Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study

The Philippine Educational System is faced with several issues that need

to be addressed in order to improve the delivery of education to the most

number of the population. One of this is the quality and accessibility of education

to its takers. To provide quality to all students is the most important mission of

every educational institution. However, with the multifarious problems facing the

different schools, its delivery is hindered. Academic discourse has always been a

part of the classroom. Teachers have long understood the importance of using

language to transmit ideas.

In the early history of education, teachers talked for most of the

instructional day while students were quiet and completed their assigned tasks.

This classroom scenario has a tendency that these students will fail to develop

academic language and discourse simply because they are not provided

opportunities to use words. The kind of language used by the teacher for

instruction in the classroom is known as teacher talk. For this term, Longman

Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics defines it as “that

variety of language sometimes used by teachers when they are in the process of

teaching. In trying to communicate with learners, teachers often simplify their

speech, giving it many of the characteristics of foreigner talk and other simplified
 2

styles of speech addressed to language learners” Richards (1992 in the Markhan

2011).Burdekin (2012) delineated the world in language is half someone else’s.

It becomes one’s own only when the speaker populates it with his own intention

his own accent, when he appropriates the word, adapting to his own semantic

and expressive intent. In other words, if students are not using the words, they

are not developing academic discourse.

A common problem for English teachers is dealing with a passive class,

where students are unresponsive and avoid interaction with the teacher. This is

especially true when a teacher seeks interaction in a teacher-class dialog, such

as asking questions to the class as a whole, expecting at least one student to

respond. This can be a frustrating experience for both parties. Obviously, there

will be times when no student can answer a teacher's question, but often

students do not answer even if they understand the question, know the answer,

and are able to produce the answer. Furthermore, students can often be very

reluctant to give feedback or ask the teacher a question in front of the class.

Alexander (2013) introduced the term ‘oracy’ as a way for people to think

about the role that oral language plays in literacy development, defining it as the

ability to express oneself coherently and to communicate freely with others by

word of mouth. Alexander noted that the development of oracy would lead to

increased skill in reading and writing as users of language become increasingly

proficient. Alexander states that reading and writing float on a sea of talk. Put

simply, talk or oracy is the foundation of literacy. The time students spend
 3

engaged in academic conversations with their classmates is the time well spent

in developing not only oracy but precisely the high levels of literacy. Instructors

can use different classroom approaches to improve student learning for

educational institution to achieve high levels of literacy and to produce globally

competitive professionals.

One is the experiential learning; it is an approach to education that

focuses on "learning by doing," on the participant's subjective experience. The

role of the educator is to design "direct experiences" that include preparatory

and reflective exercises. John Dewey initially promoted the idea of ‘learning by

doing’. Dewey (1910) enumerated his belief regarding education: “The teacher is

not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child,

but is there as a member of the community to select the influence which shall

affect the child and to assist him properly responding.

Project-Based Learning (PBL) is a dynamic classroom approach in which

students actively explore real-world problems and challenges and acquire a

deeper knowledge. PBL is c onsidered an alternative to paper-based, rote

memorization, teacher-led classrooms. Markham (2011) describes “PBL as

integrates knowing and doing. Students learn knowledge and elements of the

core curriculum, but also apply what they know to solve authentic problems and

produce results that matter”.Blumenfeld et al., (1991 in Markham 2011), stated

that Project-Based Learning has been associated with the ‘situated learning’. PBL

emphasizes learning activities that are long-term, interdisciplinary and student-

 4

centered. Unlike traditional, teacher-led classroom activities, students often must

organize their own work and manage their own time on a project-based class.

Blumenfeld et al., (1991 in Markham 2011) delineated the basis of PBL lies in the

authenticity or real-life application of research.

PBL promotes ways to introduce a wide range of learning activities into a

normal classroom setting. If done correctly, learners will take on the

responsibility of the learning and discover connections to other learning

opportunities around them. Project-Based Learning also takes into account the

learners own background and uses their prior experiences to make the learning

more concrete. According to Buck Institute for Education (BIE, 2012) defines PBL

as a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge

and skills through an extended inquiry process structured around complex,

authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks. Furthermore,

Moalosi et al, (2012) stated that Project-Based Learning gives students the

opportunity to gain a deep understanding of concepts and potentially allows

them to solve the society’s problems.

An important part of what students need to learn in order to be successful

in life is the ability to think critically and solve problems. Most often, it is

reasoning skills we possess that will allow the students to solve problems

successfully and in a time efficient manner. With PBL, the focus becomes much

more on ‘student learning’ as opposed to the ‘teaching learning’. In this manner,

students are encouraged to become not just passive learners and note-takers,
 5

but rather critical thinkers who are highly capable of solving real-life problems

that they are likely to encounter as they grow and mature into adults.

Blumenfeld et al., (1991 in Markham 2011) stated the route to the end-product

brings opportunities for students to develop their confidence and independence

and to work together in a real-world environment by collaborating on a task have

they defined for themselves and which has not been externally imposed.

Within the small group collaborative effort students are encouraged to

facilitate a constructive investigation of a problem in which they are fully

engaged in the learning project. The hands-on approach with this type of

education really focuses on the students taking the initiative, rather than simply

being directed by the teachers. As students learn from their mistakes, they are

encouraged to make the necessary connection and establish the proper channels

through which to effectively solve the problem at hand. Bell (2010), states that

Project work is student-centered and driven by the need to create an end-

product.

This research attempts to explore this problem and to create a more

interactive teacher-class interchange in one class of English learners that is

associated with the Project-Based Learning.

 6

Statement of the Problem

This study was designed to assess the Communication Opportunity of

Sophomore Teacher Education students exposed to Project-Based Learning in

Urdaneta City University (UCU) during first semester, academic year 2015-2016.

Specifically, it answered the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms:

a. sex;

b. primary learning style;

c. linguistic intelligence; and

d. mother tongue?

2. What is the level of communication opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher

Education students belonging to the control and the experimental groups:

a. as perceived by the students; and

b. based on classroom observation?

3. Is there a significant relationship of the level of communication

opportunity of the students across their profile variables?

4. Is there a significant difference between the level of communication

opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher Education students in the control

group and the experimental group?

 7

Research Hypotheses

The hypotheses of this study were tested at the 0.05 level of significance.

1. There is a significant relationship in the level of communication

opportunity of the students across the respondents’ profile variables.

2. There is a significant difference in the level of communication opportunity

of the Sophomore Teacher Education students in the control group and

the experimental group.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The objective of this study was confined in the identification of the

communication opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher Education students of

Urdaneta City University (UCU) during first semester, academic year 2015-2016.

The data that gathered in this study is only limited to the accounts provided by

the said respondents. The present study used the respondents who are currently

enrolled in the subject Speech and Oral Communication class. This is no further

attempt to conduct this research in other classes. This study only delves of the

effects of Project-based learning as an approach in the teaching-learning process

and its implication in the communication opportunity of the students. There will

be no further attempt of the researcher to determine other potential effects.

 8

Significance of the Study

The researcher believes that this study will benefit the following:

Teacher Education students. The results would be most beneficial to

the students as recipients of the improved teaching and learning. They would be

inspired to gain a deeper appreciation for the subject and develop an interest in

diving into the subject and gaining an enhanced knowledge of the subject. They

would have developed their communication skills and effectively listen and pass

information along to the group they work so closely with – a skill that is essential

as an adult in the real world.

English Language Teachers. The findings of this study would be of

help to the English teachers in improving classroom instruction and teaching

strategies. This gives the English teachers clues about how they can facilitate

learning in a real world environment with students collaborating on the given

task.

Immediate English Language Supervisor. The findings and results of

this study would provide the school administrators the necessary data to work

out a curriculum program using the Project-Based learning that is suited to the

needs of the students to become globally competitive. The result would also

provide a sound basis for planning and organizing project-based activities or

programs to develop the communications skills of every student.

 9

English Courses Syllabus Designer. The results of this study would be

a help to them in producing a holistic syllabus that will provide learning

experiences to the students for them to become globally competitive in their

chosen career.

The Future Researchers. Researchers along this area of study would be

benefited by this research. Apart from knowing the students learning style and

their communication opportunity using the project-based learning.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally and theoretically defined to unlock

difficulties and facilitate comprehension of the study.

Project-Based Learning (PBL). It is a dynamic approach in which

students explore real-world problems and challenges as acquire a deeper

knowledge; it integrates knowing and doing; and it is associated with situated

learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991 in Markham 2011)

Sophomore Teacher Education Students. It pertains to the second

year college education students enrolled in the subject Speech and Oral

Communication at Urdaneta City University (UCU) during first semester,

academic year 2015-2016.

 10

Communication Opportunity. It refers to the opportunity given to an

individual in expressing his ideas academically in the teaching-learning process.

Teacher Talk (TT). It is a traditional lecture method a “chalk and talk”

where the teaching talking and students are taking notes is your idea of

teaching.

Student Talk (ST). It is the language used by the students during class

interaction.

Lexical Density Test (LDT). A computational linguistics, constitutes the

estimated measure of content per functional or type (grammatical) and lexical

units (lexemes) in total or token.

Type. It refers to the total number of words occurring in a text or

utterance.

Token. It refers to the total number of content or information-carrying

words occurring in a text or utterance.

Learning Style Preferences (LSP). It refers to basic perceptual

learning approaches and preferences used by learners. In this study, the

preferences are categorized into the following six groups by Professor Joy M.

Reid.

Visual learning preference (VLP). It is when one learns best from

seeing words or pictures in books (i .e., on the chalkboard , in workbooks ).

 11

Auditory learning preference (ALP). It is when one learn best from

hearing words (i.e., lectures, audiotapes, class discussions) and from oral

explanations.

Kinesthetic learning preference (KLP). It is when one learns best by

experience, by being involved physically in classroom experiences.

Tactile learning preference (TLP). It is when one learns best when

having the opportunity to do "hands -on" experiences with materials.

Group learning preference (GLP). It is when one learns and

remembers best when studying with at least one other student, and will be more

successful completing work well when working with others.

Individual learning preference (ILP). It is when one learns and

remembers best when working alone.

Linguistic Intelligence. It deals with an individual’s ability to

understand both spoken and written language, as well as their ability to speak

and write themselves (Howard Gardner).

Mother Tongue. It is the language that a person has grown up speaking

from early childhood.

 12

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the literature and other related studies which are

significant in enabling the researcher to gain deeper insights to the present

study.

The researcher cited, quoted discussions, theories, concepts and parallel

research findings and adapted these to the present investigations. These served

as bases for the conceptualization and formulation of the conceptual framework

of the study.

RELATED LITERATURE

This section includes related literature which serves as underpinnings of

the present study.

