P. 1
Thesis

Thesis

|Views: 6,491|Likes:
Published by Aimzyl Operio Tria

More info:

Published by: Aimzyl Operio Tria on Feb 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/09/2014

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • Chapter 1
  • THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
  • Introduction
  • Background of the Study
  • Theoretical Framework
  • Conceptual Framework
  • INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
  • A. Personal
  • Variables
  • B. Grammar Test
  • Statement of the Problem
  • Hypotheses
  • Scope and Limitations of the Study
  • Significance of the Study
  • Definition of Terms
  • Chapter 2
  • REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
  • Foreign Literature
  • Local Literature
  • Foreign Studies
  • Local Studies
  • Synthesis and Relevance of the Reviewed Literature and Studies
  • Chapter 3
  • RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  • Research Method Used
  • Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique
  • Description of the Respondents
  • Research Instrument
  • Grade Percentage Equivalent
  • 5-Point Likert Scale (Level of Proficiency)
  • Range Verbal Interpretation
  • Data-Gathering Procedure
  • Statistical Treatment of Data
  • Chapter 4
  • PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
  • 1. Respondents¶ Profile
  • Course Section Frequency %
  • Course
  • section
  • PUBLIC PRIVATE
  • Frequency % Frequency %
  • 2. Respondents¶ Level of Performance in Terms of Asking Questions,
  • 3. Respondents¶ Level of Performance in Each Grammar Skills Grouped
  • According to Variables
  • 3.1 Gender
  • Grammar
  • MALE FEMALE
  • 3.2 Course, Year and Section
  • Course, Year &
  • Section
  • Course,
  • Year &
  • Section
  • S Interpretation
  • 3.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 4. Significant Difference in Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on Each
  • Asking Questions
  • F-test P value Result Decision
  • Responding to Questions
  • Combining Sentences
  • Expanding Sentences
  • 5. Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in
  • Different Grammar Skills when Grouped According to Variables
  • Value Result Decision
  • F-Test P Value Result Decision
  • Chapter 5
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • Summary of Findings
  • 1.1 Gender
  • 1.2 Course, Year and Section
  • 1.3 Type of High School Attended
  • Grammatical Skills
  • 2.1 Asking Questions
  • 2.2 Responding to Questions
  • 2.3 Combining Sentences
  • 2.4 Expanding Sentences
  • 3. Respondents¶ Level of Performance in Each Grammar Skills
  • Grouped According to Variables
  • 3.1 Asking Questions
  • 3.1.1 Gender
  • 3.1.2 Course, Year and Section
  • 3.1.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 3.2 Responding to Questions
  • 3.2.1 Gender
  • 3.2.2 Course, Year and Section
  • 1.2.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 3.3.1 Gender
  • 3.3.2 Course, Year and Section
  • 3.3.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 3.4.1 Gender
  • 3.4.2 Course, Year and Section
  • 3.4.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 4. Significant Difference among the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings
  • in Terms of Different Grammar Skills When Grouped According to
  • Sections
  • 4.1 Asking Questions
  • 4.1.1 Gender
  • 4.1.2 Sections
  • 4.1.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 4.2 Responding to Questions
  • 4.2.1 Gender
  • 4.2.2 Sections
  • 4.2.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 4.3 Combining Sentences
  • 4.3.1 Gender
  • 4.3.2 Section
  • 4.3.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 4.4 Expanding Sentences
  • 4.4.1 Gender
  • 4.4.2 Section
  • 4.4.3 Type of High School Attended
  • 5. Significant Difference among the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings
  • in terms of the above mentioned Grammar Skills when Grouped
  • Attended
  • 5.3 Type of High School Attended
  • Conclusions
  • Recommendations
  • WORKS CITED
  • Books
  • Journals
  • Unpublished Materials
  • Magazines/Newspapers
  • Web Publications

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

1

Introduction Linguists believe that language is a living soul to a community, a source of dignity and prestige for all people. It stands as the ³mine´ of a local community for the outsiders. But some experts added an interesting ingredient to this credence. According to Schneider, grammar is an important feature of language that allows human beings to communicate successfully with each other. Further, Ramos and Sanchez stated that grammar is seen as a clue in one¶s capabilities (67). It is essential for a person to have a good working knowledge of English grammar rules because it will not only make him appear intelligent and educated but it will also give him credibility. Moreover, if he is looking for a job, with great command of the English language and great grammar proficiency, he will have a clear advantage over someone whose grammar skills are below average. It is noticeable that the job market in the present times is increasingly competitive. It seems that the workforce nowadays has very strict qualifications. Other than the job seeker¶s attitude toward work, one of the most important standards that employers are searching for is the applicant¶s competency in using English ± confidently, correctly, and fluently. It has been observed that the most effective way of learning the English

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES language is by entering an academic institution that will serve as a training ground for learners. It is expected that these learners will be confident and knowledgeable enough in facing the world of global competition. According to a recent study conducted by Pulse Asia in 2008, the grammar performance of Metro Manila public secondary high school teachers and students (especially those in first and second years) is below average. To respond to this alarming status of English language learning, the researchers came up with this study. This will help the students identify their weaknesses and strengths when it comes to studying and learning English grammar. Also, teachers, future educators, and other personalities in educational institutions will be given ideas of the possible improvements to make English grammar learning easier, instead of fearsome.

2

Background of the Study College of Education prepares graduates to teach effectively across the different learning areas in the elementary, secondary, college, and vocational/technical schools. It also serves as a training ground for the students before entering into the advancement in job within the general business office. On November 22, 2009, by virtue of a resolution passed by the Board of Regents, the College of Administration and Business Teacher Education (COABTE) was renamed College of Education (CoEd) that offers Bachelor in Business Teacher Education (BBTE), Bachelor in Secondary Education

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES (BSED), and Bachelor in Elementary Education (BEED). The current dean of the College of Education is Dr. Mely M. Padilla. CoEd has two departments²the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education headed by Dr. Ma. Junithesmer D. Rosales, and the Department of Business Teacher Education under Dr. Rovelina B. Jacolbia. The changes in the college were brought about by the call for a dynamic shift in strategies to improve the quality of education in PUP, thus, enabling to keep pace with the emerging global thrust to help the youth in the future. CoEd envisions itself to be the ³center of excellence in the development of educational leaders,´ Given that each degree program may have English, Math, or Social Studies as their field of specialization, one factor that should be considered is having a good command of English in the field of teaching. The researchers found it necessary to examine the grammar skills of the first-year students of the College because the PUPCET results showed that the ratings obtained by the incoming freshmen for School Year 2010-2011 were generally considered ³below average.´ It is hoped that this study can help

3

teachers identify the students¶ strengths and weaknesses in English grammar so that effective methodologies and techniques can be implemented for the improvement of English grammar instruction within the College.

Theoretical Framework Grammatical structures not only have a morphosyntactic form, they are also used to express meaning (semantics) in context appropriate use

³What particular English grammar structure means? and ³What semantic contribution it makes whenever it is used?´ The last wedge. USE. 1983:9). 4 Figure 1. These are the relations between language and context that are grammaticalized. and use. deals with issues concerning the choices that users of a particular language make when using the forms of language communication. These are referred to as the dimensions of form. deals with how a particular grammar structure is constructed ± its morphology and its syntax. FORM. MEANING answers the questions. Three Dimension The first wedge.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES (pragmatics). Because the three are interrelated ± that is a change in one will involve a change in another ± it is helpful to view the three dimensions as a pie chart. meaning. with arrows depicting the interaction among the three. or encoded in the structure of a language (Levinson. .

Combining Sentences d. and use make explicit the need for students to learn to use grammar structure accurately. Gender 2. meaning. Research Paradigm . Expanding Sentences INPUT Conduct Grammar Performance Test Identify Strengths and Weaknesses of the Students Improvement of English Curriculum and Instruction Statistical Analysis Interpretation of Data PROCESS OUTPUT [ FEEDBACK ] Figure 2. Type of High School Attended B. meaningfully. Course. Year and Section 3. the dimensions of form. Grammar Test a. and appropriately. Thus. Asking Questions b. language teachers cannot be content with having students achieve a certain degree of formal accuracy. 5 Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework of this study is presented in the following diagram: A. Responding to Questions c. Language teachers must also help their students to use the structures meaningfully and appropriately as well. Personal Variables 1.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Since grammar does not deal simply with form.

which indicates that if somehow the result is not successful. The second frame refers to the process which includes the administration of the grammar performance test. 6 Statement of the Problem This study was undertaken to determine the grammar skills of freshman students in the College of Education in Polytechnic University of the Philippines during the School year 2010-2011. At the bottom of the frame is the feedback. year and section. and type of high school attended. The line and arrows connecting the frames only mean that there is a continuous process. It specifically attempted to answer the following questions: 1. the statistical analysis and interpretation of data. course. the first frame refers to the input of the study. which contains the students¶ profile in terms of gender. It also includes the grammar performance test on the four grammar skills: asking questions. and improvement of English curriculum and instruction in the College of Education in Polytechnic University of the Philippines. responding to questions. The third frame refers to the output which is the identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the students.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES As shown in the figure. another process will be tried out to get the expected outcome. combining sentence and expanding sentences. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of the following .

and Section 3.3 Combining Sentences 2. Year. and Section 1. and type of high school 7 . Year.2 Course.1 Asking Questions 2.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES variables? 1.1 Gender 1. What is the respondents¶ level of performance in each of the above mentioned grammar skill when grouped according to the following variables? 3.2 Responding to Questions 2.3 Type of High School Attended 2.4 Expanding Sentences 3. Is there a significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in terms of different grammar skills when grouped according to section? 5.2 Course. What is the respondents¶ level of performance in terms of the following grammar skills? 2.1 Gender 3. degree program.3 Type of High School Attended 4. Is there a significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in terms of the above mentioned grammar skills when grouped according to gender.

responding to questions. as the respondents of the study. The respondents were students enrolled in the following courses: Bachelor in Business Teacher Education. 2. and type of high school attended. Manila during the school year 2010-2011. combining sentences.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES attended? Hypotheses 1. The researchers limited their study to four grammar skills because this . The first year in the university is the right stage for the teachers to know their students¶ strengths and weaknesses in grammar performance. The focus was on four grammar skills. juniors. Bachelor in Secondary Education. and expanding sentences. There is no significant difference among respondents¶ performance ratings in terms of the above mentioned grammar skills when grouped according to gender. and seniors. The researchers used the freshmen students instead of the sophomores. namely asking questions. There is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in terms of different grammar skills when grouped according to section. and Bachelor in Elementary Education. degree program. 8 Scope and Limitations of the Study This study was made to assess the grammar performance of freshman students of the College of Education in Polytechnic University of the Philippines.

