GRAMMATICAL,

DISCOURSE COMPETENCE AND

PRODUCTIVE SKILLS AMONG
FIRST YEAR ESL LEARNERS
Michael B. LAVADIA*
College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Cagayan State University, Carig Campus,
Philippines

[email protected]

Manuscript received 31 January 2023

Manuscript accepted 20 June 2023
*Corresponding author
https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.5386.2023

ABSTRACT

The study examines the grammatical, discourse, and productive competence of 210
first-year ESL students enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences at the Cagayan
State University (CSU) in the second semester of the academic year 2021. Using a
descriptive-correlational methodology, the study focused on respondents’ profile
like sex, parents' highest level of education, the type of high school, ethnicity, and
media exposure that may help explain variations in the respondents' levels of
grammatical and discourse competence, writing, and speaking skills. Results
revealed that respondents’ overall grammatical and discourse competence,
speaking, and writing ability were rated as "average," "competent," and "sufficient”
to “good" respectively. A significant correlation between grammatical and discourse
competence and the respondents' parental education and media exposure were
found. Speaking skill differences were only accounted by course that the
respondents enrolled in, while writing skill variations were not explained by any
profile variables. Further, grammatical competence was significantly correlated with
speaking and writing ability, but not discourse competence. The findings can be used
to create a writing and speaking task-based language enhancement programme
focused on discrete grammar and discourse topics.

Keywords: competence; performance; productive skill; discourse competence;

grammatical competence

16
 Introduction

English language proficiency is highly valued. Students are expected to master

English to a high degree of accuracy because it is the language that is most
frequently used in international trade, media and entertainment, international
telecommunications, printed materials, and—most significantly—for the
internationalisation of education (Rahman et al., 2021; Rao, 2019 as cited in Islam &
Stapa, 2021).
Nonetheless, according to a study done by Hopkins International Partners,
the official Philippines representative for a group called Test of English for
International Communication (TOEIC), college graduates from the Philippines have
lower levels of English proficiency than the target English proficiency of high school
students in Thailand (GMA News Online, 2018). A rather alarming concern is
Philippine’s English Proficiency Index (EPI), which slid from the 20th to the 27th
position, according to the global education firm Education First (EF). This index
demonstrated a steady decline in the nation’s rating since 2016. The Philippines fell
from 13th place in 2016 to 15th place in 2017, 14th place in 2018, then 20th place in
2019 (Baclig, 2020).
Many students found writing and speaking English challenging. As Nunan
(2009) opined, writing skills are highly demanding. Speaking-wise, Separa et al.
(2018) found that difficulties with speaking English stem from, but are not limited to,
lack of linguistic proficiency.
Language learners’ grammatical and discourse competence are directly tied
with their productive skills. Tuan (2017) discovered that students who are
linguistically proficient in the entire language system (consisting of syntax,
morphology, inflections, phonology, and semantics) possess a propensity for
conversing or writing authoritatively about a subject.
Although communicative competence has been the subject of extensive
research over the past few decades, there is a dearth of studies associating specific
types of communicative competence with both writing and speaking capacities. The
current study offers insights into the specific link between grammatical and
discourse competence and writing and speaking. This paper will assess the discourse
and grammatical competences of first-year students at the Cagayan State University
(CSU), ascertain whether the competences predetermine students’ speaking and
writing performance, and determine whether scores in discourse and grammatical
competence as well as productive skills significantly differ across certain profile
variables.

Literature Review

Communicative Competence

It is useful to understand grammatical and discourse competence by referring to

Canale and Swain’s (1980) model of Communicative Competence, with emphasis on
Noam Chomsky’s characterisation of “competence” and “performance”.
“Competence” refers to the underlying grammatical system that is claimed to be

17
intuitively known by all native speakers of a language and “performance” refers to
actual language use in real situations (Flowerdew, 2013). Based on this
conceptualisation, Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence in
the context of second language teaching and referred to it “as a synthesis of
knowledge of basic grammatical principles, knowledge of how language is used in
social settings to perform communicative functions, and knowledge of how
utterances and communicative functions can be combined according to the
principles of discourse” (Yano, 2003, p. 76).
Canale and Swain’s (1980) model of communicative competence is broken
down into three subcomponents: grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic and
discourse competence. Grammatical competence is the knowledge and skills
concerning lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, sentence grammar,
semantics, and phonology. Discourse competence refers to the knowledge and skills
in combining linguistic elements to achieve a unified textual whole. In brief, the
theory suggests that knowledge (competence) can be demonstrated in real
communicative settings (e.g., speaking and writing). This study focuses on
grammatical and discourse competence.

