An Analysis of the GEC-Filipino Implementation in LCU in Metro Manila:

Towards the Creation of an Evaluation Design on Language Planning in

Education
Nina Christina Lazaro-Zamora
College of Arts and Letters, University of the Philippines
Mabini St. Manggahan, Pasig City, Philippines
ninachristina_lazaro@yahoo.com
Author note
Nina Christina Lazaro-Zamora, Ph.D. She finished her Bachelor of Secondary
Education major in Filipino and Masters of Arts in Teaching Filipino in the Philippine Normal
University- Manila. She graduated Doctor of Philosophy in Filipino (Language Planning) in
University of the Philippines- Diliman. She taught Filipino subject in high school and
currently an Assistant Professor 1 in Marikina Polytechnic College, and a part time lecturer
in Pamantasan ng Lunsod ng Pasig and University of Asia and the Pacific. She is active in
different organization. She is a writer of textbooks in Filipino, translator and researcher.

ABSTRACT
This study focused on eight (8) colleges and universities in Metro Manila. These LCUs are:
PLM, UCC, PLP, PLnP, QCPU, UMAK, PLMUN at PLMAR. The participants for this study were
the students, teachers and administrators of the colleges and universities during the first semester of
school year 2010-2011. The curriculum being used at present was the one used for analysis. This
study also stressed the extent of the implementation of CMO No.59 s. 1996 at CMO No.04 s. 1997
in eight colleges and universities during the first semester for school year 2010-2011. This study
made use of qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Descriptive research was also used to
describe the things related to the topic. The steps and methods were likewise illustrated how CHED
implemented the CHED Memo 59, series of 1996 and CHED Memo 4, series of 1997 (Appendix
A). The respondents for this study were students, teachers and administrators. In the survey
questionnaire, the respondents perception, opinion and observation were represented regarding the
implementation of the GEC-Filipino in their universities. The researcher used the weighted mean in
analyzing the data.This study is very significant in the following institutions: (1) CHED to
strengthen the method of implementing the curriculum. This will become the basis in monitoring
the curriculum if it is properly and correctly implemented in each institution; (2) Local Colleges and
Universities (LCU) to find out if these institutions are following the guidelines set by the
constitution and CHED based on the CHED Memo 9 series of 1996 at CMO No.04 s 1997. It is also
very significant to find out the standing of Filipino Language in these colleges and universities
since it serves as the microcosm of the country; and (3) Languae Planner and Curriculum Planner.
The data for study is very important for curriculum planner to have a guide in implementing the
evaluation of the system for language in education. The study showed the similarities of the
experiences of the eight LCUs in the implementation of the Content of the Curriculum and Teaching
Materials (whatever category is used) with a synthesis of sometimes. Among the eight LCUs, there
is a difference in the synthesis of the method of teaching. The LCU showed it used GEC B with a
synthesis of Always and LCUs used the same category in A and B with a synthesis of sometimes.
Only to prove that the eight LCUs have the same experiences when it comes to content of the
curriculum, method of teaching and teaching materials because of cultural similarity. This only
shows that there is a need to strengthen these items. On the other hand, those who used GEC B on
method of teaching were far better off than those LCUs who used GEC A and B which need to
further strengthen the implementation of the method of teaching to become effective in the
implementation of the curriculum. Perhaps QCPU is more focused in teaching compared to seven
LCUs.

