Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 5 no. 7 (2024)

Grammar Express Unleashed: A Microlearning Hub Approach to Least Learned English 7 Competencies

Maica Angelou G. Cunanan

Discipline: Teacher Training

 

Abstract:

The study employed a mixed-method developmental approach to design a learning hub imbued with microlearning to address the least learned competencies in English 7. The least learned competencies were identified by considering existing test results in the locale of the researcher, which were supported by the findings of existing studies in the literature through a systematic review. The researcher assumed the roles of content creator and curator and identified relevant microlearning materials available for access. Experts validated the quality of the identified learning content through an adopted questionnaire. Afterwards, the researcher designed the Grammar Express. ICT experts were asked to validate the platform using an adapted rubric to determine whether it is suitable as a learning website. An adapted questionnaire was used to measure the level of acceptance of Grammar Express by language teachers. Meanwhile, an adapted questionnaire was used to evaluate the level of usability of the platform as perceived by the students. Based on the findings, the respondents believe that Grammar Express is useful since it offers tangible benefits and can enhance instruction. Similarly, in terms of perceived ease of use, Grammar Express requires less effort to learn and utilize. In addition, there is a strong positive attitude to incorporate Grammar Express in language teaching. Furthermore, there is a strong intention to use Grammar Express, which indicates a high level of acceptance and enthusiasm for the platform. In terms of usability, there is a strong inclination toward frequent use and displayed confidence in navigating the platform independently.



References:

