Approaches in Teaching English As Employed Among Instructors and Professors

Approaches in Teaching English as Employed
Among Instructors and Professors
Karen J. Mancera
Jose Rizal Memorial State University
Main Campus, Dapitan City
Abstract
This study aimed to find out the extent of utilization of approaches in teaching English as
employed among instructors and professors in Jose Rizal Memorial State University. The study
employed the descriptive-evaluative method of research using a structured questionnaire as
principal data – gathering tool. There were 22 English instructor/professor respondents and 378
student respondents involved in the study. The data collected were tabulated, categorized,
interpreted and analyzed as to the appropriate statistical tools such as Mean to determine the
qualitative description on the scores of the respondents, F-test, to compare the means of two or
more independent groups and 2-test to compare and the test difference between two separate
samples taken from a normal population. Findings of the study showed that both
instructor/professor respondents and student respondents saw Audiolingualism approach and
communicative approach as much utilized. The perceptions of the two groups of respondents
differed in the case of direct approach, comprehension approach and grammar-translation
approach as the instructor/professor respondents perceived them as much utilized contrary to
what the student respondents believed that they were only utilized. The affective humanistic
approach was perceived by the respondents as very much utilized while the student respondents
perceived it as much utilized. The approaches under study were generally much utilized in
teaching English though the instructor/professor respondents and student respondents varied on
their perceptions as to the extent of utilization in classroom instruction. Therefore, instructors
and professors should promote the consistency of utilizing tge direct and grammar-translation
approaches in teaching English to be fully understood and felt among students. The instructors
and professors should maintain and elevate the level of their utilization of the Audiolingualism,
communicative and comprehension-based approaches since students saw these approaches as
much utilized by their instructors and professors similar to what their instructors and professors
believed. Further, the students’ perception should be given greater weight or consideration by
providing regular documentation and assessment of students’ learning to determine how skills
should be addressed and to what degree.
Keywords: Affective-Humanistic Approach; Audiolingual Approach; Communicative

Approach; Comprehension-Based Approach; Direct Approach; Enhanced Teaching
Competence; Enhanced Communicative Competence; Grammar-translation approach
Introduction
Teaching English as a second language to nonnative speakers is a Herculean task since
the language is borrowed. The field of second language teaching is undergone many fluctuations
and shifts over the years. Different from Physics or Chemistry, in which progress is more or less
steady until a major discovery causes a radical theoretical revision, language teaching is a field in
which fads and heroes have come and gone in a manner fairly consistent with the kinds of
changes that occur in youth culture. It is believed that one reason for frequent swings of the
pendulum that have been taking place is the fact that very few language instructors and
professors have a sense of history about their profession and are thus unaware of the historical
bases of the many methodology options they have at their disposal Celce-Murcia, M (n.d.).
Language teaching has come a long way from audio-lingual days when “native”
pronunciation and use was held up as an ideal. Reference to the terms “native” or “native-like” in
the evaluation of communicative competence is inappropriate in today’s postcolonial
multicultural world. As observed, we now recognized that native speakers are never “ideal” and
in fact vary widely in range and style of communicative abilities. Moreover, as the ‘English
language is increasingly used as a language of global communication, so called “nonnative”
users of its many varieties overwhelmingly outnumber so called “native speakers” Savignon,
Sandra J. (2002). The decision of what is or is not one’s “native” language is arbitrary and
irrelevant for English language teaching and is perhaps best left to the individual concerned.
Since a personality inevitably takes on a new dimension through expression in another language,
that dimension needs to be discovered on its own terms. Learners should not only be given the
opportunity to say what they want in English, they should also be encouraged to develop an
English language personality with which they are comfortable.
On the other hand, learners may discover a new freedom of self-expression in their new
language. Regardless of the variety of communicative activities in an English classroom, their
purpose remains to prepare learners to use English in the world beyond Savignon, Sandra J.
(2015). This is the world upon which learners will depend for the maintenance and development
of their communicative competence once classes are over. The classroom is but a rehearsal. The
development of teaching English as a second language begins with discovery of the learner’s
interest and needs and of opportunities to not only respond but more importantly, to develop
those interests and needs through English language beyond the classroom itself.
Nonetheless, English as a second language remains phenomenal. It is spoken by most
professionals all over the world and regarded as their alternate aside from their respective mother
tongue. In all deliberations in the United Nations, all other foreign languages must have to be
translated into English for better understanding on the issues and concerns affecting the whole
world. Learning English language has also some advantages in the field of employment. Non-
English language speakers are generally less preferred in the international workplace over
English language speakers.
Cultural expectations, goals and styles of learning are but some of the ways in which
learners may differ from each other. To the complexity of the learner must be added the
complexities of instructors and professors and of the settings in which they teach. Established
routines or institutional belief about what is important, weigh heavily in an instructor’s decisions
as to what and how to teach and often makes innovation difficult. But how well English
language being utilized by professionals, especially university and college instructors and
professors, is a meter of one’s methodology or approach. There are a lot of approaches in
teaching English as a second language that can be utilized.
Finally, the need for variety must be taken into account. Learners who are bored with rule
recitation or sentence translation may just as easily lose interest in games or role play, if these are
allowed to become routine. Difficult as it is, the instructor’s task is to understand the many
factors involved and respond to them creatively. Instructors and professors cannot do this alone.
They need the support of administrators, the community and the learner’s themselves.
With this setting, the researchers finds interest in pursuing this study to find out and
measure the level of utilization of the six approaches in teaching English among instructors and
professors of Jose Rizal Memorial State College. The researcher assumes and expects that the
output of her study would give clearer insights and better understanding on the use of these
approaches in teaching English. Further, it is hoped that this study will encourage many language
instructors and professors to learn more about the origin of their profession. Such, knowledge
will ensure some perspective when instructors and professors evaluate any so-called innovations
or new approaches to methodology, which will surely continue to emerge from time to time.
Methodology
The study employed the descriptive-evaluative method of research using a structured
questionnaire as principal data-gathering tool. The use of descriptive-evaluative method was
deemed necessary in order to describe a set of test scores. More so, the description of data could
also be handled in many ways and could be sensibly communicated.
JRMSU remains an institution of higher learning where students can freely communicate
using their native tongue and not obliged to speak English in different offices and in the
classroom. Its environment does provide opportunities for the students to improve their speaking
and understanding abilities in English. As perceived by the researcher, various approaches are
employed by the English instructors without assessing if the kind of approach employed would
meet the demand and needs of the learners.
The study include and involved college instructors/professors and college students
enrolled in the JRMSU campuses. Student-respondents were taken from various colleges
regardless of the courses taken as long as they were taking English subject for the current
semester. There were 8 or 36 percent of instructor/professor respondents taken from Dapitan
Campus; 7 instructor/professor respondents or 32 percent were from Dipolog Campus; 2
instructor/professor respondents or 9 percent from Katipunan Campus and 5 or 23 percent of
instructor/professor-respondents came from Tampilisan Campus. For the student respondents,
121 out of 2,224 were taken from Dapitan Campus; out of 1,965, 110 were taken from Dipolog
Campus; 79 out of 1,442 students were from Katipunan Campus and 68 out of 1242 were from
Tampilisan Campus. These were the foci of this investigation.
The researcher used the simple random sampling wherein the instrument was distributed
to individual student respondents. In order that all possible samples of a given size have an equal
opportunity of being selected from the entire population the researcher used fishbowl technique
or lottery method to determine the accurate representative include in the study. This could be
done by listing all the elements or students respondents in each campus and randomly selected
378 students as respondents out of 3,873 total number of students from the entire system.
The structure customized questionnaire comprising of two parts was used in this study.
Part I of such questionnaire reflected the profile of the instructor/professor-respondents such as
age, gender and educational qualification, and that of the student-respondents such as year level
and course taken. Part II was answered by both teacher-respondents and student-respondents to
extract their perceptions on the utilization of the six approaches in teaching English by
instructors/professors in the four campuses of Jose Rizal Memorial State University.
Part II contained 36 sentences reflecting the nature of the six approaches in teaching
English as a second language. The researcher used five-point scale and a range of scores and its
descriptive value were used namely: (5-Very Much Utilized - 4.21-5.00; 4- Much Utilized -
3.41-4.20; 3- Utilized - 2.61-3.40; 2-Moderately Utilized - 1.81-2.60; and 1-Not Utilized - 1.00-
1.80).
The questionnaire was checked by the experts and it was read and edited by experienced
English language instructors/professors. The instrument was validated to non-respondents and
these students were excluded in the actual administration of the instrument. This was to find out
whether the directions were clear and adequate and whether there were clarifications of the items
constructed. After the questionnaire was administrated, the results were kept confidential.
After validating the instrument and determining the number of students to be made
respondents of this study, all students who were taking English subject were selected through
random sampling. The names of students taking up English subject were taken from the College
Registrar of the aforesaid JRMSU campuses. They were subjected to random sampling until the
desired number of students to be made respondents was reached using Slovin’s formula. This
sampling procedure was also followed in the selection of instructor/professor-respondents. The
instructor/professor-respondents were made to write their personal profile (Part I of the Research
Instruments) which included their age, gender and educational qualification, while the student-
respondents answered for their year level and the course they were taking words, sentences and
phrases included in Part II of the research instrument were graded and numerically valued
reflecting the nature of the six approaches in teaching English. Data scores in Part II were then
evaluated and analyzed.
This study used the F-test, popularly known as Analysis of Variance (or, ANOVA) to
compare the means of two or more independent groups. Particularly, it used the two-way
ANOVA because it involved two variables, namely: the column variable and the row variable.
The researcher was interested to know if there were significant differences between among
column and rows. The two-way ANOVA was useful in looking at the interaction effect between
the variables being analyzed. The researcher parameters (e.g independent variables) were
acquired from Dr. Mariane Celce-Murcia’s Approach Model which was portrayed in her book:
“Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language”,3rd edition. The data included the
perceptional scores of the instructor/professor-respondents and student-respondents on the
utilization of selected approaches in teaching Enghlish employed among college instructors and
professors teaching in the four campuses of Jose Rizal Memorial State University.
The statistical tools used in this study were: 1.) Mean, which is used to determine the
qualitative description on the scores of the respondents; 2.) F-test (or, Analysis of Variance) is a
statistical tool used to compare the means of two or more independent groups. Particularly, this
study used the two-way ANOVA because it involved two variables, namely: the column
variable and the row variables. It was also used in testing the hypotheses of the study; 3.) Z-test
(for two failed test). In this study, the two-sample mean test was used in particular in order to
compare and test the difference between two separate samples taken from a normal population.
Results and Discussions

