Ma . Fe B. Belasoto

School of Education, Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State College

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i6-47

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This study determined the communicative competence of the college English language teachers of Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State College (NIPSC) in the 5th District of Iloilo through a researcher-developed instrument which had undergone validity and reliability testing. Utilizing mixed method approach and with forty-five (45) English language teachers who were chosen through complete enumeration, result showed that the respondents’ level of communicative competence in the areas of grammatical, sociolinguistic, strategic and discourse was “very good”, while the extent of their English language exposure was “sometimes” for the 95.56% and “always” for only 4. 44%. There was no significant relationship between the respondents’ number of years in teaching, written language proficiency, relevant seminars and trainings attended and all areas of communicative competence. Among the four areas of communicative competence, grammatical and sociolinguistic competence had significant relationship with their oral language proficiency and discourse competence had significant relationship with highest educational attainment. There was no significant relationship between their communicative competence and extent of English language exposure. There was no significant difference between the level of communicative competence of the respondents when they were grouped according to campus. The following factors were perceived to contribute to their communicative competence: the practice of the English language inside and outside the classroom, exposure to mainstream media, experience as English teachers, inherent intelligence, seminars or trainings attended, while the extent of their language exposure was perceived to be influenced by time, attitude or preference of the teacher, environment, teaching load, co-workers and students. Based on the result of the study an action plan was proposed to improve the efficiency, competence, and performance of the English language teachers at the College.

KEYWORDS:

communicative competence, college English language teachers, English language exposure, oral language proficiency, written language proficiency,

REFERENCES:

1) Abao, E. (2013). Second Language Facility of Student Teachers in the Philippines: An Opportunity or a Challenge? Cebu Normal University, Cebu City, Philippines in European Scientific Journal: December, 2013 edition Vol. 9, No. 34 ISSN:1857-7881 (Print)e―ISSN1857-7431 193.

2) Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach. New York: Cambridge University Press

3) Chambless, K. S. (2012). Teachers’ oral proficiency in the target language: research on its role in the language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(51), 141-162

4) Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications. Google Scholar

5) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1998). Bangkok, Thailand: FAOI DANIDA Expert Consultation ISSN 0429-9345, ISBN 92-5-104304-3

6)Goodwin, A., Smith, L., SoutoManning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M., Reed, R.,& Taveras, L. (2014). What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 284–302.10.1177/0022487114535266 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

7) Guest, G., Macqueen, K., Namely, E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications

8) Khamhi-Stein, L.D. (2009). Teacher preparation and nonnative Englishspeaking educators. In A. Burns & J.C. Richards (Eds). The Cambridge Guide to second language teacher education (pp.91-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

9) Light, J. & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative Competence for Individuals who Require Augmentative Alternative Communication: A New Definition for a New Era of Communication? Augmentative and AlternativeCommunications 30 (1): 1-18 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080

10) Mitchel, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2013). Research design explained. California: Cengage Learning.

11) Nassaji, H. &Fotos, S.S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Langauge Classrooms: Integrating form-focused in communication context. New York: Routleredge

[12] Ohno, A. (2011). Communicative Competence and Communicative Language Teaching. Retrieved from http://cicero.u-bunkyo.acjp/lib/kiyo/fsells002/25-32.pdf.

13) Richards, J. C. (2010). Competence and performance in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14) Richards, J.C. (2011). Exploring teacher competence in language teaching. The Language Teacher JACT 2011 special issue, Singapore, University of Sydney: Regional Language Centre

15) Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 18 (2), 233-245.

16) Sert, O. (2006). Heightening grammatical awareness in English. Retrieved from http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/awareness

17) Speaking for Excellence:Language Competencies for Effective Teaching Practice (2013). Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC)

18) Springer, K. (2010). Educational Research: a contextual approach: Wiley. Google Scholar

19) Wang, F. (2010). The necessity of grammar teaching. English Language Teaching 3(2), 78-81 Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/6241/5013

20) Wang, Y. (2012). Learning L2 Vocabulary with American TV Drama From the Learner’s Perspective. English Language Teaching; Vol. 5, No. 8; 2012 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750, Canadian Center of Science and Education

VOlUME 04 ISSUE 06 JUNE 2021