Development and Validation of a Basic Sentence Structure Worktext

Among the four skills of English language needed to learn, writing is considered the most complex process. Research shows that one of the difficulties students face is having a poor foundation in writing compound and complex sentence. They also added the importance of developing inadequate material that will address the difficulties for Filipino learners. This study aimed to develop, validate and test a basic sentence structure worktext that would help the students to improve their writing ability by developing mastery on basic sentence structures. Mixed-method research employing sequential exploratory strategy to collected and analyzed qualitative and quantitative data for the fulfillment of the objectives. It was carried out in a two-phase manner. Phase 1 was the development of the material, and phase two was the validation process. The validated module was tested to grade 8 students in a public high school in the Division of Pampanga, Mexico and the results revealed that the activities present on the worktext are varied. The findings also showed that the worktext contributed in the improvement of the students’ writing performance. Considering the aforementioned findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are hereby suggested: a certain standard and procedure, a standardized tool through experts; more time and exposure to students by teachers, training and seminars and supplementary crafted worktext especially for the teachers and students of Grade 8.


INTRODUCTION
Writing is considered the most complicated process among the four skills of English language needed to learn. Hedge (2000) found out that only 9% of the learners engage themselves in writing. Many researchers (Ashraf et al., 2016;Balal & Hago, 2015;Gustilo & Magno, 2012;Jimenez et al., 2013;Orbe, 2017) have studied this aspect of English learning like factors and difficulties of learners when it comes to expressing thoughts in writing. These studies have found out one common reason which is lack of ability to organize information to produce a coherent statement. Furthermore, Orbe (2017) specifically mentioned in her work that one of the difficulties students' faces is having an inferior foundation of writing compound and complex sentence. Therefore, Pablo & Lazaten (2018) have suggested that teachers should expose learners to different activities and offer regular academic writing exercises and training. They also added the importance of developing a material that will address the difficulties. Moreover, the studies of Cakir (2015), Kumar (2017), Rada (2017), and Tan (2016) have shown the positive impact of utilizing instructional materials in teaching English. In the English 8 curriculum guide posted in the official site of DepEd, some of the tasks that English 8 learners have to accomplish under the K-12 curriculum are to write personal narratives and compose their blogs. However, most of them perform very poorly, and worse, do not perform at all. They have the idea of what to write, but they find it hard to organize and put their thoughts together. Wakely et al. (2006) added that much K-12 instruction in writing focuses on practices such as selecting a topic, organizing ideas, and drafting and revising. Thus, it is imperative to expose them to such activities that will help them enhance their ability to write composition by learning the basics of text construction, which includes vocabulary, punctuations, and sentence structures. Furthermore, though there is endless construction of a sentence, O'Brien (2009) said in her article that structurally, classifications of a sentence is according to the number of independent and dependent clauses. She also added that familiarizing these can contribute sophistication and variation to sentences. Moreover, Vajda (2017) stated in his article that sentence construction covers most of the syntactical components that a learner needs to learn such as connectors, phrases and clauses, and it seeks to develop a material that will aid them to practice writing sentences. However, in the study of Malaca-Sistoza (2016), results have presented the structures employed by the respondents in constructing sentences. The respondents were able to compose 589 sentences where 93.55% is simple, 4.24% is complex, 1.53% is compound and 0.68% is compound-complex for visual prompt. On the other hand, the respondents constructed 470 sentences as they used the audio-visual prompt, 70% is simple, 19.5% is complex, 8.51% is compound and 2.34% is compoundcomplex. The outcome of the study has shown that most of the sentences constructed by the respondents from the three-year levels of Cagayan State University are simple sentences, and there is a minimal number of a constructed compound, complex and compoundcomplex sentences. The result implies that they have a low sentence construction ability for their level.
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(1) [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]2022 Basic sentence structure Curriculum developers and textbook authors for learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) sometimes find it hard to decide what order of grammar topics and vocabulary words to include in every unit (Feike, 2011). Saussure's work in 1916 about "Langue Versus Parole" where structural grammar grows, the structural theory suggests that learning the language systematically is the key to fluency. Encyclopedia Britannica (2019) says that Structural Grammar is particular with the analysis of the description of the "structure" of the sentences. It focuses on syntax, which refers to the study of forms which are very important in composing phrases, clauses and sentences. An article adapted from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University (2012) discussed the types of a sentence according to structure, which are the simple, compound, complex and compound-complex sentence. Dean (2008) said that one of the indications of a skilled writer is the capability to use sentence structure to improve the meaning of each sentence. Unfortunately, as mentioned by Wakely et al. (2006), much K-12 teaching merely concentrates on macro-level writing courses such as selecting a topic, unifying concepts and drafting and revising without vivid instructional consideration on the distinct structure skills. Moreover, Gustilo & Magno (2012) found out that sentence-level errors have a significant role in essay scores. Thus, there is a need for intervention. Additionally, the study of Almejas & Arago (2017) examines the syntactic errors of students' writing composition to which they focused on the sentence construction to determine the participants' errors. The syntactic faults found in the learners' writing composition says that 17 or 42.5% choppy sentence errors are the highest, trailed by sentence fragment errors which is 12 or correspondent to 30.00%, then run-on or comma splice errors which are 9 or 22.5%, and two stringy sentence errors which is 5%. Another researcher in the person of Malaca-Sistoza (2016) conducted a study in Gonzaga, Cagayan about the sentence construction ability of the students, and the result showed that the English sentence constructions ability of the respondents is low as indicated by the sentence structure employed since most of the sentences written by the students were simple which implies that they lack the ability to construct complex sentences.

