1

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

• Zaremba (2006) One ability that is required for communication is speaking 2

and more prioritized in the new employment standards.
• Many factors need to be considered for enhancing student’s speaking
performance Boonkit (2010)
• Student’s level of confidence leads to better speaking performance Boonkit
(2010).
• Students have lesser opportunities to speak in English outside the classroom
and also little opportunity to communicate with English speakers Zhang
(2009).
• Owing to social and psychological reasons, student’s feel too stressed, shy
and nervous to speak English, which tends to make them opt for silence Koran
(2015).
Statement of the Problem

1. What is the impact of Oral Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Communication in Context on students’ :
1.1 communication skills; • Elaboration Likelihood Model
1.2 class activities; and
1.3 self-esteem? • Symbolic Interactionism Theory
2. What is the level of students’ verbal
communication skills in terms of:
Oral Communication
2.1 academic; and Communication in Skills and Self-
2.2 real life competence? Context Esteem

3. Is there a significant relationship

between Oral Communication in Context in
uplifting the students’ communication
3
skills and self-esteem?
Scope and Delimitation
Significance of the Study
 Senior High School students of TVL and
GAS in La Filipina National High School.
 Society  Schools
× Excluding the Junior High students.  Teachers  Future
• The researchers will get the respondents Researchers
to the Grade 11 and 12 students with the
population of 672 and with the 251 sample
Definition of Terms
size. The study will be conducted on
August 2019 to January 2020 in a survey
form.
 Communication Skills
 Oral Communication in
4
Context (OCC)
 Self – Esteem
Research Design
• Descriptive Survey-Correlational
Research Design
• Quantitative Research Method
Respondents of the Study
• Probability Stratified Random Sampling
• The sample size of 251 is the result of 672
sample population of students of senior high
school.
• It was calculated by the help of Slovin’s
formula.
Research Instrument
• Survey questionnaire consisting researcher made
questions and Likert Scale check box.
• This research questions are proven reliable and had
undergone validation process.
Research Procedure
• The researchers had prepared test permits
and consents.
• Pilot testing of the questionnaire.
• The survey questions were administered
directly to the chosen sample for the study.
5
 TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
Section Population Sample Size PERCENTAGE %
8.4%
Mt. Apo 57 21

22
8.8% 6
Mt. Banahaw 58
8.8%
Mt. Kanlaon 58 22
6.4% GRADE 11
Mt. Makiling 44 16
6.4%
Mt. Mayon 46 16

Mt. Taal 42 17 6.8%

Mt. Sierra Madre 43 16 6.4%

7.2%
Mabini 49 19
7.2%
Bonifacio 49 18
GRADE 12 7.6%
Jacinto 51 19
6.4%
Lapu-lapu 43 16
6.4%
Del Pilar 43 16
6.8%
Silang 46 17
6.4%
Data Analysis
• Mean Validity and Reliability of the Questionnaire
• Standard Deviation
• Copies of the questionnaire and copies of the
• Regression
research questions were given to some
Range of Means Description Interpretation
This signifies that the impact of Oral
professors who are experts in English
4.50 - 5.00 Very high Communication in
Context on students’
Communication skills and
communication.
Self-esteem is very high.

3.50 – 4.49 High This signifies that the impact of Oral

Communication in
• PilotTesting
Context on students’
Communication skills and
Self-esteem is high.

This signifies that the impact of Oral

2.50 – 3.49 Moderately High Communication in
Context on students’
Communication skills and
Self-esteem is moderately high.

This signifies that the impact of Oral

1.50 - 2.49 Low Communication in
Context on students’
Communication skills and
Self-esteem is low.
LEGEND:
1.00 – 1.49 Very Low This signifies that the impact of Oral
Communication in Very Low (1.00 – 1.49) Low (1.50 – 2.49) 7
Context on students’
Communication skills and Moderately Low (2.50 – 3.49) High (3.50 – 4.49)
Self-esteem is very low.
Very High (4.50 – 5.00)
 RESULTS & DISCUSSION
TABLE 2 TABLE 3
IMPACT OF ORAL COMMUNICATION IN LEVEL OF STUDENTS’ VERBAL
CONTEXT IN THE THREE INDICATORS COMMUNICATION SKILL 8
Indicators Mean SD Description Indicators Mean SD Description
Communication skills 4.09 0.39 High
Academic 3.94 0.37 High
Class Activities 3.82 0.37 Moderately High
Real Life Competence 4.05 0.36 High
Self-Esteem 3.94 0.64 High

Over-all 3.95 0.15 High Over-all 3.99 0.01 High

TABLE 4
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TOPICS IN ORAL COMMUNICATION IN CONTEXT
IN UPLIFTING STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND SELF-ESTEEM

Variables Mean SD r-value Probability Decision

Level @ α = 0.05

Oral Communication in 3.95

Context on Students 0.09 0.77 2.54E-51 REJECT

Communication Skills
3.99
and Self-Esteem
Coefficient of Determination ( r2) = 0.599004184
 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary of Findings
• The impact of oral communication in context on students is high level with an average mean of 3.95 and a standard
deviation of 0.15.
• The level of students’ verbal communication skill shows a high level verbal communication skills with an average mean of
3.99 and a standard deviation of 0.01.
• The significance between the topics on Oral communication in context in uplifting students’ communication skills and self-
esteem was determined by relationship’s probability level of 2.5378E-51. This shows that there is a significant relationship
between oral communication in context and communication skills and self-esteem.

Conclusion
• The impact of Oral Communication in Context on students Recommendation
in terms of communication skills, class activities, and self-
esteem is high.
• Strict implementation for the students to
• The level of students’ verbal communication skills in
terms of Academic and Real life competence is high. cooperate with the activities conducted under
this subject OCC. 9
• There is a significant relationship between the Oral
• K-12 program must implement activities
Communication in Context in uplifting the students’
communication skills and self-esteem. • The students’ involvement must be monitored
and sustained
 REFERENCES

10
Boonkit, (2010).” Improving Speech Communication skills: An Overview of the Literature.”
In Improving Speaking and Listening Skills, Edited by: Rubin, R. B. 83-93. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Zaremba, (2006). Communication Needs of Recent Graduates. Bulletin of the Association
for Business Communication, 50:22-23.
Osborn et al., (2008). Communicating on Career. English Language Learning Vol. 8, 25-30.
Zhang, (2009). Communicating: A Social and Career Focus, 4th ed.,Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Songsiri, (2007). “Evaluating the Basic Course: Using Research to Meet the Communication
Needs of the Students”. In Basic Communication Course Annual, Edited by: Hugenberg, L.W.
Vol.2,166-191. Boston, MA: Academic Library.
Patil, (2008). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, rev.ed., New York:
Academic Press.
Jamjoon, (2009). English Language Teaching Vol. 12 Edited by:’ Berko, R.M., Wolvin, A.D.
Koran, (2015). College: The Undergraduate Experience, New York: Harper and Row.
 11

Thank you and God bless!

End of Final Defense