Thesis Abstract and Dissertation Abstracts
English Language Instructions Facilitated By Technological Systems Of The Commission On Higher Education (ched)’s Private Higher Education Institutions -the Philippines
Abstract Category: Education
Course / Degree: Doctor of Education in Educational Management
Institution / University: Pangasinan State University , Philippines
Published in: 2016
Name of Researcher : Marvin Wacnag Lidawan
Degree/Specialization : Doctor of Education in Educational Management
Institution : Pangasinan State University
Open University Systems
Address of Institution : Pangasinan, Republic of the Philippines
Year Graduated : 2016
Name of Adviser : Alfredo F. Aquino, Ph.D.
Title of the Study : English Language Instructions Facilitated By
Technological Systems of the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED)’s Private Higher Education Institutions In Baguio City, Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), the Philippines
Keywords : English Language Teaching, Instructional
Technology, Information Technology and Communication, Facilitating Teaching by Technology, Mass Media Materials, Mass Media Instructions
This study determined the levels of use of instructional technology (IT) in English language instructions at the CHED’s four (4) private HEIs as perceived by faculty and students, levels of effectiveness of instructional technology (IT) in English as perceived by faculty and students, levels of seriousness of problems encountered by the English faculty in the use of IT in English along the following: Teaching process and Learning process, the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by the students in the use of IT in English , relationship of the levels of use, and levels of effectiveness of IT in English as perceived by faculty and students, difference of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English as perceived by faculty and students, difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English across faculty profile variables, difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English across student profile variables, relationship of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English and the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by teachers and relationship of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English and the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by students.
Statement of the Problem
Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the Commission on Higher Education’s four (4) private HEIs in terms of the following components?
A. School Profile
a. Vision /Mission /Goals/Objectives;
b. Organization and Management;
c. Curricular Offerings;
d. Instructional Technological Systems;
B. Faculty Profile
a. Educational institution
b. Department
c. Age
d. Gender
e. Years of ELT Experience
f. Number of Technology-related Workshop/Trainings Attended
g. Length of Service in the Institution
h. Highest degree attained
i. Area of Specialization
C. Student Profile
a. Province or City
b. Department
c. Educational Institution
d. Age
e. Gender
f. College level
g. Course/Degree
h. Years of Stay in the Institution
i. Previous semester grade in English
j. Current semester grade in English
k. Number of Trainings/Seminars on Technology Attended.
2. What are the levels of use of instructional technology (IT) in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs as perceived by faculty and students?
3. What are the levels of effectiveness of instructional technology (IT) in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs as perceived by faculty and students?
4. What are the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by the English faculty in the use IT in English in the CHED’s four (4 ) Private HEIs along the following:
a. Teaching process b. Learning process
5. What are the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by the students in the use of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs?
6. Is there a significant relationship of the levels of use, and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs as perceived by faculty and students?
7. Is there a significant difference of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs as perceived by faculty and students?
8. Is there a significant difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs across faculty profile variables?
9. Is there a significant difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs across student profile variables?
10. Is there a significant relationship of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs and the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by teachers?
11. Is there a significant relationship of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs and the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by students?
Null Hypotheses:
The following null hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 level of significance:
1. There is no significant relationship of the levels of use, and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs as perceived by faculty and students?
2. There is no significant difference of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) Private HEIs as perceived by faculty and students?
3. There is no significant difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) private HEIs across faculty profile variables?
4. There is no significant difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) private HEIs across student profile variables?
5. There is no significant relationship of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) private HEIs and the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by teachers?
6. There is no significant relationship of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English in the CHED’s four (4) private HEIs and the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by students?
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This problem focused on the investigation of the English Language programs from four (4) CHED’s Private education institutions on how their technology systems facilitated English language instructions through their Colleges of Liberal Arts/ Colleges of Humanities or Arts and Sciences and the Colleges of Teacher Education for the academic year 2015-2016. These institutions were namely: Baguio Central University (BCU), Saint Louis University (SLU), University of Baguio (UB) and University of the Cordillera (UC). This study will be limited to the following extents: profile of the Commission on Higher Education’s four (4) HEIs in terms of their School Profile, Faculty Profile and Student Profile; levels of use of instructional technology (IT) in English HEIs as perceived by faculty and students, levels of effectiveness of instructional technology (IT) in English as perceived by faculty and students, levels of seriousness of problems encountered by the English faculty in the use IT in English along with Teaching process and Learning process, levels of seriousness of problems encountered by the students in the use IT in English, relationship of the levels of use, and levels of effectiveness of IT in English as perceived by faculty and students, difference of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English as perceived by faculty and students, difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English across faculty profile variables, significant difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English across student profile variables, relationship of the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of IT in English and the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by teachers, relationship of the levels of use and the levels of effectiveness of IT in English and the levels of seriousness of problems encountered by students.
