A Corpus-Based Analysis of Vocabulary Progression in Philippines' English Modules

The present study investigated vocabulary progression within the Philippine K-12 English curriculum by conducting a corpus-based analysis of selected Grade 10 and Grade 11, the crucial transitioning years between junior and senior high school. This research compared the lexical profiles of the said modules and determined if Grade 11 learning materials that are generally aligned to English as a subject exhibits increased lexical complexity, aligning with the principles of a spiraling curriculum. A quantitative, comparative corpus linguistics methodology was employed, utilizing AntConc and #LancsBox software to analyze metrics including token/type counts, Type-Token Ratio (TTR), Moving-Average TTR (MATTR), Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD), keyword frequency and likelihood, dispersion (Julliand's D), and collocates. Findings revealed that the Grade 11 corpus was significantly larger and contained more unique word types than the Grade 10 corpus. While the results show that Grade 10 has higher TTR than Grade 11, MATTR indicated similar local lexical diversity. Notably, numbers suggest that Grade 11 has greater overall lexical diversity (MLTD). Keyword, dispersion, and collocate analyses indicated nuanced shifts in subject matter and contextual word usage, moving from foundational concepts and tasks in Grade 10 towards more analytical and specialized applications in Grade 11. The results provide empirical evidence supporting vocabulary progression and increased complexity from Grade 10 to Grade 11, largely aligning with K-12 expectations. These findings imply that while the modules generally reflect the expected rise in difficulty across the K-12 curriculum, this progression is characterized by more than just vocabulary growth. It also includes variations in subject matter focus and the practical use of language.

Corpus, Modules, Vocabulary, Spiral Progression

1. Ambayon, C. M. (2020). Modular-Based Approach and Students’ Achievement in Literature. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 8(3), 32. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.3p.32 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bustillo, E., & Aguilos, M. (2022). The Challenges of Modular Learning in the Wake of COVID-19: A Digital Divide in the Philippine Countryside Revealed. Education Sciences, 12(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070449 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Costales, R. (2022). Productive vocabulary knowledge of pre-service teachers as a predictor of writing performance: Basis for English syllabi And instructional modules improvement. Central European Management Journal, 30(4). https://doi.org/10.57030/23364890.cemj.30.4.75 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Department of Education. (2024). Implementing Guidelines on the School Calendar and Activities for the School Year 2024-2025. Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/DO_s2024_009.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. (2013). Republic Act No. 10533. The Republic of the Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/05/15/ republic-act-no-10533/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Gumangan, Ma. A., & Dita, S. (2022). Multi-Word Verbs in Senior High School Academic Papers: A Corpus-Based Study. In S. Dita, A. Trillanes, & R. I. Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 664–673). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/2022.paclic-1.73/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hsu, W. (2009). College English Textbooks for General Purposes: A Corpus-based Analysis of Lexical Coverage. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 42–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Norberg, C., & Nordlund, M. (2018). A Corpus-based Study of Lexis in L2 English Textbooks. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), 463. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0903.03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. O’Neill, G., Moore, S., & McMullin, B. (2005). Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. 183. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Schools Division Office of Valenzuela. (n.d.). *Learning Modules* [under Contextualized LR Materials]. DepEd Valenzuela LRMS. Retrieved [April 12, 2025], from https://sites.google.com/deped.gov.ph/depedvalenzuelalrms/learning-resources/contextualized-lr-materials/learning-modules [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Söğüt, M., & Vural, E. (2023). Lexical Analysis of Two ELT Coursebooks: Corpus-informed & Conventional Coursebook. Rahva Journal of Technical and Social Studies, 3(1), 32–44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Yu, M., & Renandya, W. A. (2021). A corpus-based study of the vocabulary profile of high school English textbooks in China. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network. https://hdl.handle.net/10497/22789 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study