Elements of sentence structure
Basic Sentence Structure is one of the topics under syntax, and it covers syntactic forms such as connectors and clauses. Conjunction is a term used to link clauses, phrases or to coordinate words in the same clause (Oxford dictionary). Muftah (2014) added that in text, they could be effectually used in place of starting a new sentence and the proper use of conjunctions makes the flow and rhythm of the sentence more natural. He also stated that mistake on using conjunctions often results in ambiguity and disconnection and leads to incoherence, which portrays illogical meanings which might be directed to a misunderstanding of the writer's message. These justify that in language, writing with correctness in form is not enough to convey the right meaning. One must practice writing with coherence by using connectors appropriately. One of the several situations that Lai (2008) states in her study that has been cited by Kadhim (2016), that good learner are the ones that use conjunctions correctly, but low performing learners do not know how to use them. Hence, this shows that learners need to know the meaning of the conjunctions to apply them in words, phrases and clauses, which is a part or prerequisite on writing a wellstructured and meaningful sentence. However, Bernal (2017) discovered in her study that using conjunctions, identifying and writing sentences according to the structure are included in the students' weaknesses. Mohamed (2016) featured in his research a set of principles and drills about the basic sentence structure that will lead to the development of the writing skills of the learners. These sentence-level interventions are essential to offer struggling writers with foundational linguistic skills and in a meta-analysis of research-based writing practices. Graham et al. (2015) stressed the significance of clearly teaching sentence construction skills yet claimed that there are astoundingly limited researches testing the impact of teaching sentence structure or the skills that go into constructing a right sentence. Datchik & Kubina (2012) said that the evaluation of writing and sentencelevel instruction only involved studies concerning sentence structure, and in these studies, they examined only five writing interventions. Outcomes from existing researches are diverse about the usefulness of sentencelevel instruction on the general quality of student writing. There was a notable progress found in most of the study; the sentence-level instruction was embedded within a wider range of study covering numerous facets of writing (Anderson & Keel, 2002;Datchik & Kubina, 2012). In Behforooz et al. (2008) while Saddler and Graham (2005), as cited by Walter et al. (2021), taught sentence construction separately. They also examined the effects of the sentence-combining instruction and has been revealed to be moderately effective at improving general writing standard with an average-weighted effect size for writing quality of 0.56 (Graham, 2019). Sentence-combining, however, does not oblige students to crop their concepts; instead, students are given simple sentences and clauses and educated how to connect the pre-determined sentence content. Simplifying sentencecombining skills to a student's writing can, therefore, be thought-provoking for some writers. In another study,  administered a methodical research review comparing sentence-combining to traditional formal grammar instruction. Although they found that sentence-combining had a more constructive effect than formal grammar instruction, they found no evidence signifying it to be effective. Other researches, (Graham, Harris and Santangelo, 2015;Datchik and Kubina, 2012; then reiterated the need for more studies which investigates different approaches on teaching sentence construction. Instructional materials and assessment tools According to Adams & Wieman (2010), there has been a growing effort to develop instructional and assessment tools that target students' development of expert-like mastery of specific topics. These involve questions that accurately probe whether students understand and apply particular concepts in a specific discipline. Marbas (2010) stated that the importance of instructional materials or educational resources is to improve students' knowledge, abilities, and skills, to monitor their assimilation of information, and to contribute to their overall development and upbringing. It also explains significant concepts to stimulate and sustain student's interests, provide all students in a class the chance to share practices essential for innovative learning, help create more lasting learning, and are not designed to serve as a substitute to a teacher or supplement the textbook but to supplement the teaching process. In this regard, Louis (2006) as cited by Terrano 2015 suggested that continuous evaluation of the materials is necessary and should be led to measure the correctness and time suitability of the substance. Implicitly, the abovementioned statements suggest development and validation of instructional material which involves evaluation. Heale & Twycross (2015) emphasized that one completing an instrument should have nearly the same responses each time each test is finished. There are many ways how to develop and validate a specific material. A worktext in drafting crafted by Cruz (2015), where he stated that one of the numerous responsibilities of a teacher is to choose, organize and use the most suitable learning materials to the level of the learners, making use of the descriptive approach to label and weigh the worktext through a checklist to collect data. Additionally, De