CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter summarizes the findings based on the analysis of the

research problems. It presents the results, provides the researchers’

interpretations, and relates them to existing literature. The discussion

highlights the importance of the findings and their implications for future

research and practice.

What is the Writing Proficiency Level of Third-Year English Major

students of CBSUA-Sipocot in terms of Mechanics and Organization,

Grammar and Syntax Accuracy of the Writing, Content, and Context in

Writing?

Using Practical Writing Test (Essay Writing), this section presents the

writing proficiency level of third-year English major students of CBSUA-

Sipocot in terms of mechanics and organization, grammar and syntax

accuracy, and content and context in writing. TROUGH WHAT?

Table 1. Writing Proficiency Level of Third-Year English Major students

of CBSUA-Sipocot in terms of Mechanics and Organization, Grammar

and Syntax Accuracy of the Writing, and Content and Context in Writing

Grammar and Syntax

Mechanics and Organization Content and Context
Descriptive Accuracy
rating Frequency Frequency Frequency
Percent % Percent % Percent %
(N=79) (N=79) (N=79)
Distinguished 9 10.39 6 6.96 9 10.39
Superior 57 56.91 58 58.85 58 58.57
Advanced 12 9.97 15 12.25 11 8.91
Intermediate 1 0.60 0 0 1 0.62
Novice 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 77.872 78.073 78.509
Descriptive
Superior Superior Superior
rating
General weighted mean Interpretation
78.151 Superior
Legend:
90% - 100% Distinguished
70% - 89% Superior
50% - 69% Advanced
30% - 49% Intermediate
0% - 29% Novice

INTERPRET THE DATE RESULT (REVISE)

The results show that the Content and Context criteria rank first with a

mean score of 78.509. Secondly, Grammar and Syntax Accuracy has a mean

score of 78.073. Ranking last, the Mechanics and Organization category has

a mean score of 77.872. All categories meet the criteria for superior

proficiency, which reflects the respondents' capacity to write structured,

grammatically accurate, and stylistically varied texts that convey abstract and

concrete topics effectively. The general weighted mean of all parameters is

78.151 which is also classified as Superior.

The overall average writing proficiency of third-year English major

students is classified as Superior, with a mean score of 78.151. This indicates

that despite the presence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the students continue to

show strong writing competence aligned with advanced academic standards.

Their skills are evident in organizing ideas, maintaining grammatical accuracy,

and adjusting style and tone to various writing contexts.

(Reconstruct gagalang relationship in the result of the study; do

not just state related study, discuss its implication on the data drawn

from the findings) This implies that third-year English major students of

CBSUA-Sipocot demonstrate superior writing proficiency in mechanics,

grammar, and content, unlike first-year ESL learners in Gagalang (2020) who

struggled with grammar, vocabulary, and organization. Their performance

suggests improvement through training, practice, and feedback, aligning with

Zou et al. (2024) who stressed that varied tasks enhance writing, and

Kitjaroonchai (2022) who found collaborative writing boosts academic

outcomes. Similarly, Zhu (2024) showed that teacher feedback and self-

regulated learning strategies foster measurable gains in coherence, accuracy,

and overall text quality. Overall, the findings illustrate that writing proficiency is

not an isolated skill but a product of continuous exposure to challenging tasks,

collaboration, and reflective practice guided by an effective instruction. By

connecting with existing studies, the results confirm that targeted teaching

strategies provide a solid foundation for learners to meet higher academic

demands and develop the adaptability needed to succeed in diverse

communicative contexts.

What is the extent of usage of AI writing tools of Third-Year

English students in terms of Creating Sentences Structures, Grammar

Checking, and Constructing Concept and Context in Writing?

After using survey questionnaires in a form of checklist to gather the

data, this section presents the extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) is

integrated into the writing process of third-year English major students.

Table 2. The Extent of Usage of AI Writing Tools of Third-Year English

Students in terms of Creating Sentence Structures, Grammar Checking,

and Constructing Concept and Context in Writing

Table 2a. The Extent of Usage of AI Writing Tools of Third-Year English

Students in terms of Creating Sentence Structures

Weighted
Indicator Rank Description
mean
 1. I use AI-powered tools (e.g., Chatgpt, QuillBot, etc)
3.77 5 Reliant
to generate sentence structures for my written task.
2. I use AI to improve the clarity of my sentences 4.14 1 Reliant
3. I use AI to rephrase or paraphrase sentences for
4.13 2 Reliant
better readability
4. I depend on AI to correct sentence errors in
3.11 9 Moderate Reliant
academic or professional writing
5. I use AI to check if my sentence structure is
3.91 3 Reliant
appropriate for formal writing
6. I use AI-powered translation tools (e.g., Google
3.65 7 Reliant
translate) to construct sentences in another language
7. I use AI – generated sentences suggestion when
3.42 8 Reliant
writing essays or reports
8. I use AI tools to enhance my creative writing 3.78 4 Reliant
9. I use AI generated tools to ensure sentence
3.76 6 Reliant
coherence and fluency
10. I used AI-powered tools to generate well-
3.77 5 Reliant
structured sentences based on key ideas I provided
General weighted mean 3.744
Description Reliant

