All learners make mistakes. This happens not only in the second language (L2); we even make mistakes in our lingua franca (L1). But errors are evidence that learners are internalizing and exploring the target language (TL). Since input is considered comprehensible through an interactive process, learners clarify, conform and repeat features of L2 they do not really understand or master. In the process, they depend on the manners of revision and editing for improvement. This study therefore, described the editing process performed in the student’s composition. This process was considered within the bounds of accommodation and restructuring theory. It attempted to delineate the effectiveness of teacher editing and peer correction in terms of improving the students’ texts. Thus, the study in general, hoped to identify a better strategy on text editing and text improvement.
The study used the text improvement process. It considered the instructional input on the target communication skill. For interventions, the control group used the teacher editing and the experimental group was subjected to peer editing. The assessment was descriptive that used frequency of revision on lexical categories, the size of revision and the functions of revision. Additional data were presented by the mean, standard deviation and F-test for overall quality, words, idea units and sentences. It also further discussed the F-test between the final drafts of the control and experimental groups. A total of 100 Common First Year students (CFY) of CLSU participated in this study. They belonged to two sections of CFY, S9 and S10.
Results revealed there was no significant difference in the types of lexical categories revised by both groups. The deviations were on the frequencies and percentage of instances. Verbs were the hardest category to revise and nouns were the easiest. Most students revised more the shorter structures (word level). Teacher editing improved the text of students more on grammatical – related corrections and on local level concerns. For both groups, substitution and deletion were commonly employed.
Based on the results, there was a highly significant difference between teacher editing and peer editing in terms of over-all quality (F=11.5583), number of words (F=12.718) and sentences (F=14.951). A significant difference was found in terms of number of idea units (F=1.153)
The experimental group found it comfortable in expressing their thoughts with the “freer” atmosphere thereby making their sentences longer. Addition was commonly employed in the revision. The control group, on the other hand, because of the “perceived imposition of the teacher’s corrections”, employed frequently deletion and substitution. However, because of the “consciousness” of the control group to corrections and suggestions, their texts significantly improved in overall quality. Although the final drafts of the experimental group were relatively longer because of the “freer atmosphere”, the compositions were not significantly improved by the interventions based on overall quality.