I. Rationale and Objectives of the Study

Local Colleges and Universities (LCU) in Metro Manila grew rapidly; hence, the CHED
encountered enormous problems in monitoring the implementation of the GEC-Filipino in each
college and university. This is the primary reason why the researcher conducted a study regarding
an analysis of the GEC-Filipino implementation in some LCU in Metro Manila. The aim of this
study is to create an evaluation design on the language planning in education.
There is also a need to conduct monitoring regarding the implementation of the curriculum
to find out the LCUs reasons for not implementing the GEC-Filipino and how it became successful
in their experiences. In the course of this study, its aims are as follows:
(1) discuss the process of the language policy which will become the basis of the analysis
and evaluation of the implementation of the system of the GEC-Filipino in some LCUs in Metro
Manila;
(2) point out the factors that can influence the implementation of the GEC-Filipino in some
LCUs in Metro Manila;
(3) describe the extent and method of the implementation of the GEC-Filipino in some
LCUs in Metro Manila;
(4) trace the problems encountered in the implementation of GEC-Filipino in some LCUs in
Metro Manila;
(5) analyze the theories in evaluating curriculum;
(6) suggest an appropriate design in conducting an evaluation of the planning for language
in education for the LCU.
This study is very significant in the following institutions:
(1) CHED to strengthen the method of implementing the curriculum. This will become the
basis in monitoring the curriculum if it is properly and correctly implemented in each institution;
(2) Local Colleges and Universities (LCU) to find out if these institutions are following
the guidelines set by the constitution and CHED based on the CHED Memo 9 series of 1996 and
CMO No.04 s 1997. It is also very significant to find out the standing of Filipino Language in these
colleges and universities since it serves as the microcosm of the country; and
(3) Language Planner and Curriculum Planner - The data for study is very important for
curriculum planner to have a guide in implementing the evaluation of the system for language in
education
II. Methodology
This study focused on eight (8) colleges and universities in Metro Manila. These LCUs are:
PLM, UCC, PLP, PLnP, QCPU, UMAK, PLMUN at PLMAR. The participants for this study were
the students, teachers and administrators of the colleges and universities during the first semester of
school year 2010-2011. The curriculum being used at present was the one used for analysis. This
study also stressed the extent of the implementation of CMO No.59 s. 1996 at CMO No.04 s. 1997
in eight colleges and universities during the first semester for school year 2010-2011. This study
3

made use of qualitative and quantitative methods of research. Descriptive research was also used to
describe the things related to the topic. The steps and methods were likewise illustrated how CHED
implemented the CHED Memo 59, series of 1996 and CHED Memo 4, series of 1997 (Appendix
A). The respondents for this study were students, teachers and administrators. In the survey
questionnaire, the respondents perception, opinion and observation were represented regarding the
implementation of the GEC-Filipino in their universities. The researcher used the weighted mean in
analyzing the data.
III. Results and Discussions
The table below represented the general average mean of the synthesis of the
respondents: administrators, teachers and students in eight colleges and universities
which were used for the synthesis on the implementation of the GEC-Filipino.
CATEGORY

CONTENT

METHOD OF

TEACHING MATERIALS

TEACHING
GEC A and B
GEC B

4.07 (PM)
4.16 (PM)

4.39 (PM)
4.57 (PL)

4.13 (PM)
3.81 (PM)

The table showed the similarities of the experiences of the eight LCUs in the
implementation of the Content of the Curriculum and Teaching Materials with a synthesis of
Sometimes. Among the eight LCUs, there is a difference in the synthesis of the method of teaching.
The LCU showed it used GEC B with a synthesis of Always and LCUs used the same category in A
and B with a synthesis of Sometimes. Only to prove that the eight LCUs have the same experiences
when it comes to content of the curriculum, method of teaching and teaching materials because of
cultural similarity. This only shows that there is a need to strengthen these items. On the other hand,
those who used GEC B on method of teaching were far better off than those LCUs who used GEC
A and B which need to further strengthen the implementation of the method of teaching to become
effective in the implementation of the curriculum. Perhaps QCPU is more focused in teaching
compared to seven LCUs.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
The
following
conclusions
were
derived
at:
Curriculum Implementation
There is no concrete evidence in the implementation of the LCUs regarding the
memorandum because the year was not mentioned and there were different years listed in the
curriculum data collected by researcher. The following factors played important roles like budget,
politics and culture to implement fully the curriculum. As a whole, the experiences by eight LCUs
4

were similar with regard to the implementation of the curriculum.

