English Language Proficiency and School Performance in English
1Sheila Mae O. Cantara,2 Mary Jane V. Esimos,3 Leizel B. Francisco
, 4Shelly Joy S. Jungco,5Marissa C. Limson,6 Audrey Karyl P. Maligang, 7Lennie S. Malubay
1,2,3,4,5,6,7Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State College, Estancia, Iloilo Philippines

Google Scholar Download Pdf

This study determined the English Language Proficiency and School Performance in English as well the school performance as a whole. The respondents of the study were both English teachers and grade 10 students in the national high schools in the fifth district of Iloilo, using the descriptive comparative approach. Findings of which served as basis for the enhancement of the existing English manual used in English 101 for the improvement of English language proficiency of the students enrolled in the said subject. Generally, seventy percent of the student and teacher respondents were female. Teachers’ Level of English language proficiency has a significant effect on the level of proficiency of students which has a direct relationship on the school performance. It was also found out that teachers’ performance has no significant relationship with the students’ performance in English and school performance as a whole. Further, student–respondents performance has a significant relationship with their level of English language proficiency which has a direct effect on the school performance as a whole. The English teachers’ performance is related to their English proficiency level, but not associated with the students’ performance in English and school performance. However, the English teachers’ level of English language proficiency significantly affects the students’ level of English proficiency, while the students’ performance has a significant effect on their level of English language proficiency, affecting the school performance as a whole. Enhancement of the English language manual that will be used in English 101 (Study and Thinking Skills) must be adopted. Training & Development Program Design for the Enhancement of English Teachers language Proficiency must be implemented.


Language, proficiency, performance, enhancement, development


1) Abao, E. (2013). Second Language Facility of Student Teachers in the Philippines: An Opportunity or a Challenge? Cebu Normal University, Cebu City, Philippines in European Scientific Journal: December, 2013 edition Vol. 9, No. 34 ISSN:1857-7881 (Print)e―ISSN1857- 7431 193.

2) Adanza, Estela G. Bermudo, Predito Jose v., Rasonable, Marietta. (2009). “Methods of Research: A Primer”. Rex Printing Company, Inc. Quezon, City pages. 133-135.

3) Agregado, Leila (2014), National Achievement Test and Language Performance Evaluative_Study_of_SecondarySchool_Teachers_Competency_in_English.

4) Arshad, M. (2007-2009). Evaluative Study of Secondary School Teachers’ Competency in the Subject English.In

5) Bailey, K.M. (2006).Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

6) Brau, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Content Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2). Pp. 77-101 ISSN14780-0887 in

7) Burns, A. & Richards, J.C..(2012). The Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy andPractice in Second Language Teaching. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

8) Calderon, Jose F: Gonzales, expectacion c. 1993. “Methods of Research and Thesis Writing”. National Book Store Inc. Metro, Manila page 263.

9) Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1,1-47.Munby, J. (1978).

10) Cascallar, E. & Henning, G. (2011). Research Reports: A preliminary study of the nature of communicative competence, 21 November 2011.

11) Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design-Choosingamong five approaches, 3rded.USA: Sage Publications Inc..

12) Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

13) Corpuz, I. (2013). English in High school (Mini critique) in

14) English, A. (2007). Interrupted Experiences: Reflection, listening and “negativity” in the practice of teaching. Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 133-142.

15) Diergos F. D. (2010). “Understanding Language Assessment,” London, UK: Hodder

16) Francisco, Erlyn S. (2013). NAT Performance of the National High School in the town of Carles, Unpublished, Thesis.

17) Gortayo K. (2013).Listening:Challenges for Teachers.Teachers College Record, 112(11), 2717-2727.International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 2014, January, Volume 3 Number 1 67-80.

18) Hymes, Dell H. (1966). “Two types of linguistic relativity”. In Bright, W. Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 114– 158.

19) Hymes, Dell H. (1972). “On communicative competence”. In Pride, J.B.; Holmes, J. Sociolinguistics: selected readings.

20) Khami-Stein, L.D. (2009). Teacher preparation and non-native English speaking educators. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Ed) The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp.91-101). Cambridge University Press.

21) Kretovics & Nussel, I. (2005). ELT Student Teachers’ Competence for Teaching Language Skills: A Qualitative Exploration. International Journal ofSocial Sciences and Humanity Studies, Vol.3, No.1 2011 ISSN:1309-8063. In laslan.pdf

22) Lane, et al.(2009). Teacher knowledge about reading fluency and indicators of students’ fluency growth in reading first schools. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25(1),57-86.

23) Lebrun, M.(2008). Communiqué ecvalementenclasse: une competence transversal. Vie pedagogique,149, 2008, 49-53 in Speaking for Excellence: Language Competencies for Effective Teaching Practice (2013).

24) Littlewood, W. (1981).Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25) Louden, W. &Rohl, M.(2006). “Too many theories and not enough instruction” Perception of preservice teacher preparation for literacy teaching in Australian schools. Literacy, 40(2), 66-78.doi:10-1111/j.1467-9345.2006 00440x.

26) McNaughton, D. et al.(2008). Learning to Listen: Teaching an active listening strategy to pre service education professionals. Topics in Early Childhood Special education, 27(4), 223-231.

27) Nunan, D. (2009). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Pasig City, Philippines: ESP Printers, Inc.

28) Ohno, A. (2011). Communicative Competence and Communicative Language Teaching in http://cicero.ubunkyo.acjp/lib/kiyo/fsells002/25-32.pdf.

29) Phelps, G. (2009). Just knowing how to read isn’t enough! Assessing knowledge for teaching reading. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(2), 137-154.doi:10.1007/s11092-009-9070-6.

30) Rosario, T.M. & Susano, R.l. , T. (2010).Approaches and Methods in language teaching: a description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Choudhury, A.S. (2011) Classroom roles of English language teachers: the traditional and the innovative. India: Assam University.

31) Saez, FT and Martin, JLO.(2010). Discourse Competence, Dealing withTexts in the EFL Classroom.University of Granada. In

32) Savignon, S.J. Communicative Language Teaching for the Twenty-First Century in Celce-Murcia.(2006). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 3 rdedition.Heinle&Heinle.

33) Tudor, I. (1993). Teacher roles in the learner-centered classroom. ELT Journal, 47(1), 22-31. In Choudhury, A.S. (2011). Classroom roles of English language teachers: the traditional and the innovative. India: Assam University.

34) Utts, J. (2013). Cram 101 Textbook Reviews 2012 in

35) Yase J. (2013). Extent of Implementation of ALS in Iloilo, Unpublished Research Paper, Northern Iloilo {olytechnic State College.

36) Zwiers, J. (2007). Teacher Practices and prospective for developing academic language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-116. Dol:10.1111/j1433-4192.2007.00135x


Indexed In

Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar