ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

English Proficiency and Academic Performance of SDCA Students: Basis for

Strengthening the English Language Program

Jonathan R. Adanza, RN, MDiv, MAN

School of Arts, Science, Criminology, and Education
eklektos73@gmail.com

Abstract: English has gained acceptance in the educational systems of several

countries like the Philippines. Therefore, it is not surprising that proficiency in
this language is used as an indicator of academic achievement in schools.
Deficiency in the language of instruction would mean students could never
perform well in the courses taught using English as medium of instruction. This
study utilizes the ex post facto, descriptive, correlational design of research, in
which variables such as actual and perceived English proficiency and academic
performance are primarily considered.
The results show that the actual and perceived English proficiency of the
students are both satisfactory. The academic performance reveals that SDCA
students are basically average students and are heterogeneously grouped. Among
the skills, SDCA students, though satisfactory, need to improve in the speaking
and writing aspects of the English language. Moreover, the students have
satisfactory perception regarding the effectiveness of the enhanced English
curriculum.
The study further reveals there is a significant difference in students’
English proficiency, both actual and perceived when grouped according to
school/program of study (F (3, 115) = 8.28, p = .000). Furthermore, there is no
significant difference in students’ English proficiency, both actual and perceived
when grouped according to year level (t [116] = .044, P = .965). It does not matter
whether the student is an incoming second year or third year, the proficiency
remains the same. A significant relationship (positive correlation) can be observed
between English proficiency and students’ academic performance (r=.288;
p=.002). It is then crucial to have a good grasp of the English language to do well
in school, particularly the major or professional courses that are English-based.
This is expected as the materials and the medium of instruction in the professional
courses are in English.

Key words: English proficiency, academic performance, correlation

1
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Introduction

The Philippines was once hailed as the third largest country with the most number of

people speaking the English language. Just recently, on April 26, 2012, GMA 7 reported

that the Philippines topped the survey among countries that used business English very

well. With a rating of 7.11, from a scale of 0-10, the Philippines garnered the highest

score, followed by European countries with the US outside the top ten. In Asia, only India

came close at number 6. It was an important breakthrough because, as almost everybody

knows, English is considered as the lingua franca of the world. It might not be the most

popular language internationally, but English is still highly esteemed as the official

language in business, politics, and education. However, this may not speak of Philippines,

particularly in the academic field, in which the country has been experiencing jolts and

jitters owing to several factors that threatened to totally annihilate the English language in

the Philippines.

This threat found arguments in many reasons. The strongest of them, the

researcher posits, is the nationalist campaigns of Filipinization particularly in language.

This may be gradually reversed through policies that assert to regain the lost glory.

However, English, as asserted by McLean (2010), is no longer the official language in the

Philippines. This brought the government back to its senses and responded with

mandatory English proficiency classes in schools. Nevertheless, this is a herculean task

for the government, as the scheme had debilitated almost all aspects of the Filipinos,

particularly education and economy. Andrew King, the country director of IDP Education

Pty. Ltd. Philippines, reported that in 2008, the overall average score of the Filipino

IELTS takers, who were supposedly educated with the English language as the medium

2
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

of instruction, dipped down to 6.69 out of the perfect band score of 9, just behind

Malaysia which got an average of 6.71. This is alarming because there is an increasing

demand for people who can speak it well all over the world (King, 2008). Employers in

countries where many Filipinos seek to enter higher wages are now seeking quality

English skills. It is not only the economy which is experiencing this problem but

primarily also the educational system. In fact, education directly suffers this disturbing

phenomenon because before these job hunters look for job, they need to undergo the

filtering standards of education that supposedly uses English as the medium of

instruction. This may mean that education is partly to be blamed why this problem

happens. If it is part and parcel of the problem, the researcher believes that the answer

then is found in it and how it operates in education.

The English language has gained worldwide acceptance in the educational

systems of several countries. As a matter of fact, Nigeria, which is considered as a multi-

lingual country, considered English to be very useful in the country’s educational

language. Ajufo (2007) confirmed this assertion by underscoring English as the medium

of instruction for all school subjects from the primary school level to the university, in

addition to being compulsory school subject that all students at all levels of education in

Nigeria must pass. Proficiency of the language is used as an indicator of academic

achievement in school in Nigeria. As Maleki and Zangani (2007) observed, “having

difficulties in grasping fully the contents and concepts of the various subjects of the

curriculum taught in the target language (English language)seems to be one of the most

serious problems that[...] students face in their particular course of study” (p. 491).