  1. Allela, M. (2021). Introduction to microlearning. In oasis.col.org (p. 7). Commonwealth of Learning. http://hdl.handle.net/11599/3877
  2. Apolonio, J. (2021). Needs analysis, challenges, and teaching strategies in English grammar learning (pp. 1–232) [PDF]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED613630.pdf
  3. Ayers Institute for Teacher Learning and Innovation. (2015). Website Evaluation Rubric. Lipscomb University. https://www.edutoolbox.org/sites/default/files/node_files/Website-Evaluation-Rubric.pdf
  4. Bentsen, L. (2017). To teach, or not to teach grammar? Teachers’ approaches to grammar teaching in lower secondary school. Universitetet i Oslo. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/57350/Bentsen_Master.pdf?
  5. Brooke, J. (2013). SUS: A retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(2), 29–40.
  6. Cabaltica, R., & Osabel, C. (2021). Knowledge on subject-verb agreement of grade 7 students: Basis for remedial teaching. European Journal of Humanities and Educational Advancements, 2(4), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4817495
  7. Caiga, B. (2022). TOEIC results and lexile level equivalency: Basis for English proficiency intervention program. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Perspective, 9(1), 64–70. https://research.lpubatangas.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/8-APJEP-2022-55-Caiga.pdf
  8. Choudhary, H., & Pandita, D. (2023). Maximizing learning outcomes in the digital age: The role of microlearning for gen Z. Development and Learning in Organizations, 17(1). Emerald Insight. https://doi.org/10.1108/dlo-02-2023-0038
  9. Cordova, R., Medina, J. G., Ramos, T., & Alejo, A. (2019). Effectiveness of competency-based strategic intervention materials in English 7. DLSU Research Congress 2019, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-congress-proceedings/2019/lli-II-019.pdf
  10. Creswell, J., & Piano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(4), 388–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00096.x
  11. Department of Education. (2009). Guidelines and Processes for LRMDS Assessment and Evaluation. https://lrmds.deped.gov.ph/docs/LRMDSGuidelines.pdf
  12. Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide English (grade 1 to grade 10). https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/English-CG.pdf
  13. Dung, D. T. H. (2020). The advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 10(3), 45–48. Scientific Research Publishing. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-1003054548
  14. EF English Proficiency Index. (2023). Education first English proficiency index results. https://www.ef.com/assetscdn/WIBIwq6RdJvcD9bc8RMd/cefcom-epi-site/reports/2023/ef-epi-2023-english.pdf
  15. Ghani, M. T. A., & Daud, W. A. A. W. (2018). Adaptation of ADDIE instructional model in developing educational website for language learning. Global Journal Al-Thaqafah, 8(2), 7–16. http://www.gjat.my/gjat122018/GJAT122018-1.pdf
  16. Göschlberger, B., & Bruck, P. A. (2017). Gamification in mobile and workplace integrated microlearning. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-Based Applications & Services. https://doi.org/10.1145/3151759.3151795
  17. Hikmah, N., Akmal, A., & Buffe, F. (2019). Writing skills of junior high school students of the University of Saint Anthony, Iriga City, Philippines. Proceedings of the 2019 Ahmad Dahlan International Conference Series on Education & Learning, Social Science & Humanities, 156–159. https://doi.org/10.2991/adics-elssh-19.2019.8
  18. Kanter, B. (2011). Content curation primer. https://bethkanter.org/content-curation-101/
  19. Lewis, J. R. (2018). The system usability scale: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307
  20. Lewis, J. R., & Sauro, J. (2009). The factor structure of the system usability scale. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human Centered Design. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5619, pp. 94–103). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12
  21. Lingat, A. D., & Orge, N. B. A. (2019). Improving the subject-verb agreement competency in English using 5 column chart graphic organizer among the grade 7 students of Loob Bunga High School - Botolan, Zambales, Philippines. Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary, 7(4). http://www.jiarm.com/May2019/paper33172.pdf
  22. Monteron, D., & Sanlad, L. G. (2020). Comprehensive analysis on least learned competencies in mathematics 5: Basis for learning activities. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339512598_Comprehensive_Analysis_on_Least_Learned_Competencies_in_Mathematics_5_Basis_for_Learning_Activities
  23. Naimi-Akbar, I., Weurlander, M., & Barman, L. (2023). Teaching-learning in virtual learning environments: a matter of forced compromises away from student-centredness? Teaching in Higher Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2201674
  24. Nikolopoulou, K. (2022). What is purposive sampling? Definition & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/purposive-sampling/
  25. Nugraha, H., Rusmana, A., Khadijah, U., & Gemiharto, I. (2021). Microlearning sebagai upaya dalam menghadapi dampak pandemi pada proses pembelajaran. JINOTEP (Jurnal Inovasi Dan Teknologi Pembelajaran): Kajian Dan Riset Dalam Teknologi Pembelajaran, 8(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.17977/um031v8i32021p225
  26. Oxford University Press. (2016). Learn about virtual learning environment/Course management system content. Oxford University Press Online Resource Center. https://global.oup.com/uk/orc/learnvle/
  27. Pixsel Academy. (2021). 101 dos & don’ts of UI design (1st ed., pp. 1–106). Pixsel Academy.
  28. Puno, R., & Villanueva, J. (2019). Development and validation of an activity-based module on subject-verb agreement rules. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4139289
  29. Sarasua, R. J. (2021). Error analysis on students’ essay composition: Reference for corrective feedbacking mechanism. International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education, 2(1), 51–60. https://ijase.org/index.php/ijase/article/view/53/46
  30. Sarasua, R. J., & Tadije, F. B. (2019). CaLTen: A tool to increase the mastery in learning tenses of verbs among students of CCNHS-Main. Cauayan City: Department of Education.
  31. Sirwan Mohammed, G., Wakil, K., & Sirwan Nawroly, S. (2018). The effectiveness of microlearning to improve students’ learning ability. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 3(3), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.415824
  32. Torgerson, C., & Iannone, S. (2020). Designing microlearning. American Society for Talent and Development.
  33. Weng, F., Yang, R.-J., Ho, H.-J., & Su, H.-M. (2018). A TAM-based study of the attitude towards use intention of multimedia among school teachers. Applied System Innovation, 1(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi1030036.
  34. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. Sagepub. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic