Está en la página 1de 95

P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 1

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Linguists believe that language is a living soul to a community, a source of

dignity and prestige for all people. It stands as the mine of a local community

for the outsiders. But some experts added an interesting ingredient to this

credence. According to Schneider, grammar is an important feature of

language that allows human beings to communicate successfully with each

other. Further, Ramos and Sanchez stated that grammar is seen as a clue in

ones capabilities (67).

It is essential for a person to have a good working knowledge of English

grammar rules because it will not only make him appear intelligent and

educated but it will also give him credibility. Moreover, if he is looking for a job,

with great command of the English language and great grammar proficiency,

he will have a clear advantage over someone whose grammar skills are below

average.

It is noticeable that the job market in the present times is increasingly

competitive. It seems that the workforce nowadays has very strict

qualifications. Other than the job seekers attitude toward work, one of the

most important standards that employers are searching for is the applicants

competency in using English confidently, correctly, and fluently.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 2

It has been observed that the most effective way of learning the English

language is by entering an academic institution that will serve as a training

ground for learners. It is expected that these learners will be confident and

knowledgeable enough in facing the world of global competition. According to

a recent study conducted by Pulse Asia in 2008, the grammar performance of

Metro Manila public secondary high school teachers and students (especially

those in first and second years) is below average.

To respond to this alarming status of English language learning, the

researchers came up with this study. This will help the students identify their

weaknesses and strengths when it comes to studying and learning English

grammar. Also, teachers, future educators, and other personalities in

educational institutions will be given ideas of the possible improvements to

make English grammar learning easier, instead of fearsome.

Background of the Study

College of Education prepares graduates to teach effectively across the

different learning areas in the elementary, secondary, college, and

vocational/technical schools. It also serves as a training ground for the

students before entering into the advancement in job within the general

business office.

On November 22, 2009, by virtue of a resolution passed by the Board of

Regents, the College of Administration and Business Teacher Education

(COABTE) was renamed College of Education (CoEd) that offers Bachelor in


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 3

Business Teacher Education (BBTE), Bachelor in Secondary Education

(BSED), and Bachelor in Elementary Education (BEED).

The current dean of the College of Education is Dr. Mely M. Padilla. CoEd

has two departmentsthe Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education headed by Dr. Ma. Junithesmer D. Rosales, and the Department of

Business Teacher Education under Dr. Rovelina B. Jacolbia.

The changes in the college were brought about by the call for a dynamic

shift in strategies to improve the quality of education in PUP, thus, enabling to

keep pace with the emerging global thrust to help the youth in the future.

CoEd envisions itself to be the center of excellence in the development of

educational leaders, Given that each degree program may have English,

Math, or Social Studies as their field of specialization, one factor that should

be considered is having a good command of English in the field of teaching.

The researchers found it necessary to examine the grammar skills of the

first-year students of the College because the PUPCET results showed that the

ratings obtained by the incoming freshmen for School Year 2010-2011 were

generally considered below average. It is hoped that this study can help

teachers identify the students strengths and weaknesses in English grammar

so that effective methodologies and techniques can be implemented for the

improvement of English grammar instruction within the College.

Theoretical Framework
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 4

Grammatical structures not only have a morphosyntactic form, they are

also used to express meaning (semantics) in context appropriate use

(pragmatics).

These are referred to as the dimensions of form, meaning, and use.

Because the three are interrelated that is a change in one will involve a

change in another it is helpful to view the three dimensions as a pie chart,

with arrows depicting the interaction among the three.

Figure 1. Three Dimension

The first wedge, FORM, deals with how a particular grammar structure is

constructed its morphology and its syntax. MEANING answers the questions,

What particular English grammar structure means? and What semantic

contribution it makes whenever it is used? The last wedge, USE, deals with

issues concerning the choices that users of a particular language make when

using the forms of language communication. These are the relations between
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 5

language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a

language (Levinson, 1983:9).

Since grammar does not deal simply with form, language teachers cannot

be content with having students achieve a certain degree of formal accuracy.

Language teachers must also help their students to use the structures

meaningfully and appropriately as well. Thus, the dimensions of form, meaning,

and use make explicit the need for students to learn to use grammar structure

accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this study is presented in the following

diagram:

A. Personal
Variables [ FEEDBACK ]
1. Gender
2. Course, Year
and Section Conduct Grammar
3. Type of High Performance Test Identify Strengths
School Attended and Weaknesses
of the Students
B. Grammar Test
a. Asking Statistical Analysis Improvement of
Questions English
b. Responding to Curriculum and
Questions Instruction
c. Combining Interpretation of
Sentences Data
d. Expanding
Sentences

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 6

Figure 2. Research Paradigm

As shown in the figure, the first frame refers to the input of the study,

which contains the students profile in terms of gender, course, year and

section, and type of high school attended. It also includes the grammar

performance test on the four grammar skills: asking questions, responding to

questions, combining sentence and expanding sentences.

The second frame refers to the process which includes the administration

of the grammar performance test, the statistical analysis and interpretation of

data.

The third frame refers to the output which is the identifying the strengths

and weaknesses of the students, and improvement of English curriculum and

instruction in the College of Education in Polytechnic University of the

Philippines.

At the bottom of the frame is the feedback. The line and arrows

connecting the frames only mean that there is a continuous process, which

indicates that if somehow the result is not successful, another process will be

tried out to get the expected outcome.

Statement of the Problem

This study was undertaken to determine the grammar skills of freshman

students in the College of Education in Polytechnic University of the

Philippines during the School year 2010-2011.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 7

It specifically attempted to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of the following

variables?
1.1 Gender
1.2 Course, Year, and Section
1.3 Type of High School Attended
2. What is the respondents level of performance in terms of the following

grammar skills?
2.1 Asking Questions
2.2 Responding to Questions
2.3 Combining Sentences
2.4 Expanding Sentences
3. What is the respondents level of performance in each of the above

mentioned grammar skill when grouped according to the following

variables?
3.1 Gender
3.2 Course, Year, and Section
3.3 Type of High School Attended
4. Is there a significant difference among the respondents performance

ratings in terms of different grammar skills when grouped according to

section?
5. Is there a significant difference among the respondents performance

ratings in terms of the above mentioned grammar skills when grouped

according to gender, degree program, and type of high school

attended?

Hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference among the respondents performance

ratings in terms of different grammar skills when grouped according to

section.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 8

2. There is no significant difference among respondents performance ratings

in terms of the above mentioned grammar skills when grouped according

to gender, degree program, and type of high school attended.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study was made to assess the grammar performance of freshman

students of the College of Education in Polytechnic University of the

Philippines, Manila during the school year 2010-2011. The respondents were

students enrolled in the following courses: Bachelor in Business Teacher

Education, Bachelor in Secondary Education, and Bachelor in Elementary

Education. The focus was on four grammar skills, namely asking questions,

responding to questions, combining sentences, and expanding sentences.

The researchers used the freshmen students instead of the sophomores,

juniors, and seniors, as the respondents of the study. The first year in the

university is the right stage for the teachers to know their students strengths

and weaknesses in grammar performance.

The researchers limited their study to four grammar skills because this

type of skills reflects the learners ability to use the language rather than just

show the learners knowledge of the language. The test itself contains

some of the observed errors frequently committed by students such as the

usage of proper tenses and the subject-verb agreement.

The choice of freshmen college students as respondents proceeded from

the idea that the first year in the tertiary level is the right stage to identify
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 9

students strengths and weaknesses since ample time can be devoted by

teachers to implement effective approaches in improving the grammatical

competence of students as they move on to their senior years. Such time will

give them adequate preparation for meeting the needs of their professional

lives.

To prevent an unwieldy conduct of the investigation, the grammar skills

tested were limited to asking questions, responding to questions, combining

sentences, and expanding sentences. Other grammar skills like verb-subject

agreement, sentence patterns, tense sequence, and others were excluded from

the study. The four grammar skills were chosen because, generally speaking,

mastery over these skills reflects a persons use, rather than usage, of the

language as means of communication. A person normally asks, answers,

combines or expands sentences as he interacts with other people. It can be

argued, therefore, that when a person is competent in asking questions, giving

answers, and combining or expanding sentences, he is most likely also

competent in the other grammar skills.

Significance of the Study

A study on the English grammar proficiency of the freshman students in

the College of Education of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines may

be able to impart suggestions on alternative and fresh approaches to the

teaching of English grammar. The result of this study will help English teachers
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 10

find ways to make their students learn to like grammar and motivate them to

achieve success in varied spoken and written tasks.

For the deans and chairpersons, this study will help them to be aware of

their students weak points in learning English. With this study, they will be

guided in improving their curricula and produce linguistically competent

students.

For the students, the findings will reveal the students strengths and

weaknesses in English grammar. The assessment will help them focus on the

areas where they are weak and will inspire them to do better to make learning

English enjoyable and easier.

For the teachers, the result will lead them to develop instructional

materials which will help students who are having a hard time in studying

English to find an advanced way in improving their studying habits and

learning techniques.

Lastly, for the researchers, may this serve as a reference for similar

studies to be conducted in the future.

Definition of Terms

The following are the terms operationally defined and significant in this
study.

Asking Questions. This refers to a grammar skill that tests the learners

ability to ask yes/no, do does, did and WH questions.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 11

Combining Sentences. This refers to a grammar skill that tests the

learners ability to combine sentences using different methods like (1) turning

two or more short simple sentences by using a compound subject or a

compound verb, (2) turning a simple sentence into a phrase- such as a

prepositional phrase, an appositive phrase, or an infinitive phrase- and add it

to another sentence, (3) and joining simple sentence by forming compound,

complex, or compound-complex sentences using coordinating or subordinating

conjunctions.

Effective English Instruction. This refers to as the effective teaching of

English language (Ruaya).

English grammar. This is the act of speaking and writing in the English

language effectively. It is the body of rules that govern the use of a language

(Ruaya).

Expanding Sentences. This is a grammar skill that tests the learners

ability to expand or amplifying sentences using the form of syntactic structures

namely; modification, predication, complementation and coordination.

Grammar. This refers to a system of rules that specifies the class of

phonetically possible utterances that are well formed in the language in

question, and that assigns to each well-formed sentence (whether or not it has

ever actually been produced, or ever will be produced) a structural description

that incorporates and expresses just the information about the sentence that is

available to the person who understands it (Roberts ix).


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 12

Performance. This consists of the use of this grammar in the

comprehension and production of language (Ellis 13).

Responding to Questions. This is a grammar skill that tests the

learners ability to answer the different techniques of answering yes/no, do

does, did and WH questions.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 13

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the description and review of some literature and

research studies that provided the researcher with insights into the essential

points of this study.

Foreign Literature

Ho Mei Lin stated that the basic knowledge of grammar is acknowledged

by some to underlie the ability to use language to express meaning and to

communicate effectively. Mastery of the grammar is generally equated with

language proficiency. In many language courses and programs, grammar

teaching and testing remains one of the key areas of language learning, and it

is often considered critical to developing fluency and accuracy in language use

(16).
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 14

Moreover, England said that the real-world communication problems of

the 21st century are already upon us. We know that successful international

communication will be more critical than ever. Global concerns and complex

problems will be addressed more effectively by people who can speak and

write clearly to one another. In more cases than not, that communication will

take place in English. English teachers will become more critical and more

accountable than ever before in their role in providing the necessary skills for

addressing those challenges. The role of English in the world has grown so

much that there are reportedly more than four times as many nonnative

speakers as native speakers of English. Those who teach English need to be

able to manage a much broader range of teaching responsibilities and

increasingly diverse learner needs (23).