Guia & Reyes (2015) intended to design a worktext that can be modified as an instructional material in diagnosing and teaching English learners. They utilized the descriptive method of research which encompassed the designing and assessment of a worktext in English 101 using an adapted tool. To conclude the acceptability level of the worktext, the weighted mean was applied. This research has followed phases and stages in developing and evaluating the worktext that includes the following: 1) Phase 1 is the development of the worktext; 2) Phase 2 is the assessment of the worktext in its stages: specifically the first phase comprises of three stages which are: a) Preparation of Matrix of Construct comprises the selection of topics, listing of suitable activities, and enumerating objective; b) Writing contains the encoding of chosen lessons and exercise; c) Editing includes the correction of grammatical forms, spelling, and other concerns. For the second phase, the stages are as follows: a) Distribution of duplicates; b) Use of the Worktext for one (1) semester; c) Construction of research instrument/questionnaire; d) Validation of research instrument/survey; e) Floating of questionnaire; f) Recovery of questionnaire/ Interview with the respondents; g) Analysis of outcomes. Worktext vs. workbook Basilan (2018) emphasized that as teachers now called as facilitators and suppliers of learning, the demand to practice effective facilitation techniques and skills in the propagation of K-12 curriculum are unavoidable. They must provide instructional materials that suit and satisfy the learner's hunger for wisdom: Hence, they must include consolidation and cultivation of instructional materials that address the altering setting of ESL learners and education in the country as one of the top concerns. Dosignaeg's writing skill development model in Clarpondel;s research (2002), as cited by Salandanan (2013), stresses that materials should provide a stimulus to learning. It says that learning is really about the increased probability of behaviour based on stimulus. Moroever, Louis (2006) as cited by Terrano (2015) stressed that the development of instructional materials both printed and non-printed is a part of university's accountability to guarantee their students' comprehensive learning that incorporates every single detail in the curriculum. Regarding this, one of the existing instructional materials that have proven its effectivity so far is a developed worktext. According to Moreau (2011), worktext is different from a workbook in some sense since it does not only contain pages of activities but pages with a purpose. These are pages intended to strengthen some concepts presented earlier. Parents prefer worktexts because there is somehow substantial teaching though they may not contain the entire subject, and that is always better than no instruction at all. Knapp (2006) stated that worktexts comprise both instruction and training, providing both drill and review. Better quality worktexts include problem-solving items that encourage this kind of higher-level thinking in addition to the traditional fill-in-the-blank and define-theterm exercises. According to the Department of Curriculum and Instruction of Anne Arundel County Public School (2012), instructional materials focal purpose is to support curriculum standards and address the needs of the students for lifelong learning. Moreso, it should produce learning with quality and is learner friendly. Furthermore, Gates (2005) said that workbook/worktext offer exercise materials and proposals design to mark what would otherwise be experimental learning definite, reasonable and stimulating. Similarly, Gray (2007) resolved that the use of workbooks/worktexts is constructive, resulting in not only higher scores on standardized but also in growth of control of self-direction, helps in retention, skill in vital processes, cognitive aptitude and solving problems. In the study of Selga (2011), it is shown that worktext helps to achieve specific objectives of the subject, develop higher cognitive skills since it is well-organized and welldesigned and is suitable to the ability of the students. According to Dio (2017), the scarcity of existing materials that cater to Filipino learners restricts the fulfilment of the objectives of each program. Legaspi (2014) has reported that the inaccessibility of learning resources is one of the problems being faced by the Philippines for its 3-year implementation of K-12 curriculum. The deficiency of learning materials has become a weight not only to students but also to teachers (Umil, 2016). It is evident in the studies conducted Basilan (2018), Cruz (2015), De Guia & Reyes (2015), and Terano (2015) that they have developed and validate instructional materials through the use of only one method, and that is through the use of either a checklist or rubric. On the other hand, this study used not only an evaluating tool to validate the material, but also utilized pretest and posttest to determine the effectiveness of the material to be developed. The researcher has been teaching grade 8 students for three years and has observed the learners' struggle in writing compositions. Saddler & Troia, (2013) emphasized that there is a necessity for further study detecting and validating writing interventions that point out different writing difficulty factors and levels of learners need to effectively aid and develop their writing ability. And as per the yearly report of the students' least learned topics from the school where the researcher currently teaches, types of sentences according to structure is always on top.

