Project PRACTICE: Prompts as Contextualized Tasks for
Immersive Class in English
Submitted by:
Asuro, Dominic C.
de Lara, Lilian Rose N.
Felizardo, Mark Aaron B.
Necesito, Carina N.
Zara, Jo Ann B.
May 2021
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to come up with a compilation of
prompts to be used by the learners in making their EIE outputs.
A survey questionnaire was administered to obtain quantitative
data needed.
The results of the survey indicate that the majority of
respondents
(87.5%)
are
not
English
majors.
The
biggest
percentage of respondents (43.8%) are from the 3rd year level.
Although they agree that English is highly necessary in their
future job, the
instruction
in
use
their
of the English language
respective
course
and
as medium of
major
play
an
important role in their exposure and usage of the language. In
terms
of
perceived
level
of
competence
in
speaking,
the
respondents regard their organization skills (3.25) and fluency
as average (3.06), and their skill in delivery (2.5) and use of
speech conventions (3.66) as good. The overall weighted mean
(3.11) suggests that the respondents are average in terms of
speaking.
The factors that have high impact on the students’ Englishspeaking skill and student’s participation in EIE Spread Program
participation are anxiety (3.8) and fear of criticism (3.8).
Students also think that they are average in terms of vocabulary
(3.3), confidence (3.4), and ease of language use (3.3).
INTRODUCTION
Approaches to teaching and learning process continue to
develop
with
the
acceptance
of
new
curricular
reforms
in
education. One modern approach to level up education is the
implementation of English Immersive Environment (EIE) of the
University
of
Nueva
Caceres.
This
program
is
one
of
the
mainstream approaches to teaching a second or foreign language.
The goal of
the
program is
for
learners to
develop their
communicative competence. Thus, the EIE is designed to immerse
learners with the language since speaking English is crucial in
many fields of work. EIE creates opportunities for communication
through
collaborative
work
in
which
learners
develop
their
competence via scaffolded assistance provided by either a more
capable person or a peer. Such assistance is achieved through
collaborative dialogue in which learners pool their resources
to develop their communicative competence in the completion of
a given task (Chen, 2021). The minimal unit of collaborative
dialogue in EIE is a language-related episode for which learners
will converse what they learned from a given reading material.
Then, learners are required to video record themselves as a
focus of the segments of their talks.
However, the limited instructional support brought by the
untimely pandemic, the EIE demands learners to self-regulate
their own learning. Hence, the effective use of scaffolding for
students' management of learning processes and motivation are
important, such as the utilization of prompts (Schumachera,
2021). Prompts has been studied in variety of context such as
writing. Prompts can also be explored in other academic setting
such as student’s speaking competencies. There is a need to
study prompts in other context to test the generalizability of
the variable across different conditions. Research on prompts
concentrates on how to create prompts to support independent
learning and identifies learning activities should be prompted
(Ifenthaler, 2021). It is deemed relevant to gain insights into
how prompts impact learning experiences. Therefore, combining
means of assisting independent learning with learning delivery
modalities (LDM’s) as a result of the drastic change in education
brought
by
the
pandemic
could
facilitate
an
improved
understanding of learning processes as a criterion to develop
and
construct
appropriate
prompts
for
digital
or
virtual
learning environments.
Thus, this paper is aimed to comprehensively (1) determine
the profile of the EIE participants; (2) determine the factors
related
to
speaking
English
that
affect
the
student’s
participation in the EIE Spread program; and (3) design speaking
prompts that will help the participants of the EIE Spread
program.
The findings of this study will contribute to the lead
agency implementing the English Immersive Environment of the
University
of
Nueva
Caceres
(UNC)
to
further
asses
the
implementation of the EIE. Specifically, this will help the
College of Education to the creation of appropriate intervention
or academic resolution that will increase the participation of
the students and reinforce the implementation of the program.
Moreover, the University may design and develop similar support
mechanism or may possibly further explore this study that will
develop learner’s communicative competence in support to the
implementation of EIE. Most of all, the result of this study
will help the most important entity and the center of education
-
the
lifelong
learners
to
develop
their
competence through the use of speaking prompts.
communicative
Research Objectives
The
researchers
would
like
would
like
to
come
up
with
a
compilation of prompts to be used by the learners in making
their EIE outputs. Specifically, the researchers seek to answer
the following questions:
1. Determine the profile of the EIE participants in terms of
the following:
a. Year and Major
b. Perceived level of competency in terms of the following:
i.
Organization and Development
ii.
Manner of Delivery
iii. Speech conventions
iv.
