Level of Language Proficiency of the Freshmen Students with Reference to Pronunciation and Correct Usage

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the gathered data that ultimately answer the inquiries sought in the study. The presentation is divided into five parts: Part I gives the data on the level of language proficiency of the freshmen science high school students with reference to pronunciation and correct usage. Part II delineates the results of the mean pretest and post test scores of the students based on the structured lessons of macro-skills’ learning performance. Part III shows whether there is a significant difference in the mean pretest and posttest scores of the students in listening, speaking, reading and writing. Part IV shows the overall results of the mean (pretest and posttest) gain scores in the aforementioned areas of language teaching. Part V entails module which can be proposed based on the findings of the study.

Also in this part is the intended course of action administered by the researcher to the students, particularly in the public school--a short course of study within the limited or interval time of instruction that forms part of a larger academic course or training program given to seventy-five (75) students in two selected classes as first year students of a Science High School. 

The results and findings of the study obtained from the freshmen students as the written outputs were provided with the assessment and feedback as the outcome of the course of study. Likewise, the data were presented, analyzed and interpreted to gain better insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the teaching and learning performance in English among the freshmen students.

The effectiveness of structured macro-skills’ development lessons in English hinges on the four (4) areas of language teaching such as listening, speaking, reading and writing. It contains language proficiency indices: accuracy, appropriateness, correct usage, inflection, and pronunciation, oral and written English.

Each of these items was treated in part as a test. The data gathered were grouped accordingly based on the four (4) main areas as the macro-skills of English language teaching. The data presented were shown the frequency or number as found in the corresponding tables. The pronunciation and correct usage levels of language proficiency of the freshmen science high school students were also shown and treated separately below:

Level of Language Proficiency of the Freshmen Students with

Reference to Pronunciation and Correct Usage

Table 1 shows the level of language proficiency of the freshmen students. The mean of 75 students with reference to pronunciation was 81.9333 and was rated Very Good while the mean of 75 students with reference to correct usage was 77.5867 and was rated Good.

These high ratings of the freshmen students as a public school could be attributed to the fact that they focused more on their studies and had more chances of studying their lessons not only in school but also at home. They had enough supplemental books as references; thus, they owned them and had more time to research and study the lessons given to them by the subject teacher concerned.

Students of the aforementioned school, based on this study, were more competent because they had high motivation to beaver away their studies. This supports the idea of Aquino (1989) that the high degree of motivation is a contributing factor to a high competence in learning academic and non-academic subjects.

Besides, the notion is supported by Aristotle that constant study and practice both in school and at home result in excellence which is an art won by training and habituation. Teachers and students do not act rightly because they have virtue or excellence, but they rather have those because they have acted rightly. They are what they repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible.

Table 1

Level of Language Proficiency of the Freshmen Science High School Students with Reference to Pronunciation and Correct Usage

Categories	Mean	Level of Language Proficiency
Pronunciation	81.9333	Very Good
Correct Usage	77.5867	Good

Legend:

                90 and above                                       (Excellent)

                80-89                                                     (Very Good)

                70-79                                                     (Good)

                60-69                                                     (Fair)

                50-59                                                     (Poor)

Mean Pretest and Posttest, Standard Deviation and Error Mean of

the Freshmen Students

Table 2 shows the paired samples’ statistics of the mean pretest and posttest of the macro-skills in language teaching, standard deviation and standard error mean using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) version 14, a computer program used for statistical analysis.

It also shows the relevance with regard to the freshmen students who took the pretest and posttest scores. It can be gleaned from table 2 that the posttest mean of the group in the listening area which is 83.1067 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 75.5333. In the standard

deviation, the result of pretest is 10.95980 while the result of posttest is 6.07959. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is 1.26553 while the result of posttest is .70201; the posttest mean of the group in the speaking area which is 87.1200 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 80.5467. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 4.92455 while the result of posttest is 3.42471.

Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .56864 while the result of posttest is .39545; the posttest mean of the group in the reading area which is 86.7333 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 84.4133. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 3.28425 while the result of posttest is 3.17649. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .37923 while the result of posttest is .36679; the posttest mean of the group in the writing area which is 85.4400 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 76.3333. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 6.26732 while the result of posttest is 5.29467. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .72369 while the result of posttest is .61138. 