In addition to the statements mentioned above, Contrucci believed that

grammar (and spelling) is just one way to look at the world.

Crumley supported Lloyds statement. He said that in American schools, it

is all about getting it right on paper. It will not improve the learners capability if

writing is only medium in studying the language. There must be applications

and superimposition in grammar perfection.

But John opposed to Crumley and Lloyds statement. He stated that

grammar is not language; it is only the rules of the language. He criticizes

those who study bare rules of language without examples of prose or verse.

Thus, there must be great applications and tests in order to learn English

better (22).
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 15

McCrum stated that with the turn of millennium, it appeared that English

language and culture were becoming rapidly decoupled from their contentious

past. English began to gain a supranational momentum that made it

independent of its Anglo-American Origins. And as English became liberated

from its roots, it began to spread deeper into the developing world.

Kaplan affirmed the fact that applied linguistics is alive and well. Much has

transpired in the recent past that suggests it has a great future. But much

remains to be done that future will not spring full blown into reality. Applied

linguists and language teachers must not only work for the evolution of a new

theoretical paradigm descriptive of the real uses of real language by real

human beings; they must also strive to attain recognition of the importance of

language activities not as the esoteric activity of ivory-tower theorists but as

vital in development and modernization (4).

Local Literature

If English is to be given emphasis in our academic community today,

there is a need to strengthen teachers skill in communicating so that the

quality of English teaching will be improved (Yarcia 55).

The pursuit of English proficiency needs the synergy of our educational

leaders and mentors, the laymans understanding of the hurdles to clear by

learners of English as a second language, the teachers expertise in facilitating

students acquisition of English skills especially modeling it, and the


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 16

atmosphere conducive to the communicative interchange in English whether in

contrived or natural settings (Go 250).

Being functionally literate in the contemporary world means being (1)

verbally literate, (2) numerically literate, (3) scientifically and technologically

literate (4) socially literate or socially intelligent, and (5) culturally literate

(Cortes 151).

Everybody is aware that education is a primordial concern in this country.

From the start, Filipinos have raised the alarm, and it succeeded in getting

national attention and support in involving the private sector (Ubac).

English language is not only a common language among Filipinos but

also a tool to access the literature and technology of the rest of the world. For

a good number of Filipino-English speakers, some grammar and pronunciation

usage cause problems which if corrected will improve accuracy. Ten rules can

correct almost all common violations. Violation of the first two rules makes up

more than 50% of the mistakes. The reason of these lapses is because the

Filipino languages hardly change the endings of the words. They change the

beginning or the middle but hardly ever the endings in contrast to Spanish in

which the endings of words constantly change. English changes in endings of

words only in two instances and these are where the Filipino English speakers

trip up (Barcelon).

children should learn to read and write and speak in a language

familiar to them since it would enable them to grasp concepts more easily

(Salaverria).
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 17

With a strong foundation of the English language, students would be

better equipped to learn more skills. Since people of today live and compete in

the fast-moving information technology age and English is the language of

technology, English language must be embraced (Salaverria).

In terms of standards, highly recommended was the development of

standards sensitive to APEC contexts and 21 st century competencies, thus,

giving due importance to the three circles of English use; English dominant,

English bilingual/lingua franca, and English as a foreign language.

Communicative and intercultural competencies were also noted to be part of

the standards to be developed for the learnerswith regard to the policy, the

concern focused on the status of multilingualism and multiculturalism in APEC

countries both in general and educational contexts (Madrunio).

Weak English proficiency is not the sole determinant of poor overall

achievement; it is merely a factor (Luz).

Linguists of whatever persuasion accept the basic assumption that the

grammar of a language (or language variety, for that matter) consists of a set

of rules or principles that speakers have internalized somehow, that the

members of a speech community share, and that thereby allows human

beings to communicate successfully with each other. But grammatical models

have tended to be overly abstract and to disregard the fact that real-life speech

is highly variable and fuzzy in some respects, that there are typically many

different ways of saying the same thing (Schneider 28).


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 18

Foreign Studies

Years of experience marking written work have made them familiar with

the level of written competence pupils need in order to succeed in a specific

standard. However, teachers often feel much less secure when dealing with

tests which measure speaking and listening even though these skills regarded

as essential components of a diagnostic tests which measures overall

linguistic proficiency. Although the second-language English pupils often come

from an oral rather than a written culture, and so are likely to be more

proficient in this mode of communication, at least in their own language,

speaking in English may be a different matter. In English medium schools in

particular a low level of English impedes students acquisition knowledge.

Therefore, identifying the correct level of English of the students is all the more

challenging and important (Hingle and Linington 26).

Many never really had to go pre-school when we were toddlers, yet rare is

the modern parent who would keep his child from attending college beyond

age four. Some believe that early childhood education is a cornerstone of a

childs future. The following are the early childhood education approaches that

we have to guide as to the many different teaching methods for young

children: Montessori, Progressive, Bankstreet, Developmental Interaction,

Multiple Intelligence, Waldorf, Traditional and Reggio Emilia (qtd. in Ureta 180-

181).

While it is important to make explicit the major grammatical design of the

language, it is equally important to create in the learner the need to


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 19

communicate by way of definite content. The question how is something

said? implies the question what is to be said?. It is not enough for the

learner to create grammatically correct sentences; it is essential for him to

create sentences about something in a meaningful context (Bosco 37).

According to Murdoch, We acquire when we focus on what is being said,

rather than how it is said. Such a focusing can only come about if the

learners interest and desire to achieve an outcome are fully aroused (17).

Putting students through a series of grammatical hoops (e.g., tenses,

conditionals, active passive transformations) does not seem to enhance their

linguistic competence.

grammars can be internalized by encouraging subjects to solve

grammatical problems in much the same way that a young child solves

(constructs) the grammar of his native language (Bourke 21).

Over the past five decades, the teaching of English, especially to second

language learners, has undergone several major revolutions. Teaching

methods have been tried, modified, discarded, revised, and revised again.

Methods of training teachers, teacher standards and so forth have all been

studied, modified, restudied. Why then is teaching English still so difficult?

Because during all those years, no serious thought has been given to the

validity of what we teach as English (Pierce 8).

According to Zhenhui, instead of teaching grammar as an end and drilling

patterns for their own sake, it is quite necessary to relate grammar teaching

and pattern drills to meaning and use. In other words, language structure
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 20

practice should be given in contexts which involve some basic principles of

appropriateness (25).

Since Chinas open-door policy began in 1979, economic, cultural and

educational contacts with other countries worldwide have brought about an

unprecedented demand for English. English is no longer viewed as a required

course in school. Instead, learners nowadays perceive English learning as an

educational investment and as a step on the ladder of success. Along with

such a change, there has been growing interest in gaining communicative

competence. Learners have become keen on acquiring real-life

communication skills (Rong 2).

A few years ago the issue whether something was linguistic or not

seemed like an important question but it no longer does. The entire issue is

based on the idea that structured (grammatical) arrangements of words carry

the meaning being expressed and can somehow be abstracted away from

their actual use in a specific context. Important theoretical advances during the

1980s and 1990s have shown that a speakers meaning is not constrained in

this way (Slobin 177).

A grammatical description is an essential component of any program of

language documentation and preservation. With over half the languages in the

world currently in danger of extinction within a century, the need for descriptive

grammars is more critical than ever. Potential grammar writers often find

themselves paralyzed by the massive prospect of describing a language.

Additionally, grammar writing is a long term task, and more immediate


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 21

concerns often preclude the expenditure of time and energy necessary to

accomplish and an adequate grammatical description (Payne 235).

The audience for a grammatical description is an important consideration

for anyone involved in descriptive linguistics. Potential grammar users include

linguists, the interested public and members of the communities in which the

language is spoken. An awareness of target audiences is necessary in

shaping the grammar to meet varying needs. It might, for example, affect the

choice of topics to be discussed, the organization and style of the

presentation, the depth of detail to include, the use of technical terminology,

and the nature of exemplification (Mithun 281).

Local Studies

Ruaya (1997) studied the English grammar proficiency of the first year

college students of the PMI colleges. A questionnaire was sent to 105

respondents.

He found out that the first year college students grammar proficiency

levels are glaring enough to cause the cause authorities to sit up and take

notice of. He noted that it is high time that all school personnel from the

administrator down to the instructors should put their hands together and plan

an intensive and effective English instruction that would alleviate the situation.

The proficiency level of grammar abilities of the first year college students was

less satisfactorily developed. The first year college students were less

proficient in the grammar skills namely: asking questions, negative and


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 22

affirmative responses, combining statements and expanding statements. All of

the students did not achieve the mastery level in any grammar skills that they

were expected to have at this level of educational pursuit. English grammar

instruction in the high school was not efficiently provided to have built upon

them a good foundation of knowledge. The first year college students were

deficient in wanting for an effective instructional program to most of the

challenges in worldwide communication in this highly technological world.

Ruaya was supported by Florencios study as the latter stated that there

was lack of proper choices of the methods of teaching to be used to facilitate

learning of English by the pupils.

According to Social Weather Stations, three-fourths of Filipino adults

(76%) say that they understand spoken English; 75% say they read English;

three out of five (61%) say they write English; close to half (46%) say they

speak English; about two-fifths (38%) they think in English; while 8% say they

are not competent in any way when it comes to the English language.

David said that proficiency in spoken English is the most difficult to

achieve, and the most valued by the business process outsourcing industry.

Self-reported competence in spoken English dropped from 52% in 2000 to a

mere 32% in 2006.

While Balawid stated that mounting global employment due to the

worsening economic slump has merely underscored the need of our human

resources to be proficient in English the worlds lingua franca in order to

stay highly competitive in the job market here and abroad. Moreover, Filipino
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 23

children are not learning because they cannot understand what the teacher is

saying.

Ruiz affirmed that the poor performance has been linked to poor English

comprehension of students and the lack of mastery of English among

teachers. In a self-assessment test conducted by the Department of Education

in 2004, only one out of every five public school teachers is proficient in the

English language.

Gonzalez, Jambalos, and Romero stated that Filipinos of different

generations have learned representative phonological and grammatical

structures of English as a second language is its spoken and written phase,

Filipinos of different ages, who went through different teaching and learning

conditions as well as sociological and political environments (113).

Gonzalez even shared that the Test in English proficiency administered to

teachers indicate that English teachers scored only 57-60% in the English

language test; if teacher themselves are not conscious of their own mistake

and those of their pupils and are not in a position to make corrections or teach

English properly. He came up with the following solutions: resume the use of

application exercise for internalizing grammar rules; determine ways of

rewarding the use of English outside the English classroom as a means of

positive reinforcement and in lieu of (negative) sanctions which are no longer

liable; in grammar, add to the existing syllabus more explicit through simplified

rules of article usage, tense and tense sequence, and collocations as well as

subcategorization and selectional restrictions of the lexicon (112-114).


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 24

Sarile added that schools have even gone to the extent of requiring

everyone to speak in English on school campus. This policy was practiced by

most schools in the past (177).

