CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methods and procedure used in

conducting the study. It includes the research design, research locale,

the respondents, sampling procedure, data gathering procedure,

research instrument, scoring procedure, and statistical treatment of

data.

Research Design

This study utilized the descriptive-correlational design of research.

It is descriptive because it aims to describe the profile of the respondents

which is the sex, their final grade in English and their family

background. It is correlational because the study aims to determine the

relationship between the students’ academic performance and students’

levels of language anxiety at the same time their speaking proficiency.

Research Locale

This study was conducted at one private school in Gingoog City, a

school that abides by the core values abbreviated as HAIL (humility,

accountability, integrity and loyalty). Considered as one of the leading

private schools in the city with a respectable track record of student

performance and achievement. The school offers both basic and tertiary

educational levels. Most students enrolled come from low to mid income
 30

families, relatively more on government funded scholarships and

financial aids. With over half a century of operations, the school has

gained popularity among the locals and in neighboring municipalities

because of its low-cost and tuition.

Sampling Design

The researcher used the total population sampling using the

purposive sampling technique. Two sections in Grade 10 were used as

respondents. Their assessments and appraisals are often not depictive of

their professional competitiveness; therefore, it is important for grade 10

students to overcome public speaking anxiety before they transit from

academic life to professional life.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study were the grade 10 students of one of

the secondary private school in Gingoog City for the school year 2022-

2023. The grade 10 has two sections. This grade level was chosen due to

the fact that this is considered to be the transition period from junior to

senior high school. Table 1 presents the number of Grade X students

chosen as respondents of the study.

Table 1
Respondents of the Study
Grade & Section Number of Pupils
Grade 10- Section A 50
Grade 10- Section B 50
 31

Total 100

Research Instrument

The instrument that the researcher used in this study is composed

of two parts. The first part asks the respondents’ profile, particularly on

their sex, final English grade, educational attainment of parents, and

family socio economic status which identifies the ability of the family in

access to internet, capacity to have tutors and facilities needed to

improve speaking skills.

The researcher secured a permission from the recent user of the

instrument used in her study entitled “A Review of Horwitz, Horwitz and

Cope’s Theory of Foreign Language Anxiety and the Challenges to the

Theory” that was originally adopted from Horwitz and Cope (1986)

Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale as it “measures anxiety levels

seen through inverse performance expectations and social comparability,

psychophysiological symptoms, and avoidance behaviours”.

The researcher also modified the questionnaire (FLCAS) comprised

of 33 items. From assessing correlation targets in communication

apprehension, test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation to two

components namely: Personal Factors and Classroom Performance.

The researcher also conducted a speaking proficiency test. The test

was a conversation type interview with the respondents good for 5

minutes. Three experts, identified by the researcher, served as raters of

the speaking test. They used a speaking rubric designed for public

speaking and oral presentation.

Reliability and Validity of the Instrument

For the reliability of the research instrument, the questionnaire

was pilot-tested on a similar but smaller group of thirty respondents in

the same grade level but different school. After conducting the pilot-test,

Cronbach Alpha will be computed. A desired result of .825 and .818 was

attained and considered the instrument as reliable. Furthermore, it was

validated and checked by experts in the field to find out whether the

questionnaire is appropriate and fit to the purpose of the study.

The panel of experts chosen for this study comprised of the

following:

Validator A. He majored in English (AB) graduating as magna cum laude

in 2008. He took his graduate studies in linguistics as a government

scholar from the Bukidnon State University, specializing in pragmatics.

He is currently pursuing a post-graduate on English Language from the

same university. His extensive work experience as an English teacher at

the Division of Gingoog City where he also held positions as Senior High

School Coordinator, School Paper Adviser, and Guidance Coordinator

honed his skills not just at the instructional level but as well-rounded as

possible.
 33

Validator B. He graduated with BS Education major in English magna

cum laude from Xavier University in 2009 and has obtained graduate

units under the CHED-HEDP Faculty Development Program II from the

same university from 2014-2015. With ten years of teaching experience

and in the high school and tertiary levels in languages, literature, and

professional education alongside numerous regional and national

seminars he attended he now sits as the Junior High School Coordinator

of Gingoog City Colleges and at the same time it’s Practice Teaching

Supervising Instructor.

