`

Implementation of DILIG Program: Basis for an Improved English Instruction

in Business Communication
Danalyn J. Dones* Gezelle G. Galan
Instructor III, English Instructor
North Eastern Mindanao State University-Lianga Campus
Lianga, Surigao del Sur
Email Address:
danalyndones@gmail.com, gezellegemao1120@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

This study aims to implement the DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically

Intermixed Groups) as a developed program for teaching English. Primarily, this

intends to determine the impact of the DILIG program on the student's writing skills in

terms of fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary to improve the

program. This study also aims to present the pre-and post-test results of the

students' performance scores before and after the implementation. It also ascertains

the significant difference between the pre-test and post-test results after utilizing the

program. Moreover, it ought to identify the validity of the developed program as

perceived by the English teacher experts regarding its content and usability. Lastly, it

desires to determine how it can be improved. The researcher used a descriptive

development, pre-test and post-test research design and utilized quantitative

methods.

Furthermore, it was conducted in the North Eastern Mindanao State

University – Lianga where there was a total of thirty first-year BSBA Kamayo and

twenty-five non-Kamayo students who are enrolled in the Business Communication

course, and five English experts gathered as respondents of the study through

purposive sampling. In addition, the researcher utilizes two types of instruments for

the study: the research-made instrument and the adapted questionnaire. The

findings revealed that students perceived that the developed program contributes
and plays an important role in improving their writing skills. It also appears that

there's a marginal increase in the student's performance after the conduct of the

program. The study concluded that there is a statistically significant difference

between the pre-test and post-test scores after implementing the program. In

addition, it reveals that the developed program utilized in this study meets and

passes that standard of validity, as perceived by the evaluators.

Keywords: Diverse Instruction for Language in Indigenous Groups program, Writing

Skills, Strategies in Teaching English for Diverse Learners.
 INTRODUCTION

The biggest obstacle for English language students and teachers is

multilingual classrooms. King (2017) states that learning another language when it

comes to proficiency in only one language is not enough for economic, societal, and

educational success. On that note, there are more than thousands of known living

languages across the globe, and most children grow up in an environment where

there is a diversity of the language spoken (Wisbey, 2017); thus, these countries

faced problems with intercommunication. Additionally, for a variety of reasons,

learning a second language in a multilingual environment can be more difficult than

learning a language in another setting. English may be perceived as an "intruder" in

the already established interaction system in multilingual contexts because of

established patterns of communication, especially among students. As a result of the

unequal relationships between different languages, literacy practices may appear to

be challenging, and contextual compromise in the use of standard language may

result in adaptation and language mixing (Asfaha & Kroon, 2018). Clegg and Afitska

(2018) demonstrate how the use of "creative bilingual techniques" was necessary to

promote communication between teachers and students inside classrooms due to a

lack of proficiency in a common language.

For learners in multilingual schools, intervention in English language

acquisition provides an additional language for communication and represents a vital

tool for achieving academic goals and subsequent social mobility. According to Wray

(2019), a solid understanding of language learning processes must coexist with

creating effective English teaching and learning initiatives to design methods for

successful performance in such target-language-separated situations. Mixing and

using different languages, code-switching, and the emerging use of dialect by some
children add to the language environment's diversity and the complexity of the

challenges the English teachers face.

Furthermore, teaching English as a foreign language is challenging in a

multicultural-multilingual setting. Thus, teachers must learn to adapt to students'

needs constantly. Many times, this means dealing with a variety of problems in the

classroom. And one of them is the students' writing skills, specifically in fluency,

appropriate content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary. According to Thomas

(2018), data consistently shows that non-native speakers of the English language

students on all levels score lower in writing than in any other domain. It is the last

domain of second language learning to develop fully. Becoming a proficient writer of

English is a problem for many students as they believe they simply cannot write

English. This feeling of incompetency leads students to self-doubt and anxiety in

writing and can hinder the process of achieving writing proficiency. Thus, a good

language teacher must be able to recognize these common problems and work to

find solutions. The teaching and learning processes can both benefit from even a

slight change in how lessons are delivered (Davis, 2019). Thus, teachers should

consider deliberating their strategies for the improvement of teaching in 21st-century

education.Teaching methods are the gateway to teaching and learning development

in education. As such, the teachers are the catalysts of change needed for the

advancements in education as well as improving the English language proficiency of

the students in the country. Effective teaching is only possible if teachers consider

the complexity of classroom teaching and learn to acquire strategies that will enable

them to assess and enhance the teaching-learning effectiveness continually.

This study aims to implement the DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically

Intermixed Groups) as a developed program for teaching English in a known

multicultural-multilingual region in the Philippines. The locale of the study, the

municipality of Lianga in the province of Surigao del Sur, is known to have multiple

languages and dialects just like the Surigaonon, which most of the population speak

with Jaun-Jaun, Cantilan (Kantilan), and Naturalis as its dialects. The others are

Kinamayo, Bisaya, and other ethnic languages (Dumanig, 2019). Moreover,

according to the Philippine Statistics Authority’s data (2020), the municipality

comprises 52.6% Kamayo, 26.3% Surigaonon, 16.3% Bisaya/Binisaya, 12.9%

Cebuano, 4.8% Boholano and 13.1% who belonged to other ethnic groups. The

diversity in the locale is very evident, with the Kamayo in Lianga and the non-

Kamayo who are speaking other dialects such as Inilonggo, Waray, and Minanobo.