Moreover, Feast (2002) argued that when students are deficient in the language of

3
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

instruction, it follows that they would not perform well in the various school subjects

taught in the target language. Farhady, et.al (1994) asserted that weakness of the students

in General English has a drastic impact to the academic performance of students.

How true is this assertion in the Philippine setting? In the Philippines, the English

language has been massively used even before the time the American settlement. To

propagate it as language, English has been integrated in the curriculum, not to mention

that the Philippines’ medium of instruction is also English. This speaks of how America

did in 50 years what Spain was never able to accomplish in 300 years, that is, to “make

the Filipinos understand and eventually accept, with affection, their masters” (Espinosa,

2010). Espinosa noted that “[u]nlike Spain’s strategy [of using religion], America’s

means of attack and assimilation... was mass education.” Today, English is primarily used

in educating the people via the mass media, the arts, social, business and political

interaction.

To be proficient in English language is an edge over other countries particularly in

the business world. No wonder the Philippines replaced India as the world’s capital of the

call center industry (ETS TOEFL). Not only that, but being proficient in English as

implied by Feast (2002), may mean the students would perform well in various school

subjects, the so-called content courses or professional courses. One of the purposes of

this study, therefore, is to determine if there is really a relationship between proficiency in

English language and the students’ performance in professional or content courses.

This is not a new idea of a study because there were several studies that have been

done on this problem or topic. This alleged relationship has been examined by scholars.

Butler and Castellon – Wellington (2000) in Fakeye and Ogunsiji (2009) compared

4
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

students’ performance in content areas to concurrent performance on a language

proficiency test and found a correlation between the two. Further, Ulibarri, Maria,

Spencer and Rivas (1981) examined the relationship between Hispanic students’

performance in English language tests and their achievement in Mathematics and

discovered that the language test data were not very useful in predicting achievement in

Mathematics. Bayliss and Raymond (2004) examined the link between academic success

and second language proficiency and concluded that the relationship between academic

achievement and language proficiency disappears as students approach native-like

proficiency levels. As a result of the conflicting findings, it is pertinent to further examine

the extent to which senior secondary school students’ proficiency in English language

will predict their overall academic achievement in Nigeria (Fakeye and Ogunsiji, 2009).

In the same manner, this may be also true in the Philippines.

Conceptual Framework

Proficiency can be looked at as a goal and thus be defined in terms of objectives

or standards (Stern, 1983 cited in Maleki and Zangani, 2007). These standards and

criteria can serve as criteria to assess empirically the actual performance of given

individual learners or groups of learners. Stern (1983) as cited by Maleki and Zangani,

stated that “proficiency ranges from zero to native - like proficiency. The zero is not

absolute because the second language learner as speaker of at least one other language,

his first language, knows language and how it functions. Complete competence is hardly

ever reached by second language learners” (p.341).

5
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Language proficiency is a “measurement of how well an individual has mastered

a language. Proficiency is measured in terms of receptive and expressive language skills,

syntax, vocabulary, semantics, and other areas that demonstrate language abilities”

(Retrieved from http://www.education. com/definition/language-proficiency/ on May 30,

2012). Bachman (1990) defines language proficiency as the language ability or ability in

language use. Oller (1983) states that language proficiency is not a single unitary ability,

but that it consists of several distinct but related constructs in addition to a general

construct of language proficiency. Farhady, et al. (1983) state that the term 'proficiency'

refers to the examinee’s ability in a particular area of competency in order to determine

the extent to which they can function in a real language use situation (Maleki and

Zangani, 2007).

There are four domains to language proficiency: reading, writing, speaking, and

listening. Language proficiency is measured for an individual by each language, such that

the individual may be proficient in English and not proficient in another language (http://

www. education.com/ definition /language-proficiency/).

Furthermore, Bell (2012) asserted that in educational institutions, academic

performance is very significant because success is measured by it (Retrieved from

http://www.ehow.com/ about_4740750_ define-academic-performance.html on May 30,

2012). Basically, a good academic performance could lead to better academic

achievement. Maleki and Zangani, in their study, concluded that there is a significant

positive correlation (r=.48) revealed between English language proficiency and academic

performance of the students. This suggests that as English proficiency increases, so does

academic success.

6
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Moreover, the tracking of academic performance fulfills a number of purposes.

Areas of achievement and failure in a student's academic career need to be evaluated in

order to foster improvement and make full use of the learning process. Results provide a

framework for talking about how students fare in school, and a constant standard to

which all students are held (Bell, 2012). Therefore, determining and exploring the

influencing factors to academic performance like English proficiency is noteworthy.