Strengthening Filipino as a Course
The strengthening of the Filipino as a course in colleges and universities are dependent on
the content of the curriculum. The curriculum must be beneficial, according to the ability of the
students, and the course syllabus must be properly implemented by the teachers and administrators.
The teachers must exert efforts in bringing life and relevance in their teaching methods. This can be
applied through active participation in seminars, interview and workshop to widen their knowledge
in Filipino course and develop teaching strategies. Including the use of different teaching materials
that
will
help
students
learned
very
well.
Curriculum Monitoring
One biggest problem of the LCUs is the teaching materials because many teachers are still
not using the new technology. In addition, there is a problem in the quality of textbooks being used
in the LCUs. These are not helping the students learned since the usage is very commercial and not
effective. It is rooted in their culture how the students value Filipino including the desires of the
teachers when it comes to what they are teaching. Therefore, the teachers and administrators are
playing important roles when it comes to proper implementation of the curriculum.
The following recommendations were derived at:
Curriculum Implementation
There should be a strict implementation of the said curriculum. Trainings and seminar for
the administrators and teachers should be given for proper dissemination of the changes in the
curriculum.
Strengthening Filipino as a Course
Course syllabus in Filipino should undergo a keen analysis. It should be focus in the skills
and competencies of the individuls. Being a multilingual country all language in the country should
compliment each other. More energetic and communicative approaches in teaching the Filipino
subject.
Curriculum Monitoring
The administrator of the college and universities should have a duty to monitor the strict
implimentation of the curriculum. Filipino teachers should be vigilant regarding this matter and
should be the first one to promote and support the subject. Evaluation should be in a regular mode
for yearly improvement and redirection of the curriculum.

SUGGESTED EVALUATION DESIGN FOR LANGUAGE PLANNING IN EDUCATION

The researcher conducted one evaluation design in planning for language in education for
the LCUs based on the synthesis and observed experiences.

Local Evaluation

Students
Teachers
Administrator
political context
aim
content
method
resources

Local Implementation

cultural context
time
direction
participant
place

Local Revision
According to Lawton (1980), in creating a curriculum, the most important thing to consider
is culture because studies, learning, concepts are being passed on to the next generation. A cultural
tension exists in the implementation of the curriculum because of cultural diversities in
communities. One LCU for example, must consider the implementation of the curriculum in the
cultural context, even if this is set in one locality, there still exist another culture in the same place;
in the same way as, time, when was the curriculum implemented; the direction (mission and vision)
of a local college and university should likewise be considered, too. In a local community, one can
see the differences in attitude, beliefs and tradition of the residents or the participants.
Nowadays, students in the local colleges and universities are being taught to get jobs quickly
which are needed in their cities, so what is taught is not only knowledge but skills as well. One
important aspect in the implementation of the curriculum is the political context. The one who
chooses and implements the curriculum has greater influence in its successful undertaking. This
covers the aim of the implementation, content, method and teaching materials for the curriculum.
In the following diagram, the implementation of the system on planning for language in education is
passing through several processes to see the strengths and weaknesses. If what is covered in
evaluation will be put into consideration, one can use political and cultural aspect of the institution
6

like the LCUs. In this study, it only covered three important categories in evaluating a curriculum:
according to content, methods of teaching, and teaching materials. If one has to give weight in the
following,
most
likely,
this
is
the
result:
SUGGESTED COMPONENT IN
EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE
PLANNING IN EDUCATION

PERCENT

Content of the curriculum

40%

Method of teaching

40%

Teaching materials

20%

Total

100%

In addition to this, are the aims in implementing the curriculum taken from the mission and
vision of the LCUs.and the conduct of the evaluation, one could based the category used by an
LCU.
The evaluation based on course or college of students are dependent on the belief of Jernudd
and Das Gapta (1991) that evaluation policies and programs of different regions must show this
value to students and to his or her course. The method that can be used is the localization wherein
each course or college with a Filipino course must conduct a yearly evaluation regarding the
importance of the course and its implication in their being professional.
Who are the participants in the evaluation? Who will conduct the evaluation? What is the
qualification of the evaluator? These are just some of the questions when evaluating and when the
participants are being discussed. One can form an ALCU Curriculum Board, somebody will be the
Director who will be in charge of the committee and the staff, this will include the
professors/instructors, student council representative, non-teaching staff and Board of Trustees or
Regent.
The qualification of the evaluator must have training in evaluating a program or curriculum
and has a profound understanding of the management of the plan of local curriculum. The following
are the responsibilities of an evaluator:
(1) Make a plan and evaluation
(2) Set the local, national and international standard in implementing the curriculum
(3) Organize the curriculum
(4) Make recommendation in revising curriculum
(5) Cooperate with the monitoring and provide feedback in implementing the curriculum
(6) Conduct correlation study of curriculum in the local task of the city and the industry
7

The respondents in the conduct of the evaluation are as follows: (1) students, (2) teachers,
(3) administrator, (4) industry sector, and (5) parents.

PROCESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF THE LANGUAGE

PLANNING
IN
EDUCATION
The conduct of the evaluation of a curriculum is a continuing process. The researcher agreed
with the Five Year Curriculum Cycle of Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools because according to
its Curriculum Management Plan that it is better to conduct the evaluation every five years. Take a
closer look in the diagram below how the process in the implementation and evaluation of
curriculum is taking place.
.

First Year : Planning and Decision Making (First

Implementation)

Local
Implementation

Second Year : Initial Implemenation

( Board Approval)

Third Year : Full Implementation

Local
Evaluation
Forth Year : Review (Internal / Exsternal)

Fifth Year : Identify the Needs/ Weaknesses and

Strength/ Choosing the Teaching Materials

Local Revision
Sixth Year : Implementation of the revised curriculum
based on the recommendation of the committe

The conduct of evaluation of curriculum is holistic. Its parameters are content, methods and
teaching materials to see the strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of the curriculum.
Here are the guide questions for the said parameters:
GUIDE QUESTIONS
CONTENT
1. Is the curriculum in Filipino gives way to the professional development of every
student?
2. Is the theory and lessons in Filipino can be applied in the industry and professional
aspect of the students?
METHOD OF TEACHING
1. Does the lesson in Filipino is easily learned by the students?
TEACHING MATERIALS
1. Is the teaching in Filipino can be based on technology or can use technology as a
instrument to transfer learning?
SCALE IN PARAMETERS IN EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE PLANNING IN
EDUCATION
The following scale can be use in the evaluation, also the scale that the researcher used in
this study.
5 Always
4- Often
3- Sometimes
2- Never
1- None
GRADES IN EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE PLANNING IN EDUCATION
In deciding whether the implementation of the curriculum is appropriate or not? Successful
or not? The following letters can be used as a grade indicator:
P- for passed
F- for failed
The evaluator will identify if the evaluation is for the whole institution, for each college/
school or the curriculum and the subject itself.
METHODS OF COLLECTING THE DATA FOR EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE
PLANNING IN EDUCATION
In collecting data for evaluation purposes, different methods can be used like interview,
questionnaires, unified test for the students, document collection and analysis, FGD Focus Group
Discussion and observation in the class.
9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
Block D. at Cameron D. (2002). Globalization and Language Teaching. New York: Routledge.
Brom, J.D. (1995). The Elements of the Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to

Program

Development. Boston: Henle and Herdi.

Brown, James Dean. (2001). Using Surveys in Language Programs. USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Chikumbu, Tichata at Rhodreck Makamure. (2000). Module 13- Curriculum Theory and Design
Assessment. The Comonwealth of Learning.
Constantino, Pamela C. ( 1991). Pagpaplanong Pangwika Tungo sa Modernisasyon:
Karanasan ng Malaysia, Indonesia at Pilipinas. Quezon City: UP Sentro ng Wikang
Filipino.
___________________, ed. (2005). Filipino at Pagpaplanong Pangwika Ikalawang
Sourcebook ng SANGFIL. Manila at Quezon City: NCAA at Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.
Cooper, R.L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, David. (2003). English as a Global Language 2nd edition. United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, Norman. (2001). Language and Power. 2nd edition. United Kingdom: Pearson
Education.
Fergusson, G. (2006). Language Planning and Education. Edingburg: Edingburg
University.
Fishman, Joshua A, ed. (1974). Advances in Language Planning. Netherlands: Mouton
& Co. N.V.
________________et.al, eds. (1968). Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Gatawa, B.S.M. (1990). The Politics of the School : An Introduction. Harare: Jongine.
Gay, L.R. (1985). Educational Evaluation and Measurement. Longmans Green Co. New
York.
Gonzales, Andrew, FSC at Bonifacio P. Sibayan. (1998). Evaluating Bilingual Education in
the

10

Philippines. Quezon City: Rex Book Store.