Teaching a language unknown to these diverse populations is seen as an immense

difficulty. As an English language instructor, the researcher sees this difficulty as to

why she intended to develop a program that will not just ease her teaching but also

help her students learn efficiently.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to implement the DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically

Intermixed Groups) as a developed program for teaching English to the BSBA

students of NEMSU-Lianga, Surigao Del Sur as the subject of this study. It is a one-

week activity, with a pre-test to be conducted prior to the implementation of the

Program, and the post-test after the last day of the writing activities.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A primary goal of university educators of foreign languages is to provide the

tools and practice for students to attain sufficient foreign language proficiency to

communicate effectively. The acquisition of the English language is strongly

influenced by education. According to Patil (2019), teaching English involves more

than just passing along the information to the students; it also involves helping them

develop fluency in speaking, reading, and writing.

Strategies for Teaching for Linguistically Intermixed Learners

The biggest challenge for English language teachers and students is

multilingual classrooms. Learning another language as stated by King (2017) when it

comes to proficiency in only one language is not enough for economic, societal, and

educational success. Global interdependence and mass communication often

require the ability to function in more than one language. A person’s language

depends upon the extent to which the respective interlocutor is familiar with each

other’s language. In addition, a person’s language choice may be affected to a large

extent by his degree of proficiency in more than one language.

On that note, some authors discussed some of the teaching strategies used in

teaching English in a multicultural setting. First discussed is the sociocultural

learning theory in language development. Languages are acquired through social

interaction, and language learning, therefore, requires collaboration. If

communication is effective, it will result in useful co-constructed knowledge. What is

communicated should not be too far removed from the level of the language learner.

Hence, learning is thought to occur when an individual interacts with an interlocutor

within his/her Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), through scaffolding either from
the teacher or students to each other (Lightbown & Spada, 2019). The sociocultural

approach helps students learn the target language skills in a social context.

However, the teacher needs to fully understand the role of language in

communication, which is to express and share ideas, thoughts, and feelings, thus

enabling learners to be part of a speech community. The communicative approach is

one of the methods directly connected with the sociocultural development theory,

and it emphasizes the function rather than the form of the language. The main aim of

this approach is to engage learners in active communication and thus allow them to

develop their communicative competence.

Writing Skills of Students

Writing is such a complex skill (Badayos, 2018); thus, an individual

needs necessary competencies to effective writing to come up with an

acceptable output. Basics to writing are adherence to the ‘writing

mechanics’, including writing form, spelling, punctuation, and writing

conventions. The said basics of writing will serve as an important

foundation for learners in effective written communication. Upon

graduation at the elementary level, learners are expected to write

properly and with some creativity. Specifically, learners should have

acquired the following writing competencies: (1) writing in cursive; (2)

with correct forms and shapes of letters; (3) correct capitalization of

letters; (4) correct punctuations; (5) and correct indentions and margins.

All these competencies are clearly stated in the 2002 Basic Education

Curriculum of the elementary years. Through these skills, learners can

use written communication effectively and prepare themselves for the

more complex forms of writing in the higher levels of the education

ladder.

Badayos enumerated relevant premises that teachers can reflect

on in developing effective writing skills among learners, and these are

the following: (1) learners will only learn how to write well by reading

good articles; (2) learners will only learn how to write well if they have

enough time to write in and out of the classroom; (3) learners will only

learn how to write well if they see that their teachers themselves write

well; (4) learners will only learn how to write well if their teachers are

creative and critical in assessing learner’s write up; (5) learners will only

learn how to write well if they are not afraid to commit writing mistakes,

and (6) learners will only learn how to write well if they realized that ‘to

read is to write’ and ‘to write to discover effective writing.’

As mentioned above, the use of strategies is seen as a way to

overcome language-learning challenges where the need for language

proficiency is vital. In this section, these strategies were supported by

foreign-related studies to further explain the topic. In order to study

English, students may utilize tactics either consciously or unintentionally.

The strategies used by students can be categorized as individual-level

strategies such as comprehension tactics, keeping vocabulary

notebooks, and using dictionaries, and group-level strategies which

include working in groups, peer teaching, role-play, group translations,

and group work games.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

According to Wray, D. (2019) A solid understanding of language learning

processes must coexist with the creation of effective English teaching and learning

initiatives in order to design methods for successful performance in such target-

language-separated situations. Mixing and use of different languages, code-

switching, and the emerging use of patois by some children add to the diversity of

the language environment and to the complexity of the challenges faced by the

English teachers. Accordingly, the BSBA students of North Eastern Mindanao State

University (NEMSU) -Lianga Campus are diverse when it comes to spoken dialects.

There are students who use Kinamayo in San Agustin’s accent and Kinamayo in

Lianga. Some students use Minanobo, Waray, Surigaonon, and Inilonggo dialects

however the researcher limits the study to NEMSU-Lianga campus’ BSBA 1 st year

students with Kinamayo and non-Kinamayo dialect who are enrolled in the Business

Communication course. Thus, students appear to have problems in sentence

construction which focuses on grammar, analyzing questions written and spoken in

English, and using the language in written communication. For them, English is an

intruder in their established interaction system and patterns of communication using

their first language, consequently, the DILIG Program which stands for (Diverse

Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups) is of help and a gateway to teaching

and learning development in an English classroom among the BSBA students for it
provides diverse activities and strategies where they will be introduced to varied

instructions as well as materials for every topic to be discussed.