A major problem with these definitions was an attempt to relate

grammatical categories directly to meaning. Semantic categories, if indeed

they existed, would more closely relate to things, actions, and modifiers.

But since units could not be observed directly except perhaps when they

paralleled grammatical categories, they were conceived of by inference only.

Nevertheless, theories of language universals involving semantic units and

patterns had been tested on many languages with promising results.

Tsuda said that English has become the language of the global village, and

it serves as a neutral language to people who come from different linguistics

backgrounds. In a rapidly globalizing, the dominance of English causes not

only linguistic and communicative inequality but also the feeling of anxiety and

insecurity on the part of those who cannot speak the language.

David and Dumanig shared that English has gained dominance over other

languages sand plays a crucial role in promoting globalization (67).

As stated by Alamis, in the past three decades, the study of the formal and

functional implications of the global spread of English has received

considerable attention among scholars of English language, linguistics, and

literature; creative writers; and literary critics. The global spread of English has
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 25

a number of consequences both for the nature of English and its teaching and

in the global context, on the other hand, English functions as an international

language (99).

Crisol stated that teaching profession was mostly dominated by women

because they are linked to their traditional role as a caregiver or a teacher

(40).

Synthesis and Relevance of the Reviewed Literature and Studies

The perspectives presented by both foreign and local literatures provided

the researchers with some insights about the importance of grammar and the

current situation of English proficiency in the Philippines. The information

gathered from these articles helped the researchers in understanding and

setting the direction of this study.

Ho Mei Lins definition of grammar gave the researchers a perception in

knowing grammar as the ability to use language, to express meaning, and to

communicate effectively. The mastery of grammar is generally equated with

language proficiency. In many language courses and programs, grammar

teaching and testing remains one of the key areas of language learning, and

often considered critical in developing fluency and accuracy in language use

(16).

The findings of these studies not only helped the researchers in the

analysis and interpretation of data but also supported the theoretical

framework (Three Dimension Theory) used in this study. Finally, they are
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 26

significant to the present study because the procedure by which some of these

studies were conducted is similar to the one followed by this study.

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the method of research utilized in the study, the

population, sample size, and sampling technique, description of the

respondents, research instrument, data-gathering procedure, and statistical

treatment used for data analysis.

Research Method Used

The descriptive method of educational research was employed in the

study, since it describes what traits or what it is of a certain educational

phenomenon. Borg defines the descriptive method as a distinctive research

methodology of systematic data collection, presentation, and analysis. The

method of research is concerned with conditions and relations that exist,

practices that prevail, processes that are going on, point of view effects that

are being felt, or trends that are developing.

This method is the most appropriate method for this study, as Best asserts

that the descriptive research goes beyond mere tabulation of data to the

analysis and interpretation and meaning of what is being described. It involves

a more in depth analysis through the use of numerical and comparative

analysis (56).
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 27
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 28

Course, Year and Section Population Sample % Population,


BEED I-1D 55 44 80
Sample Size
BEED I-1N 55 44 80
BBTE I-1D 51 30 59 and Sampling
BBTE I-2D 53 30 57
BBTE I-3D 51 30 59 Technique
BBTE I-4D 51 30 59
BBTE I-1N 51 30 59 Table 1
BBTE I-2N 52 30 58 Frequency
BSED I-1D 55 29 53 and
Percentage
BSED I-2D 55 31 56
Distribution
BSED I-3D 55 28 53 of Population
BSED I-4D 53 28 51 and Sample
BSED I-1N 55 29 53
BSED I-2N 55 29 53
BSED I-3N 54 30 56 As shown in
Total 801 473 886
the Table 1, out

of 801 freshmen in the College of Education, 473 were used in the study using

the Slovins Formula. From BEED I-1D, there were 44 who were used as

respondents; BEED I-1N, 44; BBTE I-1D, 30; BBTE I-2D, 30; BBTE I-3D, 30;

BBTE I-4D, 30; BBTE I-1N, 30; BBTE I-2N, 30; BSED I-1D, 29; BSED I-2D, 31;

BSED I-3D, 28; BSED I-4D, 28; BSED I-1N, 29; BSED I-2N, 29, and BSED I-3N,

30.

The study aimed to investigate whether variables, such as gender, course

year and section, and type of high school attended influence students

grammar or linguistic performance. The respondents of the study were 473

freshmen from the in College of Education in Polytechnic University of the

Philippines, first semester of the school year 2010-2011.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 29

The researchers used the freshman students as respondents of the study.

The first year in the university is the right stage for the teachers to know their

students strengths and weaknesses in grammar performance. This will allow

teachers to hold remedial classes if needed. It is also the stage when grammar

skills can still be improved in preparation for higher levels.

Simple random sampling was used to determine the representatives of

the freshmen population of the College of Education during the first semester

of school year 2010-2011. To give the population of each departmental course

an equal chance of participation, the names of all students were assigned

numbers. These numbers were written on small sheets of paper, then rolled

and placed in a box. The number of pieces of papers picked out (by lottery)

from the box equaled the number of sample size for each departmental

course.

Description of the Respondents

The respondents of this study were the freshmen of College of Education

S.Y. 2010-2011 who passed all the requirements needed to be enrolled, such

as: having a PUPCET score of 88 and above, getting a high school average of

82 and beyond, acquiring a grade of 81 and above for English, 80 and beyond

for math and science, and passing an interview in the said college.

Out of the 801 total population of freshmen, 473 were drawn. One

hundred thirty-nine (139) of the respondents were male and 334 were female.

In each degree program, 205 respondents were taking Bachelor of Secondary


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 30

Education (BSED), 180 were taking Bachelor of Business Teacher Education

(BBTE), and 88 were taking Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED).

In the type of high school attended, 370 students graduated from public

high school while 103 came from private high school.

Research Instrument

The main tool used in gathering the primary data for this study was the

questionnaire called Proficiency Test in English Grammar for the First-Year

College Students. This is a forty-item questionnaire developed by Felix V.

Ruaya for his masters thesis. With the assistance of their thesis adviser, the

researchers made some modifications on Ruayas questionnaire to suit the

needs of the present study. Among the changes made were substituting

original items with new items which the researchers thought were more timely

or relevant. This instrument assesses four grammar skills, namely: asking

questions, responding to questions, combining sentences, and expanding

sentences.

This type of skills was selected because they more or less reflected the

learners ability to use the language rather than just show the learners

knowledge of the language. The first part of the questionnaire provides

spaces where students could indicate their gender, course and section, and

type of high school attended which are necessary in answering the sub

problems posted in chapter one. The second part is a questionnaire proper. It

consists of four tests, test I is on asking questions, this part is intended to test
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 31

the learners ability to ask yes/no, do does, did and WH questions. Test II is on

responding to questions, the items in this part are intended to test the learners

ability to answer the different techniques of answering yes/no, do does, did

and WH questions. Test III is combining sentences; the items in this part are

intended to test the learners ability to combine sentences using different

methods like (1) turning two or more short simple sentences by using a

compound subject or a compound verb; (2) turning a simple sentence into a

phrase- such as a prepositional phrase, an appositive phrase, or an infinitive

phrase- and add it to another sentence; (3) and joining simple sentence by

forming compound, complex, or compound-complex sentences using

coordinating or subordinating conjunctions (Palma and Mogol, 379). Test IV is

expanding sentences. The items in this part are intended to test the learners

ability to expand or to amplify sentences using the form of syntactic structures

namely: modification, predication, complementation, and coordination. For

purposes of this study, the scores obtained by the respondents on the

grammar proficiency test were converted to PUP grading system as shown on

the following.

Grade Percentage Equivalent


1.0 97-100 Excellent
1.25 94-96 Excellent
1.5 91-93 Very Good
1.75 88-90 Very Good
2.0 85-87 Good
2.25 82-84 Good
2.5 79-81 Satisfactory
2.75 76-78 Satisfactory
3.0 75 Passing
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 32

5-Point Likert Scale (Level of Proficiency)

Range Verbal Interpretation


32.20-40.0 Very Proficient
24.40-32.19 Proficient
16.60-24.39 Fairly Proficient
8.80-16.59 Moderately Proficient
1.00-8.79 Poorly Proficient

5-Point Likert Scale (Level of Proficiency in Grammatical Skills)

Range Verbal Interpretation


8.20-10.00 Very Proficient
6.40-8.19 Proficient
4.60-6.39 Fairly Proficient
2.80-4.59 Moderately Proficient
1.00-2.79 Poorly Proficient

The questionnaire was presented to some expert professors in the

College of Languages and Linguistics for face validation. They were requested

to give their comments or suggestions as to the clarity and appropriateness of

the items in the questionnaire. After the requested period, the questionnaires

were retrieved. The suggestions were incorporated and then a second draft of

the questionnaire was developed. The questionnaires were further subjected

to a dry run test to selected freshmen students who were automatically

disregarded in the selection of respondents in the actual survey. They were

likewise requested to comment on the clarity and comprehensibility of the

different items in the questionnaire. Similarly, after the given period, their

suggestions were considered in the final draft of the questionnaire. After


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 33

completing the validation process, the questionnaires were reproduced and

administered to target respondents.

Data-Gathering Procedure

The researchers prepared a letter addressed to the Dean of the College of

Education requesting for the approval of the conduct of the study in the said

college. After securing the necessary approval, the researchers personally met

the professors of the respondents and requested them to allow them to

distribute copies of the questionnaires to the target respondents. The

researchers spent 45 minutes with the target respondents to assist them in

answering the different areas of the questionnaire. Retrieval was done on the

same day of the administration of the questionnaire to ascertain high

percentage of retrieval. After retrieving all the administered questionnaires, the

responses were organized and processed for the appropriate statistical

treatment.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The study made use of the following statistical tools:

1. To determine the profile of the respondents, frequency and percentage

distribution was used.

Formula: %=( f/n) 100%

Where: 100% = constant

f = frequency
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 34

n = number of cases

2. To determine the English grammar performance of the respondents in terms

of the different aspects mean/ arithmetic average.

x =
x
N

Where: x = summation of all available data

N = total number cases

3. To determine the significant difference on the grammar performance of the

respondents with respect to program and section, one way analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was used.

4. To determine the significant difference on the English Grammar Performance

of the respondents with respect to gender and type of school attended, t-test

for two independent samples was used.

Decision Rule:

If P Value 0.05, Reject Ho (there is significant difference); otherwise, Accept

Ho (there is no significant difference).

Note: Assuming that population variance is not equal.

The researchers made use of reliable statistical software (e.g. SPSS and

Minitab) to come up with authentic computation.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 35
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 36

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data obtained

from a survey of the respondents profile and the significant difference in terms

of their performance in the English grammar skills such as asking questions,

responding to questions, combining sentences, and expanding sentences.

Based on analyzed and interpreted data, the following are the results of

the study:

1. Respondents Profile

1.1 Gender
Table 2

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to


Gender
Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of data when

grouped according to gender. There were 334 female or 70.61% out of the
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 37

total sample size. While the 29.39% or 139 respondents were male. All in all,

there were 473 respondents in this study.

It can be deduced that teaching profession, as how Crisol stated, is

dominated by women because they are linked to their traditional role as a

caregiver or a teacher (40).

