ABSTRACT
This study focused on eight (8) colleges and universities in Metro Manila. These LCUs are:
PLM, UCC, PLP, PLnP, QCPU, UMAK, PLMUN at PLMAR. The participants for this study were
the students, teachers and administrators of the colleges and universities during the first semester of
school year 2010-2011. The curriculum being used at present was the one used for analysis. This
study also stressed the extent of the implementation of CMO No.59 s. 1996 at CMO No.04 s. 1997
in eight colleges and universities during the first semester for school year 2010-2011. This study
made use of qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Descriptive research was also used to
describe the things related to the topic. The steps and methods were likewise illustrated how CHED
implemented the CHED Memo 59, series of 1996 and CHED Memo 4, series of 1997 (Appendix
A). The respondents for this study were students, teachers and administrators. In the survey
questionnaire, the respondents perception, opinion and observation were represented regarding the
implementation of the GEC-Filipino in their universities. The researcher used the weighted mean in
analyzing the data.This study is very significant in the following institutions: (1) CHED to
strengthen the method of implementing the curriculum. This will become the basis in monitoring
the curriculum if it is properly and correctly implemented in each institution; (2) Local Colleges and
Universities (LCU) to find out if these institutions are following the guidelines set by the
constitution and CHED based on the CHED Memo 9 series of 1996 at CMO No.04 s 1997. It is also
very significant to find out the standing of Filipino Language in these colleges and universities
since it serves as the microcosm of the country; and (3) Languae Planner and Curriculum Planner.
The data for study is very important for curriculum planner to have a guide in implementing the
evaluation of the system for language in education. The study showed the similarities of the
experiences of the eight LCUs in the implementation of the Content of the Curriculum and Teaching
Materials (whatever category is used) with a synthesis of sometimes. Among the eight LCUs, there
is a difference in the synthesis of the method of teaching. The LCU showed it used GEC B with a
synthesis of Always and LCUs used the same category in A and B with a synthesis of sometimes.
Only to prove that the eight LCUs have the same experiences when it comes to content of the
curriculum, method of teaching and teaching materials because of cultural similarity. This only
shows that there is a need to strengthen these items. On the other hand, those who used GEC B on
method of teaching were far better off than those LCUs who used GEC A and B which need to
further strengthen the implementation of the method of teaching to become effective in the
implementation of the curriculum. Perhaps QCPU is more focused in teaching compared to seven
LCUs.
made use of qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Descriptive research was also used to
describe the things related to the topic. The steps and methods were likewise illustrated how CHED
implemented the CHED Memo 59, series of 1996 and CHED Memo 4, series of 1997 (Appendix
A). The respondents for this study were students, teachers and administrators. In the survey
questionnaire, the respondents perception, opinion and observation were represented regarding the
implementation of the GEC-Filipino in their universities. The researcher used the weighted mean in
analyzing the data.
III. Results and Discussions
The table below represented the general average mean of the synthesis of the
respondents: administrators, teachers and students in eight colleges and universities
which were used for the synthesis on the implementation of the GEC-Filipino.
CATEGORY
CONTENT
METHOD OF
TEACHING MATERIALS
TEACHING
GEC A and B
GEC B
4.07 (PM)
4.16 (PM)
4.39 (PM)
4.57 (PL)
4.13 (PM)
3.81 (PM)
The table showed the similarities of the experiences of the eight LCUs in the
implementation of the Content of the Curriculum and Teaching Materials with a synthesis of
Sometimes. Among the eight LCUs, there is a difference in the synthesis of the method of teaching.