Sentence-level instruction
Furthermore, since K-12 curriculum was implemented, there are no modules available for grade 8 students until the present. In this case, based on the gathered related literature, and from the researcher's experience, this study aimed to develop a Basic Sentence Structure worktext that will provide lessons and activities to help Filipino learners enhance their ability in terms of writing sentences.

Theoretical Framework
This study was anchored on the theory of exercise by Thorndike which suggests that learning requires practice. This means that drill or practice helps in accelerating competence and stability of learning according to Thorndike's S-R Bond Theory. The connections are strengthened with a trail of training and the links are declining when the trial is stopped. In accordance to this law, the developed worktext exposed the students to drills and exercises that will help them write sentences with coherence, and in connection with the S-R Bond theory of Thorndike the worktext was the stimulus and the students' performance was the response.

Conceptual Framework
This study was a two-phase process. The development of worktext was consisted of principles and activities of conjunctions, clauses and the four basic sentences according to structure, namely the Simple, Compound, Complex and the Compound-Complex. In terms of the validation, the worktext was rated using the DepEd evaluation rubric for print resources. There were four validators, three Master Teachers, and one English Critic. Generally, this study intended to develop and validate a Basic Sentence Structure Worktext. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions: 1) How may the Basic Sentence Structure worktext be designed; 2) how may the Basic Sentence Structure Worktext be validated in terms of: 2.1) content; 2.2) format; 2.3) presentation and organization; 2.4) accuracy and up-to-datedness of the information; 3) what are the scores of the participants in the pretest and posttest given by the: 3.1) researcher; 3.2) interraters; 4) is there any significant difference between the participants' pretest and posttest scores given by the researcher and the pretest and posttest scores given by the interraters; and 5) is there any significant difference between the participants' scores in the pretest and posttest?

Hypotheses
Based on the questions stated, these hypotheses were drawn: 1) there is no significant difference between the participants' pretest and posttest scores given by the researcher and the pretest and posttest scores given by the interrater and; 2) there is no significant difference between the participants' scores in the pretest and posttest.

METHODS
The study was mixed-method research employing sequential exploratory approaches. This study was carried out in a two-phase manner. The first phase covered the development of the worktext, and the second phase included the validation of the instructional material.
This study was qualitative since the researcher developed a worktext based on the curriculum guide and existing literature reviews. This study was also quantitative for the worktext was administered among the participants after its development and validation. Phase 1: Development Stage This study has undergone a two-phase manner. Phase 1 was the development with the following stages: Stage 1 included the construction, which comprises the enumerating of objectives, selection of lessons and listing of appropriate activities. The K-12 curriculum guide for English 8 was the basis of the objectives. Stage 2 was the writing which covers the encoding of selected lessons and activities. The worktext's main contents were first conjunction and its type, (coordinating, subordinating, and correlative). In each kind, there were brief discussions and four sets of activities. Second were the two types of clauses (dependent and independent). There were also brief discussions and four sets of activities for each type. The third content was the four types of sentences according to structure which were the simple, compound, complex and the compound-complex sentence. For each type there were brief discussions and four sets of activities afterwards. Stage 3 was editing, and it included the correction of grammatical forms, spelling, and other concerns. Stage 4 was the final output which underwent final organization and design of each lesson and the production of its final manuscript. Phase2: Validation In this phase, the materials were distributed to (4) validators; (3) English Master Teachers, and (1) English Critic. The worktext has undergone three stages of validation. The validators evaluated the material using the evaluation rating tool for print resources of the Department of Education. Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviation and Inferential Statistics were used to describe the results of the study. Implementation Stage Approval of the school administration for the conduct of the study, approval of the cited authors, and approval of the student respondents and their parents or guardians were done before accomplishing the next process. When the worktext was validated, the researcher administered a pretest to the (42) participants from a public school in Mexico, Pampanga through writing composition. They were asked to compose (2) essays within two lecture hours with (4) paragraphs and each paragraph should have contained a minimum of (5) sentences. There were photo essays and one of the topics was the Comparison between Philippine and Chinese Culture and Tradition.
The other was the Comparison between Philippine and Japanese Culture and Tradition. The researcher and the other (2) interraters scored the writing compositions of the student respondents using the scoring rubric for essay writing adapted from the DepEd Tambayan. After that, the principles and activities in the worktext were taught to the participants within (3) weeks. There were (3) lecture hours allotted per week. Next was the administration of posttest in the form of (2) photo essay compositions as well within two lecture hours. The topics were about Philippine Mythology, and the Egyptian Mythology. They were required to write a composition with four paragraphs and each paragraph must have contained two simple sentences, and one each for compound, complex and compound-complex sentence. The outputs were rated by the researcher and the other two interraters using the same rubric that was used in the pre-test. And lastly, collected data were tabulated to determine if there was a significant difference between the participants' pretest and posttest scores given by the researcher and the pretest and posttest scores given by the interraters, and if there was a significant difference between the participants' scores in the pretest and posttest. The study utilized the paired t-test and independent t-test in determining the validity and satisfactory level of the crafted worktext and the significant variance between the assessment of the researcher and interraters to the participants' written composition and the significant difference between the pretest and the posttest results of the participants.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The K-12 curriculum guide for English 8 was the basis of the objectives. The topics on the worktext were, first, conjunction and its types, (coordinating, subordinating, and correlative). In each kind, there were brief discussions and four collections of activities. Second were the two types of clauses (dependent and independent). There were also brief discussions and four sets of activities for each type. The third content were the four types of sentences according to the structure which are the simple, compound, complex and the compound-complex sentence. For each type there were also brief discussion and four sets of activities afterwards. This shows that following a procedure makes the material organized and the activities varied. The designing of the workrtext was anchored on Thorndike's S-R Bond Theory. The connections are strengthened with a trail of training and the links are declining when the trial is stopped. In accordance to this law, the developed worktext exposed the students to • final organization and design of each lesson, and production of final output were made drills and exercises that will help them write sentences with coherence, and in connection with the S-R Bond theory of Thorndike the worktext was the stimulus and the students' performance was the response. Similarly, with the Dosignaeg's writing skill development model in Clarpondel's (2002) research as cited by Salandanan (2013), which stresses that materials should provide stimulus to learning. It says that learning is really about the increased probability of behavior base on stimulus. The worktext of the present study offered varied activities which were written from easy to difficult. Moreover, the development of the basic sentence worktext adopted a set of stages used by Abencillo (2008) in his study cited by Reyes and De Guia (2015). Table 2.1 shows the evaluation of the basic sentence structure worktext as regards to the content. It revealed that on the initial validation, all of the three validators agreed that the worktext met these specific standards on statements 1 and 2. On the second validation, three validators agreed that the material met the standards on statements 3 and 5 whereas on the final validation, all experts agreed that the material met the standards on statement 4. This means that on the initial validation there were still areas on the material that needed to be developed as suggested by the validators such as: adding activities that will promote higher-order thinking skills; removing sentences where gender biases were evident; and revising activities that will arouse students' interest. Furthermore, on the second validation, some of the errors were still existing and the experts suggested to add more content that will arouse the interest of the student. Nonetheless, on the final validation, the material already met all the standards in terms of content. The findings on content factor support the study of Marbas (2010) which clear up vital concepts to stir and sustain pupil's interests, offer all students in a class the break to share familiarities needed for fresh learning, help make learning more permanent, and are not designed to serve as a substitute to a teacher or supplement the