1.2 Course, Year, and Section

Table 3

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to


Course, Year, and Section

Course Section Frequency %


I-1d 44 9.30
BEED
I-1n 44 9.30
I-1d 30 6.34
I-2d 30 6.34
I-3d 30 6.34
BBTE
I-4d 30 6.34
I-1n 30 6.34
I-2n 30 6.34
I-1d 29 6.13
I-2d 31 6.55
I-3d 28 5.92
BSED I-4d 29 6.13
I-1n 29 6.13
I-2n 29 6.13
I-3n 30 6.34
TOTAL 473 100%

Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of

respondents when grouped according to course, year, and section. Of the

three courses sampled, Bachelor in Secondary Education was the biggest

source of respondents, obtaining a frequency of 205 or 43.34% of the total


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 38

population. Bachelor in Business Teacher Education was the second biggest

source, recording a frequency of 180 or 38.05%t of the total population size.

Bachelor in Elementary Education generated the lowest number of

respondents--88 or 18.60% of the population size.

1.3 Type of High School Attended

Table 4

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents According to


their Type of High School Attended

Course PUBLIC PRIVATE


section Frequency % Frequency %
BEED I-1D 36 7.61 8 1.69
BEED I-1N 29 6.13 15 3.17
BBTE I-1D 28 5.92 2 0.42
BBTE I-2D 21 4.44 9 1.90
BBTE I-3D 24 5.07 6 1.23
BBTE I-4D 26 5.50 4 0.85
BBTE I-1N 20 4.23 10 2.11
BBTE I-2N 26 5.50 4 0.85
BSED I-1D 24 5.07 5 1.06
BSED I-2D 25 5.29 6 1.23
BSED I-3D 21 4.44 7 1.48
BSED I-4D 22 4.65 7 1.48
BSED I-1N 20 4.23 9 1.90
BSED I-2N 25 5.29 4 0.85
BSED I-3N 23 4.86 7 1.48
TOTAL 370 78.23% 103 21.70%

Table 4 illustrates the frequency and percentage distribution of

respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended. The

greater proportion of the respondents came from public school garnering a

frequency of 370 or 78.23%. On the other hand, the respondents who


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 39

graduated from private school accounted a frequency of 103 or 21.70% of the

total sample.

Since Polytechnic University of the Philippines is considered as a state

university, majority of the students belong to the economically challenged level

of society. It is the University's commitment to give qualified and talented

students access to quality and responsive education to aid them in the

achievement of their dreams and improve their lives. Being well-educated and

skilled individuals, they will not only become job seekers but job creators as

well, a force of knowledge workers and entrepreneurs (www.pup.edu.ph).

2. Respondents Level of Performance in Terms of Asking Questions,

Responding to Questions, Combining Sentences, Expanding Sentences

Table 5

Grand Mean of the Respondents Level of Proficiency in Each Grammatical


Skill

Table 5 demonstrates the grand mean of the level of proficiency of the

respondents when grouped in each grammatical skill. The two grammatical


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 40

skills that shared the same grand mean of 6.30, interpreted as fairly proficient

were Responding to Questions and Expanding Sentences; the lowest was

Asking Questions which had 4.38 grand mean or interpreted as Moderately

Proficient.

3. Respondents Level of Performance in Each Grammar Skills Grouped

According to Variables

3.1 Gender
Table 6

Respondents Level of Performance Grouped According to Gender

Grammar MALE FEMALE


Skills

s Interpretation

s Interpretation
Asking Moderately Moderately
4.07 2.03 4.55 1.95
Questions Proficient Proficient
Responding
Fairly Fairly
to 6.06 2.18 6.37 1.95
Proficient Proficient
Questions
Combining Fairly Fairly
5.52 1.95 5.92 1.81
Sentences Proficient Proficient
Expanding Fairly
6.02 1.91 6.47 1.81 Proficient
Sentences Proficient

Table 6 shows that on the tests of asking questions the female

respondents were more competent than male gaining a mean of 4.55.

In responding to questions, females were higher than males, obtaining a

mean of 6.37.

In combining sentences, females gained a mean of 6.37 higher than a

6.06 mean of males.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 41

In expanding sentences, females appeared to be more competent than

males obtaining a mean of 6.47.

These findings seemed to confirm Corsons assertion that when language

competencies revealed in the school setting itself are examined, girls do have

a measure of superiority over boys.

3.2 Course, Year and Section

Table 7

Respondents Level of Performance in Asking Questions According to


Course, Year and Section

Course, Year &



s Interpretation
Section
BEED I-1D 4.57 1.81 Moderately Proficient
BEED I-1N 3.98 1.39 Moderately Proficient
BBTE I-1D 5.5 2.06 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-2D 5.2 2.3 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-3D 4.27 1.73 Moderately Proficient
BBTE I-4D 3.93 1.53 Moderately Proficient
BBTE I-1N 3.57 2.03 Moderately Proficient
BBTE I-2N 4.1 1.81 Moderately Proficient
BSED I-1D 4.04 2.41 Moderately Proficient
BSED I-2D 4.79 1.99 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-3D 4.04 1.48 Moderately Proficient
BSED I-4D 4.79 2.00 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-1N 4.66 1.73 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-2N 4.31 1.98 Moderately Proficient
BSED I-3N 3.77 2.04 Moderately Proficient
Grand Mean 4.38 Moderately Proficient

This table shows that BBTE I-1D obtained the highest mean among the

fifteen (15) sections, with weighted mean of 5.5 and interpreted as fairly
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 42

proficient. On the other hand, BBTE I-1N got the lowest mean of 3.57,

interpreted as moderately proficient.

Table 8

Respondents Level of Proficiency in Responding to Questions According to


Course, Year, and Section

Course, Year

S Interpretation
& Section
BEED I-1D 6.09 1.77 Fairly Proficient
BEED I-1N 5.75 1.72 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-1D 7.30 1.77 Proficient
BBTE I-2D 6.17 2.38 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-3D 6.77 2.06 Proficient
BBTE I-4D 6.27 2.03 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-1N 5.47 2.33 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-2N 6.6 2.13 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-1D 6.69 2.40 Proficient
BSED I-2D 6.29 2.1 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-3D 5.93 1.73 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-4D 6.38 2.19 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-1N 5.86 1.98 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-2N 6.34 1.79 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-3N 6.60 2.27 Fairly Proficient
Grand Mean 6.30 Fairly Proficient

This table reveals the respondents level of proficiency in responding to

questions when grouped according to course, year, and section. It depicts that

BBTE I-1D respondents were proficient in the abovementioned skill, obtaining

the highest weighted mean of 7.30

Majority of the sections were fairly proficient. However, the BBTE I-1N

got the lowest mean of 5.47.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 43

Table 9

Respondents Level of Proficiency in Combining Sentences According to


Course, Year and Section

Course, Year

s
& Section Interpretation
BEED I-1D 5.84 2.30 Fairly Proficient
BEED I-1N 5.73 1.76 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-1D 6.77 1.71 Proficient
BBTE I-2D 6.63 2.44 Proficient
BBTE I-3D 5.8 1.58 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-4D 5.77 1.67 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-1N 6.40 1.72 Proficient
BBTE I-2N 6.00 1.95 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-1D 5.50 1.88 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-2D 5.45 1.82 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-3D 5.50 1.55 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-4D 5.45 1.57 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-1N 5.21 1.63 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-2N 5.28 1.39 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-3N 5.43 1.99 Fairly Proficient
Grand Mean 5.78 Fairly Proficient

The table above depicts the respondents level of proficiency in combining

sentences when grouped according to course, year and section. Findings

revealed that BBTE I-1D generated the highest weighted mean of 6.77,

interpreted as proficient.

It further reveals that most of the sections had a uniform level of

performance, which is fairly proficient.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 44

Table 10

Respondents Level of Proficiency in Expanding Sentences According to


Course, Year and Section

Course, Year

S Interpretation
& Section
BEED I-1D 5.86 1.84 Fairly Proficient
BEED I-1N 6.20 1.82 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-1D 7.07 1.53 Proficient
BBTE I-2D 6.57 2.08 Proficient
BBTE I-3D 6.43 1.67 Proficient
BBTE I-4D 6.33 1.87 Fairly Proficient
BBTE I-1N 6.40 1.66 Proficient
BBTE I-2N 6.00 2.03 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-1D 6.11 1.91 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-2D 6.50 1.62 Proficient
BSED I-3D 6.11 1.88 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-4D 6.59 1.73 Proficient
BSED I-1N 5.62 2.17 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-2N 6.17 1.64 Fairly Proficient
BSED I-3N 6.33 1.79 Fairly Proficient
Total 6.29 Fairly Proficient

Table 10 displays the level of proficiency in expanding sentences of the

respondents when grouped according to course, year, and section. BBTE I-1D

was deemed proficient in the abovementioned skill with 7.07 as their mean. On

the other hand, BSED I-1N posted the lowest mean of 5.62.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 45

3.3 Type of High School Attended

Table 11

Respondents Level of Performance Grouped According to Type of High


School Attended

Grammar Public Private


Skills

S Interpretation

s Interpretation
Asking Moderately
4.33 1.96 4.70 1.99 Fairly Proficient
Questions Proficient
Responding to
6.26 2.11 Fairly Proficient 6.33 2.01 Fairly Proficient
Questions
Combining
5.78 1.91 Fairly Proficient 5.86 1.75 Fairly Proficient
Sentences
Expanding
6.33 1.90 Fairly Proficient 6.39 1.71 Fairly Proficient
Sentences

Table 11 shows that on the tests of asking questions, private schools

appeared to be more competent obtaining a mean of 4.70.

In responding to questions, private schools obtained a mean of 6.33 which

was higher than the public schools.

In combining sentences, a mean of 5.86 was gained by the private school

higher than of the public schools.

And in expanding sentences, private schools appeared to be more

competent than public schools.

These findings seemed to confirm Sen. Tessie Aquino-Oretas assertion

that the lack of competent public school tutors, who could teach the English

language effectively, makes English learning difficult for most public school

students.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 46

4. Significant Difference in Respondents Performance Ratings on Each

of the Grammar Skills when Grouped According to Section

Table 12A

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Asking Questions Grouped According to Section (Gender)

Asking Questions
CYS Gender
t-test P value Result Decision
Male 3.714
BEED I-1D 1.43 0.191 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4.73
Male 3.9
BEED I-1N 0.17 0.870 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4
Male 5.25
BBTE I-1D 0.44 0.667 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 5.538
Male 5.167
BBTE I-2D 0.06 0.953 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 5.222
Male 3.818
BBTE I-3D 1.07 0.295 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4.526
Male 3.769
BBTE I-4D 0.52 0.604 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4.059
Male 2.7
BBTE I-1N 1.87 0.073 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4
Male 3.5
BBTE I-2N 1.23 0.238 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4.4
Male 4.857
BSED I-1D 0.71 0.494 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 5.591
Male 3.917
BSED I-2D 0.63 0.535 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4.368
Male 4.125
BSED I-3D -0.19 0.850 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4
Male 5
BSED I-4D -0.26 0.803 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4.727
Male 4.364
BSED I-1N 0.63 0.536 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4.833
Male 3.8
BSED I-2N 0.49 0.651 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 4.417
Male 3.545
BSED I-3N 0.45 0.654 Not Significant Accept Ho
Female 3.895

The table shows that the male and female respondents of all the sections

obtained t-tests ranging from 1.87 to -0.26. The obtained P value of these
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 47

sections ranged from 0.953 to 0.073 which are all greater than the standard

level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis which states that

there is no significant difference among the respondents performance ratings

in the different grammar skills when grouped according to gender is accepted.