History of Project-Based learning (PBL)

According to the Buck Institute for Education (BIE, 2012) Project-Based

Learning has its roots in experiential education and the philosophy of John

Dewey. The method of project-based learning emerged due to developments in

learning theory in the past 25 years. The BIE suggests, “Research in

neuroscience and psychology has extended cognitive and behavioral models of

learning — which support traditional direct instruction — to show that

knowledge, thinking, doing, and the contexts for learning are inextricably tied.”

12
 13

Because learning is a social activity, teaching methods can scaffold on students’

prior experiences and include a focus on community and culture. Furthermore,

because we live in an increasingly more technological and global society,

teachers realize that they must prepare students not only to think about new

information, but they also must engage them in tasks that prepare them for this

global citizenship. Based on the developments in cognitive research and the

changing modern educational environment in the latter part of the 20th Century,

project-based learning has gained popularity.

Definition and Influences of PBL

There are many ways to describe PBL one another; and use of cognitive

tools that help learners represent ideas by using technology Thomas (2000 in

Evers and Spencer 2011) draws on two studies (Thomas, Mergendoller &

Michaelson (1999 in Chapan and Routledge 2009) to define PBL as: Complex

tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in

design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities; give

students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods

of time; and culminate in realistic products or presentations.

Carr (2012) defined PBL as an investigative study that develops cognitive

structure and reconstructs knowledge in accordance with the perspective of

Piaget’s cognitive development. It includes activities such as metacognitive

thinking, creates an original product, allows being used communication skills in a

 14

group, class or society and presents the final product. Hmelo-Silven (2004) and

Zimmerman (2010) stated that students in small or big groups collaborate with

each other to reach collective outcomes over a period. They search solutions to

problem by posing and refining questions and discussing ideas, collecting and

analyzing data, drawing conclusions and presenting the findings to each other’s.

In the present study, the researcher adopted the definition of Blumenfeld et al.,

1991 in Markham 2011 that PBL is defined as a dynamic approach in which

students explore real-world problems and challenges as acquire a deeper

knowledge; it integrates knowing and doing; and it is associated with situated

learning.

While there are many ways to describe PBL, there are characteristics of PBL

that are commonly accepted as an integral part of the process. They include: a)

Centered on a driving question ;b) Creation of artifacts; c) Develops essential

skills and concepts ;d) Focus on real life topics ; e) Student driven with student

freedom Blumenfeld et al., (1991, in Markham 2011)

No matter the actual definition is used to describe PBL, there is evidence

that PBL works. Fox (2013) stated that PBL is one of the most popular

approaches under the canopy constructivist learning method. In other words, it

can be one of the most effective tools a teacher can utilize to impact learning.

In PBL, projects requiring students to apply the knowledge and skills they

learn are the focus of the curriculum rather than being added as a supplement at

the end of traditional instruction. The entire PBL process is organized around an
 15

open-ended driving question that teachers use to connect content to current and

relevant issues or problems. Through this process, students develop their own

questions to drive learning, study concepts and information that answer those

questions, and apply that knowledge to products they develop. Thomas (2000)

and Jolly and Cherian (2012) stated that students can organize external and

internal conditions of a controlled and planned study by carrying out such

projects. In short, it is clear that project approach can be connected with the

concept of self-determination and self-regulation. In addition, PBL encourages

more rigorous learning because it requires students to take an active role in

understanding concepts and content, and it enables them to develop 21st-

century skills, which foster an enduring curiosity and hunger for knowledge.

Since students are able to apply classroom content to real-life phenomena, PBL

also facilitates career exploration, technology use, student engagement,

community connections, and content relevancy (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx,

Krajcik, Guzdial, &Palincsar, 1991; The Buck Institute for Education, 2012)

Implementing PBL Instruction

Today’s schools involve not only promoting content knowledge of

disciplines but also on developing high-level cognitive skills and transferring

values. To help students acquire these goals, teachers should be encouraged to

use more authentic instruction approaches in teaching (Lan et al., 2009)

 16

Many teachers perceive PBL as beneficial to their students, thus

motivating them to adopt the instructional approach in their classrooms. A

national survey of public school teachers revealed that they were most likely to

use PBL in their classrooms because they believe it teaches abilities beyond

academic content, including such 21st-century skills as collaboration and

presentation techniques (Ravitz, 2008 in Armstrong and Fukuim 2009). In

addition, Liu et al. (2012) found that teachers use PBL if they believe that it

addresses content standards, aligns with their philosophy of teaching, provides

an innovative form of instruction that fosters 21st-century skills, challenges

students in an engaging way that meets diverse learning needs, and is supported

by building administrators.

Liu et al. (2012) suggest multiple strategies to effectively implement PBL.

They recommend that teachers should choose a PBL program that explicitly

meets their curricular needs, be proactive with technology access and availability,

consider diverse scaffolding techniques, accept that students will need to adjust

to the unfamiliar nature of PBL, and realize that implementation takes time.

Additionally, school leadership must support PBL implementation through

development of a shared vision, coordination of professional development

activities, critical evaluation of grading and assessment, and promotion of a

“learning-by-doing” approach to pedagogy. The authors concluded that for PBL

to be successful, teachers, administrators, instructional materials, and technology

must all be aligned. Klein et al. (2009) stated that while planning the project
 17

explicit learning goals and project subjects should be take into account. Levin-

Goldberg (2009) stated that students are typically more motivated to learn when

they are allowed to participate in a project in which they have a greater interest.

So, educators must spark student-driven inquiry, maintain engagement, help

students understand content and address misconceptions while encouraging

reflection.

Consequently, the use of project-based learning develops students’

interest, attitudes and academic achievement. Hence, Project-based learning is

intended to increase the engagement of student and lead to better education

outcomes in all subjects (National Assessment of Education Progress, 2010; New

Tech Network, 2013).

PBL and Instructional Technology

Project-based learning focuses on central concepts and principles of a

discipline, involves students in problem-solving investigations, allows students to

work autonomously to construct own knowledge, and culminates into realistic

products Buck Institute of Education (2002 in Evers and Spencer 2011). Hence,

project-based learning, based on this definition, presents students with problems

that require them to seek answers by conducting research, making connections

between data, challenging themselves to seek resources, and assimilating ideas

into existing schemata. The innovative power of project-based learning is

evident when compared to the traditional lecture model of teaching. The main
 18

purpose of project is to help students study cooperatively in democracy, acquire

a deeper understanding related to their lives and improve interest and abilities

(Vaculova, 2009). The purpose of project-based learning using technology is to

shift the focus of learning away from the teacher and places it on the student.

PBL helps develop and enhance higher-order thinking skills, such as analysis,

synthesis, and evaluation, unlike the traditional model of teaching, which

imprisons students at the knowledge and comprehension level of Bloom's

Taxonomy.

A review of relevant literature reveals that project-based learning that

integrates informational technology benefits students in numerous ways: they

learn self-reliance, how to design, carry out, and evaluate a project, and more

importantly, they learn in an authentic and challenging environment (Zhou and

Lee, 2009)

Project-based learning employing technology is even more evident. It

encourages students to collaborate, engage in self-reflection, construct meaning,

and actively participate in the learning process. Project-based learning is an

innovative curricular model that is beneficial to students and teachers. The shift

towards project-based learning reveals another "theory of change.” However,

such a change is necessary if we desire that students reach parity with other

students. Their success in the "real world" is contingent upon their ability to

solve problems, to plan, to research, and to think critically.

 19

To add, project-based learning utilizing technology allows students to

demonstrate and utilize their diverse intelligences in different ways. Project-

based learning encourages musical, artistic, technological, language or other

skills to flourish as students collaborate and develop social skills.

A successful project-based learning teacher should prepare students in

necessary skills for project-based learning groups. Probably the most important

of these preparatory skills is that of small group dynamics, including conflict

resolution and role assignment. PBL environments not only ensure students to

feel themselves as the owner of property in a project, but also create higher

motivation academically (Carr, 2012). Students also need at least an outline of

basic problem-solving skills and brainstorming techniques. Also, proficiency

should be developed in using specific research sources, including how to critically

review all research. It is critical that teachers set clear objectives, encourage

individuals in each group to take responsibility for a certain aspect of the

multimedia production, provide opportunities for students to discuss and reflect

with others, and monitor groups closely to ensure they are on task and sharing

responsibilities.

Project-based learning utilizing technology encourages such thinking. It is

rooted in Dewey's philosophy, which proposes that when students are presented

with a problem, and wrestle with the problem, then they are thinking and they

are learning (Dewey, 1916). Dewey proposed this almost a century ago, yet his

philosophy is extremely relevant today. In a shared activity like a WebQuest, the

 20

teacher is a learner, and the learner is a teacher. In order to provide students

with these and other educational experiences, teachers must: a) Have a strong

knowledge base and knowledge about their students; b) Be willing to guide

students to a greater, deeper understanding based on their knowledge and

experiences; c) Invest in observation, planning, organization, and documentation

Mooney (2000 in Evers and Spencer 2011).

A teacher's knowledge base, especially in the age of technology, must include

understanding the role and impact of technology in the classroom. However, in

order to teach a new concept or tool, teachers must activate and build upon

student's prior knowledge.

A Brief History of Classroom Talk

Academic discourse has always been part of a classroom. Teachers have

long understood the importance of using language to transmit ideas. In the early

history of education, teachers talked most of the instructional day while students

were quiet and completed their assigned tasks. Students were expected to

memorize and be able to recite them. Talking by the students was not the norm.

Over time, educators realized that students had to use the language if they were

to become better educated. As a result, well-intentioned educators called in

individual students to respond to questions. Teachers expected them to use

 21

academic language in their individual responses, and as students spoke, teachers

would assess their knowledge (Alexander, 2013).

Language permits its users to pay attention to things, persons and events.

It gives definition to our memories and, by translating experiences into symbols,

converts the immediacy of craving or abhorrence, or hatred or love, into fixed

principles of feeling and conduct. Language, in other words, is how we think. It

is our operating system. Vygotsky (1978 in Alexander 2013) suggested that

thinking develops into words in a number of phases, moving from imaging to

inner speech to inner speaking to speech. Tracing this idea backward, speech –

talk – is the representation of thinking. As such it seems reasonable to suggest

that classroom should be filled with talk, given that we want them to filled with

thinking.

The Balance between Teachers and Students Talk Time

According to second language acquisition theories, both teachers and

students should participate in language classes actively. Especially, in

communicative ESL classes students need ample opportunity to practice the

target language so that the teacher should reduce the amount of their talk to

20% to 30% of the class time, and Student Talk Time should be around 70% to

80% during the lesson time. Supporting this idea, Brown (2001 in Myers et al.

2009), claim that excessive teacher talk should be avoided and total teacher talk
 22

should not take up the majority of the class, as this will not provide students

with enough opportunity for language production.