Conceptual Paradigm

Academic Performance
Actual English
Proficiency
Perceived English
Proficiency

Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm

Figure 1 shows two relationships of three variables: between actual English

proficiency and academic performance and between actual English proficiency and

perceived English proficiency.

Statement of the Problem

The intent of this study is to determine the strength of the English 1.5 approach of SDCA

students in enriching their proficiency of the English language. In this connection, this

study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents as to:

1.1 Program

1.2 Year Level

7
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

2. What is the level of English proficiency of SDCA students, as based on the:

2.1 Average of all English subjects with additional 1.5 units (actual

proficiency)?

2.2 Perceived personal English proficiency level by students (perceived

proficiency)?

3. What is the level of academic performance of SDCA students?

4. Is the additional 1.5 units helpful to students?

5. To what extent is the perceived effectiveness of the additional 1.5 units to each

English course among the students?

6. Is there a significant difference in the actual English proficiency of students

when grouped according to:

5.1 Program

5.2 Year Level

7. Is there a significant difference in the perceived English proficiency of

students when grouped according to:

8. Is there a significant relationship between perceived English proficiency and

actual English proficiency among SDCA students?

9. Is there a significant relationship between actual English proficiency and

academic performance?

Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis 1

There is no significant difference in the actual English proficiency of students

when grouped according to:

8
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

1.1 program and

1.2 year level.

Alternate Hypothesis 1

There is a significant difference in the actual English proficiency of students when

grouped according to program and year level.

Null Hypothesis 2

There is no significant difference in the perceived English proficiency of students

when grouped according to:

2.1 program and

2.2 year level.

Alternate Hypothesis 2

There is a significant difference in the perceived English proficiency of students

when grouped according to program and year level.

Null Hypothesis 3

There is no significant relationship between perceived and actual English

proficiency of students.

Alternate Hypothesis 3

There is a significant relationship between perceived and actual English

proficiency of students.

Null Hypothesis 4

There is no significant relationship between actual English proficiency and

academic performance of students.

Alternate Hypothesis 4

9
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

There is a significant relationship between actual English proficiency and academic

performance of students.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study may serve the following:

The college administration. This may be one of the various factors to be

considered whether the additional 1.5 units in English courses will be retained or not.

Further, this may also help the administrators assess the English proficiency level and the

academic performance of the students so that proper measures can be considered and

utilized.

The English instructors. Through this study, the instructors may identify the needs

of the students when it comes to learning the English language. This may also serve as a

starting point for them to plan and devise teaching objectives and strategies to maximize

learning potential of the students.

The students. This study may help them know their level of English proficiency

and academic performance and be motivated to do something to improve themselves

through the help of the school and the instructors.

The existing literature and studies. This may add to the existing literature and

studies about academic performance and English proficiency that explain how the

English language becomes a factor for a student to succeed in one’s studies.

10
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Scope and Limitations

This is an institutional research study to determine primarily the significance of English

1.5 approach to the academic performance of the students of St. Dominic College of Asia.

As a background, the usual English course was added 1.5 units primarily to reinforce

English proficiency of students. The study commenced last week of January and

concluded last week of March 2012.

This study might help in understanding the impact of 4.5 units of English courses

to the academic performance of the students. However, this study does not directly test

the strength of adding 1.5 units to the existing 3-unit English course, which can be best

achieved through an experimental design of study. This study just relied on the

perceptions of students themselves and the grades of the students in Communication

Skills subjects.

Methodology

Design

This study used combined ex post facto, descriptive, comparative and correlational

designs of research. Ex post facto because since on some data (i.e. the grades of the

students in Communication Skills under the English 1.5 approach and major subjects in

their program) the researcher had no direct control of the independent variables as their

manifestation has already existed. It is only its relationship with the dependent variable

that was retrospectively studied.

It is descriptive because some variables are described statistically. It is

comparative because means of variables are compared with each other, determining the

11
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

existing difference, may it be significant or not. It is correlational because there are

variables that are correlated to determine relationship, may it be significant or not.

Sampling

The researcher used the purposive sampling approach in selecting the 184 sample

students. From the population of SDCA students, a research/sampling frame was

established using the following criteria: the sample should be an incoming second and

third year student; who has taken any of the 1.5-unit enhanced English courses in SDCA;

and who is willing to participate in the study.