The DILIG Program is a one-week activity. The pre-test will be conducted

prior to the implementation of the DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically

Intermixed Groups ) Program, then the post-test will be done after the last day of the

writing activities. The program consists of 2 activities each day for the selected first-

year Kamayo and Non-Kamayo students of BSBA in the iEng1 (Business

Communication) course. The program also focuses on the least learned competency

in the subject which is Revising and Proofreading Business Messages.

 Developing DILIG
(Diverse Instruction for
Linguistically
Intermixed Groups)
and an Action Plan
 Implementation of
the DILIG Program
 Perceived impact of
the DILIG Program in
the writing skills of the
students in terms of:
o Fluency
o Content
o Conventions
o Syntax
o Vocabulary
 Pre- and post-test
results of the students Improved DILIG
before and after using Program
the DILIG Program
 Validity of the
developed program as
perceived by the
English teacher-experts
in terms of:
o Content; and
o Usability
 Data Analysis
 Data Interpretation
 Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Study

This shows the study's conceptual framework wherein the study and its

conduct will revolve around achieving its proposed output. The researcher uses the

Input-Process-Output type paradigm in order for the researcher to illustrate the

framework of the study clearly. The input involves the development of DILIG (Diverse

Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups), an action plan, and its

implementation.

The process of this study shall be the conduct procedures of this study which

are the perceived impact of the DILIG program on the writing skills of the students in

terms of fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary, the pre-and post-

test results of the students before and after using the DILIG program, the validity of

the developed program as perceived by English teacher-experts in terms of content

and usability, the data analysis after gathering the data needed for the study and the

data interpretation.

The output of this study shall be the implications of the results of its input and

process which is the improvement of the DILIG program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The researcher used quantitative research methods with descriptive-

developmental and pretest and posttest research designs. The study utilizes

quantitative methods because it will allow the researcher to measure the

effectiveness of the Diverse Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups (DILIG)

program in the writing skills of respondents and measure the validity of this program

using survey questionnaires. Specifically, the descriptive-developmental research

design was used in evaluating the validity of the DILIG program to make a

corresponding result to meet the level of acceptability and determine the perceived

impact of the DILIG Program on the writing skills of the students. Moreover, the

researcher patterned the DILIG Instructional materials to the ADDIE Model

Instructional Design.

As stated by Cheung L (2016), the purpose of an instructional design model is

to help educators ensure that they are teaching the appropriate material in an

optimal manner and provide both an appropriate destination and the right road to get

you there. One such paradigm for instructional design is the ADDIE model. In a

variety of sectors, including library instruction and online continuing education, it has

been utilized to create curricula. This paradigm has three phases: analysis,

design, development, implementation, and evaluating.

The pretest and posttest design according to APA (2023) is commonly known

as pretest–posttest control-group design where participants are purposely assigned

to a treatment group or a control group. The presence of the control group allowed

the researcher to identify any pre-existing disparities between the groups of data and

thus attribute differences more definitely between the pre-and post-test scores to the

treatment of interest. This design allowed the researcher to measure the

respondents’ writing skills before and after the integration of the Diverse Instruction

for Linguistically Intermixed Groups (DILIG) program.

Research Locale

The study will be conducted in North Eastern Mindanao State University-

Lianga Campus also known as NEMSU. The university is in the province of Surigao

del Sur. The researcher chooses to conduct the study on the campus where she
teaches, considering that the NEMSU campus has various campuses in the towns of

the province. The Lianga campus also offers courses in college wherein its students

are

composed of different ethnic dialects and have English teacher experts. The

researcher believed that the data and situation in this institution can sustain the

requirements of the study in developing an improved instructional English program

for Indigenous Groups of students.

Figure 2. Location of the Study

Research Respondents

The researcher limits the study to NEMSU-Lianga campus’ BSBA 1 st year

students with Kinamayo and non-Kinamayo dialects who are enrolled in the

Business Communication course in the second semester of A.Y. 2022-2023 and five

(5) English experts. The first respondents are local ethnic learners in the said
university. To particularly gather the respondents, the researcher utilized purposive

sampling through a criterion provided of which in accordance with the students’

Purposive communication grades. There is a total of 242 BSBA 1 st year students

from the NEMSU-Lianga campus. As a result, a total of thirty (30) respondents which

are the students using the Kinamayo and (25) Non-Kinamayo dialects participated in

the conduct of the study. According to Gay & Diehl, (1992), generally, the number of

respondents acceptable for a study depends upon the type of research involved -

descriptive, correlational, or experimental. For descriptive research, the sample

should be 10% of the population.

The second respondents are five (5) English experts in the NEMSU-Lianga

campus who have passed the criteria as follows: (1) English major in the said

campus, (2) have at least cater 5 years in service as an English major teacher, (3)

are willing to evaluate the content and usability of the DILIG program.
 Table 1.
Description of Respondents

POPULATION
SECTION KAMAYO NON-KAMAYO

Ilonggo 1
Waray 2
FMIA 50 6
Bisaya 41
Total: 44
Waray 3
Manobo 3
FM1B 50 8 Surigaonon 2
Bisaya 34
Total: 42

Surigaonon 1

FM1C 47 6 Bisaya 40

Total: 41

Manobo 2
Waray 1
FM1D 52 6
Bisaya 43
Total: 46
Surigaonon 2
Manobo 1
FM1F 43 4
Bisaya 36

Total: 39

Total 242 30 212

Research Instruments

This research has utilized two types of instrument for the study which is the

research-made instrument and the adapted questionnaire with four parts. This

research conducted an extensive reading about the variables for the development of
the questionnaires. In addition, it sourced the internet to collect relevant ideas,

concepts, and information from related theories and literature related to the study

that served as the basis of the questionnaire.