It shows further that the posttest score in the speaking area got 1^st rank which is 87.1200 while the pretest is 80.5467 of which the difference is 6.5733; the posttest score in the reading area got 2^nd rank which is 86.7333 while the pretest is 84.4133 of which the difference is 2.3200; the posttest

score in the writing area got 3^rd rank which is 85.4400 while the pretest is 76.3333 of which the difference is 9.1067. 

Table 2

 Mean Pretest and Mean Posttest

MACRO-SKILLS	MEAN		STANDARD DEVIATION		STD. ERROR MEAN
Areas	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
Listening	75.5333	83.1067	10.95980	6.07959	1.26553	.70201
Speaking	80.5467	87.1200	4.92455	3.42471	.56864	.39545
Reading	84.4133	86.7333	3.28425	3.17649	.37923	.36679
Writing	76.3333	85.4400	6.26732	5.29467	.72369	.61138

Paired Samples’ Test/Paired Differences of the Macro-Skills by the Freshmen Students 

To find out if there was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the students exposed to the areas such as listening, speaking, reading and writing, the difference between these two means was subjected to a paired t-test.

It was gleaned from table 3 that the mean of students in the listening area was -7.57333, standard deviation was 10.63291, standard error mean was 1.22778, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -10.0974 and the difference (upper limit) was -5.12692, the c.v. result was -6.168 is greater than the t.v. result which was -10.01974. Therefore, the macro-skill in the listening area was not significant.

The mean of students in the speaking area was -6.57333, standard deviation was 5.31742, standard error mean was .61400, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -7.79676 and the difference (upper limit) was -5.34991, the c.v. result was -10.706 is lesser than the t.v. result which was -7.79676. Therefore, the macro-skill in the speaking area was significant.

The mean of students in the reading area was -2.32000, standard deviation was 2.98265, standard error mean was .34441, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -3.00625 and the difference (upper limit) was -1.63375, the c.v. result was -6.736 is lesser than the t.v. result which was -3.00625. Therefore, the macro-skill in the reading area was significant.

The mean of students in the writing area was -9.10667, standard deviation was 7.38621, standard error mean was .85289, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -10.80608 and the difference (upper limit) was -7.40726, the c.v. result was -10.677 is greater than the t.v. result which was -10.80608. Therefore, the macro-skill in the writing area was not significant.

Mean Gain of the Pretest and Posttest Scores of Freshmen Students

The mean gain test scores of singled-out freshmen students as found in Table 4 of the macro-skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing as structured in the lessons were used as a result in statistical analysis and computation of the mean pretest and mean posttest. It was disclosed upon interpretation of data that the mean gain in the listening area was obtained as the result of the subtraction of number from the mean pretest which was 75.5333 from the mean posttest which was 83.1067. The findings revealed that only the areas in speaking and reading got the highest posttest percentages of them all. In the writing area, the mean gain was obtained as the result of the subtraction from the pretest which was 76.3333 from the mean posttest which was 85.4400.

To find out and to have the final results: in the listening area, the mean posttest was 83.1067 while the mean gain was -7.57333 which had the lowest mean pretest and posttest percentages as compared to the other areas; in the speaking area, the mean posttest was 87.1200 while the mean gain was -6.57333 which got the 1^st rank posttest percentage; in the reading area, the mean gain was -2.32000 which got the 2^nd rank posttest percentage and also got 1^st rank pretest percentage among them; and in the writing area, the mean gain was -9.10667 which got 3^rd rank posttest percentage, next to the speaking and reading areas. Thus, as shown in table 4, it can be gleaned further that the posttest mean of the group in the listening area which is 83.1067 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 75.5333; the posttest mean of the group in the speaking area which is 87.1200 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 80.5467; the posttest mean of the group in the reading area which is 86.7333 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 84.4133; and the posttest mean of the group in the writing area which is 85.4400 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 76.3333.

Table 4

Mean Gain Posttest Scores of the Students

MACRO-SKILLS	MEAN		MEAN GAIN
Areas	Pretest	Posttest
Listening	75.5333	83.1067	-7.57333
Speaking	80.5467	87.1200	-6.57333
Reading	84.4133	86.7333	-2.32000
Writing	76.3333	85.4400	-9.10667