Second Validation
Final Validation 1. Content is suitable to the student's level of development. X 2. Material contributes to the achievement of specific objectives of the subject area and grade/year level for which it is intended. X 3. Material provides for the development of higher cognitive skills such as critical thinking and creativity. X 4. Material is free of ideological, cultural, religious, racial, and gender biases and prejudices. X 5. Material has the potential to arouse interest of target reader. X textbook but to supplement the teaching process. Table 2.2 shows the evaluation of the worktext as regards to format. On the initial validation, results revealed that all of the three validators already agreed that the worktext met the standards written on statements 1.2, 1.3, 2.2 and 4.2. On the second validation, three validators already agreed that the material already met the standards on statements 1.1, 3.1, and 4.1. The validators did not rate 3.2 on the first and second validation, for the worktext was not yet bound because there were still expected revisions to be made. However, on the final validation, the worktext already obtained the agreement of all three validators on all the set standards.
The findings indicate that during the initial and second

Second Validation
Final Validation 1. Prints 1.1 Size of letters is appropriate to theintended user. X 1.2 Spaces between letters and words facilitate reading. X 1.3 Font is easy to read. X 1.4 Printing is of good quality (i.e., no broken letters, even density, correct alignment, properly placed screen registration). X

Design and Layout
2.1 Attractive and pleasing to look at. X 2.2 Simple (i.e., does not distract the attention of the reader). X

Paper and Binding
3.1 Paper used contributes to easy reading. X 3.2 Durable binding to withstand frequent use. X 4. Size and Weight of Resource 4.1 Easy to handle. X 4.2 Relatively light. X validation there were still parts on the worktext that needed to be developed as suggested by the validators such as: adding more attractive clip arts; choosing font style and size that will make the material reader-friendly; binding it using more durable material making it easy to handle. Nonetheless, on the final validation, the worktext achieved a complete mark of agreement from the validators on all the statements, which means it met all the standards in terms of format.
The finding is aligned with the research crafted by Cruz (2015), he made use of the descriptive approach to label and weigh the worktext through a checklist to collect data. Table 2.3 shows the evaluation of the worktext as regards to presentation and organization, which revealed that on the initial validation, none of the statements got a complete agreement among the validators. In contrast with the result of the second validation, the material got the agreement of all three validators on statements 1, 2, 3 and 4. On the final validation, three validators already agreed that the material met the set standards on statement 5. The initial and second validation results indicate that there were still revisions needed as suggested by the validators such as: adding more exciting and understandable sentences; organizing the lectures and activities making the flow coherent; changing the unfamiliar words into more simple words; and revising some of the sentences making it more stimulating and sensible for the intended learners. However, the material met all the standards in terms of presentation and validation on the final validation.
The present study is similar with the study of De Guia & Reyes (2015) in terms of the assessment approach that was used in validating a printed instructional material which is a tool adapted from Abencillo (2008) and Ilagan (2009) that was used to measure the acceptability level of the module.

