The General Education Curriculum of the Filipino Language in the

Philippines: An Anaylsis Towards the Creation of an Evaluation Design

Nina Christina Lazaro-Zamora
Philippine Normal University
ninachristina_lazaro@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
This study focused on eight (8) colleges and universities in Metro Manila. These
LCUs are: PLM, UCC, PLP, PLnP, QCPU, UMAK, PLMUN at PLMAR. The
participants for this study were the students, teachers and administrators of the colleges
and universities during the first semester of school year 2010-2011. The curriculum being
used at present was the one used for analysis. This study also stressed the extent of the
implementation of CMO No.59 s. 1996 at CMO No.04 s. 1997 in eight colleges and
universities during the first semester for school year 2010-2011. This study made use of
qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Descriptive research was also used to
describe the things related to the topic. The steps and methods were likewise illustrated
how CHED implemented the CHED Memo 59, series of 1996 and CHED Memo 4, series
of 1997 (Appendix A). The respondents for this study were students, teachers and
administrators. In the survey questionnaire, the respondents perception, opinion and
observation were represented regarding the implementation of the GEC-Filipino in their
universities. The researcher used the weighted mean in analyzing the data.This study is
very significant in the following institutions: (1) CHED to strengthen the method of
implementing the curriculum. This will become the basis in monitoring the curriculum if
it is properly and correctly implemented in each institution; (2) Local Colleges and
Universities (LCU) to find out if these institutions are following the guidelines set by
the constitution and CHED based on the CHED Memo 9 series of 1996 at CMO No.04 s
1997. It is also very significant to find out the standing of Filipino Language in these
colleges and universities since it serves as the microcosm of the country; and (3) Languae
Planner and Curriculum Planner. The data for study is very important for curriculum
planner to have a guide in implementing the evaluation of the system for language in
education. The study showed the similarities of the experiences of the eight LCUs in the
implementation of the Content of the Curriculum and Teaching Materials (whatever
category is used) with a synthesis of sometimes. Among the eight LCUs, there is a
difference in the synthesis of the method of teaching. The LCU showed it used GEC B
with a synthesis of Always and LCUs used the same category in A and B with a synthesis
of sometimes. Only to prove that the eight LCUs have the same experiences when it
comes to content of the curriculum, method of teaching and teaching materials because of
cultural similarity. This only shows that there is a need to strengthen these items. On the
other hand, those who used GEC B on method of teaching were far better off than those
LCUs who used GEC A and B which need to further strengthen the implementation of the
method of teaching to become effective in the implementation of the curriculum. Perhaps
QCPU is more focused in teaching compared to seven LCUs.