Instructor/Professor-Respondents Profile as to Educational Qualification
Figure 1 presents the frequency distribution of the instructor/professor-respondents in
terms of educational qualification. This shows that there were a total of 22 instructor/professor-
respondents under this present investigation. Of the 22 instructor-respondents, 7
instructor/professor-respondents or 31.82 percent were with master’s degree units; 7
instructor/professor-respondents or 31.82 percent were full-fledge master’s degree holders; there
were also 5 instructor/professor-respondents or 22.73 percent with doctoral units; and finally,
there were 3 instructor/professor-respondents or about 13.63 percent with doctorate degrees.
The figure further shows that majority of the instructor/professor-respondents teaching
English subject were master’s degree holders and earned units in the doctorate degrees. This
implies further that the instructors and professors are professionally and educationally qualified
and prepared in the nature of their work. Hence, quality of teaching is very evident. Research has
indicated that many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient.
(Lightbown, 2012 cited by Kimodo, 2014) However, today a broad consensus of second
language acquisition scholars acknowledges that formal instructioncan help in language learning.
It is a necessity to increase the educational qualification of instructors/professors handling
English as a second language.
Educational Qualification
13.63
31.82 With Master’s Degree
Units
22.73 Master’s Degree Holder
With Doctoral Units
Doctor of Education
31.82
Figure 1. Frequency Distribution of Instructor/Professor-Respondents as to Educational

Qualification
Instructor/Professor-Respondents Profile as to Gender

Figure 2 on the other hand, shows the frequency distribution of instructor/professor
respondents in terms of gender. As shown in figure 2, out of 22 instructor/professor-respondents,
20 or 90.91 percent were females and 2 instructor/professor-respondents or 9.09 percent were
males.
The result implies that female teachers, in this case, pre-dominated their male counterpart
in terms of number. These data only prove true to the fact that, in the field of education, female
instructor/professor outnumbered male instructor/professor. Females prefer to teach more than
males. The NSCB publication, 2006 Statistical Handbook on Women and Men in the
Philippines, shows that for Academic Year 2013-2014, women continued to be attracted to
education and teacher training, followed by medical and allied fields and math and computer
science. Men, on the other hand, preferred engineering, followed by business administration and
related courses, math and computer science and education and teacher training.
Gender
9.09
Male
Female
90.91
Figure 2. Frequency Distribution of Instructor/Professor-Respondents as to Gender
Instructor/Professor-Respondents Profile as to Age

Figure 3 presents that out of 22 instructor/professor-respondents, 2 instructor/professor-
respondents or 9.09 percent were within the age range of 20 to 30 years; there were 10
instructor/professor-respondents or 45.45 percent within the range of 31 to 40 years; there were 9
instructor/professor-respondents or 40.92 percent within the age range of 41 to 50 years; and
finally there was 1 instructor/professor-respondents or 4.54% within the age bracket of 51 years
old or more.
Age
4.54 9.09
20-30
31-40
40.92 41-50
51 and above
45.45
Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of Instructor/Professor-Respondents as to Age
This implies that majority of the instructor/professor-respondents teaching English

subject were within the age bracket of 31 to 40 years old below. When taken into consideration,
they are still in their younger years in service as educators who are enthusiastic in employing
different approaches in the classroom. This table further implies that instructor/professor-
respondents aging 31 to 50 years old dominate the sample population landscape, claiming about
86.37 percent thereof. This age range is still considered serviceable insofar as the field of
education is concerned.
Student Respondents Profile as to Year Level

Further, this study involved 378 college student-respondents. Out of these 378 student-
respondents, there were 101 or 26.72 percent first year college students; there were 92 student-
respondents or 24.34 percent belonged to second year level; there were 83 student-respondents or
21.96 percent as third year level; and lastly; there were 104 student-respondents or 26.98 percent
classified as fourth year level. With reference to their sample population size, they constituted
26.72 percent, 24.34 percent, 21.96 percent and 26.98 percent respectively.
Furthermore, these student-respondents came from the four (4) campuses, namely: (1)
Dapitan (Main) Campus; (2) Dipolog Campus; (3) Katipunan Campus; and (4) Tampilisan
Campus.
PERCENT
26.98 26.72
1ST year
2ND year
3RD year
4TH year
21.96 24.34
Figure 4. Frequency Distribution of Student Respondents as to Year Level
Figure 5 below shows the frequency distribution of student respondents as to course

taken. The table shows the students enrolled in the different colleges in which English subject is
one of the academic requirements in order to finish their course.
This different colleges were classified namely; College of Education, College of Arts and
Sciences, College of Business and Accountancy, College of Engineering, College of Nursing and
Allied Health Sciences, College of Industrial Technology and from the College of Maritime
Education.
Furthermore, table 5 shows that the courses offered from the College of Education are
Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) only.
While courses offered from the College of Arts and Sciences as reflected in the table are
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science (BSCS); Bachelor of Science in Criminology
(BSCrim); Bachelor of Science in Tourism (BST); Bachelor of Science in Marine Biology
(BSMB); Bachelor of Arts major: in English (ABEnglish); Mass Communication(AB
MassCom); and Political Science (ABPolSci).
The courses offered of the College of Business and Accountancy which are reflected in
the table are Bachelor of Science in Commerce (BSC), Hotel and Restaurant Management
(BSHRM), and Accountancy (BSAcc).
However, fomrthr College of Engineering course are Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineer (BSCE), Electrical Engineer (BSEE), Computer Engineer (BSCompEng). There are
three courses coming from the college of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences, these are Bachelor
of Science in Nursing, Midwifery and Associate in Medical, Dental and Nursing Aid. However,
the Associate in Industrial Technology course was included in the present study from the College
of Industrial Technology.
And lastly, courses offered from the College of Maritime Education are Bachelor of
Science in Marine Transportation (BSMT), Marine Engineering (BSME), and Basic Seafarer’s
Course respectively. The table further implies that most of the student respondents were coming
from the College of Arts and Sciences followed by the College of Nursing and Allied Health
Sciences, and from the College of Business and Accountancy.
Figure 5. Frequency Distribution of Student Respondents as to Course Taken
Extent Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching English Language