The first part of the questionnaire is a researcher-made instrument that

answers the perceived impact of the DILIG Program on the writing skills of the

students. This questionnaire was patterned from Isaacson’s (1984), concept models

of writing which are fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary. It uses a

5-point Likert scale namely: (1) strongly disagree; (2) disagree; (3) neither agree nor

disagree; (4) agree; (5) strongly agree.

The second and third part of the questionnaire is a researcher-made pre-test

and post-test which is utilized before and after using the DILIG program. The set of

questions written in this is from the least learned competencies of BSBA 1 st year

students in the Business Communication course which is the competency about

revising and proofreading business messages. The questionnaire consists of both

subjective and objective questions.

The fourth or last part of the questionnaire is an adapted questionnaire from

two sources. The first source is Enclosure 2, DepEd Memorandum 225, series 2009

and Baja M. 2018 for evaluating the usability of the DILIG program utilized a 5-Point

Likert scale namely: (5) excellent; (4) very satisfactory; (3) satisfactory (meets

standards); (2) fairly satisfactory; (1) inadequate (did not meet standards). The

second source is a study by Geolina A., 2017 and Lozada, 2017 for evaluating the

content of the DILIG program. It also utilized a 5-point Likert scale namely: (5)

strongly agree; (4) agree; (3) neutral; (2) disagree; (1) strongly disagree.

The pilot testing was conducted through perusal validation wherein five (3)

Doctorate levels will validate the instrument. The validation for the validity and
reliability of the instrument is done to determine its compatibility and the reliability of

information influenced by the study before disseminating the instrument to the

respondents.

Data Gathering Procedure

Figure 3. Procedure Workflow

A. Pre-assessment: The BSBA 1st year- Kamayo and non-Kamayo students

had a pre-test about the least learned competencies in business

communication which is Revising and Proofreading Business Messages

before the conduct of the program. The test consists of objective and

subjective type of questions to measure their prior knowledge and writing

 skills. The paper then was checked by the researcher manually to get the test

scores for comparison later.

B. Learning Phase: This phase is the DILIG program implementation phase,

where topics about revising and proofreading business messages were

tackled. There was an English speaker that helped create strategies and other

forms of writing skill enhancement that will be presented during the program.

C. Debriefing: This takes place during the talk of a speaker wherein students

comprehend the discussions on the topics presented and test out their extent

of learning by following strategies and tips from the speaker.

D. Presentation: This is the audience's participation in the activities provided in

the program. Where they have accumulated enough information and have

adopted new strategies and learned to apply them.

a. Activity 1: The participant will be grouped into 5 groups. Each

representative from the group will write a short message on the wall

using their dialect and will recite it afterward. In two minutes, the

message they have written will be translated into English. All members

of the group will translate the message individually. The first to submit

the text will be given prizes.

b. Activity 2: The participants will be randomly grouped into 5. They will

stay in the train station that corresponds to their group while they

prepare to move to another. Every station has instructions as to what

the participants are going to do before they write the business

messages. The instructions are translated into the dialects that the

participants utilize. Any member from the group who finishes in the

first station will receive a ticket and can proceed to the next station until
 he finishes writing all the business messages instructed in the

remaining stations. The group or anyone from the group shall manage

to write the business message in 7 minutes, if fails to do it in a given

time, the group or anyone from the group cannot proceed to the next

station until it’s finished. Though this is a group activity, the output is

still done individually.

c. Activity 3: In this portion, the students are going to wrap up what they

have learned in the topic discussed by the speaker and with the

activities they have done. Their answers should be written in at least 5

sentences. They shall manage to answer in 5 minutes.

E. Posttest: The BSBA 1st year students had a post-assessment after the

implementation of the DILIG program, a duplication of the pre-assessment

questions was distributed to the last participants. The test still consists of

objective and subjective type of questions. There will then be checked by the

researcher manually to get the test scores for comparison from the pretest

score.

This post-test was then followed by a survey questionnaire that shall be

distributed to the respondents to determine the perceived impact of the DILIG

Program on their writing skills in terms of fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and

vocabulary after several days from the program.

After the conducted program, the researcher then submitted the narrative

report of the DILIG program to five (5) English experts to evaluate the validity of the

program in terms of its content and usability using an adapted questionnaire. After all
 the questionnaires were retrieved, they will be submitted to the office of the

Statistician for treatment of data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2.
Kamayo Students’ Performance Before and After Using the DILIG
Program
Score Verbal Pre-Test Post-Test
(in %) Interpretation Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
33 and Did Not Meet 2 6.67 3 10
below Expectations
Fairly 28 93.33 20 66.67
34 to 66
Satisfactory
67 to 0 0 7 23.33
Outstanding
100
TOTAL 30 100 30 100
Pre-Test: M=14.73 (Did Not Meet Expectation) SD=3.32
Post-Test: M=17.23 (Did Not Meet Expectation) SD=4.59

Table 2 summarizes the students’ performance before and after

using the DILIG program. The table shows that in the pre-test, none

among the thirty students achieved an outstanding performance prior to

the utilization of the said program. Meanwhile, there are two (6.67%)

students obtained a score that falls under did not meet expectations,

followed by twenty-eight (93.33%) students who got a fairly satisfactory

score. Furthermore, in the post-test, it appears that the majority of

students’ scores fall under the category fairly satisfactory with a twenty

total frequency (66.67%) which populates more than half of the

respondents. Following this, there are seven (23.33%) students got

outstanding performance scores, and only three (10%) students fall

under did not meet the expectation. Based on these results it appears

that there’s a marginal increase in the student’s performance after the

utilization of the DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed

Groups) program. Nonetheless, both mean scores of the pre-test and

post-test fall under fairly satisfactory implying that the mentioned

developed program in teaching English has improved the writing skills of

the BSBA students to some extent.

