1 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE Introduction English was first introduced to the Filipinos through the American public school system and, for half a century, the language was systematically promoted as a civilizing tool. Today, beliefs and attitudes about English, as well as the various ways in which the language is used, may be traced to the Filipino experience of American Colonial Education. (Martin, 2012) The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “for purposes of communication and instruction, the official language of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.” This law is carried out through DECS Order No. 52 series 1987, also known as the Bilingual Education Policy (henceforth BEP) of the Department of Education (henceforth DepEd), which was first introduced in 1974 and then re-issued with minor modifications in 1987. The BEP aims to develop bilingual Filipinos competent in both English and the national
A Study on the Impact of the English speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology, Surigao City.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
Introduction
English was first introduced to the Filipinos through the
American public school system and, for half a century, the
language was systematically promoted as a civilizing tool. Today,
beliefs and attitudes about English, as well as the various ways
in which the language is used, may be traced to the Filipino
experience of American Colonial Education. (Martin, 2012)
The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “for purposes
of communication and instruction, the official language of the
Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law,
English.” This law is carried out through DECS Order No. 52
series 1987, also known as the Bilingual Education Policy
(henceforth BEP) of the Department of Education (henceforth
DepEd), which was first introduced in 1974 and then re-issued
with minor modifications in 1987. The BEP aims to develop
bilingual Filipinos competent in both English and the national
language. This BEP is the recognized language-in-education policy
that is still in place today in the education sector.
On 17 May 2003, President Arroyo issued EO No. 210, which
aimed to establish a policy to strengthen the use of English as a
2
medium of instruction because of the “need to develop the
aptitude, competence and proficiency of our students in the
English language to maintain and improve their competitive edge
in emerging and fast-growing local and international industries,
particularly in the area of Information and Communications
Technology.” (Arroyo, 2003)
In her 2006 SONA, Arroyo claimed success in the structural
reforms her government had implemented. She described having
coffee with a call centre agent as a touching experience: “I had
coffee with some call center agents last Labor Day. Lyn, a new
college graduate, told me, ‘Now I don’t have to leave the country
in order for me to help my family. Salamat po. (Thank you.)’ I
was so touched, Lyn, by your comments. With structural reforms,
we not only found jobs, but kept families intact.” (Arroyo, 2006)
Arroyo’s 2007 SONA had a more boastful tone when she
declared that the Philippines “ranks among top off-shoring hubs
in the world because of cost competitiveness and more importantly
our highly trainable, English proficient, IT-enabled management
and manpower” (Arroyo, 2007).
However, there is a widespread perception that English
language proficiency among the Filipinos is deteriorating.
Robert S. Keitel, Regional Employment Advisor of the United
3
States Embassy in Manila, reports that only four percent of
Filipino applicants are hired by call centers while the remaining
ninety-six percent were not because of their “sub-standard
English skills” despite 400,000 graduates being produced every
year. Keitel (2008) notes the “mismatch between the call centers’
expectations of applicants and the preparedness of graduates from
Philippine HEIs”, thus forcing call centers to collaborate
closely with colleges and universities higher education
institutions or HEIs. Keitel writes: It has been an evolution for
academe to recognize that call center employment is an
appropriate career opportunity for their graduates. Such
recognition has necessitated changes in the curriculum.
Initially, one reaction was, “we speak English already... are we
not one of the largest English speaking countries in the world?”
Yes, Filipinos speak English but it is a variety called Filipino
English, and it is not the international (global) English
required for call center employment. (Keitel, 2008)
Marcelo (2010) states that, it used to be that the
Philippines’ biggest competitive advantage in the global job
market is the proficiency of our skilled workers in the English
language. This advantage, however, is fast being eroded by rising
competition from other countries coupled with declining mastery
of the English language by our college graduates.
4
By these statements, it is rather important to stress out
the importance of the English language to schools in order to
enable college graduates to be globally competitive as they
venture the world of globalization. That is why; Saint Jude
Thaddeus Institute of Technology implemented an English speaking
policy on the school year 2010-2011 to make the institution a
training ground for language skill enhancement and to produce
globally competitive graduates.
The policy was proposed by the school president, Mr. George
M. Salabao and was implemented by the deans of the departments.
The way to learn and master of language is to use it – not
occasionally but regularly (Lorenzo & KC Shiota et.al., 2005). We
are in a world that is increasingly becoming competitive out
those who do not have core competencies or universally accepted
skills, not least on the aspect of language use. (Trailblaizer
et.al., 2001)
According to Eugene E. White, he stated that the law
proficiency performance of the students in the school evaluation
test, a failure which attribute largely to the students poor
English comprehension. In addition, White said through using the
language daily, the students acquire the skill almost
unconsciously, and definitely they can fashion their fluency to a
desired level over time.
5
It is clear that English Language Proficiency plays a
significant role in the cause of globalization among students.
Because of that, there is a need to pursue this study in order to
assess the Impact of the English Speaking Policy to the First
Year and Second Year College and Grades Seven and Eight Students
of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology for they are
observed to achieve lesser impact of the said policy.
Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to ascertain the Impact of the English
speaking policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology
(SJTIT) to the First Year and Second Year College and Grade Seven
and Eight High School Students of SJTIT, Surigao City.
To perceive a clear understanding of the problem, the
following inquiry was taken into account:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
A. High School Respondents
A1.1 Age ( ) 11 ( ) 12 ( ) 13 ( ) 14 ( ) 15
A1.2 Sex ( ) Male ( ) Female
A1.3 Language spoken at home
( ) Surigaonon ( ) Visaya
( ) Tagalog ( ) English
A1.4 Area of Residence ( ) Urban ( ) Rural
A1.5 Elementary school graduated from
6
( ) Public ( ) Private
A1.6 Grade Level
( ) Grade Seven ( ) Grade Eight
B. College Respondents
B1.1 Age ( ) 16 ( ) 17 ( ) 18 ( ) 19 ( ) 20-above
B1.2 Sex ( ) Male ( ) Female
B1.3 Language spoken at home
( ) Surigaonon ( ) Visaya
( ) Tagalog ( ) English
B1.4 Area of Residence ( ) Urban ( ) Rural
B1.5 High school graduated from ( ) Public ( ) Private
This theory supports the idea that English Speaking can
enhance the academic, social, and personal aspects of a student’s
life. This will also help the researcher evaluate the Impact of
the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology to the First Year College Students.
Conceptual Framework
Most researchers however, show clearly that the problem is
more likely the impact of the policy to the students.
When establishing English Only Policy, everyone must
consider the following mandate, rules and reminder (Beykont and
Crawford, et.al 1997)
9
1. Always speak and participate in English.
2. Speak sentences in English.
3. Remind your friends to speak English.
Accordingly, students should be aware of the limitation
placed upon English only policies and keep such in mind when
considering the use of an actual implementation of an English
only policy (Estrada, E.J. and Lopez L.M., 1992). The fact that
English is the most significant language in the world in terms of
Economics; it makes the most influential and most valuable form a
certain perspective (Navarro, R.A., 2005).
This study aims to determine the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology to
the First Year and Second Year College and Grade Seven and Grade
Eight High School students of the institution. This conceptual
framework served as a guide in this present study.
1. Profile of the respondentsA. HIGH SCHOOLA1.1 AgeA1.2 SexA1.3 Area of ResidenceA1.4 Language spoken at homeA1.5 Elementary School graduated fromA1.6 Grade levelB. COLLEGEB1.1 AgeB1.2 SexB1.3 Area of ResidenceB1.4 Language spoken at homeB1.5 High school graduated fromB1.6 Year levelB1.7 Course
2. Extent of the Impact of the English Speaking Policy as perceived by the First Year and Second Year and Grade Seven and Grade Eight Students2.1 Academic Performance2.2 Social Relations2.3 Personal Development
3. An Enhancement Program
10
Figure 1
Schematic Diagram of the Study
11
Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study was conducted among the First Year and Second
Year College students and Grade Seven and Grade Eight High School
Students of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology, enrolled
in the Academic Year and School Year 2014-2015. The study was
conducted on the second semester of the academic year 2014-2015.
Significance of the Study
The findings of this study would be beneficial to the
following:
School Administrators – The result of this study would help
them identify the strengths and weaknesses of the said policy. It
will also serve as a basis for the improvement of the guidelines
on the policy. This study would equip them to properly motivate
students to speak English inside and even outside the campus.
Faculty – The findings of this study would help them carry
out their responsibilities as molders of minds and properly teach
and encourage their students in speaking English.
Students – This study would enable them to be more attentive
to their responsibilities as students and be more aware of the
trends of globalization and work better towards being globally
competitive persons.
