The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp. 1045-1059
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 03 Oct 2021 Revised 20 Oct 2021 Accepted 27 Oct 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202110.1045

Faculty and Students’ Evaluation of K to 12 English Curriculum in a Philippine Countryside University
Erwin L. Purcia ; Lewelyn H. Merida
Associate Professor, College of Teacher Education, University of Antique, Sibalom, Antique, Philippines, Tel: +63908810747 (erwin.purcia@antiquespride.edu.ph)
Assistant Professor IV, College of Arts and Communication, University of Eastern Philippines, Catarman, Northern Samar, Philippines, Tel: +639292867954 (lewelynmerida@yahoo.com)


© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the K to 12 Basic English Curriculum implemented by the Department of Education, Philippines. Utilizing descriptive-evaluative design with a validated researcher-made questionnaire administered among faculty members and Grade 11 students in the countryside university in the Philippines-University of Eastern Philippines-System, results revealed that the curriculum is moderately implemented. This means that the government lacks support to institutions in the countryside in order to effectively provide all resources needed by students to ensure that effective language learning takes place. The lack of instructional materials a nd other resources significantly hamper students’ language learning opportunities.

Keywords: K to 12 Basic English Curriculum, evaluation, English program, countryside university
References
1. Aguirre, Maryjane M. 2014. Teachers’ Awareness and Behavior towards K-12 for Effective Curriculum Implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Eastern Philippines.
2. Assel, M. A., S. Landry, P. Swank and S. Gunnewig. 2007. An evaluation of curriculum, setting, and mentoring on the performance of children enrolled in prekindergarten. Reading and Writing 20, 463-494.
3. Borja, R. R. 2008. Reviewing e-books: The benefits and drawbacks of virtual textbooks [Electronic version]. Education Week, 2. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2008/06/09/01ebooks.h02.html?qs=electronic_textbooks
4. Brown, H. D. 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Brown, S. L. 2005. Inside small and large high schools: Curriculum and social relations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22, 147-171.
6. CHED CEB Resolution No. 298-201. Commission on Higher Education, Philippines.
7. CHED Memorandum Order No. 20. s. 2013. Commission on Higher Education, Philippines.
8. Cox, T. and S. Sanders. 1994. The Impact of the National Curriculum on the Teaching of Five-Year-Olds (1st ed.). Routledge.
9. Department of Education. (2020. Retrieved from https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/05/06/official-statement-2.
10. Ediger, M. 2005. Sequence and scope in the curriculum. Education. Retrieved July 27, 2016, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199510/ai_n8729573
11. English, F. 2000. Deciding What to Teach and Test: Developing, Aligning, and Auditing the Curriculum. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
12. Galvez-Tan, Jaime Z. The Health Curriculum in Our Basic Education. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved January 12, 2007. http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2007/09/16
13. Griffith, J. 2009. The school leadership/school climate relation: Identification of school configurations associated with change in principals. Educational Administration Quarterly 3, 267-291.
14. Guina, J. M. 2005. Design and Evaluation of English Programs in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
15. Hewitt, T. W. 2006. Understanding and Shaping Curriculum: What We Teach and Why. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
16. Hook, W., W. Bishop and J. A. Hook. 2007. Quality math curriculum in support of effective teaching for elementary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics 65, 125-148.
17. Huffman, D., F. Lawrenz and K. Thomas. 2008. Science and mathematics instruction in a reform-based teacher preparation program. School Science and Mathematics 108, 137-148.
18. Hymes, D. H. 2002. On Communicative Competence: The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. K elly, A. V. 2004. The Curriculum: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
20. Lee, V. E., B. A. Smerdon, C. Alfeld-Liro and S. L. Brown. 2000. Inside small and large high schools: Curriculum and social relations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22, 147-171.
21. Lipscomb, A., J. Swanson and A. West. 2010. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, Global Text, Michael Orey. Chapter 21. Retrieved from https://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf
22. Marzano, R. J., D. J. Pickering and J. E. Pollock. 2001. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
23. Moschetta, H. M. 2010. Development, Evaluation, and Implementation of English Curriculum Instrument. Unpublished dissertation. Robert Morris University
24. Mushtaq, I. and S. Khan. 2012. Factors affecting students’ academic performance. Global Journal of Management and Business Research 12.
25. National Council of Teachers of English. 2008. 21st Century Curriculum and Assessment Framework. Retrieved August 2, 2016, from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentframework
26. Ornstein, A. C. and F. P. Hunkins. 2004. Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
27. Poetter, T. S. et al. 2007. Teachers critique the curriculum: Frame factors at play. Kappa Delta Pi Record 43(2), 82-87.
28. Roadley, G. 2017. How can we shape and design a curriculum to help future proof our graduates in the next 10+ years. University of Birmingham. Retrieved on January 12, 2020, accessed from https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/index.aspx.
29. Sanders, J. R. 1994. The Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
30. Sanders, J. R. and D. H. Nafitzger. 1976. A Basis for Determining the Adequacy of Evaluation Designs. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED127345)
31. Sanico, N. 2015. The Implementation of the K-12 TLE Curriculum in the Central Area of Northern Samar. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Eastern Philippines.
32. Seed, A. H. 2005. Collaborating for school improvement [Electronic version}. Curriculum Leadership 3. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/collaborating_for_school_improvement,12332.html?issueID=9799
33. Sewell, W. 2008. Entrenched pedagogy: A history of stasis in the English language arts curriculum in United States secondary schools. Changing English 15(1), 87-100.
34. Shadish, W. R., T. D. Cook and L. C. Leviton. 1995. Foundations of Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
35. Spiel, C. 2001. Program evaluation. In N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes, eds., International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 12169-12173. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
36. Spiel, C., B. Schober and R. Reimann. 2006. Evaluation of curricula in higher education: Challenges for evaluators. Evaluation Review 30, 430-450.
37. Squires, D. A. 2004. Aligning and Balancing the Standards-based Curriculum. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
38. Surafel Z. 2002. The effects of the ‘new’ English language teaching methodology in the first cycle secondary schools. Educational Journal 6/13, 70-86.
39. Tablante, I. and C. Botor. 1978. Learning Styles of Selected Filipino Children. NSDB Assisted UP’s Integrated Research Project No. 7610.
40. Tomlinson, C. A. 2009. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
41. Viloria, Y. 1993. The Learning Style of Selected College Students at Nueva Vizcaya State Polytechnic College: Correlates, Factors and Predictors. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Philippine Normal University, Philippines.
42. Wiggins, G. 2004. Authentic Education. Retrieved July 28, 2016, from http://www.grantwiggins.org/