Graves, Kathleen. (w.t.). Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. USA:
Heinle & Heinle Thomson Learning.
Gregorio Herman C. at Cornelia M. Gregorio. (1979). Philosophy of Education in
Philippine Setting. Quezon City: GAROTECH Publishing.
Grillo, Ralph, ed. (1989). Sociological Review Monograph Social Antropology and the
Politics of Language. London: Routledge II New Fetter Lane.
Haugen, E. (1966). Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modern
Norwergia. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Kaplan, R.B. at R.B Baldauf. (1997). Language Planning from Practice to Theory.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Krahnke K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching.
Washington, D.C. : Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lawton, D. (1980). The Politics of the School Curriculum. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Lier, Leo Van. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum. Awareness, Autonomy
and Authenticity. England: Longman.
Lynch. Brian K. (1996) Language Program Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Cambridge:
Applied Linguistics.
Mazmanian, D. A., & P. A. Sabatier, eds. (1981). Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
McKay, Sandra Lee at Sau-ling Cynthia Wong, ed. (1988) Language Diversity Problem
Resource? USA: Heinle and Heinle.
Obarr, William at Jean Obarr.(1976). Language and Politics. The Hague: Mouton.
Oliva, S.P. (1983). Developing the Curriculum. USA: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Reyes, FC. (2000). English In the Curricula: A Guide Book for Educators and School
Administration. Manila: DLSU.
Rubin Joan at

Bjorn H. Jernudd. (1971). Evaluation and Language Planning. Can

language Be
Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations. USA : The
University Press of Hawaii.
Santos, Benilda, ed. (2003) Ang Wikang Filipino sa Loob at Labas ng Akademyat Bansa
Unang Sourcebook ng SANGFIL 1994-2001. Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang
Filipino- UP System.
Sibayan Bonifacio at Andrew Gonzales, FSC., ed (1977). Language Planning and the
Building of a National Language.Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines
and Language Study Center PNU.
Tanner, O. at Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum Development: Theory Into Practice (3 rd ed.)
Cycle

11

Wood Cliffs, N.J: Merill.

Tye, Kenneth, ed. (1990). Global Education From Thought to Action (1991 Yearbook of
the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. North Alexandria:
ASCD.
Urevbu, A.O. (1985), Curriculum Studies. Ikeja: Longman.
THESIS and DISSERTATION
Agapito, J. Raimund C. (2006). Awtoridad sa Pagpaplanong Pangwika: Pag-aaral sa
Implementasyon ng Pagpaplanong Pangwika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas- Los
Banos. Ph.D. Pagpaplanong Pangwika. Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Banawa, Marie Joy D. K. (2005). Kritikal na Ebalwasyon ng Implementasyon ng CHED
GEC sa Filipino sa Ilang Piling Unibersidad sa Rehiyon 10: Tungo sa Masaklaw
na Palisi at Programa sa Filipino sa Rehiyon. Ph.D. Filipino - Pagpaplanong
Pangwika. Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Ford, Shawn. Setting the PACE for G1.5 Language Curriculum Development:The Aloha
Community College Generation 1.5 Participatory Curriculum Evaluation
Department of Second Language Studies. University of Hawaii and Manoa.
Justice, Laura. (w.t). Experimental Evaluation of a Preschool Language Curriculum:
Influence
on Childrens Expressive Language. USA: University of Virginia.
Liwanag, Lydia B. (1996). Tawid Bansang Pag-aaral sa Pagpaplanong Pangwika sa
Edukasyon sa Pilipinas, Singapore at Hong Kong. Ph. D- Filipino. Unibersidad
ng Pilipinas.
Medina, Nieves S. (2001). The Extent of the General Education Curriculum (GEC) in
Accredited Higher Education Institutions (HEIs ) in CALABARZON Region.
Ed.D. Philippine Christian University.
Navarro, Preciosa C.(1990). Pagpaplanong Pangwika at ang Programa sa Wikang
Pambansa para sa Pangasinan State University. Ph.D. Filipino. Unibersidad ng
Pilipinas.
Ramos, Jesus Fernandez. (1978). Ang Politika sa Pagpaplanong Pangwika sa Pilipinas
1898-1941. Masteral sa Filipino. Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Rio, Ma. Victoria C. (2001). Pagpaplanong Pangwika sa Politeknikong Unibersidad ng
Pilipinas: Tungo sa Aktibong Pagpaplano ng Wika sa Filipino. Masteral sa
Filipino. Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Talegon, Vivencio M. ( 2003). Tungo sa Pagbuo ng Palisi at Programa sa Wika para sa
University of Asia and the Pacific. Masteral sa Filipino. Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Tarun, Jaine Z. (2007). Implementasyon ng CHED-GEC sa Programa ng Filipino sa
Ilang Piling Institusyong Pangtersyari sa Rehiyon 2. PH.D. Pagpaplanong
Pangwika. Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.

