by the researcher. These groups

were academically heterogeneous. Problem-based learning and cooperative learning were used to determine its

influence on writing proficiency of the students, and the two types of learning were conducted for almost one

month. There was only limited time available to the students because of some school activities wherein they

are all required to attend.

This study used an experimental research design involving two groups: the problem-based learning (PBL)

All respondents were first-year students enrolled in Communication Arts II during the second semester of

Academic Year 2015–2016. Out of ten sections handled by the researcher, three A1B, C1C, and E1F were

randomly selected to participate in the study. A total of 30 students were assigned to either the PBL or CL

group, with each section contributing an equal number of participants. It was assumed that all sections

followed the same course objectives, received similar instructional supervision, and were subjected to uniform

assessment methods. These conditions were maintained consistently throughout the duration of the experiment.

Table 1. Gender Profile Of The Respondents

Section A1B is composed of first year BS Accountancy students. 10 students were randomly selected from this

section for problem-based learning and the sampling yielded 1 boy and 9 girls, 10 girls from section C1C

which constituted first year BS Business Administration students, and 3 boys and 7 girls from section E1F, the

first-year engineering students. For cooperative learning, 5 boys and 5 girls were randomly selected from

section A1B, 7 boys and 3 girls from section C1C, and 7 boys and 3 girls from section E1F.

instrument. Two data collection methods were utilized to examine the influence of learning activities on the

writing composition proficiency of first-year college students.

analysis, with each participant’s results from the PBL and CL groups recorded and organized for comparison.

To evaluate their initial writing competency, students in both the PBL and CL groups were first instructed to

write an essay (pretest) on a topic provided by the researcher. They were given 90 minutes to complete the

task, which was scored using a rubric adapted from the Brandywine School District Intermediate Writing

Rubric, aligned with A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. After this, the participants were

reminded of their scheduled intervention sessions.

The day following the pretest, the PBL intervention began. Students were grouped and assigned a real-life

problem scenario to solve. They were given 60 minutes during five class periods to research, write, and

organize their information—using textbooks, computers, or collaborating in-class with peers. Some groups

extended their work beyond class hours, either at home or elsewhere, to prepare presentations. During the

second week of PBL, each group presented their outputs to at least two other first-year sections taught by the

To maintain objectivity and fairness, the intervention sessions were observed by a supervising professor who

also contributed suggestions to enhance the activities. This oversight ensured that both interventions were

implemented consistently and equitably across the two groups. The entire study was conducted within the

Academic Year 2015–2016.

After completing all interventions, students were asked to write another essay (post-test) using the same format

assigned project was relevant, appropriate, and aligned with the materials available to the students, and it was

fairly assigned to all groups. The researcher took care to treat all respondents equally, respecting their rights

and maintaining the confidentiality of their results. Proper procedures were followed in terms of presenting,

gaining approval for, and conducting the study, ensuring ethical considerations were upheld throughout.

were used to display the number of students who received scores of 1, 2, 3, or 4 based on the writing rubric in

both the pretest and posttest. The mean scores represented the average performance of the respondents in the

Table 1.1. Pretest Scores On Writing Competency In Terms Of Content

respondents in PBL had structurally complete sentences, but produced occasional errors in word formation

Table 1.5. Pretest Scores On Writing Competency In Terms Of Mechanics

Legend: 3.50-4.00 – Excellent, 2.50-3.49 – Good, 1.50-2.49 – Poor, 1.00-1.49 – Needs Improvement

paper with the proper usage of cohesive devices. Similar to the CL group with the mean score of 3.03 also

Legend: 3.50-4.00 – Excellent, 2.50-3.49 – Good, 1.50-2.49 – Poor, 1.00-1.49 – Needs Improvement

As shown in table 2.4, the respondents in both PBL (weighted mean=3.30) and CL (weighted mean=2.83)

complete thought. For this, Froyd and Simpson (2010) synthesized that learner-centered provide opportunities

for feedback and improvement throughout the learning process leading to evaluation and judgment at the end

of the learning process.

As illustrated in table 2.5, the respondents of problem-based learning with the mean score of 3.02 revealed as

good in following the rules of capitalization, punctuation, and agreement of subject, verb, and pronoun.

Table 2.5. Posttest Scores On Writing Competency In Terms Of Mechanics

Daly (2014) theoretically gave his expectation that students with low apprehensive scored significantly better

on comprehensive tests of grammar, mechanics, and larger concerns in writing skills, but the overall mean

score of the respondents using problem-based learning is 3.20 and 2.87 is the mean score of the students using

The third purpose of the study is to determine the difference in the pretest and posttest scores of the

respondents using problem-based learning and cooperative learning. The result was illustrated in the table

below with the discussion.

Table 3. Difference In The Pretest And Posttest Scores Using Problem-Based Learning And Cooperative

Test used: Mann Whitney U test at 5% Level of significance

The pre-test and post-test scores of the respondents using problem-based learning and cooperative learning was

computed using the Mann Whitney U Test to determine the difference of the two groups.

The findings highlighted the difference of PBL and CL in terms of content, organization, vocabulary, sentence

However, to compare the result of the two groups in terms of content, cooperative learning has significant