Fluency
2. Identify the factors related to speaking English that
affect
the
students’
participation
in
the
EIE
Spread
program; and
3. Design speaking prompts that will help the participants of
the EIE Spread program
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study is anchored on various theories and concepts
which serve as bases in conceptualizing the current study. The
central premise of sociocultural theory is largely considered
in this undertaking. This theory states that human learning is
socially situated and a semiotic mediated process, occurring
first on the interpersonal (social) level and then on the
intrapersonal (individual) level (Vygotsky, 1978). Important
ideas of sociocultural theory include mediated intervention and
Zone
of
suggests
Proximal
that
Development
human
(ZPD).
intellect is
The
idea
of
mediation
facilitated especially
by
language as the semiotic tool. The Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD) refers to the gap or distance between what a person can
reach by his own and what he can accomplish with support from a
more knowledgeable other. Learning within the ZPD is perceived
to occur in the expert–novice dialogic interaction. In this
case, an expert, usually a teacher or parent, provides gradual
and progressive assistance to a novice learner (Aljaafreh and
Lantolf, 1994). However, there has been an increasing interest
in broadening the scope of ZPD to include peer collaboration in
second language acquisition. Lantolf (2000) asserted that ZPD
is
more
appropriately
conceived
as
the
collaborative
constructions of opportunities for individuals to develop their
abilities.
A
wide
range
of
studies
have
investigated
how
language learners assist each other within their respective
ZPDs.
The interactionist approach considers peer collaboration
as an activity in which second language (L2) learners discuss
meaning in form of communication analysis to attain common
understanding.
Comprehensible
input
(Krashen,
1985)
and
comprehensible output (Swain, 1985), facilitated by negotiation
of meaning, are the facilitator for language development. Thus,
the interactionist approach attempts to enable learners to move
beyond their current receptive and productive capacities when
they need to understand unfamiliar language input or when they
are required to produce a comprehensible message. In short, the
interactionist approach does provide a useful insight into the
form–meaning relationship enabled by interaction. However, it
suggests a limited perspective on the role of interaction for
language
learning,
perceiving
knowledge
as
a
completely
individual cognitive construct and to be transmitted from one
to another. The socially constructed nature of interaction among
peers has largely been ignored.
Though
individual
message
approach
the
interactionist
cognitive
during
endeavor
interaction
stresses
the
for
with
approach
the
comprehensibility
others,
collaborative
emphasizes
the
effort
the
of
sociocultural
for
the
co-
construction of knowledge and meaning in the situated social
context. For instance, Donato (2004) perceives collaboration as
“a powerful concept that moves us beyond reductive input–output
models of interaction and acknowledges the importance of goals,
the mutuality of learning in activity, and collective human
relationships” (pp. 299–230). Within this context, language
learning
is
seen
collaborative
stresses
to
develop
activity.
more
the
through
Thus,
dialogic
the
and
social
mediation
sociocultural
dynamic
of
approach
nature
of
peer
interaction. Swain’s collaborative dialogue provides us with a
very useful insight for understanding peer collaboration and its
impact on language learning.
Jerome
strongly
Bruner’s
influenced
scaffolding
by
Lev
in
language
Vygotsky's
Zone
learning
of
is
Proximal
Development with the emphasis on the role of social interaction
between teacher and learner in crossing the ZPD. Bruner used the
term
scaffolding
to
describe
the
process
of
successful
interaction between a tutor and a learner in this respect. More
recently, the term has come to refer to tools that support
student learning in project-based and design-based teaching,
embracing software tools, curricula, and other resources. More
specifically in this context, the use of speaking prompts is an
example of teaching and learning support tool.
The theories and concepts of the present study were focused
on
the
relevance
of
English
Immersive
Environment
and
the
structure and premise of speaking prompts. To fully understand
the data and statistics to be generated, these theories and
concepts
were
considered.
interactionist
approach
The
focus
sociocultural
on
the
role
theory
and
of collaborative
dialogue and peer interaction of English Immersive Environment
(EIE)
that
creates
opportunities
for
communication
through
collaborative work in which learners develop their competence
via scaffolded assistance provided by either a more capable
person or a peer. Furthermore, applying a sociocultural and
interactive approaches, the present study will highlight how the
technology and the pandemic may open possibilities for the
emergence of online peer–peer collaborative dialogue in terms
of each other’s language use for a common goal in the ESL
context.
Conversely, Bruner’s pedagogical scaffolding in language
learning is the basis for the designing of speaking prompts that
will
provide
a
natural
sequence
of
thought
and
language,
presenting the learners with strategies for approaching the
task.
The
said
concepts
would
guide
the
current
study
on
determining the factors related to speaking English that affect
the students’ participation in the EIE Spread Program.
From a pedagogical standpoint, addressing this concern is
not
only
theoretically
relevant
but
also
of
pedagogical
interest. For example, it is important for teachers to know kind
of speaking prompts to provide, and when to provide prompts
according
to
second
language
(L2)
learners’
interlanguage
development. Therefore, there is a need to further investigate
trace data that can offer sufficient additional insights into
learning processes to serve as a basis for providing support
through
adaptive
prompts
in
advanced
digital
learning
environments.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Collaborative Dialogue and Peer Collaboration
The use of collaborative work for learning is grounded
primarily on the sociocultural theory of mind, as originally
conceived by Vygotsky and his colleagues. Critical to his theory
is the notion of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the distance
between a person’s actual developmental level and the potential
level achievable when guided by a more capable person. In the
development process, the expert or adult provides necessary
scaffolding, which will be later removed when the child is able
to assume more responsibilities in a given assignment. However,
the
expert–novice
interpretation
of
scaffolding
was
later
challenged by some researchers, who claimed that it should be
appropriately conceived as the collaborative construction of
opportunities
learners
to
develop
their
mental
abilities
(Lantolf, 2000). Such a notion of collective and collaborative
scaffolding among learners supports the basis for collaborative
work in language acquisition.
Swain (2000) broaden her comprehensible input hypothesis
by
using
collaborative
sociocultural
dialogue,
perspective
of
viewing
learning.
output
In
this
in
the
dialogic
activity, learners mutually scaffold each other to express their
intended
meaning
interact
with
contributing
by
one
giving
another.
members
by
and
receiving
As
a
sharing
result,
their
support
as
learners
resources
they
become
for
joint
decision making and problem solving. This combined effort of
meaning
construction
will
access
each
other’s ZPD,
thereby
leading to assisted performance. Thus, collaborative dialogue
is both a cognitive tool and a social tool that mediate language
learning.
Collaborative dialogue has been generally operationalized
by language-related episodes (LREs) (Lapkin et al., 2002). An
LRE is defined as any part of a dialogue in which learners
converse about the language production, question their language
use, or self-correct their language production.
Collaborative dialogue can be prompted by contextualized
and collaborative tasks, which demand learners to work in pairs,
create a final output, and communicate both language form and
content. The tasks encourage learners to reflect on language
form while still being oriented to meaning making. Through these
collaborative
tasks,
learners
will
develop
a
shared
responsibility over final production of the output and will have
sense
of
co-ownership,
thus
encouraging
their
active
contribution to the co-constructed resolutions.
Prompts supporting self-regulated and collaborative learning
The
combination
of
self-regulated
and
collaborative
learning conceptualized as a recurring process in which learners
adjust
cognitive,
metacognitive,
and
motivational
processes
according to task requirements (Winne 2017). Prompts can be
explained as short hints or questions presented to learners to
activate knowledge, strategies, or skills that students have
already available but do not use spontaneously (Wirth 2009).
Moreover, prompts are a non-directive external support, not
providing new information but stimulating the application of
known
cognitive,
metacognitive,
motivational
or
resource
management-related strategies during learning (Bannert 2009).
Hence,
pedagogical
support
on
collaborative
and
self-
regulated learning, such as the use of prompts, shall be aligned
with
learners'
strategy
and
background
knowledge.
Overall,
prompts guide learners to reflect on specific aspects of the
learning material, learning task and their cognitive activities
during the learning process that might their thoughts. Prompts
can
be
designed
as
questions,
incomplete
sentences,
or
instructions. Prompts serve as strategy activators and can be
presented in various ways to achieve the desired effect of
helping learners recall and use their knowledge and skill.
In a more recent study, Müller and Seufert (2018) embedded
question prompts that were adapted from Berthold (2007) study.
Prompted learners outperformed learners who were not prompted,
but only in the learning activities with the prompts and not in
the
learning
activities
without
the
prompts.
The
results
corroborated with Sitzmann and Ely's (2010) study revealed that
learners who were constantly prompted throughout the learning
activities performed better and were less likely to drop out
than learners who were prompted at the initial or last two units.
In general, past research provides evidence that suggests
that prompting can be an effective approach to enhance learning
and performance in online learning environments (Wong et al.,
2019). While many studies examining independent learning were
conducted with university undergraduates, the learning task, the
type of the prompts, and the timing of presenting the prompts
varied among the studies. Results from several studies on selfpaced
learning
suggest
that
prompts
should
be
provided
throughout learning and across learning activities to increase
uptake and engagement in learning activities. Ifenthaler (2012)
also suggests that various types of prompts might be useful for
different learners, for example, directed prompts could be more
beneficial for learners who lack the skills and knowledge needed
for learning.
Wirth
(2009)
proposes
a
framework
to
classify
prompts
according to: (a) the content of the activities that should be
stimulated through prompts; (b) the condition that must be
fulfilled in order that the prompt is presented to the learners:
a certain amount of time; related to the task or based on
previous activities; and (c) the method used for presenting the
prompt:
feed
forward
prompts
upcoming
activities
learners
feedback
prompts
an
–
–
are
indirect
directly
expected
method
of
referring
to
to
perform
guiding
the
–
or
learners
through feedback based on their previous behavior.
With the concept of self-regulated learning and learning
strategies in mind, (Boekaerts, 1999; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986),
cognitive
while
prompts
support
metacognitive
learners'
prompts
information
put emphasis
on
processing,
activating
the
monitoring and controlling of cognitive activities, such as
planning, goal setting, and evaluating learning processes and
outcomes. Furthermore, motivational prompts seek to enhance
motivation to learn, by way of highlighting targets or giving
hints on how to regulate one's motivation, and resource-related
prompts aim to support learners in setting up a supportive
learning environment or initiating help-seeking behavior.
Prompts
should
be
aligned
with
learning
theory
and
instructional intentions (Moos & Bonde, 2016) and presented at
the time the learner needs the support to avoid additional
cognitive processing. Thus, referring to the current state of
research on prompts supporting collaborative learning in digital
learning environments needs further empirical evidence on how
different
prompts
impact
learning
performance
and
online
learning behavior as well as how the trace data can explain and
inform learning performance, especially this time of pandemic,
learning takes place in virtual or digital platforms.