There are various reasons, both speculative and empirically supported,

why students do or do not participate in class discussion. One of the reasons is

the class size, with student being more willing to participate (Hyde and Ruth,

2002; Myers et al., 2009). Student tends to participate in class with the small

number rather than in huge crowd. Another reason, when students perceive that

their instructor is verbally aggressive, they are less likely to participate (Rocca,

2009). Another idea is shared, when students perceive that their instructors as

having similar background or attitude as then, they are more likely to participate

(Myers et al., 2009), and less likely to participate if their instructors’ political

views are different from their own.

Myers et al. (2009) found that students were more motivated to speak up

in class if they perceived their instructors as inclusive and appreciative of them

and as using verbal approach strategies. And students were also more likely to

participate if they perceive their instructors as physically or socially attractive.

However, previous researches in language classrooms have established

that teachers tend to do most of the classroom talk. Teacher talk makes up over

70 percent of the total talk (Chaudron (2002 in Rocca 2009). Some other study

has also shown that both first and second language teachers tend to dominate

classroom discourse, speaking for approximately 60%, or two-thirds, of class

time on average (Chaudron (2002 in Rocca 2009). Similarly, researchers such as

 23

Rocca belief in the teaching learning world that teachers either talk or should talk

more than learners and they found out that about 60 per cent of the total

amount of talk done in L1 classrooms is done by the teacher; and further

investigation claimed that the figures are about the same as for L2 classrooms

(Dunking & Biddle 2000; Bellack et al. 2003 as cited in Chaudron, 2002).

This is too high for a communicative language teaching classroom. While

Krashen (1981 in Swain 2009) asserted that comprehensible input is “the crucial

and necessary ingredient” for second language acquisition, Swain (2009)

demonstrated that input alone is insufficient for developing language production

skills and argued instead for the importance of comprehensible output, noting

that learners need to pay more attention to meaning when producing language

than for comprehension. Moreover, Swain (2009) explains that while excessive

teacher talk is to be avoided, understanding what is ‘excessive’ is subjective. He

argues that teacher talk is necessary to provide learners with what can be their

only access to live target language input.

Reason to Reduce Teacher Talk in class

In a communicative language teaching the use of too much teacher taking

time should be minimized due to some reasons: Firstly, it minimizes students

talking time; secondly, too much teacher talk bored the learners and they fail to

concentrate on their learning; Thirdly, if the teacher talk too much, he or she

concentrate on discreet language items like grammar rule, vocabulary and

feedback. This strategy never create learning opportunity and the learner are
 24

told about the language not to use the target language; fourthly, excessive

teacher talk also make the learner passive participant and discourage interaction;

and too much teacher talking time minimizes students learning autonomy and

they do not want to take any learning responsibility (Darn, 2007 in Tang 2009).

Teacher talk plays an important role in classroom organization and

management, giving feedback and asking questions. It is generally agreed that

language input provided by teacher is vital in second classroom for language

development (Ellis, 2005 in Tang 2009). In China, teacher talk dominated the

foreign language classroom (Tang, 2009). This could be explained by some

pragmatic reasons. First, the large amount of teacher talk in Chinese classrooms

matched the expectations of teachers, learners, schools and even parents (Li,

1999 in Tang 2009). Second, teacher talk is a natural outcome of traditional

teaching practice, large class sizes, and low linguistic competence of the

learners. Third, the curriculum, to a great extent, encourages teacher-

centeredness as it is the safest way of complying with the examination

requirements and preparing students for the high stake public examinations.

Thus, both the quantity and quality of teacher talk are valuable to learners as: a)

it provides a potentially valuable source for language input for acquisition. b) it is

unrealistic to reduce teacher talk time (TTT) as it is culturally inappropriate,

where the classrooms are preoccupied with the traditional role of a teacher as

knowledge-transmitter. c) in an “input-poor” environment where the teacher is

the principal source of lexical input, questions, nomination of topics, and

 25

interaction patterns initiated or shaped by the teacher affect exposure to the

language. d) The amount of input will affect the language learning outcomes

(Mangubhai, 2005 in Swain 2009).

Innovation of Teaching-Learning Process

Piaget (1969) ‘Development Theory’ which stated that the cognitive and

intellectual changes are the result of developmental terms of purpose on

respondents’ methodology and statistical measures and areas of the concern.

Constructivism is a theory that does not intend to demolish but to

reconstruct past and present teaching and learning theories, its concern lying in

shedding light on the learner as an important agent in the learning process,

rather than wrestling the power from the teacher. Learning is an active process

in which the learner uses sensory input and constructs meaning out of it. The

more traditional formulation of this idea involves the terminology of the active

learner needs to do something learning is not the passive acceptance of

knowledge which exists “out there” but that learning involves the learners

engaging with the world. People learn to learn as they learn: learning consists

both of constructing meaning and systems of meaning by Dewey (1991).

Learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or

concepts based upon their current and past knowledge. The learner selects and

transforms information, constructs hypotheses, and make decisions relying on a

cognitive structure to do so. Cognitive structure schema, mental models provides

 26

meaning and organization to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond

the information given.” Bruner (1996) also stated that a theory of instruction

should address four major aspects: predisposition towards learning, the ways in

which a body of knowledge can be structured so that it can be most readily

grasped by the learner; the most effective sequence in which to present

material; and the nature and pacing of rewards and punishments. Good methods

for structuring knowledge should result in simplifying, generating new

propositions, and increasing the manipulation of information. It is a school of

thought that emphasized both learners’ role in constructing meaning out of their

social interactions with the environment. The difference made to one’s mind or

concepts by the process accommodation of assimilation. Note that assimilation

and accommodation go together you can’t have one without the other. The

ability to group objects together on the basis of common classification features.

The understanding more advanced the simple classification, class inclusion that

some classes or sets of objects are sub-sets of a larger class. Constructivist

research tends to focus on individuals engaged in social practices on a

collaborative group on a global community.

The constructivist classroom is also conducive to personal change and

growth, and can facilitate learning, provided that the student participates

completely in the learning process and has a control over its nature and

direction; it is primarily based upon direct confrontation with practical, social,

 27

personal or research problems; and, self-evaluation is the principal method of

assessing progress or success. (Rogers, 1994)

The fundamental challenge of constructivism is in its changing the focus

of control over learning from the teacher to the student. They claimed that

objectives should be negotiated with students based on their own felt needs,

that programmed activities should emerge from within the contexts of their lived

worlds that students should work together with peers in the social construction

of personally significant meaning and the evaluation should be a personalized

ongoing, shared analysis of progress (Hanckbarth, 1996)

Vygotsky (1896) known for his theory of social constructivism, believes

that learning and development is a collaborative activity and that children are

cognitively developed in the context socialization and education. The perceptual,

attention, and memory capacities of children are transformed by vital cognitive

tools provided by culture, such as history, social context, traditions, language,

and religion. For learning to occur, the child first makes contact with the social

environment on an interpersonal level and then internalizes this experience. The

earlier notions and new experiences influence the child, who then constructs new

ideas. Vygotsky (1978) pointed out how this behavior, which begins as a simple

motion, becomes a meaningful movement when others react to the gesture.

Vygotsky’s constructivism is known as social constructivism because of the

significance culture and social context. For Vygotsky, the zone of proximal
 28

development “ the distance between the actual development of a child as

determined by the independent problem solving, and the level of potential

development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in

collaboration with more peers (Vygotsky, 1978) suggests that cognitive

development is limited to a certain range at a particular age. However, with the

help of social interaction, such as assistance from a mentor, students can

comprehend concepts and schemes that they cannot know on their own.

Curriculum specialists and lesson plan builders can use the zone of proximal

development as a guiding reference.

A Vygotskian classroom emphasizes creating one’s own concepts and

making knowledge one’s property; this requires that school learning takes place

in a meaningful context, alongside the learning that occurs in the real world. As

seen earlier in the Piagetian classroom, this model also promotes the active

participation and collaboration of distinctive learners. The Vygotskian classroom

stresses assisted discovery through teacher-student and student-student

interaction. Some of the cognitive strategies that group members bring into the

classroom are questioning, predicting, summarizing, and clarifying. 

In a Vygotskian classroom, dynamic support and considerate guidance are

provided based on the learner’s needs, but no will or force is dictated. Students

are exposed to discussions, research collaborations, electronic information

resources, and project groups that work on problem analysis.

 29

We are all aware that different people learn in different ways. Many of us

have been in a group learning situation in which everyone is supposedly exposed

to the same learning experience. However, upon leaving the classroom it is not

uncommon for two people who shared that experience to find that they have

very opposing interpretations of the session and different levels of

understanding. While one person may find a session enjoyable and learn new

skills, another may find it boring and inappropriate (Honey and Mumford, 2000).

The reason for these different experiences is that people learn in a variety of

ways and are stimulated by different learning activities. For example, some

people learn best by reading, whilst others prefer to listen or communicate.

These differing ways of learning have become known as learning styles.

Therefore, the term learning styles is used to describe individuals’ attitudes and

behaviors towards learning. Although no two people will learn in the same way,

it is possible to identify certain groups of learners who display similar preferences

in the way they learn. Most of us are aware that we prefer certain learning

activities to others, but few people are aware of their learning styles. An

awareness of learning styles can help learners to learn more effectively. More

importantly, it can help instructors and designers to design learning

environments that accommodate a variety of learning styles. Learning styles

theory suggests that as learners are individuals they bring different skills to the

learning situation and learn in different ways. Matching resources with learning

styles can help learners to make the most of a learning situation.

 30

Multiple Intelligence

Multiple Intelligence Theory outlines eight intelligences, although Howard

Gardner (1993, 1999) continues to explore additional possibilities:1) Verbal /

Linguistic Intelligence: The ability to use language effectively both orally and in

writing. 2) Logical/Mathematical Intelligence: The ability to use numbers

effectively and reason well. 3) Visual/Spatial Intelligence: The ability to recognize

form, space, color, line, and shape and to graphically represent visual and spatial

ideas. 4) Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence: The ability to use the body to express

ideas and feelings and to solve problems. 5) Musical Intelligence: The ability to

recognize rhythm, pitch, and melody. 6) Interpersonal Intelligence: The ability to

understand another person's feelings, motivations, and intentions and to respond

effectively.7) Intrapersonal Intelligence: The ability to know about and

understand oneself and recognize one's similarities to and differences from

others. 8) Naturalist Intelligence: The ability to recognize and classify plants,

minerals, and animals.

The theory of multiple intelligences offers eight ways of teaching and

learning styles. In this regard, armed with the knowledge and application of the

multiple intelligences, teachers can ensure they provide enough variety in the

activities they use so that as much of their pupils’ learning potential can be

tapped as possible (Bas, 2008, 2010b; Berman, 1998).