Parents – This study would help them assess the progress of
their children towards the proficiency in English. It would
12
awaken their consciousness of the English speaking policy imposed
by the institution.
Other researchers – this study would serve as a reference
and guide to those who will conduct future studies regarding the
impact of the English speaking policy.
Definition of Terms
To ensure better understanding in this study, the following
terms shall be defined conceptually and operationally:
Aptitude – the capacity of a person to do something well.
Bilingual education involves teaching academic content in
two languages, in a native and secondary language with varying
amounts of each language used in accordance with the program
model.
Communicative competence is a term in linguistics which
refers to a language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax,
morphology, phonology and the like, as well as social knowledge
about how and when to use utterances appropriately.
Competitive edge – the competitive advantages of a person.
Discourse competence - the knowledge/skill in making
connection of a series of utterances to form a unified whole both
in spoken and written language forms.
English proficient – a person skillful in the English
Year Level1. First Year 78 54.92. Second Year 64 45.1
Total Number of Respondents 142
Table 2 showed that there were 142 college respondents. 8 or
(5.6%) out of 142 were in the age 16 years old, 43 or (30.3%)
respondents were in the age 17 years old, 38 or (26.8%) of them
were in the age 18 years old, 35 or (24.6%) of them were in the
age 19 years old and 18 or (12.7%) of them were in the age 20
years old -above; As to sex, 59 or (41.5%) were males and 83 or
38
(58.5%) were females; As to the language spoken at home, 116 or
(81.7%) speak Surigaonon at home while 26 or (18.3%) speak
Visaya; As to the area of residence, 115 or (81%) lived in the
urban area, while 27 or(19%) lived in the rural are; As to the
high school graduated from, 125 or (88.0%) graduated from Public
High Schools while 17 or (12.0%) graduated from Private High
Schools. Furthermore, the table also showed that 21 or (14.8%) of
the respondents were taking BEED, 56 or (39.4%) were taking
BSCrim, 41 or (28.9%) were taking BSCA, 16 or (11.3%) were taking
BSBA, 6 or (4.2%) were taking BSIT, and 2 or (1.4%) were taking
BSED. And also, 78 or (54.9%) were First Year Students and 64 or
(45.1%) were Second Year Students.
Table 3 presents the mean distribution of the high school
respondents’ perception towards the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in
terms of their academic performance.
Table 3Mean Distribution of the High School Respondents’ Perception on the Impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus
Institute of Technology as to the Academic Performance
Academic Performance Mean Standard Deviation
Verbal Description
1. English Speaking improves vocabulary and grammar
4.00 0.87 Agree
2. Helps participate in any oral activities 3.56 0.73
Agree
39
3. English speaking policy enhances writing and listening skills
3.67 0.71Agree
4. Helps me get good grades 3.67 0.71 Agree5. Speaking English enables me
to understand other subjects with English as the medium of instruction
3.67 0.71
Agree
6. English speaking improves my performance in other subjects
4.00 0.71Agree
7. English speaking enables me to understand written outputs in English.
3.89 0.93Agree
8. English speaking helps me in presenting reports in English.
3.56 1.00Agree
9. I can convey my ideas before my classmates in English. 3.78 0.67
Agree
10. English Speaking helps in enhancing my language proficiency.
3.67 0.87Agree
Overall mean 3.74 Agree
As shown in table 3, Item 1, English Speaking improves
vocabulary and grammar, got a mean of 4.00 with a standard
deviation of 0.87, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 2,
Helps participate in any oral activities, got a mean of 3.56 with
a standard deviation of 0.73, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 3, English speaking policy enhances writing and listening
skills, got a mean of 3.67 with a standard deviation of 0.71,
with a verbal description of Agree. Item 4, Helps me get good
grades, got a mean of 3.67 with a standard deviation of 0.71,
with a verbal description of Agree. Item 5, Speaking English
enables me to understand other subjects with English as the
40
medium of instruction, got a mean of 3.67 with a standard
deviation of 0.71, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 6,
English speaking improves my performance in other subjects, got a
mean of 4.00 with a standard deviation of 0.71, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 7, English speaking enables me to
understand written outputs in English, got a mean of 3.89 with a
standard deviation of 0.93, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 8, English speaking helps me in presenting reports in
English, got a mean of 3.56 with a standard deviation of 1.00,
with a verbal description of Agree. Item 9, I can convey my ideas
before my classmates in English, got a mean of 3.78 with a
standard deviation of 0.67, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 10, English Speaking helps in enhancing my language
proficiency, got a mean of 3.67 with a standard deviation of
0.87, with a verbal description of Agree.
As a summary, Item 1, English Speaking improves vocabulary
and grammar, and item 6, English speaking improves my performance
in other subjects, got the highest mean of 4.00 with a standard
deviation of 0.87 and 0.71 respectively, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 2, Helps participate in any oral
activities, and item 8, English speaking helps me in presenting
reports in English, got the lowest mean of 3.56 with standard
deviation of 0.73 and 1.00, respectively.
41
The perception of the high school respondents about the
impact of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their academic
performance got an over-all mean of 3.74, with a verbal
description of Agree.
Table 4 presents the mean distribution of the perception of
the college respondents towards the impact of the English
Speaking Policy in terms of their academic performance.
Table 4Mean Distribution of the College Respondents’ Perception on the
Impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology as to the Academic Performance
Academic Performance Mean Standard Deviation
Verbal Description
1. English Speaking improves vocabulary and grammar 4.06 0.94
Agree
2. Helps participate in any oral activities 3.83 0.89
Agree
3. English speaking policy 3.86 0.99 Agree
42
enhances writing and listening skills
4. Helps me get good grades 3.81 1.07 Agree5. Speaking English enables me to
understand other subjects with English as the medium of instruction
4.01 0.88
Agree
6. English speaking improves my performance in other subjects 4.06 0.79
Agree
7. English speaking enables me to understand written outputs in English.
3.91 0.97Agree
8. English speaking helps me in presenting reports in English. 3.96 0.90
Agree
9. I can convey my ideas before my classmates in English. 3.73 0.81
Agree
10. English Speaking helps in enhancing my language proficiency.
4.13 0.89Agree
Over-all mean 3.67 Agree
As shown in table 4, Item 1, English Speaking improves
vocabulary and grammar, got a mean of 4.06 with a standard
deviation of 0.94, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 2,
Helps participate in any oral activities, got a mean of 3.83 with
a standard deviation of 0.89, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 3, English speaking policy enhances writing and listening
skills, got a mean of 3.86 with a standard deviation of 0.99,
with a verbal description of Agree. Item 4, Helps me get good
grades, got a mean of 3.81 with a standard deviation of 1.07,
with a verbal description of Agree. Item 5, Speaking English
enables me to understand other subjects with English as the
medium of instruction, got a mean of 4.01 with a standard
deviation of 0.88, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 6,
43
English speaking improves my performance in other subjects, got a
mean of 4.06 with a standard deviation of 0.79, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 7, English speaking enables me to
understand written outputs in English, got a mean of 3.89 with a
standard deviation of 0.97, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 8, English speaking helps me in presenting reports in
English, got a mean of 3.96 with a standard deviation of 0.90,
with a verbal description of Agree. Item 9, I can convey my ideas
before my classmates in English, got a mean of 3.73 with a
standard deviation of 0.81, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 10, English Speaking helps in enhancing my language
proficiency, got a mean of 4.13 with a standard deviation of
0.89, with a verbal description of Agree.
As a summary, Item 10, English Speaking helps in enhancing
my language proficiency, got the highest mean of 4.13 with a
standard deviation of 0.89, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 9, I can convey my ideas before my classmates in English,
got the lowest mean of 3.73 with a standard deviation of 0.81,
with a verbal description of Agree.
The perception of the college respondents about the impact
of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their academic
performance got an over-all mean of 3.69, with a verbal
description of Agree.
44
Table 5 presents the mean distribution of the high school
respondents about the impact of the English Speaking Policy of
St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in relation to their
social relations.
Table 5Mean Distribution of the High School Respondents’ Perception on the Impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus
Institute of Technology as to Social Relations
Social Relations Mean Std. Deviation
Verbal Description
1. Communicate to people both local and foreign 4.11 0.93
Agree
2. I can speak English in front of other people 3.78 0.67
Agree
3. Shares ideas to other people using the English language 3.67 0.71
Agree
45
4. Helps me to socialize better with other people 3.44 0.73
Agree
5. I can understand other people who speak English. 3.33 0.87
Moderately Agree
6. I can translate English language to Filipino or our regional dialect.
3.89 0.93Agree
7. I can help others who have difficulty in English speaking.
3.44 1.13Agree
8. Through English speaking I can make new friends and acquaintances.
3.44 0.88Agree
9. English speaking helps me understand concepts conveyed by other people.
3.44 0.73Agree
10. I can become a good acquaintance to other people. 4.11 1.05
Agree
Over-all mean 3.67 Agree
As shown in table 5, Item 1, Communicate to people both
local and foreign, got a mean of 4.11 with a standard deviation
of 0.93, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 2, I can speak
English in front of other people, got a mean of 3.78 with a
standard deviation of 0.67, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 3, Shares ideas to other people using the English language,
got a mean of 3.67 with a standard deviation of 0.71, with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 4, Helps me to socialize better
with other people, got a mean of 3.44 with a standard deviation
of 0.73, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 5, I can
understand other people who speak English, got a mean of 3.33
with a standard deviation of 0.87, with a verbal description of
Moderately Agree. Item 6, I can translate English language to
46
Filipino or our regional dialect, got a mean of 3.89 with a
standard deviation of 0.93, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 7, I can help others who have difficulty in English
speaking, got a mean of 3.44 with a standard deviation of 1.13,
with a verbal description of Agree. Item 8, Through English
speaking I can make new friends and acquaintances, got a mean of
3.44 with a standard deviation of 0.88, with a verbal description
of Agree. Item 9, English speaking helps me understand concepts
conveyed by other people, got a mean of 3.44 with a standard
deviation of 0.73, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 10, I
can become a good acquaintance to other people, got a mean of
4.11 with a standard deviation of 1.05, with a verbal description
of Agree.
As a summary, Item 10, I can become a good acquaintance to
other people, and item 1, Communicate to people both local and
foreign got the highest mean of 4.11 with a standard deviation of
1.05 and 0.93 respectively, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 5, I can understand other people who speak English, got the
lowest mean of 3.33 with a standard deviation of 0.87, with a
verbal description of Moderately Agree.
The perception of the high school respondents about the
impact of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their social
47
relations got an over-all mean of 3.67, with a verbal description
of Agree.
Table 6 presents the mean distribution of the college
respondents’ perception towards the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in
terms of their social relations.
Table 6Mean Distribution of the College Respondents’ Perception on the
Impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology as to Social RelationsSocial Relations Mean Std.
DeviationVerbal
Description1. Communicate to people both
local and foreign 3.91 0.98Agree
2. I can speak English in front of other people 3.66 0.99
Agree
3. Shares ideas to other people using the English language 3.86 0.86
Agree
4. Helps me to socialize better 3.77 0.96 Agree
48
with other people5. I can understand other people
who speak English. 3.79 1.16Agree
6. I can translate English language to Filipino or our regional dialect.
3.63 1.04 Agree
7. I can help others who have difficulty in English speaking.
3.48 1.07
Agree
8. Through English speaking I can make new friends and acquaintances.
3.36 1.00Moderately
Agree
9. English speaking helps me understand concepts conveyed by other people.
3.67 1.05Agree
10. I can become a good acquaintance to other people. 3.77 0.93
Agree
Over-all mean 3.69 Agree
As shown in table 6, Item 1, Communicate to people both
local and foreign, got a mean of 3.91 with a standard deviation
of 0.98, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 2, I can speak
English in front of other people, got a mean of 3.67 with a
standard deviation of 0.99, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 3, Shares ideas to other people using the English language,
got a mean of 3.86 with a standard deviation of 0.86, with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 4, Helps me to socialize better
with other people, got a mean of 3.77 with a standard deviation
of 0.96, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 5, I can
understand other people who speak English, got a mean of 3.79
with a standard deviation of 1.16, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 6, I can translate English language to Filipino or
49
our regional dialect, got a mean of 3.63 with a standard
deviation of 1.03, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 7, I
can help others who have difficulty in English speaking, got a
mean of 3.48 with a standard deviation of 1.08, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 8, Through English speaking I can make
new friends and acquaintances, got a mean of 3.36 with a standard
deviation of 1.00, with a verbal description of Moderately Agree.
Item 9, English speaking helps me understand concepts conveyed by
other people, got a mean of 3.68 with a standard deviation of
1.06, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 10, I can become a
good acquaintance to other people, got a mean of 3.77 with a
standard deviation of 0.96, with a verbal description of Agree.
As a summary, Item 1, Communicate to people both local and
foreign got the highest mean of 3.91 with a standard deviation of
0.98 and with a verbal description of Agree. Item 8, Through
English speaking I can make new friends and acquaintances, got
the lowest mean of 3.36 with a standard deviation of 1.00, with a
verbal description of Moderately Agree.
The perception of the college respondents about the impact
of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their social relations
got an over-all mean of 3.69, with a verbal description of Agree.
Table 7 presents the mean distribution of the high school
respondents’ perception about impact of the English Speaking
50
Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in terms of
their personal development.
Table 7Mean Distribution of the High School Respondents’ Perception on the Impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus
Institute of Technology as to Personal Development
Personal Development Mean Std. Deviation
Verbal Description
1. Speaking English develops my self confidence. 4.00 0.87
Agree
2. I can speak English without hesitation. 3.11 0.60
Moderately Agree
3. I don’t experience stage fright or resentment because of speaking English.
3.33 0.71Moderately
Agree
4. I can speak English with a neutralized accent. 2.88 0.33
Moderately Agree
5. English speaking helps develop 3.33 1.00 Moderately
51
my self-esteem. Agree6. English speaking helps me
become a better person. 3.44 1.01Agree
7. I can reflect on principles/norms that are spoken or written in English.
3.00 1.32Moderately
Agree
8. English speaking helps me study efficiently. 3.11 1.05
Moderately Agree
9. I can make my ideas organized through English. 3.44 0.73
Agree
10. English speaking develops my self-efficacy. 3.78 0.97
Agree
Over-all mean 3.34 Moderately Agree
As shown in table 7, Item 1, Speaking English develops my
self confidence, got a mean of 4.00 with a standard deviation of
0.87, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 2, I can speak
English without hesitation, got a mean of 3.11 with a standard
deviation of 0.60, with a verbal description of Moderately Agree.
Item 3, I don’t experience stage fright or resentment because of
speaking English, got a mean of 3.33 with a standard deviation of
0.71, with a verbal description of Moderately Agree. Item 4, I
can speak English with a neutralized accent, got a mean of 2.88
with a standard deviation of 0.33, with a verbal description of
Moderately Agree. Item 5, English speaking helps develop my self-
esteem, got a mean of 3.33 with a standard deviation of 1.00,
with a verbal description of Moderately Agree. Item 6, English
speaking helps me become a better person, got a mean of 3.44 with
a standard deviation of 1.01, with a verbal description of Agree.
52
Item 7, I can reflect on principles/norms that are spoken or
written in English, got a mean of 3.00 with a standard deviation
of 1.32, with a verbal description of Moderately Agree. Item 8,
English speaking helps me study efficiently, got a mean of 3.11
with a standard deviation of 1.05, with a verbal description of
Moderately Agree. Item 9, I can organize my ideas through
English, got a mean of 3.44 with a standard deviation of 0.73,
with a verbal description of Agree. Item 10, English speaking
develops my self-efficacy, got a mean of 3.78 with a standard
deviation of 0.97, with a verbal description of Agree.
As a summary, Item 1, Speaking English develops my self
confidence, got the highest mean of 4.00 with a standard
deviation of 0.87, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 4, I
can speak English with a neutralized accent, got the lowest mean
of 2.88 with a standard deviation of 0.33, with a verbal
description of Moderately Agree.
The perception of the high school respondents about the
impact of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their personal
development got an over-all mean of 3.34, with a verbal
description of Moderately Agree.
Table 8 presents the mean distribution of the perception of
the college respondents about the impact of the English Speaking
53
Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in terms of
their personal development.