Instrument

Primarily, the grades of the students from the registrar through the Academe Barcode

Center system were used in the study specifically the grades of all the English subjects

that have 1.5 units additional and the total average of the major subjects for each program

were utilized, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research

and the Registrar. Further, a self-made tool was used to determine the perceived English

proficiency and the effectiveness of the enhanced English program. The tool was

submitted to three experts for content, face, and construct validation. Using the Cronbach

alpha, the tool was found immensely reliable (α=.946) after a pilot study conducted also

in SDCA to 15 students who were not selected for the study.

12
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Data Gathering Procedure and Data Analysis

This institutional research study started with a talk with the VPAAR regarding

researchable areas that are of much concern to SDCA. This research topic is just one of

those topics that the researcher wanted to delve into. After the informal meeting with the

VPAAR, the researcher started to conceptualize the proposal. After proper

conceptualization and formulation of title, the researcher went on surfing the net with

related studies and literatures. The researcher read and browse through the materials both

online and the library.

The review of related literature was done and a conceptual framework and

paradigm emerged to guide the researcher about the study. The design was decided by the

researcher and came up with the methodology of this study. Then, a letter of intent and

request was submitted to the VPAAR and Registrar for the approval of the researcher to

use the data (i.e. student’s grades) from the ABC system. Simultaneously, as the

researcher was waiting for the approval, the instrument was formulated. A draft of the

instrument was submitted to validators. They were floated and distributed to some 15

students who had undergone English 1.5 courses for reliability testing.

The questionnaires were floated to the respondents. Simultaneously, data from the

ABC were gathered and analyzed vis-a-vis the data from the floated instruments.

Descriptive statistics was used in the study such as, frequency and percentages, mean and

standard deviation. These are needed to determine the profile of the respondents and the

level of their English proficiency, may it be perceived or actual; level of their actual

English proficiency, and academic performance in major subjects. Further, the researcher

used ANOVA to determine the difference of the means of perceived and actual English

13
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

proficiency according to program/school and the T-test to determine the difference of the

means of perceived and actual English proficiency as to gender. The researcher ended the

research with specific conclusions and recommendations for SDCA.

Results and Discussion

The study has 184 respondents which is 30% of the total incoming second year and third

years students. From this, as shown by table 1, majority of the respondents are from the

School of Health Science Professions (42.9%), followed by the School of International

Hospitality Management (28.3%), School of Arts, Science, Criminology, and Education

(14.7%), and School of Business and Computer Studies (11.4%). There were those who

did not identify themselves as to which school they belong to (2.7%).

Demographic Profile

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of the Schools

Frequency Percent
Valid SHSP 79 42.9
SIHTM 52 28.3
SBCS 21 11.4
SASE 27 14.7
Total 179 97.3
Missing System 5 2.7
Total 184 100.0

As shown by table 2, 76.6% of the 184 respondents are incoming second year

students; 20.1% are incoming third year students; and those who did not affix their year

level at 3.3%.

Table 2. Frequency Distribution of the Year Levels

Frequency Percent

14
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Valid
Incoming Second Year Level
141 76.6

Third Year Level 37 20.1

Total 178 96.7
Missing System 6 3.3
Total 184 100.0

Actual Level of English Proficiency of SDCA Students

Table 3. SDCA Students Average Grade of all Communication Skills Courses

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

English Grade 66.00 94.00 85.7450 4.72064
Valid N (listwise)
Table 3 shows that the overall average grade of all the respondents is 85.745% out of the

maximum 100%. Looking at the standard deviation, we could see that the respondents are

heteregeneous when it comes to proficiency as shown by the lowest grade which is 66%

and the highest which is at 94%.

Perceived Level of English Proficiency of SDCA Students

Table 4. Perceived Level of English Proficiency of SDCA Students

Mean Std. Deviation

Overall English Proficiency 2.77 .58
Reading Proficiency 2.96 .71
Listening Proficieny 3.01 .76
Speaking Proficiency 2.44 .74
Writing Proficiency 2.67 .78

Legend:
3.1-4.0 : Very Good 1.1-2.0 : Fair
2.1-3.0 : Satisfactory 0.1-1.0 : Poor

Table 4 reflects how the respondents perceive their level of proficiency. An

overall English proficiency mean of 2.77 (SD= .58) may signify that the student

respondents perceive themselves to be satisfactory. From this overall mean of English

15
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Proficiency, listening proficiency is the highest (x=3.01) followed by reading proficiency

(x=2.96), writing proficiency (x=2.67), and speaking proficiency (x=2.44). The

respondents perceive themselves as satisfactory when it comes to reading, listening,

speaking, and writing proficiency.