Table 3.
Non-Kamayo Students’ Performance Before and After Using the
DILIG Program
Scor Pre-Test Post-Test
Verbal
e
Interpretatio Frequenc Percentag Frequenc Percentag
(in
n y e y e
%)
33 7 28 1 4
Did Not Meet
and
Expectations
below
34 to Fairly 18 72 20 80
66 Satisfactory
67 to 0 0 4 16
Outstanding
100
TOTAL 25 100 25 100
Pre-Test: M=13.36 (Fairly) SD=3.32
Post-Test: M=17.08 (Fairly) SD=3.796

Table 3 exhibits the students’ performance score summary before

and after the utilization of the Diverse Instruction for Linguistically

Intermixed Groups program. It can be gleaned from the pre-test that

none among the twenty-five non-kinamayo speaking students acquired

an outstanding score before using the DILIG program. It was also

disclosed that there are seven (28%) non-kinamayo dialect students got

a performance score that falls under did not meet expectations, followed

by eighteen (72%) students who attained a fairly satisfactory score. For

the post-test, it depicts that the majority of the student respondents’

scores were classified as fairly satisfactory with a total frequency of

twenty (80%) which populates more compared to the pre-test scores.

Following this, there are four (16%) students who acquired outstanding

performance scores, and only one (4%) student falls under did not meet

the expectation. In accordance with the analysis, it can be inferred that

there’s a marginal increase in the student’s performance after

implementing the DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed

Groups) program. Generally, the calculated mean scores of the pre-test

and post-test have been determined to be fairly outstanding reflecting

that the developed DILIG program in teaching English was successful in

helping non-kinamayo-speaking students enhance their writing skills to

some extent.

Table 4.
 Difference between Kamayo Students’ Pre-test and Post-test Scores Before
and After using the DILIG Program
Paired Differences
95%
Confidence
Std. Std. Interval of Sig. (2-
t df
Mean Deviatio Error the tailed)
n Mean Difference
Uppe
Lower
r
Pre-Test & Post-
-2.533 4.688 .856 -4.284 -.783 -2.960 29 .006
Test

The difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in the writing skills of

the students was shown in Table 4. Relative to analysis, the results of the study

indicate that there is a significant difference between the student’s pre–test

(M=14.73; SD=3.321) and post-test (M=17.27; SD=4.586) scores with t(29) = -2.960;

p = .006, implying that the mean difference is statistically significantly different from

zero. The two-tailed p-value obtained 0.006 which is less than the conventional 5%

level of significance (0.05). Thus, it implies that the null hypothesis at a 5%

significance level was rejected and accepts the alternative hypothesis since the

program administered was effective, demonstrating that the performance scores of

the first-year BSBA students have indeed improved after implementing the

developed program in teaching English (DILIG program), particularly their writing

skills. It can therefore be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference

between the pre-test and post-test scores after implementing the DILIG program.
 Table 5.
Difference between Non-Kamayo Students’ Pre-test and Post-test Scores
Before and After using the DILIG Program
Paired Differences
Std. 95% Confidence
Std. Sig. (2-
Error Interval of the t df
Mean Deviatio tailed)
Mea Difference
n
n Lower Upper
Pre-Test & Post-
-3.720 3.759 .752 -5.271 -2.169 -4.949 24 .000
Test

Table 5 exposes the significant difference between the pre-test and post-test

scores in the writing skills of non-kamayo students. The results of the study indicate

that there is a significant difference between the student’s pre–test (M=13.36;

SD=3.32) and post-test (M=17.08; SD=3.796) scores with t(24) = -4.949; p = .000,

which obviously states that the mean difference is statistically significantly different

from zero. The two-tailed p-value obtained 0.000 which is also less than 0.05 level of

significance. Hence, it was discovered that the null hypothesis at a 5% significance

level was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted since the program

utilized was effective for the non-kinamayo-speaking students, implying that the

performance scores of the first-year BSBA students who don’t speak kinamayo

dialect were observed to improve their abilities after implementing the developed

Diverse Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups (DILIG) program in teaching

English, particularly their writing skills. The study's findings basically illustrate that

there is a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores

since the DILIG program is employed.

 Table 6.
Content Expert Program Evaluation Scores
Std. Interpretatio
Component Mean
Dev. n
I. Objectives 4.20 0.68 SA
II. Content 4.22 0.62 SA
III. Technical Quality 3.87 0.82 A
IV. Instructional Design 4.14 0.77 A
V. Organization 4.32 0.56 SA
General Weighted Mean 4.33 0.70 SA
Legend: 4.20 – 5.00 (SA) Strongly Agree
3.40 – 4.19 (A) Agree
2.60 – 3.39 (N) Neither agree nor disagree
1.80 – 2.59 (D)Disagree
1.00 – 1.79 (SD) Strongly Disagree

Table 6 depicts the weighted mean analysis of the content evaluation scores,

evaluated by five (5) English experts. Based on the results, it is identified that from

the five evaluators, the general weighted mean obtained was 4.33 with a 0.70

standard deviation and can be interpreted as “Strongly Agree”, implying that the

content of the deviations developed program was highly valid to be in improving the

student’s skills in writing. Also, it was discovered that the organization gained the

highest mean score among the five indicators obtaining a mean of 4.32 and 0.56

standard deviation. This suggests that the evaluators “Strongly Agree” that the

organization of activities implemented in the program was definitely compatible and

contained comprehensive topics, as well as objectives. Moreover, the technical

quality of the program got the lowest mean score of 3.87 with a standard deviation of

0.82, interpreted as “Agree”. Meanwhile, this only shows that the technical quality

was observed and includes fair complexity, interesting activities, and achievable

goals. In general, the findings revealed that the developed DILIG (Diverse Instruction

for Linguistically Intermixed Groups) program utilized in this study clearly meets and

passed that standard of validity, as perceived by the evaluators.

 Table 7.
Usability Expert Program Evaluation Scores

Std. Interpretatio
Area Mean
Dev. n
Subtasks 4.20 0.56 SA
Congruence 4.90 0.32 SA
Replicability 4.20 0.41 SA
Ease of Administration 4.00 0.71 A
Instructions 4.50 0.58 SA
Adaptability 4.20 0.63 SA
General Weighted Mean 4.33 0.57 SA
Legend: 4.20 – 5.00 (SA) Strongly Agree
3.40 – 4.19 (A) Agree
2.60 – 3.39 (N) Neither agree nor disagree
1.80 – 2.59 (D) Disagree
1.00 – 1.79 (SD) Strongly Disagree

The expert program evaluation scores in terms of usability was displayed in

Table 7. The results show that out of five (5) responses from evaluators, the usability

score obtained was 4.33 with a 0.57 standard deviation, described as “Strongly

Agree”. This simply denotes that the usability of the implemented DILIG (Diverse

Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups) program, according to the

assessment of English experts, was present and clearly meets that standard.

Moreover, the highest obtained mean score among six (6) indicators was 4.90 with a

0.32 standard deviation for congruence, which can also be described as “Strongly

Agree”. This implies that the content and skills observed in the developed program

were relevant and adequate. On the other hand, the indicator, ease of

administration, got the lowest weighted mean of 4.00 and 0.71 standard deviations

indicated as “Agree”. Hence, it demonstrates that the program can be easily

administered to the learners.

 SUMMARY AN CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results and interpretations, the researchers come up with the following

findings:

The majority of the students agree that the developed DILIG (Diverse

Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups) Program provides a positive

outcome to the student’s writing skills in terms of fluency, content, conventions,

syntax, and vocabulary. Both mean scores of pre-test and post-test fall under the

fairly satisfactory implying that the mentioned developed program in teaching English

has increased the writing skills performance of the first-year BSBA students to some

extent. The findings imply that the null hypothesis at a 5% significance level was

rejected and accept the alternative hypothesis since the program administered was

effective, demonstrating that the performance scores of the first-year BSBA students

have atleast improved after implementing the developed program in teaching English

(DILIG program), particularly their writing skills. This simply denotes that the content

and usability of the implemented DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically

Intermixed Groups) program, according to the assessment of English experts, was

present and clearly meets that standard.

Conclusion

Based on the findings, the researcher has drawn the following conclusions:

Assessing the students' responses, it is evident that students perceived that

the developed DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups)

program contributes and play a significant role in the improvement of their writing

skills as to fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary. Based on these

results it appears that there’s a marginal increase in the student’s performance after

the utilization of the DILIG (Diverse Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups)
program. It can therefore be concluded that there is a statistically significant

difference between the pre-test and post-test scores after implementing the DILIG

program. In general, the findings revealed that the developed DILIG (Diverse

Instruction for Linguistically Intermixed Groups) program utilized in this study clearly

meets and passed that standard of validity, as perceived by the evaluators.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the drawn conclusion, the researcher formulated the following

recommendations:

Educational institutions offering English subjects or courses can consider

getting involved with professional development activities such as organizing and

conducting seminars and conferences to discuss strategies that could assist

teachers and students instruct and acquiring English more effectively. Teachers are

strongly encouraged to establish independent and experiential learning for diverse

students in order to acquaint them with the practical application of the English

language and to engage in diverse teaching approaches that are compatible with

their student's needs while having an effective impact on their academic

performance. Students should concentrate on strengthening their emotional and

social learning styles in order to boost their motivation for improvement, willingness

for exploring new strategies, and motivation to put their skills to use. For students to

enhance their learning skills, they ought to cultivate their own initiative of learning a

new language each day by exposing themselves to a variety of reading materials

such as magazines, novels, and other printed materials. Moreover, future

researchers are expected to conduct this study with more respondents or wider

coverage with a longer span of time for the implementation of the program. Also,
researchers are expected to have further analyses that emphasize students' memory

learning strategies such as creating mnemonic keywords, word analysis strategies,

and strategies for practicing words, as well as utilizing instruments with different

dialects appropriate for students to minimize barriers and gather more accurate

responses.
 LITERATURE CITED

Adinolfi, L., et. al. (2017). Multilingual classrooms: opportunities and challenges for
English medium instruction in low- and middle-income contexts. The Open
University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED586989
Alshammari, M. K. (2018). Effective Brainstorming in Teaching English for
Elementary School.
American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 60-65.