This means that the male and female respondents of these sections did not

differ in their performance in the grammar skill asking questions.

Table 12B

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Asking Questions Grouped According to Section (CYS)

Asking Questions
Section x F-test P value Result Decision
BEED I-1D 4.57
BEED I-1N 3.98
BBTE I-1D 5.5
BBTE I-2D 3.43
BBTE I-3D 4.27
BBTE I-4D 3.93
BBTE I-1N 1.97
Reject
BBTE I-2N 4.1 1.92 0.003 Significant
Ho
BSED I-1D 5.41
BSED I-2D 4.19
BSED I-3D 4.04
BSED I-4D 4.79
BSED I-1N 4.66
BSED I-2N 4.31
BSED I-3N 3.77
The table shows that the same sections obtained a t-test of 1.92, with a

P value of 0.003, which was lesser than the standard level of significance at

0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among

the respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 48

grouped according to section was rejected. This means that the respondents

differed in their performance in the grammar skill asking questions.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 49
Asking Questions

P
CYS THSA t-test Result Decision
value
Public 4.611 Not
BEED I-1D 0.34 0.742 Accept Ho
Private 4.375 Significant
Public 3.586
BEED I-1N -2.73 0.011 Significant Reject Ho
Private 4.733
Public 5.429 Not
BBTE I-1D -0.69 0.615 Accept Ho
Private 6.5 Significant
Public 4.905 Not
BBTE I-2D -0.72 0.524 Accept Ho
Private 5.89 Significant
Public 4.292 Not
BBTE I-3D 0.19 .854 Accept Ho
Private 4.168 Significant
Public 3.846 Not
BBTE I-4D -1.10 0.32 Accept Ho
Private 4.5 Significant
Public 3.409 Not
BBTE I-1N -0.66 0.534 Accept Ho
Private 4 Significant
Public 4.077 Not
BBTE I-2N -0.19 0.862 Accept Ho
Private 4.25 Significant
Public 5.32 Not
BSED I-1D -0.51 0.634 Accept Ho
Private 6 Significant
Public 4.08 Not
BSED I-2D -0.45 0.672 Accept Ho
Private 4.67 Significant
Public 3.905 Not
BSED I-3D -0.84 0.421 Accept Ho
Private 4.429 Significant
Public 4.64 Not
BSED I-4D -0.94 0.416 Accept Ho
Private 5.75 Significant
Public 4.65 Not
BSED I-1N -0.02 0.981 Accept Ho
Private 4.667 Significant
Public 4.32 Not
BSED I-2N 0.07 0.945 Accept Ho
Private 4.25 Significant
Public 3.522 Not
BSED I-3N -0.96 0.368 Accept Ho
Private 4.57 Significant

Table 12C

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Asking Questions Grouped According to Section (THSA)

The table shows that when grouped according to type of high school

attended, the respondents of section BEED I-1D obtained a t-test of 0.34; BBTE

1-1D, -0.69; BBTE 1-2D, -0.72; BBTE 1-3D, 0.19; BBTE I-4D, -1.10; BBTE I-1N,
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 50

-0.66; BBTE I-2N, -0.19; BSED I-1D, -0.51; BSED I-2D, -0.45; BSED I-3D,

-0.84; BSED I-4D, -0.94; BSED I-1N, -0.02; BSED I-2N, 0.07, and BSED I-3N,

-0.96. The table further shows that the same sections obtained the P value of

0.742, 0.615, 0.524, 0.854, 0.32, 0.534, 0.862, 0.634, 0.672, 0.421, 0.416,

0.981, 0,945, and 0.368 which are all greater than the standard level of

significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant

difference among the respondents performance ratings in the different

grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended was

accepted. This means that the respondents who came from public and private

schools did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill asking

questions.

On the other hand, the respondents who came from public and private

schools of section BEED I-1N obtained a t-test of -2.73, with a P value of

0.011, lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the

null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the respondents

performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to

type of high school attended was rejected. This means that the respondents

who came from public and private schools differed in their performance in the

grammar skill asking questions.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 51

Responding to Questions

P
CYS Gender t-test Result Decision
value
Male 5.429 Not
BEED I-1D 1.29 0.225 Accept Ho
Female 6.216 Significant
Male 6.2 Not
BEED I-1N -0.93 0.370 Accept Ho
Female 5.618 Significant
Male 7.25 Not
BBTE I-1D 0.05 0.964 Accept Ho
Female 7.308 Significant
Male 6.25 Not
BBTE I-2D -0.15 0.879 Accept Ho
Female 6.111 Significant
Male 7.364 Not
BBTE I-3D -1.34 0.191 Accept Ho
Female 6.421 Significant
Male 6.538 Not
BBTE I-4D -0.63 0.536 Accept Ho
Female 6.059 Significant
Male 4.8 Not
BBTE I-1N 1.21 0.238 Accept Ho
Female 5.8 Significant
Male 5.6 Not
BBTE I-2N 1.60 0.136 Accept Ho
Female 7.1 Significant
Male 5.29 Not
BSED I-1D 1.62 0.144 Accept Ho
Female 7.136 Significant
Male 6 Not
BSED I-2D 0.57 0.578 Accept Ho
Female 6.474 Significant
Male 5.375 Not
BSED I-3D 1.00 0.341 Accept Ho
Female 6.15 Significant
Male 6.286 Not
BSED I-4D 0.12 0.908 Accept Ho
Female 6.409 Significant
Male 5.545 Not
BSED I-1N 0.60 0.559 Accept Ho
Female 6.056 Significant
Male 5.8 Not
BSED I-2N 0.86 0.419 Accept Ho
Female 6.458 Significant
Male 6.636 Not
BSED I-3N -0.07 0.948 Accept Ho
Female 6.579 Significant

Table 12D

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Responding to Questions Grouped According to Section (Gender)
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 52

The table shows that the male and female respondents of all the sections

obtained t-tests ranging from 1.62 to -1.34. The obtained P value of these

sections ranged from 0.964 to 0.136 which were all greater than the standard

level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no

significant difference among the respondents performance ratings in the

different grammar skills when grouped according to gender was accepted.

This means that the male and female respondents of these sections did not

differ in their performance in the grammar skill responding to questions.

Table 12E

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Responding to Questions Grouped According to Section (CYS)

Responding to Questions
Section x F-test P value Result Decision
BEED I-1D 6.09
BEED I-1N 5.75
BBTE I-1D 7.30
BBTE I-2D 3.67
BBTE I-3D 6.77
BBTE I-4D 6.27
BBTE I-1N 3.33
Not
BBTE I-2N 6.6 1.20 0.222 Accept Ho
Significant
BSED I-1D 6.69
BSED I-2D 6.29
BSED I-3D 5.93
BSED I-4D 6.38
BSED I-1N 5.86
BSED I-2N 6.34
BSED I-3N 6.60
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 53

The table shows that the same sections obtained a t-test of 1.20, with a P

value of 0.222, greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05.

As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among

the respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when

grouped according to section was accepted. This means that the respondents

differed in their performance in the grammar skill responding to questions.

Table 12F

Responding to Questions
CYS THSA
t-test P value Result Decision
Public 6.139
BEED I-1D 0.42 0.683 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5.875
Public 5.793
BEED I-1N 0.24 0.81 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5.667
Public 7.321
BBTE I-1D 0.16 0.90 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 7
Public 6
BBTE I-2D 0.13 0.902 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.556
Public 6.417
BBTE I-3D -3.23 0.004 Significant Reject Ho
Private 6.417
Public 6.192
BBTE I-4D -0.87 0.409 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.75
Public 5.318
BBTE I-1N -1.63 0.135 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5.875
Public 6.769
BBTE I-2N 1.13 0.322 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5.5
Public 6.56
BSED I-1D -0.58 0.603 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 7.5
Public 6.2
BSED I-2D -0.43 0.679 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.667
Public 5.857
BSED I-3D -0.38 0.71 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.143
Public 6.28
BSED I-4D -0.70 0.52 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 7
Public 5.85
BSED I-1N -0.04 0.965 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5.889
Public 6.12
BSED I-2N -2.70 0.30 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 7.75
BSED I-3N Public 7 1.79 0.104 Not Significant Accept Ho
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 54

Private 5.286
Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the
Grammar Skill Responding to Questions Grouped According to Section (THSA)
The table shows that when grouped according to type of high school

attended, the respondents of section BEED I-1D obtained a t-test of 0.42;

BEED I-1N, 0.24; BBTE I-1D, 0.16; BBTE I-2D, 0.13; BBTE I-4D, -0.87; BBTE

I-1N, -1.63; BBTE I-2N, 1.13; BSED I-1D, -0.58; BSED I-2D, -0.43; BSED I-3D,

-0.38; BSED I-4D, -0.70; BSED I-1N, -0.04; BSED I-2N, -2.70 and BSED I-3N,

1.79. The table further shows that the same sections obtained the P value of

0.683, 0.81, 0.90, 0.409, 0.135, 0.322, 0.603, 0.679, 0.71, 0.52, 0.965, 0.30

and 0.104 which were all greater than the standard level of significance at

0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among

the respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when

grouped according to type of high school attended is accepted. This means

that the respondents who came from public and private schools did not differ in

their performance in the grammar skill responding to questions.

On the other hand, the respondents who came from public and private

schools of section BBTE I-3D obtained a t-test of -3.23, with a P value of 0.04,

lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null

hypothesis there is no significant difference among the respondents

performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to

type of high school attended was rejected. This means that the respondents

who came from public and private schools differed in their performance in the

grammar skill responding to questions.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 55

Table 12G

Combining Sentences

P
CYS Gender t-test Result Decision
value
Male 4.43 Not
BEED I-1D 1.40 0.205 Accept Ho
Female 6.108 Significant
Male 5.5 Not
BEED I-1N 0.46 0.654 Accept Ho
Female 5.794 Significant
Male 6.75 Not
BBTE I-1D 0.04 0.966 Accept Ho
Female 6.769 Significant
Male 5.917 Not
BBTE I-2D 0.21 0.839 Accept Ho
Female 6.111 Significant
Male 5.909 Not
BBTE I-3D -0.28 0.780 Accept Ho
Female 5.737 Significant
Male 6.154 Not
BBTE I-4D -1.11 0.278 Accept Ho
Female 5.471 Significant
Male 5.6 Not
BBTE I-1N 1.72 1.05 Accept Ho
Female 6.8 Significant
Male 5.9 Not
BBTE I-2N 0.19 0.848 Accept Ho
Female 6.05 Significant
Male 5.714 Not
BSED I-1D 0.55 0.594 Accept Ho
Female 6.227 Significant
Male 5.25 Not
BSED I-2D 1.06 0.298 Accept Ho
Female 5.947 Significant
Male 5 Not
BSED I-3D 1.13 0.276 Accept Ho
Female 5.7 Significant
Male 5.571 Not
BSED I-4D -0.20 0.847 Accept Ho
Female 5.049 Significant
Male 4.545 Not
BSED I-1N 1.75 0.094 Accept Ho
Female 5.611 Significant
Male 5 Not
BSED I-2N 0.44 0.680 Accept Ho
Female 5.333 Significant
Male 5.273 Not
BSED I-3N 0.29 0.775 Accept Ho
Female 5.526 Significant
Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the
Grammar Skill Combining Sentences Grouped According to Section (Gender)
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 56

The table shows that the male and female respondents of all the sections

obtained t-tests ranging from 1.75 to -1.11. The obtained P value of these

sections ranged from 1.05 to 0.094, which were all greater than the standard

level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no


Combining Sentences
Section x F-test P value Result Decision
BEED I-1D 5.84
BEED I-1N 5.73
BBTE I-1D 6.77
BBTE I-2D 3.77
BBTE I-3D 5.80
BBTE I-4D 5.77
BBTE I-1N 3.77
Not
BBTE I-2N 6.00 1.13 0.29 Accept Ho
Significant
BSED I-1D 6.10
BSED I-2D 5.68
BSED I-3D 5.50
BSED I-4D 5.45
BSED I-1N 5.21
BSED I-2N 5.28
BSED I-3N 5.43
significant difference among the respondents performance ratings in the

different grammar skills when grouped according to gender was accepted. This

means that the male and female respondents of these sections did not differ in

their performance in the grammar skill combining sentences.