and others were excluded from the study. giving answers. Other grammar skills like verb-subject agreement. tense sequence. answers. . generally speaking. The four grammar skills were chosen because. The test itself contains some of the observed errors frequently committed by students such as the usage of proper tenses and the subject-verb agreement. the grammar skills tested were limited to asking questions. A person normally asks. To prevent an unwieldy conduct of the investigation. therefore. he is most likely also competent in the other grammar skills.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES type of skills reflects the learners¶ ability to use the language rather than just show the learners¶ ³knowledge of the language´. Such time will give them adequate preparation for meeting the needs of their professional lives. that when a person is competent in asking questions. and expanding sentences. The choice of freshmen college students as respondents proceeded from the idea that the first year in the tertiary level is the right stage to identify students¶ strengths and weaknesses since ample time can be devoted by teachers to implement effective approaches in improving the grammatical competence of students as they move on to their senior years. rather than usage. It can be argued. mastery over these skills reflects a person¶s use. 9 combines or expands sentences as he interacts with other people. responding to questions. and combining or expanding sentences. combining sentences. sentence patterns. of the language as means of communication.

may this serve as a reference for similar studies to be conducted in the future. With this study. they will be guided in improving their curricula and produce linguistically competent students.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Significance of the Study A study on the English grammar proficiency of the freshman students in the College of Education of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines may be able to impart suggestions on alternative and fresh approaches to the teaching of English grammar. for the researchers. The assessment will help them focus on the areas where they are weak and will inspire them to do better to make learning English enjoyable and easier. For the deans and chairpersons. The result of this study will help English teachers find ways to make their students learn to like grammar and motivate them to achieve success in varied spoken and written tasks. For the teachers. the findings will reveal the students¶ strengths and weaknesses in English grammar. Lastly. the result will lead them to develop instructional materials which will help students who are having a hard time in studying English to find an advanced way in improving their studying habits and learning techniques. For the students. this study will help them to be aware of their students¶ weak points in learning English. 10 .

complex. Expanding Sentences.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Definition of Terms The following are the terms operationally defined and significant in this study. This refers to a grammar skill that tests the learner¶s ability to combine sentences using different methods like (1) turning two or more short simple sentences by using a compound subject or a compound verb. This refers to a system of rules that specifies the class of phonetically possible utterances that are well formed in the language in 11 . Combining Sentences. This refers to a grammar skill that tests the learners¶ ability to ask yes/no. (3) and joining simple sentence by forming compound. This is a grammar skill that tests the learners¶ ability to expand or amplifying sentences using the form of syntactic structures namely. It is the body of rules that govern the use of a language (Ruaya). predication. English grammar. do does. This refers to as the effective teaching of English language (Ruaya). Asking Questions. or compound-complex sentences using coordinating or subordinating conjunctions. This is the act of speaking and writing in the English language effectively.and add it to another sentence. (2) turning a simple sentence into a phrase. complementation and coordination. Grammar. modification. did and WH questions. Effective English Instruction. an appositive phrase. or an infinitive phrase.such as a prepositional phrase.

or ever will be produced) a structural description that incorporates and expresses just the information about the sentence that is available to the person who understands it (Roberts ix). This is a grammar skill that tests the learners¶ ability to answer the different techniques of answering yes/no. This consists of the use of this grammar in the comprehension and production of language (Ellis 13). did and WH questions. Performance.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES question. 12 . do does. and that assigns to each well-formed sentence (whether or not it has ever actually been produced. Responding to Questions.

Mastery of the grammar is generally equated with language proficiency. In more cases than not. English teachers will become more critical and more accountable than ever before in their role in providing the necessary skills for . and it is often considered critical to developing fluency and accuracy in language use (16). England said that the real-world communication problems of the 21st century are already upon us. grammar teaching and testing remains one of the key areas of language learning. Moreover. In many language courses and programs. that communication will take place in English. Foreign Literature Ho Mei Lin stated that the basic knowledge of grammar is acknowledged by some to underlie the ability to use language to express meaning and to communicate effectively. Global concerns and complex problems will be addressed more effectively by people who can speak and write clearly to one another.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Chapter 2 13 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES This chapter presents the description and review of some literature and research studies that provided the researcher with insights into the essential points of this study. We know that successful international communication will be more critical than ever.

He stated that grammar is not language. there must be great applications and tests in order to learn English better (22). it appeared that English language and culture were becoming rapidly decoupled from their contentious past. McCrum stated that with the turn of millennium. Kaplan affirmed the fact that applied linguistics is alive and well. Those who teach English need to be able to manage a much broader range of teaching responsibilities and increasingly diverse learner needs (23). There must be applications and superimposition in grammar perfection. The role of English in the world has grown so much that there are reportedly more than four times as many nonnative speakers as native speakers of English. Crumley supported Lloyd¶s statement. And as English became liberated from its roots. It will not improve the learner¶s capability if writing is only medium in studying the language.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES addressing those challenges. English began to gain a supranational momentum that made it independent of its Anglo-American Origins. He criticizes those who study ³bare rules of language´ without examples of prose or verse. But John opposed to Crumley and Lloyd¶s statement. Thus. it is only the rules of the language. He said that in American schools. it began to spread deeper into the developing world. it is all about getting it right on paper. Contrucci believed that grammar (and spelling) is just one way to look at the world. In addition to the statements mentioned above. Much has 14 .

Everybody is aware that education is a primordial concern in this country. the layman¶s understanding of the hurdles to clear by learners of English as a second language. . they must also strive to attain recognition of the importance of language activities not as the esoteric activity of ivory-tower theorists but as vital in development and modernization (4). The pursuit of English proficiency needs the synergy of our educational leaders and mentors. and (5) culturally literate (Cortes 151). the teacher¶s expertise in facilitating students¶ acquisition of English skills especially modeling it. (3) scientifically and technologically literate (4) socially literate or socially intelligent. (2) numerically literate. and the atmosphere conducive to the communicative interchange in English whether in contrived or natural settings (Go 250). 15 Local Literature ³If English is to be given emphasis in our academic community today. there is a need to strengthen teachers¶ skill in communicating so that the quality of English teaching will be improved´ (Yarcia 55). Being functionally literate in the contemporary world means being (1) verbally literate.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES transpired in the recent past that suggests it has a great future. Applied linguists and language teachers must not only work for the evolution of a new theoretical paradigm descriptive of the real uses of real language by real human beings. But much remains to be done ± that future will not spring full blown into reality.

³«children should learn to read and write and speak in a language familiar to them since it would enable them to grasp concepts more easily´ (Salaverria). highly recommended was the development of standards sensitive to APEC contexts and 21st century competencies. The reason of these lapses is because the Filipino languages hardly change the endings of the words. Filipinos have raised the alarm. English language is not only a common language among Filipinos but also a tool to access the literature and technology of the rest of the world. In terms of standards. Violation of the first two rules makes up more than 50% of the mistakes. For a good number of Filipino-English speakers. and it succeeded in getting national attention and support in involving the private sector (Ubac). English language must be embraced (Salaverria). some grammar and pronunciation usage cause problems which if corrected will improve accuracy. With a strong foundation of the English language. Since people of today live and compete in the fast-moving information technology age and English is the language of technology.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES From the start. English changes in endings of words only in two instances and these are where the Filipino English speakers trip up (Barcelon). Ten rules can correct almost all common violations. thus. students would be better equipped to learn more skills. 16 . They change the beginning or the middle but hardly ever the endings in contrast to Spanish in which the endings of words constantly change.

teachers often feel much less secure when dealing with tests which measure speaking and listening even though these skills regarded as essential components of a diagnostic tests which measures overall . English bilingual/lingua franca. Linguists of whatever persuasion accept the basic assumption that the ³grammar´ of a language (or language variety. 17 Foreign Studies Years of experience marking written work have made them familiar with the level of written competence pupils need in order to succeed in a specific standard. and English as a foreign language. However. English dominant. the concern focused on the status of multilingualism and multiculturalism in APEC countries both in general and educational contexts (Madrunio). But grammatical models have tended to be overly abstract and to disregard the fact that real-life speech is highly variable and fuzzy in some respects. and that thereby allows human beings to communicate successfully with each other. that the members of a speech community share. for that matter) consists of a set of ³rules´ or ³principles´ that speakers have internalized somehow. it is merely a factor´ (Luz).POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES giving due importance to the three circles of English use. Communicative and intercultural competencies were also noted to be part of the standards to be developed for the learners«with regard to the policy. that there are typically many different ways of ³saying the same thing´ (Schneider 28). ³Weak English proficiency is not the sole determinant of poor overall achievement.

The question ³how is something said?´ implies the question ³what is to be said?´. in Ureta 180181). Developmental Interaction. While it is important to make explicit the major grammatical design of the language. According to Murdoch. ³We acquire when we focus on what is being said. Multiple Intelligence. Some believe that early childhood education is a cornerstone of a child¶s future. Therefore. at least in their own language. In English medium schools in particular a low level of English impedes students¶ acquisition knowledge. it is essential for him to create sentences about something in a meaningful context (Bosco 37). Waldorf. The following are the early childhood education approaches that we have to guide as to the many different teaching methods for young children: Montessori.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES linguistic proficiency. identifying the correct level of English of the students is all the more challenging and important (Hingle and Linington 26). yet rare is the modern parent who would keep his child from attending college beyond age four. Traditional and Reggio Emilia (qtd. Bankstreet. Progressive. it is equally important to create in the learner the ³need to communicate´ by way of definite content. It is not enough for the learner to create grammatically correct sentences. Although the second-language English pupils often come from an oral rather than a written culture. and so are likely to be more proficient in this mode of communication. Many never really had to go pre-school when we were toddlers. 18 . speaking in English may be a different matter.

