| 000 | 11226nam a2201225Ia 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 000 | 09351ntm a2200229 i 4500 | ||
| 001 | 55746 | ||
| 003 | 0 | ||
| 005 | 20250920174311.0 | ||
| 008 | 150331n 000 0 eng d | ||
| 010 |
_z _z _o _a _b |
||
| 015 |
_22 _a |
||
| 016 |
_2 _2 _a _z |
||
| 020 |
_e _e _a _b _z _c _q _x |
||
| 022 |
_y _y _l _a2 |
||
| 024 |
_2 _2 _d _c _a _q |
||
| 028 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 029 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 032 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 035 |
_a _a _b _z _c _q |
||
| 037 |
_n _n _c _a _b |
||
| 040 |
_e _erda _a _d _b _c |
||
| 041 |
_e _e _a _b _g _h _r |
||
| 043 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 045 |
_b _b _a |
||
| 050 |
_a _a _d _b2 _c0 |
||
| 051 |
_c _c _a _b |
||
| 055 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 060 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 070 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 072 |
_2 _2 _d _a _x |
||
| 082 |
_a _a _d _b2 _c |
||
| 084 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 086 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 090 |
_a _a _m _b _q |
||
| 092 |
_f _f _a _b |
||
| 096 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 097 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 100 |
_e _e _aRabanes, Priscila Genese. _d _b4 _u _c0 _q16 |
||
| 110 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c _k |
||
| 111 |
_a _a _d _b _n _c |
||
| 130 |
_s _s _a _p _f _l _k |
||
| 210 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 222 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 240 |
_s _s _a _m _g _n _f _l _o _p _k |
||
| 245 | 0 |
_a _aAn analysis of the teaching of communication art, English, in the primary grades in the division of schools, Manila SY 1985-86 : _d _bbasis of a proposed school-level development program / _n _cPriscila Genese Rabanes. _h6 _p |
|
| 246 |
_a _a _b _n _i _f6 _p |
||
| 249 |
_i _i _a |
||
| 250 |
_6 _6 _a _b |
||
| 260 |
_e _e _a _b _f _c _g |
||
| 264 |
_3 _3 _a _d _b _c46 |
||
| 300 |
_e _e _c26 cm. _avi, 318 pages : _billustrations |
||
| 310 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 321 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 336 |
_b _atext _2rdacontent |
||
| 337 |
_3 _30 _b _aunmediated _2rdamedia |
||
| 338 |
_3 _30 _b _avolume _2rdacarrier |
||
| 340 |
_2 _20 _g _n |
||
| 344 |
_2 _2 _a0 _b |
||
| 347 |
_2 _2 _a0 |
||
| 362 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 385 |
_m _m _a2 |
||
| 410 |
_t _t _b _a _v |
||
| 440 |
_p _p _a _x _v |
||
| 490 |
_a _a _x _v |
||
| 500 |
_a _aThesis (Ph.D.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 1988.;A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Education in Educational Administration.;Includes bibliographical references. _d _b _c56 |
||
| 504 |
_a _a _x |
||
| 505 |
_a _a _b _t _g _r |
||
| 506 |
_a _a5 |
||
| 510 |
_a _a _x |
||
| 520 |
_b _b _c _aStatement of the Problem. This study analyzed the problems of the teaching of English in the primary grades by special English teachers in the Division of City School, Manila SY 1989-1986 and proposed a school-level development program. Specifically it sought to answer the following questions: 1. What are the teachers' and administrators' profile with regard to the following presage variables: 1.1. Age; 1.2. Sex; 1.3. Higher educational attainment; 1.4. Experience in teaching/supervising English; and 1.5. Latest performance rating? 2. What are the problems of the teaching of English in terms of the following process variables as perceived by teachers and administrators: 2.1. Teacher-behavior; 2.2. Pupil-behavior; 2.3. Teacher-pupil interaction; 2.4. Administrator-behavior; 2.5. Parent-behavior; 2.6. Teaching methods and techniques? 3. Is there a significant relationship between the teachers; and administrators' perceptions in the teaching of English in the primary grades based on the selected process variables? 4. How do the teachers and administrators perceive educational values? Inservice training program? 5. Is there a significant relationship between the teachers' and administrators' perceptions on educational values and inservice training program? Procedure. The basic design of the study was the descriptive survey method. The principal instrument used to gather data was the questionnaire. It consisted of four parts. Personal information of the participants was the first part. Problems encountered concerning process variables was the second and perceptions about presage variables on educational values was the third, the fourth and last part dealt with inservice training program. Unstructured and informal interviews, documentary analysis, provided salient ideas on the planning and formulation of the proposed school-level development program. The participants of the study were taken from the seventy-four elementary schools in the Division of City School, Manila. Thirty-three percent of the total number of schools in each of the six supervisory districts or twenty-six school in all with three-hundred twenty special English were involved. One hundred thirty-three administrators from the whole division were likewise participants. Treatment of the Data. Analysis and interpretation of the data consisted of simple percentage, ranking, weighted mean and rank correlation coefficient. Findings. 1. On profile of special English teachers and administrators. The youngest special English teacher is between 21-25 years old and the oldest to the 51 and above. Among the administrators, 31-35 and 51 and above too. All the teachers are females while the administrators, ninety-two percent. Forty-six percent of the teachers are BSEED degree holders while thirty-eight percent of the administrators finished the academic requirements in MA. For the least length of experience teaching English there are thirty-one percent of the teachers and thirty-two percent of the administrators in supervising English. Ninety percent of the teachers obtained Very Satisfactory performance ratings while to the administrators, seventy-two percent got the same rating. 2. On problems of the teaching of English in relation to selected process variables: 2.1. Teacher-Behavior.Lack of desire to improve oneself, frequent absences/tardiness and laissez faire attitude were the most persistent problems. 2.2. Pupil-Behavior. On top of the list were poor study habits, habitual failure to do homework and irregular attendance. 2.3. Teacher-Pupil Interaction. The first three persistent problems were poor communication skills, teachers' inability to draw maximum pupil-participation and poor pupil response. 2.4. Administrator-Behavior. Too much dependence on teachers for children's learning, lack of time to follow up children's work in school, and inadequate ability to help children in schoolwork?, were the most serious problems. 2.5. Teaching Methods and Techniques. Topping the list were inadequate instructional materials and devices and inability to provide for individual differences. 3. There is significant relationship of perceptions on Teacher-Behavior and Teaching Methods and Techniques. However in all the other areas - Pupil-Behavior, Teacher-Pupil Interaction, Administrator-Behavior and Parent-Behavior, the relationship is not significant. 4. Teachers' and administrators' perception s on Educational Values and Inservice Training. 4.1. Educational Values 4.1.1. Choice of Teaching as a Profession. The priority values were prestige of the profession, service to humanity, and self fulfillment. 4.1.2. Efficiency in Teaching. Using intrinsic motivation in classroom work, maintaining rapport with pupils, administrators, fellow teachers, and utilizing resourcefulness and creativity were the values given priority. 4.1.3. Accountability to the Pupils. The foremost accountability was |improved communication skills followed by internalized moral values. 4.1.4. Accountability to the System. The topmost accountability was contributing to the growth/progress of the educational system particularly to improve instruction at the elementary level, followed by improved performance level of the pupils in English. 4.1.5. Professional Growth and Development. The most relevant value was attending inservice meetings. Pursuing graduate studies and attending professional meeting: came after. 4.2. Inservice Training Program. 4.2.1. Purposes of Inservice Training Program. For complying with requirements was considered the foremost purpose. For discussing problems encountered in the classroom and for professional growth and development were next in line. 4.2.2. Reactions/Observations. The topped-ranked reaction was provides insights to teachers. Closely following were needs better planning and challenges teachers. 4.2.3. Ways to Improving Inservice Training. Maximization of group work and participation, cooperative planning among teachers, administrators and supervisors and emphasis on practical situations/applications came as the ranked ways of improving inservice training in descending order. 4.2.4. Suggested Areas for Inservice Training. Strongly agreed upon area was problems encountered in classroom teaching. Approached to solicit parents' cooperation and creativity and artistry in teaching were the next choices. 5. There were significant relationships of teachers' and administrators' perceptions on two values: Efficiency in Teaching and Accountability to the pupils. On all the other values there was no significant relationship. 6. There was significant relationship only on Purposes of Inservice Training. On allthe other areas there was no significant relationship. Conclusions. 1. The special English teachers are matured and qualified to teach the subject. 2. Problems in the teaching of English perceived persistent by the special English teachers and administrators are baseline data for the proposed school-level development program. 3. There is need to enhance the instructional and classroom management skills and the value thrusts of the special English teachers, so they can perform on a higher efficiency level. Recommendations. 1. Elementary schools in the Division of City Schools, Manila, are encouraged to implement the proposed school-level development programs for special English teachers; who do not have the 18 units of English needed to teach the subject in order to strengthen their knowledge and increase their proficiency; and 2. These follow-up researches to the study be undertaken: 2.1. The effect of the School-Level Development Program on the Performance of Special English Teachers in the Division of City Schools, Manila; and 2.2. An Evaluation of the Achievement Level in English of Grade I-IV pupils After a One-Year Implementation of the School-Level Development Program. _u |
||
| 521 |
_a _aProfessional. _b |
||
| 533 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c |
||
| 540 |
_c _c _a5 |
||
| 542 |
_g _g _f |
||
| 546 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 583 |
_5 _5 _k _c _a _b |
||
| 590 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 600 |
_b _b _v _t _c2 _q _a _x0 _z _d _y |
||
| 610 |
_b _b _v _t2 _x _a _k0 _p _z _d6 _y |
||
| 611 |
_a _a _d _n2 _c0 _v |
||
| 630 |
_x _x _a _d _p20 _v |
||
| 648 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 650 |
_x _x _a _d _b _z _y20 _v |
||
| 651 |
_x _x _a _y20 _v _z |
||
| 655 |
_0 _0 _a _y2 _z |
||
| 700 |
_i _i _t _c _b _s1 _q _f _k40 _p _d _e _a _l _n6 |
||
| 710 |
_b _b _t _c _e _f _k40 _p _d5 _l _n6 _a |
||
| 711 |
_a _a _d _b _n _t _c |
||
| 730 |
_s _s _a _d _n _p _f _l _k |
||
| 740 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c6 |
||
| 753 |
_c _c _a |
||
| 767 |
_t _t _w |
||
| 770 |
_t _t _w _x |
||
| 773 |
_a _a _d _g _m _t _b _v _i _p |
||
| 775 |
_t _t _w _x |
||
| 776 |
_s _s _a _d _b _z _i _t _x _h _c _w |
||
| 780 |
_x _x _a _g _t _w |
||
| 785 |
_t _t _w _a _x |
||
| 787 |
_x _x _d _g _i _t _w |
||
| 800 |
_a _a _d _l _f _t0 _q _v |
||
| 810 |
_a _a _b _f _t _q _v |
||
| 830 |
_x _x _a _p _n _l0 _v |
||
| 942 |
_a _alcc _cBK |
||
| 999 |
_c27669 _d27669 |
||