Table 8Mean Distribution of the College Respondents’ Perception on the
Impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology as to Personal Development
Personal Development Mean Std. Deviation
Verbal Description
1. Speaking English develops my self confidence. 4.09 1.07
Agree
2. I can speak English without hesitation. 3.53 0.86
Agree
3. I don’t experience stage fright or resentment because of speaking English.
3.30 0.92Moderately
Agree
4. I can speak English with a neutralized accent. 3.45 0.86
Agree
5. English speaking helps develop 3.89 0.99 Agree
54
my self-esteem.6. English speaking helps me
become a better person. 3.95 0.98Agree
7. I can reflect on principles/norms that are spoken or written in English.
3.60 0.98Agree
8. English speaking helps me study efficiently. 3.65 1.03
Agree
9. I can make my ideas organized through English. 3.70 0.94
Agree
10. English speaking develops my self-efficacy. 3.91 0.87
Agree
Over-all mean 3.71 Agree
As shown in table 8, Item 1, Speaking English develops my
self confidence, got a mean of 4.09 with a standard deviation of
1.07, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 2, I can speak
English without hesitation, got a mean of 3.53 with a standard
deviation of 0.86, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 3, I
don’t experience stage fright or resentment because of speaking
English, got a mean of 3.30 with a standard deviation of 0.92,
with a verbal description of Moderately Agree. Item 4, I can
speak English with a neutralized accent, got a mean of 3.45 with
a standard deviation of 0.86, with a verbal description of Agree.
Item 5, English speaking helps develop my self-esteem, got a mean
of 3.89 with a standard deviation of 0.99, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 6, English speaking helps me become a
better person, got a mean of 3.95 with a standard deviation of
0.98, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 7, I can reflect
on principles/norms that are spoken or written in English, got a
55
mean of 3.60 with a standard deviation of 0.98, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 8, English speaking helps me study
efficiently, got a mean of 3.65 with a standard deviation of
1.03, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 9, I can organize
my ideas through English, got a mean of 3.70 with a standard
deviation of 0.94, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 10,
English speaking develops my self-efficacy, got a mean of 3.91
with a standard deviation of 0.87, with a verbal description of
Agree.
As a summary, Item 1, Speaking English develops my self
confidence, got the highest mean of 4.09 with a standard
deviation of 1.07, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 3, I
don’t experience stage fright or resentment because of speaking
English, got the lowest mean of 3.30 with a standard deviation of
0.92, with a verbal description of Moderately Agree.
The perception of the college respondents about the impact
of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their personal
development got an over-all mean of 3.71, with a verbal
description of Agree.
Table 9 presents the tests of significant difference of the
high school respondents towards the impact of the English
Speaking Policy when grouped according to age.
56
Table 9The Test of Significant Difference on the High SchoolRespondents Perception on the Impact of the English
Speaking Policy When Grouped According AgeDependent Variables
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
0.403 0.685 Accept Not Significant
Social Relations
1.022 0.415 Accept Not Significant
Personal Development
0.428 0.670 Accept Not Significant
*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to age, the
perception of the high school respondents about the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology in relation to their academic performance, social
relations, and personal development, the p values were 0.685,
0.415, and 0.670, respectively, led the researchers to accept the
null hypothesis. Thus, there is no significant difference on the
perception of the high school respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to age.
Table 10 presents the test of significant difference on the
perception of the high school respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to sex.
Table 10The Test of Significant Difference on the High SchoolRespondents Perception on the Impact of the English
Speaking Policy When Grouped According SexDependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
Academic 0.134 0.725 Accept Not
57
Performance SignificantSocial
Relations0.15 0.906 Accept Not
SignificantPersonal
Development1.288 0.294 Accept Not
Significant*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to sex, the high
school respondents’ perception on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in
terms of their academic performance, social relations, and
personal development, the p values were 0.725, 0.906, 0.294,
respectively, led the researchers to accept the null hypothesis.
Thus, there is no significant difference in the perception of the
high school respondents on the impact of the English Speaking
Policy when grouped according to sex.
As to the language spoken at home, the null hypothesis
cannot be tested because; the high school respondents only speak
one language at home which is Surigaonon.
Table 11 presents the test of significant difference on the
perception of the high school respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to area of
residence.
Table 11The Test of Significant Difference on the High SchoolRespondents Perception on the Impact of the English
Speaking Policy When Grouped According to theArea of Residence
Dependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
Academic 0.134 0.725 Accept Not
58
Performance SignificantSocial
Relations0.15 0.906 Accept Not
SignificantPersonal
Development1.288 0.294 Accept Not
Significant*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to the area of
residence, the high school respondents’ perception on the impact
of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology in terms of their academic performance, social
relations, and personal development, the p values were 0.725,
0.906, 0.294, respectively, led the researchers to accept the
null hypothesis. Hence, there is no significant difference in the
perception of the high school respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to the area of
residence.
Table 12 presents the test of significant difference on the
perception of the high school respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to the elementary
school graduated from
Table 12The Test of Significant Difference on the High SchoolRespondents Perception on the Impact of the English
Speaking Policy When Grouped According to theElementary School Graduated From
Dependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
0.040 0.874 Accept Not Significant
Social Relations
0.116 0.744 Accept Not Significant
Personal Development
0.305 0.598 Accept Not Significant
59
*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to elementary
school graduated from, the high school respondents’ perception on
the impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus
Institute of Technology in terms of their academic performance,
social relations, and personal development, the p values were
0.725, 0.906, 0.294, respectively, led the researchers to accept
the null hypothesis. Therefore, there is no significant
difference in the perception of the high school respondents on
the impact of the English Speaking Policy when grouped according
to elementary school graduated from.
Table 13 presents the test of significant difference on the
high school respondents’ perception on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy when grouped according to grade level.
Table 13The Test of Significant Difference on the High SchoolRespondents’ Perception on the Impact of the English
Speaking Policy when Grouped According To Grade Level
Dependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
0.134 0.725 Accept Not Significant
Social Relations
0.15 0.906 Accept Not Significant
Personal Development
1.288 0.294 Accept Not Significant
*significant at 0.05
60
When the respondents were grouped according to grade level,
the high school respondents’ perception on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology in terms of their academic performance, social
relations, and personal development, the p values were 0.847,
0.744, 0.598, respectively, led to acceptance of the null
hypothesis. Thus, there is no significant difference in the
perception of the high school respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to grade level.
Table 14 presents the test of significant difference of the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to age.
Table 14
The Test of Significant Difference on the CollegeRespondents Perception on the Impact Of The English Speaking Policy When
Grouped According To AgeDependent Variables
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
0.814 0.519 Accept Not Significant
Social Relations
1.638 0.168 Accept Not Significant
Personal Development
0.988 0.416 Accept NotSignificant
When the respondents were grouped according to age, the
perception of the college respondents about the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
61
Technology in relation to their academic performance, social
relations, and personal development, the p values were 0.519,
0.168, and 0.416, respectively, led the researchers to accept the
null hypothesis. Hence, there is no significant difference on the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to age.
Table 15 presents the test of significant difference of the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to sex.
Table 15The Test of Significant Difference on the High School
Respondents’ Perception on the Impact of theEnglish Speaking Policy When Grouped
According to SexAcademic
Performance1.367 0.244 Accept Not
SignificantSocial
Relations1.703 0.194 Accept Not
Significant Personal
Development1.667 0.199 Accept Not
Significant*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to sex, the
college respondents’ perception on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in
terms of their academic performance, social relations, and
62
personal development, the p values were 0.244, 0.194, 0.199,
respectively, led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis. Thus,
there is no significant difference in the perception of the
college respondents on the impact of the English Speaking Policy
when grouped according to sex.
Table 16 presents the test of significant difference of the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to language spoken at home.
Table 16The Test of Significant Difference of the Perception of theCollege Respondents on the Impact of the English SpeakingPolicy When Grouped According to Language Spoken at Home
*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to the language
spoken at home, the perception of the college respondents about
the impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus
Dependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
6.640 0.011 Reject Significant
Social Relations
5.878 0.017 Reject Significant
Personal Development
5.232 0.024 Reject Significant
63
Institute of Technology in terms of their academic performance,
social relations, and personal development, the p values were
0.011, 0.017, 0.024, respectively, led the researchers to reject
the null hypothesis. Thus there is a significant difference on
the college respondents’ perception about the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to the language
spoken at home.
Table 17 presents the test of significant difference of the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to area of residence.
Table 17The Test of Significant Difference on the College
Respondents’ Perception on the Impact of theEnglish Speaking Policy When Grouped
According to Area of ResidenceDependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
0.500 0.481 Accept Not Significant
Social Relations
0.924 0.338 Accept Not Significant
Personal Development
0.663 0.417 Accept Not Significant
*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to the area of
residence, the college respondents’ perception on the impact of
the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
64
Technology in terms of their academic performance, social
relations, and personal development, the p values were 0.481,
0.338, 0.417, respectively, led to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis. Thus, there is no significant difference in the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to the area of
residence.
Table 18 presents the test of significant difference of the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to the high school graduated
from.