12

Wilson, Gordon Travis. (2009). An Evaluation of a Curriculum for Basic Training in TESOL.
Master of Art. Brigham Young University.
JOURNAL at HAND- OUTS
Abad, Melania L. (2008). Pagbabanghay ng Institusyunal na Adbokasing Pangwika: Mga
Palisi, Programa at Proyekto. Philippine Journal for Language Teaching.
Volume
XLVII. A Journal of the Philippine Association for Language Teaching. PALT.
Badayos, Paquito. (2007).

Pagbukas na Pananalita. Sa Pagharap sa Hamon ng

Kasalukuyang
Kurikulum ng DepEd at CHED: Implementasyon at Aplikasyon. NISMED Awditoryum,
Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Bernabe, Emma J. (1987). Language Policy Formulation, Programming, Implementation and
Evaluation in the Philippine Education(1965- 1974) Manila: Linguistic Society of the
Philippines.
Brooks, Pauline E. (1987). Designing and Evaluating Language Programs for African
American (Black) Dialect Speakers Some Guidelines for Educators. CSE
Resource Paper No. 7. Los Angeles, California: Center for the Study of Evaluation
Graduate School of Education.
Burcik, Vladimir, et al. (2008). Analysis of Cultural Effects on Business Curricula Subject
Matter. Informing Science and IT Education Conference.
Canas, A.J. et al. (2004). What are the Major Curriculum Issues ? The Use of Mind Mapping
as
A Brainstorming Exercise.Turkey: Middle East Technical University.
Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools. (2001). Curricula Management Plan (Framework)
Constantino, Pamela C. (2004) Ang Filipino sa GEC ng Komisyon ng Lalong Mataas na
Edukasyon (CHED). Papel na inihanda para sa pambansang kumprehensiya sa Wika
ng
Pambansang Samahan sa Wika. Oktubre, 21-23, 2004. Benguet State University.
Cooper, Robert. (1998). Socio-Cultural and Within School Factors That Affect the Quality
of
Implementation of School Wide Programs. USA: CRESPAR.
Epistola, Nieves, ed. (1999). Approaches to English Teaching Strategies Part II (Selected
Papers From the National Conference on English Studies: Language, Literature and
Culture). Quezon City: University of the Philippines.
Dumogho, Eleuterio. (2006) Relevant Provisions of Local Government Code. Comparative
Study
Tour on Local Government Administration and Management Development Academy of
the Philippines.
Espiritu, Clemencia C. (2004) Ang Politika sa Pagbuo at Pagpapatupad ng mga Patakarang

13

Pangwika sa Pilipinas. Sangguni, Vol. XIV No. 1 PNU.