Conceptual Paradigm of the Study
INPUT
PROCESS
OUTPUT


Research

respondents
Administering
the survey thru
objectives
Google Form
Profile of

Perceived level
of competency

Theoretical
framework
and related

in speaking
Quantitative
Data Analysis

literature
Factors
affecting
and studies
speaking

Speaking
prompts for
collaborative
dialogue in the
EIE Spread
Program
METHODOLOGY
Design
This study used the descriptive research design. Quantitative
data was obtained from the results of the survey.
Subject/ Respondents
This
study
used
simple
random
sampling
and
the
target
respondents are students of UNC College of Education who were
not able to submit their EIE output for March.
The total number
of respondents is 46. With a 10% margin of error, the sample
size used for this study is 32 respondents.
Data Measures
A survey was administered using Google Form. The questionnaire
was
divided
into
three
parts,
namely
demographic
profile,
factors affecting speaking skills and perceived competency in
speaking. The questionnaire utilized the five-point Likert scale
except for demographic profile. After the respondents have taken
the survey, the researchers tallied the results and used the
statistical tools to interpret the data obtained.
Data collection Procedure and Ethical Considerations
One
of
the
researchers
informed
the
College
of
Education
Department about the nature of the study and sent consent letter.
Then,
the
researchers
oriented
the
students
of
college
of
education about the study through Google Meet. After the virtual
orientation, the researchers sent the survey via Google Form.
Data Analysis
This study used percentage and mean as statistical tools in
interpreting the data obtained from the survey. The percentage
was used for demographic profile of the respondents while mean
was used to determine the factors affecting speaking skills and
perceived competency in speaking.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Profile of Respondents
In the first part of the survey questionnaire, the respondents
were asked to provide the following information for profiling:
name, course and major, and year level. The tables below show
the results of the survey.
Course and Major
BEED
BPED
BSED English
BSED Filipino
BSED Math
BSED Science
BSED Social Sciences
Frequency
12
6
4
1
3
3
3
Percentage
37.50%
18.80%
12.50%
3.10%
9.40%
9.40%
9.40%
Table 1: Profile of Respondents according to Course and Major
Table 1 shows the profile of the respondents according to
their course and major. 37.5% of respondents are from BEED,
18.8% are from BPED, 12.5% are from BSED English, an equal
percentage of respondents (9.4%) are from BSED Math, Science,
and Social Sciences, and 3.10% comes from BSED Filipino.
Results indicate that the majority of respondents (87.5%)
are not English majors. Although respondents who are taking BSED
Math and Science use the English language as their medium of
instruction, other course/major, such as BSED Filipino, Social
Sciences, and BEED do not use the English language as their main
medium of instruction.
Year
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Level
Year
Year
Year
Year
Frequency
5
7
14
6
Percentage
15.60%
21.90%
43.80%
18.80%
Table 2: Profile of Respondents according to Year Level
Table 2 shows the profile of respondents according to their
year level. The biggest percentage of respondents (43.8%) are
from
the
3rd year
level.
The
second
highest
percentage
of
respondents (21.9%) are from the 2nd year level. This is followed
by 4th year (18.8%) and 1st year (15.6%), respectively.
The year levels of the respondents can be correlated with
their
year
of
practice
in
using
the
English
language.
Respondents from higher year levels naturally have been using
the English language longer compared to the lower year levels.
Factors Related to Speaking English that Affect the Students
Participation in the EIE Spread Program
In
the
second
part
of
the
survey
questionnaire,
the
respondents were asked to rate 10 statements about the factors
affecting their speaking skill using the English language in
relation to their EIE outputs. Each item is placed on a 5-point
Likert scale, with five alternatives from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree” with values of 1 to 5 assigned to the
descriptors respectively.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Statement
I have a wide
English
vocabulary.
I feel confident
speaking English
in class.
I am motivated to
express myself
using the English
language.
I practice speaking
English outside
the classroom
Speaking in
English is
necessary for my
future job.
We are given
enough time to
perform a
speaking task for
EIE.
I am pressured to
perform well in the
speaking tasks for
EIE.
I am worried about
making mistakes
whenever I speak
in English.
I fear that other
people will criticize
me for making
mistakes
whenever I speak
in English.
It is easy for me to
express my
thoughts in the
English language.
SD (1)
F
P
D (2)
F
P
%
N (3)
F
P
59.
19 40
%
43.
14 80
%
A (4)
F
P
28.
9
10
%
46.
15 90
%
0
0%
3
0
0%
3
6.3
50
11
34.
40
%
3
14
43.
80
%
4
12.
50
%
3.5
7
21.
90
%
22
68.
80
%
4.6
15
46.
90
%
8
25
%
3.9
9.4
0
0%
2
1
3.1
%
3
0
0%
1
0
0%
1
%
9.4
%
9.4
%
16
10
31.
30
%
2
6.3
%
3.1
%
3.1
1
%
1
3.1
%
1
%
0%
9.4
%
3.3
3.4
3.5
31.
30
%
3
9.4
%
3.4
3.1
0%
9
28.
10
%
8
25
%
12
37.