Academic Performance of SDCA Students

Table 5. Academic Performance of SDCA Students

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Academic Performance 69.50 91.00 83.84 2.94

The academic performance which is represented by the major subjects of the students

reveals an overall mean of 83.84% and a standard deviation of 2.94. This may suggest

that the SDCA students are basically average and heterogeneous students. The average

grades in major courses reach for as low as 69.50% and go as high as 91%.

Perceived Effectiveness of the Additional 1.5 Units in English Courses

15%
Helpful
31% 54% Not Helpful
Missing

16
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Figure 1. Extent of the Usefulness of the English Additional 1.5 Laboratory Units

Figure 1 shows that 54.3% of the student-respondents found the additional 1.5

laboratory units in English helpful, while 31% found it not helpful. Moreover, 14.7% of

the respondents did not answer the question. There were reasons the respondents invoked.

One student-respondent noted that the additional units are helpful, practically, because it

“gives [the students] more time to practice [their] English communication skills.” It is

also helping the students to be good speakers especially during reports, health teachings,

and case studies. More time means more opportunity and allotted time to practice the

English skills, most specifically the speaking skills. One student-respondent mentioned

that the additional 1.5 unit helps her to speak straight English. It further helps them in

answering essay exam questions and write “meaningful straight English sentences.” As

one student-respondent said that more training, means more understanding will set in.

As mentioned, through these additional units, the faculty will be given more time

to focus on their students and enhance their skills through additional lessons. Not only

with communication skills but also this program will help the students to become “more

knowledgeable for [the] nurses.” To some, it “adds to [their] learning.” Moreover, it

builds the confidence of the students because it gives them more time to practice their

grammar and diction. Practically, as one students quipped, the additional 1.5 units to

English subjects can be helpful, “so [that] the student will give also priority and

importance to our subject.”

However, the respondents also specified their answer by saying that if the

additional units are done inside the speech laboratory, English would become more

interesting than just staying inside the classroom during laboratory hours.

17
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Table 6. Perceived Effectiveness of the Additional 1.5 Units in English Courses

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Effectiveness of
1.00 4.00 2.66 .66
+1.5 units
In English
The SDCA students perceive that the additional 1.5 units to English courses is somehow

effective, as shown by the satisfactory result (x=2.66), to reinforce the idea that adding

1.5 units may result into satisfactory perception of SDCA students with regards to their

English proficiency.

Actual English Proficiency of Students Per School

Table 7. Average of SDCA Students in English Courses per School

Mean Std. Deviation

SHSP 86.85 4.22
SIHTM 82.73 4.79
SBCS 85.25 8.13
SASE 87.68 3.44
Total 85.75 4.72

Table 7 shows a summary of the grades of SDCA students in English courses with

an additional 1.5 units laboratory. It shows that the School of Arts, Science, Criminology,

and Education has the highest mean grade of 87.68%; followed by SHSP (x=86.85%);

SBCS (x=85.25%); and SIHTM (82.72%). Is this significant statistically? Table 8

answers this question.

Table 8. Overall Difference of English Proficiency of SDCA Students According to

School (ANOVA)

Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.

18
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Squares
Between
467.380 3 155.793 8.286 .000
Groups
Within Groups 2162.185 115 18.802
Total 2629.565 118
In table 8, the one-way ANOVA was used to test for English proficiency differences

among four schools in SDCA. English proficiency differs significantly across the four

schools, SASCE, SHSP, SBCS, and SIHTM, F (3, 115) = 8.28, p = .000. This means that

null hypothesis 1.1 is rejected because of the significant difference statistically, and not

only by chance. The result might be significant but this table does not show what made

English proficiency different. The researcher decided to do a post hoc test specifically the

Tukey’s test to be able to determine where lie the significant results. Therefore, table 9

presents this multiple comparison of English proficiency of schools.

Looking at the School of Health Science Professions, when compared to the

students of SIHTM, yields a significant difference, p=.000 but not significant with other

schools. A significant difference also occurs between SIHTM and SASCE, p=.001.

To sum up, what makes the study of English proficiency significant is the

comparison between SIHTM and SHSP and SIHTM and SASCE. Further, it is shown

that there is no significant difference between SHSP and SBCS, SHSP and SASCE,

SBCS and SIHTM, SBCS and SASCE.

Table 9. Specific Interschool Difference of English Proficiency (Tukey’s)

Mean Difference

(I) School (J) School (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
SHSP SIHTM 4.12460(*) .91413 .000 1.7415 6.5077
SBCS 1.60317 3.11436 .955 -6.5160 9.7223
SASE -.82577 1.13490 .886 -3.7845 2.1329

19
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

SIHTM SHSP -4.12460(*) .91413 .000 -6.5077 -1.7415

SBCS -2.52143 3.15246 .854 -10.7399 5.6970
SASE -4.95038(*) 1.23562 .001 -8.1716 -1.7291
SBCS SHSP -1.60317 3.11436 .955 -9.7223 6.5160
SIHTM 2.52143 3.15246 .854 -5.6970 10.7399
SASE -2.42895 3.22341 .875 -10.8324 5.9745
SASE SHSP .82577 1.13490 .886 -2.1329 3.7845
SIHTM 4.95038(*) 1.23562 .001 1.7291 8.1716
SBCS 2.42895 3.22341 .875 -5.9745 10.8324

English Proficiency Per Year Level

Table 10a. Average English Proficiency According to Year Level

Level Mean Std. Deviation

English Incoming Second Year
85.72 4.54
Level
Third Year Level 85.66 5.92
Table 10a shows that the incoming second year students of SDCA have an average

of 85.72% in their English classes while incoming third year level students have 85.66%.

Are these means significantly different? To determine their difference, a T-test was

conducted and the result is found in table 10b below.

Table 10b. Difference of English Proficiency According to Year Level (T-test)

Levene's Test for

Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Difference

Englis Equal
.
h variances .368 .545 116 .965 .05657 1.27578 -2.47028 2.58342
044
assumed

20
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Equal
. 17.88
variances not .971 .05657 1.54614 -3.19329 3.30643
037 2
assumed
As based on Table 10, this study found that the English proficiency of student

respondents has no statistical significance when grouped according to year level:

incoming second year level (x=85.72%) vs. incoming third year level (x=85.66%)

(t [116] = .044, P = .965). This means that the null hypothesis 1.2 is accepted as there is

no significant difference in the English proficiency when grouped according to year level.

This may be attributed to the difference of competencies each level has when it comes to

the communication skills in English.

Difference in the Perceived English Proficiency of Students According to School

Table 11a. Average of Perceived English Proficiency of Students Per School

Mean Std. Deviation

SHSP 2.89 .57
SIHTM 2.65 .54
SBCS 2.46 .64
SASE 2.89 .53
Total 2.77 .58
Table 11a reflects how the students perceived their own English proficiency. The SASE

students have the highest perception at x=2.89, followed by SHSP, x=2.89, SIHTM,

x=2.65 and SBCS, x=2.46. All of these perceptions are textually interpreted to be

“satisfactory.” Are these statistically significant? Table 11b further explains this.

Table 11b. Overall Difference of Perceived English Proficiency of SDCA Students

According to School
Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.966 3 1.322 4.153 .007
Within Groups 55.068 173 .318
Total 59.035 176

21
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Using ANOVA, table 11b shows that the perceived English proficiency differs

significantly among the four schools in SDCA: F (3, 1.322) = 4.153, p = .007. This

means that the null hypothesis 2.1 is rejected as there is a significant difference

computed. Table 11c further shows which aspect the difference lies. The SBCS students

perception of their proficiency statistically differs than the perception of SHSP students

(p=.019) but not significant when compared with other schools.

Table 11c. Specific Interschool Difference of Perceived English Proficiency (Tukey’s)

(I) School (J) School Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
SHSP SIHTM .23223 .10075 .101
SBCS .42555(*) .14416 .019
SASE -.00281 .12577 1.000
SIHTM SHSP -.23223 .10075 .101
SBCS .19332 .15124 .578
SASE -.23504 .13383 .298
SBCS SHSP -.42555(*) .14416 .019
SIHTM -.19332 .15124 .578
SASE -.42836 .16895 .058
SASE SHSP .00281 .12577 1.000
SIHTM .23504 .13383 .298
SBCS .42836 .16895 .058

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Difference in the Perceived English Proficiency of Students According to Year Level

Table 12a. Average Perceived English Proficiency According to Year Level

Level Mean Std. Deviation

Perceived English Incoming Second Year Level
2.7643 .57431
Proficiency
Third Year Level 2.7643 .59391
Table 12a reflects how students perceived their English proficiency as grouped

according to year level. The data shows that they perceived their proficiency equally at

22
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

x=2.76 with an average SD=.58. Table 12b further shows the significant difference of

their mean. Basing on Table 12b, this study found that the perceived English proficiency

of student respondents has no statistical significance when grouped according to year

level: incoming second year level (x=2.76) vs. incoming third year level (x=2.76) (t [173]

= .000, P = 1.000). This means that the null hypothesis 2.2 is accepted as there is no

significant difference in the perceived English proficiency when grouped according to

year level.

