Preferred Communicative Strategies of Secondary English Teachers in

Tagum City Division under BEC 2000 Curriculum

________________________________________

A Language Research Study

Presented to the Undergraduate School

College of Teacher Education and Technology

University of Southeastern Philippines

Tagum-Mabini Campus

___________________________________________

In Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Bachelor of Secondary Education

Major in English

__________________________________________

By:

Marie Grace P. Baldicana

Kesely M. Esguerra

Irene T. Jose

October 2013March 2014

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page

Abstract

Acknowledgement

Table of contents

CHAPTER I-Problem and Its Setting

Background of the Study

Statement of the problem

Scope and Limitation

Significance of the Study

Definition of Terms

Sampling Plan

CHAPTER II- Review of Related Literature

Theoretical Framework

Analytical Framework

CHAPTER III- Methodology

Research Design

Respondents

Instrument

Data Gathering Procedure

 Data Analysis

CHAPTER IV- Results and Discussions

CHAPTER V- Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations

Summary

Conclusion

Recommendations

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Permission Letter

Appendix B - Construct Validation

Appendix C - Cover Letter of Questionnaire

Appendix D - Raw Tables

Appendix E - Sample Survey Questionnaire

 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1.1 Communicative Strategies preferred by secondary English teachers in

Tagum City under BEC 2000 Curriculum

TABLE 1.2 Teachers’ Perception on their Roles in their Classroom on the Traditional
Strategies

TABLE 1.3 Teacher’s’ Perception on their Roles in the Classroom on the Contemporary
Strategies

TABLE 1.4 Teacher’s’ Perception on the Roles of their Students in the Classroom on
the Traditional Strategies

TABLE 1.5 Teacher’s’ Pperception on the Roles of their Students in the Classroom on
the Contemporary Strategies
 ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to determine the communicative

strategies preferred by the English teachers of Tagum City
Division under BEC 2000 Curriculum. the secondary English
teachers’ preference of contemporary communicative
strategies in Tagum City under BEC 2000 Curriculum. The
study utilized the descriptive method with one set of
researcher-made questionnaire. There are 33 respondents of
secondary English teachers of Tagum Division under BEC
2000 Curriculum. Findings revealed that most of the
secondary English teachers preferred the a high level
preference of secondary English teachers under BEC 2000
curriculum of Contemporary approach in communicative
strategies.
 Chapter 1

Problem and Its Setting

Background of the Study

The ever-growing need for good communication skills in English has created a
huge demand for English teaching around the world. Millions of people today want to
improve their command of English or to ensure that their children achieve a good
command of English. AndO opportunities to learn English are provided in many
different ways such as through formal instruction, travel, and study abroad, as well as
through the media and the Internet. The worldwide demand for English has created an
enormous demand for quality language teaching and language teaching materials and
resources. Learners set themselves demanding goals. They want to be able to master
English to a high level of accuracy and fluency. Employers, too, insist that their
employees have good English language skills, and fluency in English is a prerequisite
for success and advancement in many fields of employment in today’s world. The
demand for an appropriate teaching methodology is therefore as strong as ever.
 Our society these days is divided into two different ways of thinking on education.
Some believe that contemporary methods are better than the traditional method of
teaching yet these two methods can both be perceived as successful strategies.
Strategies to language teaching gave priority to grammatical competence as the basis
of language proficiency. They were based on the belief that grammar could be learned
through direct instruction and through a methodology that made much use of repetitive
practice and drilling. The approach to the teaching of grammar was a deductive one:
students are presented with grammar rules and then given opportunities to practice
using them. Techniques that were often employed included memorization of dialogs,
question-and-answer practice, substitution drills, and various forms of guided speaking
and writing practice. Great attention to accurate pronunciation and accurate mastery of
grammar was stressed from the very beginning stages of language learning, since it
was assumed that if students made errors, these would quickly become a permanent
part of the learner’s speech.

Since the 1990s, the communicative approach has been widely implemented.
Because it describes a set of very general principles grounded in the notion of
communicative competence as the goal of second and foreign language teaching, and a
communicative syllabus and methodology as the way of achieving this goal,
communicative language teaching has continued to evolve as our understanding of the
processes of second language learning has developed. Current communicative
language teaching theory and practice thus draws on a number of different educational
paradigms and traditions. And since it draws on a number of diverse sources, there is
no single or agreed upon set of strategies that characterize current communicative
language teaching. Rather, communicative language teaching today refers to a set of
generally agreed upon principles that can be applied in different ways, depending on the
teaching context, the age of the learners, their level, their learning goals, and so on.

Strategies to language teaching today seek to capture the rich view of language
and language learning assumed by a communicative view of language. Jacobs and
Farrell (2003) see the shift toward CLT as marking a paradigm shift in our thinking about
teachers, learning, and teaching.
 The researchers’ curiosities were awakened by these ideas. Since Tagum City
Division has been nestled by very good and seasoned Secondary English teachers, this
led them to coming up with the decision of researching the preferred communicative
strategies by secondary English teachers of Tagum City Division, who are under the
BEC 2000 curriculum. The interest was towards checking the progress, shift, and
attentiveness of the secondary English teachers of the Tagum City Division under BEC
2000 curriculum on the contemporary communicative strategies for language teaching.

With the implementation ofUnlike in the new curriculum which is the K to 12,
where the teachers are guided bywith the strategies that fit a certain lesson and already
given competencies with corresponding objectives that both teachers and the students
must be able to achieve after the lesson, teachers under BEC 2000 curriculum remain
free to choose what communicative strategies they would prefer to use in teaching the
English language to the students. They are also the one s towho will construct their
objectives for a certain lesson. Moreover, they are also free to select their desired roles
for a particular lesson and on what would be their desired roles for their students.

On the other hand, in K to 12, teachers are guided with the strategies that fit a
certain lesson and are already given competencies with corresponding objectives that
both teachers and the students must be able to achieve after the lesson. Teachers
would really have to follow the given strategies and activities that promote Higher Order
Thinking Skills to the students. Teachers under this new curriculum are anchored in
using contemporary strategies especially on language teaching. In addition, teachers
already expect what roles the students should perform on each lesson given.

Since the teachers under BEC curriculum are given some amount ofabsolute
freedom to choose any teaching strategy they deem is appropriate, the researchers
would like to know what their preferred communicative strategies are. More specifically,
the researchers aim at identifying which one do they do utilize, the contemporary or the
traditional strategies.
 Hence, the researchers are curious on what would be the preferred
communicative strategies that teachers under BEC 2000 curriculum use in teaching
English language, if it is the contemporary or the traditional.

In order to address these curiosities, the researchers decided to conduct a

survey to the secondary English teachers of Tagum City Division that are under the BEC
2000 curriculum to collect data that would show the preferred communicative strategies
of English teachers in their language teaching.

Statement of the Problem:

In order to investigate the above mentioned issues, the following research

questions were formulated for the study.

1. What are the communicative strategies preferred by the English teachers of Tagum
City Division under BEC 2000 Curriculum?

2. What is the perception of secondary English teachers of Tagum City under BEC 2000
curriculum about their roles and their students’ roles in language teaching and learning?

3. Do English teachers of Tagum City Division under BEC 2000 curriculum prefer the
contemporary communicative strategies in language teaching?

Significance of the Study

This study is important due to the following reasons:

For the Researchers

 The results of this study can help develop the researchers’ contemporary
communicative strategies that they could effectively use in their future language
teaching practices in their future profession.

For other Researchers

The results of this study can also be used by other researchers who wish to know
if the High School English teachers in Tagum City Division under BEC 2000 Curriculum
in the year 2013-2014 preferred contemporary communicative strategies in teaching
English subject.

For the School Administrators

The results of this study can be useful to the school administrators to have a view
of the teaching performance of their English faculty, particularly in the application of
contemporary communicative strategies - all leading toward upholding the quality of
public secondary education. Probably this would serve as a guide to the administrators
to explore other strategies and adopt new schemes for the welfare of their teaching
workforce.

For the Respondents

The results of this study can be useful to the Public English Teachers of Tagum
City Division under BEC 2000 Curriculum in improving their teaching techniques,
instructional plan, methods, classroom management, and strategies in teaching English
subject.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study limits its coverage only to Public High School English Teachers of
Tagum City Division under BEC 2000 Curriculum (3 rd year and 4th year English
Teachers), in the school year 2013-2014. It includes 33 English Teachers (population
size) from Tagum City Division. Its main purpose is to determine the preferred
communicative strategies in language teaching. Also, this study yearns to identify the
teachers’ perception on their roles and their students’ role in the classroom. Each of the
respondents is given same questionnaires to answer.

This study is primarily limited to knowing the preferred contemporary

communicative strategies by the said teachers in the exercise of their teaching
profession inside the language classroom.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study is limited to Public High School English Teachers of Tagum City
Division under BEC 2000 Curriculum (3 rd year and 4th year English Teachers), in the
school year 2013-2014 only. It includes 33 English Teachers (population size) from
Tagum City Division. The schools were then randomly chosen by the researchers to be
conducted for the study.

This study is primarily limited to knowing the preferred contemporary

communicative strategies by the said teachers in the exercise of their teaching
profession inside the language classroom.

Definition of Terms

Some terms used in this study need clarification. The following terms are
conceptually and operationally defined as follows:

1. Strategy- A strategy is implementation, that which actually takes place in a

classroom. It is a particular trick used to accomplish an immediate objective in
language teaching.

2. Communicative strategy- Is a strategy used by a language teacher to enhance

the students’ communicative competence using the target language.
 3. Language Teaching- Is the process of transmitting and sharing of the language
teacher’s knowledge and skills to his/her language students.

4. Contemporary Strategies- Strategies that are in contrary to traditional strategies.

These are strategies that focus on communicative competence of the students
rather than on grammatical competence development.

5. Traditional Strategies- These are strategies that focus on grammatical

competence.

CHAPTER 2

Review of Related Literature/Studies

This section of the study deals with the review of literature and studies related to
the present study. The study is designed to determine the preferred communicative
strategies among secondary English teachers in Tagum City under BEC 2000
Curriculum.

Traditional and Contemporary Communicative Strategies

According to Kumaravadivelu (1993), traditional communicative language

teaching which started in the early 1970s has become the dynamic power that shapes
the planning, implementation, and evaluation of English language teaching
(ELT) programmers nearly in all parts of the world. Damiani (2003) in his paper “The
Grammar Translation Method of Language Teaching” stated:

“As a teacher, I liked using the grammar translation method

because I could assume the intelligence of my students; I could talk to
them like the intelligent people that they are, and we could talk about
the grammar and vocabulary that I was teaching. In another method, I
would have had to use simple language and familiar phrases to
communicate in the target language, and even then, I could not be sure
that my students knew and understood what it was that they were
saying.”
 For Chomsky (1951) the focus of linguistics was to describe the linguistic
competence that enables speakers to produce grammatically correct sentences. Hymes
(1972) held, however, that such a view of linguistic theory was sterile and that it failed to
picture all the aspects of language. He advocated the need of a theory that incorporates
communication competence. It must be a definition of what a speaker needs to know in
order to be communicatively competent in a speech community.

According to Wu (2008) one of the fundamental principles of CLT is that learners

are required to be involved in significant communication to accomplish communicative
fluency in ESL settings. Wenjie (2009) in his study “Using Traditional Communicative
Language Teaching to improve Speaking Ability of Chinese Non-English Major
Students” has also drawn a comparison between CLT approach and Traditional
Grammar teaching approach; however this study was conducted on Chinese students.
Sarwar (2002) in his paper Teaching English Grammar through Communicative
Language Teaching Approach (CLTA) in the Context of Bangladesh defines why and
how grammar fits in CLTA and seeks to understand teaching grammar through CLTA in
the context of Bangladesh.

Too often, a 'new' strategy appears to completely dismiss the previous one. This
is not always the intention, but probably more a result of the enthusiasm of practitioners
exploring and implementing fresh activities or opportunities. Also, throughout the CLT
debate, there seem to be dichotomies which are employed to argue for its irrelevance. It
is evident that CLT has gathered a range of characteristics, perhaps more through
misunderstanding or by association, but it is actually not as incompatible with other
valued practices as it is sometimes made to appear. In practical terms, whether
assisting mixed-ability classes, aiding motivation, leading from a focus on form to one of
fluency, or supporting learning, it has a lot to offer the EFL teacher.

Andrew and Littlejohn (2002) commented “despite of the various strategies and
even greater variety of learning-teaching situation, educators need to take into account
the implications that social and technological change may have for the practice of
language teaching, and to see their work in the context of such change so that, as
educators, they may be able to contribute to the creation of the social world, which they
hope for”.

Traditional Strategies of Language Teaching

Clearly, one of the aims of any communicative strategies in teaching is to

improve the second language ability of the student. However, as stated by Boumová

(2008), traditional strategy is based largely on a reduction of the integrated process of

using a second language into sub-sets of distinct skills and areas of knowledge. It is

largely a functional procedure which focuses on skills and areas of knowledge in

isolation.

According to Choudhury (2011), the traditional strategy is largely teacher-

centred, with the teachers hogging the limelight always. They lecture at length on

particular topics and students listen to them with rapt attention – this has been the

methodology for teaching English for decades now. Using this strategy, teachers have

been teaching discrete points of grammar or phonology in separate lessons, focusing

mainly on the formal features of the language at the expense of encouraging students to

use the language. Repetitive practice, mechanical drills and memorization of grammar

rules are certain important aspects of this approach to language teaching.

Furthermore, to Wilkins as cited by Choudhury (2011), Traditional Strategy could

be regarded as “synthetic” approach in which different parts of the language are taught

separately and step by step so that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of

parts until the whole structure of language has been built up.
 On the other hand, Freire (1982) calls the traditional strategy as the “banking”

system of education in which the learners are considered to be similar to bank accounts

into which regular deposits are made to be drawn later for specific purposes like

examination.

A very typical feature of traditional strategy, as Broughton and his colleagues

claim, is the “teacher-dominated interaction” (Broughton 2000). The teaching is deeply

teacher-centered.

The approach is further explained by the statement of Asst. Prof. Dr. Abdullah
Kuzu (20007) who asserts that it is based on the “traditional view of education where
teachers serve as the source of knowledge while learners serve as passive receivers”
(Kuzu 2007). This idea corresponds to the statement of Jim Scrivener, who claims that
“traditional teaching” is like a knowledge being poured from one receptacle into an
empty one (Boumová 2008).

Among the popular traditional methods popular ones are “Grammar Ttranslation
Mmethod”, “Direct Method” and “Audio Lingual Method”. These three traditional
methods focused more on learning about a language and as such were based on the
followingsome principles..; These principles are:; First entails, a careful analysis of the
target written language, particularly its grammar.; Second isThen, learning of the
gGrammar rules.; ThirdNext to that is the use of the nNative tongue as the medium of
instruction;. Also the greater use of translation exercises; and the last is more emphasis
on rReading and wWriting sSkills. With changing time and specialized language
learning needs, these methods failed to give the desired outcome expected of them.
As with any other process, the demands and needs of language learning keep on
changing and so should the methodology and approach. (Attar and Chopra, 2010) It can
be traced back to Hymes (1972), who proposed that knowing a language involved more
than knowing a set of grammatical, lexical, and phonological rules.
 Aside from that, Richards (2006) highlights that in traditional strategy “learning
was very much seen as under the control of the teacher”. Thus, the traditional strategy
puts the responsibility for teaching and learning mainly on the teacher and it is believed
that if students are present in the lesson and listen to the teacher’s explanations and
examples, they will be able to use the knowledge.

Furthermore, the traditional strategies focus and emphasize mainly on the

learning of grammar rule and vocabulary and as such do not pay much attention to the
four skills mainly Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing (LSRW). In writing, students
are mainly dependent on grammar rules and translating them from their native tongue,
while in reading, Grammar translation method produced habits indicative of deciphering
and not of reading (Tyler 2008). The student tries to understand every single word and
its grammatical form, because he believes it is essential for understanding the text.
Besides, in the traditional strategies, there is lack of attention being paid towards
speaking and learning of pronunciation; there is no oral or pronunciation work since it is
the written language which is taught, and ‘mental discipline’ is stressed rather than any
ability actually to use the language (White1988).

In addition, Richards (2006) states that “techniques that were often employed
included memorization of dialogs, question and answer practice, substitution drills and
various forms of guided speaking and writing practice”. Most importantly, traditional
strategies regarded language learning as transfer of knowledge with the help of board
and rules rather than considering it as a skill, where learning of rules and vocabulary
items in isolation could not yield the desired learning output. In order to use the
language effectively learners need to develop communicative competence— the ability
to use the language they are learning, appropriately, in a given social encounter. Hymes'
notion of communicative competence was elaborated by a number of practice-oriented
language educators, most notably by Canale and Swain (1980) who contended that
communicative competence comprises grammatical competence, sociolinguistic
competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. Thus with 1980s came
the approach of CLT, which established interaction as the means and goal of learning a
language and as such involved incorporation of teaching techniques like role plays, pair
work, simulations etc. Though still a popular approach among the classrooms, it has its
own challenges, like, challenge of inculcating Self Learning, since the teacher
involvement is minimal.

With these reasons, White (1998) highlights the consequences of handling the
language in this grammar-governed way. He reminds us that traditional strategy does
not present the language as a means of communication. Rather, this strategy to
teaching conceives language as a body of esteemed information to be learned, with an
emphasis on intellectual rigor. Briefly, the traditional strategy shows language primarily
from the rule-governed point of view and concentrates on the knowledge of grammar
and items of vocabulary. It is supposed that a person who knows the rules and the lexis
is able to understand and speak the target language. Because of the above mentioned
facts, the teaching also focuses on the grammatical rules and items of lexis.

Teachers’ Perception on their role and the Students’ role in Language Teaching

According to Lee (1997), he affirmed that one of the main stumbling blocks for
students is the mere detection of errors, a detection which on many occasions is not
hindered by lack of linguistic knowledge. Many teachers are aware that a high
proportion of our students do not notice errors, their nature or the teachers’ Error
Correction Moves (ECMs) until it is made explicit in a direct way by the teachers
themselves. The challenge for teachers then, is to provide the learner with corrections
that they both notice and understand. Although this seems obvious, Roberts’ (1995)
states that teachers should always make sure that their ECMs are understood.

Furthermore, to Davies (1999) when he stated that teaching is a moral activity,

noting that power and authority when used to simply control must be replaced by
leadership that “must invite, inspire, and accompany young people in their learning, in
their process of becoming”. Thus, it is not that necessary for the teachers to take full
control in a language teaching;, the needs and capacity of the learners to learn the
language must be considered, too.

Aside from that, Lopata et.al (2005) also said that the teacher is not just to give
orders, but to serve as a resource to turn to when a student needs help grasping a
concept or pulling information together. However, students do get off track sometimes,
and when they do, the teacher is there to help.

Contemporary Strategies in Language Teaching

Unlike traditional strategy, Contemporary strategy is much more student-

centered. According to Scrivener (2001), the teacher’s main role is to “help learning to
happen”, which includes involving students in what is going on by enabling them to work
at their own speed, by not giving long explanations, by encouraging them to participate,
talk, interact, and do things. He further claims that nowadays, a great emphasis is put
on “communication of meaning”.

Moreover, Broughton (2000) adds that a student is best motivated by practice in

which he senses the language is truly communicative, that it is appropriate to its
context, that his teacher’s skills are moving him forward to a fuller competence in a
second language. Briefly put, the students are the most active element in this process.
The teacher is here not to explain but to encourage and help students to explore, try
out, make learning interesting, etc.

Furthermore, Richards (2006) also highlights the communicative competence

which is, as he defines it, “being able to use the language for meaningful
communication”. Thus many professionals refer to this strategy as the Communicative
Language approach. Briefly put, some people learn a second language most
importantly to be able to communicate with foreign people and other people learn a
second language above all to see the world from a different point of view, to discover
new approaches to life or to find out about other cultures. Since contemporary strategy
is aiming for something different, also the way to achieve the goal has changed. As
pointed out by Richards (2006), attention shifted to the knowledge and skills needed to
use grammar and other aspects of language appropriately for different communicative
purposes such as making requests, giving advice, making suggestions, describing
wishes and needs. Teachers’ methods, courses, and books had to be adjusted to new
needs of the learners to fulfill their expectations. Instead of grammatical competence,
communicative competence became the priority.

Contemporary Communicative Strategies and Teachers’ Perception on their role

and the Students’ role in Language Teaching

In Contemporary Communicative Strategies, Riley (2003) who generally states

that most teachers reported substantial use of some contemporary strategies over
traditional strategies.

The tTeachers’ perception on their roles in the classroom is facilitator and it is

supported by the notion of Cooper (1994) that teacher is not a source of knowledge, but
a facilitator. Now as it is believed that knowledge is constructed by learners from
experience, the teacher needs to “be a guide on the side, rather than a sage on the
stage.” If teaching is a professional job, facilitating is the role of the teacher and the
function of the teacher is to facilitate the learning process. Thus, the teacher’s role is
defined as facilitator of learning. Littlewood (1981) conceptualizes the role of the
language teacher broadly as the “facilitator of learning” in the context of Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) instead of the rather narrow concept of the teacher as
instructor.
 Aside from that, Rodgers, et.al., (1996) stated that the more teachers talk, the
less will the students be given the opportunity of expressing themselves. Hence,
teachers should, ideally, be the one who gets their students to talk. They need to
provide learners with opportunities to take part through the use of interactive pair and
group activities which enhance learner motivation and reduce stress in language
learning effectively.

Furthermore, Long et.al (1998) who stressed that instructed learners have a rate
advantage over naturalistic approach. He emphasized that even if learners can make
improvements in their own ways by means of explorations, it is still advantageous if they
are guided by their teacher for the avoidance of having misconceptions on the idea that
their teacher wants them to catch up.

Thus, in teaching the language, teachers should really look into and consider the
learning styles of the students in order to come up with strategies that suits for them and
could suffice their needs. The teacher should also use a variety of strategies to make
language comprehensible, monitors student comprehension, makes adjustments as
necessary and provide activities that engage students in using the language for
meaningful communication.

Also, teachers’ perception on their roles and the students’ role in the classroom
must be varied accordingly.
 Furthermore, Alexandria (1993) stated that the teacher should challenges
students to reach beyond the simple factual response. Students take risk in making
mistakes; try out experiment, and create with the language. They learn to use language
learning strategies that enable them to continue learning English outside of the
classroom.

THEORETICITCAL FRAMEWORK

Language Teaching

Traditional Contemporary
 (Behaviorism) ( Naturalism)

Grammatical Focus Communicative Focus

APPROACHES

 Communicative Language
 Grammar-Translation Method  Total-Physical Response
 Direct Method  Silent Way
 Reading Approach  Suggestopedia
 Audio-Lingual Method
 Situational-Language Teaching

The diagram displays the theoretical framework of the study.

John Ffirth, M et al..A.K Halliday, Dell Hymes, John Gumperz, William Labov, John
Austin,n, John Searle (1994).

The educational system of today’s educational era is both using the traditional
and contemporary strategies especially in language teaching. Traditional strategies in
teaching language are focused on teaching about the language; it is focused on
teaching students the proper form and grammar of language. The strategy in the
traditional is anchored on the Behaviorism theory that was developed by B.F Skinner
and John Watson where the desired response is expected from the students’
performance in relation to the teacher’s given stimulus. The main goal in the traditional
teaching of language is to develop the student’s grammatical competence.

On the other hand, Contemporary strategies in teaching language are focused on

teaching the language where the main goals are to achieve the communicative
competence of the students and use of language in communication in the real world.
These strategies conform to the theory of Naturalism which adheres to the use of real
functional communication in the natural world.

The traditional and contemporary strategies are both widely used and accepted
in language teaching in different parts of the world. Traditional strategies are composed
of the Grammar-Translation, Direct Method, Reading Approach, Audio-Lingual Method,
and Situational-Language Teaching Strategies. The Contemporary Communication
Strategies are composed of Communicative-Language Teaching, Total-Physical
Response, Silent Way, and Suggestopedia Strategies.

In all, the teacher’s awareness of the different communicative strategies in

language teaching is one big factor in the language teaching procedure.
 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Preference of Teachers’ perception of

Communicative Strategies their roles and their
students’ roles

The major variables in this study include the teachers’ preference of

Communicative Strategies and their perception of roles of students. The Communicative

strategies include contemporary strategies and traditional strategies. On the other hand,

the perception of roles includes the teachers’ perception on their roles in the classroom

and the teachers’ perception of the students’ roles in the classroom.

Theroux (2002) explained that, contemporary strategies are those, in which,

a lesson’s content and delivery are considered to be most important and students’

mastery of knowledge through drill and practice (such as rote learning). On the other

hand, Traditional Strategies are strategies which are teacher-centered and do not

promote much of student involvement in language learning.

As for the perception of roles of students in this study, students should be

perceived as active participants in the learning process. As King (1997) said, if students

are to become independent, lifelong and active learners, “our teaching strategies need
to include tasks which are interesting, motivating and involve our students in both team

and individual learning tasks.”

To sum it up, the main direction of this study was to determine the preferred

communicative strategies of Secondary English Teachers in Tagum City under the BEC

Curriculum.
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design, research respondents, research

instruments, and the data gathering procedure.

Research Design

The study employed the descriptive method. It was used along with the
researcher-made questionnaire as research instrument to determine the preference of
the secondary English teachers of Tagum City Division under BEC 2000.

The Respondents

The respondents of this study were the 3 rd year and 4th year secondary English
teachers under BEC 2000 curriculum in Tagum City.

Research Instrument

The researchers used a researcher-made questionnaire on secondary teachers’

preference of Communicative strategies in Language Teaching. The questionnaire had
undergone a face and content validation done by a panel of experts who are in the
teaching and supervising fields.

One researcher-made questionnaire was given to each expert for checking. This
researcher-made questionnaire was tested validated in La Filipina National high School.
There are 37 items that determine the preference preference of secondary English
teachers with 17 questions in part A, and 20 questions in part B.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data was gathered in the selected sSecondary schools in Tagum City. The
data were taken from the respondents through a researcher-made questionnaire.