50
%
3.8
12.
50
%
6
18.
80
%
9
28.
10
%
12
37.
50
%
3.8
20
62.
50
%
9
28.
10
%
1
3.1
%
3.3
3.1
1
0
%
10
1
3.1
%
3.1
1
53.
10
%
%
4
25
MEAN
17
1
6.3
2
8
3.1
3.1
%
%
%
SA (5)
F
P
%
Table 3: Factors that Affect the Respondents’ English Speaking
Skills
Table 3 shows the summary of results for the survey on
factors that affect the respondents’ speaking skills using the
English language. The first two columns show the statement
number and the corresponding statement that appeared in the
survey questionnaire. Each item is placed on a 5-point Likert
scale,
with
“strongly
five
agree”
alternatives
with
values
from
of
1
“strongly
to
5
disagree”
assigned
to
to
the
descriptors respectively. Under each descriptor (SD, D, N, A,
and SA) are the frequency of responses (F) and the percentage
of responses (P) for each descriptor. The average rating (mean)
for each statement is shown at the end of each row.
No.
1
Statement
I have a wide
English vocabulary.
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
P
F
F
F
F
0
0%
3
P
9.4
%
19
P
59.
4%
9
P
28.
1%
1
P
3.1
%
Statement 1: I have a wide English vocabulary received an
average rating of 3.3. Majority of the respondents (59.4%) are
neutral
regarding
this
statement.
28.1%
agreed
with
this
statement, 3.10% strongly agreed, and 9.4% disagreed with the
statement. No respondent strongly disagreed with statement 1.
MEAN
3.3
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
P
F
F
F
F
P
0
0%
3
0
0%
P
P
P
MEAN
I feel confident
2
9.4
speaking
English in
43.
14
8%
%
46.
15
9%
3.4
class.
Statement 2: I feel confident speaking English in class
received an average rating of 3.4. Majority of the respondents
(46.9%) agreed with this statement. 43.8% are neutral, and 9.4%
disagreed with this statement. No respondent strongly disagreed
and strongly agreed with this statement.
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
P
P
MEAN
P
I am
motivated to
3
express
myself using
0
0%
2
6.3
%
16
50
%
the English
34.
11
40
%
3
9.4
3.5
%
language.
Statement 3: I am motivated to express myself using the
English language got an average rating of 3.5. Half of the
respondents (50%) are neutral regarding this statement. 34.4%
agree,
9.4%
strongly
agreed,
and
6.3%
disagreed
with
this
statement. No respondent strongly disagreed with statement 3.
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
P
P
P
MEAN
I practice
speaking
4
3.10
1
English
%
outside the
3
9.40
%
10
31.3
43.8
14
0%
0%
4
12.5
0%
3.5
classroom
Statement
classroom
4:
received
I
practice
an
speaking
average
rating
English
of
3.5.
outside
The
the
biggest
percentage (43.8%) agreed with the statement. 31.3% are neutral,
12.5%
strongly
agreed,
9.4%
disagreed,
and
3.10%
strongly
disagree with the statement.
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
P
F
F
F
F
0
0%
1
P
P
P
P
MEAN
Speaking in
5
English is
necessary for
3.10
%
2
6.30
%
21.9
7
0%
22
68.8
0%
my future job.
Statement 5: Speaking in English is necessary for my future
job received an average rating of 4.6. 68.8% of the respondents
strongly agreed with the statement. 21.9% agreed, 6.3% are
neutral, and 3.10% disagreed with the statement. No respondent
strongly disagreed with statement 5.
4.6
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
F
F
P
F
F
P
8
25%
15
8
25%
P
P
P
MEAN
We are given
enough time
6
to perform a
0
1
speaking
3.10
%
46.9
%
3.9
task for EIE.
Statement 6: We are given enough time to perform a speaking
task for EIE received an average rating of 3.9. 46.9% of the
respondents agreed with the statement. An equal percentage of
respondents (25%) are neutral and strongly agreed, and 3.10%
disagreed. No respondent strongly disagreed with statement 6.
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
P
P
P
MEAN
I am
pressured to
7
perform well
in the
1
3.10
%
1
3.10
%
17
53.1
0%
10
31.3
0%
3
9.40
%
speaking
tasks for EIE.
Statement 7: I am pressured to perform well in the speaking
tasks for EIE received an average rating of 3.4%. Majority
(53.10%) are neutral on this statement. 31.30% agreed, 9.40%
strongly agreed and an equal percentage of respondents (3.10%)
disagreed and strongly disagreed with statement 7.
3.4
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
P
P
MEAN
P
I am worried
about making
8
mistakes
whenever I
2
6.3
0%
3.1
1
0%
28.
9
10
8
12
50
%
%
speak in
37.
25
3.8
%
English.
Statement 8: I am worried about making mistakes whenever
I speak in English received an average rating of 3.8. 37.5% of
the respondents strongly agreed with this statement. 28.10%
are neutral, 25% agreed, 6.3% strongly disagreed, and 3.1%
disagreed with the statement.
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
P
P
P
MEA
N
I fear that
other people
will criticize
9
me for making
mistakes
1
3.10
%
4
12.5
0%
6
18.8
0%
9
28.1
0%
12
37.5
0%
whenever I
speak in
English.
Statement 9: I fear that other people will criticize me for
making mistakes whenever I speak in English received an average
rating of 3.8. The largest percentage (37.5%) strongly agreed
with the statement. 28.1 % agreed, 18.8% are neutral, 12.5%
disagreed, and 3.1% strongly disagreed with the statement.
3.8
No.
Statement
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
P
P
P
MEAN
It is easy for
me to
10
express my
thoughts in
1
3.1
0%
3.1
1
the English
0%
62.
20
50
%
28.
9
10
%
1
3.1
0%
3.3
language.
Statement 10: It is easy for me to express my thoughts in
the English language received an average rating of 3.3. Majority
of the respondents (62.5%) are neutral on the statement. 28.1%
agreed, and an equal percentage of respondents (3.10%) strongly
agreed, disagreed, and strongly disagreed with the statement.
Perceived Level of Competence in Speaking
In the last part of the survey questionnaire, respondents
were asked to rate statements about their perceived level of
competence in the following areas: organization, manner of
delivery, speech conventions, and fluency. Each item is placed
on a 5-point Likert scale, with five alternatives from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree” with values of 1 to 5 assigned to
the descriptors respectively.
No.
1
2
3
4
Area of
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
Speaking
F
P
F
F
F
F
Organization
0
0%
3
0
0%
3
0
0%
3
0
0%
5
Manner of
Delivery
Speech
Conventions
Fluency.
P
9.40
%
9.40
%
9.40
19
16
12
%
59.4
0%
50%
37.5
0%
%
15.6
P
21
65.6
%
9
4
10
5
P
28.1
%
34.4
%
31.3
%
15.6
%
1
P
3.10
%
6.30
2
%
Table 4: Perceived Level of Competence in Speaking
Table 4 shows the summary of results for the survey on the
respondents’ perceived level of competence in speaking. The
first two columns show the number and the corresponding area of
speaking that appeared in the survey questionnaire. Each item
is placed on a 5-point Likert scale, with five alternatives from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” with values of 1 to 5
assigned to the descriptors respectively. Under each descriptor
(SD, D, N, A, and SA) are the frequency of responses (F) and the
percentage of responses (P) for each descriptor. The average
rating (mean) for each statement is shown at the end of each
row.
2.5
3.66
0%
3.10
1
3.25
%
21.9
7
MEAN
3.06
No.
1
Area of
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
Speaking
F
P
F
F
F
F
Organization
0
0%
3
P
9.40
19
%
P
59.4
9
0%
P
P
MEAN
3.10
28.1
1
0%
3.25
%
For organization, the respondents were asked to rate this
statement: When speaking in English, I can effectively organize
my
ideas
to
build
a
logical,
coherent
argument
and
uses
appropriate supporting information to elaborate the main idea.
This statement received an average rating of 3.25. The
highest
percentage of respondents (59.4%) are neutral on this statement.
28.1% agreed, 9.4% disagreed, and 3.1% strongly agreed with the
statement. No respondent strongly disagreed.
No.
2
Area of
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
Speaking
F
P
F
F
P
F
F
0
0%
3
16
50%
4
Manner of
Delivery
P
9.40
%
P
34.4
0%
2
P
6.30
%
For manner of delivery, the respondents were asked to rate
this statement: When speaking in English, I find it easy to use
the appropriate language, give examples, and use aids to engage
the listeners and make them understand the topic. I can also
maintain eye contact and make use of appropriate gestures when
speaking. This statement received an average rating of 2.5. Half of
the respondents (50%) are neutral on this statement. 34.4%
agreed,
9.4%
disagreed,
and
6.3%
strongly
statement. No respondent strongly disagreed.
agreed
with
the
MEAN
2.5
No.
3
Area of
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
Speaking
F
P
F
F
F
F
0
0%
3
Speech
Conventions
P
9.40
%
12
P
37.5
10
%
P
31.3
%
7
P
21.9
%
MEAN
3.66
For speech conventions, the respondents were asked to rate
this statement: When speaking 85in English, I pay attention to
my tone, speed, and volume and use these to emphasize the
important ideas and hold the listener’s attention. This statement
received an average rating of 3.66. 37.5% of the respondents are
neutral on this statement. 31.30% agreed with this statement,
21.90%
strongly
agreed,
and
9.4%
disagreed.
No
respondent
strongly disagreed with the statement 3.
No.
4
Area of
SD (1)
D (2)
N (3)
A (4)
SA (5)
Speaking
F
P
F
F
F
F
Fluency
0
0%
5
For
fluency,
the
P
15.6
%
21
respondents
P
65.6
5
%
were
asked
P
15.6
%
to
P
3.10
1
rate
MEAN
3.06
%
this
statement: When speaking in English, I can express my ideas smoothly,
without having to hesitate or pause unnaturally in search of the right
words to say or phrase my ideas in my mind before saying them out
loud. This statement received an average rating of 3.06. Majority of
the respondents (65.6%) are neutral regarding this statement.15.60%
agreed
with
this
statement,
3.10%
strongly
agreed,
and
15.60%
disagreed with the statement. No respondent strongly disagreed with
the statement 4.
