GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCIES OF TEACHERS TEACHING SUBJECTS

USING ENGLISH AS MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION:

BASIS FOR COMMUNICATION TRAINING

Abstract

This study aimed to identify the grammatical competencies of teachers of

Antipolo National High School who are teaching subjects using English as medium of

instruction and to provide them with appropriate training for communication in order to

help address their weaknesses.

Using the Frequency Percentage Score and Weighted Mean of the Pre-test

where 35 teachers were found to be below mastery level, the following are the least

mastered skills: (1) Identifying Errors (2) Subject – Verb Agreement and (2) Correct

Usage with 34.77 Mean and 57.96 Mean Percentage Score (MPS).

Meanwhile, post test results after the In-service training showed 6 teachers found

below mastery level with 73.14 MPS and a mean of 43.88.

The data implies as corroborated by the T-test, that the intervention conducted

during the In-service training is effective since it significantly improved the performance

of teachers in the post-evaluation.

It is recommended that (1) continuous In-service training addressing teachers’

grammatical competencies be provided (2) the school should device a structure /

mechanism that could check or evaluate teachers’ grammatical competence during the

teaching-learning process most especially those who are using English as medium of

instruction and (3) future researchers should also look into the oral proficiency of

teachers.

1
Introduction

Proficiency in the English language has always been one of the trademarks of a

good and commendable teacher. This is so because language is the backbone of both

instruction and the learning process.

Though there are already perceivable efforts to increase the mastery level of

English and vigorous campaign for its mastery, some studies revealed that the level of

competence of many public school teachers is below standard which consequently

result to poor teaching or low quality of instruction.

Bonabente (2007) stated that only one out of every five public high school

teachers is proficient in the English language, results of a self-assessment test

conducted in 2004 by the Department of Education showed that of the 53,000 teachers

who took the exam, only 19 percent or 10,070 scored at least 75 percent, the passing

grade.

This dilemma is evident in this institution as (1) teachers teaching subjects using

English as medium of instruction submit test paper with lots of grammatical errors in an

average of 90 errors out of a 60 item test. For instance, it was noted in a TLE exam that

there are 29 out of 50 items with incorrect grammar. This was observed by the Master

Teachers and some English teachers who are tasked to edit the test paper before the

principal sign it for reproduction.

Likewise, based on the conduct of the (2) actual demonstration teaching during

the In-Service training for Teachers held last May 2014, it was observed that 4 out of 5

teachers who use English as medium of instruction could not carry out grammatically

2
correct sentences. (3) In the actual monthly reports of teachers and chairmen teaching

subjects that use English as medium of instruction, it was also noted that teachers

committed a lot of grammatical errors mainly in discourse and structure.

It is in this light that this study aimed to identify the grammatical competencies of

teachers of Antipolo National High School especially those who are teaching subjects

using English as medium of instruction.

Specifically, it attempted to answer the following questions:

1. What are the grammatical competencies of the teachers using English as medium of

instruction?

2. What are the least mastered skills identified in the English Proficiency Test?

3. Is there a significant difference between the pre and post test results after the

intervention?

4. What appropriate training program could be organized to help address the

weaknesses in grammatical competencies of teachers teaching subjects that

make use of English as medium of instruction?

Definition of Terms

English Proficiency – The respondents’ adeptness in learning the areas of

English such as, grammar, vocabulary and reading comprehension.

Grammatical Competency – It pertains to the ability of the teacher-respondents

to recognize and produce distinctive grammatical structures of a language and to use

them effectively in communication.

Least Mastered – It refers to the skill tested where the frequency of correct

response falls within the range of 0-49 %.

3
 Mastered – These are the skills being tested where the frequency of correct

response falls within the range of 75-100%.

Nearly Mastered – The skills being tested where the frequency of correct

response falls within the range of 50-74%.

Review of Related Literature / Studies

Theories of Grammatical Competencies as stated by Hanson (2013), an eHow

contributor, without grammar, English – and all other languages – would be gibberish.

Grammar – the art of writing and speaking correctly by adhering to usage standards and

rules – allows people to communicate. Without common form and structure, and left to

their own devices, people wouldn’t understand each other’s word order or sentence

construction.

In the similar point of view, McKenzie-Brown (2012) stressed in the theory behind

Communicative Language Teaching that one learns language by using it and the best

way to acquire it is by focusing on the development of communicative competence.

Likewise, the Discourse theory as stated in Teaching by Principles of Brown

(2013) has resulted from a theory of language use. The theory emphasizes that

language development should be viewed within the framework of how the learner

discovers the meaning capacity of language by taking part in the communication.