Guinigundo, Magtanggol T. ( Feb. 18-20, 2010) Language in Education Policy Making
In the Philippines. 1st Conference Worshop on Mother Tongue based
Multilingual Education. Cagayan de Oro: Capitol University.
Gonzales, Andrew, FSC. (2003) Language Planning in Multilingual Countries. The Case
of the Philippines. Manila : DLSU.
____________________.(w.t.) The Social Sciences and Policy Making in Language.Manila:
DLSU.
___________________ at Bonifacio Sibayan,eds. (1988). Evaluating Bilingual Education in
the Philippines (1974-1985) Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Johnson, Judy A. (2007). Principles of Effective Change: Curriculum Revision That Works.
http: johnson_0101.htm.
Lubinski, Rosemary at Mary A. Matteliano. (2008). A Guide to Cultural Competence
in the Curriculum- Speech Language Pathology. USA: CIRRIE.
Lumbrera, Bienvenido. (2003) Ang Wika ay Kasangkapan ng May Kapangyarihan: Ang Wika
Bilang Instrumentong Politikal. Panayam: seryeng Filipinolohiya DLSU.
Magracia, Emma B. (2002). Pamamahala at Patakaran sa Filipino ng indanao State
Univesity. Daluyan. UP Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.
Mendoza, Rizalyn J. (2008) Ang Kurikulum na Filipino: Saan Patutungo sa Hamon ng
Globalisasyon? Tomo XX Blg. 2 Abril 2008.Maynila: DLSU.
Nyandusi, Charles at Ruth N. Otunga.(w.t) The Context of Curriculum Development in
Kenya.
Kenya: Moi University, Eldoret.
Patterson, Jerry and Theodore J. Czajkwoski. (1979). Implementation : Neglected Phase in
Curriculum Change and Curriculum Development. Association for Supervision.
Peregrino, Jovy M. (2007). Sulyap sa Pagpaplanong Pangwika. Philippine Journal for
Language Teaching. Volume XLVI. A Journal of the Philippine Association for
Language Teaching. PALT.
__________________. (2009). Komparatibong Pagpaplanong Pangwika: Kaso ng
Pilipinas at mga Bansang Sinakop ng Espana sa Usapin ng Edukasyon. Philippine
Journal for Language Teaching. Volume XLVIII. A Journal of the Philippine
Association for Language Teaching. PALT.
Robredo, Jesse M. (w.t) Reinventing Local School Boards in the Philippines. Naga City.
SADC.

(2000)

Module

13-

Curriculum

Theory,

Design

and

Assessment.

The

Commonwelath of
Learning.
Segovia, Lorna Z. (1986). The Implementation of the Bilingual Policy on the Tertiary Level.
(Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines 1974-1985). Manila: Linguistic

14

Society of the Philippines

WEBSITE
http://www.quezoncity.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:qu
http://www.pasay.gov.ph/Pamantasan%20ng%20Lungsod%20Pasay/Pamantasan
www.plmun.edu.ph.
www.plm.edu.ph.
www.plp.edu.ph.
MEMORANDUM
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER No. 59 Series of 1996
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER No. 04 Series of 1997
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER No. 30 Series of 2004
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER No. 10 Series of 2005
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER No. 04 Series of 2007
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER No. 54 Series of 2007

15

APPENDIX A.1.

16

17

18

APPENDIX A.2

19

20

21

APPENDIK A.3
APPENDIX A.4

APPENDIX B.1
TALATANUNGAN UKOL SA IMPLEMENTASYON NG GEC- FILIPINO SA LCU METRO MANILA
I. Ang Profile ng Respondente (para sa Mag-aaral lamang )
Pangalan (opsyonal) _______________________________Kasarian:B____ L____Tirahan:__ ________________________________________
Edad: _______________________________________Taon/ Kursong Kinukuha/Major: _____________________________________________
I. Ang Profile ng Respondente (para sa mga Guro at Administrador lamang)
Pangalan(opsyonal) _________________________________Kasarian:B____L____Institusyon:_______________________________________
Edad: ____Posisyon: _____________________________Probinsya______________________Digring Natapos saKolehiyo:________________
Unibersidad/ Kolehiyong Pinagtapusan:___________________Mataas na Digring Nakuha:___________________________________________
Unibersidad na Pinagtapusan:____________________________________________Asignaturang Itinuturo:______________________________
Bilang ng Taon ng Pagtuturo sa Kolehiyo:__________________________________
II. Ang Sarbey
A. Panuto: Bilugan ang bilang na kung saan ay tutugon sa iyong kasagutan. Maging tapat sa iyong pagsagot.
LEGEND:

5 Palagi 4- Paminsan-minsan 3- Minsan lamang

2- Hindi 1- Wala

NILALAMAN NG KURIKULUM SA FILIPINO

1. Ang mga aralin na nakasaad sa kurikulum ng

General Education Curriculum- Filipino ay kapaki-pakinabang.