American Psychological Association (2023). pretest–posttest design.

https://dictionary.apa.org/
Andreu-Andres, M. A., & Garcia-Casas, M. (2018). Perceptions of gaming as
experiential learning by engineering students. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 27(4), 795-804.

Asfaha, Y. M., & Kroon, S. (2018). Multilingual education policy in practice:

Classroom literacy instruction in different scripts in Eritrea. Compare: A Journal
of Comparative and International Education, 41(2), 229-246.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03057925.2011.547288

Ayugi, M. E., et. Al. (2020). Influence of teacher characteristics on students’

academic achievement among secondary schools. Journal of Education and
Practice, 76-82.
Badayos, P. B. (2018). Metodolohiya sa Pagtuturo at Pagkatuto ng/sa Filipino: Mga
Teorya, Simulain, at Istratehiya. Mutya Publishing House,.
Baja M. (2018). Usability Expert Program Evaluation Form
Baradaran, A., & Sarfarazi, B. (2020). The impact of scaffolding on the Iranian EFL
learners' english academic writing. Australian Journal of Basic & Applied
Sciences, 5(12), 2265-2273.
Barnes, B. D., & Lock, G. (2020). Student Perceptions of Effective Foreign Language
Teachers: A Quantitative Investigation from a Korean University. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education. 38(2), 19-36.
Blyth, C. (2018). Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language
Annals, 51 (1), 225-232.
Brown, D. H. (2017). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.).
Longman: San Francisco State University.
Cabigao, J. (2021). Improving the Basic Writing Skills of Grade 7 Learners in Filipino:
An Action Research in Filipino Language. Shanlax International Journal of
Education, 9(3), 67-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34293
Chen, J. (2019). Favorable and Unfavorable Characteristics of EFL Teachers
Perceived by University Students of Thailand. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 2(1), 213- 219.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton.
Clegg, J., & Afitska, O. (2018). Teaching and learning in two languages in African
classrooms. Comparative Education, 47(1), 61-77.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03050068.2011.541677
CPA Research Commission. (2019). The Northern Luzon Cordillera and its
Population, and the Status of the Majority Populations in the Cordillera as
Indigenous Peoples and National Minorities.
Daling, R. F. (2017). Teaching Model: A Mother Tongue Approach in Teaching
English Language. International Journal of Education and Research. Vol. 5 No.
12. http://ijern.com/journal/2017/December-2017/08.pdf
Davis, J. (2019). Teaching ESL: 10 Common Problems in the Classroom.
owlcation.com:https://owlcation.com/academia/Teaching-ESL-10-Common-
Classroom Problems-and-Solutions
Dumanig, F. (2019). Descriptive Analysis of the Surigaonon Language.
file:///C:/Users/ /Francisco%20Perlas%20Dumanig
Feiler, A. & Logan, E. (2018). The literacy early action project (LEAP): Exploring
factors underpinning progress with literacy for a child in his first year of school.
British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 162-169.
Feldesr, R. M. Brent, R. (2018). Understanding Student Differences. Journal of
Engineering Education.
Ganyaupfu, E. M. (2020). Teaching Methods and Students’ Academic Performance.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 29-35.
Geolina A., and Lozada (2017). Content Expert Program Evaluation Form
Gay, L.R. & Diehl, P.L. (1992). Research Methods for Business and Management.
New York: Macmillan.
Ghasemi, B., & Hashemi, M. (2018). The Study of the Characteristics of Successful
English Language Teachers from the viewpoint of the English Language
Students of Islamic Azad University. Hamedan Branch. Procedia- Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 28, 411- 415.
Greey, M. (2017). Honoring diversity: A cross-cultural approach to infant
development for babies with special needs. Toronto: Centennial Infant and
Child Centre.
Halleck, G., & Coll-Garcia, J. (2018). Developing problem-solving and intercultural
communication: An online simulation for engineering students. Journal of
Simulation/Gaming for Learning and Development, 1(1), 1-12.
Kara, A. M., et. Al. (2020). Teacher Factors Influencing Students’ Academic
Achievement in Secondary Schools in Nyandarua County, Kenya. International
Journal of Education and Research, 1-14.
Kasapaglu-akyol, P. (2020). Using educational technology tools to improve language
and communication skills of ESL students. Novitas-Royal, Research on Youth
and Language, 4 (2), 225-241.
Kasper, L. F., & Petrello, B. A. (2020). Responding to ESL Student Writing: The
Value of a Nonjudgmental Approach. Community Review, 16178.
King, L. (2017). The Impact of Multilingualism on Global Education and Language
Learning. Cambridge Assessment English.
https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/539682-perspectives-impact-on-
multilingualism.pdf
Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2019). Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher
Effectiveness? A Review of the Research. Learning Policy Institute.

Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2018). Bibliography of Research on Experiential Learning

Theory and the Learning Style Inventory. Department of Organizational
Behavior, Weather head School of Management, Case Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, OH.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Language and Culture. OUP: Oxford
Lasaten, R. C., & Racca, R. M. (2019). English Language Proficiency and Academic
Performance of Philippine Science High School Students. International Journal
of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 44-49.
Lee, H. (2021). The reading response e-journal: An alternative way to engage low-
achieving EFL students. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 111-131.
Legaspi, Leonida Q. (2020). Mga Gawain sa Paglinang ng Kasanayan sa Pagsulat
sa Ikaapat na Baitang sa Elementarya. Philippine Normal University.
Levine, G. S. (2018). Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol. Multilingual
Matter
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2019). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Madrunio, M. R., et. Al. (2019). English Language Education in the Philippines:
Policies, Problems, and Prospects. Springer Link, 245-264.
Mojares, J. (2020). Teaching Strategies in English- The case of Batangas state
University
Malvar.Philippines.file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/TeachingStrategiesinEnglishT
hecaseofBatangasstateUniversityMalvarPhilippines.pdf
Morales, D. & Rovillos, R. (2019). Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minorities and Poverty
Reduction.Asian Development Bank.
https://think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/2965/indigenous-peoples-
philippines.pdf?sequence=1

O’Brien (1985). The modality (learning channel preference) questionnaire.

https://www.michigan.gov//media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Folder3/Folder96/
Folder2/Folder196/Folder1/Folder296/Learning-Style-Questionnaire.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (2017). Learning strategies in second language

acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490
Paik, J. (2017). Learning English, imagining global: The narratives of early English
education experiences in South Korea. The International Journal of Learning,
15(10), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v15i10/45983
Pantao, A. G. (2021). English Language Performance of Mindanao State University
Marawi Technology Students and its Correlates. International Journal of
Advanced Research in Education and Society e-ISSN: 2682-8138, (3)1, 86-99.
http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijares
Park, G., & Lee, H. (2019). The Characteristics of Effective English Teachers as
Perceived by High School Teachers and Students in Korea. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 7(2), 236- 248.
Patil, Z. N. (2019). Re-thinking the objectives of teaching English in Asia. Asian EFL
Journal, 10(4), 227-240
PISA (2019). OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-results.htm
Pitt, K. (2018). Debates in ESOL teaching and learning: Cultures, communities, and
classrooms. Oxon: Routledge.http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203347089
Porcincula, J. (2017). Demotivating Factors in Learning the English Language. De La
Salle University, Manila, Philippines.
https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-
congress-proceedings/2016/LLI/LLI-I-

Rost, M. (2019). New Technologies in Language Education: Opportunities for

Professional Growth. http://www.longman.com/
ae/multimedia/pdf/MikeRost_PDF.pdf

Salaberry, R. (2018). CALL in the year 2000: still developing the research agenda’.
Language learning and technology 3/1: 104-107.
Savignon, S. (2020). Communicative competence: Theory and practice. N.Y.:
McGraw Hill.
Shaughnessy, M. P. (2018). Diving in: An introduction to basic writing. In G. Tate &
E.P.J. Corbett. The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook 297-302. New York: Oxford.
Stahl, S. (2022). To teach a word well: A framework for vocabulary instruction.
Reading World, 24(913), 16-27.
Talidong. K. (2020). Teaching Methods in English Language Instruction: Case of
Selected English Language Teachers in General Santos City, Philippines.
Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-
8435, An International Peer-reviewed Journal, (66),
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/304992058.pdf
Thanasoulas, D. (2018). The importance of teaching culture in the foreign language
classroom. http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org /content/issue3_3/7-
thanasoulas.html
Thomas, J. (2018). Countering the ‘I can’t write English’ syndrome. TESOL Journal,
2, 12-15.
Tsan, S. (2017). Analysis of English Learning Strategies of Taiwanese Students at
Taiwan Normal University, (2)1. Educational Journal of Taiwan.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1952). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological
Processes.http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.phpURL_ID=26925&URL_
DO=DOTOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2017). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: The
Case of the Philippines. International Journal of Academic Research in
Progressive Education and Development, 64-78.
Watts-Taffe, S., & Truscott, D. (2019). Using what we know about language and
literacy development for ESL students in the mainstream classroom. Language
Arts, 77(3) 258-264.
Wertsch, J. (2018). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
White, H. & Sabarwal, S. (2020). Quasi-Experimental Design and Methods.
https://www.unicefirc.org/KM/IE/img/downloads/QuasiExperimental_Design_an
d_Methods_ENG.pdf
Wisbey, M. (2017). Mother tongue-based multilingual education: The key to
unlocking SDG 4. Quality education for all. Bangkok. Asia-Pacific Multilingual
Education Working Group
Wray, D. (2019). Teaching literacy across the primary curriculum. Exeter, UK:
Language Matters.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This endeavor would not have been possible without these valuable persons:

Dr. Lady Sol A. Suazo, the panel members, the validators; Dr. Jane C. Oropa, Dr.

Lyoid C. Hunahunan, and Dr. Ailyn P. Buquid and the defense committee. We are

deeply indebted to them for their patience and for their graciously supplied feedback

and skills. We are also grateful to our colleague and cohort members, particularly our

workmates, for their assistance, comment sessions, and moral support. Thanks also

to our Campus Director, Dr. Cynthia P. Sajot, research assistants, staff, and study

participants who helped and inspired us.

We could not have undertaken this journey also without the unceasing

support of our family. To our friends, brothers, and sisters in language who have

been our wall through the ups and downs and crisscrosses of this study.

Above everything, our heart is brimmed with unfathomable gratitude to our

dear Almighty Father for the wisdom, courage, and resilience He has constantly

given us after all the doubts, and mess along our journey. All these are impossible

without our faith in Him, it’s His grace that brought us to the beginning of our dreams.