Legend:
4.21 -
5.00 Completely Reliant
3.41 -
4.20 Reliant
2.61 -
3.40 Moderate Reliant
1.81 -
2.60 Not Reliant
1 - 1.80 Completely Not Reliant

BRIEF INTERPRETATION

Table 2a presents the extent of usage of AI writing tools by third-year English

students in terms of creating sentence structures. The results show a general
weighted mean of 3.744, which is interpreted as “Reliant.” This indicates that
students often use AI tools to assist them in forming and improving sentence
structures. The highest-rated indicators are “I use AI to improve the clarity of my
sentences” (WM = 4.14) and “I use AI to rephrase or paraphrase sentences for better
readability” (WM = 4.13), both described as Reliant, suggesting that clarity and
readability are primary reasons for AI usage. Meanwhile, the lowest-rated indicator is
“I depend on AI to correct sentence errors in academic or professional writing” (WM =
3.11), interpreted as Moderate Reliant, implying that students still rely on their own
editing skills in this aspect. Overall, the findings reveal that while students rely on AI
tools to enhance sentence construction and coherence, they still demonstrate some
level of independence in ensuring grammatical accuracy.

Table 2b. The Extent of Usage of AI Writing Tools of Third-Year English

Students in terms of Grammar checking

Weighted
Indicator Rank Description
mean
1. I use AI-powered grammar checkers (Grammarly
3.38 3 Moderate Reliant
Premium) to review my writing
 2. I depend on AI to correct grammatical errors in my
academic or professional documents (e.g., Inquiry 3.19 9 Moderate Reliant
Letter, Application Letter, etc)
3. I use AI to check for spelling and punctuation
3.49 2 Reliant
mistakes in my writings
4. I depend on AI to suggest better word choices to
enhance the grammatical structures of my written 3.38 3 Moderate Reliant
work.
5. I depend on AI-powered grammar checkers to
reduce my need to manually review my work for 3.34 5 Moderate Reliant
errors.
6. I depend on AI-powered tools to check subject-verb-
3.28 7 Moderate Reliant
agreement in my writing
7. I use AI grammar checkers to improve the quality of
3.82 1 Reliant
my paperwork.
8. I depend on AI to ensure my writing follows the
3.35 4 Moderate Reliant
appropriate format of academic writing standards
9. I use AI for real-time grammar corrections when
3.33 6 Moderate Reliant
writing task / activities
10. I depend on AI-powered tools to detect run-on
3.27 8 Moderate Reliant
sentences and sentence fragments in my writing.
General weighted mean 3.383
Description Moderate Reliant

Legend:
4.21 -
5.00 Completely Reliant
3.41 -
4.20 Reliant
2.61 -
3.40 Moderate Reliant
1.81 -
2.60 Not Reliant
1 - 1.80 Completely Not Reliant

BRIEF INTERPRETATION

Table 2b shows that third-year English students are moderately reliant on AI writing
tools for grammar checking, with a general weighted mean of 3.383. The highest-
rated indicator, “I use AI grammar checkers to improve the quality of my paperwork”
(WM = 3.82), suggests that students use AI mainly to enhance their written outputs.
Meanwhile, the lowest-rated item, “I depend on AI to correct grammatical errors in my
academic or professional documents” (WM = 3.19), indicates that they still prefer
manual proofreading. Overall, students use AI tools as a helpful aid but not as their
primary means of grammar correction.

Table 2c. The Extent of Usage of AI Writing Tools of Third-Year English

Students in terms of Constructing Concept and Context in writing.

Weighted
Indicator Rank Description
mean
1. I use AI – powered tools to generate ideas for my
3.91 10 Reliant
writing
2. I depend on AI to assist me in constructing and
3.15 2 Moderate Reliant
organizing my thoughts before I start writing.
3. I use AI to expand on ideas and provide relevant 3.86 9 Reliant
 information
4. I use AI to verify if my writing aligns with the
3.37 6 Moderate Reliant
intended audience and purpose
5. I depend on AI-generated suggestions to help me
3.18 3 Moderate Reliant
develop a more coherent and well-structured content.
6. I use AI-generated summaries to condense complex
3.56 8 Reliant
ideas into simpler terms
7. I use AI to provide factual details and examples for
3.46 7 Reliant
my content.
8. I use AI to ensure my writing remains relevant and
3.3 5 Moderate Reliant
focused on the main topic
9. I depend on AI to identify and correct contextual
3.24 4 Moderate Reliant
inconsistencies in my writing
10. I depend on AI to refine my thesis statement or
2.98 1 Reliant
main argument in writing
General weighted mean 3.401
Description Moderate Reliant

Legend:
4.21 -
5.00 Completely Reliant
3.41 -
4.20 Reliant
2.61 -
3.40 Moderate Reliant
1.81 -
2.60 Not Reliant
1 - 1.80 Completely Not Reliant

BRIEF INTERPRETATION

Table 2c reveals that third-year English students are moderately reliant on AI writing
tools in constructing concept and context in writing, with a general weighted mean of
3.401. The highest-rated indicator, “I use AI-powered tools to generate ideas for my
writing” (WM = 3.91), shows that students mainly use AI for idea generation.
Meanwhile, the lowest-rated item, “I depend on AI to refine my thesis statement or
main argument in writing” (WM = 2.98), indicates limited dependence in developing
central arguments. Overall, the findings suggest that students utilize AI tools to assist
in brainstorming and organizing ideas but still maintain their own analytical and
conceptual writing abilities.

Table 2d. The Extent of Usage of AI Writing Tools of Third-Year English

Students in terms of Creating Sentence Structures, Grammar checking,

and Constructing Concept and Context in writing.

General Weighted
Extent of usage of AI Rank Description
mean
Creating Sentence strcutures 3.744 1 Reliant
Grammar checking 3.383 3 Moderate Reliant
Constructing Concept and Context In
3.401 2 Moderate Reliant
writing
Grand mean 3.509
Description Reliant
Legend:
4.21 -
5.00 Completely Reliant
3.41 -
4.20 Reliant
2.61 -
3.40 Moderate Reliant
1.81 -
2.60 Not Reliant
1 - 1.80 Completely Not Reliant

INTERPRET THE DATE RESULT (REVISE)

The findings show that for Creating Sentence Structures, the students

have a weighted mean of 3.744, ranking first, and are interpreted as Reliant.

In the criteria of Constructing Concept and Context in Writing, the students

received a weighted mean of 3.401, ranking second, and are considered

Moderately Reliant. In Grammar Checking, the students have a weighted

mean of 3.383, ranking third, and are also classified as Moderately Reliant.

The general weighted mean of all parameters is 3.509, which places the

students in the Reliant category.

The general weighted mean of 3.509 shows that the three categories

are classified as Reliant on AI. This indicates that students regularly use

artificial intelligence writing tools, which significantly affect the quality,

accuracy, and organization of their written work. The results suggest that AI

has become an essential part of their writing process, functioning both as

support and as a key factor in shaping their academic texts. This also implies

that while AI tools enhance students’ writing performance, they should still be

encouraged to develop their own critical and creative writing skills to maintain

balance between technological assistance and personal competence.

(Reconstruct the flow in a narrative form; DON’T JUST STATE RRL,

DISCUSS ITS RELATIONSHIP IN THE FINDINGS OUR STUDY) Findings

show that students significantly rely on AI to improve sentence accuracy,

grammar, and idea development. Baek et al. (2024) observed widespread AI

use for sentence editing, while Mahapatra (2024) found ChatGPT effective in

enhancing ESL learners’ accuracy. AI also supports organization through

outlines, topic refinement, and transitions (Alkamel, 2024; Xiao, 2025).

However, Farhan (2025) warned that over-reliance may reduce creativity, and

Zhai (2024) noted decreased critical engagement with frequent use. Overall,

the results reveal that AI enhances writing quality but should be used in

balance with independent skills.

Table 3. Relationship Between the Extent Usage of AI and the Level of

Writing Proficiency of Third Year English Major Students in terms of

Mechanics and Organization

Mechanics and
Grammar Accuracy Content and Context
Extent of usage of AI Organization
writing tool
Pearson Pearson Pearson
p-value p-value p-value
(r-value) (r-value) (r-value)
Creating sentences
-0.002 0.986 -0.058 0.612 -0.052 0.651
structures
Grammar checking 0.085 0.458 -0.012 0.913 0.054 0.634
Constructing Concept
-0.023 0.839 -0.107 0.348 0.013 0.907
and Context in Writing
Legend
p-value interpretation r-value interpretation
P < 0.001 Highly significant ±0.00 – 0.19 No/ very weak relationship
P < 0.01 Significant ±0.20 – 0.39 Weak relationship
P < 0.05 Marginally Significant ±0.40 – 0.59 Moderate relationship
P < 0.05 Not Significant ±0.60 – 0.79 Strong relationship
±0.80 – 1.00 Very strong relationship

INTERPRETATION AND IMPLICATIONS.

ELARDE – BRIEF INTERPRETATIONS (TABLE 2)

SOP 3 ELARDE

CHAPTER 4 ELARDE.

ADD 1 THEORY FOR SOP