Grammatical Competence

To be communicatively competent, one must demonstrate a certain level of

command of morphology, syntax, grammar, semantics, and phonology. As grammar
permeates all language skills, Farhady et al. (2006, as cited in Ahangari & Barghi,
2012) state that it is the most common language component in language
assessment. Studies in these areas, however, showed that learners’ levels of
proficiency are low. Learners remain unable to learn and develop both grammatical
and syntactic skills (Merza, 2022; Sioco & De Vera, 2018). Moreover, ESL learners
lack morphological awareness and perform significantly worse than the native
speakers of English in semantics (Chiu, 2009; Hasani et al., 2014; Naseeb & Ibrahim,
2017; Sarfraz et al., 2018).
Comparative research indicated that grammatical competence scores of
students varied when grouped according to the courses that they took (Razmjoo &
Movahed, 2009; Tuan, 2017). Grammatical competence has also been found to be
positively correlated with writing. According to Mulyaningsih et al. (2013), the
decrease or increase in students` grammatical competence leads to the decrease or
increase in writing ability. In a study by Shattah (2008), the overall performance of
students on grammar and writing tests was found to be poor, with the most
grammatically competent students proving to be the best student-writers.

Discourse Competence

Another aspect of communicative competence is discourse. Discourse competence

is the ability to combine language elements to create a unified spoken or written
text. Tuan (2017) looked into the discourse strengths and weaknesses of Vietnamese
students and found that among the components of discourse competence, the
respondents were the weakest in coherence. According to Tuan (2017), the very low

18
index of coherence mastery implied that the respondents found it difficult to link the
meanings of utterances in written or spoken texts. A study by López-Montero et al.
(2014, as cited in Eccius-Wellmann & Santana, 2020) demonstrated that discourse
competence differed across school types and courses, depending on access to
cultural capital such as books, computers, and internet access .
Where grammatical competence is associated with writing, discourse
competence is correlated to both writing and speaking. Such association can be best
explained by the theory of transfer of learning. Transfer of learning, Leberman and
Doyle (2006) explained, occurs when prior-learned knowledge and skills affect the
way in which new knowledge and skills are learned and performed. The notion of
learning transfer asserts that knowledge can be transferred from one activity to
another (e.g., from training to performance) if the two activities are comparable and
have a lot in common. The degree of resemblance between the original context of
the training and the intended context of the performance also affects the level of
transfer (Hajian, 2019).

Productive Skills

There are four known language macro skills, namely, listening, reading, writing, and
speaking, with viewing added later. According to Saville-Troike (2012), when
considering the purposes for which learners learn a second language, a distinction
between two types of communicative competence must be made. On one hand,
there is academic competence (knowledge needed by learners who want to use L2
primarily to learn about other subjects such as the acquisition of vocabulary,
developing the ability to engage successfully in academic listening, etc.). On the
other hand, there is interpersonal competence, which refers to knowledge that is
required from learners who plan to use L2 in face-to-face interaction with other
speakers. Saville-Troike (2012) labelled the activity of speaking and writing as
productive skills, and recognised that learners’ academic and interpersonal
competence which underlie their ability to engage in different activities usually
develop to different degrees, and there is no necessary reason for one type to
precede or outpace the other.
Researchers have also studied productive skills. Sermsook et al. (2017)
showed that interlingual interference, intralingual interference, limited knowledge
of English grammar and vocabulary, and carelessness were found to be the major
sources of writing errors. Meanwhile, the English writing performance of the Grade
11 students in Malasiqui National High School, Malasiqui, Pangasinan was found to
be good alongside mechanics, vocabulary, content, and grammar (Domantay &
Ramos, 2018).
Regarding speaking, several studies have shown that learners’ poor
proficiency can be attributed to linguistic factors, such as limited vocabulary,
inadequate grammar knowledge, poor pronunciation, among others (Fitriani &
Wardah, 2015; Heriansyah, 2012; Mahripah, 2014).
Studies have also attempted to determine whether productive skills varied
across selected profile variables. Betonio (2017), for example, found that there was
a highly significant difference in the oral proficiency level of students across courses.

19
In terms of writing quality, Woods (2016) and Al-Saadi (2020) found contradictory
results, with the former suggesting no differences between writing factors across
gender, and the latter indicating that women did better than men. Apart from
gender differences, type of school was also reported to influence writing. dos Santos
and Hage (2015) compared writing performances of students from public and
private institutions and reported that students from private institutions performed
better than those from public.
Mass media exposure has also been found to influence productive skills.
Sioco and De Vera (2018) found that exposure to mass media types is significantly
related to speaking skills. Albayrak and Yanar (2013) investigated the effect of mass
media authentic materials on EFL students’ success in speaking accurately and
fluently and determined that students' access to mass media rendered positive
impacts on their English-speaking skills.