Why then is teaching English still so difficult? 19 Because during all those years. According to Zhenhui. revised. Since China¶s open-door policy began in 1979. modified. the teaching of English. has undergone several major revolutions. language structure practice should be given in contexts which involve some basic principles of appropriateness (25).g. discarded. tenses. teacher standards and so forth have all been studied. active ± passive transformations) does not seem to enhance their linguistic competence.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES rather than how it is said. modified. no serious thought has been given to the validity of what we teach as English (Pierce 8). Teaching methods have been tried. Such a ³focusing´ can only come about if the learner¶s interest and desire to achieve an outcome are fully aroused´ (17). it is quite necessary to relate grammar teaching and pattern drills to meaning and use. ³« grammars can be internalized by encouraging subjects to solve grammatical problems in much the same way that a young child solves (constructs) the grammar of his native language´ (Bourke 21). instead of teaching grammar as an end and drilling patterns for their own sake. restudied. and revised again.. In other words. especially to second language learners. economic. cultural and educational contacts with other countries worldwide have brought about an . Methods of training teachers. Putting students through a series of grammatical ³hoops´ (e. conditionals. Over the past five decades.

Potential grammar writers often find themselves paralyzed by the massive prospect of describing a language. Along with such a change. The audience for a grammatical description is an important consideration . The entire issue is based on the idea that structured (grammatical) arrangements of words carry the meaning being expressed and can somehow be abstracted away from their actual use in a specific context. grammar writing is a long term task. the need for descriptive grammars is more critical than ever. Learners have become keen on acquiring real-life 20 communication skills (Rong 2). there has been growing interest in gaining communicative competence. Instead. learners nowadays perceive English learning as an educational investment and as a step on the ladder of success. Additionally. A few years ago the issue whether something was µlinguistic¶ or not seemed like an important question but it no longer does. Important theoretical advances during the 1980¶s and 1990¶s have shown that a speakers meaning is not constrained in this way (Slobin 177).POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES unprecedented demand for English. and more immediate concerns often preclude the expenditure of time and energy necessary to accomplish and an adequate grammatical description (Payne 235). With over half the languages in the world currently in danger of extinction within a century. English is no longer viewed as a required course in school. A grammatical description is an essential component of any program of language documentation and preservation.

for example. the interested public and members of the communities in which the language is spoken.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES for anyone involved in descriptive linguistics. An awareness of target audiences is necessary in shaping the grammar to meet varying needs. and the nature of exemplification (Mithun 281). 21 Local Studies Ruaya (1997) studied the English grammar proficiency of the first year college students of the PMI colleges. He noted that it is high time that all school personnel from the administrator down to the instructors should put their hands together and plan an intensive and effective English instruction that would alleviate the situation. The first year college students were less proficient in the grammar skills namely: asking questions. the organization and style of the presentation. All of the students did not achieve the mastery level in any grammar skills that they were expected to have at this level of educational pursuit. He found out that the first year college students¶ grammar proficiency levels are glaring enough to cause the cause authorities to sit up and take notice of. combining statements and expanding statements. negative and affirmative responses. A questionnaire was sent to 105 respondents. It might. the depth of detail to include. The proficiency level of grammar abilities of the first year college students was less satisfactorily developed. the use of technical terminology. affect the choice of topics to be discussed. English grammar . Potential grammar users include linguists.

75% say they read English. The first year college students were deficient in wanting for an effective instructional program to most of the challenges in worldwide communication in this highly technological world. While Balawid stated that mounting global employment due to the worsening economic slump has merely underscored the need of our human resources to be proficient in English ± the world¶s lingua franca ± in order to stay highly competitive in the job market here and abroad. Moreover. three out of five (61%) say they write English. According to Social Weather Stations. Ruaya was supported by Florencio¶s study as the latter stated that there was lack of proper choices of the methods of teaching to be used to facilitate learning of English by the pupils. 22 . about two-fifths (38%) they think in English. Self-reported competence in spoken English dropped from 52% in 2000 to a mere 32% in 2006. David said that proficiency in spoken English is the most difficult to achieve. while 8% say they are not competent in any way when it comes to the English language. and the most valued by the business process outsourcing industry. Filipino children are not learning because they cannot understand what the teacher is saying. three-fourths of Filipino adults (76%) say that they understand spoken English.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES instruction in the high school was not efficiently provided to have built upon them a good foundation of knowledge. close to half (46%) say they speak English.

Filipinos of different ages. Jambalos. In a self-assessment test conducted by the Department of Education in 2004. and collocations as well as subcategorization and selectional restrictions of the lexicon (112-114). Gonzalez. He came up with the following solutions: resume the use of application ± exercise for internalizing grammar rules. who went through different teaching and learning conditions as well as sociological and political environments (113). and Romero stated that Filipinos of different generations have learned representative phonological and grammatical structures of English as a second language is its spoken and written phase. Sarile added that schools have even gone to the extent of requiring 23 . tense and tense sequence.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Ruiz affirmed that the poor performance has been linked to poor English comprehension of students and the lack of mastery of English among teachers. in grammar. Gonzalez even shared that the Test in English proficiency administered to teachers indicate that English teachers scored only 57-60% in the English language test. add to the existing syllabus more explicit through simplified rules of article usage. if teacher themselves are not conscious of their own mistake and those of their pupils and are not in a position to make corrections or teach English properly. determine ways of rewarding the use of English outside the English classroom as a means of positive reinforcement and in lieu of (negative) sanctions which are no longer liable. only one out of every five public school teachers is proficient in the English language.

in the past three decades. linguistics. This policy was practiced by most schools in the past (177). if indeed they existed.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES everyone to speak in English on school campus. on the other hand. ³actions´. creative writers. David and Dumanig shared that English has gained dominance over other languages sand plays a crucial role in promoting globalization (67). In a rapidly globalizing. and literary critics. and modifiers´. would more closely relate to ³things´. English functions as an international 24 . A major problem with these definitions was an attempt to relate grammatical categories directly to meaning. Nevertheless. The global spread of English has a number of consequences both for the nature of English and its teaching and in the global context. the dominance of English causes not only linguistic and communicative inequality but also the feeling of anxiety and insecurity on the part of those who cannot speak the language. and it serves as a neutral language to people who come from different linguistics backgrounds. they were conceived of by inference only. and literature. Tsuda said that English has become the language of the global village. theories of language universals involving semantic units and patterns had been tested on many languages with promising results. Semantic categories. As stated by Alamis. But since units could not be observed directly except perhaps when they paralleled grammatical categories. the study of the formal and functional implications of the global spread of English has received considerable attention among scholars of English language.

Finally. The findings of these studies not only helped the researchers in the analysis and interpretation of data but also supported the theoretical framework (Three Dimension Theory) used in this study. to express meaning. and often considered critical in developing fluency and accuracy in language use (16). The mastery of grammar is generally equated with language proficiency. and to communicate effectively. Ho Mei Lin¶s definition of grammar gave the researchers a perception in knowing grammar as the ability to use language. 25 Synthesis and Relevance of the Reviewed Literature and Studies The perspectives presented by both foreign and local literatures provided the researchers with some insights about the importance of grammar and the current situation of English proficiency in the Philippines. The information gathered from these articles helped the researchers in understanding and setting the direction of this study. In many language courses and programs. Crisol stated that teaching profession was mostly dominated by women because they are linked to their traditional role as a caregiver or a teacher (40). grammar teaching and testing remains one of the key areas of language learning. they are significant to the present study because the procedure by which some of these studies were conducted is similar to the one followed by this study.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES language (99). .

and analysis. Borg defines the descriptive method as a distinctive research methodology of systematic data collection. practices that prevail. and sampling technique. The method of research is concerned with conditions and relations that exist. since it describes ³what traits´ or ³what it is´ of a certain educational phenomenon. point of view effects that are being felt. description of the respondents. presentation. It involves a more in ± depth analysis through the use of numerical and comparative analysis (56). Research Method Used The descriptive method of educational research was employed in the study. data-gathering procedure.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 26 This chapter presents the method of research utilized in the study. processes that are going on. or trends that are developing. as Best asserts that the descriptive research goes beyond mere tabulation of data to the analysis and interpretation and meaning of what is being described. sample size. research instrument. This method is the most appropriate method for this study. the population. . and statistical treatment used for data analysis.

course year and section. BSED I-1D. 29. 31. 28. 30. 29. 30. and type of high school attended influence students¶ grammar or linguistic performance. Sample Size and Sampling Technique Table 1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Population and Sample Course. there were 44 who were used as respondents. The study aimed to investigate whether variables. 29. BBTE I-2N. BSED I-2D. BSED I-3D. BBTE I-3D. From BEED I-1D. such as gender. BEED I-1N. and BSED I-3N.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Population. 30. out of 801 freshmen in the College of Education. 30. 28. 30. 30. The respondents of the study were 473 . 44. BBTE I-2D. BSED I-2N. BBTE I-1D. 30. BBTE I-1N. BSED I-4D. 473 were used in the study using the Slovin¶s Formula. BSED I-1N. BBTE I-4D. Year and Section BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Total Population 55 55 51 53 51 51 51 52 55 55 55 53 55 55 54 801 Sample 44 44 30 30 30 30 30 30 29 31 28 28 29 29 30 473 % 80 80 59 57 59 59 59 58 53 56 53 51 53 53 56 886 27 As shown in the Table 1.

It is also the stage when grammar skills can still be improved in preparation for higher levels. These numbers were written on small sheets of paper. Simple random sampling was used to determine the representatives of the freshmen population of the College of Education during the first semester of school year 2010-2011. This will allow teachers to hold remedial classes if needed. 2010-2011 who passed all the requirements needed to be enrolled. The first year in the university is the right stage for the teachers to know their students¶ strengths and weaknesses in grammar performance. 28 Description of the Respondents The respondents of this study were the freshmen of College of Education S. first semester of the school year 2010-2011. the names of all students were assigned numbers. 473 were drawn. 80 and beyond for math and science. and passing an interview in the said college. getting a high school average of 82 and beyond.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES freshmen from the in College of Education in Polytechnic University of the Philippines. then rolled and placed in a box. Out of the 801 total population of freshmen. acquiring a grade of 81 and above for English. such as: having a PUPCET score of 88 and above. The researchers used the freshman students as respondents of the study.Y. One . To give the population of each departmental course an equal chance of participation. The number of pieces of papers picked out (by lottery) from the box equaled the number of sample size for each departmental course.

