This chapter
presents the research design of the study. It describes the Evaluation Design
which was used in the analysis of the Oral Communication Course. It also
discusses how the data were collected, how the research instrument was
developed, and how the respondents were selected.

 

Research Design

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

     The Descriptive Method was utilized in the
study. Sanchez (as cited in Velasco, 2007) described the “method as an accurate
observation and assessment of data to ascertain the nature and incidence of
prevailing condition, practices or description of all subjects, processes, and
persona who are objects of description”.

     The study also used conventional content
analysis of the course syllabi and outlines that were collected from the
school-respondents. In this type of content analysis, coding categories are derived
directly from the text data (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005).

     The study employed the
Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) Model of Daniel Stufflebeam (2007). This
method is used in program evaluation, a trend in education that started during
the Industrial Revolution (Madaus, 1986). The purpose of this method is “not to
prove but to improve.” It is an evaluation model that is comprehensive to help
guide evaluations of programs, projects, personnel, products, and institutions
(Stufflebeam, 2003). The CIPP Model can be viewed as several types of
evaluation or as steps in a comprehensive evaluation.

     Context Evaluation was used to determine
whether the course objectives of Oral Communication offered in each higher
educational institution were aligned with the learning outcomes set by the
Department of Education and the course objectives of the Commission on Higher
Education.

Input
Evaluation was utilized to describe the resources available to the Oral
Communication program of the schools-its faculty and facilities.

     Process Evaluation was used to assess the
implementation of the program. Questions regarding the methods of teaching,
strategies as well as problems encountered were asked from the respondents.

     Lastly, the Product evaluation was employed
to determine the problems encountered by the students in learning the subject
as well as their objective assessment of the overall delivery of the course.

 

Respondents of the Study

     The study was conducted in Region IV-A
which comprises of 5 provinces (Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon). To
ensure that all of these provinces were represented, the author selected four
schools from each province:

CAVITE

1. Cavite State University

2. Adventist University of the Philippines

3. Philippine National Police Academy

4. San Sebastian College Recoletos de Cavite

 

LAGUNA

1. University of the Philippines Los Baños

2. Laguna College of Business and Arts

3. San Pablo Colleges

4. Laguna State Polytechnic University

 

BATANGAS

1. Lyceum of the Philippines University

2. University of Batangas

3. Batangas State University

4. St. Bridget College

 

RIZAL

1. University of Rizal

2. Harris Memorial College

3. Roosevelt College

4. Tomas Claudio Memorial College

 

QUEZON

1. Manuel S. Enverga Foundation University

2. Southern Luzon State University

3. City College of Lucena

4. Eastern Quezon College

 

     The twenty schools were chosen based on the
criteria set by the author.  The criteria
were:

1.)  The school must have been recognized by the Philippine government
for at least 25 years; and

2.)  The school must be offering at least five undergraduate courses.

     A list of higher education institutions
with their year of establishment and their courses being offered was obtained
from the Commission on Higher Education Region IV-A. Through Stratified
Sampling technique, the twenty schools from among those that qualified using
the criteria set by the researcher were chosen.

The
population of the study was comprised of two sets of respondents – the
Teacher-Respondents and the Student-Respondents. The teacher-respondents were
the oral communication teachers who were present during the school visitation,
while student- respondents were the students who had already finished the oral
communication course. The total number of teacher-respondents was 49. To
facilitate the computation of the sample size for the student-respondents,
enrollment data of the previous year was obtained as the data for SY 2011-2012
was not yet available at the time of preparation for the data gathering. The
record obtained from CHEDRO IV-A showed that the total enrollment for the S.Y.
2010-2011 was 245,787 students.  Of this,
75,400 were enrolled in public schools while the rest were enrolled in private
schools.  Using the Slovin’s formula, a
sample size of 400 students at 5% margin of error was obtained. The researcher,
on the other hand, utilized a sample of 564 which guaranteed the result at 4%
margin of error.

Convenience
and Purposive sampling techniques were used to gather the number of respondents
since there was a wide coverage in the study. These techniques were also employed
to minimize the travel period and the expenses of the researcher.

 

 

Instrumentation

          In order to contribute to the pool of
knowledge in Oral Communication Curriculum Evaluation, the writer developed a
survey questionnaire anchored on the guidelines stated in Daniel Stufflebeam’s
Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) Model. The CIPP Model was the basis for
the questionnaire. Since the questionnaire was self-made, it was subjected to
content validation by professors who are experts in Speech in the University of
the Philippines Diliman. One finished his PhD at Northwestern University in
Illinois, USA and had been the Chancellor of the University of the Philippines
Baguio, while the other earned her PhD at Philippine Normal University and has
been a faculty member of the Speech and Drama Division of the College of Arts
Letters of the University of the Philippines. Both have been teaching in the said
state university for more than a decade.

The
self-made questionnaire was tested in another group of teachers and students
for clarity. The results of the pilot test determined whether the questionnaire
was free from grammatical and perceptual errors. When errors occurred,
rewording and/ or corrections were made.

     The questionnaire for the teacher-respondent
included questions, that asked about the profile of their respective schools
and the profile of the teacher themselves. Questions related to teaching
strategies, problems encountered, assessment of the delivery as well as the
measures to be done to enhance oral communication delivery were incorporated in
the questionnaire.

     On the other hand, the questionnaire for
the student-respondents included only questions related to the assessment of
the delivery of the course, the problems encountered, and the students’
suggestions on how to further improve the delivery of the course.

 

Data Gathering Procedure

To
obtain the data needed for the study, the researcher went through the following
steps:

1. The researcher sent a letter to the Commission on Higher
Education requesting for the total number of enrollment of the SY 2010-2011 of
Region IV-A as well as a list of all accredited colleges and universities. The
list also included the year of accreditation and the contact details of each
school.

2. She then sent a letter to the respective
school-respondents requesting for a possible accommodation to conduct the
research. The letter was sent through email. Follow-up calls were employed to
expedite response.

3. The data were gathered using the two sets of self-made
questionnaires- one for the teacher-respondents and another for the
student-respondents. The questionnaires were administered personally by the
researcher on dates approved by concerned authorities. The data gathering
started in September 2011 to February 2012.

 

Data Analysis

     The author used the Quantitative
Descriptive Method of Research specifically the Frequency Counts and the Modal
responses given to describe the data obtained.

The
data gathered were tabulated and analyzed through frequency counts, percentages,
and means.

The following numeric
interpretations were used for the responses of the teachers and students in
their assessment of the effectiveness of the delivery of the oral communication
subject:

Mean Response

Interpretation

1.00-1.49

Very
Highly Effective (VHE)

1.50-2.49

Highly
Effective (HE)

2.50-3.49

Effective
(E)

3.50-4.49

Somewhat
Effective (SE)

4-50-5.00

Ineffective
(I)

 

Non-parametric
tests for significant difference and relationship were used in the data due to
the responses of the survey which were ordinal in nature, from “Ineffective” to
“Very Highly Effective”.  Particularly,
the Mann-Whitney U Test for Significant Difference was used to determine if
there was a significant difference in the ordinal responses of the student and
teacher respondents regarding the delivery of the oral communication
subject.  Furthermore, the Chi-Square
Test for Independence was used to determine if there were significant
relationship between the effectiveness of the delivery of oral communication and
the teacher-profile and school-profile variables that were nominal in
nature.  The Spearman’s Rho Correlation,
on the other hand, was used to determine the relationship between the
effectiveness of the delivery of oral communication (ordinal) and the teacher
profile variables which were also ordinal variables.