The scale below will be used to determine the respondents’
perceived
level
of
competence
in
the
identified
areas
of
speaking.
Weighted Mean
4.21 – 5.00
3.41 – 4.20
2.61 – 3.40
1.81 – 2.60
1.00 – 1.80
Indication
Excellent/Very High
Good /High
Average /Moderate
Poor/Low
Very Poor/Very Low
The following tables show the factors and area of
speaking, their respective mean, and indication.
Factor
Mean
Indication
English vocabulary
Confidence
Motivation
3.3
3.4
3.5
Average
Average
Good
Language use outside the classroom
Perceived use of the language for
employment
Time to prepare for EIE tasks
Pressure
Anxiety
Fear of criticism
Ease of language use
3.5
Good
4.6
Excellent
3.9
3.4
Good
Average
High
High
Average
3.8
3.8
3.3
Table 5. Indication of Weighted Mean of each Factor related to
English speaking and student’s participation in EIE Spread
Program
As shown in Table 5, the factors that have high impact on
the students’ English-speaking skill and student’s participation
in EIE Spread Program participation are anxiety and fear of
criticism. Students also think that they are average in terms
of vocabulary, confidence, and ease of language use.
Area of Speaking
Mean
Indication
Organization
3.25
Average
Manner of Delivery
2.5
Poor
Speech Conventions
3.66
Fluency
3.06
Good
Average
Table 6. Indication of Weighted Mean of Each Area of Speaking
As
shown
in
Table
6,
the
respondents
regard
their
organization skills and fluency as average, their skill in
delivery
as
poor,
and
their
skill
in
the
use
of
speech
conventions as good.
Summary of Discussions
Majority of respondents (87.5%) are not English majors. Although
respondents who are taking BSED Math and Science use the English
language as their medium of instruction, other course/major,
such as BSED Filipino, Social Sciences, and BEED do not use the
English language as their main medium of instruction. Also,
majority of the respondents (62.6%) are from higher year levels
which means that they have been using the using the English
language longer compared to the lower year levels. When it comes
to factors affecting the respondents’ speaking skills, majority
of respondents are worried about making mistakes when speaking
in English and they also fear that others will criticize them
for their mistakes. They also regard themselves average in terms
of English vocabulary, confidence and ease of language use. In
terms
of
perceived
competency in
speaking,
the
respondents
regard themselves average in terms of organizing their thoughts
in
English
and
fluency
in
speaking
English.
They
regard
themselves as poor in terms of manner of delivery and use of
speech conventions.
Conclusion
1. Majority
of
the
respondents
are
not
English
majors.
Although they agree that English is highly necessary in
their future job, the use of the English language as medium
of instruction in their respective course and major play
an important role in their exposure and usage of the
language.
In terms of perceived level of competency in the speaking,
the respondents regard themselves as average (overall mean
of 3.11).
2. The factors that have high impact on the students’ Englishspeaking skill and student’s participation in EIE Spread
Program participation are anxiety and fear of criticism.
Students also think that they are average in terms of
vocabulary, confidence, and ease of language use.
REFERENCES
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J.P. (1994). Negative feedback as
regulation and second language learning in the zone of
proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78 (1994),
pp. 465-483
Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through
prompts, Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23 (2),
pp. 139-145
Berthold,
K.,
Nückles,
M.
&
A.
Renkl
(2007).
Do
learning
protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The
role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts, Learning and
Instruction, 17 (5), pp. 564-577
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are
today, International Journal of Educational Research, 31
(6) pp. 445-457
Chen, Y. Shan, & Lin, M. F. (2021). Effects of peer collaboration
on
EFL
learners’
comprehension
of
conversational
implicatures. System, 97.
Donato,
R.
(2004).
Aspects
of collaboration
in
pedagogical
discourse, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, pp. 284302
Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts
for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios,
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), pp.
38-52
Krashen,
S.D.
(1985).
The
Input
Hypothesis:
Issues
and
Implications, Longman, New York
Lantolf,
J.P.
(2000).
Introducing
sociocultural
theory,
Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 1-26
Lantolf,
J.P.
mediating
(2000).
The
acquisition
output
through
hypothesis
and
collaborative
beyond:
dialogue,
Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 97-114
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the
learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French
immersion context, Modern Language Journal, 86, pp. 485507
Moos, D.C. & Bonde, C. (2016). Flipping the classroom: Embedding
self-regulated
learning
prompts
in
videos,
Technology,
Knowledge and Learning, pp. 225-242
Müller, N.M. & Seufert, T. (2018). Effects of self-regulation
prompts in hypermedia learning on learning performance and
self-efficacy, Learning and Instruction, 58, pp. 1-11
Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2021). Investigating prompts
for supporting students’ self-regulation – A remaining
challenge for learning analytics approaches? Internet and
Higher Education, 49.
Sitzmann, T. & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder:
The effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory
processes, learning, and attrition, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95 (1), pp. 132-144
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence, Input in Second
Language Acquisition, Newbury House, Rowley, pp. 235-253
Takatsuka
S.,
&
collaborative
Zeng
G.
dialogue
(2009).
in
a
Text-based
computer-mediated
peer-peer
learning
environment in the EFL context
Upham, P. Carney, S. Klapper, R. (2014). Scaffolding, software,
and scenarios: Applying Bruner's learning theory to energy
scenario
development
with
the
public,
Technological
Forecasting and Social Change
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of
Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge
Weinstein, C.E. & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning
strategies, M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching, Macmillan, New York, pp. 315-327
Winne, P.H. & Hadwin, A.F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated
learning, D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A.C. Graesser (Eds.),
Metacognition in educational theory and practice, Lawrence,
Mahwah, NJ (1998), pp. 277-304
Wirth, J. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through
prompts Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23 (2)
pp. 91-94
Wong, J., Baars, M., Davis, D., Van Der Zee, T., Houben, G.J.,
Paas, F. (2019). Supporting self-regulated learning in
online
review,
learning
environments
International
and
Journal
Interaction, 35 (4–5), pp. 356-373
MOOCs:
of
A
systematic
Human-Computer
Appendix A: Request Letter from MA English
February 17, 2021
Dr. Lilly A. Vidal
Dean, College of Education
University of Nueva Caceres
Madam:
Good day!
Anchored on its motto Non Scholae, Sed vitae, the UNC School of Graduate Studies
puts importance to providing opportunities for its students to be agents of change
through Problem-Research-Outcome-Based Education (PROBE), an instructional
design that upholds the relevance of research in providing innovative solutions to
continuously reconstruct the community.
The MA English class for the Second Semester of A/Y 2020-2021 decided to choose
the UNC College of Education as their community for the PROBE design. With this,
may we ask for an appointment schedule to discuss the matters regarding this,
including the problems in the College of Education that the MA English class can help
with by conducting research.
We look forward to a positive response regarding this matter.
Thank you and God bless!
Sincerely,
LILIAN ROSE N. DE LARA
MA English Student
Noted:
JOY SB. GAZA
Program Supervisor
cc:
Prof. Michel P. Basister
Assistant Dean, College of Education
(*Sent via email)
Appendix B: Letter for Virtual Orientation
March 30, 2021
MARIA CRISTAL VELEZ
EIE POC, College of Education
University of Nueva Caceres
Madam:
Good afternoon!
I am Lilian Rose N. de Lara, a student from the MA English class this semester. One
of our requirements is to conduct a research study on the EIE Spread Program in the
College of Education. Our group came up with the study: “Project PRACTICE: Prompts
as Contextualized Tasks for Immersive Class in English.”
This study aims to:
1. Determine the profile of the EIE participants in terms of the following:
 Year and Major
 Perceived level of competency in terms of the following: 1) organization and
development, 2) manner of delivery, 3) speech conventions, and 4) fluency
2. Determine the factors related to speaking English that affect the student’s
participation in the EIE Spread program; and
3. Design speaking prompts that will help the participants of the EIE Spread
program.
In connection to this, we would like to solicit your help in inviting the College of
Education students for a virtual meeting on April 5, 2021 (Monday) from 7 PM to 8 PM
via Google Meet. Specifically, we target to meet the students who were not able to
submit their EIE outputs for the month of March.
We are hoping for your positive response regarding this matter. Thank you so much
and God bless!
Sincerely,
LILIAN ROSE N. DE LARA
Group Representative
Noted:
JOY SB. GAZA
Program Supervisor
Appendix B: Letter for Virtual Orientation
Appendix C: Survey Questionnaire Administered via Google
Forms
Part 1:
Complete Name:
Course and Major
BEED
BPED
BSED English
BSED Filipino
BSED Math
BSED Science
BSED Social Sciences
Year Level
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
Part 2:
Rate the following statements using the scale below.
1: Strongly Disagree
2: Disagree
3: Neutral
4: Agree
Statements
I have a wide English vocabulary.
I feel confident speaking English in class.
I am motivated to express myself using the English language.
I practice speaking English outside the classroom
Speaking in English is necessary for my future job.
We are given enough time to perform a speaking task for EIE.
I am pressured to perform well in the speaking tasks for EIE.
I am worried about making mistakes whenever I speak in
English.
I fear that other people will criticize me for making mistakes
whenever I speak in English.
It is easy for me to express my thoughts in the English
language.
5: Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
Part 3:
Rate the following statements using the scale below.
1: Strongly Disagree
2: Disagree
3: Neutral
4: Agree
Statements
1. When speaking in English, I can effectively organize my ideas to
build a logical, coherent argument and uses appropriate
supporting information to elaborate the main idea.
2. When speaking in English, I find it easy to use the appropriate
language, give examples, and use aids to engage the listeners
and make them understand the topic. I can also maintain eye
contact and make use of appropriate gestures when speaking.
3. When speaking in English, I pay attention to my tone, speed,
and volume and use these to emphasize the important ideas and
hold the listener’s attention.
4. When speaking in English, I can express my ideas smoothly,
without having to hesitate or pause unnaturally in search of the
right words to say or phrase my ideas in my mind before saying
them out loud.
Link to Google Form:
https://forms.gle/2nytn8WoCK9T183q9
5: Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5