Table 12b. Difference of Perceived English Proficiency According to Year Level (T-test)

Levene's Test

for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the

F Sig. t Df tailed) Difference Difference Difference

PEPAVE Equal
variances .063 .801 .000 173 1.000 .00000 .10927 -.21568 .21568
assumed
Equal
variances
.000 51.072 1.000 .00000 .11151 -.22385 .22385
not
assumed

Relating Perceived and Actual English Proficiency

Table 13. Relationship Between Perceived and Actual English Proficiency

Perceived English Actual English

Proficiency Proficiency
Perceived English Pearson Correlation
1 .109
Proficiency
Sig. (2-tailed) .237

Actual English Pearson Correlation

.109 1
Proficiency
Sig. (2-tailed) .237

23
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Table 13 shows no significant relationship between what is perceived and what actual

English proficiency of students is. However, a slight, insignificant positive correlation of

r=.109, p=.237 is computed. The third null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

Relating English Proficiency and Academic Performance of SDCA Students

Table 14 shows the significant positive correlation or relationship (r=.288)

between actual English proficiency and academic performance. This may imply that as

the student’s English proficiency increases, one’s academic performance will also

increase and once it decreases, the academic performance will also decrease. Therefore,

the fourth null hypothesis is rejected because of this significant relationship that exists.

Table 14. Relating Actual English Proficiency and Academic Performance

Academic

English Proficiency Performance

English Pearson Correlation 1 .288(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 119 116
Major Pearson Correlation .288(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
N 116 135
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Conclusion

The following conclusions are made out of the findings of this research. First, the

demograph shows that majority of the respondents are from the SHSP, followed by those

coming from the SIHTM, then SASCE and SBCS. Majority are also incoming second

year students.

24
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Further, the actual and perceived English proficiency of the students are both

satisfactory. The academic performance reveals that SDCA students are basically average

students and are heterogeneous. Among the skills, SDCA students, though satisfactory,

need to improve in the speaking and writing aspects of the English language. Moreover,

the students have satisfactory perception regarding the effectiveness of the enhanced

English curriculum.

The study further reveals there is a significant difference in the students’ English

proficiency, both actual and perceived when grouped according to school/program of

study. In actual English proficiency, the difference lies in the relationship of SIHTM to

other two schools, namely, the School of Health Science Profession and the School of

Arts, Science, Criminology, and Education. In the perceived proficiency, the difference

lies between the relationship of SBCS and SHSP.

Furthermore, there is no significant difference in students’ English proficiency,

both actual and perceived when grouped according to year level. It does not matter

whether the student is an incoming second year or third year, the proficiency remains the

same.

In the same manner, there is no significant correlation between what is perceived

and what actual English proficiency to SDCA students is. This implies that the student’s

perception of one’s English proficiency does not relate to one’s actual proficiency in

listening, talking, reading and writing the English language. However, a significant

relationship can be observed between English proficiency and students’ academic

performance. It is then crucial to have a good grasp of the English language to do well in

school, particularly the major or professional courses that are English-based. This is

25
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

expected as the materials and the medium of instruction in the professional courses are in

English.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are then offered out of this study. First, future studies

like this should make sure that each program is given the equal chance to be chosen as

sample in the study. This means that random sampling may be utilized in studies like this.

Since the proficiency of students is at the satisfactory level, both perception and actual,

the school can further enhance the English language skills through programs that may

cover all the four skills of the English language, namely, listening, reading, writing, and

speaking.

The additional 1.5 units-scheme is found to be effective as perceived by the

students, therefore, SDCA may continue with this scheme plus other activities and

programs that the school thinks to be effective. Enhancement should be centered on

developing the speaking and writing skills of the students, regardless of the program.

There are software packages which could enhance speaking and writing skills that could

be used by SDCA to improve these identified weak areas.

To further assess the effectivity of the additional 1.5 units, a more rigorous study

may be conducted. Future researchers can do a quasiexperimental or even an

experimental research on this topic and scheme.

References

Bachman, L. F. (2009). Fundamental consideration in language teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

26
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Bayliss, D., & Raymond, P.M. (2004). The link between academic success and L2
proficiency in the context of two professional programs. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 61(1), 29-51.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J.V. (2008). Research in education. Englewood cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Students' Concurrent performance on
tests of English language proficiency and academic achievement. In, the validity of
administrating large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An
investigation from three perspectives. National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and student testing. University of California, Los Angeles.
De Avila, E. (1990). Assessment of language minority students: Political, technical,
practical and more imperatives. Proceedings of the first research symposium on
limited English proficient student issues. OBEMLA.
Espinosa, Doray. (2010). English in the Philippines. Language Institute of Japan (LIOJ).
Farhady, H. (1983). New directions for ESL proficiency testing. In J.W. Oller (Ed.),
Issues in language testing research. (pp.253-268). U.S.A: Newbury House.
Farhady, H., Jafarpoor, A., and Birjandi, P. (1994). Testing language skills: From theory
to practice. Tehran: SAMT Publications.
Feast, V. (2002). The impact of IELTS scores on performance at university. International
Education Journal, 3(4), 70- 85.
Garcia-Vazquez, E., Vazquez, L. A., Lopez, I. C., & Ward, W. (1997). Language
proficiency and academic success: Relationships between proficiency in two
languages and achievement among Mexican American students. Bilingual Research
Journal, 21(4), 334 – 347.
Graham, J.G. (1987). English language proficiency and the prediction of academic
success. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3),505-521.
Graves, K. (2001). A framework of course development processes.
Maleki, Ataollah and Zangani, Ebrahim (2007). A Survey on the Relationship between
English Language Proficiency and the Academic Achievement of Iranian EFL
Students. Asian EFL Journal.9:1.
McLean, John. (2010). The Correspondent.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

27
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Oller, J. W. (Ed.) (1993). Issues in language testing research. Rowley, Mass: Newbury
House.
Savignon, S. J. (1993). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.
Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Academic language and
content assessment: Measuring the progress of English language learners. National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and student testing. University of
California, Los Angeles.
Ulibarri, D., Maria, M., Spencer, L., & Rivas, G. A. (1981). Language proficiency and
academic achievement: A study of language proficiency tests and their relationships to
school rating as predictors of academic achievement. NABE Journal, 5, 47- 80.
www.education. com/definition/language-proficiency/.
www.ehow.com/ about_4740750_ define-academic-performance.html.
www.wikipedia.com/IELTS.
www.yahoo.com/news.

RESUME

28
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

JONATHAN R. ADANZA

8203 Somascan Building, CRM Avenue

First BF Homes, Almanza

Las Pinas City

Mobile No.: 0929-144-5704

Email Address: eklektos73@gmail.com

I. PERSONAL DATA:

Gender : Male

Age : 37 yrs. old

Civil Status : Single

Date of Birth : November 24, 1973

Place of Birth : Titay, Zamboanga Sibugay

Religion : Evangelical Christian

Nationality : Filipino

Height : 5’9”

Weight : 280kls

II. HIGHLIGHTS OF QUALIFICATIONS

* Registered Nurse with License No: 0273467, issued by the Professional
Regulation Commission, Manila, Philippines

* Top Ten 1995 Philippine Nursing Licensure Examination, Rating- 84.4%

* Top Twelve, September 2012 Licensure Examination for Teachers,

Rating- 86.8%

* Almost 15 years in teaching profession

III. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

29
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Graduate Studies: De La Salle University-Manila

2401 Taft Avenue, Manila

PhD in Educational Leadership and Management

On-Going

St. Paul University Manila

Pedro Gil, Malate, Manila

Master of Arts in Nursing

2006-2010

Alliance Graduate School

Dangay St., Veterans Village, Quezon City

Master of Divinity in Theological Studies

1998-2001

University of the Philippines Open University

Diploma in Mathematics Teaching

Tertiary Level: Las Piñas College

Pilar Village, Almanza, Las Piñas City

Bachelor of Science in Nursing

1991-1995

Secondary Level: Marian College

Poblacion, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay

1986 – 1990

Primary Level: Titay Central Elementary School

Poblacion, Titay, Zamboanga Sibugay

30
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

1980 - 1986

IV. CHARACTER REFERENCE/S

Name : Ms. Virginia Fornias, MA

Position : Vice President of Academic Affairs

Address : St. Scholastica’s College, Vito Cruz, Manila

Contact No.: (+63920) 620-1874

Name : Sr. Teresa Yasa, PhD

Position : Professor

Address : De La Salle University Manila, College of Education,

Department of Educational Leadership and Management.

Name : Dr. Runvi Manguerra

Position : Dean, College of Education

Address : St. Paul University Manila, Pedro Gil, Manila

I certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and ability.

Jonathan R. Adanza, RN, MDiv, MAN

31