The LCU showed it used GEC B with a synthesis of Always and LCUs used the same category in A
and B with a synthesis of Sometimes. Only to prove that the eight LCUs have the same experiences
when it comes to content of the curriculum, method of teaching and teaching materials because of
cultural similarity. This only shows that there is a need to strengthen these items. On the other hand,
those who used GEC B on method of teaching were far better off than those LCUs who used GEC
A and B which need to further strengthen the implementation of the method of teaching to become
effective in the implementation of the curriculum. Perhaps QCPU is more focused in teaching
compared to seven LCUs.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
The
following
conclusions
were
derived
at:
Curriculum Implementation
There is no concrete evidence in the implementation of the LCUs regarding the
memorandum because the year was not mentioned and there were different years listed in the
curriculum data collected by researcher. The following factors played important roles like budget,
politics and culture to implement fully the curriculum. As a whole, the experiences by eight LCUs
4
Local Evaluation
Students
Teachers
Administrator
political context
aim
content
method
resources
Local Implementation
cultural context
time
direction
participant
place
Local Revision
According to Lawton (1980), in creating a curriculum, the most important thing to consider
is culture because studies, learning, concepts are being passed on to the next generation. A cultural
tension exists in the implementation of the curriculum because of cultural diversities in
communities. One LCU for example, must consider the implementation of the curriculum in the
cultural context, even if this is set in one locality, there still exist another culture in the same place;
in the same way as, time, when was the curriculum implemented; the direction (mission and vision)
of a local college and university should likewise be considered, too. In a local community, one can
see the differences in attitude, beliefs and tradition of the residents or the participants.
Nowadays, students in the local colleges and universities are being taught to get jobs quickly
which are needed in their cities, so what is taught is not only knowledge but skills as well. One
important aspect in the implementation of the curriculum is the political context. The one who
chooses and implements the curriculum has greater influence in its successful undertaking. This
covers the aim of the implementation, content, method and teaching materials for the curriculum.
In the following diagram, the implementation of the system on planning for language in education is
passing through several processes to see the strengths and weaknesses. If what is covered in
evaluation will be put into consideration, one can use political and cultural aspect of the institution
6
like the LCUs. In this study, it only covered three important categories in evaluating a curriculum:
according to content, methods of teaching, and teaching materials. If one has to give weight in the
following,
most
likely,
this
is
the
result:
SUGGESTED COMPONENT IN
EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE
PLANNING IN EDUCATION
PERCENT
40%
Method of teaching
40%
Teaching materials
20%
Total
100%
In addition to this, are the aims in implementing the curriculum taken from the mission and
vision of the LCUs.and the conduct of the evaluation, one could based the category used by an
LCU.
The evaluation based on course or college of students are dependent on the belief of Jernudd
and Das Gapta (1991) that evaluation policies and programs of different regions must show this
value to students and to his or her course. The method that can be used is the localization wherein
each course or college with a Filipino course must conduct a yearly evaluation regarding the
importance of the course and its implication in their being professional.
Who are the participants in the evaluation? Who will conduct the evaluation? What is the
qualification of the evaluator? These are just some of the questions when evaluating and when the
participants are being discussed. One can form an ALCU Curriculum Board, somebody will be the
Director who will be in charge of the committee and the staff, this will include the
professors/instructors, student council representative, non-teaching staff and Board of Trustees or
Regent.
The qualification of the evaluator must have training in evaluating a program or curriculum
and has a profound understanding of the management of the plan of local curriculum. The following
are the responsibilities of an evaluator:
(1) Make a plan and evaluation
(2) Set the local, national and international standard in implementing the curriculum
(3) Organize the curriculum
(4) Make recommendation in revising curriculum
(5) Cooperate with the monitoring and provide feedback in implementing the curriculum
(6) Conduct correlation study of curriculum in the local task of the city and the industry
7
The respondents in the conduct of the evaluation are as follows: (1) students, (2) teachers,
(3) administrator, (4) industry sector, and (5) parents.
Local
Implementation
Local
Evaluation
Forth Year : Review (Internal / Exsternal)
Local Revision
Sixth Year : Implementation of the revised curriculum
based on the recommendation of the committe
The conduct of evaluation of curriculum is holistic. Its parameters are content, methods and
teaching materials to see the strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of the curriculum.
Here are the guide questions for the said parameters:
GUIDE QUESTIONS
CONTENT
1. Is the curriculum in Filipino gives way to the professional development of every
student?
2. Is the theory and lessons in Filipino can be applied in the industry and professional
aspect of the students?
METHOD OF TEACHING
1. Does the lesson in Filipino is easily learned by the students?
TEACHING MATERIALS
1. Is the teaching in Filipino can be based on technology or can use technology as a
instrument to transfer learning?
SCALE IN PARAMETERS IN EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE PLANNING IN
EDUCATION
The following scale can be use in the evaluation, also the scale that the researcher used in
this study.
5 Always
4- Often
3- Sometimes
2- Never
1- None
GRADES IN EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE PLANNING IN EDUCATION
In deciding whether the implementation of the curriculum is appropriate or not? Successful
or not? The following letters can be used as a grade indicator:
P- for passed
F- for failed
The evaluator will identify if the evaluation is for the whole institution, for each college/
school or the curriculum and the subject itself.
METHODS OF COLLECTING THE DATA FOR EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE
PLANNING IN EDUCATION
In collecting data for evaluation purposes, different methods can be used like interview,
questionnaires, unified test for the students, document collection and analysis, FGD Focus Group
Discussion and observation in the class.
9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Block D. at Cameron D. (2002). Globalization and Language Teaching. New York: Routledge.
Brom, J.D. (1995). The Elements of the Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to
Program
Brown, James Dean. (2001). Using Surveys in Language Programs. USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Chikumbu, Tichata at Rhodreck Makamure. (2000). Module 13- Curriculum Theory and Design
Assessment. The Comonwealth of Learning.
Constantino, Pamela C. ( 1991). Pagpaplanong Pangwika Tungo sa Modernisasyon:
Karanasan ng Malaysia, Indonesia at Pilipinas. Quezon City: UP Sentro ng Wikang
Filipino.
___________________, ed. (2005). Filipino at Pagpaplanong Pangwika Ikalawang
Sourcebook ng SANGFIL. Manila at Quezon City: NCAA at Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.
Cooper, R.L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, David. (2003). English as a Global Language 2nd edition. United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, Norman. (2001). Language and Power. 2nd edition. United Kingdom: Pearson
Education.
Fergusson, G. (2006). Language Planning and Education. Edingburg: Edingburg
University.
Fishman, Joshua A, ed. (1974). Advances in Language Planning. Netherlands: Mouton
& Co. N.V.
________________et.al, eds. (1968). Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Gatawa, B.S.M. (1990). The Politics of the School : An Introduction. Harare: Jongine.
Gay, L.R. (1985). Educational Evaluation and Measurement. Longmans Green Co. New
York.
Gonzales, Andrew, FSC at Bonifacio P. Sibayan. (1998). Evaluating Bilingual Education in
the
10
language Be
Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations. USA : The
University Press of Hawaii.
Santos, Benilda, ed. (2003) Ang Wikang Filipino sa Loob at Labas ng Akademyat Bansa
Unang Sourcebook ng SANGFIL 1994-2001. Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang
Filipino- UP System.
Sibayan Bonifacio at Andrew Gonzales, FSC., ed (1977). Language Planning and the
Building of a National Language.Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines
and Language Study Center PNU.
Tanner, O. at Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum Development: Theory Into Practice (3 rd ed.)
Cycle
11
12
Wilson, Gordon Travis. (2009). An Evaluation of a Curriculum for Basic Training in TESOL.
Master of Art. Brigham Young University.
JOURNAL at HAND- OUTS
Abad, Melania L. (2008). Pagbabanghay ng Institusyunal na Adbokasing Pangwika: Mga
Palisi, Programa at Proyekto. Philippine Journal for Language Teaching.
Volume
XLVII. A Journal of the Philippine Association for Language Teaching. PALT.
Badayos, Paquito. (2007).
Kasalukuyang
Kurikulum ng DepEd at CHED: Implementasyon at Aplikasyon. NISMED Awditoryum,
Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Bernabe, Emma J. (1987). Language Policy Formulation, Programming, Implementation and
Evaluation in the Philippine Education(1965- 1974) Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Brooks, Pauline E. (1987). Designing and Evaluating Language Programs for African
American (Black) Dialect Speakers Some Guidelines for Educators. CSE
Resource Paper No. 7. Los Angeles, California: Center for the Study of Evaluation
Graduate School of Education.
Burcik, Vladimir, et al. (2008). Analysis of Cultural Effects on Business Curricula Subject
Matter. Informing Science and IT Education Conference.
Canas, A.J. et al. (2004). What are the Major Curriculum Issues ? The Use of Mind Mapping
as
A Brainstorming Exercise.Turkey: Middle East Technical University.
Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools. (2001). Curricula Management Plan (Framework)
Constantino, Pamela C. (2004) Ang Filipino sa GEC ng Komisyon ng Lalong Mataas na
Edukasyon (CHED). Papel na inihanda para sa pambansang kumprehensiya sa Wika
ng
Pambansang Samahan sa Wika. Oktubre, 21-23, 2004. Benguet State University.
