| 000 | 07799nam a2201225Ia 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 000 | 05812ntm a2200217 i 4500 | ||
| 001 | 59991 | ||
| 003 | 0 | ||
| 005 | 20250921113147.0 | ||
| 008 | 150902n 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 _aCalvario, Aprilyn Encina. _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 _aRevisiting the English proficiency curricular program of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila : _d _bbases for curriculum enhancement / _n _cAprilyn Encina Calvario. _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 _c28 cm. _axv, 131 pages _b |
||
| 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 (M.A.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 2009.;A thesis presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Education, Educational Administration. _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 _aABSTRACT: The study was conducted to determine the level of English proficiency of the sophomore students of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila with a view of using findings as bases for recommendations to improve the English language curriculum of the University. The descriptive method of research was utilized to answer the following problems: 1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of course? 2. What is the English proficiency level of sophomore students on the different area components of the following language areas when grouped according to course: a. Reading b. Listening c. Writing d. Speaking? 3. Is there a significant difference in the students' proficiency on the different areas of language when they are grouped according to course? 4. What are the identified language needs of the students based on the results of the tests when grouped according to course? 5. Based on the findings, what are the recommendations for language curriculum enhancement? Using ANOVA, the hypothesis below was tested at .05 level of significance: There is no significant difference in the English proficiency of the students in the language areas namely: reading, listening, writing and reading when the students are grouped according to course: It was found out that: 1. The overall level of reading proficiency of the students in reading is 78.39, described as fair with vocabulary getting the highest mean grade- 88.57. The students' listening proficiency was excellent with a mean grade of 95.40. The writing proficiency of the students in the five components namely adequacy and relevance, grammatical correctness, spelling and mechanics, adequacy of vocabulary and organization was fair, giving them an overall weighted mean of 2.16. The English proficiency of the students in all areas of speaking was consistently satisfactory with a general weighted mean of 3.04. 2. There is a significant difference in the students' reading proficiency on areas such as vocabulary and major details, found to be significant at .000 and .003 level of significance respectively. However, no significant difference was found on areas such as central themes or main ideas, inference and critical analysis when the students were grouped according to course. 3. There is significant difference in the students' listening proficiency and in all areas of writing proficiency at .000 level of significance when grouped according to course. 4. There is significant difference in the students' speaking proficiency on areas namely: vocabulary, grammatical correctness, fluency and appropriacy at .000 level of significance, but no significant difference in adequacy of description when students were grouped according to course. Based on the findings, the following recommendations are made: 1. Administrators and Curriculum Planners are suggested to conduct a review of the school's language policy and programs should to make the language curriculum more responsive to the students' proficiency level and needs. A language proficiency test should also be administered during the first semester of first year students to identify their strength and weakness. Moreover, a more specified English subject may be designed depending on the course or program needs of the students. 2. Teachers should design syllabus with primary considerations on the level and needs of the students. Language instructions with emphasis on the four language skills- reading, listening, writing and speaking should be considered in selecting activities, topics and instructional materials. Teachers are also encouraged to utilize scoring rubrics in assessing students' spoken and written output to be able to effectively identify the students' weaknesses and strengths in the language areas. 3. Students are advised to develop a habit of independent studying and come up with strategies to effectively address their needs and improve their language proficiency. 4. Materials writers should design books and other instructional materials that provide a balance of activities on the different language areas and exercises for independent study. Topics or selections should come from a variety of sources such as newspapers, magazines, journals, speeches and books. 5. A further study on the same topic should be conducted to test the significant difference in the students' level of proficiency when they grouped according to course. And also, a study on the predictors of students' English proficiency in reading, listening, writing and speaking should be conducted to determine the factors that affect students' level of English proficiency. _u |
||
| 521 |
_a _a _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 |
_c35292 _d35292 |
||