`RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION

People today are living in a world of complexities where human interactions boosted by

technological inventions are of utmost importance. Effective communication plays a vital role in

people’s lives. As a result, everyone is expected to have emphasized and well-defined

communication skills. This makes us unique and different from all other living creature. Through

communication, we can interact with each other, understand and cooperate.

Speaking in the mode of communication most often used to express opinions, making

arguments, offer explanations, transmit information, and make impressions upon others. Students

need to speak well in their personal lives, future workplace, social interactions, and political

endeavors. Carmichael, et al (2010) stressed that learning to speak is an important goal in itself,

for it equips students with a set of skills they can use for the rest of their lives.

The ability to speak well is still important in today’s society. In fact, Carmichael, et. al,

(2010) strongly emphasized that with the advent of the Internet and mass person-to-person

communication, grammar is more important now than perhaps ever before. Whenever you speak,

anywhere you are representing yourself with a collection of words and sentences. How people

view you is often based on how well those words and sentences are arranged. If you want to be

taken seriously, then you must make your messages as clean as possible.
 ABSTRACT

The study was designed to find out the speaking proficiency level of the Second Year

Education students of College of Education, Culture and Arts of St. Paul University Surigao. It

described the profile of the participants in terms of their area of specialization. It also aimed to

determine the speaking proficiency level of the second year education students as perceived by

the students themselves and validated by the teachers in terms of grammar, phonetics and

organization. The data were gathered through the use of a researcher-made questionnaire.

Statement of the Problem

This study determined the speaking proficiency level of the second year students of the

College of Education, Culture and Arts of St. Paul University Surigao.

Specifically, this sought to answer the following questions.

1. What is the participants’ level of proficiency in speaking English as perceived by the

teacher and students themselves according to:

1.1 phonetics;

1.2 grammar;

1.3 organization;

2. Is there a significant difference between the teacher and students participants in their

perception of the level of proficiency in speaking English?

 Schematic Diagram of the Acton Research

Participants:
SPEAKING
2nd year BEED& BSED
PROFICIENCY
students of the College of
LEVEL OF THE
Education, Culture and
STUDENTS
Arts.
• phonetics

• grammar

• organization

To ensure better understanding of this study, of the following terms are defined operationally:

Age. This refers to how old is each of the participants.

Sex. This refers to the sex of the participants whether they are male or female.

Phonetics.It is a scientific study of speech sounds and how they are produced. The system or

pattern of speech sounds in a language.

Grammar. This term refers to the appropriate use of the different parts of speech.

Organization.This refers to put together into an orderly, functional, structured whole.

Proficiency level. This refers to the classification of mastery of the command of English
language whether very proficient, proficient, less proficient and not proficient.
 Significance of the Action Research

The result would contribute to the existing body of knowledge in education in the area of English

specifically on speaking skills:

School Administrations. The result of the study would be useful and beneficial to the

administrators in generating awareness of different types of students with varying speaking

proficiency level. Furthermore, they would be guided by the results of this study and adopt the

prototype instruction plan in language subjects which help to improve the speaking proficiency

level of the students.

English Teachers. Knowing the outcome of the study, they would make positive steps to further

enhance the speaking proficiency level of their students. The findings in this study will also

guide the teachers what would they use in enhancing the speaking proficiency of his/her

students.

Students. After being aware of their speaking proficiency level, the product of this study will

motivate the students to further enhance their speaking ability using the instructional plan in oral

communication.

Researches. The study would give information to the future researchers if they would conduct

researchers that are related in this study.

Community. The findings of the study would motivate people to enhance their speaking

proficiency level. They will be able to equip themselves to be a good speaker.

 Scope and Limitation of the Action Research

The study focused on determining the perceived speaking proficiency level of the students in

terms of grammar, phonetics and organization. The participants of the study were the 2nd year

BEED&BSED students of the College of Education, Culture and Arts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Design

This study used the descriptive research design using the survey as the specific technique.

This was considered appropriate because the present endeavor investigated a present situation

particularly the speaking proficiency level of the 2nd year BEED&BSED students of the College

of Education, Culture and Arts.

Participants

Setting.The study was conducted at St. Paul University Surigao, Surigao City.

