Figure related to Speech or Oral Communication g. Status

Figure
1 shows the paradigm of the study. The Input-Process-Output model was used to
illustrate the steps the research has undergone. The input data included the
learning outcomes specified in the K+12 Oral Communication Context Curriculum
Guide of the Department of Education, CMO No. 29 s. 2013 course objectives, the
profile of the teachers of the course as well as the profile of the school. It
also included the strategies employed by the teachers in teaching the course
and the problems encountered by the teachers. Lastly, it took into
consideration the assessment of the teachers and the students of the course.

         The input data were subjected to an
evaluation using the CIPP Model of Daniel Stufflebeam, a content analysis, and
statistical analysis aimed at determining the significant difference in the
assessment of the two groups of respondents and the relationship of the oral
communication course and the teachers and students variables.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

         The end result of such analyses would
be a proposed enhancement in the delivery of oral communication.

 

STATEMENT
OF THE PROBLEM

The
aim of the study was to evaluate the oral communication course in Region IV-A
(CALABARZON). It sought to answer the following questions:

 

1. How are the course objectives of the school aligned with the CHED CMO/
SHS Curriculum Guide?

 

2. What is the profile of the faculty teaching OCC in terms of:

a. Gender

b. Age

c. Years of teaching

d. Highest Educational attainment

e. Publication relevant to speech or oral communication

f. Academic/ Professional Affiliation related to Speech or Oral
Communication

g. Status of Employment

 

3. What is the profile of the school-respondents?

a. School classification

                           
i.   Type of school :Private college/private university/ State college/ state
university

b. With Speech Laboratory

c. With Stage/ Stadium

 

4. What are the strategies provided by the teachers in teaching OCC?

 

5. What problems have been encountered in the teaching of the subject/
learning of the subject?

 

6. How do the following assess the effectiveness of the delivery of oral
communication course?

a. Teachers

b. Students

7. Is there a significant difference in the assessment of the two groups of
respondents on the effectiveness of the delivery of the subject?

 

8. Is there a significant relationship between the effectiveness of the
delivery of the OCC and each of the teacher profile variable?

 

9. Is there a significant relationship between the effectiveness of the
delivery of the OCC and each of the school profile variable?

 

10.    What measures can be implemented for the enhancement of OCC?

 

 

Hypotheses

     The following were the hypotheses of the
study:

1. There is no significant difference in the assessment of the student and
teacher respondents on the effectiveness of the delivery of the Oral
Communication course.

 

2. There is no significant relationship between the effectiveness of the
delivery of the OCC and each of the teacher profile variable.

 

3. There is no significant relationship between the effectiveness of the
delivery of the OCC and each of the school profile variable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE STUDY

     This study sought to assess the status of
Oral Communication course in Region IV-A by applying Daniel Stufflebeam’s CIPP
Model. The result of the assessment would be the basis for the proposed
enhancement in the delivery of the Oral Communication course for the Senior
High School program of the Department of Education. This study would primarily
be useful for several groups of stake holders including curriculum developers,
school administrators, oral communication teachers, and future researchers.

 

1. Curriculum developers. The output of the study could be
used as a reference for the enhancement of the English Language Program,
particularly the Oral Communication Course. They could also utilize the results
of the study in determining the approach, methods, and techniques to employ in
developing oral communication curriculum.

2. Senior high school administrators. They may use the
result in making informed decisions for enhancing and developing policies and
in implementing their oral communication course.

3. Oral Communication teachers. They may use the result in
planning strategies such as curricular and co-curricular activities, which
greatly affect the students’ academic performance.

4. The researcher. She may use the results of the study in
developing techniques in teaching the Speaking subject under the Foundation
Program of the Sultanate of Oman and in her future plans of teaching Oral
Communication in the Senior High School.

5. The future researchers. They may utilize the evaluation
results on the context, input, process, and product as a basis for further
research initiative. They may also consider the CIPP Model as a useful tool in
evaluating other programs.

 

SCOPE
AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

     The study mainly focused on evaluating the Oral
Communication course of selected academic institutions in Region IV-A. The
Context-Input-Process-Product Model of Evaluation of Daniel Stufflebeam was
utilized in assessing the said subject since this model is commonly used in
evaluating academic curricula. The assessment was done once.

     The researcher used two criteria to determine the
school-respondents of the study.  First,
the school should have been recognized by the government for at least 25
years.  And second, it should offer at
least 5 baccalaureate degrees to ensure that these academic institutions have
at least a significant number of students. Other schools that have received
recognition or accreditation from private accrediting agencies but did not pass
the earlier cited criteria was not considered.

     The data covered twenty higher educational institutions
(HEI’s) from the five provinces of Region IV-A, the CALABARZON area. Since the
coverage of the research included the whole region of five provinces and twenty
HEI’s, purposive and convenience sampling was utilized. The data previously
collected from September 2011 to February 2012 was used in the study.

     Teacher-respondents were selected only from the available
Oral Communication teachers in the higher educational institutions. Also, only the
student-respondents who were present during the administration of the
questionnaires were randomized.

     Course outlines or syllabi were requested from the 20
HEI’s; however, only 18 schools provided the researcher with their course
outlines.

 

Definition of Terms

The
study used the following terms with their corresponding definitions:

·        
Basic Education. It
is the combination of primary education (6 years), junior high school (4
years), and senior high school (2 years) (www.deped.gov.ph)

·        
General Education. It
is a set of courses that all students would be required to take, usually
required in higher education.  Its aim is to build a common foundation of knowledge that promotes
responsibility, critical thinking and lifelong, independent learning.

·        
K to 12 Basic
Education Curriculum. It is a program that
covers Kindergarten and 12 years of basic
education (six years of primary education, four years of Junior High School,
and two years of Senior High School SHS) to provide sufficient time for mastery
of concepts and skills, develop lifelong learners, and prepare graduates for
tertiary education, middle-level skills development, employment, and
entrepreneurship.(www.deped.gov.ph)

·        
Oral Communication
Course. It is a means of expressing opinions and emotions through the spoken
word, which can take place in face-to-face conversations, group discussions,
telephone calls, and other situations

 

 

 

 

x

Hi!
I'm Dianna!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out