Table 18The Test of Significant Difference on the College
Respondents’ Perception on the Impact of theEnglish Speaking Policy When Grouped
According to the High SchoolGraduated From
Dependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
2.170 0.143 Accept Not Significant
Social Relations
1.621 0.205 Accept Not Significant
PersonalDevelopment
0.412 0.522 Accept Not Significant
*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to high school
graduated from, the college respondents’ perception on the impact
of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
65
Technology in terms of their academic performance, social
relations, and personal development, the p values were 0.143,
0.205, 0.522, respectively, led the researchers to accept the
null hypothesis. Thus, there is no significant difference in the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to high school
graduated from.
Table 19 presents the test of significant difference of the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to course.
Table 19The Test of Significant Difference on the College
Respondents’ Perception on the Impact of theEnglish Speaking Policy When Grouped
According to Course Dependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
0.812 0.543 Accept Not Significant
Social Relations
1.422 0.220 Accept Not Significant
PersonalDevelopment
1.883 0.101 Accept Not Significant
*significant at 0.05
When the respondents were grouped according to course, the
college respondents’ perception on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in
66
terms of their academic performance, social relations, and
personal development, the p values were 0.543, 0.220, 0.101,
respectively, led to acceptance of the null hypothesis. Thus,
there is no significant difference in the perception of the
college respondents on the impact of the English Speaking Policy
when grouped according to course.
Table 20 presents the test of significant difference of the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to year level.
Table 20The Test of Significant Difference on the College
Respondents’ Perception on the Impact of theEnglish Speaking Policy When Grouped
According to the Year LevelDependent Variable
F p-value Decision on HO
Conclusion
AcademicPerformance
0.141 0.708 Accept Not Significant
Social Relations
0.126 0.723 Accept Not Significant
Personal Development
0.264 0.608 Accept Not Significant
When the respondents were grouped according to year level,
the college respondents’ perception on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in
terms of their academic performance, social relations, and
personal development, the p values were 0.708, 0.723, 0.608,
67
respectively, led the researchers to accept the null hypothesis.
Thus, there is no significant difference in the perception of the
college respondents on the impact of the English Speaking Policy
when grouped according to course.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the findings of the study. It also
drafts conclusions and recommendations based on the findings.
Summary
This study aimed to determine the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology to
the First Year and Second Year College and Grade Seven and Grade
Eight High School students of the institution.
To accomplish the goal of the study, the researchers made a
questionnaire to determine the perception of the chosen
respondents towards the impacts of the English Speaking Policy of
68
St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology. The first part of the
questionnaire was the profile of the respondents. The second part
was the research questionnaire which enumerates the impacts of
the English Speaking Policy in terms of their academic
performance, social relations and personal development. After the
formulation of the questionnaire which was validated by the
research experts, a survey was conducted to the sample, then the
data were collected and tallied.
To treat the data, the following methods were used:
Frequency Count and Percentage was used to analyze the profile of
the respondents. Arithmetic Mean and Standard Deviation was used
to analyze the perception of the respondents. Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether the respondents’
perception about the impacts of the English Speaking Policy is
affected by their demographic profiles.
Findings
The following are the findings of the research study.
1. Table 1 showed that there were 9 high school respondents. 3
or (33.3%) were in the age 13 years old, 5 or (55.6%) were
in the age 15 years old, 1 or(11.1%) was in the age 15 years
old; As to sex, 5 or (55.6%) were males and 4 or (44.4%)
were females. As to the language spoken at home, 9 or
(100.0%) speak Surigaonon at home. As to the area of
69
residence, 4 or (44.4%) lived in the urban area, while 5 or
(55.6%) lived in the rural area. As to the elementary school
graduated from, 5 or (55.6%) graduated in Public Elementary
Schools while or 4 or (44.4%) graduated in Private
Elementary Schools. Furthermore, the table also shows that 5
or (55.6%) of the respondents were Grade 7 while 4 or
(44.4%) of them were Grade 8.
2. Table 2 showed that there were 142 college respondents. 8 or
(5.6%) out of 142 were in the age 16 years old, 43 or
(30.3%) respondents were in the age 17 years old, 38 or
(26.8%) of them were in the age 18 years old, 35 or (24.6%)
of them were in the age 19 years old and 18 or (12.7%) of
them were in the age 20 years old -above; As to sex, 59 or
(41.5%) were males and 83 or (58.5%) were females; As to the
language spoken at home, 116 or (81.7%) speak Surigaonon at
home while 26 or (18.3%) speak Visaya; As to the area of
residence, 115 or (81%) lived in the urban area, while 27
or(19%) lived in the rural are; As to the high school
graduated from, 125 or (88.0%) graduated from Public High
Schools while 17 or (12.0%) graduated from Private High
Schools. Furthermore, the table also showed that 21 or
(14.8%) of the respondents were taking BEED, 56 or (39.4%)
were taking BSCrim, 41 or (28.9%) were taking BSCA, 16 or
(11.3%) were taking BSBA, 6 or (4.2%) were taking BSIT, and
70
2 or (1.4%) were taking BSED. And also, 78 or (54.9%) were
First Year Students and 64 or (45.1%) were Second Year
Students.
3. As shown in table 3, Item 1, English Speaking improves
vocabulary and grammar, got a mean of 4.00 with a standard
deviation of 0.87, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
2, Helps participate in any oral activities, got a mean of
3.56 with a standard deviation of 0.73, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 3, English speaking policy
enhances writing and listening skills, got a mean of 3.67
with a standard deviation of 0.71, with a verbal description
of Agree. Item 4, Helps me get good grades, got a mean of
3.67 with a standard deviation of 0.71, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 5, Speaking English enables me to
understand other subjects with English as the medium of
instruction, got a mean of 3.67 with a standard deviation of
0.71, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 6, English
speaking improves my performance in other subjects, got a
mean of 4.00 with a standard deviation of 0.71, with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 7, English speaking
enables me to understand written outputs in English, got a
mean of 3.89 with a standard deviation of 0.93, with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 8, English speaking helps
me in presenting reports in English, got a mean of 3.56 with
71
a standard deviation of 1.00, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 9, I can convey my ideas before my classmates in
English, got a mean of 3.78 with a standard deviation of
0.67, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 10, English
Speaking helps in enhancing my language proficiency, got a
mean of 3.67 with a standard deviation of 0.87, with a
verbal description of Agree. As a summary, Item 1, English
Speaking improves vocabulary and grammar, and item 6,
English speaking improves my performance in other subjects,
got the highest mean of 4.00 with a standard deviation of
0.87 and 0.71 respectively, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 2, Helps participate in any oral activities, and
item 8, English speaking helps me in presenting reports in
English, got the lowest mean of 3.56 with standard deviation
of 0.73 and 1.00,respectively. The perception of the high
school respondents about the impact of the English Speaking
Policy in terms of their academic performance got an over-
all mean of 3.74, with a verbal description of Agree.
4. As shown in table 4, Item 1, English Speaking improves
vocabulary and grammar, got a mean of 4.06 with a standard
deviation of 0.94, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
2, Helps participate in any oral activities, got a mean of
3.83 with a standard deviation of 0.89, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 3, English speaking policy
72
enhances writing and listening skills, got a mean of 3.86
with a standard deviation of 0.99, with a verbal description
of Agree. Item 4, Helps me get good grades, got a mean of
3.81 with a standard deviation of 1.07, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 5, Speaking English enables me to
understand other subjects with English as the medium of
instruction, got a mean of 4.01 with a standard deviation of
0.88, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 6, English
speaking improves my performance in other subjects, got a
mean of 4.06 with a standard deviation of 0.79, with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 7, English speaking
enables me to understand written outputs in English, got a
mean of 3.89 with a standard deviation of 0.97, with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 8, English speaking helps
me in presenting reports in English, got a mean of 3.96 with
a standard deviation of 0.90, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 9, I can convey my ideas before my classmates in
English, got a mean of 3.73 with a standard deviation of
0.81, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 10, English
Speaking helps in enhancing my language proficiency, got a
mean of 4.13 with a standard deviation of 0.89, with a
verbal description of Agree. As a summary, Item 10, English
Speaking helps in enhancing my language proficiency, got the
highest mean of 4.13 with a standard deviation of 0.89, with
73
a verbal description of Agree. Item 9, I can convey my ideas
before my classmates in English, got the lowest mean of 3.73
with a standard deviation of 0.81, with a verbal description
of Agree. The perception of the college respondents about
the impact of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their
academic performance got an over-all mean of 3.69, with a
verbal description of Agree.