Methodology

The study employed descriptive-correlational design to investigate the respondents’

grammatical and discourse competence level and the relationship of these
components with productive skills. The study conforms to the policies and guidelines
set forth by the Graduate School of Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus
(embodied in the Revised University Code through Resolution No. 90, s. 2017) and
was approved by the defence panel of the Doctor of Philosophy in Education in the
English Language Education programme, the College of Arts and Sciences in
February 2021.

Table 1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents According to Profile

Frequency
Category (n = 210) Percent
Sex
Male 36 17.1
Female 174 82.9
Type of High School
Public 154 73.3
Private 56 26.7
Course
Psychology 49 23.3
Political Science 21 10.0
Economics 5 2.4
Human Services 7 3.3
Physics 2 1.0
Mathematics 12 5.7
Chemistry 9 4.3
Biology 56 26.7
Environmental Science 15 7.1

20
 English Language Studies 11 5.2
Communication 12 5.7
Industrial and Commercial 11 5.2
Communication
Ethnicity
Tagalog 44 21.0
Itawes 33 15.7
Ilocano 112 53.3
Ybanag 14 6.7
Others 7 3.3
Father’s Highest Educational Attainment
Elementary Level 24 11.4
Elementary Graduate 18 8.6
High School Level 18 8.6
High School Graduate 47 22.4
College Level 37 17.6
College Graduate 60 28.6
Master's Degree 5 2.4
Doctorate 1 .5
Mother’s Highest Educational Attainment
Elementary Level 15 7.1
Elementary Graduate 10 4.8
High School Level 25 11.9
High School Graduate 47 22.4
College Level 42 20.0
College Graduate 55 26.2
Master's Degree 15 7.1
Doctorate 1 .5

Table 1 shows that females outnumbered males by a wide margin. Most

respondents graduated from public schools. BS Biology and BS Psychology programs
have the most respondents, while the BS Human Services, AB Economics, and BS
Physics were the least represented in the study. Most respondents had parents who
were college diploma holders. Ethnicity-wise, the majority of the respondents were
Ilokano while some were Tagalog, Itawes, and Ibanag.
The first instrument used was a researcher-constructed competence test.
The grammatical component consisted of 60 items distributed evenly across the
domains of morphology, grammar, phonology, syntax, lexicon, and semantics.
Meanwhile, the discourse component consisting of 40 items were subdivided into
two domains, namely, spoken and written discourse. The second and third
instruments used were adapted speaking and writing rubrics, respectively. The
rubrics were used to determine the respondents’ productive skills level. Due to
COVID-19 restrictions, data gathering was conducted exclusively online. Results of
the Intraclass Correlation (ICC) revealed that the three evaluators’ ratings were
reliable.

21
 Results and Discussion

Table 2
Respondents’ Mass Media Exposure

Category Weighted Description

Mean
Amount of Time Spent for Mass Media
Television 2.20 Less than an hour
Radio 2.18 Less than an hour
Magazines 2.61 Less than an hour
Newspapers 2.64 Less than an hour
Internet 4.37 4-5 hours
Category Mean 2.80 1-2 hours
Extent of Attention Given to Mass
Media
Television 4.78 Limited Attention
Radio 3.32 Limited Attention
Magazines 2.80 Limited Attention
Newspapers 2.92 Limited attention
Internet 7.80 Much Attention
Category Mean 4.32 Limited Attention
Credibility of Advertisements in Mass
Media
Television 5.78 Average Credibility
Radio 4.76 Low Credibility
Magazines 3.92 Low Credibility
Newspapers 4.35 Low Credibility
Internet 7.13 Average Credibility
Category Mean 5.19 Average Credibility
Frequency of Clicking Advertisements Frequency Percentage
on Mass Media
Always 11 5.2
Often 63 30.0
Occasionally 46 21.9
Seldom 47 22.4
Rarely 43 20.5

Table 2 shows that in terms of mass media exposure, the respondents

reported spending more hours on and paying attention to the Internet than they did
other mass media. They also found advertisements in Television and Internet more
credible than other media and they clicked on advertisements often.