It is believed according to the Discoursed Theory that, the language acquisition

will successfully take place when language learners know how to use language in

various settings and when they have successfully cognized various forms of

competence such as grammatical competence (lexis, morphology, syntax and

4
phonology) and the pragmatic competence (speech acts). A language learner needs to

“know” the conversational strategies to acquire language.

Diaz-Rico & Weed (2010) stated that grammatical competence focuses on the

command of the language code, including such things as the rules of word and

sentence formation, meanings, spelling and pronunciation.

Moreover, Freeman and Freeman in Tipay (2010) cited that grammatical

competency is the proficiency that encompasses deliberately how to tailor words in

correct structure. It serves as a pillar of communication competence.

Methodologies and Research Design

This descriptive research made use of Frequency Percentage Score and

weighted mean and T-test in order to assess if there is no significant difference

between the pre and post test results.

The researchers administered English Language Proficiency Test prepared by

two Master Teachers of the English Department to teachers of Antipolo National High

School. To check its validity and reliability, the test was also administered to ANHS

teachers who are not using English as medium of instruction. The reliability test is

computed using the reliability formula and it was found out to be .83.

A Pre-test was conducted last August to 163 respondents which aims to identify

their grammatical competencies and least mastered skills. Identified least mastered

skills, based on the results of the Pre-test, were addressed during the In-service

Training for Teachers held last October. A parallel Post-test was then given to 139

teachers to assess whether they have already enhanced or mastered the least

mastered skills.

5
Results and Discussion

The following discussions of results are anchored on the research questions:

Problem No. 1: On the Grammatical Competencies of Teachers Teaching

Subjects using English as Medium of Instruction

Table 1

Grammatical Competencies / Skills Tested

Competencies / Skills Tested Frequency %
Vocabulary 10 16.67

Correct Usage 10 16.67

Identifying Errors 20 33.33

Observing Subject-Verb Agreement 20 33.33

SKILLS TESTED Number of Item

HPTS ATS % RANK REMARK
Items Number
Vocabulary 10 1-10 1630 1145 70.25 1 Nearly Mastered
Correct Usage 10 11-20 1630 766 46.99 2 LEAST
Identifying Errors 20 21-40 3260 1276 39.14 4 LEAST
Observing Subject-Verb Agreement 20 41-60 3260 1376 42.21 3 LEAST
It can be seen on the table that among the competencies or skills tested in the

pre and post tests, Identifying Errors and Observing Subject-Verb Agreement were

given the highest percentage with 33.33% each due to the fact that the researchers

want to test the consistency of the teachers’ common errors while Vocabulary and

Correct Usage followed with 16.67% each.

Problem No. 2: On the Least Mastered Skills of Teachers Teaching Subjects

using English as Medium of Instruction

Table 2
Ranklist of Skills of the Pre-test Administered to Teachers

6
 Based on the results of the Pre-test administered to teachers, the following are

the least mastered skills: (1) Identifying Errors with 39.14%, (2) Subject – Verb

Agreement with 42.21% and (3) Correct Usage with 46.99. It can be assumed from the

table that the grammatical competence of the respondents particularly in Identifying

Errors and Subject-Verb Agreement is weak. Thus it implies that there is a need to

enrich the grammatical competency of teachers in using the English language

effectively in communication and help them ascertain “when, where and how” to use the

language appropriately to promote accuracy and fluency in the second language.

Table 2
Ranklist of Skills of the Post-test Administered to Teachers
SKILLS TESTED # of Item #
HPTS ATS % RANK REMARK
Items
Vocabulary 10 1-10
1390 1109 79.78 1 MASTERED
Correct Usage 10 11-20 1390 1052 75.68 2 MASTERED
Identifying Errors 20 21-40 2780 2029 72.99 3 NEARLY
Subject-Verb Agreement 20 41-60 2780 1993 71.69 4 NEARLY

It can be seen on the table that among the 3 least mastered skills in the pre test,

correct usage has been mastered by the teachers with 75.68% in the post test

administered after the conduct of the In-Service training.

This also reveals that Identifying Errors which has 72.99% and Subject-Verb

Agreement with 71.69% have been improved to nearly mastered skills while Vocabulary

is still a mastered skill of the examinees but has increased by 9.53% from 70.25 to

79.78%.

This implies that developing or enhancing skills could not be achieved in just one

training , there should be a continuous training program in order to address the problem.