Findings
The following are the findings of the study:
1. A. Profile of Faculty
a. Educational Institution. Majority of the teachers (48 or 30.8%) are from Saint Louis University, 47 teachers from University of Baguio (30.1%) and 39 faculty members from University of Cordillera (25%) and 22 teachers from Baguio Central University (14.1%).
b. Department. More than half of the respondents are assigned in College of Teacher Education (frequency of 81 or 51.9%). 54 educators (34.6%) are in College of Arts and Sciences and 21 (13.5%) are in the Department of Humanities.
c. Age. Most of the teachers are ages 36-45 (58 or 37.2%) followed by 26-35 years old (50 or 32.0%), 37 instructors with the age of 46-55 (23.7%), 9 teachers aging 25 and below (5.8%) and 2 teachers ages 56 years and above (1.3%).
d. Sex. There are 95 females (60.9%) and 61 males (39.1%)
e. Years of ELT Experience. Most faculty members have 6-10 years of ELT experience (47 or 30.1%), 41 educators have 11-15 years of experience (26.3%), 38 instructors (24.4%) have 16 years and above ELT experience and the least (30 teachers or 19.2%) have 1-5 years of experience
f. Workshops/Trainings. Almost half of the teachers (frequency of 72 or 46.2%) have attended 6-10 ELT-related Workshops/Trainings. There are also 44 educators (28.2%) who have participated in more than 11 workshops while some (40 or 25.6%) partake in 1-5 trainings.
g. Years in the Institution. In terms of the number of years in the institution, similar table displays that majority of the faculty is employed for more than 11 years (68 or 44.6%). There are 52 teachers (33.3%) who have stayed in their respective institutions for less than 5 years and the rest have 6-10 years of stay in universities (36 or 23.1%).
h. Highest Educational Attainment. 55 of the educators are masters graduate (35.5%) followed by 53 doctors degree graduate (34.0%). There are only 3 who are BS/BA Graduates (1.9%).
i. Area of Specialization. English Language is the teaching specialty of most of the educators (57 or 36.5%). It is followed by Literature and Language as area of specialization of 35 teachers (22.5%). There are only 3 teachers (1.9%) who specialize in Development Communication.
1.B. Profile of Students.
a. Province or City. 40.3% of the students are residents of Baguio City (351 students). 232 students are natives of Mountain Province (26.7%). Having the least occupants to be interviewed is San Fernando City with only 36 students (4.1%).
b. Department. There are 404 students (46.4%) at the College of Teacher Education, 374 (43%) are in the College of Arts and Sciences and only 92 (10.6%) are in the Department of Humanities.
c. Educational Institution. Majority of the students are from Saint Louis University (262 or 30.1%) while the least are from Baguio Central University (126 or 14.5%).
d. Age. More than half of the students (581 or 66.8%) are ages 21-25 Next is 139 students (16.0%) with the age of 20 years and below and 94 students (10.8%) aging 26-30 years old. There are also few students who are 31 years of age and above (56 or 6.4%).
e. Sex. Bulk of the respondents is 678 females (77.9%) while there are 192 males (22.1%).
f. Course Level. Out of the 870 student respondents, several students are in their Junior level (320 or 36.8%), followed by 243 freshman (27.9%), 238 sophomores (27.4%), and 69 senior students (7.9%).
g. Course/Degree. Several students claimed that they are taking up BEEd Elementary course (321 or 36.9%). BSEd is taken by 317 students (36.5%) while AB English is enrolled by 214 students (24.5%). There are 18 respondents (2.1%) taking up AB history, AB policy, AB Communication with additional English Major.
h. Length of Stay in the Institution. 389 out of 870 students (44.7%) have have 7-9 years stay in their institution. 245 students (28.2%) have stayed in the university for 1-3 years while the rest (236 or 27.1%) are in the institution for 4-6 years.