There are six (6) the direct approach, approaches used in this study, namely: (1) the
audiolingualism approach, (2) the direct approach, (3) the communicative approach, (4) the
affective-humanistic approach, (5) the comprehension-based approach, and (6) the grammar-
translation approach.
Audiolingualism Approach
Table 1 presents the instructors/professors’ utilization of the audiolingualism approach in
teaching English as perceived by the instructors/professors and students.
Item number 2 “That is, the teacher employs imitation in speech and action and
memorization based on the assumption that language is habit formation”, instructor/professor-
respondents saw that it is utilized while the student respondents found it much utilized. (That is,
sometimes used by the teacher). This means that the teacher has performed the role of a language
model and drill leader while the students are enthusiastically and accurately practicing the
pattern. The learning of the second language should be regarded as a mechanistic process of
habit formation (Doff,2011). Both groups of respondents agree that item number 4 “the teacher
stresses pronunciation from the beginning of the lesson” and item number 5 “the teacher makes
great effort to prevent student’s errors” are much utilized. This pointed out that
instructors/professors were able to emphasize pronunciation skills, diagnose and correct
grammatical errors of the students.
However, both groups of respondents did not have the same perception when it comes to
item number 1 “the teachers begins the lesson with dialogues”. The student respondents saw it as
much utilized, while their instructor/professor counterpart saw it as utilized.
Table 7 Instructor/Professor and Students’ Perception on the Extent of the

Instructors/Professors’ Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching English in
Terms of Audiolingualism Approach
Indicators Instructors Students
AWD VD AWV VD
1. He / She begins the lessons with dialogues. 3.00 U 3.55 MU
2. He / She employs imitation in speech and action and memorization 3.27 U 3.41 MU
based on the assumption that language is habit formation.
3. He / She introduces grammatically structures in sequence and teaches 4.64 VMU 3.67 MU
rules from simple to complex ideas.
4. He / She stresses pronunciation from the beginning of the lesson. 3.82 MU 3.58 MU
5. He / She makes great efforts to prevent students’ errors. 4.18 MU 3.65 MU
6. He / She employs communication skills in sequence: listening, 4.82 VMU 3.71 MU
speaking, reading and writing postponed.
Weighted Mean 3.99 MU 3.60 MU
Legend : VMU-Very Much Utilized | MU - Much Utilized | U - Utilized
They likewise varied on their perception in the case of item number 3 “the teacher
introduces grammatical structures in sequence and teaches rules from simple to complex ideas”
and item number 6 “the teacher employs communication skills in sequence: listening, speaking,
reading and writing”. The teacher-respondents claimed that these particular strategies under
audiolingualism approach were very much utilized (that is, used by the teacher at all times),
while their student counterpart saw them as only much utilized. This absorption could be
measured if the instructor/professor requires the students to construct their own sentences
congruent to the discussed rules. In addition, grammar rules should also be given emphasis in the
teaching of literature lessons so that form time to time, students would always recall eventually
master the grammar rules for integration purposes. Learning the rules in grammar is like learning
to read. Orille as cited by Chomsky, N. (2010) discussed that as a complex metal process,
reading is made up of four interrelated and overlapping abilities in the order of complexity,
namely: to recognize, to comprehend, to react, and to integrate. Once the child reacts to the ideas
presented to him these become a part of him for use in meeting new situations and solving
unexpected problems.
In general perspective, both groups of respondents agreed that the audiolingualism
approach is much utilized in teaching English. Audiolingualism is most popularly used. Moulton
(2009) explained that students learn by analogy, not by analysis. Language is a set of habits
therefore teach the language, not about the language. Horwitz (2009) highlighted the importance
of naturalistic experience in second language, promoting listening and reading practice and
stressing involvement in life-like conversations. She explicitly suggested teaching practices
based on these principles; class time should be devoted to the development of listening and
reading abilities and instructors/professors should assess students’ interest and supply
appropriate materials. The audiolingualism teaching practices used in the present study are based
on principles explicated by Asher and Horwitz; listening featured heavily, closely followed by
reading and speaking practice.
Direct Approach
Table 2, on the other hand, presents the respondents’ perception on the extent og the
instructors/professors’ utilization of direct approach in teaching English.
Both groups of respondents agreed that item number 1 “the teachers uses actions and
pictures to make meaning clear” and item number 3 “the teachers never permits the use of
mother tongue, such as, he/she does not need to know the students’ native language” were
utilized; and that item number 4 “the teacher begins the lesson with dialogues and anecdotes in
modern conversational style” and item number 6 “the teacher teaches the culture of the target
language from simple to complex thoughts” were much utilized.
However, the instructor/professor respondents and the student respondents varied on their
perceptions in the case of item number 2 “the teacher reads literary texts for pleasure only and
not to be analyzed grammatically” the teacher respondents saw it as much utilized, while their
student counterpart saw it as utilized. While item number 5 “the teacher is a native speaker or has
native-like proficiency in the target language” perceived by instructor/professor respondents as
very much utilized, while the student respondents saw it as only much utilized.
Table 2. Instructor/Professor and Students Perceptions on the Extent of the

Instructors/ Professors’ Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching English in
terms of Direct Approach.
Indicators Instructors Students
AWD VD AWV VD
1. He / She use actions and pictures to make meaning clear. 3.18 U 3.24 U
2. He / She reads literary texts for pleasure only and not to be 4.00 MU 2.87 U
analyzed grammatically.
3. He / She never permits the use of mother tongue (i.e. the teachers
does not need to know the student’s native language. 3.18 U 3.00 U
4. He / She begins the lesson dialogues and anecdotes in modern MU 3.56 MU
conversational style. 3.59
5. He / She is a native speaker or has native like proficiency in the 4.91 VM 3.52 MU
target language. U
6. He / She teaches the culture of the target language from simple to 4.14 MU 3.60 MU
complex thoughts.
Weighted Mean 3.83 MU 3.30 U
They, likewise, differed on their general perception on the utilization of direct approach
in teaching English. The instructor/professor respondents asserted that direct approach was much
utilized, but their student counterpart disagreed saying that it was only utilized. The findings of
this study corroborated with that of Freeman (2010) when he revealed that adult second language
learners can learn a second language in essentially the same manner as a child. Therefore if
possible the instructor/professor should try to create a natural learning environment.
Communicative Approach
Table 3 presents the respondents’ perception on the extent of the instructor/professors’
utilization of communicative approach in teaching English.
Insofar as item number 2 “the teacher assumes his/her role to primarily facilitate
communication and only secondarily correct errors” and item number 6 “ the teacher assumes
that the content of the language course is not just linguistic structure but should include ideas that
reveal the importance of the target language in social functions” both groups of respondents
agreed that such strategies were much utilized. This was supported by the study of Berns (2009),
an expert in the field of Communicative Language Teaching when she explained that language is
interaction; it is an interpersonal activity and has a clear relationship with society. In this sight,
language study has to look at the use (function) of language in context, both its linguistic context
(what is uttered before) and after a given piece of discourse) and its social or situational context
(who is speaking, what their social roles are, why they have come together to speak.
However, they differed on their perception in the utilization of communicative approach
strategies strategies spelled out in item number 1, “the teacher engages students in role play or
dramatization to adjust their use of the target language to different social contexts”; item number
3 “the teacher regularly gives activities by pairs or groups to transfer meaning in situations in
which one student has information that the others lack”; item number 4 “the teacher provides
materials and activities which reflect real-life situations and demands”; and item number 5 “ the
teacher uses the target language fluently and appropriately”.