Validator C. Dr. Levie D. Llemit is the current Education Program

Specialist for English (EPS) at the Department of Education Division of

Gingoog City. With a span of more than three decades of involvement in

the learning process from being a classroom teacher to an educational

leader, she has capacitated teachers to develop innovative strategies and

implement viable intervention programs across schools in her

jurisdiction. Her mentoring spirit to aspiring campus journalists and

school paper advisers enabled the Division of Gingoog City to improve its

performance in national school’s press conferences in recent years. Ever

the caring and warm-hearted person, she is one of the well-loved

personalities of the division, she is a “fan favourite” among teachers.

Data Gathering Procedure

Endorsement letter was secured from the Dean of Graduate School

asking permission to conduct this study. A letter of request was prepared

by the researcher addressed to all concerned, such as the School

President who is the over-all in-charge of the school, the High School

Registrar who keeps the information of all enrolled students, the

Principal who is the in-charge of the students, the English subject

teachers who play a major role in the development of the students’

language proficiency skills, the parents who are responsible for their

children’s growth, and the students who were the main subjects of the

study.

Data was collected using an adapted survey questionnaire and a

conversation type interview. Respondents was given an orientation after

permissions have been secured; confidentiality and utmost value to their

privacy shall be emphasized. They were reassured that this study’s

purpose seeks to determine ways in which instruction shall be improved

and that in no way this will cause them trouble and get anxious.

Afterwards, a speaking test was conducted upon thorough briefing of the

respondents. This speaking test was observed and rated by three experts

identified by the researcher. Afterwards, data collected from the said

processes shall be tabulated and analysed and then interpreted.

The researcher also conducted a Focused Group Discussion (FGD)

after the speaking test was conducted.

The researcher conducted a face to face administration of the

survey questionnaires and provided them with clear instructions on how

to answer. The test questionnaire had 2 parts.

Scoring Procedure

After the distribution and retrieval of the questionnaire from the

respondents, the data was tabulated, collated and analysed using the

rating scale.

For the language anxiety, each item on the FLCAS is rated on a

five-point Likert scale ranging from 1(strongly agree) to 4 (strongly

disagree). Total scores of the scale range from 33 to132 with lower scores

indicate higher level of anxiety.

SCALE RANGE DESCRIPTION INTERPRETATION

3 2.51 - 3.25 AGREE HIGH ANXIETY

2 1.76 - 2.5 DISAGREE LOW ANXIETY

1 1.00 - 1.75 STORNGLY DISAGREE VERY LOW ANXIET

For speaking proficiency, the conversational interview was rated by

the use of a rubric from the study of Rayla, A & Sonsona, R. (2021)

Assessing Senior High School Students’ Oral Proficiency Skills in the

New Normal. Science International (Lahore) adopted from Crosby High

School
 36

The rubric used an Analytical rating scale that focuses on:

 Organization

 Topic Knowledge

 Audience Adaptation

 Language Use (Verbal Effectiveness)

 Delivery (Nonverbal Effectiveness)

Each of these attributes have a highest score of 20 with the

following point system and description: 0-12 points, Beginning; 13-15

points, Developing; 16-17 points, Proficient; and, 18-20 points,

Exemplary. Further, total scores were computed and interpreted as

follows:

Total Score Interpretation

The speaking proficiency was rated by 3 teachers from the English

department of the division of Gingoog City.

Statistical Treatment

The data gathered was collated, integrated, analysed and

interpreted using the following statistical tools:

Problem 1 used descriptive statistics, frequency and percentage.

Problem 2 and 3 used descriptive statistics, frequency and

percentage, mean and standard deviation.

Problem 4 used one way Analysis of variance to assess if there is a

significant difference when grouped according to demographic profile.

Lastly, in problem 5 it uses the Pearson Product Moment

Correlation in establishing the relationship between the levels of language

anxiety and speaking proficiency.

After these steps, the researcher then analysed the result of the

survey to decide whether to accept or reject the formulated hypothesis.