5. As shown in table 5, Item 1, Communicate to people both
local and foreign, got a mean of 4.11 with a standard
deviation of 0.93, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
2, I can speak English in front of other people, got a mean
of 3.78 with a standard deviation of 0.67, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 3, Shares ideas to other people
using the English language, got a mean of 3.67 with a
standard deviation of 0.71, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 4, Helps me to socialize better with other
people, got a mean of 3.44 with a standard deviation of
0.73, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 5, I can
understand other people who speak English, got a mean of
3.33 with a standard deviation of 0.87, with a verbal
description of Moderately Agree. Item 6, I can translate
English language to Filipino or our regional dialect, got a
mean of 3.89 with a standard deviation of 0.93, with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 7, I can help others who
74
have difficulty in English speaking, got a mean of 3.44 with
a standard deviation of 1.13, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 8, Through English speaking I can make new
friends and acquaintances, got a mean of 3.44 with a
standard deviation of 0.88, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 9, English speaking helps me understand concepts
conveyed by other people, got a mean of 3.44 with a standard
deviation of 0.73, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
10, I can become a good acquaintance to other people, got a
mean of 4.11 with a standard deviation of 1.05, with a
verbal description of Agree. As a summary, Item 10, I can
become a good acquaintance to other people, and item 1,
Communicate to people both local and foreign got the highest
mean of 4.11 with a standard deviation of 1.05 and 0.93
respectively, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 5, I
can understand other people who speak English, got the
lowest mean of 3.33 with a standard deviation of 0.87, with
a verbal description of Moderately Agree. The perception of
the high school respondents about the impact of the English
Speaking Policy in terms of their social relations got an
over-all mean of 3.67, with a verbal description of Agree.
6. As shown in table 6, Item 1, Communicate to people both
local and foreign, got a mean of 3.91 with a standard
deviation of 0.98, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
75
2, I can speak English in front of other people, got a mean
of 3.67 with a standard deviation of 0.99, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 3, Shares ideas to other people
using the English language, got a mean of 3.86 with a
standard deviation of 0.86, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 4, Helps me to socialize better with other
people, got a mean of 3.77 with a standard deviation of
0.96, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 5, I can
understand other people who speak English, got a mean of
3.79 with a standard deviation of 1.16, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 6, I can translate English
language to Filipino or our regional dialect, got a mean of
3.63 with a standard deviation of 1.03, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 7, I can help others who have
difficulty in English speaking, got a mean of 3.48 with a
standard deviation of 1.08, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 8, Through English speaking I can make new
friends and acquaintances, got a mean of 3.36 with a
standard deviation of 1.00, with a verbal description of
Moderately Agree. Item 9, English speaking helps me
understand concepts conveyed by other people, got a mean of
3.68 with a standard deviation of 1.06, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 10, I can become a good
acquaintance to other people, got a mean of 3.77 with a
76
standard deviation of 0.96, with a verbal description of
Agree. As a summary, Item 1, Communicate to people both
local and foreign got the highest mean of 3.91 with a
standard deviation of 0.98 and with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 8, Through English speaking I can make new
friends and acquaintances, got the lowest mean of 3.36 with
a standard deviation of 1.00, with a verbal description of
Moderately Agree. The perception of the college respondents
about the impact of the English Speaking Policy in terms of
their social relations got an over-all mean of 3.69, with a
verbal description of Agree.
7. As shown in table 7, Item 1, Speaking English develops my
self confidence, got a mean of 4.00 with a standard
deviation of 0.87, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
2, I can speak English without hesitation, got a mean of
3.11 with a standard deviation of 0.60, with a verbal
description of Moderately Agree. Item 3, I don’t experience
stage fright or resentment because of speaking English, got
a mean of 3.33 with a standard deviation of 0.71, with a
verbal description of Moderately Agree. Item 4, I can speak
English with a neutralized accent, got a mean of 2.88 with a
standard deviation of 0.33, with a verbal description of
Moderately Agree. Item 5, English speaking helps develop my
self-esteem, got a mean of 3.33 with a standard deviation of
77
1.00, with a verbal description of Moderately Agree. Item 6,
English speaking helps me become a better person, got a mean
of 3.44 with a standard deviation of 1.01, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 7, I can reflect on
principles/norms that are spoken or written in English, got
a mean of 3.00 with a standard deviation of 1.32, with a
verbal description of Moderately Agree. Item 8, English
speaking helps me study efficiently, got a mean of 3.11 with
a standard deviation of 1.05, with a verbal description of
Moderately Agree. Item 9, I can organize my ideas through
English, got a mean of 3.44 with a standard deviation of
0.73, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 10, English
speaking develops my self-efficacy, got a mean of 3.78 with
a standard deviation of 0.97, with a verbal description of
Agree. As a summary, Item 1, Speaking English develops my
self confidence, got the highest mean of 4.00 with a
standard deviation of 0.87, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 4, I can speak English with a neutralized
accent, got the lowest mean of 2.88 with a standard
deviation of 0.33, with a verbal description of Moderately
Agree. The perception of the high school respondents about
the impact of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their
personal development got an over-all mean of 3.34, with a
verbal description of Moderately Agree.
78
8. As shown in table 8, Item 1, Speaking English develops my
self confidence, got a mean of 4.09 with a standard
deviation of 1.07, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
2, I can speak English without hesitation, got a mean of
3.53 with a standard deviation of 0.86, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 3, I don’t experience stage
fright or resentment because of speaking English, got a mean
of 3.30 with a standard deviation of 0.92, with a verbal
description of Moderately Agree. Item 4, I can speak English
with a neutralized accent, got a mean of 3.45 with a
standard deviation of 0.86, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 5, English speaking helps develop my self-
esteem, got a mean of 3.89 with a standard deviation of
0.99, with a verbal description of Agree. Item 6, English
speaking helps me become a better person, got a mean of 3.95
with a standard deviation of 0.98, with a verbal description
of Agree. Item 7, I can reflect on principles/norms that are
spoken or written in English, got a mean of 3.60 with a
standard deviation of 0.98, with a verbal description of
Agree. Item 8, English speaking helps me study efficiently,
got a mean of 3.65 with a standard deviation of 1.03, with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 9, I can organize my ideas
through English, got a mean of 3.70 with a standard
deviation of 0.94, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
79
10, English speaking develops my self-efficacy, got a mean
of 3.91 with a standard deviation of 0.87, with a verbal
description of Agree. As a summary, Item 1, Speaking English
develops my self confidence, got the highest mean of 4.09
with a standard deviation of 1.07, with a verbal description
of Agree. Item 3, I don’t experience stage fright or
resentment because of speaking English, got the lowest mean
of 3.30 with a standard deviation of 0.92, with a verbal
description of Moderately Agree. The perception of the
college respondents about the impact of the English Speaking
Policy in terms of their personal development got an over-
all mean of 3.71, with a verbal description of Agree.
9. As shown in table 9, when the respondents were grouped
according to age, the perception of the high school
respondents about the impact of the English Speaking Policy
of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in relation to
their academic performance, social relations, and personal
development, the p values were 0.685, 0.415, and 0.670,
respectively, led the researchers to accept the null
hypothesis. Thus, there is no significant difference on the
perception of the high school respondents on the impact of
the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute
of Technology when grouped according to age.
80
10. When the respondents were grouped according to sex, the
high school respondents’ perception on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology in terms of their academic performance, social
relations, and personal development, the p values were
0.725, 0.906, 0.294, respectively, led the researchers to
accept the null hypothesis. Thus, there is no significant
difference in the perception of the high school respondents
on the impact of the English Speaking Policy when grouped
according to sex.
11. As to the language spoken at home, the null hypothesis
cannot be tested because; the high school respondents only
speak one language at home which is Surigaonon.
12. As shown in table 11, when the respondents were grouped
according to the area of residence, the high school
respondents’ perception on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology
in terms of their academic performance, social relations,
and personal development, the p values were 0.725, 0.906,
0.294, respectively, led the researchers to accept the null
hypothesis. Hence, there is no significant difference in the
perception of the high school respondents on the impact of
the English Speaking Policy when grouped according to the
area of residence.
81
13. As shown in table 12, When the respondents were grouped
according to elementary school graduated from, the high
school respondents’ perception on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology
in terms of their academic performance, social relations,
and personal development, the p values were 0.725, 0.906,
0.294, respectively, led the researchers to accept the null
hypothesis. Therefore, there is no significant difference in
the perception of the high school respondents on the impact
of the English Speaking Policy when grouped according to
elementary school graduated from.
14. As shown in table 13, when the respondents were grouped
according to grade level, the high school respondents’
perception on the impact of the English Speaking Policy of
St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in terms of their
academic performance, social relations, and personal
development, the p values were 0.847, 0.744, 0.598,
respectively, led to acceptance of the null hypothesis.
Thus, there is no significant difference in the perception
of the high school respondents on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy when grouped according to grade level.
15. As shown in table 14, when the respondents were grouped
according to age, the perception of the college respondents
about the impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude
82
Thaddeus Institute of Technology in relation to their
academic performance, social relations, and personal
development, the p values were 0.519, 0.168, and 0.416,
respectively, led the researchers to accept the null
hypothesis. Hence, there is no significant difference on the
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of
Technology when grouped according to age.
16. As shown in table 15, when the respondents were grouped
according to sex, the college respondents’ perception on the
impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus
Institute of Technology in terms of their academic
performance, social relations, and personal development, the
p values were 0.244, 0.194, 0.199, respectively, led to the
acceptance of the null hypothesis. Thus, there is no
significant difference in the perception of the college
respondents on the impact of the English Speaking Policy
when grouped according to sex.
17. As shown in table 16, when the respondents were grouped
according to the language spoken at home, the perception of
the college respondents about the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology
in terms of their academic performance, social relations,
and personal development, the p values were 0.011, 0.017,
83
0.024, respectively, led the researchers to reject the null
hypothesis. Thus there is a significant difference on the
college respondents’ perception about the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to the
language spoken at home.
18. As shown in table 17, when the respondents were grouped
according to the area of residence, the college respondents’
perception on the impact of the English Speaking Policy of
St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology in terms of their
academic performance, social relations, and personal
development, the p values were 0.481, 0.338, 0.417,
respectively, led to the acceptance of the null hypothesis.
Thus, there is no significant difference in the perception
of the college respondents on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy when grouped according to the area of
residence.
19. As shown in table 18, when the respondents were grouped
according to high school graduated from, the college
respondents’ perception on the impact of the English
Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology
in terms of their academic performance, social relations,
and personal development, the p values were 0.143, 0.205,
0.522, respectively, led the researchers to accept the null
hypothesis. Thus, there is no significant difference in the
84
perception of the college respondents on the impact of the
English Speaking Policy when grouped according to high
school graduated from.
20. As shown in table 19, when the respondents were grouped
according to course, the college respondents’ perception on
the impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude
Thaddeus Institute of Technology in terms of their academic
performance, social relations, and personal development, the
p values were 0.543, 0.220, 0.101, respectively, led to
acceptance of the null hypothesis. Thus, there is no
significant difference in the perception of the college
respondents on the impact of the English Speaking Policy
when grouped according to course.
21. As shown in table 20, when the respondents were grouped
according to year level, the college respondents’ perception
on the impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude
Thaddeus Institute of Technology in terms of their academic
performance, social relations, and personal development, the
p values were 0.708, 0.723, 0.608, respectively, led the
researchers to accept the null hypothesis. Thus, there is no
significant difference in the perception of the college
respondents on the impact of the English Speaking Policy
when grouped according to course.
Conclusions
85
Based on the findings presented, the following conclusions
have been derived:
1. All or (100%) of the high school respondents speak
Surigaonon; Majority or (81.7%) of the College Respondents
speak Surigaonon.
2. As to the high school respondents’ academic performance,
Item 1, English Speaking improves vocabulary and grammar,
and item 6, English speaking improves my performance in
other subjects, got the highest mean of 4.00 with a standard
deviation of 0.87 and 0.71 respectively, with a verbal
description of Agree. Item 2, Helps participate in any oral
activities, and item 8, English speaking helps me in
presenting reports in English, got the lowest mean of 3.56
with standard deviation of 0.73 and 1.00, respectively. The
perception of the high school respondents about the impact
of the English Speaking Policy in terms of their academic
performance got an over-all mean of 3.74, with a verbal
description of Agree.
3. As to the college respondents’ academic performance, Item
10, English Speaking helps in enhancing my language
proficiency, got the highest mean of 4.13 with a standard
deviation of 0.89, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
9, I can convey my ideas before my classmates in English,
got the lowest mean of 3.73 with a standard deviation of
86
0.81, with a verbal description of Agree. The perception of
the college respondents about the impact of the English
Speaking Policy in terms of their academic performance got
an over-all mean of 3.69, with a verbal description of
Agree.
4. As to the high school respondents’ social relations, Item
10, I can become a good acquaintance to other people, and
item 1, Communicate to people both local and foreign got the
highest mean of 4.11 with a standard deviation of 1.05 and
0.93 respectively, with a verbal description of Agree. Item
5, I can understand other people who speak English, got the
lowest mean of 3.33 with a standard deviation of 0.87, with
a verbal description of Moderately Agree. The perception of
the high school respondents about the impact of the English
Speaking Policy in terms of their social relations got an
over-all mean of 3.67, with a verbal description of Agree.
5. As to the college respondents’ social relations, Item 1,
Communicate to people both local and foreign got the highest
mean of 3.91 with a standard deviation of 0.98 and with a
verbal description of Agree. Item 8, Through English
speaking I can make new friends and acquaintances, got the
lowest mean of 3.36 with a standard deviation of 1.00, with
a verbal description of Moderately Agree. The perception of
the college respondents about the impact of the English
87
Speaking Policy in terms of their social relations got an
over-all mean of 3.69, with a verbal description of Agree.
6. As to the high school respondents’ personal development,
English Speaking Policy has great impact in developing their
self confidence, while it has less impact in enabling them
to speak with a neutralized accent.
7. As to the college respondents’ personal development, Item 1,
Speaking English develops my self confidence, got the
highest mean of 4.00 with a standard deviation of 0.87, with
a verbal description of Agree. Item 4, I can speak English
with a neutralized accent, got the lowest mean of 2.88 with
a standard deviation of 0.33, with a verbal description of
Moderately Agree. The perception of the high school
respondents about the impact of the English Speaking Policy
in terms of their personal development got an over-all mean
of 3.34, with a verbal description of Moderately Agree.
8. As to the high school respondents’ age, sex, area of
residence, elementary school graduated from, and grade
level; the high school respondents have the same perception
on the impact of the English Speaking Policy.
9. As to the high school respondents’ language spoken at home,
the significant difference cannot be determined because the
high school respondents speak Surigaonon at home.
88
10. As to the college respondents’ perception on the impact
of the Englihs speaking policy when they are grouped
according to age, sex, area of residence, high school
graduated from, course, and year level, there is no
significant difference when the respondents are grouped
according to age, sex, area of residence, high school
graduated from, course, and year level
11. As to the college respondents’ perception when they are
grouped according to their language spoken at home, there is
a significant difference on the college respondents’
perception about the impact of the English Speaking Policy
when grouped according to the language spoken at home.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following
recommendations have been suggested.
1. As to the high school respondents’ academic performance, the
high school students are encouraged to speak English in
presenting reports, answers and the like.
2. As to the high school respondents’ academic performance,
teachers should encourage their students to speak English
during oral participation.
3. As to the college respondents’ academic performance, college
instructors should let the students convey their ideas in
English during class discussion.
89
4. As to the high school respondents’ social relations,
students are encouraged to read articles, books and other
reading materials to improve their vocabulary and grammar
skills, and view English movies so that the level of their
understanding of the English language would increase.
5. As to the college respondents’ social relations, when they
make new friends and acquaintances, students should speak
English in starting conversations.
6. As to the high school respondents’ personal development,
during reading activities, students are encouraged to read
aloud with proper pronunciation of words. They should mimic
audio materials that express proper pronunciation of English
words.
7. As to the college respondents’ personal development, events,
such as ECLP/English Week, which encourage students to speak
English, should be held occasionally. Students should have
the opportunity to join these events to expose them in
speaking in front of others.
Proposed Enhancement Program
This proposed Enhancement Program is designed to heighten
the impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus
Institute of Technology. This is recommended to the
administration, faculty and staff of the aforementioned
institution.
90
Rationale
The Enhancement Program on the English Speaking Policy of
St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology will help the
administration, faculty, and staff of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute
of Technology in terms of increasing the impact of the English
Speaking Policy to the students of the aforementioned
institution.
Objectives
This proposed Enhancement Program aims to:
1. Provide avenues for English Language proficiency among
students.
2. Promote English speaking inside the campus.
Plan Description
The Enhancement Program consists of the following
activities:
Designate students to act as monitors to have wider
scope of the policy implementation.
Conduct activities, such as ECLP/English Day/Week, to
promote English speaking.
Conduct film showing/reading activities to improve
vocabulary and grammar.
91
Evaluate current policy guidelines to ensure better
implementation.
Analyze the result of the enhancement program for more
improvements.
Evaluation
The proposed enhancement program will be evaluated in the
following year after its implementation. An instrument will be
used to assist its evaluation.