Instructor/Professors’ Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching
English in Terms of Communicative Approach
Instructors Students
Indicators AWD VD AWV VD
1. He / She engages students in role play or dramatization to adjust
their use of the target language to different social contexts. 3.50 MU 3.31 U
2. He / She assumes his / her role to primarily facilitate communication
and only secondarily correct errors. 3.86 MU 3.55 MU
3. He / She regularly gives activities by pairs or groups to transfer
meaning in situations in which one student has information that the 4.09 MU 3.38 U
others lack.
4. He / She provides materials and activities which reflect real-life 3.82 MU 3.12 U
situations and demands.
5. He / She uses the target language fluently and appropriate. 5.00 VMU 3.73 MU
6. He / She assumes that the content of the language course is not just
linguistic structure (parts of speech and its meaning) but should
include ideas that reveal the importance of the target language in social 4.14 MU 4.20 MU
functions.
The teacher-respondents claimed that item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were much utilized,
item number 5 was very much utilized but their student counterpart disagreed, saying that item
numbers 1 and 3 were only utilized while item numbers 2,5 and 6 were much utilized. This
means that the instructor/professor respondents believed that role play increases motivation.
Always talking about real life can become very dull, and the chance to imagine different
situations adds interest to a lesson.
In addition, role play gives a chance to use language in new contexts and for new topics.
McChesney (2014) suggested that discourse rating tasks, in which student’s rate dialogues or
scenarios on various continua of formality and the like can raise awareness about language and
can help transfer this knowledge to production activities such as role plays. Legutke, M. and
Thomas, H. (2012) stressed that students must be given intensification drills, situational
exercises or enrichment activities for familiarity and mastery.
Long et al. (2010) emphasized that small group communicative task were( and still are)
important mode of organization in many communicative classrooms. Long and his colleague
sought to compare the language produced by students in group tasks with that produced in
teacher-fronted activities. They found that students produced a greater quantity of talk in a group
tasks. However, when they studied the language functions performed by students, they also
found a much greater range, such small group tasks could be seen as facilitating acquisition.
Moreover, the instructor/professor-respondents asserted that item number 5 was very
much utilized, while the student-respondents said that it was only much utilized.
Generally, the instructor/professor-respondents stated that the communicative approach
in teaching English was much utilized similar to the observation of their student counterpart who
said that it was also much utilized. Grady (2013) claimed that merely knowing how to produce a
grammatically correct sentence is not enough. A communicatively competent person must also
know how to produce an appropriate natural and socially acceptable utterance in all context of
communication.
Affective-Humanistic Approach
Table 4 displays the respondents’ perception on the extent of the instructor/professors’
utilization of affective-humanistic approach in teaching English.
Specifically, the two groups of respondents agreed that item number 2 “ the teacher
stresses communication that is meaningful to the students”, item 4 “ the teacher emphasizes that
learning a foreign language is necessary” were much utilized strategies of affective-humanistic
approach. This explains that both the instructor/professor and student respondents considered the
importance of the affective domain. However, they differed on their perception as far as
strategies’ utilization like those being spelled out by item number 1, “the teacher pays respect for
the individual and for his or her feelings”, item number r3 “the teacher views class atmosphere as
more important than materials or methods” and item number 6 “the teacher is a counselor or
facilitator inside the classroom”. This simply means that not all teachers at all times understand
the benefit of creating a non-threating environment. This was substantiated by the study of Sano
(2013) when he revealed that creative production is possible only in a ‘non-threatening
environment” which encourages meaningful learning and the creative use of English. They see
learning as dependent on warm-hearted interaction between teachers and learners as well as
among learners themselves.
The student-respondents stressed out that item number 1 was much utilized even if their
teacher counterpart felt that it is only utilized. Insofar as item number 3 and 6, the former felt that
they were much very utilized, while the latter stressed out that item number 3 was only utilized
and item number 6 was much utilized.
In general, the instructor/professor-respondents said that the affective-humanistic
approach in teaching English was very much utilized while the student respondents said that it
was much utilized. There is no substitute for personal warmth, tolerance, and a positive attitude
to people, to oneself and to others (Legutke & Thomas, 2011). It can be seen that learner-
centered instruction considering the learners’ affective domain is not a matter of handling over
rights and powers to learners’ affective domain is not a matter of handing over rights and powers
to learners in a unilateral way. Nor does it involve devaluing the teacher. Rather it is a matter of
educating learners for their own learning (Nunan 2014).

Instructor/Professors’ Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching English in
Terms of Affective-Humanistic Approach
1. He / She pays respect for an individual and for his/her own 3.14 U 3.93 MU
feelings.
2. He / She stresses communication that is meaningful to the students. 4.41 MU 3.69 U
3. He / She views class atmosphere as more important for the 4.54 VMU 3.18 U
materials or methods.
4. He / She views peer support and interaction as necessary for 3.86 MU 3.67 MU
learning.
5. He / She emphasizes that learning a foreign language is necessary. 3.54 MU 3.61 MU
6. He / She is a counselor or facilitator inside the classroom. 4.77 VMU 3.46 MU
Weighted Mean 4.21 VMU 3.59 MU
Comprehension-Based Approach
Table 5 presents the extent of instructor/professor and student respondents of the
instructor/professors’ utilization of the approaches in teaching English in terms of
Comprehension-Based Approach. The two groups of respondents had common perception
insofar as the utilization of some strategies of comprehension-based approach was concerned.
These strategies were spelled out in item number 1 “the teacher prepares the students by listening
to meaningful speech and by responding through meaningful actions before producing any
language themselves”, item 3”the teacher gives importance to listening comprehension and
views it as the basic skill that will allow speaking, reading and writing to develop spontaneously”
item 4 “the teacher exposes students to meaningful input that is just one step beyond their level
of competence”, where they all felt that the same were much utilized. For item 2 “the teacher
allows students not to speak until they feel ready to do so”, item 5 “teacher sees error correction
as unnecessary and thinks that the important thing is that the students can understand and can
make themselves understood item 6 “the teacher secures the students’ understanding of the rule
as this may help them monitor their progress” the instructor/professor respondents saw it as very
much utilized. This means that instructor/professor realized the importance of understanding the
language rather than speaking the language.
Krashen (2011) supported that learning cannot become a acquisition, as in many
instances acquisition without learning appears, which means that an individual may be a
competent user of a second language not knowing its rules consciously. Another supporting
argument for this proposition is that there are incidents where learning never becomes
acquisition when one knows the rule but continues breaking it based on the claim that no one
ever masters all the rules of the target language.
In the case of item number 2 “the teacher allows students not to speak until they feel
ready to do so”, the instructor/professor-respondents claimed that these strategies were very
much utilized, albeit their student counterpart did not agree saying that it was only utilized. The
problems in our classes is exactly what Holmes (2014) mentioned, ”Teachers have trapped the
students within the sentence and respond to the piece of writing as item checkers not as real
readers. He even suggested that we need to develop a more top-down student-centered approach
in teaching English as a second language.