i. Previous Grade in English. Majority of the students surveyed (544 in number or 62.5%) have previous grades in English ranging from 75-80. There are 162 learners or 18.6% whose grades are 86-90 and 123 students (14.1%) with grades 81-85 It is also noted that 37 students (4.3%) obtained academic rating of 91-95 and only 4 students (0.5%) acquired grades higher than 96.
j. Current Grade in English. More than half of the students (469 frequency or 53.9%) have previous grades in English ranging from 75-80. There are 175 students or 20.1% whose grades are 81-85, 152 students (17.5%) with grades 86-90, 66 students (7.6%) with academic rating of 91-95 and 8 students (0.9%) obtained grades higher than 96.
k. Trainings on Technology Attended. Several students declared to have attended 4-6 trainings on Technology (388 or 44.6%). Other students have attended 7-9 trainings while some have attended only 1-3 trainings with frequencies of 267 and 215 students (30.7% and 24.7%), respectively.
2. Level of Use
a. As perceived by Teachers. Educators have a “high” use of these technological innovations in teaching garnering a summated mean of 3.49.
b. As perceived by Students. Students have a “high” level of utilization of instructional advanced tools with summated mean of 3.71.
3. Level of Effectiveness
a. To teachers as perceived by Teachers. The level of effectiveness of instructional technology to the teachers in English as perceived by the teachers themselves is “High” with a computed summated mean of 4.13.
b. To students as perceived by Teachers. Educators have evaluated a “high” level of effectiveness of instructional technology to the students in English as suggested by the overall mean of 3.84.
c. As perceived by Students. The level of effectiveness of instructional technology in English is “high” as signified by the summated mean 4.19.
4. Level of Seriousness of Problems encountered by Teachers
a. In Teaching process. The level of seriousness of problems encountered by English teachers along teaching process is “moderate” as indicated by 3.17 summated mean.
b. In Learning Process. In terms of learning process, English instructors evaluate a “moderately serious” problem as evidenced by 2.99 computed summated mean.
5. Level of Seriousness of Problems encountered by Students. Students encounter “slightly serious” problems in the use of instructional technology in English as denoted by 2.13 summated mean.
6. Relationship on the Levels of Use and Levels of Effectiveness of Instructional Technology
a. As perceived by Teachers. The relationship between level of use and level of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers as perceived by faculty is highly significant as denoted by the computed correlation coefficient of 0.913 with significance value of 0.000. Comparably, a correlation coefficient of 0.619 with significance value of 0.000 reveals a highly significant relationship between the level of use and level of effectiveness of instructional technology to students as perceived by teachers.
b. As perceived by Students. The relationship on the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of instructional technology in English as perceived by students is highly significant as denoted by the correlation coefficient of 0.755 with significance value of 0.000.
7. Difference Between the Perception of Faculty and Students
a. Level of Use. The difference between the perception of faculty and students on the level of use of instructional technology in English is highly significant as signified by the T-value -8.770 with significance of 0.000
b. Level of Effectiveness to Teachers. The difference between the perception of faculty and students on the levels of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers is not significant as denoted by the T-value -1.839 with 0.006 significance value
c. Level of Effectiveness to Students. In terms of the levels of effectiveness of instructional technology to students, the difference between the perception of faculty and students is highly significant at 0.01 level as indicated by the -13.200 T-value with 0.000 significance.
8. Difference between the Levels of Use and Levels of Effectiveness of IT to Teachers and Students across profile Variables of Faculty
a. Institution. There is a highly significant difference between the levels of use of academic devices and levels of effectiveness to teachers in English across the instructors’ affiliated institutions as revealed by the computed F-values of 6.592 and 5.911 with significance values of 0.000 and 0.001 while levels of effectiveness of instructional technology to students in English across the teachers’ university is significant as reflected by the F-value 3.889 and significance value of 0.010.
b. Department. The difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of technological tools to teachers and students is not significant with the faculty’s department as revealed by the f-values 1.285, 0.735, 0.468 with significance values 0.280, 0.481, 0.627, respectively.
c. Age. The difference between the level of use and level of effectiveness of the advanced equipment to students is significant as denoted by their corresponding F-values 2.862 and 2.451 with 0.025 and 0.049. Meanwhile, in terms of level of effectiveness of instructional devices to teachers, the F-value 1.275 and significance value 0.282 denote a not significant difference across age group of educators.
d. sex. The difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers and students are not significant across sex of faculty as indicated by t-values -0.529, -0.160 and -0.158 with higher significance values 0.598, 0.873 and 0.874 at 0.05 level, respectively.
e. ELT experience. There is no significant difference between the level of use and level of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers and students across sex as revealed by the computed F-values of 0.518, 0.096, and 0.952 and significance of 0.671, 0.962 and 0.417, respectively.
f. Trainings Attended. There is no significant difference between the levels of use (F-value 3.013, significance 0.052) and levels of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers (F-value 2.194, significance 0.115) and to students (F-value 0.256, significance 0.256) in English in the as perceived by the faculty across number of workshops attended.
g. Years in the Institution. Based on the calculated 2.064 F-value and significance of 0.130 for the levels of use, 1.049 F-value and 0.353 significance for the level of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers, and 0.432 F-value and 0.650 significance for the level of effectiveness of instructional technology to students, the difference across years of stay in the institution is not significant.
h. Highest Educational Attainment. There is no significant difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers and students in English as perceived by the faculty across highest educational attainment. This is denoted by the computed F-values 1.520, 0.352 and 0.488 with their corresponding significance values 0.187, 0.880 and 0.785
i. Specialization. The yielded f-values of 6.008, 5.199 and 4.648 with their corresponding significance values of 0.000 each denote a highly significant difference in the level of use, and level of effectiveness of instructional devices to teachers and students, respectively.
9. Difference between the Levels of Use and Levels of Effectiveness of IT to Teachers and Students across profile Variables of Students
a. Province. The difference between the levels of use of instructional technology across students’ province is not significant as revealed by computed F-value of 0.256 with significance of 0.256. On the contrary, the difference between the levels of effectiveness of instructional technology across students’ province is significant at 0.05 level with a computed F-value of 2.218 and with significance of 0.039
b. Department. A highly significant difference between the levels of use as perceived by the students across their assigned department is noted based on the generated F-value 5.930 and significance of 0.003. Conversely, the difference between the levels of effectiveness a perceived by students across their department is not significant as revealed by 2.993 F-value and 0.051 significance
c. Institution. Both the levels of use and effectiveness have highly significant differences across the students’ institution as signified by the F-values 9.410 and 15.574, respectively.
d. Age. In terms of level of use, its difference across age group is not significant as denoted by the F-value 0.194 and a higher than 0.05 significance level of 0.901. However, the levels of effectiveness as perceived by the students vary greatly across age groups as denoted by the F-value 3.342 and significance value 0.019.
e. Sex. T-value of 17.414 and 0.000 significance value denote a highly significant difference at 0.01 level in terms of levels of use across students’ sex. Likewise, T-value of 30.303 and significance value of 0.000 indicate a highly significant difference between the levels of effectiveness of teaching tools across sex of students.
f. College level. There is a highly significant difference between levels of use across college level as evidenced by the F-value 6.936 and significance value of 0.000. The difference between levels of effectiveness across course level is also highly significant according to the yielded F-value 7.380 and 0.000 significance
g. Courses. There is a highly significant difference on the levels of use and effectiveness across courses as indicated by F-values 5.783 and 7.885, respectively. Both categories have garnered a significance value of 0.000.
h. Years of Stay in Institution. In terms of levels of use and effectiveness across years of stay of students in the university, the difference between variables are highly significant as indicated by the corresponding F-values 7.436 and 7.382, both having significance of 0.001.
i. Previous grades. The difference between the levels of use across the previous grades of students in English is significant at 0.05 level as denoted by the F-value 2.496 and significance of 0.041. In contrast, the difference between the level of effectiveness as perceived by the students is not significant across previous grades in English given by the F-value 1.843 and significance of 0.119.
j. Current grades. The difference between the levels of use and levels of effectiveness of instructional technology in English across current grades of students is not significant as denoted by the significance values 0.101 and 0.212 generated from F-values 1.944 and 1.463, respectively.
k. Trainings. There is no significant difference between the levels of use and effectiveness across the trainings attended by the students as expressed by the F-values 0.347 and 0.138, respectively with their corresponding significance values: 0.707 and 0.871.
10. Relationship on the Levels of Use and Levels of Effectiveness of Instructional Technology with the Seriousness of Problems Encountered as Perceived by Faculty.
A correlation coefficient of 0.187 with significance values of 0.02 indicates that there is a significant relationship between the levels of use of instructional technology and seriousness of problems in the teaching process. On the other hand, in terms of learning process, the compute r-value 0.089 and significance of 0.271 suggest a not significant relationship between the level of use and the level of seriousness encountered by the faculty.
Likewise, the seriousness of problems encountered in both teaching and learning processes have no significant relationship with the effectiveness of instructional technology to teacher as denoted by the yielded r-values -0.019 and -0.101, respectively, with their corresponding significance values of 0.810 and 0.211.
Conversely, a significant relationship is noted between the effectiveness of academic devices to students and seriousness of problems encountered in teaching process as perceived by the instructors denoted by the coefficient correlation -0.194 with significance of 0.015 higher than the set 0.05 level of significance. However, in terms of learning process, the difference between the seriousness of problems encountered by teachers and the effectiveness of educational tools to the students is highly significant at 0.01 level based on the generated r-value 0.238 and 0.003 significance.
11. Relationship on the Levels of Use and Levels of Effectiveness of Instructional Technology with the Seriousness of Problems Encountered as Perceived by Students
The relationship between the levels of use of instructional technology with the seriousness of problems encountered as perceived by the students is highly significant at 0.01 levels as suggested by the computed correlation coefficient of -0.650 with significance of 0.000. Likewise, the r-value -0.859 and significance of 0.000 reveal a highly significant relationship between the levels of effectiveness and seriousness of problems.
Conclusions
1. Majority of the educators are females with 36-45 years of age, from Saint Louis University, designated in the College of Teacher Education, with 6-10 years of ELT experience, have attended 6-10 ELT-related workshops, have stayed in the institution for more than 11 years, and are master graduates who have specialized in English Language.
2. The students are females age 21-25 years old, residents of Baguio City are in the College of Education of Saint Louis University, currently at the Junior level taking up BEEd, with 7-9 years stay in the institution, have previous and current passing grades in English and have attended 4-6 trainings on Technology.
3. Teachers and students highly used instructional technology in English lectures.
4. Teachers perceived that instructional technology is highly effective to teachers and students. Likewise, students recognized a high level of effectiveness of these instructional materials.
5. Teachers encountered moderately serious problems in teaching and learning process while the students only perceived slightly serious problems in the use of advanced instructional materials.
6. Teachers perceived a highly significant relationship between the level of use and effectiveness to teachers and students. Likewise, students perceived a highly significant relationship between the level of use and effectiveness.
7. Faculty and students have highly different assessments on the level of use and effectiveness of instructional technology to students. On the other hand, they have comparable assessment when it comes to its effectiveness to teachers.
8. Teachers from different institutions with specializations vary greatly on their level of use, perception on the level of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers and to students. Age also affects the perception of teachers as regards to the level of use and effectiveness to students. On the other hand, if faculty is grouped according to their department, sex, ELT experience, number of workshops attended, years of stay in the institution and highest educational attainment, they all have comparable evaluation on the degree of use and level of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers and students. Teachers at various ages also have equal assessment on the academic equipment’s level of effectiveness to educators.
9. Students do not have equal assessment in terms of the level of use of educational equipment if they are grouped according to sex, course level, departments, institutions, courses and previous grades and length of stay in the institution. However, if students are categorized according to their province, age, current grades and trainings attended, it can be concluded that these students have comparable assessment on the level of use. In terms of effectiveness, the province, institution, age, sex, college level, courses, and years of stay in the institution influence the assessment of the students.
10. The level of use of instructional technology and its effectiveness to students have significant relationship with the seriousness of problems encountered in teaching process. Whereas, the effectiveness of instructional technology to students have highly significant relationship with the seriousness of problems encountered in the learning process. There is negative correlation between the variables wherein the greater the use and effectiveness of the instructional technology, the lesser the seriousness of problems encountered by educators and vice versa.
11. There is also a negative correlation between the level of use and effectiveness and the seriousness of problems encountered as perceived by students. This means that as the seriousness of problems decreases, the levels of use and effectiveness increase. Also, as the seriousness of problems rises, there is a corresponding decrease in the level of usage and efficacy of instructional technology.
Recommendations
The findings of the study paved the researcher to raise the following recommendations for the effective and continuous interplays of instructional technologies in higher education classrooms to achieve and maintain continuous quality education for national and global competitiveness among educators and students :
1. One of the findings states: “In terms of effectiveness, the province, institution, age, sex, college level, courses, and years of stay in the institution influence the assessment of the students.” This implies that some students have more exposures and more training opportunities regarding the use of technology which are indicators that their educational institutions offer them the awareness of how useful technological instructions are in the classrooms. This also indicates how these private higher education institutions responsibly perform updated educational reforms in compliance to the educational mandates of the Philippine educational system. It is sign of their viable knowledge on focusing ICT among university prospective teachers due to the relevant roles of teacher education in transmitting knowledge to the learners. At this juncture, it is then highly suggested that colleges and universities and other educational institutions in Baguio City should continuously perform updated English language curriculum revamps including other courses. They should refurbish their learning blueprints into student-centered programs that cater to the emergence of technological breakthroughs to expose the learners into their contemporary environment yielding an outcome-based education. Technology nowadays produced many outputs that are capable as inputs in English language instructions.
2. The university or college administrations should manifest acceptance and advocacy to teachers’ innovations in relation to the enhancement of English language teaching that incorporate technologies. An educational institution that advocates teacher innovation enriches its own programs. Teachers are the strongest factors in determining the interests and needs of the students. They are the direct contact of students in the teaching and learning process. Thus, each student is favorably identified by the teachers as an audience that needs particular reinforcement for learning. This proposal triggered by educators’ everyday experiences in the classroom should be embraced by the administrative body.
3. Since technology is ever-changing, we expect the arrival of new technology every now and then. These technologies facilitate all instructions. To address continued changes, educators and teacher’s updated trainings for continuous professional development on emerging technologies sponsored by the management should be a major concern. Teachers-Needs Analyses from an educational institution’s administrative body on learning and teaching needs show support to faculty’s professional development. These teachers in the contemporary environment should be exposed to the new forms of technology that abound. They have to acquire updated technological skills before they can teach courses that require familiarization of technology that regularly intervene currently in the pedagogical process. It is highly expected that teachers should be equipped with these knowledge just as how we want the students to learn as stipulated in the desired learning outcomes of every educational organization’s curriculum. When we expect global readiness from the students, we provide readiness for the teachers. Thus, readiness to teach is equal to readiness to learn. It is a two way –process which the administration should bear in mind. If administrations prepare teachers to teach through newly structured awareness, they are vested with the utmost advocacy in the evolutionary state of contemporary knowledge for effective change.
4. A higher education institution must be able to raise its standards on hiring teachers. This connects to the findings that “if faculty is grouped according to their department, sex, ELT experience, number of workshops attended, years of stay in the institution and highest educational attainment, they all have comparable evaluation on the degree of use and level of effectiveness of instructional technology to teachers and students.” This finding expresses how the higher education institutions operate for graduate attributes. They are considered educational institutions that value educational policies for quality education as seen in their academic affairs’ activities for enhancing teachers. They have the prior knowledge on how a department participate in ensuring students’ development through their recruitment systems-retention of teachers. They should encourage their teachers to advance their careers through regular trainings and continuous studies. Their hiring systems are standardized that teachers should be graduates of master’s degrees in conjunction to their specialization with satisfactory numbers of experiences to be able to join the faculty in transmitting knowledge. Furthermore, ICT literacy should also be a significant criteria in hiring of teaching personnel in both public and private educational institutions from K to 12, secondary to higher education.
5. It is also expected that the administration should at all times be aware of the introduced technological knowledge. All teachers should be mandated to regularly undergo workshops on technology-related teaching methods. This is in conjunction with what the European School of English (2015) says that the teacher trainings in technology provide refresher courses for teachers in their Continuous Professional Development (CPD) offering the opportunity for all educators into integrating technology in the classroom which in turn develop their approach and teaching potentials. Prioritizing faculty knowledge and skills is a management’s honorable gesture in the name of their ultimate mission, vision, goals and objectives’ accomplishments.
6. English Teachers without prior knowledge or experience in ICT- related instruments is a crucial need. Faculty members who don’t have exposures to these forms of technology should be obliged to start acquiring the rudiments of technological integration into the curriculum before they are given teaching assignments. To add, they need to undergo intensive observations to improve their approaches. Knowledge could be acquired easily depending on one’s high level of interests. Here are some trainings or immersions an English teacher can basically acquire: E- Learning such as CALL immersion, Blackboard and Interactive board training, basic computer program applications, linking media, language and technology in English language instructions, community networking for English language teachers, designing English language instructions through technology and digital English language instructions among others.
7. Every faculty member should revolutionize his or her teaching approaches with the aid of authentic materials which propels the utilization of technology today. Many language teaching materials can be obtained from authentic materials. From selection, design, presentation and demonstration of these materials as springboards in the conduct of English language lessons.
8. The administration should encourage teachers to use mass media materials where instructional technologies are employed from the selection, preparation, and presentation of the lessons. To add, English language teachers should immerse in media literacy. Media literacy opens doors to the appropriate manipulation of media outputs as springboards for English language teaching. Since the locality where this study was conducted is thriving with media outfits of English language medium which include the print (national and local newspapers and magazines) and broadcast (radio and television) as well as the Internet, there is a need for educational administrations to encourage teachers to use these existing tools and authentic materials to refurbish English language instructions.
9. This study also recommends English language teachers to apply technology-related theories in their instructions. Adhering to the findings of the study made by Lai (1998), teachers should have the knowledge on the theories and principles of technology related instruction. These theories especially in the teaching of the English language reveal varied skills to be taught in the discipline. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy, Mayer’s multimedia teaching and the integration of Gardner’s multiple intelligences are supportive theories in language teaching.
10. The monitoring team from the CHED on higher education’s implementation of ITC across the country should have regular slated schedules in inspecting the ICT status of all educational organizations especially in the CAR as a strict compliance of the mandates provided by government authorities for the continuous enhancement of technological knowledge among students and educators; a commitment in our educational reforms for national and global learners’ potentials. In connection with this, the CHED should provide additional requirements for colleges and universities’ accreditation requirements to raise the standards of ICT to heighten quality education. Schools offering Teacher Education that includes English as a Second Language, Applied Linguistics, Literature, Speech and Drama and other specializations, Mass communication, Journalism, Development Communication, Information technology as well as other courses should crucially adhere to the functions of instructional technology and must be scrutinized prior to course offering approval and to be strictly monitored to produce the desired learning outcomes from learners.
11. Priority courses of higher education institutions among scholars availing of these should also be strictly imposed. These courses are highly related with technology supported by CHED memorandum order No. 01 series of 2014 that stipulates CHED priority courses for AY 2014- 2015 and AY 2017-2018.
12. The researcher proposes fellow researchers in the academe to conduct additional English as a second language studies linked with instructional technologies that will cover a much larger respondents’ population and a much wider coverage area which will allow curriculum developers in the discipline to gauge on what extent of technology are to be employed in language pedagogy.
13. It is also suggested that public and private universities should recommend deserving faculty members to undergo trainings on ICT without bias. Every faculty member should be offered an opportunity to undergo trainings through a second endorsement from the Commission on Higher Education to oversee the training backgrounds of prospective participants before being dispatched to training institutions such as the Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Center for Educational Innovation and Technology (SEAMEO INNOTECH) among other training hosts or sponsors. At this juncture, it is also recommended that the SEAMEO INNOTECH and other training organizations must have stern procedures as requirements for individual educators to partake which includes their absolute rights to refuse delegates who are regularly commended by their institutions to attend which impede the chances of others to take part in academic convergence.
14. English language Curriculum developers from higher education institutions should also consider benchmarking the best practices of educational institutions through the procurement of similar instructional tools to be in parallel with other educational organizations.
Dissertation Keywords/Search Tags:
ICT in English Instructions
This Dissertation Abstract may be cited as follows:
No user preference. Please use the standard reference methodology.
| Dissertation Images: | |
|
marvin (click to enlarge) |
Submission Details: Dissertation Abstract submitted by Marvin Wacnag Lidawan from Philippines on 09-Aug-2016 09:30.
Abstract has been viewed 2413 times (since 7 Mar 2010).
Marvin Wacnag Lidawan Contact Details: Email: marvinwacnaglidawan@gmail.com
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken to ensure that this information is correct, however ThesisAbstracts.com cannot accept responsibility for the contents of this Dissertation abstract titled "English Language Instructions Facilitated By Technological Systems Of The Commission On Higher Education (ched)’s Private Higher Education Institutions -the Philippines". This abstract has been submitted by Marvin Wacnag Lidawan on 09-Aug-2016 09:30. You may report a problem using the contact form.
© Copyright 2003 - 2024 of ThesisAbstracts.com and respective owners.