In the type of high school attended. Among the changes made were substituting original items with new items which the researchers thought were more timely or relevant.´ This is a forty-item questionnaire developed by Felix V. 29 Research Instrument The main tool used in gathering the primary data for this study was the questionnaire called ³Proficiency Test in English Grammar for the First-Year College Students.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES hundred thirty-nine (139) of the respondents were male and 334 were female. This type of skills was selected because they more or less reflected the learners¶ ability to use the language rather than just show the learners¶ ³knowledge of the language. course and section. 205 respondents were taking Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED).´ The first part of the questionnaire provides spaces where students could indicate their gender. Ruaya for his master¶s thesis. and expanding sentences. With the assistance of their thesis adviser. and type of high school attended which are necessary in answering the sub . In each degree program. 180 were taking Bachelor of Business Teacher Education (BBTE). and 88 were taking Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED). responding to questions. 370 students graduated from public high school while 103 came from private high school. combining sentences. the researchers made some modifications on Ruaya¶s questionnaire to suit the needs of the present study. This instrument assesses four grammar skills. namely: asking questions.

5 1.and add it to another sentence. (3) and joining simple sentence by forming compound. an appositive phrase.0 1. (2) turning a simple sentence into a phrase. the items in this part are intended to test the learner¶s ability to combine sentences using different methods like (1) turning two or more short simple sentences by using a compound subject or a compound verb. The items in this part are intended to test the learners¶ ability to expand or to amplify sentences using the form of syntactic structures namely: modification. do does. For purposes of this study. did and WH questions. Test II is on responding to questions.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES problems posted in chapter one. did and WH questions. the scores obtained by the respondents on the grammar proficiency test were converted to PUP grading system as shown on the following. or an infinitive phrase. test I is on asking questions.25 1.75 2. It consists of four tests. Grade 1. Test III is combining sentences.such as a prepositional phrase. do does.0 Percentage 97-100 94-96 91-93 88-90 85-87 Equivalent Excellent Excellent Very Good Very Good Good . or compound-complex sentences using 30 coordinating or subordinating conjunctions (Palma and Mogol. the items in this part are intended to test the learners¶ ability to answer the different techniques of answering yes/no. complex. this part is intended to test the learners¶ ability to ask yes/no. and coordination. The second part is a questionnaire proper. Test IV is expanding sentences. predication. complementation. 379).

19 4.5 2.79 Verbal Interpretation Very Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Moderately Proficient Poorly Proficient 5-Point Likert Scale (Level of Proficiency in Grammatical Skills) Range 8.80-4.75 3. They were requested to give their comments or suggestions as to the clarity and appropriateness of the items in the questionnaire. After the requested period.39 2.19 16.40-8.79 Verbal Interpretation Very Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Moderately Proficient Poorly Proficient The questionnaire was presented to some expert professors in the College of Languages and Linguistics for face validation.0 24.20-40.80-16.00-8. The suggestions were incorporated and then a second draft of the questionnaire was developed.00-2.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 2.25 2.60-24.00 6.20-10.60-6. The questionnaires were further subjected to a dry run test to selected freshmen students who were automatically .39 8.59 1.40-32.0 82-84 79-81 76-78 75 Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Passing 31 5-Point Likert Scale (Level of Proficiency) Range 32.59 1. the questionnaires were retrieved.

32 Data-Gathering Procedure The researchers prepared a letter addressed to the Dean of the College of Education requesting for the approval of the conduct of the study in the said college. After securing the necessary approval. After retrieving all the administered questionnaires. their suggestions were considered in the final draft of the questionnaire. Statistical Treatment of Data The study made use of the following statistical tools: 1. the responses were organized and processed for the appropriate statistical treatment. To determine the profile of the respondents. They were likewise requested to comment on the clarity and comprehensibility of the different items in the questionnaire. the questionnaires were reproduced and administered to target respondents. after the given period.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES disregarded in the selection of respondents in the actual survey. frequency and percentage . After completing the validation process. The researchers spent 45 minutes with the target respondents to assist them in answering the different areas of the questionnaire. Similarly. the researchers personally met the professors of the respondents and requested them to allow them to distribute copies of the questionnaires to the target respondents. Retrieval was done on the same day of the administration of the questionnaire to ascertain high percentage of retrieval.

Reject Ho (there is significant difference).05. 4.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES distribution was used. one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. To determine the significant difference on the grammar performance of the respondents with respect to program and section. To determine the English grammar performance of the respondents in terms of the different aspects mean/ arithmetic average. t-test for two independent samples was used. Formula: %=( f/n) 100% Where: 100% = constant f = frequency n = number of cases 2. Decision Rule: If P Value ” 0. otherwise. 33 Where: = summation of all available data N = total number cases 3. Accept . To determine the significant difference on the English Grammar Performance of the respondents with respect to gender and type of school attended.

SPSS and Minitab) to come up with authentic computation.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Ho (there is no significant difference). 34 .g. The researchers made use of reliable statistical software (e. Note: Assuming that population variance is not equal.

responding to questions. Respondents¶ Profile 1. and expanding sentences. AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data obtained from a survey of the respondents¶ profile and the significant difference in terms of their performance in the English grammar skills such as asking questions.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Chapter 4 35 PRESENTATION. the following are the results of the study: 1. ANALYSIS. Based on analyzed and interpreted data.1 Gender Table 2 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to Gender . combining sentences.

While the 29.13 6. and section. as how Crisol stated.34 6. year. Of the . and Section Table 3 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to Course.13 6.92 6. there were 473 respondents in this study.34 6.2 Course.34 100% 36 BBTE BSED TOTAL Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents when grouped according to course. 1.34 6.34 6.34 6. is dominated by women because they are linked to their traditional role as a caregiver or a teacher (40). It can be deduced that teaching profession.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of data when grouped according to gender. and Section Course BEED Section I-1d I-1n I-1d I-2d I-3d I-4d I-1n I-2n I-1d I-2d I-3d I-4d I-1n I-2n I-3n Frequency 44 44 30 30 30 30 30 30 29 31 28 29 29 29 30 473 % 9. All in all. There were 334 female or 70.30 6.55 5. Year.61% out of the total sample size.30 9.34 6.13 6.39% or 139 respondents were male.13 6. Year.

48 9 1. Bachelor in Secondary Education was the biggest source of respondents.07 25 5. Bachelor in Business Teacher Education was the second biggest source.85 10 2.60% of the population size.61 29 6.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES three courses sampled.50 20 4.42 9 1.29 23 4.85 7 1.44 24 5.3 Type of High School Attended Table 4 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to their Type of High School Attended Course section BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N TOTAL PUBLIC Frequency % 36 7.90 4 0.23 25 5. recording a frequency of 180 or 38.23% PRIVATE Frequency % 8 1.48 7 1. The greater proportion of the respondents came from public school garnering a .85 5 1.65 20 4.23 4 0.50 24 5.44 22 4.48 103 21.13 28 5. 1.86 370 78. Bachelor in Elementary Education generated the lowest number of respondents--88 or 18.92 21 4. obtaining a frequency of 205 or 43.11 4 0.70% 37 Table 4 illustrates the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended.23 26 5.29 21 4.07 26 5.06 6 1.90 6 1.23 7 1.34% of the total population.17 2 0.05%t of the total population size.69 15 3.

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES frequency of 370 or 78. Expanding Sentences Table 5 Grand Mean of the Respondents¶ Level of Proficiency in Each Grammatical Skill 38 . a force of knowledge workers and entrepreneurs (www. It is the University's commitment to give qualified and talented students access to quality and responsive education to aid them in the achievement of their dreams and improve their lives.edu.23%. Being well-educated and skilled individuals. On the other hand.70% of the total sample. Responding to Questions.ph). Combining Sentences. Respondents¶ Level of Performance in Terms of Asking Questions. Since Polytechnic University of the Philippines is considered as a state university. 2.pup. the respondents who graduated from private school accounted a frequency of 103 or 21. they will not only become job seekers but job creators as well. majority of the students belong to the economically challenged level of society.

18 1. In responding to questions.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 5 demonstrates the grand mean of the level of proficiency of the respondents when grouped in each grammatical skill.52 6.38 grand mean or interpreted as µModerately Proficient¶.81 Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient to Questions Combining Sentences Expanding Sentences Table 6 shows that on the tests of asking questions the female respondents were more competent than male gaining a mean of 4. females were higher than males.95 1.95 1. the lowest was Asking Questions which had 4. interpreted as µfairly proficient¶ were Responding to Questions and Expanding Sentences.95 Proficient 1.47 FEMALE s Interpretation Moderately 1.1 Gender Table 6 Respondents¶ Level of Performance Grouped According to Gender Grammar Skills Asking Questions Responding 4.07 6.30. obtaining a mean of 6.91 Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient 4.03 Proficient 2. In combining sentences.55 6.02 MALE s Interpretation Moderately 2.92 6. Respondents¶ Level of Performance in Each Grammar Skills Grouped According to Variables 3.37.55. 39 3. The two grammatical skills that shared the same grand mean of 6.37 higher than a .37 5. females gained a mean of 6.81 1.06 5.

81 1.98 5.93 3.00 1.57 4.98 2.79 4.39 2.81 2. Year & Section BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Grand Mean 4.06 mean of males.1 4.5 5.2 Course.73 1.48 2.47. females appeared to be more competent than males obtaining a mean of 6. 40 3.04 4.77 4.53 2.38 s 1. In expanding sentences.06 2.31 3.79 4.04 4.2 4.41 1. Year and Section Course. with weighted mean of 5.03 1.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 6.3 1. These findings seemed to confirm Corson¶s assertion that when language competencies revealed in the school setting itself are examined.73 1.27 3.57 3. girls do have a measure of superiority over boys. Year and Section Table 7 Respondents¶ Level of Performance in Asking Questions According to Course.99 1.5 and interpreted as µfairly .66 4.04 Interpretation Moderately Proficient Moderately Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Moderately Proficient Moderately Proficient Moderately Proficient Moderately Proficient Moderately Proficient Fairly Proficient Moderately Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Moderately Proficient Moderately Proficient Moderately Proficient This table shows that BBTE I-1D obtained the highest mean among the fifteen (15) sections.

On the other hand.57.09 5.6 6.29 5.38 5.47.06 2.13 2.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES proficient¶.93 6.98 1.27 5.27 Interpretation Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient This table reveals the respondents¶ level of proficiency in responding to questions when grouped according to course. interpreted as µmoderately proficient¶.34 6.33 2. Year. BBTE I-1N got the lowest mean of 3.77 6. the BBTE I-1N got the lowest mean of 5.47 6. .17 6.60 6.30 1.1 1.86 6.30 Majority of the sections were µfairly proficient¶.77 1. year.77 2. 41 Table 8 Respondents¶ Level of Proficiency in Responding to Questions According to Course.73 2. However.19 1. It depicts that BBTE I-1D respondents were proficient in the abovementioned skill.40 2.75 7. and section.03 2.79 2. obtaining the highest weighted mean of 7.69 6. and Section Course. Year & Section BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Grand Mean S 6.38 2.30 6.72 1.

39 1.77 6.63 5.84 5.50 5.28 5.76 1.71 2.45 5.43 5.67 1.73 6.55 1. year and section.44 1. It further reveals that most of the sections had a uniform level of performance.30 1.78 2.50 5.99 Interpretation Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient The table above depicts the respondents¶ level of proficiency in combining sentences when grouped according to course.8 5. . Findings revealed that BBTE I-1D generated the highest weighted mean of 6.63 1.45 5.00 5.95 1. Year and Section Course.40 6.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 9 Respondents¶ Level of Proficiency in Combining Sentences According to Course. interpreted as µproficient¶.82 1.77. Year & Section BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Grand Mean 42 s 5.88 1.58 1.77 6. which is fairly proficient.72 1.57 1.21 5.

40 6. Year & Section BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Total 43 S 5.86 6.17 1.11 6.53 2.00 6.82 1.07 6.62 1.29 1.20 7.79 Interpretation Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Table 10 displays the level of proficiency in expanding sentences of the respondents when grouped according to course.67 1.07 as their mean.91 1. On the other hand.08 1.11 6.17 6. year. .73 2. Year and Section Course.62. BBTE I-1D was deemed proficient in the abovementioned skill with 7.50 6.33 6.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 10 Respondents¶ Level of Proficiency in Expanding Sentences According to Course.88 1.33 6.03 1. and section.62 6.66 2.59 5.64 1. BSED I-1N posted the lowest mean of 5.84 1.87 1.57 6.43 6.

01 1.70.33 6. In combining sentences.33 Table 11 shows that on the tests of asking questions.75 1. And in expanding sentences.26 5.96 Proficient S 2. These findings seemed to confirm Sen.91 1.90 Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Private Interpretation Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient Fairly Proficient s 4.33 5. a mean of 5.11 1.3 Type of High School Attended 44 Table 11 Respondents Level of Performance Grouped According to Type of High School Attended Grammar Skills Asking Questions Responding to Questions Combining Sentences Expanding Sentences Public Interpretation Moderately 1.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 3.33 which was higher than the public schools¶. who could teach the English language effectively. private schools appeared to be more competent obtaining a mean of 4. makes English learning difficult for most public school students. private schools appeared to be more competent than public schools.86 was gained by the private school higher than of the public schools.70 6.39 1.78 6.71 4. private schools obtained a mean of 6. In responding to questions.86 6. . Tessie Aquino-Oreta¶s assertion that the lack of competent public school tutors.99 2.

222 3.953 0.4 4.667 0.7 4 3.87 to -0.895 1.073 0.917 4.364 4.25 5.07 0.191 0.368 4.238 0.87 1.417 3.63 -0.9 4 5.45 P value 0.536 0.857 5.494 0.44 0. The obtained P value of these .63 0.538 5.591 3.526 3.125 4 5 4.17 0.06 1.654 Result Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho 45 The table shows that the male and female respondents of all the sections obtained t-tests ranging from 1.651 0.818 4.26. Significant Difference in Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on Each of the Grammar Skills when Grouped According to Section Table 12A Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Asking Questions Grouped According to Section (Gender) Asking Questions CYS BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female t-test 3.870 0.714 4.803 0.535 0.71 0.604 0.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 4.727 4.49 0.19 -0.8 4.769 4.850 0.26 0.545 3.833 3.167 5.5 4.059 2.295 0.73 3.43 0.23 0.52 1.

This means that the male and female respondents of these sections did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³asking questions´.1 Ho BSED I-1D 5.05.66 BSED I-2N 4.98 BBTE I-1D 5.79 BSED I-1N 4. which was lesser than the standard level of significance at 0. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among Asking Questions F-test P value .31 BSED I-3N 3. Table 12B Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Asking Questions Grouped According to Section (CYS) 46 Section Result Decision BEED I-1D 4.073 which are all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.003 Significant BBTE I-2N 4.41 BSED I-2D 4.77 The table shows that the same sections obtained a t-test of 1.93 BBTE I-1N 1.43 BBTE I-3D 4.57 BEED I-1N 3.5 BBTE I-2D 3.953 to 0.04 BSED I-4D 4.92.27 BBTE I-4D 3. the null hypothesis which states that ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender´ is accepted.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES sections ranged from 0.92 0.97 Reject 1. As a result. As a result. with a P value of 0.19 BSED I-3D 4.003.05.

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to section´ was rejected. 47 . This means that the respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³asking questions´.

168 3.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 12C Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Asking Questions Grouped According to Section (THSA) Asking Questions P t-test value 4.19 .742 4.615 6.02 0.586 -2.522 -0. .32 4.75 4.67 3.368 4.64 -0.429 4.854 4.611 0.10 0.19 0.634 6 4.51 0.34 0.66 0.84 0.846 -1.672 4.96 0.981 4.905 -0.905 -0.429 -0.45 0.32 -0.524 5.534 4 4.945 4.72 0.25 3.08 -0.57 48 CYS BEED I-1D BEED I-1N THSA Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Result Not Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N The table shows that when grouped according to type of high school attended.667 4.5 3.011 4.65 -0.5 4.375 3.077 -0.409 -0.69 0.416 5.89 4.421 4.862 4.733 5.25 5.32 0.292 0.94 0. the respondents of section BEED I-1D obtained a t-test of 0.73 0.07 0.34.

862.07.72.854. -0.73. As a result.45. 0. On the other hand. with a P value of 0. 0. -0. the respondents who came from public and private schools of section BEED I-1N obtained a t-test of -2. BBTE 1-2D.416.94.10. This means that the respondents who came from public and private schools differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³asking questions´. 0. 0. 0.05.615.05. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was rejected.981. -0. BSED I-1D. -0.69. -0.84.524. As a result.534.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES BBTE 1-1D.945. BSED I-2D. BBTE I-2N. 0.19. The table further shows that the same sections obtained the P value of 0. 0.19. -0. 0.421. BSED I-4D. 0.96.51. 0.66. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was accepted.742.634. BSED I-2N. 0.368 which are all greater than the standard level of significance at 0. 0. lesser than the standard level of significance at 0. and 0. BBTE I-4D. 0. This means that the respondents who came from public and private schools did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³asking questions´. -0. -0. BBTE I-1N. -1.011. BSED I-1N.02. BSED I-3D.32. 0. -0. BBTE 1-3D.672. -0. 49 . and BSED I-3N.

15 6.57 0.409 5.908 Significant 6.25 Not 0.25 Not -0.364 Not -1.60 0.29 0.421 6.216 6.458 6.370 Significant 5.056 5.12 0.618 7.059 4.07 0.636 Not -0.60 0.144 Significant 7.8 Not 0.8 Not 1.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 12D Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Responding to Questions Grouped According to Section (Gender) Responding to Questions P t-test Result value 5.341 Significant 6.948 Significant 6.86 0.136 6 Not 0.238 Significant 5.2 Not -0.6 Not 1.136 Significant 7.579 50 CYS BEED I-1D BEED I-1N Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N The table shows that the male and female respondents of all the sections .191 Significant 6.34 0.00 0.225 Significant 6.536 Significant 6.93 0.62 0.559 Significant 6.545 Not 0.8 5.21 0.578 Significant 6.63 0.286 Not 0.538 Not -0.05 0.1 5.419 Significant 6.964 Significant 7.879 Significant 6.15 0.29 Not 1.375 Not 1.308 6.111 7.474 5.429 Not 1.

222 Accept Ho Significant BSED I-1D 6. with a P value of 0.05. The obtained P value of these sections ranged from 0. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among .30 BBTE I-2D 3. 51 Table 12E Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Responding to Questions Grouped According to Section (CYS) Responding to Questions Section F-test P value Result Decision BEED I-1D 6.09 BEED I-1N 5.05.33 Not BBTE I-2N 6.67 BBTE I-3D 6. greater than the standard level of significance at 0.86 BSED I-2N 6.77 BBTE I-4D 6.222.60 The table shows that the same sections obtained a t-test of 1. As a result.6 1.34. This means that the male and female respondents of these sections did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³responding to questions´.38 BSED I-1N 5.20. As a result.93 BSED I-4D 6.27 BBTE I-1N 3.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES obtained t-tests ranging from 1.136 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.62 to -1.29 BSED I-3D 5. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender´ was accepted.20 0.964 to 0.69 BSED I-2D 6.34 BSED I-3N 6.75 BBTE I-1D 7.

13 -0.192 6.5 6.38 -0.56 7.85 5.286 0.71 0.679 0. 52 Table 12F Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Responding to Questions Grouped According to Section (THSA) Responding to Questions CYS THSA t-test P value Result Decision BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private 6.12 7.2 6.139 5.769 5.667 7.75 7 5.70 1.902 0.318 5.875 6.889 6.87 -1.58 -0. This means that the respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³responding to questions´.16 0.322 0.143 6.23 -0.965 0.04 -2.30 0.24 0.13 -3.79 0.409 0.417 6.667 5.5 6.417 6.28 7 5.135 0.321 7 6 6.793 5.75 5.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to section´ was accepted.42 0.52 0.43 -0.683 0.70 -0.90 0.556 6.004 0.81 0.603 0.875 5.63 1.857 6.104 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho The table shows that when grouped according to type of high school .

-0.79.43. 0. 0. the respondents who came from public and private schools of section BBTE I-3D obtained a t-test of -3. BBTE I-1D. This means that the respondents who came from public and private schools did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³responding to questions´. BSED I-4D.409. 0.52. On the other hand. 0. BBTE I-2D. BSED I-2D. 0. The table further shows that the same sections obtained the P value of 0. As a result.24.13.42.05.70 and BSED I-3N.81.87. BSED I-2N.679. -0. 0. BSED I-1N. As a result.965.16.63. 0. 0.58.38. -1.04.30 and 0. -0. -2. 0. 1. This means that the respondents who came from public and private schools differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³responding to questions´.70. -0. -0. BSED I-1D. BSED I-3D.322.23.05.135. BBTE I-2N. the respondents of section BEED I-1D obtained a t-test of 0. with a P value of 0. -0.90. 1.71.683. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was rejected. BBTE I-4D. BEED I-1N. 53 .04.104 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES attended.13. lesser than the standard level of significance at 0. 0. 0. 0.603. BBTE I-1N. 0. 0. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ is accepted.

571 -0.611 5 0.049 4.847 5.8 5.094 5.526 54 CYS BEED I-1D BEED I-1N Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Result Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N The table shows that the male and female respondents of all the sections .227 5.848 6.769 5.46 0.333 5.13 0.947 5 1.108 5.273 0.75 0.714 0.28 0.5 0.917 0.154 -1.278 5.75 0.654 5.05 5.40 0.72 1.909 -0.205 6.43 1.20 0.680 5.545 1.298 5.44 0.471 5.19 0.794 6.55 0.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 12G Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Combining Sentences Grouped According to Section (Gender) Combining Sentences P t-test value 4.775 5.05 6.6 1.966 6.25 1.11 0.7 5.21 0.29 0.9 0.780 5.04 0.111 5.839 6.276 5.594 6.06 0.737 6.

77 6.77 3.75 to -1. As a result.05. which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.77 5.13 0.28 5.094.45 5.80 5.68 5.73 6.29.43 Result Decision 55 1.50 5.29 Not Significant Accept Ho The table shows that the same sections obtained a t-test of 1.05 to 0. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender´ was accepted. which is greater than the standard level of significance at 0.13. with a P value of 0.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES obtained t-tests ranging from 1. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the . Table 12H Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Combining Sentences Grouped According to Section (CYS) Section BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Combining Sentences F-test P value 5.84 5.21 5. As a result.05. This means that the male and female respondents of these sections did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³combining sentences´.77 3.10 5.00 6.11. The obtained P value of these sections ranged from 1.

137 0.67 0.552 6.47 1. This means that the respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³combining sentences.5 5.5 6.96 -1.76 0.145 0.484 0.035 0.714 7.97 -0.6 4.29 -1.222 0.53 0.286 6.311 0.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to sections´ was accepted.52 6.609 4.164 0.625 5.591 5.415 The table shows that when grouped according to type of high school attended.923 6.59 -1.699 0.622 0.51 -2.625 5.333 5.339 0.806 6 5.095 5.842 0.067 6.3 5 5.5 6.654 6.20 -0. .875 5.16 6 5.16 -0.889 5.28 5 5.85 0.5 6.´ Table 12I Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Combining Sentences Grouped According to Section (THSA) Combining Sentences t-test P value 5.41 0.857 56 CYS BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N THSA Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Result Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Reject Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho -0.202 0.50 -1.31 -1.86 0.19 -0.143 5.

137. 0. 0. BSED I-2N.59. 0. 0. BSED I-1N.96. The table further shows that the same sections obtained the P value of 0. BBTE I-2N. with a P value of 0. 0. 0. BSED I-3D. -1.05.76. 0. -1. On the other hand. BSED I-2D. 0.035. This means that the respondents who came from public and private schools differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³combining sentences´.29.47. -1.699.86.842.622. 57 .41.97.31.202.05. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was accepted.67 and BSED I-3N. 0.85. 0.51.145. BBTE I-1N. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was rejected. BSED I-4D.484.415 which are all greater than the standard level of significance at 0. This means that the respondents who came from public and private schools did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³combining sentences´.50. -0. BBTE I-4D. -1.20.164.19. -0. 0. BEED I-1N.16. -1. BSED I-1D.339.53. 0. 1. 0. BBTE I-3D.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES the respondents of section BEED I-1D obtained a t-test of -0.311. and 0.222. 0. 0. As a result. 0. 0. As a result. BBTE I-1D. the respondents who came from public and private schools of section BBTE I-2D obtained a t-test of -2. which is lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.

919 5.14 0.5 1.25 0.716 5.6 1.955 4.66 0.97 0.86 1.579 58 CYS BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Result Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Accept Ho Table shows that the male and female respondents of all the sections .448 6.818 1.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 12J Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Expanding Sentences Grouped According to Section (Gender) Expanding Sentences P t-test value 5.05 0.38 0.07 0.583 0.417 0.429 2.364 6.111 5.231 0.094 6.7 5.343 6.069 6.8 0.109 6.455 -0.737 6.97 0.200 7.1 5.77 0.53 0.25 5.532 6.802 6.30 0.8 6.42 0.144 6.412 5.6 -1.125 -0.268 5.571 0.973 6.805 6.03 0.25 0.770 6.909 0.421 6.75 -0.960 6.667 6.66 0.412 7.962 6.

069.091 Not Significant Accept Ho The table shows that the same sections obtained a t-test of 1.62 6.33 3. which is greater than the standard level of significance at 0.973 to 0.39 0. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the . the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender´ was accepted.05.00 6.86 6. As a result. with a P value of 0.43 6.07 to -1. As a result.39.14. This means that the male and female respondents of these sections did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³expanding sentences´.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES obtained t-tests ranging from 2. 59 Table 12K Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Expanding Sentences Grouped According to Section (CYS) Section BEED I-1D BEED I-1N BBTE I-1D BBTE I-2D BBTE I-3D BBTE I-4D BBTE I-1N BBTE I-2N BSED I-1D BSED I-2D BSED I-3D BSED I-4D BSED I-1N BSED I-2N BSED I-3N Expanding Sentences F-test P value 5.33 Result Decision 1.59 5.68 6.11 6.07 4.29 6.091.53 6.05.20 7.00 7. which are all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.17 6. The obtained P value of these sections ranged from 0.

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to section´ was accepted. Table 12L Test of Significant Difference in Respondents¶ Performance Ratings on the Grammar Skill Expanding Sentences Grouped According to Section (THSA) 60 The table shows that the when grouped according to type of high school . This means that the respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³expanding sentences´.

61 5. As a result.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES attended. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was accepted. Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Different Grammar Skills when Grouped According to Variables 5. As a result. the respondents of all the sections obtained t-tests ranging from 1.55 to -1.008 Result Significant Decision Reject Ho This table demonstrates that the male and female respondents obtained a t-test of 2. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender´ was rejected. This means . This means that the respondents who came from public and private schools did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³expanding sentences´.893 to 0.05.69 P Value 0.095 which are all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.85. with a P value of 0.05. lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.69.1 Gender Table 13 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Asking Questions when Grouped According to Gender Gender Male Female 4.55 t-test 2.008.07 4. The obtained P value of these sections ranged from 0.

05. Table 15 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Combining Sentences when Grouped According to Gender Gender Male Female 5.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES that the male and female respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³asking questions´. with a P value of 0.59.19 P Value 0.114 Result Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Table 14 shows that the male and female respondents obtained a t-test of 1.92 t-test 2.029 Result Significant Decision Reject Ho The table above shows that the male and female respondents obtained a . the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender´ was accepted. 62 Table 14 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Responding to Questions when Grouped According to Gender Gender Male Female 6. greater than the standard level of significance at 0.59 P Value 0.37 t-test 1.114.52 5.06 6. This means that the male and female respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³responding to questions´. As a result.

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES t-test of 2.19, with a P value of 0.029, lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender´ was rejected. This means that the male and female respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³combining sentences´.

63

Table 16 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Expanding Sentences when Grouped According to Gender Gender Male Female 6.02 6.47 t-test 2.40 P Value 0.017 Result Significant Decision Reject Ho

Table 16 shows that the male and female respondents obtained a t-test of 2.40, with a P value of 0.017, lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender´ was rejected. This means that the male and female respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³expanding sentences´.

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 17 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Asking Questions when Grouped According to Degree Program Course BEED BBTE BSED F-Test 4.273 4.462 4.449 2.86 P Value 0.000 Result Significant Decision Reject Ho

64

This table shows that when grouped according to degree program, the respondents obtained an F-test of 2.86, with a P value of 0.000, lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to degree program´ was rejected. This means that the respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill ³asking questions´.

Table 18 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Responding to Questions when Grouped According to Degree Program Course BEED BBTE BSED F-Test P Value 5.920 6.526 6.302 1.53 0.096 Result Decision

Not Significant Accept Ho

This table shows that when grouped according to degree program, the respondents obtained an F-test of 1.53, with a P value of 0.096, which is greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to degree program´ was accepted. This means that the respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³responding to questions´. Table 19 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Combining Sentences when Grouped According to Course Course BEED BBTE BSED F-Test 5.784 6.128 5.522 1.51 P Value 0.103 Result Not Significant Decision Accept Ho

65

This table shows that when grouped according to degree program, the respondents obtained an F-test of 1.51, with a P value of 0.103, lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to degree program´ was accepted. This means that the respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³combining sentences´. Table 20 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Expanding Sentences when Grouped According to Degree Program Course BEED BBTE BSED F-Test 6.034 6.468 6.361 1.40 P Value 0.149 Result Not Significant Decision Accept Ho

This table shows that when grouped according to degree program, the

05. As a result. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to degree program´ was accepted. As a result. Table 21 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Asking Questions when Grouped According to Type of High School Attended THSA Public Private t-test 4. with a P value of 0.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES respondents obtained an F-test of 1.33 4.40. the respondents obtained a computed of t-value of 1. This means that the respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³asking questions´. . which is lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.70 1.059.05.91. greater than the standard level of significance at 0.91 P Value 0. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was accepted.149. This means that the respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³expanding sentences´. with a P value of 0.059 Result Not Significant Decision Accept Ho 66 This table shows that when grouped according to type of high school attended.

33 0.17 P Value 0.786 Result Not Significant Decision Accept Ho Table 23 shows that when grouped according to type of high school attended.78 5.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Table 22 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Responding to Questions when Grouped According to Type of High School Attended THSA Public Private t-test 6. the respondents obtained a computed t-value of 0. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was accepted.05. As a result.05.786.27 P Value 0. This means that the respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³responding to questions´.869. with a P value of 0. with a P value of 0. Table 23 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Combining Sentences when Grouped According to Type of High School Attended THSA Public Private t-test 5. As a result. the respondents obtained a computed t-value of 0. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ .26 6. greater than the standard level of significance at 0. greater than the standard level of significance at 0.17.86 0.869 Result Not Significant Decision Accept Ho 67 This table shows that when grouped according to type of high school attended.27.

As a result.33 6.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was accepted. This means that the respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³expanding sentences´.19.05.85.39 0. This means that the respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill ³combining sentences´. . with a P value of 0. the respondents obtained a computed t-value of 0. greater than the standard level of significance at 0. Table 24 Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Expanding Sentences when Grouped According to Type of High School Attended THSA Public Private t-test 6.85 Result Not Significant Decision Accept Ho 68 This table shows that when grouped according to type of high school attended. the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ was accepted.19 P Value 0.

Summary of Findings 1.05%.34% of the total population of the respondents sampled in this study. 2. 1.39% were males. The second biggest source was Bachelor in Business Teacher Education (BBTE).2 Course.60% of the total population sampled.1 Gender Out of 473 total sampled respondents. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69 This chapter contains the summary of findings obtained from analyzed and interpreted data. Respondents¶ Profile 1.3 Type of High School Attended Out of 473 total sampled respondents. 1.61% were females and 139 or 29.70% were from private schools. Respondents¶ Level of Performance in Terms of the Following . the conclusions formulated.23% graduated from public schools and 103 or 21.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Chapter 5 SUMMARY. 334 or 70. Year and Section Bachelor in Secondary Education (BSED) was the biggest source of respondents with the frequency of 205 or 43. 370 or 78. recording a frequency of 180 or 38. and the recommendations made. Bachelor in Elementary Education generated the lowest number of respondents with 88 or 18.

07.2 Responding to Questions The data showed that with a grand mean of 6. the respondents were ³fairly proficient´ when it comes to responding to questions. 2. the respondents gained a grand mean of 4.1 Gender The data showed that the male respondents gained a mean of 4.1. 2.3 Combining Sentences In combining sentences.30.78²were ³fairly proficient´. Respondents¶ Level of Performance in Each Grammar Skills Grouped According to Variables 3. Both of the means were interpreted as ³moderately proficient´. interpreted as ³fairly proficient´.98). verbally interpreted as ³moderately proficient´.30. BEED I-1N (3.2 Course.1. year and section: BEED I-1D (4.55. 3. Year and Section In terms of course. while the females obtained 4.57).4 Expanding Sentences In the test of expanding sentences.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Grammatical Skills 2.1 Asking Questions In the test of asking questions. the respondents achieved a grand mean of 6. 3. 2.38.1 Asking Questions 3. 70 . findings revealed that the respondents±with a grand mean of 5.

2. and BSED I-3N (3.2 Course.27). those who graduated from private schools were fairly proficient. BSED I-1N (5. BEED I-1N (5. BSED I-2N (4. Meanwhile.29). 71 .3 Type of High School Attended In this item.47). BBTE I-2N (4. BSED I-4D (6.27).17). Whereas.70.50).69).75). those who graduated in public schools gained a weighted mean of 4. while the females obtained 6.77) and BBTE I-1D (7.10). 3.06.93). BSED I-2D (4. Both of the means were interpreted as ³fairly proficient´.37. year and section: BEED I-1D (6. Meanwhile.77) shared the same level of performance which is ³moderately proficient´. 3. BSED I-1D (6.86). BBTE I-1N (5.79). 3.04). and BSED I-1N (4.60) shared the same level of performance which is ³fairly proficient´. BSED I-2D (6. BSED I-3D (4. BSED I-1D (4.38).2 Responding to Questions 3. BSED I-3N (6. BBTE I-4D (6. verbally interpreted as ³moderately proficient´. BSED I-3D (5.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES BBTE I-3D (4. Year and Section In terms of course.20). BBTE I-3D (6.33. posting a mean of 4. BBTE I-2N (6.2.30) were ³proficient´.93).1 Gender The data showed that the male respondents gained a mean of 6.04).34). BSED I4D (4.1. BBTE I-2D (6. BBTE I-4D (3.66) were ³fairly proficient´.31).79).6). BBTE I-1N (3. BSED I-2N (6.57).09). BBTE I-1D (5. BBTE I-2D (5.

1 Gender The data showed that the male respondents gained a mean of 5. Those who graduated from private schools.33.50).45). BSED I-4D (5. BBTE I-4D (5. BBTE I-1D (6. 3.92. and private schools. 3.28). BSED I-3D (5. BSED I-2N (5.78. BBTE I-2D (6.26. those who graduated in public schools gained a weighted mean of 5. BEED I-1D (5.2 Course.3.8).4 Expanding Sentences .40) were ³proficient´.3 Type of High School Attended In this item.00).POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 1.3 Combining Sentences 72 3. BSED I-2D (5. 3.50).52. posting a mean of 5. BSED I-1D (5. BSED I-1N (5.86.77).73).84). shared the same verbal interpretation of ³fairly proficient´. BBTE I-3D (5.77). BBTE I-2N (6.2.43) shared the same level of performance interpreted as ³fairly proficient´. and BBTE I-1N (6.3 Type of High School Attended The result acquired in this item indicated that those who graduated from public schools with a mean of 6.45). Both of the means were interpreted as ³fairly proficient´.21). 3. Meanwhile. had the same verbal interpretation.3. year.3.63). BEED I-1N (5. verbally interpreted as ³fairly proficient´. Year and Section In terms of course. BSED I-3N (5. while the females obtained 5. and section. having a weighted mean of 6.

BSED I-3D (6.1 Gender The findings revealed that the male respondents were fairly proficient. BEED I-1N (6. 3. while.00).86).2 Course.11).20).1. with a mean of 6. BBTE I-4D (6. BBTE I-1D (7.11). As shown by their obtained P value 73 . The female respondents. BSED I-4D (6.50). Year and Section In terms of course.1 Gender There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the male and female respondents of all sections. year. 3. BSED I-2N (6. on the other hand. having a weighted mean of 6. BBTE I-2N (6.17).4.33).3 Type of High School Attended The result acquired in this item indicated that those who graduated from public schools with a mean of 6.33) had a uniform level of performance which was ³fairly proficient´.4.07).02. Significant Difference among the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in Terms of Different Grammar Skills When Grouped According to Sections 4. BBTE I-3D (6.39. garnered a weighted mean of 6. and section: BEED I-1D (5.62).47.4. BSED I-3N (6.43).33. 4.1 Asking Questions 4. shared the same verbal interpretation of ³fairly proficient´. BSED I-2D (6. BBTE I-1N (6. and private schools. BSED I-1D (6.40).57). BSED I-1N (5. interpreted as ³proficient´.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 3. BBTE I-2D (6.59) were ³proficient´.

0.32. indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´ in the grammar skill of ³asking questions´ On the other hand. 0.368 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0. 0.953 to 0. As shown by their obtained P value of 0.05. 0. indicating rejection of the null hypothesis.981.862.854. indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis.634. 4. 0. BSED I-4D.1. 0.1.05. BSED I-1D.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES ranging from 0.945 and 0. BBTE I-2N. BEED I-1N obtained a P value of 0.421.011 which was lesser than the standard level of significance at 0. and BSED I-3N.05.615. BBTE I-1N. As shown by their obtained P value 0.05. 0.742.3 Type of High School Attended There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended of sections BEED I-1D. BBTE I-4D. BBTE 1-3D. BSED I-1N.524.672. BBTE 1-2D. indicating rejection of the null hypothesis. 0. BSED I-2N.2 Sections There was a significant difference in the performance ratings of respondents when grouped according to sections.416. 0. BSED I-3D. which was greater than the standard level of significance at 0.534. 74 . BSED I-2D.003. BBTE 1-1D. 0. 0.073 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0. 4. 0.

indicating acceptance of null hypothesis.2 Responding to Questions 4. 0.679.52. 0.135. 0. BSED I-2D.2.104 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0. 4. As shown by their obtained P value of 0.1 Gender There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the male and female respondents of all sections.2 Sections There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of respondents when grouped according to section. BEED I-1N. 0. BBTE I-2N.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 4.2.. As shown by their P value of 0.322. BBTE I-4D.05. 0.90. 0.136 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0. 4.409.30 and 0. and BSED I-3N. 0.81.603. indicating the acceptance of null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´.964 to 0. which was greater than the standard level of significance at 0. BSED I-3D. BSED I-1N.965. BBTE I-1D. 75 . indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis. BSED I-4D.222. As shown by their obtained P value ranging from 0. BSED I-1D. 0.71. BBTE I-2D. 0.05. 0. BSED I-2N. 0.2. BBTE I1N.3 Type of High School Attended There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended of sections BEED I-D.683.05.

indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis.05. As shown by their P value of 0.85. 4.164.2 Section There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of respondents when grouped according to section. 0.699.05.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES On the other hand.137. As shown by their obtained P value of 0. BSED I-3D.094 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0. 0. BEED I-1N.222. indicating 76 .842.202. indicating rejection of the null hypothesis. 0.3. BSED I-2D. and 0. 4. BSED I-4D. BSED I-1N.3 Combining Sentences 4. which was lesser than the standard level of significance at 0. 0. BBTE I-3D obtained a P value of 0. BBTE I-4D.311. 0. 0.339. As shown by their obtained P value ranging from 1.29.3.484.622.05 to 0.05. BBTE I-3D. and BSED I-3N. 0. BBTE I1N.04.05.3 Type of High School Attended There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended of sections BEED I-D.3. 4.41. BBTE I-1D. BSED I-1D. BBTE I-2N. 0.1 Gender There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the male and female respondents of all sections.415 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.145. BSED I-2N. indicating acceptance of null hypothesis. 0. 0. which was greater than the standard level of significance at 0. 0. 0.

4. As shown by their obtained P value ranging from 0.035. 4. indicating rejection of the null hypothesis.091.05.893 to 0. BBTE I-2D obtained a P value of 0. 4. indicating 77 .095 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.4.4 Expanding Sentences 4. indicating acceptance of null hypothesis. which was greater than the standard level of significance at 0.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES the acceptance of the null hypothesis ³there is no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended´.1 Gender There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the male and female respondents of all sections.095 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05.4. On the other hand.3 Type of High School Attended There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended of all sections.4.893 to 0. indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis.05.2 Section There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of respondents when grouped according to section. As shown by their obtained P value of 0. which was lesser than the standard level of significance at 0. As shown by the obtained P value ranging from 0.05.

Degree Program. While in responding sentences. hence.1 Gender The data showed that in test I asking questions. greater than the standard level of significance of 0. In the test of expanding sentences.05 level of significance. Having a P value of 0. combining sentences. with a P value of 0. proved that there was no significant difference.2 Course Out of the four grammar skill test. which was less than the level of significance of 0. and the null hypothesis was rejected.017. findings revealed that there was a significant difference.05. the P-value posted at 0. null hypothesis was accepted.029 which is less than the level of significance 0. and Type of High School Attended 5.05.114. showed a significant difference. hence. 5. the P value recorded at 0. null hypothesis was rejected. In test III.05. null hypothesis was rejected. proving that there was no significant difference. 5.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES acceptance of the null hypothesis. and therefore.05.000 which was less than the 0. with a P value of 0. Significant Difference among the Respondents¶ Performance Ratings in terms of the above mentioned Grammar Skills when Grouped According to Gender. 78 . null hypothesis was rejected.008 which was less than the standard level of significance of 0. only the test in asking question had a significant difference. thus.

059 (asking questions). when in asking questions.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES The other remaining grammar skill test (responding to questions.869 (responding to questions). 5.149 which were greater than the 0. The respondents¶ general level of performance in the grammar skill asking . and 0. 0. 0. combining sentences. and 0. Having a P value of 0.786 (combining sentences).05 level of significance. 2. proved that there was no significant difference in the respondents¶ performance ratings when grouped according to type of high school attended.05 level of significance. the following conclusions were drawn: 1. thus the null hypotheses was accepted. and from public high schools. 3. the respondents were tagged as ³moderately proficient´. The respondents¶ general level of performance in grammar skills such as responding to questions. the null hypothesis was accepted. 79 Conclusions Based on the findings statistically analyzed. combining sentences.103. taking up Bachelor in Secondary Education. 0.85 (expanding sentences) were greater than the 0.096.3 Type of High School Attended The P value posted at 0. Majority of the respondents were female. and expanding sentences was described as ³fairly proficient´. However. and expanding sentences) had no significant difference.

and expanding sentences. there was a significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the test of asking questions. 5. 4. When grouped 80 according to type of high school attended. year. However. however. the male respondents appeared to be ³fairly proficient´ while the females. there was a significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in terms of the grammar skills asking questions. and expanding sentences when grouped according to section. combining sentences. the respondents appeared to be ³fairly proficient´ in the tests of responding to questions. it was described ³fairly proficient´ in responding to questions and combining sentences. When grouped according to course. and expanding sentences. combining sentences. combining sentences. Meanwhile. In the test of asking questions. ³proficient´. combining sentences. the respondents who graduated from public high school appeared to be ³moderately proficient´ while the private high school graduates were described as ³fairly proficient´. There was no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the tests of responding to question. in expanding sentences.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES questions was described as ³moderately proficient´. and section. the respondents from public and private high schools had a ³fairly proficient´ level of grammar performance in the tests of responding to question. . When grouped according to gender. and expanding sentences.

There was a significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the test of asking questions when grouped according to the variable degree program. 2. When grouped according to type of high school attended. combining sentences. the following recommendations were offered: 1. responding to questions. and expanding sentences. Trainings or seminars that will develop the mastery of English language must regularly be held not only for students but also for the faculty so that new trends regarding grammar will be easily disseminated in the college. there was no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in all grammar skills. This may be a great way to train students to speak in English even when they are just plainly conversing with their friends or classmates. and expanding sentences. ³English Only Policy´ should be implemented within the premises of the College of Education. Advanced English Grammar for non-English majors should be added to . namely asking questions.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES There was no significant difference among the respondents¶ performance ratings in the test of responding to questions. there was no significant difference among the respondents performance ratings in terms of the grammar skills responding to questions. 81 Recommendations Based on the conclusions. combining sentences. 3.

socio-economic status. year and section and type of high school attended are determinants of grammar performance. The College of Education should include in their admission requirements the taking of English Placement Test of those who have an overall high school English average of 85%. to really elevate the quality of the future educators of the country. similar studies may be conducted involving other variables like age. 4. 5. students will be more exposed to the learning of English language. Since this study aimed to investigate whether the variables.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES their respective curriculum. course. 82 . In this way. gender. instead of the usual 81%. and final grade in English subject taken during high school.

Philippines: Anvil Publishing. Journals Alamis. ³Linguistics and Language Education in the Philippines and Beyond. Ho Mei Lin. Print.. Palma. Danilo J. 1987. ³Three Studies on Philippine English Across Generations Towards an Integration and Some Implications. Quakerbush. Rod. English Syntax. Corona Roneo. ³Current Perspective on World Englishes and their Implications for Second Language Teaching and Learning. Murcia. Ma. ³Online Grammar Teaching and Learning: Promises and Pitfalls. Print. Christine. and Diane L. Print. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Roberts. Dayag.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES WORKS CITED 83 Books Bosco. Linguistic Society of the Philippines (December 2008).´ Philippine Sociological Review. Linguistic Society of the Philippines (December 2008). Print. David. Web. Grammar and Composition. Singapore: Thomson Learning Asia. Marianne C. Ellis. Print. Brace & World. U. .´ Linguistic Society of the Philippines (2005). Print. Evelyn P.. Inc.S. Print. Thelma Jambalos.´ Philippine Journal of Linguistics. Caroline. Freeman.: Harcourt. Guideposts in TEFL. Maya Khemlani and Francisco Perlas Dumanig. P.´ Linguistic Society of the Philippines (2003). 1964. and Martha Mogol. Print. Jesus. Second Edition. Print. and Ma. ³Gender and Social Transformation.´ Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers. Inc. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher¶s Course.. Frederick J. Andrea. Washington DC: US Information Industry. 21 October 2010.´ Philippine Journal of Linguistics.A. and Stephen J.. Crisol. Gonzales. ³Nativigation of English in Malaysia and the Philippines as Seen in English Dailies. 2008. 1984.

. Print. Print. Jeanne H. Slobin.´ Linguistic Society of Manila. Rejend. Schneider. Roberts. ³Grammar Gap. Print. and David J. ³Special Issue: Perspectives on Grammar Writing. Linguistic Society of the Philippines (2000). Herndon. John. ³Grammar and Semantic: Features of Interface´. Print. Murdock.´ Holt. Print. and William L. Brace & World. Print. Kaplan. ³Pragmative Teaching Strategies. English Sentences. Print.´ Studies in Language. Homes.´ The English Teaching Forum (October 1986). ³Introducing Sociologist. Thomas E. Ninez L. San Jose. Print.´ (1994) 156. Dan I. ³Grammar and Gestures in America Sign Language. Robert B. ³Linguistics and Language Education in the Philippines and Beyond´. Linguistic Society of the Philippines (2005).´ (2009).´ English Teaching Forum (1985). Weber. Print. Unpublished Materials 84 Bautista. Enriquez. Joseph. ³Applied Linguistics. 1991-1992. Andrea Deumert. John Benjamins Publishing Company (2006).POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Seameo Regional Language Centre (1998). Newell. George S. ³A Survey of Modern Grammars. 1962. Paul. the State of the Art: Is there one?´ The English Teaching Forum (April 1985). Pierce. Payne. California: Harcourt. Language Journal of the Linguistic Society of America. Print. (March 2006). Edgar. . Print. ³Language versus Literature in University English Departments. ³English Proficiency of Students of Tarlac State University Laboratory School. Joan Swann. Inc. Rinchart & Winston (1976). Print. Joe E. Mesthrie.´ (1992).´ English Teaching Forum (1989). Print. Lone Bihag ³English Instruction Under the New Secondary Education Development Program in the Division of Misamis Occidental. Print. Leonard E.

Go. <http://www. Lance.philstar. students need English.´ Philippine Daily Inquirer 26 December 2008. <http://business.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090405197994/The-problems-of-quality-education> David. Web.com/Article. Zhenghui. 4 July 2010. Approach Work Together with the Grammar-Translation Method in a Traditional Setting. 85 . 3 January 2009. Philippine Daily Inquirer.sws. Romeo.net/money/breakingnews/view/20090103181250/English-the-Filipino-way> Araneta. 5 July 010. ³The English Grammar Proficiency of the First Year College Students of PMI Colleges-Bohol. English the Filipino way. Web. Felix V. School Year 1996-1997: Implications to Effective English. ³Let¶s Go For Proficiency in Filipino English´. Sao ³Making the Communicative Approach Work Together with the Grammar-Translation Method in a Traditional Setting. The Role of Survey Archiving in the Discovery of the Decline in English Proficiency. ³Solon: To compete. Web.ph/pr061005.org. Web.´ Print. Yarcia. <http://www. Social Weather Station. ³Deteriorating Quality of English´. 5 July 2010. 19 April 2006. Sandy. Singapore: Seameo Regional Language Center (June 1999).htm> First Quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey: National proficiency in English recovers. 5 July 2010. Print. 5 July 2010. October 2006. Clarissa. Web Publications Aboitiz. Magazines/Newspapers Contrucci. Philippine Daily Inquirer.POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES Ruaya. The problems of quality education. Isagani A. Web.inquirer. 16 May 2008.aspx?articleId=332135&publicationSubCa tegoryId=63> Cruz. Poll: Pinoy proficiency in English declining. Reader¶s Digest. ³Right Wrong Writing Heroically Persnickety typo crusaders set the United States Straight´. Salaverria.´ Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers.and Michael Punongbayan. Web.inquirer. Leila. <http://opinion. March 2009. Antonio. 5 April 2009. Alice S.

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES <http://www.sws.org.ph/pr080516.htm> March 2006 Social Weather Survey: National Proficiency In English Declines. Social Weather Station, 5 July 2010. Web. 18 April 2006. <http://www.sws.org.ph/pr060418.htm> McCrum, Robert. Glob-ish. Newsweek, 5 July 2010. Web. 12 June 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/12/glob-ish.html>

86

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES

87

Appendices

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES

88

Appendix A
Permit to Conduct Study

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 89 Appendix B Memorandum for Schedule of Oral Defense .

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 90 Appendix C Memorandum for Face Validation of Instrument .

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 91 Appendix D Sample Questionnaire .

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 92 Appendix E Sample Answer Sheets .

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 93 Appendix F Computer Print Out .

POLYT ECHNIC UNIVERSIT Y OF T HE PHIL IPPINES 94 Appendix G Curriculum Vitae .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->