92
An Enhancement Program on the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology, Surigao City
Areas of
Concern
Objectives Strategy Responsible
Person
Resources
Designation of Student Monitors
To assign students to
act as monitors to implement the policy.
Evaluation and
Selection of
Student
Monitors
ELCP Director ELCP Director
Orientation of Student Monitors
To orient the
designated student
monitors of their
responsibi-lities.
Orientation/Seminar
ELCP Director ECLP Director
Weekly Film Showing/Reading Activity
To conduct weekly film showing/reading activeties to improve vocabu-lary and grammar.
Film Showing, Reading Booster,
Vocabulary Journal, Spelling Booster
English Instructors,
ECLP Instructors
English Instructors, ECLP Instructo
rs
Organization of Events that promote English Speaking
To organize events that promote English speaking
ECLP/English Day/Week
ECLP Director/Engli
sh Club Adviser
ECLP Director/English Club
Adviser
Student to student interaction for Learning
To promote student to student interaction
Peer Teaching English Instructors, Peer Tutor
English Instructors, Peer Tutor
93
English to learn the English language
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Isabel Pefianco Martin: Diffusion and directions: English language policy in the Philippines (2012)
Law
14th Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. 2008. An Act Establishing a Multi-lingual Education and Literacy Program (House Bill 3719)
.Online Sources
Arroyo, G. 2003. Establishing the Policy to Strengthen the Use of the English Language as a Medium of Instruction in the Educational System. Executive Order No. 210, 17 May 2003.<http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/index10.php?doctype=Executive+Orders&docid=a45475a11ec72b843d74959b60fd7bd645f73003691a4> (11 May 2011).
Periodicals and Journals
Arroyo, G. 2001. State of the Nation Address at the Opening of Congress, Batasang Pambansa, Quezon City on 23 July 2001.
Arroyo, G. 2006. State of the Nation Address at the Opening of Congress, Batasang Pambansa, Quezon City on 24 July 2006.
Arroyo, G. 2007. State of the Nation Address at the Opening of Congress, Batasang Pambansa, Quezon City on 23 July 2007.
Unpublished Works
Estioko, L. 1994. History of Education: A Filipino Perspective. Manila: Society of Divine Word.
94
Fernandez, D. 2009. he Red Carabao. In How, How the Carabao: Tales of Teaching English in the Philippines, I.P. Martin (ed), 21–24. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Schools.Gonzales, A. 1996. Language and nationalism in the Philippines: An update. In Readings in Philippine Sociolinguistics, M.L.S. Bautista (ed), 228–239. Manila: DLSU Press.
“APPENDIX A”
St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of TechnologySurigao City
February 17, 2015
MAYLONA B. PALENVice President for Academic AffairsThis Institution
Ma’am:
We are currently conducting the research study entitled “A Study on the Impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology As Perceived by the First Year and Second Year College and Grade Seven and Grade Eight High School Students of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology, Surigao City: A Basis for An Enhancement Program”.
In view of this, we would like to request your good office to allow us to administer our research questionnaires to the aforementioned respondents of the study.
Your approval will contribute to the accomplishment of this study. Thank you.
Respectfully,
DONNARD T. LASTIMOSAResearch Group Leader
Approved by:
95
MAYLONA B. PALENVice President for Academic Affairs
“APPENDIX B”Research Questionnaire
A Study on the Impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology As Perceived by the First Year
and Second Year College Students and Grade Seven and Grade Eight High School Students of St. Jude Thaddeus
Institute of Technology, Surigao City: A Basis for an Enhancement Program
I. Profile of the Respondents
Name: _____________________(optional)
Grade Level (High School): Year Level (College):( ) Grade Seven ( ) First Year( ) Grade Eight ( ) Second Year
Age(High School):
( ) 11 years old( ) 12 years old( ) 13 years old( ) 14 years old( ) 15 years old
Age (College):
( ) 16 years old( ) 17 years old( ) 18 years old( ) 19 years old( ) 20- above
IMPACT OF ENGLISH SPEAKING POLICY 5 4 3 2 1Academic Performance
11. English Speaking improves vocabulary and grammar12. Helps participate in any oral activities13. English speaking policy enhances writing and
listening skills14. Helps me get good grades15. Speaking English enables me to understand other
subjects with English as the medium of instruction
16. English speaking improves my performance in other subjects
17. English speaking enables me to understand written outputs in English.
18. English speaking helps me in presenting reports in English.
19. I can convey my ideas before my classmates in English.
20. English Speaking helps in enhancing my language proficiency.
Social Relations11. Communicate to people both local and foreign12. I can speak English in front of other people13. Shares ideas to other people using the English
language14. Helps me to socialize better with other people15. I can understand other people who speak English.
16. I can translate English language to Filipino or our regional dialect.
17. I can help others who have difficulty in English speaking.
97
18. Through English speaking I can make new friends and acquaintances.
19. English speaking helps me understand concepts conveyed by other people.
20. I can become a good acquaintance to other people.Personal Development
11. Speaking English develops my self confidence.12. I can speak English without hesitation.13. I don’t experience stage fright or resentment
because of speaking English.14. I can speak English with a neutralized accent.15. English speaking helps develop my self-esteem.16. English speaking helps me become a better person.
17. I can reflect on principles/norms that are spoken or written in English.
18. English speaking helps me study efficiently.19. I can make my ideas organized through English.20. English speaking develops my self-efficacy.
98
“APPENDIX C”
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
99
Proposed Enhancement Program
This proposed Enhancement Program is designed to heighten
the impact of the English Speaking Policy of St. Jude Thaddeus
Institute of Technology. This is recommended to the
administration, faculty and staff of the aforementioned
institution.
Rationale
The Enhancement Program on the English Speaking Policy of
St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology will help the
administration, faculty, and staff of St. Jude Thaddeus Institute
of Technology in terms of increasing the impact of the English
Speaking Policy to the students of the aforementioned
institution.
Objectives
This proposed Enhancement Program aims to:
1. Provide avenues for English Language proficiency among
students.
2. Promote English speaking inside the campus.
100
Plan Description
The Enhancement Program consists of the following
activities:
Designate students to act as monitors to have wider
scope of the policy implementation.
Conduct activities, such as ECLP/English Day/Week, to
promote English speaking.
Conduct film showing/reading activities to improve
vocabulary and grammar.
Evaluate current policy guidelines to ensure better
implementation.
Analyze the result of the enhancement program for more
improvements.
Evaluation
The proposed enhancement program will be evaluated in the
following year after its implementation. An instrument will be
used to assist its evaluation.
101
An Enhancement Program for the English Speaking Policy of St.Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology, Surigao City
Areas of
Concern
Objectives Strategy Responsible
Person
Resources
Designation of Student Monitors
To assign students to
act as monitors to implement the policy.
Evaluation and
Selection of
Student
Monitors
ELCP Director General Fund
Orientation of Student Monitors
To orient the
designated student
monitors of their
responsibi-lities.
Orientation/Seminar
ELCP Director General Fund
Weekly Film Showing/Reading Activity
To conduct weekly film showing/reading activeties to improve vocabu-lary and grammar.
Film Showing, Reading Booster,
Vocabulary Journal, Spelling Booster
English Instructors,
ECLP Instructors
General Fund
Organization of Events that promote English Speaking
To organize events that promote English speaking
ECLP/English Day/Week
ECLP Director/Engli
sh Club Adviser
General Fund
Student to student interaction for Learning English
To promote student to student interaction to learn the
Peer Teaching English Instructors, Peer Tutor
General Fund
102
English language
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME : DONNARD TIGBAS LASTIMOSA
DATE OF BIRTH : APRIL 16, 1994
PLACE OF BIRTH : SURIGAO PROVINCIAL HOSPITAL
ADDRESS : NAVARRO ST., SURIGAO CITY
FATHER’S NAME : JOEY A. LASTIMOSA
MOTHER’S NAME : ROSELYN T. LASTIMOSA
FATHER’S OCCUPATION : DANCE INSTRUCTOR
MOTHER’S OCCUPATION : PROFESSIONAL TEACHER
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
TERTIARY : ST. JUDE THADDEUS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SECONDARY : ST. JUDE THADDEUS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ELEMENTARY: MARIANO ESPINA MEMORIAL CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
103
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME : ANDRES S. MALUÑAS, JR.
DATE OF BIRTH :
PLACE OF BIRTH :
ADDRESS :
FATHER’S NAME :
MOTHER’S NAME :
FATHER’S OCCUPATION :
MOTHER’S OCCUPATION :
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
TERTIARY : ST. JUDE THADDEUS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY