English language proficiency of

BU college sophomores AY 2008-2009

Ma. Celina Eladia G. Meneses

Department of English

Bicol University College of Arts and Letters

Legazpi City, 4500

maisiem_06@yahoo.com
Introduction

Addressing the perceived need for the improvement of English language proficiency in

Bicol University, this study attempted to determine the level of language proficiency of its

students, specifically those who had taken up English 1 and English 2. It likewise endeavored to

find out what factors may have contributed to the students language proficiency, and what can

be done to further improve it.

Specifically, the study determined the language proficiency level of Bicol University

students who completed English 1 and 2 in terms of reading comprehension and paragraph

writing, in the university in general and across colleges. It also revealed the strengths and

weaknesses of these students as revealed in the assessments. Finally, it looked into the factors

that influence the English proficiency of the best and poorest performers, in terms of: a) Personal

factors; b) Social factors; c) School-related factors; and d) Attitude towards English. From the

findings, enhancements to the current English 1 and 2 courses were proposed to improve English

language proficiency among students.

Materials and Methods

Using the descriptive-evaluative research method, this study specifically aimed to find

out, in general and across colleges: the language proficiency level of Bicol University students

who completed English 1 and 2 in terms of reading comprehension and paragraph writing; and

the strengths and weaknesses that can be seen among these students as revealed in the

assessments. Then, through a case study of the best and poorest performers, it also determined

the personal, social, school-related, and attitudinal factors that are associated with the English
proficiency of the students. Finally, it made to propose enhancements to the English 1 and 2

courses towards the improvement of English language proficiency among students.

Results and Conclusions

The following findings and conclusions were drawn: 1.a.) The overall language

proficiency of the respondents throughout the university, measured through their reading and

writing skills is 47.91 %, found to be at the Average Proficiency level only; b.) The College of

Nursing has the highest level of proficiency at 64.24 % mean rating (Average Proficiency) while

the Polangui Campus has the lowest, at 34.25 % mean rating (Low Proficiency) only; and 1.c.)

Reading Comprehension skills of the respondents throughout the university are found to be at a

performance level of 50.91 % (Average Proficiency); and 1.d.) Paragraph Writing skills of the

same respondents is similarly found to be at a performance level of 45.96 % (Average

Proficiency).

In reading comprehension, the respondents generally do not have any strengths, but are

found to be weak in Distinguishing between Fact and Opinion, having gained a mean score of

only 1.69 (33.74 %) which is at the Low Proficiency level . In paragraph writing, they are found to

be strong in Paragraph Identification which has a mean score of 2.86 (71.52 %) found at the

Moving towards Proficiency level, but weak in Achieving Emphasis and Employing Effective

Endings, both of which are at the Low Proficiency level, with mean scores of 0.96 (31.98 %)

and 0.93 (31.06 %), respectively.

Among the personal factors considered, sex, high school attended, residence or

hometown, and hobbies or pastime are perceived to contribute to students performance of

language skills. Under social factors, exposure to English is found to affect proficiency in the
language; when it comes to school-related factors, teacher influence and teaching strategies are

determined to have influence on the respondents language performance; There is a perceived

difference between the attitude of good performers and poor performers towards the English

language, and is therefore considered to influence or relate to performance.

Enrichment for English 1 and English 2 may take the form of reading and writing

activities tailor-made to the kind of students each college/academic unit has, taking into account

the strengths and weaknesses revealed in the assessments.

References

Baraceros, Esther L. Communication Skills 1: Study and Thinking Skills. Manila: Rex
Book Store, 2000.
Best, John W. and James Kahn, Research in Education, 10th ed. Boston, et al.: Pearson
Education, Inc., 2006.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Diane Larsen-Freeman. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL
Teachers Course, 2nd ed. USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 1999.
Fraenkel, Jack R. and Norman E. Wallen, How to Design and Evaluate Reseach in
Education 2nd ed. New York, et al.: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.
Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman, Nina Hyams, An Introduction to Language, 7th ed.
Australia, et al.: Heinle 2003.
Galdon et al, The Public and Private Schools in the Philippines, n.p. 1990.
Krahnke, Karl Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1987.
Lardizabal, Amparo S., Alicia S. Bustos, Luz C. Bucu, and Maura G. Tangco, Principles
and Methods of Teaching, 3rd ed. Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, Inc.,
1996.
McWhorter, Kathleen T. Academic Reading, 4th ed. New York, et al.: Addison Wesley
Longman, Inc., 2001.
Nunan, David Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Reganit, Arnulfo Aaron R., Bernardo R. Marquez, Milagros Z. Reyes, and Rolliver M.
Baciles, Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching and Learning. Valenzuela
City: Mutya Publishing House, 2004.
Richards, Jack C. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.