Participants. 2nd year students of the College of Education, Culture and Arts (SY. 2016-

2017).

English teachers of the participants.

 Table 1

Participants

Participants N

2nd year BSED&BSED students of the 20

College of Education, Culture and Arts

English teachers of the students’ 2

participants’

Total 22

Instrument

The researchers made used a researcher-made questionnaire as the tool of research in

gathering pertinent data. The questionnaire contains 30 items, 10 for phonetics, 10 for grammar

and 10 for organization. It has two copies; one is for the student participants and the other is for

the teacher participants.

Data Analysis

The following statistical tools were utilized in analyzing the data:

Mean and Standard Deviation. These were used to determine the mean of the participants’

perception in speaking proficiency level in terms of grammar, phonetics and organization.

Random Sampling. This was used in getting the number participants.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This was used to find out the significant difference in the level

of proficiency in speaking of the participants.

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2. Participants’ Perceived Speaking Proficiency Level as to Phonetics.

Indicators: The students speak Verbal Qualitative

M SD
Interpretation Description
1. With correct sentence stress. 3 0.45 Agree Proficient
2. With correct word stress. 3 0.55 Agree Proficient
3. With good voice. 3.3 0.56 Agree Proficient
4. With correct breathing: inhalation and
3 0.63 Agree Proficient
exhalation.
5. With correct pronunciation. 3.1 0.45 Agree Proficient
6. With correct juncture or pause. 3.2 0.6 Agree Proficient
7. With correct pitch and in intonation. 3 0.45 Agree Proficient
8. With correct phrasing. 3 0.71 Agree Proficient
Somehow
9. With correct blending. 2.6 0.66 Less proficient
disagree
10. With correct reduction
2.75 0.43 Agree Proficient
(omission of sound of the syllable)
Grand Mean 3.00 0.10 Agree Proficient

Indicators: The students speak

Verbal Qualitative
M SD
Interpretation Description
11. With appropriate use of nouns. 3.15 0.57 Agree Proficient

12. With appropriate use of pronouns 2.95 0.50 Agree Proficient

13. With appropriate use of adjectives. 3.2 0.6 Agree Proficient

14. With appropriate use of adverbs. 3.35 0.48 Agree Proficient

15. With appropriate use of conjunctions. 3.2 0.50 Agree Proficient

16. With appropriate use of prepositions. 3.1 0.62 Agree Proficient

17. With appropriate use of determiners. 3.1 0.62 Agree Proficient

18. With appropriate use of subject-verb Proficient

3.3 0.64 Agree
agreement.

19. With appropriate use of tenses of

3.05 0.50 Agree Proficient
verbs.
20. With appropriate use of sentence
3.15 0.48 Agree Proficient
structure.
Grand Mean 3.16 0.07 Agree Proficient
Table 3. Participants’ Perceived Speaking Proficiency Level as to Grammar.

Table 4. Participants’ Perceived Speaking Proficiency Level as to Organization.

Indicators: The students speak Verbal Qualitative
M STDEV
Interpretation Description
21. Providing an average of one piece of
3.15 0.48 Agree Proficient
information.
22. With introduction, body and conclusion
3.3 0.56 Agree Proficient
to explain my point.
23. Observing cohesion and coherence of
3.2 0.51 Agree Proficient
thoughts.
24. Presenting information in logical
3.15 0.36 Agree Proficient
sequence which the listener can follow.
25. Using appropriate connector to link
3.3 0.46 Agree Proficient
sentences.
26. Starting from particular to general then Somehow Less
2.8 0.68
back to particular. disagree Proficient
27. According to aspects, subtopics, or
3.1 0.83 Agree Proficient
topics.
28. Based on time sequence from past,
3.2 0.68 Agree Proficient
present and future.
29. Directly to the point. 3.3 0.64 Agree Proficient
30. With correct standard word order. 3.15 58 Agree Proficient
Grand Mean 3.17 0.14 Agree Proficient

Table 5. Student-participants’ Speaking Proficiency Level with regard to Phonetics as Validated

by the teacher-participants.

Indicators: The students speak Verbal

Qualitative
M STDEV Interpretatio
Description
n
1. My students speak English with
3 0 Agree Proficient
correct sentence stress.
 2. My students speak English with
3 0 Agree Proficient
correct word stress.
3. My students speak English with good
3 0 Agree Proficient
voice.
4. My students speak English with
Somehow
correct breathing: inhalation and 2.5 0.5 Proficient
disagree
exhalation.
5. My students speak English with
3 0 Agree Proficient
correct pronunciation.
6. My students speak English with Somehow
correct juncture or pause. 2.5 0.5 Proficient
disagree
7. My students speak English with Somehow Less
correct pitch and intonation. 2.5 0.5
disagree Proficient
8. My students speak English with Somehow Less
correct phrasing. 2.5 0.5
disagree Proficient
9. My students speak English with Somehow Less
2.5 0.5
correct blending. disagree proficient
10. My students speak English with
Somehow Less
correct The
Indicators: reduction
students speak 2 0 Verbal Qualitative
M disagree
STDEV Proficient
(omission of sound of the syllable) Interpretation Description
1. My students speak withGrand
appropriate
mean use
2.65 3.50.10 0.5 AgreeAgree Proficient
Proficient
of nouns.
2. My students speak with appropriate use
3 0 Agree Proficient
of pronouns.
3. My students speak with appropriate use
3 0 Agree Proficient
of adjectives.
4. My students speak with appropriate use Somehow Less
2.5 0.5
of adverbs. disagree Proficient
5. My students speak with appropriate use
3.5 0.5 Agree Proficient
of conjunctions.
6. My students speak with appropriate use Somehow Less
2 0
of prepositions. disagree Proficient
7. My students speak with appropriate use
3.5 0.5 Agree Proficient
of determiners.
Less
8. My students speak with appropriate use Somehow
2.5 0.5 Proficient
of subject-verb agreement. disagree

9. My students speak with appropriate use Somehow Less

2 0
of tenses of verbs. disagree Proficient
10. My students speak with appropriate use Somehow Less
2.5 0.5
of sentence structure. disagree Proficient
Somehow Less
Grand mean 2.8 0.26
disagree Proficient
Table 6. Student-participants’ Speaking Proficiency Level with regard to Grammar as Validated
by the teacher-participants.
Indicators: The students speak Verbal Qualitative
M SD
Interpretation Description
11. My students speak providing an average
3 0 Agree Proficient
of one piece of information.
12. My students speak with introduction, Somehow Less
2.5 0.5
body and conclusion to explain my point. disagree Proficient
13. My students speak observing cohesion
3 0 Agree Proficient
and coherence of thoughts.
14. I speak presenting information in logical Somehow Less
2.5 0.5
sequence which the listener can follow. disagree Proficient
15. My students speak using appropriate Somehow Less
2.5 0.5
connector to link sentences. disagree Proficient
16. My students speak starting from Somehow
particular to general then back to 3 0 Proficient
particular. disagree
17. My students speak according to aspects, Somehow Less
2.5 0.5
subtopics, or topics. disagree Proficient
18. My students speak based on time
3 0 Agree Proficient
sequence from past, present and future.
Somehow Less
19. My students speak directly to the point. 2.5 0.5
disagree Proficient
20. My students speak English with correct
3 0 Agree Proficient
standard word order.
Grand mean 2.75 0.26 Agree Proficient
Table 7. Student-participants’ Speaking Proficiency Level with regard to Organization as
Validated by the teacher-participants.
 Legend scale Parameters Verbal Interpretation Qualitative Description
4 3.25-4.00 Strongly Agree Very Proficient
3 2.50-3.24 Agree Proficient
2 1.75-2.49 Somehow Disagree Less Proficient
1 1.00-1.74 Disagree Not Proficient

Difference in the speaking proficiency level of the student’s participants as perceived by both
teachers and students

Table 8. Difference in the speaking proficiency level of the students’ participants as perceived by
both teachers and students

Mean Mean t-value p-value Decision

(Students) (Teachers)
Grammar 3.16 2.8
Phonetic 3.00 2.65
Organization 3.17 2.75

Mga kuyang:

Abstract

Table 8

Interpretation/Discussion

Conclusions and Reccomendations:

Findings

Conclusions

Recoomendations

Appendex A Questionnaire

Appendix B Letter

References