Instructor/Professors’ Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching English of
Comprehension-Based Approach
1. He / She prepares the students by listening to meaningful
speech and by responding through meaningful actions before 3.73 MU 3.65 MU
producing any language themselves.
2. He / She allows students not to speak until they feel ready to 4.46 VMU 3.25 U
do so.
3. He / She gives importance to listening comprehension and
views it as the basic skill that will allow speaking, reading and 4.32 MU 3.91 MU
writing to develop spontaneously.
4. He / She exposes students to meaningful input that is just 4.00 MU 3.51 MU
beyond their level of competence.
5. He / She sees error correction as unnecessary and thinks that
the important thing is that the students can understand and can 3.91 VMU 3.63 MU
make themselves understood.
6. He / She secures the student’s understanding of the rule as
this may help them monitor their progress 4.23 VMU 3.78 MU

In general, both groups of respondents agreed that comprehension based approach in

teaching English as second language was much utilized by instructor/professors. As practiced,
comprehension-based approach reduced learning stress because students will be curious about
the origin of the language and this provides way of satisfying that curiosity, eventually building
good relationship.
All cultures have their own concepts of teaching, learning and education. Malcolm (2013)
pointed out that the native aborigines in the culture where he grew up do not educate their
children by giving them lectures. Life skills are taught inductively: children learn by observing
their elders. In English language teaching, there has long been a debate about the appropriateness
of many of the methods used by instructors and professors.
Increasingly, it is being recognized that pedagogical actions needs to be sensitive to the
cultural and environmental contexts in which teaching takes place. Kohonen (2012) argued for
experiential learning on the grounds that it facilitates personal growth, that it helps learner adapt
to social change, that it takes into account differences in learning ability and that it is responsive
both to learner needs and considerations.
Grammar Translation Approach

Table 6 portrays the respondents’ perception on the extent of the instructor/professors’
utilization of grammar translation approach in teaching English.
Table 6 Instructors/Professors and Students’ Perception on the Extent of the

Instructors/Professors’ Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching
English in Terms of Grammar Translation Approach
1. He / She gives instructions using the native language of 3.50 MU 3.24 U
the students.
2. He / She provides early reading of difficult texts. 3.64 MU 3.26 U
3. He / She does not speak the target language. 4.10 MU 3.63 U
4. He / She conducts exercises that translate sentences from 4.36 MU 3.50 MU
the target language into the mother tongue, or vice versa.
5. He / She describes the sentence grammatically by giving 4.27 MU 3.81 MU
the form and function of each of its components.
6. He / She rarely uses the target language for 4.20 MU 3.41 MU
communication.
Weighted Mean 4.02 MU 3.31 U
The instructor/professor-respondents saw as much utilized in all the strategies of

grammar translation approach spelled out in item number 1 “the teacher gives instruction using
the native language of the students” item 2 “the teacher provides early reading of difficult texts”,
item 3 “the teacher does not speak the target language” item number 4 “conducts exercises that
translate sentences from the target language into the mother tongue, or vice versa”, item 5 “the
teacher describes the sentence grammatically by giving the form and function of each of its
components”, and “item 6 “the teacher rarely uses the target language for communication. “Since
the primary goal of this approach is to develop literary mastery of the second language.
Memorization is the main learning strategy and students spend their class time taking about the
language instead of talking in the language (O’Grady, et.al. 2013).
The students had the same perception with their teacher counterpart insofar as item
numbers 4, 5 and 6 were concerned , the student-respondents, however, felt that the grammar-
translation approach strategies spelled out in item numbers 1, 2, 3 were only utilized. This found
out that classes were taught using the mother tongue moderately. Brown (2011) attempted to
explain why the method is still employed by pointing out that it requires few specialized skills on
the part of the instructors/professors. Test of grammar rules and of translations are easy to
construct and can be objectively scored. Many standardized tests of foreign languages still do not
attempt to tap into communicative abilities, so students have little motivation to go beyond
grammar analogies, translations and rote exercises.
Taking the whole perspective, the instructor/professor-respondents stressed out that the
grammar-translation approach was much utilized. This was contrary to the perception of the
student-respondents who put its utilization to utilized level only.
Summary on the Utilization of the Six Approaches in Teaching English

Table 7 summarizes the perception of the instructor/professor and student respondents on
the utilization of the six approaches in teaching English. With the average weighted mean of
3.795 for audiolinguism approach, 3.565 for Direct approach, 3.7 for Communicative approach,
3.89 for Comprehension-based approach and 3.665 for Grammar Translation approach, both
respondents perceived that these approaches were much utilized.
However, this perception differed in the Affective-humanistic approach with an average
weighted mean of 3.9, both respondents perceived it as utilized.
Table 7 Summary of the Instructors/Professors and Students’ Perception on the

Utilization of the Six Approaches in Teaching English
Instructors/Professor Students AWM Description
Approaches s
Mean VD Mean VD
1. Audiolingualism 3.99 MU 3.60 U 3.79 MU
2. Direct Approach 3.83 MU 3.30 U 3.56 MU
3. Communicative 4.07 MU 3.47 U 3.77 MU
4. Affective-Humanistic 4.21 V MU 3.59 MU 3.9 U
5. Comprehension-Based 4.27 V MU 3.62 MU 3.94 MU
6. Grammar Translation 4.02 MU 3.31 MU 3.66 MU
Test of Difference on the Utilization of the Six Approaches in Teaching English When They
are Categorized According to: Age; Gender; and Educational Qualification.
Table 8 below presents the analysis of variance on the level of utilization of the six (6)
approaches used by instructors/professors in teaching English as when they were categorized
according to age.
Age vis-á-vis Audionlingualism Approach

The statistical derivations of the data in Table 8 indicates that the computed value of
14.74 was greater than its F tabular value (tv) 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.18 at 0.05
level og significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference
on the perceptions of instructor/professor respondents on the utilization of the audiolingualism
approach in teaching English whey they were categorized according to age was hereby rejected.
Significant, therefore, in the instructor/professor-respondents’ perception in this particular case
did exist. Doff (2013) pointed out audiolingualism is an approach which uses mimicry and
memorization on the assumption that language is habit formation. Hence, the utilization of the
approach varies as to age.
Table 8. Test of Difference on the Perceptions of Instructor/Professor-Respondents on the
Utilization of the Six Approaches in Teaching English as Employed by them when they are
Categorized According to Age; Gender; and Educational Qualification
Variables F Ratio F table Value
Audiolingualism 14.74 S
Direct Approach 14.35S

Communicative Approach 18.73S
Age vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach 3.16
11.36S
Comprehensive-Based Approach 11.01S
Grammar-Translation Approach 26.08S
Audiolingualism 25.93S
Direct Approach 46.47S
Educational Communicative Approach 26.78S
Qualification 3.16
Affective-Humanistic Approach 19.77S
vis-á-vis
Comprehensive-Based Approach 21.49 S
Grammar-Translation Approach 78.00 S
Audiolingualism 25.93 S
Direct Approach 26.47 S
Gender vis-á- Communicative Approach 26.78 S
3.16
vis Affective-Humanistic Approach 19.77 S
Comprehensive-Based Approach 21.49 S
Grammar-Translation Approach 78.00 S
Legend: s = significant ns = not significant
Age vis-á-vis Direct Approach

The statistical derivations of the data in Table 8 indicates that the computed value of
14.35 was greater than its F tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.18 at
0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis asserting that there is no significant
difference in the perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the direct
approach in teaching English when they were categorized according to age was hereby rejected.
Significant difference on the instructor/professor-respondents’ perception insofar as the
utilization of this particular approach is concerned existed. Teachers of different age bracket
have also different modification in the application of dialogues and presentation of pictures to
make meanings clear in a classroom situation. In some ways, as examined by Cook (2010),
younger generation approach language teaching differently than older generations does.
Age vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

Significant difference likewise existed on the instructor/professor-respondents’
perception on the level of utilization of communicative approach in teaching English since the
statistical derivation of the data in Table 1’4 shows that the computed value of 18.73 was far
more greater than its tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.18 at 0.05 level
of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there exists no significant difference in
the perception of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of communicative approach
in teaching English language when categorized according to age was hereby rejected. As Curran
(2012) pointed out that the learner is not thought of as a student but as a client. The native
instructors of the language are not considered teachers but, rather are trained in counseling skills
adapted to their roles as language counselors.
Age vis-á-vis Comprehensive-Based Approach

Moreover, significant difference also existed in the instructor/professor-respondents’
perception on the level of utilization of comprehension-based approach in teaching English as
second language since the statistical derivation of the data in Table 8 shows that the computed
value of 11.01 was greater than its tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df)3.18
at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there exists no significant
difference on the perception of instructor/professor-respondents’ on the utilization of
comprehension-based approach in teaching English language when they were categporized
according to age was hereby rejected. It is commonly believed that children are better suited to
learn a second language than are adults.
Age vis-á-vis Grammar-Translation Approach