7
Problem No. 3: On the Implications of the Post Test Administered to Teachers

Teaching Subjects using English as Medium of Instruction after the Conduct of

the In-service Training

Table 4
Result of the Pre-test Administered to Teachers Teaching Subjects
Using English as Medium of Instruction
SUBJECT Cases HPS HSO LSO MEAN MPS MASTERY LEVEL
49% & below 50 – 74 % 75%&above
TLE 34 60 44 22 32.50 54.17 10 29.41 24 70.59 0 0.00
MAPEH 32 60 50 21 34.94 58.23 6 18.75 21 65.625 5 5.625
SCIENCE 32 60 52 27 38.69 64.48 1 3.125 24 75.00 7 1.875
MATH 35 60 48 23 34.91 58.19 9 25.71 23 65.714 3 8.571
ENGLISH 30 60 48 17 32.83 54.72 9 30.00 16 53.33 5 16.67
TOTAL 163 60 52 17 34.77 57.96 35 21.47 108 66.26 20 2.27

It can be surmised from the data that majority of the teachers using English as

medium of instruction are not adept in using the English language since out of 163

teachers who took the Pre-test, only 20 or 12.27 percent got 75% and above. Thirty five

teachers failed to meet even the 50 percent criterion which is equivalent to 21.47 %

while 108 of the examinees fall under the nearly mastery level with 66.26% which

substantiates Bonabente’s claim (2007) that only few public school teachers are

proficient in the English language.

This implies that the respondents may not be familiar with the distinctive

grammatical structure of a language or with the basics of sentence structure.

Table 5
Result of the Post-test Administered to Teachers Teaching Subjects
Using English as Medium of Instruction
SUBJECT Cases HPS HSO LSO MEAN MPS MASTERY LEVEL

8
 49% 50–74% 75%&above
TLE 29 60 49 24 42.45 70.75 2 6.89 16 55.17 11 37.93
MAPEH 27 60 52 26 42.59 70.99 2 7.41 10 37.04 15 55.56
SCIENCE 31 60 54 32 43.87 73.12 0 0.00 17 54.84 14 45.16
MATH 29 60 51 27 42.45 70.75 2 6.89 10 34.48 17 58.62
ENGLISH 23 60 55 35 48.04 80.07 0 0.00 6 26.09 17 73.91
TOTAL 139 60 55 24 43.88 73.14 6 4.32 59 42.45 74 53.24

The data revealed that out of 139 teachers who took the post test, 74 or 53.24%

already attained the 75% criterion. Fifty nine teachers or 42.44% belong to the nearly

mastery level while there are still 6 or 4.32% who are still below the mastery level.

This implies that the In-service training conducted helped improve the

grammatical competency of teachers which supports the claim of McKenzie-Brown

(2012) that one learns language by using it and the best way to acquire it is by focusing

on the development of communicative competence. Therefore, there is still a need for

further training since a single training could not completely correct the errors of

teachers.

Table 6
T – test result of the Pre and Post test Administered to Teachers
Mean SD df Table Value Computed T-Value Decision Rule
Pre Pre Pre Since the t-computed value of
34.77 6.08 4 -.5916 is beyond the critical
Post Post Post 1.860 -.5916 value of 1.860 at .05 level of
43.88 5.76 8 significance, the null hypothesis
is therefore rejected.

The table shows that there is a significant difference between the pre and post

test. The t-computed value of -.5916 which is beyond the critical value of 1.860 at .05

level of significance implies that the In-service training provided for teachers is effective

which calls for continuous enhancement training.

9
Conclusions and Implications

In light of the said findings, the researchers concluded the following (1) that

Identifying Errors, Observing Correct Subject- Verb Agreement and Correct Usage are

the least mastered skills of teachers teaching subjects using English as medium of

Instruction (2) that the intervention conducted to teachers during the In-service training

is effective since it significantly improved the performance of teachers in the post-

evaluation. The data also implies that (3) appropriate In-service training can be an

effective platform to address the challenges and realize the goals of improving teachers’

skills and performance and that (4) the teachers’ grammatical competence is still a

legitimate concern that needs to be addressed.

Recommendations

Implications of this study present numerous challenges to improve teachers’

grammatical competence. Thus the researchers suggest the following: (1) continuous

In-service training addressing this concern should be ensured (2) device a structure /

mechanism that could check or evaluate teachers’ grammatical competence during the

teaching-learning process most especially those who are using English as medium of

instruction (3) future researchers may look into the oral proficiency of teachers and (4)

other schools may adapt this study to identify the grammatical competencies of their

teachers and provide them with appropriate trainings in order to address their needs.

10