Table 12H

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Combining Sentences Grouped According to Section (CYS)

The table shows that the same sections obtained a t-test of 1.13, with a P

value of 0.29, which is greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05.

As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 57

respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped

according to sections was accepted. This means that the respondents differed

in their performance in the grammar skill combining sentences.

Table 12I

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Combining Sentences Grouped According to Section (THSA)
Combining Sentences
CYS THSA
t-test P value Result Decision
Public 5.806
BEED I-1D -0.20 0.842 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6
Public 5.552
BEED I-1N -0.97 0.339 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.067
Public 6.714
BBTE I-1D -0.51 0.699 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 7.5
Public 6.095
BBTE I-2D -2.31 0.035 Significant Reject Ho
Private 5.889
Public 5.625
BBTE I-3D -1.59 0.137 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5.625
Public 5.654
BBTE I-4D -1.16 0.311 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.5
Public 6.591
BBTE I-1N -0.19 0.85 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5.875
Public 5.923
BBTE I-2N -0.76 0.484 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.5
Public 6.28
BSED I-1D 0.96 0.41 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5
Public 5.52
BSED I-2D Private 6.333 -1.29 0.222 Not Significant Accept Ho

Public 5.286
BSED I-3D -1.47 0.164 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.143
Public 5.6
BSED I-4D 1.53 0.202 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 4.5
Public 5.3
BSED I-1N 0.50 0.622 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5
Public 5.16
BSED I-2N -1.67 0.145 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6
Public 5.609
BSED I-3N 0.86 0.415 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 4.857

The table shows that when grouped according to type of high school attended,

the respondents of section BEED I-1D obtained a t-test of -0.20; BEED I-1N,
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 58

-0.97; BBTE I-1D, -0.51; BBTE I-3D, -1.59; BBTE I-4D, -1.16; BBTE I-1N,

-0.19; BBTE I-2N, -0.76; BSED I-1D, 0.96; BSED I-2D, -1.29; BSED I-3D,

-1.47; BSED I-4D, 1.53; BSED I-1N, 0.50; BSED I-2N, -1.67 and BSED I-3N,

0.86. The table further shows that the same sections obtained the P value of

0.842, 0.339, 0.699, 0.137, 0.311, 0.85, 0.484, 0.41, 0.222, 0.164, 0.202,

0.622, 0.145, and 0.415 which are all greater than the standard level of

significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant

difference among the respondents performance ratings in the different

grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended was

accepted. This means that the respondents who came from public and private

schools did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill combining

sentences.

On the other hand, the respondents who came from public and private

schools of section BBTE I-2D obtained a t-test of -2.31, with a P value of

0.035, which is lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a

result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the

respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped

according to type of high school attended was rejected. This means that the

respondents who came from public and private schools differed in their

performance in the grammar skill combining sentences.

Table 12J
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 59

Expanding Sentences
P
CYS Gender t-test Result Decision
value
Male 5.571 Not
BEED I-1D 0.38 0.716 Accept Ho
Female 5.919 Significant
Male 5.5 Not
BEED I-1N 1.53 0.144 Accept Ho
Female 6.412 Significant
Male 7.75 Not
BBTE I-1D -0.77 0.448 Accept Ho
Female 6.962 Significant
Male 6.417 Accept Ho
Not
BBTE I-2D Female 6.667 0.30 0.770
Significant
Male 6.455 Not
BBTE I-3D -0.05 0.960 Accept Ho
Female 6.421 Significant
Male 6.231 Not
BBTE I-4D 0.25 0.802 Accept Ho
Female 6.412 Significant
Male 5.6 Not
BBTE I-1N 1.97 0.094 Accept Ho
Female 6.8 Significant
Male 6.6 Not
BBTE I-2N -1.14 0.268 Accept Ho
Female 5.7 Significant
Male 5.86 Not
BSED I-1D 1.42 0.200 Accept Ho
Female 7.364 Significant
Male 6.583 Not
BSED I-2D 0.25 0.805 Accept Ho
Female 6.737 Significant
Male 6.125 Not
BSED I-3D -0.03 0.973 Accept Ho
Female 6.1 Significant
Male 5.429 Not
BSED I-4D 2.07 0.069 Accept Ho
Female 6.955 Significant
Male 4.818 Not
BSED I-1N 1.66 0.109 Accept Ho
Female 6.111 Significant
Male 5.8 Not
BSED I-2N 0.66 0.532 Accept Ho
Female 6.25 Significant
Male 5.909 Not
BSED I-3N 0.97 0.343 Accept Ho
Female 6.579 Significant
Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the
Grammar Skill Expanding Sentences Grouped According to Section (Gender)

Table shows that the male and female respondents of all the sections

obtained t-tests ranging from 2.07 to -1.14. The obtained P value of these

sections ranged from 0.973 to 0.069, which are all greater than the standard
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 60

level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no

significant difference among the respondents performance ratings in the

different grammar skills when grouped according to gender was accepted.

This means that the male and female respondents of these sections did not

Expanding Sentences
Section x F-test P value Result Decision
BEED I-1D 5.86 1.39 0.091 Not Accept Ho
BEED I-1N 6.20 Significant
BBTE I-1D 7.07
BBTE I-2D 4.29
BBTE I-3D 6.43
BBTE I-4D 6.33
BBTE I-1N 3.53
BBTE I-2N 6.00
BSED I-1D 7.00
BSED I-2D 6.68
BSED I-3D 6.11
BSED I-4D 6.59
BSED I-1N 5.62
BSED I-2N 6.17
BSED I-3N 6.33
differ in their performance in the grammar skill expanding sentences.

Table 12K

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Expanding Sentences Grouped According to Section (CYS)

The table shows that the same sections obtained a t-test of 1.39, with a P

value of 0.091, which is greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As

a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the

respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped

according to section was accepted. This means that the respondents differed in

their performance in the grammar skill expanding sentences.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 61

Table 12L

Test of Significant Difference in Respondents Performance Ratings on the


Grammar Skill Expanding Sentences Grouped According to Section (THSA)

The table shows that the when grouped according to type of high school

attended, the respondents of all the sections obtained t-tests ranging from 1.55

to -1.85. The obtained P value of these sections ranged from 0.893 to 0.095

which are all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result,

the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the respondents

performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 62

type of high school attended was accepted. This means that the respondents

who came from public and private schools did not differ in their performance in

the grammar skill expanding sentences.

5. Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings in

Different Grammar Skills when Grouped According to Variables

5.1 Gender

Table 13

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings in


Asking Questions when Grouped According to Gender

Gende
P Decisio
t-test Result
r Value n
4.0
Male
7 Reject
2.69 0.008 Significant
4.5 Ho
Female
5

This table demonstrates that the male and female respondents obtained a

t-test of 2.69, with a P value of 0.008, lesser than the standard level of

significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant

difference among the respondents performance ratings in the different

grammar skills when grouped according to gender was rejected. This means

that the male and female respondents differed in their performance in the

grammar skill asking questions.

Table 14

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings in


Responding to Questions when Grouped According to Gender
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 63

Gende
P Decisio
t-test Result
r Value n
6.0
Male
6 Not Accept
1.59 0.114
6.3 Significant Ho
Female
7

Table 14 shows that the male and female respondents obtained a t-test of

1.59, with a P value of 0.114, greater than the standard level of significance at

0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among

the respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when

grouped according to gender was accepted. This means that the male and

female respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill

responding to questions.

Table 15

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings in


Combining Sentences when Grouped According to Gender


P
Gender t-test Result Decision
Value
Male 5.52
2.19 0.029 Significant Reject Ho
Female 5.92

The table above shows that the male and female respondents obtained a

t-test of 2.19, with a P value of 0.029, lesser than the standard level of

significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant

difference among the respondents performance ratings in the different

grammar skills when grouped according to gender was rejected. This means
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 64

that the male and female respondents differed in their performance in the

grammar skill combining sentences.

Table 16

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Expanding Sentences when Grouped According to Gender


P
Gender t-test Result Decision
Value
Male 6.02 Reject
2.40 0.017 Significant
Female 6.47 Ho

Table 16 shows that the male and female respondents obtained a t-test of

2.40, with a P value of 0.017, lesser than the standard level of significance at

0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among

the respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when

grouped according to gender was rejected. This means that the male and

female respondents differed in their performance in the grammar skill

expanding sentences.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 65

Table 17

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Asking Questions when Grouped According to Degree Program

Course

F-Test P Value Result Decision
BEED 4.273
BBTE 4.462 2.86 0.000 Significant Reject Ho
BSED 4.449

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

respondents obtained an F-test of 2.86, with a P value of 0.000, lesser than the

standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is

no significant difference among the respondents performance ratings in the

different grammar skills when grouped according to degree program was

rejected. This means that the respondents differed in their performance in the

grammar skill asking questions.

Table 18

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Responding to Questions when Grouped
According to Degree Program

Course

F-Test P Value Result Decision
BEED 5.920
BBTE 6.526 1.53 0.096 Not Significant Accept Ho
BSED 6.302

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

respondents obtained an F-test of 1.53, with a P value of 0.096, which is

greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 66

hypothesis there is no significant difference among the respondents

performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to

degree program was accepted. This means that the respondents did not differ

in their performance in the grammar skill responding to questions.

Table 19

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Combining Sentences when Grouped According to Course

Course

F-Test P Value Result Decision
BEED 5.784
BBTE 6.128 1.51 0.103 Not Significant Accept Ho
BSED 5.522

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

respondents obtained an F-test of 1.51, with a P value of 0.103, lesser than the

standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null hypothesis there is

no significant difference among the respondents performance ratings in the

different grammar skills when grouped according to degree program was

accepted. This means that the respondents did not differ in their performance

in the grammar skill combining sentences.

Table 20

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Expanding Sentences when Grouped According to Degree Program

Course

F-Test P Value Result Decision
BEED 6.034
BBTE 6.468 1.40 0.149 Not Significant Accept Ho
BSED 6.361
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 67

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

respondents obtained an F-test of 1.40, with a P value of 0.149, which is

lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the null

hypothesis there is no significant difference among the respondents

performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to

degree program was accepted. This means that the respondents did not

differ in their performance in the grammar skill expanding sentences.

Table 21

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Asking Questions when Grouped According
to Type of High School Attended

THSA

t-test P Value Result Decision
Public 4.33
1.91 0.059 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 4.70

This table shows that when grouped according to type of high school

attended, the respondents obtained a computed of t-value of 1.91, with a P

value of 0.059, greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a

result, the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the

respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped

according to type of high school attended was accepted. This means that the

respondents did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill asking

questions.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 68

Table 22

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Responding to Questions when Grouped According
to Type of High School Attended

THSA

t-test P Value Result Decision
Public 6.26
0.17 0.869 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.33

This table shows that when grouped according to type of high school

attended, the respondents obtained a computed t-value of 0.17, with a P value

of 0.869, greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the

null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the respondents

performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to

type of high school attended was accepted. This means that the respondents

did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill responding to

questions.

Table 23

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Combining Sentences when Grouped According
to Type of High School Attended

THSA

t-test P Value Result Decision
Public 5.78
0.27 0.786 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 5.86

Table 23 shows that when grouped according to type of high school

attended, the respondents obtained a computed t-value of 0.27, with a P value


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 69

of 0.786, greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the

null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the respondents

performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to

type of high school attended was accepted. This means that the respondents

did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill combining sentences.

Table 24

Test of Significant Difference in the Respondents Performance Ratings


in Expanding Sentences when Grouped According
to Type of High School Attended

THSA

t-test P Value Result Decision
Public 6.33
0.19 0.85 Not Significant Accept Ho
Private 6.39

This table shows that when grouped according to type of high school

attended, the respondents obtained a computed t-value of 0.19, with a P value

of 0.85, greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05. As a result, the

null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the respondents

performance ratings in the different grammar skills when grouped according to

type of high school attended was accepted. This means that the respondents

did not differ in their performance in the grammar skill expanding sentences.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 70

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter contains the summary of findings obtained from analyzed

and interpreted data, the conclusions formulated, and the recommendations

made.

Summary of Findings

1. Respondents Profile

1.1 Gender

Out of 473 total sampled respondents, 334 or 70.61% were females and

139 or 29.39% were males.

1.2 Course, Year and Section

Bachelor in Secondary Education (BSED) was the biggest source of

respondents with the frequency of 205 or 43.34% of the total population of the

respondents sampled in this study. The second biggest source was Bachelor

in Business Teacher Education (BBTE), recording a frequency of 180 or

38.05%. Bachelor in Elementary Education generated the lowest number of

respondents with 88 or 18.60% of the total population sampled.

1.3 Type of High School Attended

Out of 473 total sampled respondents, 370 or 78.23% graduated from

public schools and 103 or 21.70% were from private schools.

2. Respondents Level of Performance in Terms of the Following

Grammatical Skills
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 71

2.1 Asking Questions

In the test of asking questions, the respondents gained a grand mean of

4.38, verbally interpreted as moderately proficient.

2.2 Responding to Questions

The data showed that with a grand mean of 6.30, the respondents were

fairly proficient when it comes to responding to questions.

2.3 Combining Sentences

In combining sentences, findings revealed that the respondentswith a

grand mean of 5.78were fairly proficient.

2.4 Expanding Sentences

In the test of expanding sentences, the respondents achieved a grand

mean of 6.30, interpreted as fairly proficient.

3. Respondents Level of Performance in Each Grammar Skills

Grouped According to Variables

3.1 Asking Questions

3.1.1 Gender

The data showed that the male respondents gained a mean of 4.07, while

the females obtained 4.55. Both of the means were interpreted as moderately

proficient.

3.1.2 Course, Year and Section

In terms of course, year and section: BEED I-1D (4.57), BEED I-1N (3.98),

BBTE I-3D (4.27), BBTE I-4D (3.93), BBTE I-1N (3.57), BBTE I-2N (4.10),

BSED I-1D (4.04), BSED I-3D (4.04), BSED I-2N (4.31), and BSED I-3N (3.77)
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 72

shared the same level of performance which is moderately proficient.

Meanwhile, BBTE I-1D (5.50), BBTE I-2D (5.20), BSED I-2D (4.79), BSED I-

4D (4.79), and BSED I-1N (4.66) were fairly proficient.

3.1.3 Type of High School Attended

In this item, those who graduated in public schools gained a weighted

mean of 4.33, verbally interpreted as moderately proficient. Whereas, those

who graduated from private schools were fairly proficient, posting a mean of

4.70.

3.2 Responding to Questions

3.2.1 Gender

The data showed that the male respondents gained a mean of 6.06, while

the females obtained 6.37. Both of the means were interpreted as fairly

proficient.

3.2.2 Course, Year and Section

In terms of course, year and section: BEED I-1D (6.09), BEED I-1N (5.75),

BBTE I-2D (6.17), BBTE I-4D (6.27), BBTE I-1N (5.47), BBTE I-2N (6.6),

BSED I-2D (6.29), BSED I-3D (5.93), BSED I-4D (6.38), BSED I-1N (5.86),

BSED I-2N (6.34), BSED I-3N (6.60) shared the same level of performance

which is fairly proficient. Meanwhile, BSED I-1D (6.69), BBTE I-3D (6.77) and

BBTE I-1D (7.30) were proficient.

1.2.3 Type of High School Attended


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 73

The result acquired in this item indicated that those who graduated from

public schools with a mean of 6.33, and private schools, having a weighted

mean of 6.26, shared the same verbal interpretation of fairly proficient.

3.3 Combining Sentences

3.3.1 Gender

The data showed that the male respondents gained a mean of 5.52,

while the females obtained 5.92. Both of the means were interpreted as fairly

proficient.

3.3.2 Course, Year and Section

In terms of course, year, and section, BEED I-1D (5.84), BEED I-1N

(5.73), BBTE I-3D (5.8), BBTE I-4D (5.77), BBTE I-2N (6.00), BSED I-1D

(5.50), BSED I-2D (5.45), BSED I-3D (5.50), BSED I-4D (5.45), BSED I-1N

(5.21), BSED I-2N (5.28), BSED I-3N (5.43) shared the same level of

performance interpreted as fairly proficient. Meanwhile, BBTE I-1D (6.77),

BBTE I-2D (6.63), and BBTE I-1N (6.40) were proficient.

3.3.3 Type of High School Attended

In this item, those who graduated in public schools gained a weighted

mean of 5.78, verbally interpreted as fairly proficient. Those who graduated

from private schools, posting a mean of 5.86, had the same verbal

interpretation.

3.4 Expanding Sentences

3.4.1 Gender
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 74

The findings revealed that the male respondents were fairly proficient,

with a mean of 6.02. The female respondents, on the other hand, garnered a

weighted mean of 6.47, interpreted as proficient.

3.4.2 Course, Year and Section

In terms of course, year, and section: BEED I-1D (5.86), BEED I-1N

(6.20), BBTE I-4D (6.33), BBTE I-2N (6.00), BSED I-1D (6.11), BSED I-3D

(6.11), BSED I-1N (5.62), BSED I-2N (6.17), BSED I-3N (6.33) had a uniform

level of performance which was fairly proficient, while, BBTE I-1D (7.07),

BBTE I-2D (6.57), BBTE I-3D (6.43), BBTE I-1N (6.40), BSED I-2D (6.50),

BSED I-4D (6.59) were proficient.

3.4.3 Type of High School Attended

The result acquired in this item indicated that those who graduated from

public schools with a mean of 6.33, and private schools, having a weighted

mean of 6.39, shared the same verbal interpretation of fairly proficient.

4. Significant Difference among the Respondents Performance Ratings

in Terms of Different Grammar Skills When Grouped According to

Sections

4.1 Asking Questions

4.1.1 Gender

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the male

and female respondents of all sections. As shown by their obtained P value

ranging from 0.953 to 0.073 which were all greater than the standard level of

significance at 0.05, indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 75

4.1.2 Sections

There was a significant difference in the performance ratings of

respondents when grouped according to sections. As shown by their obtained

P value 0.003, which was greater than the standard level of significance at

0.05, indicating rejection of the null hypothesis.

4.1.3 Type of High School Attended

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the

respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended of

sections BEED I-1D, BBTE 1-1D, BBTE 1-2D, BBTE 1-3D, BBTE I-4D, BBTE

I-1N, BBTE I-2N, BSED I-1D, BSED I-2D, BSED I-3D, BSED I-4D, BSED I-1N,

BSED I-2N, and BSED I-3N. As shown by their obtained P value of 0.742,

0.615, 0.524, 0.854, 0.32, 0.534, 0.862, 0.634, 0.672, 0.421, 0.416, 0.981,

0,945 and 0.368 which were all greater than the standard level of significance

at 0.05, indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis there is no significant

difference among the respondents performance ratings in the different

grammar skills when grouped according to type of high school attended in the

grammar skill of asking questions

On the other hand, BEED I-1N obtained a P value of 0.011 which was

lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05, indicating rejection of the

null hypothesis.

4.2 Responding to Questions

4.2.1 Gender
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 76

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the male

and female respondents of all sections. As shown by their obtained P value

ranging from 0.964 to 0.136 which were all greater than the standard level of

significance at 0.05, indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis.

4.2.2 Sections

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of

respondents when grouped according to section. As shown by their obtained P

value of 0.222, which was greater than the standard level of significance at

0.05, indicating acceptance of null hypothesis.

4.2.3 Type of High School Attended

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the

respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended of

sections BEED I-D, BEED I-1N, BBTE I-1D, BBTE I-2D, BBTE I-4D, BBTE I-

1N, BBTE I-2N, BSED I-1D, BSED I-2D, BSED I-3D, BSED I-4D,; BSED I-1N,

BSED I-2N, and BSED I-3N. As shown by their P value of 0.683, 0.81, 0.90,

0.409, 0.135, 0.322, 0.603, 0.679, 0.71, 0.52, 0.965, 0.30 and 0.104 which

were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05, indicating the

acceptance of null hypothesis there is no significant difference among the

respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when

grouped according to type of high school attended.

On the other hand, BBTE I-3D obtained a P value of 0.04, which was

lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05, indicating rejection of the

null hypothesis.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 77

4.3 Combining Sentences

4.3.1 Gender

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the male

and female respondents of all sections. As shown by their obtained P value

ranging from 1.05 to 0.094 which were all greater than the standard level of

significance at 0.05, indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis.

4.3.2 Section

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of

respondents when grouped according to section. As shown by their obtained P

value of 0.29, which was greater than the standard level of significance at

0.05, indicating acceptance of null hypothesis.

4.3.3 Type of High School Attended

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the

respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended of

sections BEED I-D, BEED I-1N, BBTE I-1D, BBTE I-3D, BBTE I-4D, BBTE I-

1N, BBTE I-2N, BSED I-1D, BSED I-2D, BSED I-3D, BSED I-4D, BSED I-1N,

BSED I-2N, and BSED I-3N. As shown by their P value of 0.842, 0.339, 0.699,

0.137, 0.311, 0.85, 0.484, 0.41, 0.222, 0.164, 0.202, 0.622, 0.145, and 0.415

which were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05, indicating

the acceptance of the null hypothesis there is no significant difference among

the respondents performance ratings in the different grammar skills when

grouped according to type of high school attended.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 78

On the other hand, BBTE I-2D obtained a P value of 0.035, which was

lesser than the standard level of significance at 0.05, indicating rejection of the

null hypothesis.