2. Ang mga aralin sa kurikulum sa Filipino

ay naaayon sa abilidad ng mga mag-aaral.

3. Ang silabus ay naipatutupad nang maayos.

PAMAMARAAN NG PAGTUTURO NG GURO

1.Ang mga gawain na isinasagawa ng guro sa klase ay nagkakaiba at epektibo para bigyan
ang mga mag-aaral ng mga karanasan sa pagkatuto.

2. Ang mga gawain sa klase ay student centered.

3. Ang guro ay gumagamit ng ibat ibang

estratehiya sa pagtuturo.

4. Ang mga halimbawa sa talakayan ay hango sa

mga pangyayari sa tunay na buhay

5.Ang mga tanong ng mga guro ay sumasalamin
sa kritikal na pag-iisip ng mga mag-aaral
6. Ang paraan ng pagtataya sa pagkatuto
ng mga mag-aaral ay mabisa.
7. Natatamo ng guro ang mga inaasahan sa kurso

22

bilang tanda ng pagkatuto ng mga mag-aaral.

KAGAMITANG PAMPAGTUTURO NG GURO
1. Nakagagamit ng teknolohiya ang mga guro sa

pagtalakay ng mga aralin sa silabus.

2. Ang mga kagamitang pampagtuturo kabilang ang mga teksbuk ay tumutugon sa interes at
pagkatuto ng mga mag-aaral.

III. Ang Pagmumungkahi

1.

May mga aralin ba sa Filipino 1,2,3 at 4 na nais mong isama sa kurikulum ng Filipino?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.

May mungkahi ka ba na nais ipatupad sa inyong pamantasan/ kolehiyo upang mas lalong maging maayos ang pagpapatupad ng General
Education Curriculum- Filipino?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.

May mga paraan ba ang inyong pamantasan upang mapalawak ang pagtuturo ng asignaturang Filipino? Isa-isahin ang mga pamamaraang
isinasagawa.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.

Magbigay rin ng ilang mungkahi upang palakasin ang asignaturang Filipino.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maraming Salamat !

23

Pangalan ng LCU
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila (PLM)

Taon
ng Pagkakatatag
1967

Lokasyon
General
Luna
Corner
Muralla St., Intramuros,
Manila
General
Santos
St.,
Sangandaan, Caloocan City

Kasalukuyang Pangulo
(Unang Semestre, 2010-2011)
Atty. Rafaelito M. Garayblas
(Acting President)

University of Caloocan City

(UCC)

1971

Pamantasan ng Pasay (PLP)

1994

Pasadena St. F.B. Harrison,

Pasay City

Quezon City Polytechnic

University
(QCPU) Batasan Branch
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Pasig (PLnP)
University of Makati (UM)

1994

IBP
Road
Baranggay
Batasan Hills, Quezon City

G. Fabian T. Avila
(Direktor sa Akademiko)

2001

Dr. Hernando Gomez

(Acting President)
Dr. Edita I. Chan

Pamantasan ng Muntinlupa
(PLMUN)
Pamantasan ng Marikina
(PLMAR)

1991

Alkalde Jose St, Kapasigan,

Pasig City
J.P. Rizal Extenxion West
Rembo, Makati City
Poblacion, Muntinlupa
Brazil St. Greenheights
Subdivision, Concepcion I,
Marikina Heights, Marikina
City

Dr. Dalisay G. Brawner

1972

2003

Mayor Enrico Echiverri

(Pangulo)
Dr. Erlinda M. Fiesta
( University Administrator)
Prof. Iris Lenore Ostrea

Dr. Miguel T. Udtohan

APPENDIX C.1
Talaan ng Pangalan ng LCUs, Taon ng Pagkatatag, Address
at Pangulo ng Walong LCUs

APENDIKS C.2 - Ang Mga Gusali ng Walong LCU na Kalahok sa Pag-aaral

24
PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG
PAMANTASAN
NG LUNGSOD NG PASIG UNIVERSITY OF CALOOCAN CITY
MAYNILA

UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI

QUEZON CITY POLYTECHNIC

UNIVERSITY

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG
MARIKINA (proposed Building)

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD
NG MUNTINLUPA

APENDIKS C.3

Mapa ng Metro Manila

25