Student-Preference Responsiveness (SPR) and Instructional Restrictiveness (IR) among English Teachers in Public Secondary Schools of Lopez East and Lopez West Districts of SDO-Quezon

This study examined Student-Preference Responsiveness (SPR) and Instructional Restrictiveness (IR) among English teachers in public secondary schools of Lopez East and Lopez West Districts of the Schools Division Office of Quezon during School Year 2025–2026. Using a quantitative descriptive-correlational research design, the study measured the levels of SPR and IR, examined differences based on teacher profile variables, determined the relationship between the two constructs, and developed a context-responsive ELT planning toolkit.
The respondents were 68 full-time public secondary English teachers selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected using structured survey instruments covering teacher profiles, SPR dimensions (content personalization, pedagogical adaptation, and assessment flexibility), and IR dimensions (procedural rigidity, pedagogical control, and assessment rigidity). Results showed that teachers demonstrated very high levels of SPR, particularly in personalizing content, adapting instruction, and modifying assessment practices. However, some system-dependent practices such as diagnostic-based vocabulary calibration, flexible grouping, and sustained portfolio assessment were less consistently implemented. IR was more evident in procedural rigidity and teacher-led instructional practices than in assessment rigidity.
Significant differences in SPR were observed when teachers were grouped according to grade levels taught and ICT access, while IR differed according to educational attainment, teaching rank, and recent ELT-related professional development exposure. SPR and IR were found to have a significant but weak positive relationship, suggesting that teachers could demonstrate responsiveness while still operating within structured institutional routines.
Based on the findings, the study proposed CHOICE-with-STRUCTURE: A Context-Responsive ELT Planning Toolkit designed to strengthen learner-responsive teaching while reducing unnecessary instructional restrictions.

student-preference responsiveness, instructional restrictiveness, English language teaching, public secondary schools, context-responsive planning toolkit

1. Abdulaal, M. (2021). Personalizing ELT: Toward a new grammar of need-responsive pedagogy. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 24, 158-175. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.24.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Akbari, A., & Eslami, Z. R. (2025). Students’ preferences and perceptions of effective instructional methods: Implications for responsive teaching. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1564905. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1564905 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Almonte-Acosta, S. A. (2024). Contextualizing responsive pedagogy in Philippine classrooms. Philippine Journal of Education, 45(1), 22–41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Au, W. (2021). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Benson, P. (2022). Student agency and voice in language education. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Research methods in education (9th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058997 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/research-design/book270027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cruz, E., Reyes, C., & Santos, R. (2023). Mobile technology and teacher responsiveness in Philippine rural schools. TechTrends, 67(4), 621–633. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Engin, M. (2020). Reconceptualizing teacher-centeredness: Perspectives from EFL classrooms. System, 91, 102260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., ... & Allen, M. (2021). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 257–296. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320966981 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Taherdoost, H. (2022). What is content validity index and report? International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3451544 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Tanguay, C., Bhatnagar, R., & Paugh, P. (2025). Navigating literacy teaching and learning within restrictive policy contexts. English Education, 57(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2025.2487699 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Tomlinson, C. A. (2023). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom (3rd ed.). Solution Tree Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/2023-technology [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. UNESCO. (2023). Global framework on digital literacy skills for learners. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386077 [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