Class Participation, Oral Corrective Feedback, and Speaking Confidence of the Junior High School Learners: Basis for Enhanced Articulation and Communication Strategies Workbook

This mixed-method research study aimed to determine the levels of class participation, oral corrective feedback, and speaking confidence of the junior high school in the province of Aklan during the school year 2025-2026, serving as the basis for proposing enhanced articulation and communication strategies workbook. Using the Taro Yamane, the study involves 397 participants were randomly selected from a total population of 35,413 public junior high school learners. Three questionnaires; adopted and modified instruments, namely Class Participation Questionnaire (Fredricks et al., 2004), Oral Corrective Feedback Questionnaire (Lyster & Ranta, 1997), and Speaking Confidence Questionnaire (Yanar & Bümen, 2012) were used. Qualitative data were gathered through focus group discussions. Stratified random sampling and Taro Yamane determined the sample size. Descriptive statistics included frequency counts, percentages, means and standard deviations, while inferential statistics utilized one-way ANOVA and Pearson’s r, set at alpha level of 0.05. The findings revealed that the junior high school learners demonstrated very high levels of class participation and oral corrective feedback, alongside a high level of speaking confidence. A significant difference in speaking confidence was observed across the varying levels of class participation among leaners and another significant difference in speaking confidence was found across the levels of oral corrective feedback. Furthermore, significant relationships identified between class participation and oral corrective feedback, as well as between class participation and speaking confidence. Similarly, a significant relationship was found between oral corrective feedback and speaking confidence of the jsunior high school learners in the Province of Aklan. Furthermore, Pearson’s r indicated that speaking confidence was significantly associated with both class participation and oral corrective feedback. Based on these results, Enhanced Articulation and Communication Strategies Workbook was created to boost learners' speaking confidence by encouraging participation and feedback. Qualitative findings revealed that class participation was enhanced when learners felt encouraged and supported by their teachers and peers. Participants perceived oral corrective feedback as a valuable tool for improving their speaking skills, particularly when delivered constructively and respectfully. Moreover, learners reported that positive and timely feedback increased their speaking confidence, reduced anxiety, and motivated them to participate more actively in classroom discussions. These findings highlight the important role of oral corrective feedback in fostering learner engagement and confidence in speaking activities.

Class Participation, Articulation and Communication

1. Aballe, S. J. F., Agcal, J. M. M., & Canoy, F. T. (2024). Exploring the correlation between English proficiency and reading comprehension among elementary learners in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 50(6), 548–555. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2024/v50i61431 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abalos, S., Santiago, & Santos. (2017). English performance and communicative skills. Liceo de Cagayan University Research Publication. https://www.researchgate.net [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Abidin, Z., & Walida, S. (2019). Interactive simulation as a practical and effective media to support learning autonomy and competence. International Journal of Development Research, 9(1), 25156–25160. https://www.journalijdr.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Arani, A. (2018). The effect of ICT-based teaching method on medical students’ ESP learning. Journal of Medical Education, 4(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Averion, R. F., Caleja, H. B. F., & Zapanta, V. M. (2020). LED TV in the classroom: Its acceptability and effectiveness in the Philippines. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning, 4(2), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2020.42.3356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Balderas, D. (2022). The effect of educational television on young learners. https://discover.hubpages.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Burk, E. (2011). Online learning indicators. http://elearnmag.acm.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bygate, M. (2009). Teaching and testing speaking. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Heinle & Heinle. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. De Lemios, R. O. (2023). From Tagalog to English: Pupils’ writing proficiency levels after three years in MTB-MLE. Journal of Community Development Research, 16(3), 115–133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. DeWitt, D., Siraj, S., & Alias, N. (2014). Collaborative simulation: A simulation for learning secondary school science. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 89–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ellis, R. (2017). Second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fausih, M., & Tandyonomanu, D. (2015). Pengembangan media pembelajaran. Jurnal Universitas Negeri Surabaya, 1(1), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Gamboa, M. A., Monteclaro, E. S., Tabbang, J. F. J., Tindowen, D. J., & Bangi, J. (2021). English language proficiency of elementary pupils. Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society, 1(2), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.55529/jlls.12.12.20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in SLA. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hameed, M. (2024). Impact of television educational programs on students of Lahore. ResearchGate. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Krcmar, M., & Grela, B. (2019). Educational television and language development in preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 61, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.12.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Linebarger, D. L., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2021). Educational media and early language development. Child Development Perspectives, 15(2), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12402 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of interaction in SLA. In Handbook of second language acquisition. Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Willingness to communicate. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Magno, C., Gustilo, L., Lapinid, M. R. C., & Barrot, J. (2015). Effects of Knowledge Channel videos on student achievement. Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, 21(7), 2276–2280. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Vol. I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Parmen, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Picardal, J. G. (2025). Academic performance of Grade 6 learners: Integrating ICT. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 36(5), 484–491. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.360501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence. In Input in second language acquisition. Newbury House. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond. In Sociocultural theory and SLA. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Pearson Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Zhang, Y. (2009). Reading to speak. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 32–38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Zhao, Y. (2009). Teacher feedback and learner development. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 421–450. [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