Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

AGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

17 16 44.4
18 16 44.4
19 3 8.3
20 1 2.8
TOTAL 36 100

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Demographic Profile by AGE

As shown in Table 1, out of 36 respondents, there are 16 or 44.4% of the

students belong to age group 17 and 18 years old while 3 or 8.3% are in 19 years old

and the least is with 2.8% or only one (1) respondent is 20 years old.

GENDER FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

MALE 24 66.7
FEMALE 12 33.3
TOTAL 36 100

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Demographic Profile by GENDER

As shown in table 2, out of 36 respondents, there are 24 female or 66.7% while

12 (or 33.3%) are male.

FINAL AVERAGE IN OC FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

85-90 24 66.7
91-95 12 33.3
96-100 1 2.8
TOTAL 36 100

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Demographic Profile by FINAL

AVERAGE

As shown in Table 3, of 36 respondents, there are 24 or 66.7% of the students

belong to the average between 85 and 90 while 12 or 33.3% are in 91-95 and 2.8% or

one student belong 96-100 average.

As eloquently stated by Yu (2018), since the lingua franca of the academic world

is English, it’s only right to test one’s. proficiency in the language to gauge how well one

could keep up with the study load, class discussions, and examinations. Since

communication is at the very core of education, one must at least understand the

medium of instruction being used to be able to actually learn.

 DESCRIPTIVE
VARIABLE MEAN
INTERPRETATION
FLUENCY 2.5 POOR
PRONUNCIATION 2.8 POOR
VOCABULARY 2.4 POOR
GRAMMAR 2.5 POOR
SOMEWHAT
INTERACTION 3
PROFICIENT

Table 4. Mean Distribution on the Proficiency of the ICT students based on the

variables

Table 4 shows the mean distribution on the proficiency of the ICT students

based on the following variables; namely, fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar

and interaction. It shows that the ICT students get the lowest mean of 2.4 (with a

descriptive interpretation of poor), followed by the fluency and grammar that garnered a

mean of 2.5 (poor), while the ICT students garnered an average in pronunciation of 2.8

(poor). The ICT students garnered a mean of 3.0 (somewhat proficient) in interaction.

Therefore, most of the ICT students are poor in different variables which mention

above, only the interaction is somewhat proficient.

According to the study of Zagabe (2017), the teaching strategies and the use of

English in BPO in the Philippines empower Filipino Corporate Social Responsibility’s.

They can gain insights in coaching and training non-native English speaking CSRs. In

short, her study will contribute to existing literature on sociolinguistics, world

“Englishes,” call center training, and teaching English as a second language.

 SIG.
VARIABLE F. VALUE DECISION REMARKS
VALUE
NO
FLUENCY .631 .601 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE
NO
PRONUNCIATION .351 .789 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE
NO
VOCABULARY .842 .481 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE
NO
GRAMMAR .529 .666 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE
NO
INTERACTION 1.189 .330 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE

Table 5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showing the relationship of the variables to age

As shown in table 5, the fluency by age get the f. value of .631 and sig. value of

601, the pronunciation get the f. value of .351 and sig. value of .789, the vocabulary get

the f. value of .842 and sig. value of .481, the grammar get the f. value of .529 and sig.

value of .666 and the interaction get the f. value of 1.189 and sig. value of .330.

The decision is reject because the sig. value is greater than .05 and there is no

significant relationship between the age and the proficiency of the ICT students.

Therefore age is not a factor in the Oral English Proficiency of the ICT students.

As mentioned by Pellizzari and Billari (2012), who examined “the differences in

academic performance among students of different ages within the same cohorts”,

pointed out that youngest student academic performance was better than the oldest

students’ performance, and they related the factors of this difference to cognitive

capabilities and social activities

 SIG.
VARIABLE F. VALUE DECISION REMARKS
VALUE
NO
FLUENCY .080 .779 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE
NO
PRONUNCIATION .042 .840 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE
NO
VOCABULARY .169 .683 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE
NO
GRAMMAR .000 1.000 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE
NO
INTERACTION .000 1.000 REJECT
SIGNIFICANCE

Table 6. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showing the relationship of the variables to

gender

As shown in table 6, the fluency by gender get the f. value of .080 and sig. value

. of .779, the pronunciation get the f. value of .042 and sig. value of .840, the vocabulary

get the f. value of .169 and sig. value of .683, the grammar and the interaction get the

same f. value of .000 and sig. value of 1.000.

The decision is reject because the sig. value is greater than .05 and there is no

significant relationship between the age and the proficiency of the ICT students.

Therefore gender is not a factor in the Oral English Proficiency of the ICT students.

As eloquently stated by Olusiji (2018), several empirical studies on the effect of

gender difference on motivation to learn foreign language have been published.

Regarding learning of various languages, males have been found to be less motivated

(Kissau, 2006). Meanwhile, some of these surveys addressed the nature of motivation

and the reasons why female tends to be more motivated than their male counterpart.
 SIG.
VARIABLE F. VALUE DECISION REMARKS
VALUE
FLUENCY 3.456 .040 ACCEPT SIGNIFICANT
PRONUNCIATION 3.542 .040 ACCEPT SIGNIFICANT
VOCABULARY 4.819 .015 ACCEPT SIGNIFICANT
GRAMMAR 4.634 .017 ACCEPT SIGNIFICANT
INTERACTION 3.270 .051 ACCEPT SIGNIFICANT

Table 7. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showing the relationship of the variables to the

final average in OC subject

As shown in table 7, the fluency by age get the f. value of 3.456 and sig. value .

of .040 the pronunciation get the f. value of 3.542 and sig. value of .40, the vocabulary

get the f. value of 4.819 and sig. value of .015, the grammar get the f. value of 4.634

and sig. value of .017 and the interaction get the f. value of 3.270 and sig. value of .051.

The decision is accept because the sig. value is less than .05 and there is

significant relationship between the age and the proficiency of the ICT students.

Therefore average is t a factor in the Oral English Proficiency of the ICT students.

A similar study done by Çetin (2015) indicated that there was no relationship

between students’ GPA and academic motivation, as students’ scores are not always

an effective criterion/indicator to determine students’ academic achievement.