Cooper, Robert. (1998). Socio-Cultural and Within School Factors That Affect the Quality
of
Implementation of School Wide Programs. USA: CRESPAR.
Epistola, Nieves, ed. (1999). Approaches to English Teaching Strategies Part II (Selected
Papers From the National Conference on English Studies: Language, Literature and
Culture). Quezon City: University of the Philippines.
Dumogho, Eleuterio. (2006) Relevant Provisions of Local Government Code. Comparative
Study
Tour on Local Government Administration and Management Development Academy of
the Philippines.
Espiritu, Clemencia C. (2004) Ang Politika sa Pagbuo at Pagpapatupad ng mga Patakarang
13
(2000)
Module
13-
Curriculum
Theory,
Design
and
Assessment.
The
Commonwelath of
Learning.
Segovia, Lorna Z. (1986). The Implementation of the Bilingual Policy on the Tertiary Level.
(Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines 1974-1985). Manila: Linguistic
14
15
APPENDIX A.1.
16
17
18
APPENDIX A.2
19
20
21
APPENDIK A.3
APPENDIX A.4
APPENDIX B.1
TALATANUNGAN UKOL SA IMPLEMENTASYON NG GEC- FILIPINO SA LCU METRO MANILA
I. Ang Profile ng Respondente (para sa Mag-aaral lamang )
Pangalan (opsyonal) _______________________________Kasarian:B____ L____Tirahan:__ ________________________________________
Edad: _______________________________________Taon/ Kursong Kinukuha/Major: _____________________________________________
I. Ang Profile ng Respondente (para sa mga Guro at Administrador lamang)
Pangalan(opsyonal) _________________________________Kasarian:B____L____Institusyon:_______________________________________
Edad: ____Posisyon: _____________________________Probinsya______________________Digring Natapos saKolehiyo:________________
Unibersidad/ Kolehiyong Pinagtapusan:___________________Mataas na Digring Nakuha:___________________________________________
Unibersidad na Pinagtapusan:____________________________________________Asignaturang Itinuturo:______________________________
Bilang ng Taon ng Pagtuturo sa Kolehiyo:__________________________________
II. Ang Sarbey
A. Panuto: Bilugan ang bilang na kung saan ay tutugon sa iyong kasagutan. Maging tapat sa iyong pagsagot.
LEGEND:
2- Hindi 1- Wala
22
2. Ang mga kagamitang pampagtuturo kabilang ang mga teksbuk ay tumutugon sa interes at
pagkatuto ng mga mag-aaral.
May mga aralin ba sa Filipino 1,2,3 at 4 na nais mong isama sa kurikulum ng Filipino?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.
May mungkahi ka ba na nais ipatupad sa inyong pamantasan/ kolehiyo upang mas lalong maging maayos ang pagpapatupad ng General
Education Curriculum- Filipino?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.
May mga paraan ba ang inyong pamantasan upang mapalawak ang pagtuturo ng asignaturang Filipino? Isa-isahin ang mga pamamaraang
isinasagawa.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.
Maraming Salamat !
23
Pangalan ng LCU
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila (PLM)
Taon
ng Pagkakatatag
1967
Lokasyon
General
Luna
Corner
Muralla St., Intramuros,
Manila
General
Santos
St.,
Sangandaan, Caloocan City
Kasalukuyang Pangulo
(Unang Semestre, 2010-2011)
Atty. Rafaelito M. Garayblas
(Acting President)
1971
1994
1994
IBP
Road
Baranggay
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
G. Fabian T. Avila
(Direktor sa Akademiko)
2001
Pamantasan ng Muntinlupa
(PLMUN)
Pamantasan ng Marikina
(PLMAR)
1991
1972
2003
APPENDIX C.1
Talaan ng Pangalan ng LCUs, Taon ng Pagkatatag, Address
at Pangulo ng Walong LCUs
24
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG
PAMANTASAN
NG LUNGSOD NG PASIG UNIVERSITY OF CALOOCAN CITY
MAYNILA
UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG
MARIKINA (proposed Building)
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD
NG MUNTINLUPA
APENDIKS C.3
25