Second Validation
Final Validation 1. Presentation is engaging, interesting, and understandable. X 2. There is logical and smooth flow of ideas. X 3. Vocabulary level is adapted to target reader's likely experience and level of understanding. X 4. Length of sentences is suited to the comprehension level of the target reader. X 5. Sentences and paragraph structures are varied and interesting to the target reader. X Table 2.4 shows the result on accuracy and up-todatedness of information evaluation of the worktext. Initial validation reveals that there were three experts who agreed with statements 1, 2, 4 and 6. On the second validation, the material already achieved a complete agreement of three validators on all the statements.
These results indicate that there were revisions needed as suggested by the experts such as; correcting some grammatical and typographical mistakes and changing the sentences with obsolete information. The slips were already corrected; therefore, on the second validation, the material met all the standards and is consistent up to the final validation. This affirms the study of Louis (2006) as cited by Terrano (2015), which suggests that continuous evaluation of the materials is necessary and should be led to measure the correctness and time suitability of the substance. Table 3.1 presents the performance of the participants on the pretest and posttest given by the researcher. As shown on the table, the computed mean of their scores X 6. Typographical and other minor errors (e.g., inappropriate or unclear illustrations, missing labels, wrong captions, etc.). X which is 12.31 reveals that they performed poorly on the pretest. The students performed poorly as well on the posttest with the obtained mean of 18.99. The pretest results got a lowest score of 10 and highest score of 17.5 while posttest results got a lowest score of 9 and highest score of 30. Additionally, the obtained standard deviation of 2.22 on the pretest results and 5.25 on the posttest result means that the scores were not scattered. This pretest result indicates that there was a need for some interventions to help the students develop their writing performance. Nevertheless, the posttest result shows that the students have enhanced in their performance after the implementation of the worktext. These findings affirm the statement of Selga (2011) which says that worktext helps to achieve specific objectives of the subject, develop higher cognitive skills since it is wellorganized and well-designed and is suitable to the ability of the students. Table 3.2 presents the pretest and posttest performance of the participants given by the interrater. As shown on the table, the computed mean of their scores was 12.01, which reveals that they performed poorly on the pretest. On the other hand, the students performed poorly as well on the posttest with the obtained mean of 18.75. The pretest results got a lowest score of 9 and highest score of 18 while the posttest results got a lowest score of 9 and highest score of 30. In addition, the obtained standard deviation of 2.3 on the pretest results and 5.49 on the posttest result means that the scores are not scattered. Similarly, the results that were found on the researcher's given scores, this pretest result indicates that there was a need for some interventions to help the students improve on their writing performance. On the other hand, the posttest result shows that the students have improved in their performance after the implementation of the worktext. This finding is aligned with the conclusion of the study of Gray (2007) which states that the use of workbooks/ worktexts is constructive, resulting in not only higher scores on standardized but also in the growth of control of self-direction, helps in retention, skill in vital processes, cognitive aptitude and solving problems.  Table 4 presents the paired t-test difference between the scores given by the interraters and the marks specified by the researcher. As shown in the table, the obtained p-value of 0.066 was higher than the set alpha of 0.05 level of significance which means that the scores given by the researcher and interraters are nearly the same. Thus, the null hypothesis was accepted. The computed mean of -2.78 means that the scores given by the researcher are higher than the scores given by the interraters. Moreover, the standard deviation of 6.75 indicates that the scores are not dispersed. The result supports the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the scores given by the researcher and the scores given by the intteraters. Heale & Twycross (2015) supports this study through an article on a journal they published that says, one completing an instrument should have nearly the same responses each time each test is finished. Table 5 shows the paired difference t-test result of the pretest and posttest performance of the participants. The p-value of 0.000 revealed that there is a highly significant difference at 1% between the pretest and posttest scores given by either of the interraters or the researcher. The computed mean of -6.74 on the pretest and posttest from the interraters' assessment means that the posttest result is higher than the pretest. Similarly, the pretest and posttest result from the researcher's assessment with the obtained mean of -6.67 means that the posttest result is higher than the pretest result. On the other hand, the gained standard deviation of 5.66 from the interraters' assessment and 5.39 from the researcher's assessment reveal that the given scores are not dispersed. These findings suggest that the worktext helped the students improve their performance in writing. This affirms the conclusions that show how instructional materials can assist the educators in presenting their lessons logically and sequentially to the students (Isola, 2010), and as supported by Abdu -Raheem (2014) who found out on his study how instructional materials aid explanations and make learning of subject matter comprehensible to learners throughout the teachinglearning process. In K-12 curriculum, there are certain task which are found hard by the student such as writing personal narratives and composing their blogs. They have the idea of what to write, but they find it hard to organize and Researcher -6.67 5.39 **0.000 highly significant **highly significant at 1% put their thoughts together. This means that the students need to be exposed to lessons such as basic sentences structures that will help them enhance their structural ability on organizing ideas. This is the reason why it is very important to diagnose the problem and find solutions to address it in a systematical way. The findings of this study reveals that the educational system should never stop looking for problems and ways how to solve them. Teaching-learning process was never easy but it could be aided through innovative instructional materials such as printed materials, projected materials and technological instructional materials

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions are drawn: 1) the developed basic sentence structure worktext was made of varied activities such as matching type, identification and sentence construction; 2) the developed basic sentence structure worktext met all the standards after editing and revisions were done; 3) the students performed poorly in both pretest and posttest; 4) the scores given by the researcher and interraters are mostly the same; and 5) the basic sentence structure worktext helped the students improve in their writing performance.

Recommendations
Considering the aforementioned findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are hereby suggested: 1) instructional material designers and developers should always follow a certain standard and procedure to guarantee the quality of the material; 2) instructional material developers should always use a standardized tool to measure a proposed material through the help of experts; 3) the teachers may give students more time and exposure to such drills and activities that will develop their sentence and essay construction; 4) teachers should always use standardized tool in measuring performances to avoid bias; 5) the Department of Education (DepEd) should provide training and seminars to secondary English teachers to enhance their ideas and skills in producing efficient instructional materials; and 6) the crafted worktext may be adopted by DepEd to serve as supplementary teaching material to aid most especially English 8 teachers in teaching sentence construction since there are no available learning modules for grade 8 students.