The analysis of variance indicated in Table 8 shows the computed value of 26.08 as far
more greater than its tabular value of 3.16 under degree of freedom 3.16 at 0.05 level of
significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there exits no significant difference on
the perception of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of grammar-translation
approach in teaching English language when they were categorized according to age was hereby
rejected. Significant difference on the instructor/professor-respondents’ perception on the
utilization og this particular approach in teaching English existed. This was supported by Elis
(2015) when he concluded that both number of years and starting age affect the level of success.
The number of years of exposure contributes greatly to the overall communicative teaching
competence but starting age determines the levels of accuracy achieved. Although it does not
describe an optimal age for second language acquisition, it implied that younger children can
learn languages more easily than older learners, as adults must reactivate principles developed
during the first language learning and forge a second language acquisition path: children can
learn several languages simultaneously as long as the principles are still active and they are
exposed to sufficient language samples (Pinker, 2010). Most studies into age effects on specific
aspects of second language acquisition have focused on grammar, with the common conclusion
that it is highly constrained by age, more so than semantic functioning. This suggests that
grammar is generally acquired later possibly because it requires abstract cognition and reasoning
(B.Harly,2009).
Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Audiolingualism Approach

The statistical derivations of the data in Table 15 indicate that the computed value of
25.93 was greater than its tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.18 at 0.05
level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference
in the perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the audiolingualism
approach in teaching English when they were categorized according to educational qualification
was hereby rejected. Significant difference on the instructor/professor-respondents’ perception in
this particular case did exist.
Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Direct Approach
Also, the statistical derivation of the data in Table 15 shows that the computed value of
in the perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the direct approach in
teaching English when they were categorized according to educational qualification was hereby
rejected. Significant difference on the instructor/professor-respondents’ perception in this
particular case did exist. Freeman (2010) pointed out the target language. There is to be a direct
connection between concepts and the language to be learned. Therefore, teachers must be
educationally qualified.
Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

Significant difference likewise existed in the instructor/professor-respondents’
perceptions on the level of utilization of communicative approach in teaching English since the
statistical derivation of the data in Table 15 shows that the computed value of 26.78 was greater
than its tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.18 at 0.05 level of
significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference in the
perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the communicative approach
in teaching English when they were categorized according to educational qualification was
hereby rejected.
Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach

More so, the statistical derivations of the data in Table 15 indicate that the computed
value of 19.77 was greater than its tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df)
3.18 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant difference in the perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of
the affective-humanistic approach in teaching English when they were categorized according to
educational qualification was hereby rejected. Significant difference on the instructor/professor-
respondents’ perception in this particular case did exist. This proves that educational
qualification does not affect the teachers’ emotional aspects towards the profession. As Sano
(2013) explained, learning greatly depends on warm-hearted interaction between teachers and
learners.
Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Comprehensive-Based Approach

Moreover, Significant difference also existed in the instructor/professor-respondents’
perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the comprehensive-based
was hereby rejected.
Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Grammar-Translation Approach

The analysis of variance indicated in Table 15 shows that the computed value of 78.00
was greater than its tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.18 at 0.05 level
of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference in the
perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the grammar-translation
was hereby rejected. Significant difference on the instructor/professor-respondents’ perception in
this particular case did exist.
These findings were justified in an overview of research into strategy training, O’Malley
and Chamot (2013) found indications that educational qualification has an effect on preferred
ways of employing teaching approaches since tey have explored possible learning style
differences to different learner biographical variables.
Gender vis-á-visAudiolingualism Approach

The statistical derivations of the data in Table 16 indicate that the computed value of
in the perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the
audiolingualismapproach in teaching English when they were categorized according to
respondents’ perception in this particular case did exist.
Gender vis-á-vis Direct Approach

Also, the statistical derivations of the data in Table 16 indicate that the computed value of
in the perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the direct approach in
rejected. Significant difference on the instructor/professor-respondents’ perception existed.
Nunan (2014) pointed ot that the employment of second language teaching approaches may vary
to both gender but not a sole factor to measure the success of second language acquisition.
Gender vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

Significant difference likewise existed in the instructor/professor-respondents’
perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the communicative approach
in teaching English when they were categorized according to educational qualification was
hereby rejected.
Gender vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach

Moreover, the statistical derivations of the data in Table 16 indicate that the computed
value of 19.77 was greater than its tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df)
3.18 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant difference in the perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of
the affective-humanistic approach in teaching English when they were categorized according to
respondents’ perception in this particular case did exist. The process of language learning can be
very stressful and the impact of positive or negative attitudes from the surrounding society can
be critical. One aspect that has received particular attention is the relationship of gender roles to
language achievement (Doman,2006).
Gender vis-á-vis Comprehensive-Based Approach

Significant difference also existed in the instructor/professor-respondents’ perceptions on
the level of utilization of comprehensive-based approach in teaching English since the statistical
derivation of the data in Table 16 shows that the computed value of 21.49 was greater than its
tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.18 at 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference in the perceptions of
instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the comprehensive-based approach in
rejected. Doman (2006) added that studies across numerous cultures have shown that women, on
the whole, enjoy an advantage over men. Some have proposed that this is linked to gender roles.
Gender vis-á-vis Grammar-Translation Approach

The analysis of variance indicated in Table 16 shows that the computed value of 78.08
was far greater than its tabular value (tv) of 3.16 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.18 at 0.05
in the perceptions of instructor/professor-respondents on the utilization of the grammar-
translation approach in teaching English when they were categorized according to educational
qualification was hereby rejected. Significant difference on the instructor/professor-respondents’
perception in this particular case did exist. Numerous studies have shown that female learners
typically use strategies more widely and intensively than males; this may be related to the
statistical advantage which female learners enjoy in language learning (Swain 2013). Thus, there
is a great amount of heterogeneity in the entire conceptualization of second language acquisition.
Significant Difference on the Utilization of the Six Approaches in Teaching English as to

Year Level; and Course Taken
On the other hand, Table 9 presents the analysis of variance of the student-respondents’
perception on the level of utilization of the six (6) approaches used by instructors/professors in
teaching English when grouped according to year level.
Year Level vis-á-visAudiolingualism Approach

The analysis of variance of the data in Table 9 shows that the computed value of 0.73 was
lesser than its tabular value (tv) of 2.6 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.374 at 0.05 level of
perceptions of student-respondents, categorized according to year level, on the utilization of the
Audiolingualism approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors was hereby
accepted. Significant difference on the student -respondents’ perception in this particular case
did exist.
Year Level vis-á-vis Direct Approach

The analysis of variance of the data in Table 9 shows that there was no significant
difference in the perceptions of student-respondent, this is supported the fact that the computed
value of 1.07 was lesser than its tabular value (tv) of 2.60 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.374
at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant
difference in the perceptions of student-respondents on the utilization of the Direct approach by
their instructors/professors in teaching was hereby accepted.
Table 9 Test of Difference on the Perception of Student-respondents on the Utilization of

the Six Approaches in Teaching English as Employed by them when they are Categorized
According to Year Level
Variables F Ratio F table Value
Audiolingualism 0.73 NS
Direct Approach 1.07 NS

Communicative Approach 0.86 NS
Age vis-á-vis 2.6
Affective-Humanistic Approach 0.71 NS
Comprehensive-Based Approach 0.82 NS
Grammar-Translation Approach 0.98 NS
Audiolingualism 0.73 NS
Direct Approach 1.07 NS
Educational Communicative Approach 0.86 NS
Qualification 2.6
Affective-Humanistic Approach 0.71 NS
vis-á-vis
Comprehensive-Based Approach 0.82 NS
Grammar-Translation Approach 0.98 NS
Legend: s = significant | ns = not significant
Year Level vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

In the case of the utilization of communicative approach in teaching English, the
perceptions of the student-respondents did not significantly differ as indicated by the analysis of
variance of the data in the table showing the computed value of 0.86 which was lesser than its
tabular value (tv) of 2.60 derived under degree of freedom (df) 3.374 at 0.05 significance level.
Hence, the null hypothesis expressing that there is no significant difference of Communicative
approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors was hereby accepted.
Year Level vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach

With regards to the utilization of Affective-humanistic approach, the perceptions of the
student-respondents, categorized into year level did not vary or differ much. This is suppoted by
the analysis of variance of the data in Table 9 showing the computed value of 0.71 which was
lesser than its tabular value (tv) of 2.60 under the degree of freedom (df) 3.374 at 0.05 level of
significance. Hence, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference in the
perceptions of student-respondents, categorized according year level, on the utilization of the
Affective-humanistic approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors was hereby
accepted.
Year Level vis-á-vis Comprehension-Based Approach
Further, there was no significance difference on the perceptions of the student-
respondents,categorized according year level, on the utilization of the Comprehension-based
approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors. This is supported the fact that the
analysis variance of the data in Table 9 clearly shows that computed value of 0.82 that was
lesser than its tabular value (tv) of 2.60 derived under the degree of freedom (df) 3.374 at 0.05
level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference in
the perceptions of student-respondents, categorized according to year level, on the utilization of
the Comprehension-based approach in teaching by their instructors/professors was hereby
accepted.
Year Level vis-á-vis Grammar-Translation Approach

Insofar as the utilization of Grammar-translation approach in teaching English as by their
instructors/professors is concerned, the perception of the student-respondents, as categorized
according to year level did not differ or vary much. This is indicative of the analysis of variance
of the data in the table showing the computed value of 0.98 as lesser than its tabular value (tv) of
2.60 derived under degree of freedom (df) 3.374 at 0.05 significance level. Hence, the null
hypothesis expressing that there is no significant difference on the perceptions of student-
respondents, categorized according to year level, on the utilization of Grammar-translation
approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors was hereby accepted.
The effect of year level on acquisition has been extensively documented, the issue being
whether lower year learners acquire a second language more efficiently and effectively than
higher year learners. Research to date has not conclusively settled the issue one-away or another
(Scovel 2008), largely because, from a research perspective the according to course taken, on the
utilization of direct approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors. this is supported
by the statistical findings that the computed value of 1.78 was greater than its tabular value of
1.55 derived under degree of freedom (df) 22.355 at 0.05 significance level. Hence, the null
hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the perception of
instructors/professors-respondents, categorized according to course taken, on the utilization of
direct approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors was hereby rejected.
Course Taken vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

There existed a significant difference on the perception of instructors/professors-
respondents, categorized according to course taken, on the utilization of communicative
approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors. This can be gleaned from the
analysis of variance in the data in Table 18 that shows the computed value of 1.81 as greater than
its tabular value of 1.55 derived under degree of freedom (df) 22.355 at 0.05 significance level.
Hence, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the perceptions of
student-respondents, categorized according to course taken, on the utilization of communicative
approach in teaching English by their instructors/professors was hereby rejected.
Course Taken vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach

Based on the analysis of variance of the data in Table 18, there existed a significant
difference in the perceptions of student-respondent,categorized according to course taken,
relative to their perceptions on the utilization of affective-humanistic approach in teaching
English by their instructors/professors. This is supported by a statistical fact that the computed
value of 1.92 was greater than its tabular value (tv) of 1.55 derived under the degree of freedom
(df) 1.55 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant difference in the perceptions of student-respondents, categorized according to course
taken, on the utilization of the Affective-humanistic approach in teaching English by their
instructors/professors was hereby rejected.
Significant Difference on the Perceptions of the Respondents on the Extent of the

Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching English
It is quite noticeable in Table 10 that the computed t-value of 1.29 was lesser than the
tabular value (tv) of 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis stating that
there is no significant difference on the perceptions of the instructor/professor-respondents and
the student-respondents on the extent of the utilization of the Audiolingualism approach in
teaching English was hereby accepted. In general, significant difference on the perception of
instructor/professor and student-respondents in this case did not exist.
Table 10 Test of Difference in the Perceptions of the Instructor/Professor-Respondents

and the Student-Respondents on the Extent of the Utilization of the Six
Approaches in Teaching English
Six Approaches Teacher Students Computed Critical
T-Value T-Value
Mean SD Mean SD
Audiolingualism 3.993 0.750 3.595 0.108 1.29ns
Approach
Direct Approach 3.833 0.662 3.298 0.311 1.79ns
Communicative 4.068 0.510 3.472 0.246 2.58 s
Approach
1.96
Affective-Humanistic 4.043 0.634 3.472 0.252 1.63ns
Approach
Comprehension-Based 4.275 0.404 3.622 0.228 3.45s
Approach
Grammar-Translation 4.017 0.359 3.308 0.391 3.27 s
Approach
Legend: S = significant | ns =not significant
The data in the table likewise shows the computed t-value of 1.79 which was lesser than
its tabular value of 1.96 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis stating that
there was no significant difference in the perceptions of the utilization of the direct approach in
teaching English in terms of Direct approach was hereby accepted. Therefore, there existed no
significant difference on the perception of instructor/professor and student-respondents in this
particular case.
However,the data indicates the existence of significant difference on the perceptions
between the instructor/professor-respondents and the student-respondents on the extent of the
utilization of communicative approach in teaching English. This is due to the statistical fact that
the computed t-value was greater than its tabular t-value of 1.9 at 0.05 level of significance.
Hence, the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the perceptions of the
instructor/professor-respondents and the student-respondents on the extent of the utilization of
this particular approach in teaching English was herby rejected.
Also, the data shows a statistical fact that the computed t-value of 1.63 was lesser than its
tabular value of 1.96 at 0.05 significant level. This means that the perception of
instructor/professor-respondents, insofar as the extent of utilization of the affective-humanistic
approach in teaching English was concerned, was not significantly different from the perception
of its student counterpart, or vice versa. Hence, the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant difference on the perceptions of the instructor/professor-respondents and the student-
respondents on the extent of the utilization of the affective-humanistic approach in teaching
English was hereby rejected.
With regards to the instructor/professor-respondents and the students’ perception on the
extent of utilization of the comprehension-based approach in teaching English, the statistical fact
shown in Table 18 indicates that their perception significantly differed. The computed t-value
was far greater than its tabular value of 1.96 set at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null
hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference on the perceptions of the
instructor/professor-respondents and the student-respondents on the extent of the utilization of
the comprehension-based approach in teaching English was hereby accepted.
Lastly,the data shows the existence of significant difference on the perception of two
groups of respondents on the extent of the utilization of grammar-translation approach in
teaching English. This is manifested by the statistical fact that tabular t-value of 1.9 at 0.05 level
of significance was far lesser than its computed value of 3.27. Hence, the null hypothesis stating
that there is no significant difference on the perceptions of the instructor/professor-respondents
and the student-respondents on the extent of the utilization of the grammar-translation approach
in teaching English as a second language was hereby rejected. This is supported by Brown
(2011) when he attempted to explain why the method is still employed by emphasizing out that it
requires few specialized skills on the part of the instructors/professors. Test of grammar rules
and of translations are easy to construct and can be objectively scored. Many standardized tests
of foreign languages still do not attempt to tap into communicative abilities, so student have little
motivation to go beyond grammar analogies, translations and rite exercises.
Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are hereby drawn:
1. The English subjects offered in Jose Rizal Memorial State College are handled by
educationally qualified instructors and professors.
2. The approaches under study are generally much utilized in teaching English as a second
language though the teacher and student respondents vary on their perceptions as to the
extent of utilization in classroom instruction
3. Age, gender and educational qualification of instructors and professors are contributing
factors as to the variation of their utilization of the approaches under study and eventually
to their performance in classroom instruction.
4. The approaches under investigation are utilized by instructors and professors in
classroom teaching which are experienced by all students regardless of year level and
course taken.
5. The instructors/professors’ utilization of direct, affective-humanistic and grammar-
translation approaches is not fully understood and felt among students taking English
subjects.
Recommendation
On the basis of the summary of findings and conclusions, the researcher highly
recommends the following:
1. Instructors and professors should continue to further their content knowledge and
pedagogical skills by taking advanced studies in their field of specialization.
2. Instructors and professors should promote the consistency of utilizing the direct and
grammar translation approaches in teaching English as second language to be fully
understood and felt among students.
3. The instructors/professors should maintain and elevate the level of their utilization of the
audiolingualism, communicative and comprehensive-based approaches in teaching
English since their students saw these approaches as much utilized by
instructors/professors similar to what their instructors/professors believed.
4. The students’ perception should be given greater weight or consideration by providing
regular documentation and assessment of students’ learning to determine how skills
should be addressed and to what degree.
References
B.Harly, (2009). “Surviving the Language Barriers”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 123,
Washing, D.C.:May, 2009, pp. 51-56.
Berns (2009). “Your Grammar and You”, American Journal of Phonetics, Vol. 36, New York:
March 2009,pp. 35-38.
Brown (2011). Morrison.“Know Your Language Well”, International Journal of Linguistics,