 31

The learning theorists outlined above have significantly impacted how

teachers teach, and revealed how students learn. A common thread –

ownership, holds all together. When students are allowed to seek meaning on

their own, the material becomes relevant. Piaget stressed that only when

students are allowed to construct meaning, they learn. The researchers outlined

are by no means the only authorities on thinking and learning; however, their

theories reinforce the power of collaboration, project-based learning, and more

importantly technology in the classroom.

RELATED STUDIES

This section presents an enumeration and abstract of researches related

to this study.

Foreign Studies

Several studies conducted abroad were also reviewed in order to gain

insights on this study.

Simpson’s (2011) study focused on providing an in-depth examination of

Thai students English language proficiency, their learning skills and their self-

confidence during the application of Project-Based learning (PBL) in an EFL

learning context. It examined whether PBL could enhance Thai University

 32

students’ English Language Proficiency, their learning skills and self-confidence.

The study was conducted in an EFL classroom in a major regional Thai

university. Data were collected from 26 third year students majoring in English

enrolled in English for Tourism course. The data were derived from four

quantitative instruments including TOEFL PBT, a writing test, a speaking test and

an observation schedule and the rich-information was obtained from five

qualitative instruments including student survey, project diaries, open-ended

questionnaire, field notes and work-in-progress discussion.

The results of the study showed that PBL had a statistically significant

effect on the development of a low and medium achievers’ English language

skills, with exception of the structure and written expression of the low

achievers. The findings indicated that PBL enhanced their learning skills

(teamwork, higher-order thinking and presentation skills) together with self-

confidence. Their overall improvement in English proficiency is a worthwhile

achievement particularly when it is linked to significant in the improvement in

students’ learning skills and self-confidence us of English.

Moreover, Gokhan Bas and Omer Beyhan (2010) investigation focus on

the effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning and

traditional foreign language-teaching environment on students’ achievement and

their attitude towards English lesson in Karatli Serit Sahin Yilmaz Elementary

School, Nigde Turkey. The results of the research showed a significant difference

between the attitude scores of the experiment group and the control group. It
 33

was also found out that multiple intelligences approach activities were more

effective in the positive development of the student’s attitudes. At the end of the

research, it was revealed that the students who are educated by multiple

intelligences supported Project-Based Learning (PBL) method are successful and

have a higher motivation level than the students who are educated by the

traditional methods.

Furthermore, Eskrootchi and Oskrochi (2010) conducted a quasi-

experimental study of PBL instruction in a technology-rich environment to

determine their combined impact on students. Eighth-grade students were

divided into three groups: a control group, which received traditional, lecture-

based instruction; an experimental group that performed a simulation model

using only technology (PBS); and an experimental group that learned through

PBL while also using technology (PBES). Students were tested on both their

conceptual and content knowledge.

Students in the PBES group outperformed the other two groups in subject

comprehension, but not content knowledge. Further, the project had a

statistically significantly stronger effect on females so that they had higher mean

scores in the PBES group than females in the control group. This demonstrates

that effectively implementing technology with PBL increases student achievement

compared to students using technology alone. The researchers believe this is due

to increased student collaboration, authenticity, and the establishment of spaces

for more equitable contribution present in PBL-instructed classrooms. They

 34

conclude that students learn best by actively constructing knowledge from a

combination of experience, interpretation and structured interactions with peers

when using simulation in a PBL setting.

Additionally, Krishnan, Gabb and Vale (2011) found that collaboration

skills learned through PBL were essential to positive learning outcomes in their

study of first-year engineering students. Groups who adopted a collaborative

learning culture emphasized gaining as much knowledge as possible in the team

setting. Researchers observed that this group exhibited excellent communication,

high levels of participation and mutual respect, and that most students in these

teams “used deep learning approaches… focused on finding more than one

solution to each program” (Krishnan et al., 2011 ). Therefore, the researchers

considered these groups the most successful in encouraging education for all

members, compared to other types of group cultures that were focused on

finishing the project or maximizing their grade.

Finally, Strobel and Van Barneveld (2009) conducted a qualitative meta-

synthesis of meta-analyses to identify generalizeable findings regarding the

effectiveness of PBL in teaching content knowledge. They concluded that

traditional instruction produces better outcomes when assessing basic

knowledge, but that PBL produces better results when assessing clinical

knowledge and skills: “PBL is significantly more effective than traditional

instruction to train competent and skilled practitioners and to promote long-term

retention of knowledge and skills” (Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009)

 35

Those multiple studies mentioned above have reported that students in

PBL-taught classrooms demonstrate improved critical-thinking and problem-

solving skills. Researchers have also found that PBL is a successful way of

teaching 21st-century skills, and that it increases student engagement and

content learning. Further, students show more initiative by utilizing resources

and revising work, behaviors that were uncharacteristic of them before they

were immersed in the PBL-instructed classes.

Research indicates that PBL: (a) has a positive effect on student content

knowledge and the development of skills such as collaboration, critical thinking,

and problem solving; (b) benefits students by increasing their motivation and

engagement; and (c) is challenging for teachers to implement, leading to the

conclusion that teachers need support in order to plan and enact PBL effectively

while students need support including help setting up and directing initial inquiry,

organizing their time to complete tasks, and integrating technology into projects

in meaningful ways.

Local Studies

Several studies conducted here in the Philippines were also reviewed in

order to gain insights on this present study.

Montemayor et al. (2009) conducted a study on Learning Styles of high

and low academic achieving freshman teachers’ education students of the

 36

University of Cordilleras (UC). Result of the study revealed that no significant

difference exists in the learning styles between the low achieving and high

achieving students. Since students do not vary in terms of their learning style, it

recommended that teachers, whenever possible must incorporate in their

teaching strategies specific method that is reflective of visual auditory, tactile,

kinesthetic style of learning.

On the other hand, Bucao-Jacolbia (2012) conducted a study on New

Strategies in Teaching and Learning: The Polytechnic University of the Philippines

College of Education Experience. The research study determined the total

number of respondents by the use of Slovin’s formula. The study compared

different strategies such as Case Study Method, Demonstration, Buzz

Groups/Peer Brainstorming, Think-Pair-Share, Jigsaw Method, Peer Teaching,

Seminar, Project-Based Learning, and Portal. It was found out that Project-Based

Learning (PBL) and Demonstration are the most effective strategy among all the

strategies mentioned.

Furthermore, Barroga – De Guzman (2010) conducted the study on social

and affective learning strategies and Performance in English as a Second

Language. The study is a descriptive-comparative that determined the learning

strategies and looked into the level of performance in English. 60 students were

chosen as a subject of the study. The three week series of classroom interaction

was observed and videotaped for the tabulating the frequency on the use of

learning strategy. The researcher uses Analysis of Variance to establish the

 37

differences in levels of performance in ESL. Results revealed that the

respondents used the learning strategies ranges from low to high on their level

of performance.

Finally, De La Paz (2009) also examined technology and PBL in the middle

school setting, comparing the outcomes of students who participated in a

technology-assisted PBL experience to those who received more traditional

instruction during a six-week history unit. From an analysis of teacher-created

assessments, the researchers determined that students in the PBL-taught class,

who learned the material by working in groups, creating multimedia projects,

and listening to other groups’ projects, learned more than students who received

traditional instruction. The researchers also found that students from the PBL

classroom performed better on state-administered assessments.

Synthesis of the Reviewed Related

Literature and Studies

The related literature and studies on the background of Project-based

learning and on its effect on the communication opportunity of students

towards English subject discussed in this chapter are very essential in this

present study for these are the very variables to where this study evolved. The

similarities as well as the differences of the reviewed literatures and studies are

pointed out the implementation and effectiveness of Project-based learning in

the engagement of students into a deep and active learning.

 38

In the related literatures reviewed, similarities in the present study are

observed. Blumenfeld (1991, in Markham 2011) and BIE 2012 look on the

importance of Project-based learning in the teaching-learning process to make

students acquire necessary knowledge, vital skills and citizenship values for the

21st century. The study on PBL encourages more rigorous learning because it

requires students to take an active role in understanding concepts and content,

and it enables them to develop 21st-century skills, which foster an enduring

curiosity and hunger for knowledge. Since students are able to apply classroom

content to real-life phenomena, PBL also facilitates career exploration,

technology use, student engagement, community connections, and content

relevancy.

Carr (2012) and the present study are related because of the end-product

that allows being used in communication skills that the researcher wants to

investigated. Carr includes activities such as metacognitive thinking, creates an

original product, allows being used communication skills in a group, class or

society and presents the final product and Zimmerman (2010) found out that

students searches solutions to problem by posing and refining questions and

discussing ideas, collecting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions and

presenting the findings to each other’s while using the PBL in classroom setting.

Jolly and Cherian (2012) stated that students can organize external and internal

conditions of a controlled and planned study by carrying out such projects. Levin-

Goldberg (2009) stated that students are typically more motivated to learn when
 39

they are allowed to participate in a project in which they have a greater interest.

It is high lightened on the study of Trilling (2008) Moylan (2008) and Kubaitko

and Vaculova (2009) about the main purpose of project that is to help students

study cooperatively in democracy, acquire a deeper understanding related to

their lives and improve interest and abilities

On the other hand, Chang et al. (2012) and the present study have

commonality because both look on way how effective the PBL if implemented in

classroom setting. They suggest multiple strategies to effectively implement PBL.

They recommend that teachers should choose a PBL program that explicitly

meets their curricular needs, be proactive with technology access and availability,

consider diverse scaffolding techniques, accept that students will need to adjust

to the unfamiliar nature of PBL, and realize that implementation takes time.

Additionally, school leadership must support PBL implementation through

development of a shared vision, coordination of professional development

activities, critical evaluation of grading and assessment, and promotion of a

“learning-by-doing” approach to pedagogy. The authors concluded that for PBL

to be successful, teachers, administrators, instructional materials, and technology

must all be aligned. Klein et al. (2009) also stated that while planning the project

explicit learning goals and project subjects should be take into account.

This research and the reviewed related literatures of Myers et al. (2009),

Swain (2009) have connection because its goal is to find out different strategies

to improve the communication skills of the learners. Nevertheless, Myers et al.

 40

(2009) stated on the reasons why students do or do not participate during the

class interaction and focused on the developing language production skills of the

learners.

On the other hand, there were different studies conducted which are

connected to the present study. Simpson (2011) and the present study have

similarities because both focuses on the performance of college students on the

language proficiency during the application of PBL in an ESL learning context.

Gokhan Bas and Omer Bayham (2010) and the present study have

resemblance because both studies investigate the effects of multiple intelligences

on learning style on the communication skills supported PBL learning and

traditional-learning environment. Likewise the variable on learning style is

included in the present study.

Eskrootchi and Oskrochi (2010) and the present study have similarities

because both investigate on the group outperformed applying the PBL

environment. Eskrootchi and Oskroochi found out that there is a statistically

significantly stronger effect on females in implementing technology with PBL that

increases student’s achievement in ESL classroom. Likewise, the variable on sex

is included in the present study.

Krishnan et al. (2011) and the present study have commonality because

the two are concerned with the positive learning outcomes using PBL in the

college students. The researcher used first year engineering student as their
 41

subject of the study; however, the present study want to investigate the

effectiveness of PBL on the sophomore teacher education student.

Looking on the local studies reviewed, Montemayor et al (2009) is similar

to the present study in terms of investigating on the effect of students’ learning

style on the academic performance of the students. Montemayor focused on the

freshman teacher education students of the University of Cordilleras. On the

other hand, the present study wants to investigate its effect to the

communication opportunity to the Sophomore Teacher Education students of

Urdaneta City University (UCU).

A study of Bucao-Jacolba (2012) could be associated to the present study

because both studies investigate on the New Strategies in Teaching and

Learning. The study found out that PBL is the most effective strategy among all

strategies mentioned and the present study wants to investigate the effect of

PBL on the communication opportunity of the college students.

Theoretical Framework

This study proposes utilizing assumptions and concepts that are in

continuity with the existing literatures and scholarly deliberations in the field of

Project-based learning. The formulation of the research problem and questions

are anchored or generally accepted concepts and theories lifted from

authoritative literature and from respected scholarly writings. Notes were also
 42

taken from parallel foreign studies conducted previously by scholars to obtain

queries.

The formulation of research problem finds its basis on generally accepted

theory about learning by doing of John Dewey and connected to the

developmental theory of Piaget that the students may learn best if they are

involved into the teaching-learning process. This forms the theoretical basis of

the effects of project -based learning on the communication opportunity of the

sophomore teacher education students of Urdaneta City University as

respondents and who are directly engage in English language.

The profiling of the respondents as to their socio-demographic information

and English learning information as well as the data on the level of

communication opportunity is intended to generate variables that can possibly

explain how students will be differentiated based on the intervening variables

used in this study. This assumption finds its basis and framework from the bulk

of previously conducted scholarly studies on Project-based learning that are prior

discussed in the Review of Related Literature and Studies section of this research

outline. Accordingly, sex is a factor that would affect this present study. On the

study conducted by Eskrootchi and Oskrochi (2010) about Project-based

learning, the statistics explains that there is a significantly stronger effect on

females so they had higher mean scores on PBES. This demonstrates that

effectively implementing technology with PBL increases student achievement

compared to students using technology alone. The researchers believe this is due
 43

to increased student collaboration, authenticity, and the establishment of spaces

for more equitable contribution present in PBL-instructed classrooms. They

conclude that students learn best by actively constructing knowledge from a

combination of experience, interpretation and structured interactions with peers

when using simulation in a PBL setting.

Furthermore, this study considers that learning style of the students is a

great factor that would affect the present study. According to Montemayor et al.

(2009) conducted a study on Learning Styles of high and low academic achieving

freshman teachers’ education students of the University of Cordilleras (UC). The

Result of the study revealed that no significant difference exists in the learning

styles between the low achieving and high achieving students. Since students do

not vary in terms of their learning style, it recommended that teachers,

whenever possible must incorporate in their teaching strategies specific method

that is reflective of visual auditory, tactile, kinesthetic style of learning. To further

determine this A Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire by Professor

Joy M. Reid will be used in the present study to identify the major learning style

preference of the respondents and later analyzed if the learning style would

affect the research.

Alexander (2013) states that academic discourse has always been part of

the classroom; Teachers have long understood the importance of using language

to transmit ideas. In the early history of education, teachers talked for most of

the instructional day while students were quiet and completed their assigned
 44

tasks. This classroom scenario tends that these students will fail to develop

academic language and discourse simply because they are not provided

opportunities to use words. This is why the researcher wants to find out that the

mother tongue as a factor affecting the present study. In the study conducted by

Simpson (2011) focused in providing an in-depth examination of Thai students in

English Language Proficiency and its application of PBL. Their overall

improvement in English proficiency is a worthwhile achievement particularly

linked to significant in the improvement in students’ learning skills and self-

confidence in the use of English. Therefore, the researcher made used of sex,

mother tongue, linguistic intelligence and learning style as factors that affect the

level of communication opportunity using project-based learning of the

respondents.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework paradigm of the study. As can

be gleaned in the figure the box on the left most portion represents the students’

related variables profile. These students’ related variables are the socio-

demographic profile of the students which includes sex, learning style and

mother tongue. This box is related to the second box by means of a line which

shows that they are hypothesized as factors that may possibly affect the

student’s communication opportunity. The level of communication opportunity of

 45

the students is to be assessed by two measures; a) as perceived by the

students; and b) based on classroom observation. Branching out from the middle

box are the boxes representing the control group and the experimental group.

Whereas the control group uses the traditional approach and the experimental

group uses the Project-Based Learning. The researcher will determine the Levels

Communication Opportunity of sophomore teacher education students.

 46

Conceptual Paradigm

The following paradigm figures out the conceptual framework on how the study was conducted.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Respondent’s Profile Levels of

Communication
Control Group Traditional
Opportunity of
Approach
a. Sex Sophomore Teacher
b. Learning Style Education students in
c. Linguistic terms of:
Intelligence
a. As perceived by the
d. Mother Tongue
students
Experimental Project-Based b. Based on Classroom

Group Learning Observation

Figure 1. Traditional Approach and Project-Based Learning in relation to the communication opportunities of

Sophomore Teacher Education Students

 47

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

Included in this chapter is the research design, the subjects of the study,

the data-gathering instrument and statistical treatment used in the analysis and

interpretation of data.

Research Design

Experimental research design was used in the entire progression of this

study. Experimental research is known to be effective when testing groups which

are exposed in different environmental issues and scenarios where clearer result

is expected to arise (Hinkelman and Kempthorne, 1994). Purposively, the

researcher investigated whether the communication opportunity outcome derived

from different teaching approaches varies. This study is primarily designed to

look at and explicitly differentiate the level of communication opportunity from

the traditionally-based approach which entails utilization of common mediums

and strategies in the teaching-learning process and the use of PBL which is

considered as the student-centered pedagogy.

Likewise, descriptive research design was used. Descriptive is a fact-

finding methodology with adequate interpretation of profiles, attitudes, opinions,

views, and contrast characteristics of communities, people, processes and events

47
 48

(Guevara and Lambinicio, 2011) Descriptive research was utilized in the

interpretation, analysis, classification and tabulation of the respondent’s profile

as well as the result of the level of communication opportunity to be conducted

in the study.

Moreover, Counterbalanced Measures Design was also used.

Counterbalanced is used when there are two possible conditions, A and B. As

with the standard repeated measures design, it will test every subject for both

conditions. It divided subjects into two groups and one group is treated with

condition A, followed by condition B, and the other is tested with condition

followed by condition A (Lewis et al. 2004). It is one the best way to avoid the

pitfalls of standard repeated measures designs, where the subjects are exposed

to all of the treatments. It also reduces the chances of the order of treatment or

other factors adversely influencing the results.

Furthermore, the present study used the correlation research design.

Correlation design is used to discover or test the association of two or more

variables (Guevara and Lambinicio, 2011). This research design established the

relationship of the Level of Communication Opportunity of the students across

the profile of the respondents of the study using the Chi-square and Pearson.

Finally, the researcher used the T-test. It was used to determine the level

of communication opportunity of the respondents using the traditional-approach

and the project-based learning approach across the respondents’ profile

 49

variables. A comparison was made to determine the extent of differences among

the variables, this enables one to ascertain the extent to which variables in one

variables differs with the variable in another.

Subjects of the Study

The subjects of the study was lifted from the population of the

Sophomore Teacher Education students in Urdaneta City University (UCU), which

is the research locale (Appendix P).The researcher used the classes of the

Sophomore Teacher Education students who are enrolled in the subject Speech

and Oral Communication during first semester, academic year 2015-2016.

Purposive sampling was used in choosing the respondents through Socio-

demographic Profiler (SP), Perceptual Learning Style, and Linguistic Intelligence

Test to obtain the research population. The result statistical computation was

tabulated in the final outline of the research.

Research Instrument

This study employed a researcher-developed instrument, computational

linguistic analysis test and standardized test questionnaires as its main data-

gathering instrument. The questionnaires were employed to find out the effects

of Project-based learning on the communication opportunity of the respondents

 50

and the computational linguistic analysis to determine the lexical density of the

analyzed text.

The following research instruments were used by the researcher:

Socio-demographic Profiler (SP). It is a researcher-developed

instrument to gather the information on the profile of the respondents such as

sex and mother tongue.

Linguistic Intelligence Test. This is a standardized test instrument that

is used by Meimban (2012) in his study that was also used in the present study

in determining the Linguistic Competence of the respondents. The test is

composed of 15 questions that were answered by the respondents by simply

putting a check mark if it is strongly, moderately, related, sometimes related or

not related to their personality. The test classified the students into very high

linguistic intelligence, moderate linguistic intelligence, slight linguistic intelligence

and low linguistic intelligence. A copy of this instrument is affixed on Appendix S.

Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ). It is

a standardized test that helps to determine the language learning style of the

students by Professor Joy M. Reid. This research instrument consists of 30 items

answerable in rating scales. The result identifies which among the six learning

style is dominant to the students such as Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Tactile,

Group and Individual. The respondents were given 30 minutes to answer all the
 51

items. A copy of this instrument is affixed in Appendix H. The computation for

the learning style preferences is affixed on Appendix I.

Communication Opportunity Perceptual Questionnaire (COPQ).

This is a researcher-developed questionnaire that determine the effectiveness of

Project-based learning on the communication opportunity of the respondents by

answering it through rating scales. It consists of 20 questions and answerable in

20 minutes. The COPQ was validated by five (5) experts in the field. This was

used to determine the answer to the research problem no 2 in the item

perceived by the respondents. A copy of this instrument is affixed in Appendix J.

Lexical Density Test (LDT). A research instrument designed for the

computational linguistics that constitutes to estimate the measure of content per

functional (grammatical) and lexical units (lexemes) in total. This shows how

easy or difficult a text is to read. LDT uses formula of (Ld=(Nlex / N) x100)

whereas; Ld is the analyzed texts lexical density, Nlex is the number of lexical

words types and N represents the total number of all tokens in the analyzed text.

This research instrument was designed to analyze the communication

opportunity of the respondents in classroom setting. This instrument helped the

researcher in answering the research problem no 3 and 4. A copy of this

instrument is affixed in Appendix N.

 52

Data-Gathering Procedure

The researcher sought the approval of the authorities from Urdaneta City

University (UCU), particularly, the University President, University Registrar, the

College of Education Dean, concerned faculty members and Sophomore Teacher

Education students to be able to conduct the present study, distribute the

questionnaire and gather data freely and righteously.

The researcher made a tentative calendar of activities for the month of

July - August 2015 to smoothly gather the data for the present study.

As shown in Appendix R, for week no 3, the researcher sought the

permission of the University President for the approval to conduct a research

study then, the researcher coordinated to the Dean of the College of Education

(COE) for the administering of the instrument and utilization of the concerned

faculty members and respondents. The researcher also coordinated to the

Registrar’s Office for the total population of the Sophomore Teacher Education

students enrolled in the subject Speech and Oral Communication during first

semester, academic year 2015-2016. Afterwards, the researcher administered

the Socio-demographic Profiler (SP), Perceptual Learning Style by Prof. Joy Reid

and Linguistic Intelligence Test (LIT) by Meimban. The results of the said tests

were used for purposive sampling where the students had chosen to eliminate

the extraneous variables that may occur. For week 4, the researcher

consolidated the results and generate the final list of respondents.

 53

As shown in the figure below, it uses the Counterbalanced Measures

Design (see p. 48). The schedule was rotated to neutralize the effects of

extraneous variables that may come into play and interfere with the

communication opportunity of the students during the experiment.

Time Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

7:30-10:30 Experimental A Experimental A Control B Control B

2:00-5:00 Control A Control A Experimental B Experimental B

Figure 2. Schedule of Classes for Experimental and Control Group.

As we glanced in Appendix R, the teacher conducted the four-week class

interaction to the two groups. A Voice Recorder was used to document the

conversation in the teaching-learning process and transcribed orthographically

right after every session. In order not to give pressure to the students, and gain

as real materials as possible, the recorder was placed near the students without

personal knowledge. Right after the administration of the teaching approaches,

the disclosed that she recorded the conversation. This cycle was repeated for the

whole month of August. The researcher tallied the results to compute the lexical

density. After the four-week session, the researcher guided the respondents to

answer the Communication Opportunity Perceptual Questionnaire. The result was

also tallied and computed.

Moreover, the researcher tabulated and interpreted the results statistically

then analyzed the computed data, drawn and interpreted the tables with the

help of the statistician.

 54

Treatment of Data

The sets of data were gathered to organize, analyze and interpret in

accordance to the order of the specific research problems.

In determining the Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore

Teacher Education students and answering all the problems stated in Chapter 1,

the researcher used the results of the Socio-demographic (SP) and Perceptual

Learning Style Preferences Questionnaire (PLSPQ), Communication Opportunity

Perceptual Questionnaire (COPQ), and the Lexical Density Test (LDT) as the

primary sources of data.

For the question in no. 1, the researcher used the SP. It determined the

respondents’ profile about sex and mother tongue. The use of frequency counts,

percentage, and rank distribution for the said variables were used for

respondents’ population. Moreover, to determine further about the learning

styles of the respondents the researcher used Perceptual Learning Style

Preferences Questionnaire made by Professor Joy M. Reid. This shows the

dominant learning style of the respondents. Finally, Linguistic Intelligence Test

by Meimban 2012 was also used for the purposive sampling in choosing the

respondents.

For the research question no 2 in terms of perceived by the respondents,

the researcher used the Communication Opportunity Perceptual Questionnaire.

 55

The weighted mean was interpreted and the result determined the

communication opportunity of the respondents as indicated below.

Level of
Percentag Descriptive Communication
Descriptive Equivalent
e Rating Rating Opportunity

4.20-5.00 Strongly Agree Strongly favorable to the

Very High
concept
3.40-4.19 Agree Somewhat favorable to the
High
concept
2.60-3.39 Neither Undecided Moderately High
1.80-2.59 Disagree Somewhat unfavorable to
Low
the concept
1.00-1.79 Strongly Strongly unfavorable to the
concept Very Low
Disagree

For the second component on classroom observation, the researcher used

the Lexical Density Test (LDT) for the computation on the transcribed academic

discourse. The researcher used the following formula:

Ld = (NLex / N) x 100

Whereas:

Ld - the analyzed text lexical density

NLex - total number of lexical words in the analyzed text

N - total number of all tokens in the analyzed text

The weighted mean was interpreted and the results were determined the

communication opportunity of the respondents as indicated below

 56

Percentage Rating Level of Communication Opportunity

80.20 – 100 Very High

60.40 – 80.10 High
40.60 – 60.30 Moderately High
20.80 – 40.50 Low
1.00 – 20.70 Very Low

For the research problem no 3, the Chi-square and Pearson correlation

were used to determine the relationship across the profile variables of the

respondents and their level of communication opportunity using the Project-

based learning.

For the answer in the question no. 4, T-test was used to determine the

differences between the level of communication opportunity of the experimental

group and the control group.

The statistical tools from the different factors in the present study helped

the researcher to determine if these would affect the level of communication

opportunity.

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data which were gathered, analyzed and

interpreted. The presentation, analysis and interpretation followed the sequential

 57

order of the problems stated in the first chapter. The data were presented in

tables showing the students’ profile with regard to sex, learning style, linguistic

intelligence and mother tongue exposed to traditional approach and project-

based learning approach and the significant differences in their communication

opportunity in the academic discourse.

Socio-demographic and Language Learning

Profile of the Respondents

The profile of the students with respect to their sex, learning style,

linguistic intelligence and mother tongue is presented in Table 1 and 2. It was

described statistically using frequency and percentage.

In reporting the Socio-demographic and Language Learning Profile

(SDLLP) of the respondents, the accounts of the students were segregated based

on their grouping into two classes which served as the Experimental group and

the Control group. The students in the two classes were initially determined of

their profile as a guide for the purposive sampling to ensure that the students

belonging to the two groups would have relatively similar SDLLP on sex and

learning style.

Table 1 presents the data on the students’ SDLLP in terms of sex and
57
learning style. As can be gleaned in the table, there is absolute balance in the

distribution of the profiles for both sex and learning style in the two groups with

0 as margin of difference.

Table 1
 58

Socio-demographic and Language Learning

Profile on Sex and Learning Style
N = 60

Variable Classification EG % CG % Margin of

Difference
Sex Female 22 73.33 22 73.33 0
Male 8 26.66 8 26.66
Learning Style Kinesthetic 10 33.33 10 33.33 0
Group 8 26.66 8 26.66
Tactile 4 13.33 4 13.33
Auditory 4 13.33 4 13.33
Visual 3 10.00 3 10.00
Individual 1 3.33 1 3.33
Legend:
EG – Experimental Group CG – Control Group % - Percentage

Sex. The table shows that preponderance of the respondents (22 or

73.33%) were female and the remaining (8 or 26.66%) were male in both

classes.

Learning Style. The table also reveals the profile of the respondents in

terms of their Learning Style. Most of the respondents (10 or 33.33%) possesses

Kinesthetic learning style followed by Group who acquired (8 or 26.66%), both

Tactile and Auditory learning style took (4 or 13.33%) and the remaining (1 or

3.33%) was classified as Individual learning style. It is interpreted that most of

the learners are kinesthetically active towards the subject, English.

It is interpreted that teachers should signify different approaches that

would cater to the needs of the students that is associated with their learning

style. The present study corroborates in the study of Montemayor et al. (2009)

about Learning Style, it is strongly recommended that teachers whenever

possible must signify in their teaching strategies specific method that is reflective
 59

of Visual, Auditory, Tactile and Kinesthetic learning style. In this way, a greater

impact on students’ academic development will be observed. It is also cited in

Gardner (1999) on Multiple Intelligences that offers eight ways of teaching and

learning styles. In this regard, armed with knowledge and application of multiple

intelligences, teachers can ensure they provide enough variety in the activities

they use so that as much of their pupils’ learning potential can be tapped as

possible (Bas, 2008 and Berman 1998)

The findings on the linguistic intelligence and mother tongue of the

respondents is shown in Table 2. As with the presenting previous variables, the

accounts of the students were segregated based on their grouping into two

classes which served as the Experimental group and the Control group. The

students in the two classes were initially determined of their profile as a guide

for the purposive sampling to ensure that the students belonging to the two

groups would have relatively common SDLLP on linguistic intelligence and

mother tongue with the margin of difference of 0.

Table 2
Socio-demographic and Language Learning Profile
on Linguistic Intelligence and Mother Tongue
N = 60

Variable Classificatio EG % CG % Margin of

n Difference
Linguistic Moderate LI 12 40 12 40 0
Intelligence Slight LI 9 30 9 30
High LI 8 26.66 8 26.66
 60

Low LI 1 3.33 1 3.33

Mother Tagalog 15 50 15 50 0
Tongue Ilokano 12 40 12 40
Pangasinense 3 10 3 10
Legend:
LI - Linguistic Intelligence EG – Experimental Group
% - Percentage CG – Control Group

Linguistic Intelligence. As can be gleaned on the Table 2, most of the

respondents (12 or 40 %) possess Moderate High Linguistic Intelligence (MLI)

followed by (9 or 30%) respondents with Slight Linguistic Intelligence (SLI),

students classified with a High Linguistic Intelligence (HLI) were (8 or 26.66%)

and the remaining (1 or 3.3%) is categorized with Low Linguistic Intelligence

(LLI). It is construed that most of the respondents are on moderately high. The

class possesses diversity of learners.

Gokhan Bas and Omer Bayham (2010) which found out that multiple

intelligences approach activities were more effective in the positive development

of the students’ attitude. As also cited in the study of Simpson (2011) that the

use of PBL has a significant improvement in students’ learning skills and self-

confidence in the use of English. In this manner students who are educated by

multiple intelligences and supported with Project-Based Learning are tend have

higher motivation level to become successful.

Mother Tongue. The table reveals the mother tongue of the

respondents. Majority of the respondents (15 or 50%) were exposed to Tagalog

and succeeded by (12 or 40%) respondents who were exposed in Ilokano and

the remaining (3 or 10%) were Pangasinense. Half of the respondents usually

 61

speak Tagalog, Ilokano and Pangasinense since the locale of the study is in

Pangasinan.

The ability to speak is learned. For learning to occur, the child first makes

contact with the social environment on an interpersonal level and then

internalizes this experience. The earlier notions and new experiences influence

the child, who then constructs new ideas (Vygotsky, 1978). Notably, the study of

Alexander (2013) on ‘oracy’ plays important role in literacy development.

Alexander states that the development of oracy would increase that skill in

reading and writing as users of language become increasingly proficient. Hence,

students should be given an opportunity to talk.

Communication Opportunity of the Respondents

The data for this section was derived from the results of the research

instruments for the problem 2. It discusses the Level of Communication

Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher Education students in terms of students’

perception and classroom observation.

Communication Opportunity as
Perceived by the Students
 62

In reporting the Communication Opportunity of the respondents, the

accounts of the students were segregated based on their grouping into two

classes which served as the Experimental group and the Control group.

Table 3 indicates that the Level of Communication Opportunity of the

Sophomore Teacher Education students in the Experimental group is ‘High’ as

indicated by the general weighted average of 4.11.

Highlighting on the details of the students’ perception of their

communication opportunity, the students in the experimental group think that

their communication skills are developed (AWM: 4.46) and they enjoyed the

activity because it gives opportunity to interact with friends through cooperative

projects (AWM: 4.60). The respondents feel motivated because they are

engaged in the classroom activity (AWM: 4.37). Likewise, the students developed

their confidence in sharing ideas with collaborative work (AWM: 4.23).

Finally, respondents love the activity that integrates knowing and doing

(AWM: 4.63) and they claimed that they learned from their mistakes and it

encouraged them to make necessary connections to solve the problem at hand

(AWM: 4.60).

Table 3

Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher

Education Students in Experimental Group using COPQ
 63

N=30

Qualifying Statements Mean DE Level of Communication

Opportunity
1. I am encouraged to talk inside the room if the 3.87 Agree High
teacher engages us in the collaborative work.
2. I participate in a whole-class discussion and it 4.10 Agree High
provides me with more meaningful learning
experience.
3. I develop my reasoning skills if the teacher asks 4.00 Agree High
referential questions.
4. My communication skills are developed when I am 4.46 Strongly Agree Very High
involved in classroom activities.
5. I had given more opportunity to talk and express my 3.77 Agree High
thoughts in the given activity.
6. I enjoyed the activity because it gives us 4.60 Strongly Agree Very High
opportunity to interact with friends and make new
friends through cooperative projects.
7. I feel motivated if I am engaged in the classroom 4.37 Strongly Agree Very High
activity.
8. I am engaged in a more in-depth learning in 4.07 Agree High
interacting with my classmates in a small group
collaborative activity.
9. I develop my self-esteem in participating in a 3.87 Agree High
collaborative work.
10. I develop my confidence in sharing ideas with a 4.23 Strongly Agree Very High
collaborative work.
11. I develop my independence to work with the group 3.87 Agree High
in real-world environment by collaborating on a task
given by the teacher.
12. I am engaged in making the output/product 3.90 Agree High
connected to the topic being presented.
13. I had an opportunity to gain a deep understanding 3.90 Agree High
of concepts and potentially allow me to solve a
problem task.
14. I learn and discover connections to other learning 4.10 Agree High
opportunities with a wide range of learning activity
given by the teacher.
15. I feel the small group discussions have contributed 3.87 Agree High
to my learning in English class.
16. I became a critical thinker after creating an end- 3.73 Agree High
product.
17. I like to evaluate my own progress and work quality. 4.13 Agree High
18. I like to organize my own time and resources while 4.10 Agree High
working on a task.
19. I learned from my mistakes and it encouraged me to 4.60 Strongly Agree Very High
make necessary connections to effectively solve the
problem at hand in the given activity.
20. I love the activity that integrates knowing and 4.63 Strongly Agree Very High
doing.
General Weighted Average 4.11 Agree High
Legend:
Numerical Descriptive Equivalent (DE) Level of Communication
Value Opportunity
4.20-5.00 Strongly Agree Very High
3.40-4.19 Agree High
2.60-3.39 Neither Moderately High
1.80-2.59 Disagree Low
1.00-1.79 Strongly Disagree Very Low
 64

Table 4 presents the Level of Communication Opportunity as perceived by

the Sophomore Teacher Education students belonging to the control group.

Table 4

Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher

Education Students in Control Group using COPQ
N=30

Qualifying Statements Mean DE LCO

1. I am encouraged to talk inside the room if the teacher engages
us in the collaborative work. 4.00 Agree High
2. I participate in a whole-class discussion and it provides me with
more meaningful learning experience. 4.27 Strongly Agree Very High
3. I develop my reasoning skills if the teacher asks referential
questions. 4.03 Agree High
4. My communication skills are developed when I am involved in
classroom activities. 4.43 Strongly Agree Very High
5. I had given more opportunity to talk and express my thoughts
in the given activity. 4.10 Agree High
6. I enjoyed the activity because it gives us opportunity to interact
with friends and make new friends through cooperative projects. 4.60 Strongly Agree Very High
7. I feel motivated if I am engaged in the classroom activity. 4.37 Strongly Agree Very High
8. I am engaged in a more in-depth learning in interacting with my
classmates in a small group collaborative activity. 3.77 Agree High
9. I develop my self-esteem in participating in a collaborative work. 4.00 Agree High
10. I develop my confidence in sharing ideas with a collaborative
work. 3.80 Agree High
11. I develop my independence to work with the group in real-world
environment by collaborating on a task given by the teacher. 4.00 Agree High
12. I am engaged in making the output/product connected to the
topic being presented. 4.17 Agree High
13. I had an opportunity to gain a deep understanding of concepts
and potentially allow me to solve a problem task. 3.90 Agree High
14. I learn and discover connections to other learning opportunities
with a wide range of learning activity given by the teacher. 4.03 Agree High
15. I feel the small group discussions have contributed to my
learning in English class. 4.05 Agree High
16. I became a critical thinker after creating an end-product. 3.83 Agree High
17. I like to evaluate my own progress and work quality. 3.80 Agree High
18. I like to organize my own time and resources while working on a
task. 3.80 Agree High
19. I learned from my mistakes and it encouraged me to make
necessary connections to effectively solve the problem at hand
in the given activity. 4.53 Strongly Agree Very High
20. I love the activity that integrates knowing and doing. 4.57 Strongly Agree Very High
General Weighted Average 4.10 Agree High

Legend:
Numerical Value Descriptive Equivalent (DE) Level of Communication Opportunity (LCO)
4.20-5.00 Strongly Agree Very High
3.40-4.19 Agree High
2.60-3.39 Neither Moderately High
1.80-2.59 Disagree Low
1.00-1.79 Strongly Disagree Very Low
 65

As can be gleaned in Table 4 that the Level of Communication Opportunity

of the Sophomore Teacher Education students in the Control group is ‘High’ as

indicated by the general weighted average of 4.10.

Enhancing on the details of the students’ perception of their

communication opportunity, the students in the control group think that they

participated in the whole class discussion and this provides them meaningful

learning experience (AWM: 4.27). The respondents also think that their

communication skills are developed (AWM: 4.43). Likewise, they stated that they

had given more opportunity to talk and to express their thoughts (AWM: 4.60).

Moreover, students feel motivated in the given activity (AWM: 4.37). They also

learned from their mistakes that encouraged them to make necessary

connections (AWM: 4.53). Finally, the respondents love activity that integrates

knowing and doing (AWM: 4.57).

Communication Opportunity in terms

of Classroom Observation

This section discusses the Level of Communication Opportunity of the

students obtained through class observation using lexical density as the tool in

determining the ratio of teacher talk and student talk.

In reporting the Communication Opportunity of the respondents, the

accounts of the students were segregated based on their grouping into two

classes which served as the Experimental group and the Control group. The
 66

accounts segregated based on their group and on the two rotation. The

foregoing discussion states the separate data accounted by the students in the

two rotation.

Table 5 presents the Level of Communication Opportunity of the

Sophomore Teacher Education students in the first rotation. The reason for the

rotation is to eliminate the extraneous variables that may occur in the progress

of the study.

Table 5

Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher

Education Students using Lexical Density First Rotation

Group Token Type Lexical Rank df Level of

Density Communication
Opportunity
Experimental A Teacher 1368 2843 48.11% 2 Moderately High
Student 1730 3583 48.28% 1 0.17 Moderately High
Control B Teacher 2970 4710 63.05% 1 High
Student 1072 2173 49.33% 2 13.72 Moderately High
Legend:
Numerical Value Level of Communication Opportunity
80.20 – 100 Very High
60.40 – 80.10 High
40.60 – 60.30 Moderately High
20.80 – 40.50 Low
1.00 – 20.70 Very Low

As shown in Table 5 the Level of Communication Opportunity of the

Sophomore Teacher Education students in the experimental group is ‘Moderately

High’ as indicated by Lexical Density (LD) of 48.28% whereas the

Communication Opportunity of the teacher is also ‘Moderately High’ as indicated

by LD of 48.11%.
 67

It can be noted that descriptive equivalence on the lexical density

indicates a notable advantage in the lexical density of the students (Rank: 1)

compared to that of the teachers (Rank: 2) and thereby indicating that there is

an imbalance of the communication opportunity where the students are at an

advantage. Although the mean difference is marginal at 0.17% still

advantageous.

The aforementioned findings corroborate with the study of Simpson

(2011) that the application of Project-based learning (PBL) develops the

language proficiency of the students and it also developed their learning skills

and self-confidence. It is also cited in the study Carr (2012) that PBL develops

cognitive structure and reconstructs knowledge. Moreover, National Assessment

of Education Progress, 2010; New Tech Network, 2013 stated that Project-based

learning is intended to increase the engagement of student and lead to better

education outcomes in all subjects.

Conversely in the control group, the Level of Communication Opportunity

of the Sophomore Teacher Education students is ‘Moderately High’ as indicated

by the lexical density of 49.33% which starkly contrast from the level of

communication opportunity of the teacher which is ‘High’ as indicated by the

Lexical Density of 63.05%.

Notably, there is a larger mean difference of 13.72%. There is a notable

advantage in the lexical density of the teacher (Rank: 1) compared to that to the
 68

student (Rank: 2) and thereby indicating that there is an imbalance of the

communication opportunity where the teacher is at an advantage.

Table 6 shows the Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore

Teacher Education students using lexical density in the second rotation. The rank

and mean difference are also presented in this table.

Table 6

Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher

Education Students using Lexical Density Second Rotation

Group Token Type Lexical Rank df LCO

Density
Experimental B Teacher 1079 2469 43.70% 2 Moderately High
Student 1172 2412 48.59% 1 Moderately High
4.89
Control A Teacher 3420 4710 72.61% 1 Moderately High
Student 1389 2871 48.38% 2 High
24.23

Legend:
Numerical Value Level of Communication Opportunity (LCO)
80.20 – 100 Very High
60.40 – 80.10 High
40.60 – 60.30 Moderately High
20.80 – 40.50 Low
1.00-20.70 Very Low

Table 6 reveals the Level of Communication Opportunity of the

Sophomore Teacher Education students in experimental group is ‘Moderately

High’ as indicated by Lexical Density (LD) of 48.59% whereas the

Communication Opportunity of the teacher is also ‘Moderately High’ as indicated

by LD of 43.70%.
 69

It can be noted the descriptive equivalence on the lexical density indicates

a notable advantage in the lexical density of the students (Rank: 1) compared to

that of the teacher (Rank: 2) and thereby indicating that there is an imbalance of

the communication opportunity where the students are at an advantage.

Although the mean difference is marginal at 4.89%, still advantageous.

On the other hand in the control group, the Level of Communication

Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher Education students is ‘Moderately High’

as indicated by the lexical density of 48.38% which starkly contrast from the

level of communication opportunity of the teacher which is ‘High’ as indicated by

the Lexical Density of 72.61%.

Notably, there is a larger mean difference of 24.23%. There is a notable

advantage in the lexical density of the teacher (Rank: 1) compared to that to the

students (Ranks: 2) and thereby indicating that there is an imbalance of the

communication opportunity where the teacher is at an advantage.

Table 7 shows the Synopsis of the two group rotation on the Level of

Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher Education students in the

first and second rotation using lexical density. The reason for the rotation is to

elimination of the extraneous variables.

As shown in the table, the Level of Communication Opportunity of the

Sophomore Education students in experimental group is consistent with

‘Moderately High’ as indicated by the lexical density of 48.42% (RANK:1).

Whereas, the level of communication opportunity of the teacher in the

 70

experimental group is also ‘Moderately High’ as indicated by the lexical density of

45.91% (RANK: 2).

Table 7

Synopsis of the two group rotation on the Level of Communication

Opportunity using Lexical Density

Rotation EG LD Rank df LCO CG LD Rank df LCO

1 Student 48.28 48.42 1 Moderately 49.33 48.86 2 Moderately

2 48.59 High 48.38 High
1 Teacher 48.11 45.91 2 2.51 Moderately 63.05 67.83 1 18.97 High
2 43.70 High 72.61
Legend:
EG – Experimental Group CG – Control Group
LD – Lexical Density LCO – Level of Communication Opportunity

As can be gleaned in Table 7 the Level of Communication Opportunity of

the Sophomore Teacher Education students is ‘Moderately High’ as indicated in

the lexical density of 48.86% while there is a notable advantage on the Level of

Communication Opportunity of the teacher as ‘High’ as indicated in the lexical

density of 67.83%.

It can be observed that descriptive equivalence on the lexical density

indicates a notable advantage in the lexical density of the students (Rank: 1)

compared to that of the teacher (Rank: 2) and thereby indicating that there is an

imbalance of the communication opportunity where the students are at an

advantage. Although the mean difference is marginal at 2.51%, still

advantageous.
 71

The previous observation shows a starkly contrast on the Level of

Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher Education students is

‘Moderately High’ as indicated by the lexical density of 48.68% whereas the

teacher is ‘High’ as indicated in the lexical density of 67.83%. It can be observed

that there is a notable advantage in the lexical density of the students (Rank: 2)

compared to the teacher (Rank: 1) and thereby indicating that there is an

imbalance of the communication opportunity where the teacher is at an

advantage.

These findings imply that the use of Project-Based learning (PBL) is at

advantage in developing the communication opportunity of the respondents. The

time students spend engaged in academic discourse is the time well spent in

developing the literacy. As Liu et al. (2012) recommended that teachers should

choose PBL program that explicitly meets students’ circular needs. It is also cited

in Goldberg (2009) that students ate typically more motivated to learn when they

are allowed to participate in a projects in which they have a greater interest.

Relationship of the Level of Communication Opportunity

across the Profile Variables

The relationship of the Level of Communication Opportunity across the

profile variables such as sex, learning style, linguistic intelligence and mother

tongue was determined using Chi-square and Pearson Correlation as shown in

Table 8.
 72

Table 8

Relationship on the Level of Communication Opportunity

of the Students Across Profile Variables

Profile Variables Sig Description Remarks

Sex 0.625 Not Significant Rejected
Learning Style 0.233 Not Significant Rejected
Linguistic Intelligence 0.089 Not Significant Rejected
Mother Tongue 0.423 Not Significant Rejected

The Table 8 indicates that there is no significant relationship in the Level

of Communication Opportunity in experimental group and control group across

their profile variables such as sex, learning style, linguistic intelligence and

mother tongue since the significance value computed is 0.625, 0.233, 0.089, and

0.423 respectively which is greater than the set level of significance which is

(0.05).

The finding of this study contradicts the study of Eskrootchi and Oskrochi

(2010) that there is statistically significant effect on females in implementing PBL

that increases students’ achievement in ESL classroom. Likewise in the study of

Simpson (2011) that the use of PBL has a significant improvement in students’

learning skills and self-confidence in the use of English. In this manner students

who are educated by multiple intelligences and supported with Project-Based

Learning are tend have higher motivation level to become successful.

Difference between the Level of Communication Opportunity

in Experimental and Control Group
 73

The difference between the Level of Communication Opportunity of

experimental group and control group was determined using T-test as indicated

in Table 9.

Table 9

Difference of the Levels of Communication Opportunity of the

Sophomore Teacher Education Students between
Experimental Group and Control Group

Group Sig Description Remarks

Experimental 0.866 Not Significant Rejected
Control

As shown in the Table 9, it was found out that there is no significant

difference between the Level of Communication Opportunity of the Teacher

Education students both experimental and control group since the significance

value computed is 0.866 which is greater than the set level of significance which

is 0.05.

This findings indicate that the research hypothesis there is significant

difference in the communication opportunity of experimental group and control

group who exposed to different teaching approaches cannot be accepted.

This further implies that the two teaching approaches used to develop the

communication opportunity of the students are effective. Whatever approach is

employed, it did not affect the teaching-learning process.

However, it can be noted that there is a greater communication

opportunity of the students as refer on the analysis of lexical density. Upon

 74

further analysis on the result of the communication opportunity despite on the

insignificance on the difference on the level of communication opportunity it can

be observed that there is a greater level of communication opportunity in the

experimental group in the part of students.

Hence, since there is an imbalance of communication opportunity as

stated in Table 7 Project-based learning can also use as a tool in developing the

communication opportunity of the students.

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This experimental research was conducted to determine the

communication opportunity exposed to Project-Based learning by the Sophomore

 75

Teacher Education students of Urdaneta City University (UCU) during first

semester, academic year 2015-2016.

The subjects of the study were the 60 Sophomore Teacher Education

students who were purposively selected from the blocks enrolled in Speech and

Oral Communication class. The four-week classroom interaction of the said class

were recorded and transcribed as a gauge of determining their communication

opportunity in the academic discourse.

The Summary of findings, The Conclusions and The Recommendations are

then presented in this chapter.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The findings that this study revealed are presented in the succeeding

paragraphs.

1. Profile of the Sophomore Teacher Education Students

In terms of age, twenty-two or 73.33% of the respondents were female

and the remaining eight or 26.66% were male; in Learning Style, ten or

33.33% were Kinesthetic followed by eight or 26.66% were Group, both

Tactile and Auditory took four or 13.33% and the remaining one or 3.33%
75
was classified as Individual; in relation to Linguistic Intelligence, twelve or

40% possessed Moderately High Linguistic followed by nine or 30% have

Slight Linguistic Intelligence, while students with High Linguistic

Intelligence we eight or 26.66% and the remaining one or 3.3% was

 76

classified as Low Linguistic Intelligence; as regards to Mother Tongue,

fifteen or 50% were exposed to Tagalog, succeeded by twelve or 40% of

the respondents used Ilokano and the remaining three or 10% used

Pangasinense.

2. Level of Communication Opportunity

A. Students’ Perception

The Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher

Education students in the Experimental group is ‘High’ as indicated by

the general weighted average of 4.11 whereas the Level of

Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher Education

students in the Control group is ‘High’ as indicated by the general

weighted average of 4.10

B. Classroom Observation

The Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore Education

students in experimental group is consistent with ‘Moderately High’ as

indicated by the lexical density of 48.42% (RANK:1). Whereas, the

level of communication opportunity of the teacher in the experimental

group is also ‘Moderately High’ as indicated by the lexical density of

45.91% (RANK: 2).

However, the Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore

Teacher Education students in control group is ‘Moderately High’ as

 77

indicated in the lexical density of 48.86% while there is a notable

advantage on the Level of Communication Opportunity of the teacher

as ‘High’ as indicated in the lexical density of 67.83%. It can be

observed that descriptive equivalence on the lexical density that

indicates a notable advantage in the lexical density of the students

(Rank:1) compared to that of the teacher (Rank: 2) and thereby

indicating that there is an imbalance of the communication opportunity

where the students are at an advantage. Although the mean difference

is marginal at 2.51%, still advantageous.

The previous observation shows a starkly contrast on the level of

communication opportunity of the Sophomore Teacher Education

students is ‘Moderately High’ as indicated by the lexical density of

48.68% whereas the teacher is ‘High’ as indicated in the lexical density

of 67.83%. It can be observed that there is a notable advantage in the

lexical density of the students (Rank: 2) compared to the teacher

(Rank: 1) and thereby indicating that there is an imbalance of the

communication opportunity where the teacher is at an advantage.

3. Relationship of the Level of Communication Opportunity across

Profile Variables

With regard to Relationship, using Chi-square and Pearson

Correlation that there is no significant relationship in the Level of

Communication Opportunity in experimental group and control group

 78

across their profile variables such as sex, learning style, linguistic

intelligence and mother tongue since the significance value computed is

0.625, 0.233, 0.089, and 0.423 respectively which is greater than the set

level of significance which is (0.05).

4. Difference of the Level of Communication Opportunity between the

Experimental group and the Control group.

There is no significant difference between the Level of Communication

Opportunity of the respondents in both experimental and control groups since

the significance value computed is 0.866 which is greater than the set level of

significance which is 0.05. This findings indicate that the research hypothesis

there is significant difference in the communication opportunity of experimental

group and control group who exposed to different teaching approaches cannot

be accepted. This further implies that the two teaching approaches used to

develop the communication opportunity of the students are effective. Whatever

approach is employed, it did not affect the teaching-learning process. However,

it can be noted that there is a greater communication opportunity of the students

as refer on the analysis of lexical density. And upon further analysis on the result

of the communication opportunity despite on the insignificance on the difference

on the level of communication opportunity it can be observed that there is a

greater level of communication opportunity experimental group in the part of

students.
 79

CONCLUSIONS

Based from the findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. Majority of the respondents are female. The mother tongue of the

respondents is Tagalog. The primary learning style is Kinesthetic and the

level of linguistic intelligence is Moderately High.

2. The typical Level of Communication Opportunity of the Sophomore

Teacher Education students is Moderately High for both experimental and

control group.

3. The profile variables sex, learning style, linguistic intelligence and mother

tongue do not affect the level of communication opportunity of the

Sophomore Teacher Education students.

4. There is no difference in the level of communication opportunity between

the experimental group and the control group of the Sophomore Teacher

Education students.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings in this study necessitate the following recommendations.

1. Teachers should use teaching strategies to cater to the specific needs of

students with to Kinesthetic, Group, Tactile and Auditory learning style.

 80

2. English Language Teachers should optimize in the use of Project-Based

learning approach to enhance the communication opportunity of the

students.

3. English Courses Syllabi Designer should incorporate the use of Project-

Based Learning approach in the courses that would enhance the

communication skills of students.

4. Future researchers may explore other variables that can be potentially

signify to the communication opportunity of the students.