Attitudes and Language Proficiency of College Students at Catanduanes State University Panganiban Campus

Juvelyn Salvador
{"title":"Attitudes and Language Proficiency of College Students at Catanduanes State University Panganiban Campus","authors":"Juvelyn Salvador","doi":"10.7719/irj.v19i1.837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study determined the attitudes toward the English language, the general proficiency level of 60 selected first-year college students, language structure, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. This was conducted to solve current issues of reading comprehension difficulties and poor linguistic competence in English subjects. It utilized descriptive research. Findings revealed “zero highly unfavorable” attitudes towards English; 2 “highly favorable.” For language structure, half of them were “slightly proficient,” 26 (43.33%) “Proficient,” 2 (3.33%) “Moderately proficient,” and 2 (3.33%) “Very poor.” No one obtained a “highly proficient” rating. The mean score: was 14.02, 4.59 standard deviation. The overall proficiency was “slightly proficient.” For vocabulary (context clues, antonym, analogy, denotation, and connotation), 29 (48.33%) rated “Slightly proficient,” 23 (38.33%) demonstrated “poor” performance, 6 (10%) were “moderately proficient” only 2 (3.33%) obtained “very poor” rating. The mean score is 13.52/ 4.15 standard deviation, a “slightly proficient” overall rating. “Connotation”- highest with a 3.50 mean score; lowest on “analogy “1.42 mean. For reading comprehension, 29 (48.33%) had “Slightly adequate” proficiency, 25 (41.67%) had “Poor” performance, 4 (6.67%) had a “Very poor” rating, 2(3.33%) had “Moderately proficient”- mean score 12.12, 3.51 standard deviation. “Poor” overall proficiency. “Forming opinions”- easiest; “drawing conclusion “- most difficult. The general proficiency level was “slightly proficient,” with a 42.23 mean. Respondent’s language structure and vocabulary are “slightly proficient, while “Poor” in reading comprehension.","PeriodicalId":148730,"journal":{"name":"JPAIR Institutional Research","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JPAIR Institutional Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7719/irj.v19i1.837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study determined the attitudes toward the English language, the general proficiency level of 60 selected first-year college students, language structure, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. This was conducted to solve current issues of reading comprehension difficulties and poor linguistic competence in English subjects. It utilized descriptive research. Findings revealed “zero highly unfavorable” attitudes towards English; 2 “highly favorable.” For language structure, half of them were “slightly proficient,” 26 (43.33%) “Proficient,” 2 (3.33%) “Moderately proficient,” and 2 (3.33%) “Very poor.” No one obtained a “highly proficient” rating. The mean score: was 14.02, 4.59 standard deviation. The overall proficiency was “slightly proficient.” For vocabulary (context clues, antonym, analogy, denotation, and connotation), 29 (48.33%) rated “Slightly proficient,” 23 (38.33%) demonstrated “poor” performance, 6 (10%) were “moderately proficient” only 2 (3.33%) obtained “very poor” rating. The mean score is 13.52/ 4.15 standard deviation, a “slightly proficient” overall rating. “Connotation”- highest with a 3.50 mean score; lowest on “analogy “1.42 mean. For reading comprehension, 29 (48.33%) had “Slightly adequate” proficiency, 25 (41.67%) had “Poor” performance, 4 (6.67%) had a “Very poor” rating, 2(3.33%) had “Moderately proficient”- mean score 12.12, 3.51 standard deviation. “Poor” overall proficiency. “Forming opinions”- easiest; “drawing conclusion “- most difficult. The general proficiency level was “slightly proficient,” with a 42.23 mean. Respondent’s language structure and vocabulary are “slightly proficient, while “Poor” in reading comprehension.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卡坦万尼斯州立大学潘加尼班校区大学生态度与语言能力研究
本研究测定了60名大学一年级学生对英语的态度、总体熟练程度、语言结构、阅读理解和词汇量。这是为了解决当前英语科目阅读理解困难和语言能力差的问题。它采用描述性研究。调查结果显示,人们对英语的“非常不喜欢”态度为“零”;2 .“非常好。”在语言结构方面,“较熟练”的占一半,“熟练”的占26(43.33%),“中等熟练”的占2(3.33%),“非常差”的占2(3.33%)。没有人获得“非常精通”的评级。平均得分为14.02,标准差为4.59。总体熟练程度为“略熟练”。在词汇(语境线索、反义词、类比、外延和内涵)方面,29人(48.33%)评价为“略熟练”,23人(38.33%)评价为“较差”,6人(10%)评价为“中等熟练”,2人(3.33%)评价为“很差”。平均得分为13.52/ 4.15标准差,总体评分为“略精通”。“内涵”—最高,平均分3.50分;“类比”最低,平均1.42。在阅读理解方面,29人(48.33%)水平为“一般”,25人(41.67%)水平为“较差”,4人(6.67%)水平为“很差”,2人(3.33%)水平为“中等”,平均得分为12.12,标准差为3.51。整体熟练程度“差”。“形成观点”——最容易;“得出结论”——最难。一般熟练程度为“略熟练”,平均为42.23。被调查者的语言结构和词汇“略熟练”,阅读理解“较差”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lived Experiences of Technology and Livelihood Education Teachers on the Challenges and Benefits of Facilitating Online Learning Academic and Non-Academic Profile Affecting the Nurse Licensure Examination Performance of the Nursing Graduates of a Higher Education Institution in Davao City Bicol College Ed. D. and Ph. D. Graduates from 2012-2021: A Tracer Study Evaluation of Arts-Based Performance Tasks in Hybrid Classes Implications of Flexible Learning to Politics and Economics of Educational Management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1