4.4 Expanding Sentences

4.4.1 Gender

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the male

and female respondents of all sections. As shown by their obtained P value

ranging from 0.893 to 0.095 which were all greater than the standard level of

significance at 0.05, indicating acceptance of the null hypothesis.

4.4.2 Section

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of

respondents when grouped according to section. As shown by their obtained P

value of 0.091, which was greater than the standard level of significance at

0.05, indicating acceptance of null hypothesis.

4.4.3 Type of High School Attended

There was no significant difference in the performance ratings of the

respondents when grouped according to type of high school attended of all

sections. As shown by the obtained P value ranging from 0.893 to 0.095 which

were all greater than the standard level of significance at 0.05, indicating

acceptance of the null hypothesis.

5. Significant Difference among the Respondents Performance Ratings


in terms of the above mentioned Grammar Skills when Grouped
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 79

According to Gender, Degree Program, and Type of High School


Attended
5.1 Gender

The data showed that in test I asking questions, with a P value of 0.008

which was less than the standard level of significance of 0.05, findings

revealed that there was a significant difference, thus, null hypothesis was

rejected.

While in responding sentences, with a P value of 0.114, greater than the

standard level of significance of 0.05, proved that there was no significant

difference, hence, null hypothesis was accepted.

In test III, combining sentences, the P-value posted at 0.029 which is less

than the level of significance 0.05, proving that there was no significant

difference, and therefore, null hypothesis was rejected.

In the test of expanding sentences, the P value recorded at 0.017, which

was less than the level of significance of 0.05, showed a significant difference,

hence, null hypothesis was rejected.

5.2 Course

Out of the four grammar skill test, only the test in asking question had a

significant difference. Having a P value of 0.000 which was less than the 0.05

level of significance, and the null hypothesis was rejected.

The other remaining grammar skill test (responding to questions,

combining sentences, and expanding sentences) had no significant difference.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 80

Having a P value of 0.096, 0.103, and 0.149 which were greater than the 0.05

level of significance, the null hypothesis was accepted.

5.3 Type of High School Attended

The P value posted at 0.059 (asking questions), 0.869 (responding to

questions), 0.786 (combining sentences), and 0.85 (expanding sentences)

were greater than the 0.05 level of significance, proved that there was no

significant difference in the respondents performance ratings when grouped

according to type of high school attended, thus the null hypotheses was

accepted.

Conclusions

Based on the findings statistically analyzed, the following conclusions were

drawn:

1. Majority of the respondents were female, taking up Bachelor in Secondary

Education, and from public high schools.

2. The respondents general level of performance in grammar skills such as

responding to questions, combining sentences, and expanding sentences

was described as fairly proficient. However, when in asking questions,

the respondents were tagged as moderately proficient.

3. The respondents general level of performance in the grammar skill asking

questions was described as moderately proficient; however, it was

described fairly proficient in responding to questions and combining

sentences. Meanwhile, in expanding sentences, the male respondents


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 81

appeared to be fairly proficient while the females, proficient. When

grouped according to course, year, and section, the respondents

appeared to be fairly proficient in the tests of responding to questions,

combining sentences, and expanding sentences. When grouped

according to type of high school attended, the respondents from public

and private high schools had a fairly proficient level of grammar

performance in the tests of responding to question, combining sentences,

and expanding sentences. In the test of asking questions, the respondents

who graduated from public high school appeared to be moderately

proficient while the private high school graduates were described as

fairly proficient.

4. There was no significant difference among the respondents performance

ratings in the tests of responding to question, combining sentences, and

expanding sentences when grouped according to section. However, there

was a significant difference among the respondents performance ratings

in the test of asking questions.

5. When grouped according to gender, there was a significant difference

among the respondents performance ratings in terms of the grammar

skills asking questions, combining sentences, and expanding sentences.

There was no significant difference among the respondents performance

ratings in the test of responding to questions. There was a significant

difference among the respondents performance ratings in the test of

asking questions when grouped according to the variable degree program;


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 82

there was no significant difference among the respondents performance

ratings in terms of the grammar skills responding to questions, combining

sentences, and expanding sentences. When grouped according to type of

high school attended, there was no significant difference among the

respondents performance ratings in all grammar skills, namely asking

questions, responding to questions, combining sentences, and expanding

sentences.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations were offered:

1. English Only Policy should be implemented within the premises of the

College of Education. This may be a great way to train students to speak

in English even when they are just plainly conversing with their friends or

classmates.
2. Trainings or seminars that will develop the mastery of English language

must regularly be held not only for students but also for the faculty so that

new trends regarding grammar will be easily disseminated in the college.


3. Advanced English Grammar for non-English majors should be added to

their respective curriculum. In this way, students will be more exposed to

the learning of English language.


4. The College of Education should include in their admission requirements

the taking of English Placement Test of those who have an overall high

school English average of 85%, instead of the usual 81%, to really elevate

the quality of the future educators of the country.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 83

5. Since this study aimed to investigate whether the variables, gender,

course, year and section and type of high school attended are

determinants of grammar performance, similar studies may be conducted

involving other variables like age, socio-economic status, and final grade

in English subject taken during high school.


P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 84

WORKS CITED

Books

Bosco, Frederick J. Guideposts in TEFL. Washington DC: US Information


Industry, 1984. Print.

Ellis, Rod. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 21 October 2010. Web.

Murcia, Marianne C., and Diane L. Freeman. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL
Teachers Course, Second Edition. Singapore: Thomson Learning Asia,
2008. Print.

Palma, Jesus, and Martha Mogol. Grammar and Composition. Philippines: Anvil
Publishing, Inc., 1987. Print.

Roberts, P. English Syntax. U.S.A.: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964. Print.

Journals

Alamis, Ma. Evelyn P. Current Perspective on World Englishes and their


Implications for Second Language Teaching and Learning. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics. Linguistic Society of the Philippines (December
2008). Print.

Crisol, Christine. Gender and Social Transformation. Philippine Sociological


Review. Print.

David, Maya Khemlani and Francisco Perlas Dumanig. Nativigation of English


in Malaysia and the Philippines as Seen in English Dailies. Philippine
Journal of Linguistics. Linguistic Society of the Philippines (December
2008). Print.

Dayag, Danilo J., and Stephen J. Quakerbush. Linguistics and Language


Education in the Philippines and Beyond. Linguistic Society of the
Philippines (2005). Print.

Gonzales, Andrea, Thelma Jambalos, and Ma. Corona Roneo. Three Studies
on Philippine English Across Generations Towards an Integration and
Some Implications. Linguistic Society of the Philippines (2003). Print.

Ho Mei Lin, Caroline. Online Grammar Teaching and Learning: Promises and
Pitfalls. Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers.
Seameo Regional Language Centre (1998). Print.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 85

John, Joseph. Language versus Literature in University English Departments.


The English Teaching Forum (October 1986). Print.

Kaplan, Robert B. Applied Linguistics, the State of the Art: Is there one? The
English Teaching Forum (April 1985). Print.

Murdock, George S. Grammar Gap. English Teaching Forum (1989). Print.

Newell, Leonard E. Grammar and Semantic: Features of Interface. Linguistic


Society of the Philippines (2000). Print.

Payne, Thomas E. and David J. Weber. Special Issue: Perspectives on


Grammar Writing. Studies in Language. John Benjamins Publishing
Company (2006). Print.

Pierce, Joe E. Pragmative Teaching Strategies. English Teaching Forum


(1985). Print.

Schneider, Edgar. Linguistics and Language Education in the Philippines and


Beyond. Linguistic Society of the Philippines (2005). Print.

Slobin, Dan I. Grammar and Gestures in America Sign Language. Linguistic


Society of Manila. Language Journal of the Linguistic Society of America.
(March 2006). Print.

Unpublished Materials

Bautista, Ninez L. English Proficiency of Students of Tarlac State University


Laboratory School. (2009). Print.

Enriquez, Lone Bihag English Instruction Under the New Secondary Education
Development Program in the Division of Misamis Occidental, 1991-1992.
(1992). Print.

Herndon, Jeanne H. A Survey of Modern Grammars. Holt, Rinchart & Winston


(1976). Print.

Mesthrie, Rejend, Joan Swann, Andrea Deumert, and William L. Homes.


Introducing Sociologist. (1994) 156. Print.

Roberts, Paul. English Sentences. San Jose, California: Harcourt, Brace &
World, Inc., 1962. Print.
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 86

Ruaya, Felix V. The English Grammar Proficiency of the First Year College
Students of PMI Colleges-Bohol, School Year 1996-1997: Implications to
Effective English. Print.

Zhenghui, Sao Making the Communicative Approach Work Together with the
Grammar-Translation Method in a Traditional Setting. Approach Work
Together with the Grammar-Translation Method in a Traditional Setting.
Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers. Singapore:
Seameo Regional Language Center (June 1999). Print.

Magazines/Newspapers

Contrucci, Lance. Right Wrong Writing Heroically Persnickety typo crusaders


set the United States Straight. Readers Digest, March 2009.

Go, Alice S. Lets Go For Proficiency in Filipino English.

Salaverria, Leila. Solon: To compete, students need English. Philippine Daily


Inquirer 26 December 2008. Web.

Yarcia, Romeo. Deteriorating Quality of English.

Web Publications

Aboitiz, Antonio. English the Filipino way. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 5 July 2010.
Web. 3 January 2009.
<http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20090103-
181250/English-the-Filipino-way>

Araneta, Sandy,and Michael Punongbayan. Poll: Pinoy proficiency in English


declining. 5 July 2010. Web. 19 April 2006.
<http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?
articleId=332135&publicationSubCategoryId=63>

Cruz, Isagani A. The problems of quality education. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 5


July 010. Web. 5 April 2009.
<http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090405-
197994/The-problems-of-quality-education>

David, Clarissa. The Role of Survey Archiving in the Discovery of the Decline in
English Proficiency. 4 July 2010. Web. October 2006.
<http://www.sws.org.ph/pr061005.htm>

First Quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey: National proficiency in English


recovers. Social Weather Station, 5 July 2010. Web. 16 May 2008.
<http://www.sws.org.ph/pr080516.htm>
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 87

March 2006 Social Weather Survey: National Proficiency In English Declines.


Social Weather Station, 5 July 2010. Web. 18 April 2006.
<http://www.sws.org.ph/pr060418.htm>

McCrum, Robert. Glob-ish. Newsweek, 5 July 2010. Web. 12 June 2010.


<http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/12/glob-ish.html>
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 88

Appendices
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 89

Appendix A
Permit to Conduct
Study
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 90

Appendix B
Memorandum for
Schedule of Oral
Defense
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 91

Appendix C
Memorandum for Face
Validation of
Instrument
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 92

Appendix D
Sample Questionnaire
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 93

Appendix E
Sample Answer
Sheets
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 94

Appendix F
Computer Print Out
P O LYT E C H N I C U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E P H I L I P P I N E S 95

Appendix G
Curriculum Vitae