Vol. XXVIII, California: March, 2011, pp.14-18.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne (n.d.). Foundations of Methodology:Bringing the world to the

classroom and the classroom to life. National Geographic LearningRetrieved from
https://ngl.cengage.com/assets/downloads/tesfl_9781111351694/chapter_1_97811113516
94_p03_lores.pdf
Chomsky, N. (2010). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Cook (2010).“Changes in your Language,” International Journal of Linguistics, Vol. XXXII,

California: January, 2010, pp.27-31.
Curran (2012).”A Study of Austrilian English Comprehension by Asians”, Austrilian Journal

of Literature, Arts and Education, Vol. XLI,Sydney: November 2012, pp. 34-39.
Doff (2013).“Understand What You Listen”, Philippine Journal of Education, Vol. 18,
Quezon City: Febuary, 2013. Pp. 12-16.
Doff, (2011). Language Learning Strategies Instruction and Research.AILA’96 Symposium
on Learner Autonomy, Finland.
Elis (2015). “Difficult Level of Understanding American English by Britons”, American

Journal of Education, Vol.123, Washington, D.C.: April, 2015, pp. 34-37.
Freeman (2010). Humans ad Communication. London: Birmingham Publication.

Krashen, S..Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.Oxford:
Pergamon
Grady (2013). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes (2014). “English Language: Comparing the Past and the Present,” International Journal
Linguistics, Vol. XXXII, California: August, 2014,pp.78-82.
Horwitz (2009). The Evolution of Language.Texas: Briston and Briston Publishing House.
Kohonen (2012). “The Words We Borrow”, Philippine Journal of Education, Vol. 21, Quezon
City: pp. 22-26.
Kimodo(2014). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching.San Francisco State

University, Prentice Hall Regents, Prentice Hall, Inc.
Krashen (2011). Language Autonomy London: McGraw Hill Book, Co.
Legutke, M. and Thomas, H. (2012).Process and Experience in the Language Classroom.

London: Longman.
Lightbown (2012). The Theory of Language Change.London: McGraw Hill Book, Co.
Long et al. (2010).Modeling and Assessing Second Language Acquisiton. Clevedon Avon:
Multilingual Matters.
Legutke & Thomas, (2011). Language teaching Methodology.London: Prentice-Hall.
Malcolm (2013). ‘A study of Languagesin Southeast Asian Region”.Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, University of the Philippines: Quezon City, November 2013.
McChesney (2014). “A Study on Speech Comprehension among Americans,” American

Journal of Education, Vol.124, Washington, D.C.:June,2014,pp.12-17.
Moulton (2009). Language Learning and Teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan (2014). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.Cambridge:Cambridge

University Press.
O’Grady, et.al. (2013).“Language and Communication”, American Journal of Phonetics,
Vol. 36, California: Febuary, 2013, pp. 56-61.
O’Malley and Chamot (2013), “Language Reconstruction”, Philippines Journal of

Education, Vol.16, Quezon City: April, 2013, 19-23.
Pinker, (2010). The Morphological Change in our Language”, International Journal of

Linguistics, Vol. XXIX, California: June 2001, pp. 47-51.
Sano (2013). Language Change: An Evolution. Canterbury: Bermont and Presley Publishing
House.
Savignon, Sandra J. (2002). Communicative Curriculum Design for the 21st Century. England
Teaching Forum, GoodHand, Kansas, United States. Retrieved from
https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/02-40-1-c.pdf
Savignon, Sandra J. (2015). Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and

Classroom Practice. VIDEA 1923 Fernwood Road, Office No. 2, Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada, V8T 2Y6. Retrieved from http://videa.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/Communicative-language-teaching2.pdf
Scovel (2008). “The Value of Articulation Training,” American Journal of Phonetics, Vol.34,
New York:January,2008, pp.32-37.
Swain (2013).“English Divided”, American Journal of Phonetics, Vol. 38, New York:
December, 2013, pp.21-25.

Approaches in Teaching English As Employed Among Instructors and Professors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Approaches in Teaching English As Employed Among Instructors and Professors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Approaches in Teaching English as Employed

Among Instructors and Professors

Keywords: Affective-Humanistic Approach; Audiolingual Approach; Communicative

Results and Discussions

Figure 1. Frequency Distribution of Instructor/Professor-Respondents as to Educational

Instructor/Professor-Respondents Profile as to Gender

Figure 2. Frequency Distribution of Instructor/Professor-Respondents as to Gender

Instructor/Professor-Respondents Profile as to Age

Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of Instructor/Professor-Respondents as to Age

This implies that majority of the instructor/professor-respondents teaching English

Student Respondents Profile as to Year Level

Figure 4. Frequency Distribution of Student Respondents as to Year Level

Figure 5 below shows the frequency distribution of student respondents as to course

Figure 5. Frequency Distribution of Student Respondents as to Course Taken

Extent Utilization of the Approaches in Teaching English Language

Table 7 Instructor/Professor and Students’ Perception on the Extent of the

Table 2. Instructor/Professor and Students Perceptions on the Extent of the

Table 3 Instructor/Professor and Students’ Perception on the Extent of the

Table 4 Instructor/Professor and Students’ Perception on the Extent of the

Table 5 Instructor/Professor and Students’ Perception on the Extent of the

Weighted Mean 4.27 MU 3.62 MU

In general, both groups of respondents agreed that comprehension based approach in

Grammar Translation Approach

Table 6 Instructors/Professors and Students’ Perception on the Extent of the

The instructor/professor-respondents saw as much utilized in all the strategies of

Summary on the Utilization of the Six Approaches in Teaching English

Table 7 Summary of the Instructors/Professors and Students’ Perception on the

Age vis-á-vis Audionlingualism Approach

Direct Approach 14.35S

Age vis-á-vis Direct Approach

Age vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

Age vis-á-vis Comprehensive-Based Approach

Age vis-á-vis Grammar-Translation Approach

Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Audiolingualism Approach

Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach

Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Comprehensive-Based Approach

Educational Qualification vis-á-vis Grammar-Translation Approach

Gender vis-á-visAudiolingualism Approach

Gender vis-á-vis Direct Approach

Gender vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

Gender vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach

Gender vis-á-vis Comprehensive-Based Approach

Gender vis-á-vis Grammar-Translation Approach

Significant Difference on the Utilization of the Six Approaches in Teaching English as to

Year Level vis-á-visAudiolingualism Approach

Year Level vis-á-vis Direct Approach

Table 9 Test of Difference on the Perception of Student-respondents on the Utilization of

Direct Approach 1.07 NS

Year Level vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

Year Level vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach

Year Level vis-á-vis Grammar-Translation Approach

Course Taken vis-á-vis Communicative Approach

Course Taken vis-á-vis Affective-Humanistic Approach

Significant Difference on the Perceptions of the Respondents on the Extent of the

Table 10 Test of Difference in the Perceptions of the Instructor/Professor-Respondents

Conclusions and Recommendations

Brown (2011). Morrison.“Know Your Language Well”, International Journal of Linguistics,

Celce-Murcia, Marianne (n.d.). Foundations of Methodology:Bringing the world to the

Cook (2010).“Changes in your Language,” International Journal of Linguistics, Vol. XXXII,

Curran (2012).”A Study of Austrilian English Comprehension by Asians”, Austrilian Journal

Elis (2015). “Difficult Level of Understanding American English by Britons”, American

Freeman (2010). Humans ad Communication. London: Birmingham Publication.