A letter was sent by the researchers to the seven (7) principals in Tagum City,
asking permission to conduct the study and gather some data from the English teachers
in their schools. Upon approval, another letter was sent to the subject heads of the
schools with the recommendation of the principals of each school.

The researchers first explained the items in the questionnaire to the respondents
and waited for them to start answering. They then retrieved the questionnaires
immediately to ensure a hundred percent retrieval.

The data gathered in this study were tallied, tabulated and later interpreted
accordingly by the researchers.

Data Analysis

In the analysis of data, the statistical tool employed was:

Mean. This was used to answer the problem, What is the preferred
communicative strategy of the secondary English teachers under BEC 2000 curriculum?
Also to get the average of the respondents in the contemporary and traditional
strategies.

Frequency count. This was used to determine the perception of the teachers
towards their roles and the roles of the students.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results and discussion of the data gathered. Results
include the findings of the preferred communicative strategies of BEC curriculum
teachers. It also determined their perception of their roles as teachers as well as their
perception of the role of the students in communicative learning – whether this falls
under the traditional or contemporary mold.

Table 1.1. Communicative Strategies preferred by secondary English teachers in

Tagum City under BEC 2000 Curriculum

COMMUNICATIVE MEAN PERCENTAGE

STRATEGIES (%)

Traditional
13.24 40.11
Contemporary
19.76 59.89

Table 1.1 reveals that most of the respondents prefer to use Contemporary

Strategies in language teaching, having a mean of 19.76 or 59.89% out of 33

 respondents who are teachers under BEC 2000 Curriculum in Tagum City Division,

compared to the Traditional Strategy which garnered a mean of 13.24 or 40.11% out of

33 respondents. This implies that when teaching, the respondents apply strategies in

Communicative Language Teaching rather than Traditional Strategies This result is

supported by the notion of Riley (2003) who generally states that most teachers

reported substantial use of some contemporary strategies over traditional strategies.

These results further imply that teachers use the language in

transactional/practical communication rather than just mastery in grammar and

vocabulary of students. Their primary focus on teaching language to students is for

communicative function other than pronunciation and grammar. Aside from that,

students do more in speaking/pronunciation exercises than mere translation exercises.

As teachers, it is possible that they tend to develop simple techniques and make use of

language laboratory (speech laboratory, audio-visual rooms, etc.) than simple

techniques in lecture. Lastly, in learning the language it may even be possible that

students use the target language than simply learning the pattern of the target

language.

TABLE 1.2. TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THEIR ROLES IN THE CLASSROOM

TRADITIONAL STRATEGIES

As a teacher, (OFTEN) Percentage (SOME- Percentag (NEVER) Percentag

Frequency (%) TIMES) e Frequenc e
my role is …
Frequency (%) y (%)

Drill Leader 15 45.45 0 0 18 54.55

Error
19 1 13
Corrector 57.58 3.03 39.39
 Language
18 2 13
Modeler 54.55 6.06 39.39
Task Designer 18 54.55 0 0 15 45.45
Commander 1 3.03 22 66.67 10 30.30

Table 1.2 shows that out of 33 respondents, 15 or 45.45% responded to often

perceive their role as a Drill Leader, 0 or 0% for sometimes, and 18 or 54.55% for never.

This implies that most of the respondents do not see themselves as Drill Leader.

Aside from that, the table also reveals that 19 or 57% out of 33 teachers often

perceive themselves as Error Corrector. Meanwhile 39% or 13 say they never perceive

themselves as one, and only 1 or 3.03% of them say that sometimes he/she perceive

him/herself as an Error Corrector. This result is supported by Lee (1997) when he

asserted affirm that one of the focalmain stumblingreasons why students stumble blocks

for students is the mere detection of errors., a detection which on many occasions is not

hindered by lack of linguistic knowledge. Many teachers know are aware that a high

proportionpercentage of our students do not notice errors, by their nature as teachers or

their teachers’ ECMs (Error Correction Moves) until it is made explicit in a direct way by

the teachers themselves. The challengeurge for them teachers then, is to provide the

learners with corrections that they both noticebecome aware of and understand.

Although this seems obvious, Roberts ’ (1995) also supported this claim by statinges

that teachers should always make sure that their ECMs or Error Correction Moves are

understood by the students..

Moreover, 18 or 54.55% of the respondents often find themselves as both

Language Modeler and Task Designer. However, out of 33 respondents, 13 or 39.39%

 of them never see themselves as Language Modeler and 15 or 45.45% of them never

perceive themselves as Task Designer. This shows that there are just few respondents

who frequently perceive themselves as both Language Modeler and Task designer. In

addition, it is also revealed in the table that only 1 or 3.03% of the respondents who

perceive themselveshim/herself as a commander in language teaching, but 22 or

66.67% of them sometimes perceive themselves as one, while 10 or 30.30% of them

never see themselves as a commander. This result clearly indicates that almost all of

the respondents do not often see themselves as a commander. . This is supported by

Davies (1999) when he mentionedstated that teaching is a moraldecent activity, giving

emphasisnoting that power and authority when used to simplybasically control must be

replacechanged intoby leadership that “must invite, inspire, and accompany young

people in their learning, in their process of becoming”. ThusHence, it is not that

necessary for the teachers to take full control in a language teaching, the needs and

capacity of the learners to learn the language must be considered, too..

Table 1.3. TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THEIR ROLES IN THE CLASSROOM

CONTEMPORARY STRATEGIES

As a teacher, (OFTEN) Percentag (SOME- Percentag (NEVER) Percentage

my role is … Frequency e TIMES) e Frequency (%)
(%) Frequency (%)

Counselor 19 57.58 2 6.06 12 36.36

Action Monitor 0 0 22 66.67 11 33.33
Actor 0 0 20 60.61 103 30.3039.39
Stimulator 2 6.06 17 51.52 14 42.42
Facilitator 21 63.64 2 6.06 130 39.3930.30
 Table 1.3 shows the different teachers’ perceptions of their roles, which would

show whether they perceive themselves as using contemporary strategies. It can be

seen that 21 or 63% out of 33 respondents often perceive themselves as Facilitators in

Language Teaching, while 57.58% or 19 of them find themselves as Counselors. . This

result is supportedsupported by the notion of Cooper (1994) because of his idea that

teachers areis not a sources of knowledgeknowledge, but area facilitators. SinceNow

as it is believed that knowledge is constructedconstructed by learners from their

experiences, the teachers needs to “be a guide on the side, rather than a sage on the

stage.” Thus, the main role of the teacher is to facilitate the learning process, assess the

needs of the students and provide appropriate resources to foster a positive classroom

atmosphere that is conducive for learning. If teaching is a professional job, Ffacilitating

is the role of the teachers and their function of the teacher areis to facilitate the learning

process. Thus, the teachers are ’s role definedlabeled as facilitator of learning.

On the other hand, 22 or 66.67% of them sometimes perceive themselves as

Action Monitors, 20 or 60.61% of them sometimes find themselves as Actors, and 17 or

51% of them sometimes find themselves as Stimulators of language learning.

However, some of the respondents never perceive themselves as Counselors,

Action Monitors, Actors, Stimulators and Facilitators with a percentage of 36.36, 33.33,

39.39, 42.42, and 30.30 respectively. This result clearly indicates that almost all of the

respondents do not often see themselves as an actor. This result is supported by the

notionview of Rodgers, et.al.,, (1996) that the more teachers talk, the lesser will will the
students havebe given the opportunity to of expressingexpress themselves.

HenceTherefore, teachers should encourage the students to participate in the class

discussions by letting the students share the ideas that they have teachers should ,

ideally, be the one who gets their students to participate in the class discussions by

sharing ideas that they have.talk. TeachersThey need to provide the learners with

opportunities to take part in varied activities. through Tthe use of interactive pair and

group activities will do good for these willwhich enhance learners’ motivation and will

reduce stress in language learning effectively.

Table 1.4. TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE ROLES OF THEIR STUDENTS IN THE CLASSROOM

TRADITIONAL STRATEGIES
MY (OFTEN) PERCEN (SOMETIME PERCEN (NEVER) PERCENTA
STUDENTS’ FREQUE TAGE S) TAGE FREQUENCY GE
ROLE IS NCY FREQUENCY
Imitator 1 3.03 17 51.52 15 45.45
Negotiator 21 63.64 1 3.03 11 33.33
Memorizer 16 48.48 0 0.00 17 51.52
Guesser 3 9.09 13 39.39 17 51.52
Relaxer 10 30.30 4 12.12 19 57.58

Table 1.4 shows the teachers’ perception on the roles of their students in the
classroom using Traditional Strategies. It is found out that 21 or 63.64% of the
respondents often perceive that their students’ role is as negotiator in language
learning. This is supported by Lopata et.al (2005) that the teacherteachers’ do purposes
are is not just to to give orders , but they are also the individuals that also to serve as a
resources which students canto turn to when they when a student needs help in
grasping ideas or puttinga concept or pulling informationinformation togethetogetherr.
However, In fact, teachers do help students whenever they experience difficulty of
grasping meanings of new and when they face misconceptions of ideas. Students
negotiate with the teachers most of the times in order to make sure that they learn what
are intended for them to learn.are mislead with information.students do get off track
sometimes, and when they do, the teacher is there to help.

On the other hand, 15 or 45.45% of the respondents never perceive their

students’ role as imitator. This result clearly indicates that almost all the respondents do
not reallyoften see their students as imitator. This is supported by the viewnotion of
Girard, et.al. (1991) when heo stated when they said that that the roles of the stud ents
are to would seem to be assimilatassimilateassimilate ing the skills and the knowledge
that theof the teachers are presenting are the students’ role. By doing so, and, by doing
so, students will gain they will be leadeding to some sort to of expertiseknowledge that
will help guarantee ensure them them to becomeing a contributors in the lprocess of
language learning.. However, However, due to the diversity of learning styles of the
students, iit is there are also possibleilities and instances that students would
acquiretake the wrong process in assimilating the skills and knowledge presented by
the teachers the students will make use of a wrong process because of their diversity in
learning styles.s.

Table 1.5. TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE ROLES OF THEIR STUDENTS IN THE

CLASSROOM

CONTEMPORARY STRATEGIES
MY STUDENTS’ (OFTEN) PERCENTAGE (SOMETIMES) PERCENTAGE (NEVER) PERCENTAGE
ROLE IS FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQUENCY
Improviser 0 0 24 72.73 9 27.27
Accuracy
18 0 15
Enthusiast 54.55 0.00 45.45
Collaborator 17 51.52 2 6.06 14 42.42
Whole Person 1 3.03 19 57.58 13 39.39
True- Believer 2 6.06 13 39.39 18 54.55

Table 1.5 present the teachers’ perception on the roles of their students in the

classroom using Traditional Contemporary Strategies. It is found out that 18 or 54.55%

of the respondents perceive that their students’ role as accuracy enthusiast in language

learning. This implies that more than half of the teachers use communicative strategies

since they view their students as constant processors of information and learning. that

they acquire.

This result is supported by Alexandria, (1993) who stated that in order for the

students to reach beyond the simple factual response, the teacher should challenge

themstudents to reach beyond the simple factual response. . The sStudents must take

risks in making mistakes,; try out experiment, and discover more about their knowledge

and views in learning with the language. They are able to continue learning the

language outside the classroom because they learn to use language learning strategies

that enabled them to do so. continue learning English outside of the classroom. Thus, it

stimulates learners to become competent and able to dwell on discrepancies as they

learn the languagee.

 On the other hand, 9 or 27.27% of the respondents never perceived their

students’ role as improviser. This reveals that most of the teachers view their students

as only receivers of information and not as discoverers of their own learning.

This is supported by Long et. al. (1998) who stressclaimeded that learners in the

naturalistic approach come second to the instructeded learners because they have an

edge rate advantage over the formerthose in the naturalistic approach. He emphasized

It meaeven if learners can make improve using ments in their own ways through by

means of explorations and their discovery learning but it is still advantageous on the

part of the students if they are guided by their teachers for them to avoid mistakes or

misconceptions of the idea they tend to learn.s,

it is still of great advantageous if they are guided by their teacher for them to

absolutely avoid avoidance of having misconceptions ofn the idea that they intend to

would learn. to the idea that their teacher wants them to catch up.This result clearly

indicates that almost all of the respondents do not often see their students as help in the

improvement of language learning. Swain (1993) (quoted in McDonough, 2005: 160)

quoted that learners’ need to be pushed to make use of their resources; they need to

have their linguistic abilities stretched to their fullest. In contrary with this statement,

Long et. al. (1998) states that instructed learners have a rate advantage over

naturalistic approach. It means that even if learners can make improvements in their

own ways by means of explorations, it is still advantageous if they are guided by their
teacher for the avoidance of having misconceptions on the idea that they would learn to

the idea that their teacher wants them to catch up.

 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter summarizes the results of the study and draws conclusions in view
of the findings and offers recommendations. This study was conducted to determine the
preference of the Secondary English teachers of Tagum City on communicative
strategies in language teaching. This study aimed to determine the preferred
Communicative Strategy of the Secondary English teachers under BEC 2000 curriculum
in Tagum City Division, as well as the teachers’ perception about their roles and the
roles of their students in language teaching/learning.

The findings of the study are the following:

1. The Secondary English Teachers under BEC 2000 Curriculum preferred to use the
Contemporary Communicative Strategies than traditional in language teaching.

2. The Secondary English Teachers under BEC 2000 Curriculum perceived their roles in
language teaching as Facilitators and Counselors which belong to Contemporary
Strategies, having 63.64% and 57.58% respectively. However, it is also found out that
more than half of the respondents perceived themselves as Error Correctors, Language
Modelers and Task Designer which belong to the Traditional Strategies, having the
percentage of 57.58%, 54.55%, and 54.55% respectively.

3. The Secondary English Teachers under BEC 2000 Curriculum perceived the roles of
their students as Negotiators and Memorizers (having the percentage of 63.64% and
48.48%). Thus, to their teachers, they are Contemporary Language Learners.

There were many communicative strategies that evolved in teaching and those
were included either on the Contemporary or Traditional Strategy. Some believe that
contemporary strategies are better than the traditional strategies of teaching but yet
these two methods are both a successful. way. However, contemporary strategies were
more preferred by the teachers under the BEC 2000 curriculum. This result is supported
by the notion of Riley (2003) who generally states that most teachers reported
substantial use of some contemporary strategies over traditional strategies.
 The results of this further imply that teachers use the language in
transactional/practical communication rather than just mastery in grammar and
vocabulary of students and that teachers shouldered too much of responsibilities for
teaching in the classroom to make sure everything they thought were understood by the
student. Their primary focus on teaching language to students is for communicative
function other than pronunciation and grammar; and in contemporary strategy, students
are aware of their learning process. Aside from that, students do more in
speaking/pronunciation exercises than mere translation exercises. As teachers, it is
possible that they tend to develop simple techniques and make use of language
laboratory (speech laboratory, audio-visual rooms, etc.) than simple techniques in
lecture.

Lastly, by having implemented the new curriculum which is the K to12, teachers
under BEC 2000 curriculum (third year and fourth year teachers) are soon to use the
strategies that have been introduced and applied by the teachers under K to 12. This
newly implemented curriculum preferably used contemporary communicative strategies
in teaching English language

This study aimed to determine the preferred Communicative Strategy of the Secondary
English teachers under BEC 2000 curriculum in Tagum City Division, as well as the
teachers’ perception about their roles and the roles of their students in language
teaching/learning.

The findings of the study are the following:

1. The Secondary English Teachers under BEC 2000 Curriculum preferred to use the
Contemporary Communicative Strategies than traditional in language teaching.

2. The Secondary English Teachers under BEC 2000 Curriculum perceived their roles in
language teaching as Facilitators and Counselors which belong to Contemporary
Strategies, having 63.64% and 57.58% respectively. However, it is also found out that
more than half of the respondents perceived themselves as Error Correctors, Language
Modelers and Task Designer which belong to the Traditional Strategies, having the
percentage of 57.58%, 54.55%, and 54.55% respectively.

3. The Secondary English Teachers under BEC 2000 Curriculum perceived the roles of
their students as Negotiators and Memorizers (having the percentage of 63.64% and
48.48%). Thus, to their teachers, they are Contemporary Language Learners.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the aforementioned findings and conclusions of this study, the

researchers would like to make the following recommendations:

1. The Department of Education should encourage the School Heads to

organize seminars and workshops that can increase the awareness of the
use of Contemporary Communicative Strategies in Language Teaching of
Secondary English Teachers under BEC 2000 Curriculum.

2. The School Administrators should provide resources and materials that can
help the teachers apply the contemporary communicative strategies to help
improve the teaching strategies employed in the classroom such as facilitator,
counselor, accuracy enthusiast and collaborator. .
3. Teachers should be trained extensively in the use of Contemporary
Communicative Strategies to adapt to the contemporary trends in Language
Teaching.

4.
 REFERENCES

Abad, Florencio B. (2005). Dep Ed Order No.35 s 2005: Policy Guidelines in the
Implementation of the Secondary Education Program of the 2002 BEC SY 2005- 2006

Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. London: Longman.

Alexandria, S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: Cambridge

University Press., vol.3, 15-20

Brown,D., Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 5th edition. Retrieved August

5, 2013 from http://www.cambridge.org/other_files/...s/Richards-Communicative-

Language.pdf

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H.D. (1987).Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Berns, M. S. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in

communicative language teaching. New York: Plenum
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Learning Classroom: Research on Teaching

and Learning. Cambridge: CUP

Copata, E. (2005) The Changing Role of the Teacher. Paris, France: UNESCO p. 56

Cooper, L. (1996). Principles of language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.pp.135.

Cole, M. (2005).Professional Values and Practice. Meeting the Standards, London:

David Fulton Pub.

Davis, L. (1999). Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.

Ellis, R. (1994) The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, OUP. 1, 19.

Krashen, Stephen D. (1981). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

English Language Teaching series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd. 202
pages.

Lee, W. (1997) Complexity in the Classroom. Educational Leadership 47, pp. 65-70

Lavadenz, M. (2010) The Catesol Journal. Retrieved February 03, 2014

http://www.catesol.org/Lavadenz%2018-47.pdf
Maureen, Epstein (2002).Communicative Language Teaching. Retrieved August 5, 2013
from http://myenglishpages.com/blog/communicative-language-teaching-e-approach/.

Rogers, J. (1996). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework.

Modern Language Journal: 78, pp. 139.

Richards, Jack C. and Theodore S. Rodgers (1986). Approaches and methods in

language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Slavi, R.E. (2011).TRADITIONAL Communication Strategy. Retrieved August 5, 2013

From http://onthinktanks.org/2011/09/12/responding-digital-disruption-traditional-
communications- oi-strategy/.

Savignon, S. (1983) Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and

Classroom Practice. Retrieved January 21, 2014.
http://yalepress.yale.edu/excerpts/03000015671.pdf

Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative Language Teaching: State of Art. University of

Illinois at Urhana-Champaign Retrieved February 02, 2014.
http://www.sanjeshserv.ir/Hamgam/Files/file/Communicative%20Language%20Teaching
%20State%20of%20the%20Art.pdf
 Appendix A

University of Southeastern Philippines

College of Teacher Education and Technology
Apokon, Tagum City

October 1, 2013

The Principal

Sir/Madam:

Greetings!

We are the 4th year BSED-English students of the University of Southeastern

Philippines. One of the requirements of this course is the conduct of a language research; and
in this regard, we would like to ask your permission to allow us to conduct our proposed study in
your school.

Our language research study intends to answer the question “What

Contemporary Communicative Strategies Preferred by the English Teachers of Tagum City
Division under BEC Curriculum”. This study shall provide us with necessary information to
strengthen our learning in our future profession as teachers of English.
In line with this, our respondents will be the third year and fourth year English
teachers of this school.

Thank you for your very kind approval.

We assure you of the confidentiality of the data we will gather for this study.

Respectfully yours,

IRENE T. JOSE
KESELY M. ESGUERRA
MARIE GRACE P. BALDICANA
(Researchers)

Noted by:
DR. ANNE MARIE JENNIFER ELIGIO

Professor

Appendix B

CONSTRUCT VALIDATION
Name of Validator:
Educational Attainment:

Dear Mr. /Miss Validators,

We, the fourth year BSED English students in this University, are currently enrolled in
the course English 30 Language Research. With this, we are currently pursuing our
research study entitled “Contemporary Communicative Strategies preferred by the
English Teachers of Tagum City Division under BEC Curriculum”
Attached herewith is a researcher-made survey questionnaire. In this light, we would
like to humbly ask for your assistance in the collection of our data indispensable for our
study.
With due consideration of your expertise in such field, please rate each of the following
items of this survey questionnaire to ensure its validity. Please rate:
4- the item stated is highly appropriate or relevant to the concept
3- the item stated is just appropriate to the concept
2- the item stated is somewhat appropriate
1- not appropriate
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

We would be grateful for your positive response regarding this matter.

Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Esguerra, Kesely M.
Baldicana, Marie Grace P.
Jose, Irene T.
The Researchers

Appendix C

Cover Letter for Questionnaire

Subject: You are invited to a research survey “Contemporary Communicative Strategies

preferred by the English Teachers of Tagum City Division under BEC Curriculum
Dear Teachers:

You are invited to participate in a research study “Contemporary Communicative

Strategies preferred by the English Teachers of Tagum City Division under BEC Curriculum.
This study is being conducted by the students from University of Southeastern Philippines
Tagum Campus. The purpose of this study is to know the English Teachers’ preferred
communication strategies in language teaching.

In this study, you will be asked to answer a questionnaire. Your participation in this study
is voluntary and you are free to withdraw your participation from this study at any time. The
survey should take only 20 minutes to complete.
There are no risks associated with participating in this study. The survey collects no
identifying information of any respondent. All of the response in the survey will be recorded
anonymously.
By completing and submitting this survey, you are indicating your consent to participate
in the study. Your participation is appreciated.

Researcher’s Name
Baldicana, Marie Grace P.
Esguerra, Kesely M.
Jose, Irene T.

Adviser
Dr. Anne Marie Jennifer Eligio

Appendix D

TABLE 2.1 Raw Tables

Appendix D

TABLE 2.1 Raw Tables

NO. OF ITEMS Traditional Strategies Contemporary Strategies

1 13 20
2. 12 21
3. 9 24
4. 14 19
5. 14 19

6. 18 15
7. 9 24
8. 9 24
9. 16 17

10. 11 22
11. 21 12
12. 10 23

13. 18 15
14. 16 17
15. 12 21
16. 5 285
17. 17 15

TOTAL 225 336

336/17= 19.76 225/17= 132.24

MEAN: 19.76 MEAN: 132.24

 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE ROLES IN THE CLASSROOM

Table 2.2

TOTAL 113 88 129

NO. OF ITEMS OFTEN SOMETIMES NEVER

18. Drill Leader 15 0 18

19. Error Corrector 19 1 13

20. Language Modeler 18 0 13

21. Task Designer 18 0 13

22. Commander 1 22 10

23. Counselor 19 2 12

24. Action Monitor O 22 11

25. Actor O 20 13

26. Stimulator 2 17 14

27. Facilitator 21 2 10

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THEIRRE ROLES OF THEIR STUDENTS IN THE

CLASSROOM
Table 2.3

NO. OF ITEMS OFTEN SOMETIMES NEVER

28. Improviser 0 24 9

29. Imitator 1 16 16

30. Negotiator 21 1 11

31. Memorizer 16 0 17

32. Accuracy Enthusiast 18 0 15

33. Collaborator 16 2 15

34. Whole Person 1 19 13

35. Guesser 3 14 16

36. Relaxer 10 4 19

37. True-Believer 2 13 18

TOTAL 89 93 149

Appendix E

Sample Survey Questionnaire

General Directions: Choose among the choices below. Put check mark () on your
answer.

Part A. On the use of Contemporary Communicative Strategies

1. My focus on Teaching Language to students is for:

[ ] mastery in grammar and vocabulary of students

 [ ] use of language in transactional/practical communication

2. As a teacher I teach:

[ ] about the Language

[ ] the Language

3. My role in language teaching is as a:

[ ] facilitator

[ ] lecturer

4. My primary focus on teaching language to students is for:

[ ] pronunciation and grammar

[ ] communicative function

5. Students do more in:

[ ] translation exercises

[ ] speaking/pronunciation exercises

6. As a teacher I:

[ ] introduce new words and drills them.

[ ] explain new vocabulary using visual aids

7. In teaching the language, I let students expose to:

[ ] varied forms of text (fiction, nonfiction, poetry)

[ ] vocabulary exercises

8. Reading materials used in classroom are:

[ ] high-interest reading materials (fiction and nonfiction) at various reading

levels

[ ] great Books (Ancient Literature pieces)

9. As teacher, I develop:

[ ] simple techniques and make use of language laboratory

 [ ] simple techniques in lecture

10. In learning the language students should:

[ ] learn the pattern of the target language

[ ] use the target language

11. As a teacher, I teach the English language:

[ ] orally before it is presented in written form

[ ] in written form before it is presented orally

12. I offer and provide students with:

[ ] real-life communication opportunities

[ ] drills and memorization of chunks of Language

13. In learning the language:

[ ] listening should be developed before speaking

[ ] speaking is taught and then reading and writing

14. As teacher, I prefer to:

[ ] stay out of the way in the process of learning the language

[ ] be involved in the process of learning the language.

15. I believe that teaching should be:

[ ] subordinated to learning.

[ ] the principal factor for learning

16. In teaching the language, the means of activating the materials should be:

[ ] varied and playful

[ ] absolute and consistently used

17. I make sure that the learning should be:

[ ] meaningful

[ ] facilitated in a pleasant and comfortable environment.

Part B. On Perception of Roles

As a teacher, I perceive my role as:

18. Drill Leader [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

19. Error Corrector [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

20. Language Modeler [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

21. Task Designer [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

22. Commander [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

23. Counselor [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

24. Action Monitor [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

25. Actor [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

26. Stimulator [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

27. Facilitator [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

As a teacher, I perceive my students as:

28. Improviser [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

29. Imitator [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

30. Negotiator [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

31. Memorizer [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

32. Accuracy Enthusiast [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

33. Collaborator [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

34. Whole Person [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

35. Guesser [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

36. Relaxer [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never

37. True- Believer [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Never