22
Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents According to Grammatical
Competence

Category Frequency Percent

(n = 210)
Grammar
Very Low (0-2) 115 54.76
Low (3-4) 73 34.76
Average (5-6) 18 8.57
High (7-8) 4 1.90
Very High (9-10) 0 0.00
Mean = 2.51 SD = 1.54
Vocabulary
Very Low (0-2) 28 13.33
Low (3-4) 52 24.76
Average (5-6) 54 25.71
High (7-8) 55 26.19
Very High (9-10) 21 10.00
Mean = 5.37 SD = 2.39
Morphology
Very Low (0-2) 7 3.33
Low (3-4) 23 10.95
Average (5-6) 53 25.24
High (7-8) 64 30.48
Very High (9-10) 63 30.00
Mean = 6.94 SD = 2.08
Semantics
Very Low (0-2) 29 13.81
Low (3-4) 33 15.71
Average (5-6) 47 22.38
High (7-8) 70 33.33
Very High (9-10) 31 14.76
Mean = 5.91 SD = 2.57
Syntax
Very Low (0-2) 55 26.19
Low (3-4) 105 50.00
Average (5-6) 43 20.48
High (7-8) 7 3.33
Very High (9-10) 0 0.00
Mean = 3.50 SD = 1.52
Overall Grammatical Competence
Very Low (1-12) 1 0.48
Low (13-24) 40 19.05
Average (25-36) 87 41.43

23
 High (37-48) 71 33.81
Very High (49 -60) 11 5.24
Mean = 28.22 SD = 8.07

Table 3 shows that the overall mean for the grammatical competence of the
respondents is 28.22, which fell into the average range. In the domain of grammar,
115 out of 210 test-takers got very low scores (0-2/10 items), 73 scored low (3-4/10
items), 18 obtained average scores (5-6/10 items), and only four test takers got high
scores (7-8/10 items). Pertaining to scores in the semantics dimension of the
grammatical competence test, the categorical mean is 5.91, which also fell into the
average range (fair user of English). Grammar test scores and syntax test scores
were relatively close.

Table 4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents According to Discourse
Competence

Category Frequency Percent

(n = 210)
Spoken
Very Low (1-4) 4 1.90
Low (5-8) 34 16.19
Average (9-12) 125 59.52
High (13-16) 46 21.90
Very High (17-20) 1 0.48
Mean = 10.65 SD = 2.52
Written
Very Low (1-4) 5 2.38
Low (5-8) 49 23.33
Average (9-12) 97 46.19
High (13-16) 55 26.19
Very High (17-20) 4 1.90
Mean = 10.66 SD = 3.07
Overall Discourse Competence
Very Low (1-8) 2 0.95
Low (8-16) 26 12.38
Average (17-24) 130 61.90
High (25-32) 51 24.29
Very High (33-40) 1 0.48
Mean = 21.31 SD = 4.74

Table 4 shows that the mean scores for both spoken and written discourse
competence were nearly identical at 10.65 and 10.66. Again, both fell under the
description of “average”. This gives an overall discourse competence mean of 21.31
(average).

24
Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents According to Level of
Speaking Skill

Category Frequency Percent

(n = 50)
Content
Beginning (1.00-1.75) 0 0
Developing (1.76-2.50) 10 20
Competent (2.51-3.25) 18 36
Accomplished (3.26-4.00) 22 44
Mean = 3.01 SD = 0.56
Grammar
Beginning (1.00-1.75) 2 4
Developing (1.76-2.50) 14 28
Competent (2.51-3.25) 20 40
Accomplished (3.26-4.00) 14 28
Mean = 2.82 SD = 0.57
Vocabulary
Beginning (1.00-1.75) 4 8
Developing (1.76-2.50) 14 28
Competent (2.51-3.25) 16 32
Accomplished (3.26-4.00) 16 32
Mean = 2.73 SD = 0.66
Organization
Beginning (1.00-1.75) 5 10
Developing (1.76-2.50) 10 20
Competent (2.51-3.25) 17 34
Accomplished (3.26-4.00) 18 336
Mean = 2.84 SD = 0.68
Fluency
Beginning (1.00-1.75) 12 24
Developing (1.76-2.50) 11 22
Competent (2.51-3.25) 14 28
Accomplished (3.26-4.00) 13 26
Mean = 2.55 SD = 0.76
Overall Productive Skill (Speaking)
Beginning (1-5) 0 0
Developing (6-10) 7 14
Competent (11-15) 24 48
Accomplished (16-20) 19 38
Mean = 13.95 SD = 2.89

Table 5 indicates the productive speaking skill with an overall mean of 13.95,
which was in the “competent” category. Considering the different speaking

25
components evaluated, the speaker-respondents are “competent” in all dimensions
i.e., Content (3.01), Grammar (2.82), Vocabulary (2.73), Organisation (2.84), and
Fluency (2.55).

Table 6
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents According to Level of Writing
Skill

Frequency
Category (n = 50) Percent
Organisation
Non-college work (1-5) 0 0
Unacceptable (6-11) 10 20
Fair to Adequate (12-14) 16 32
Adequate - Good (15-17) 21 42
Good to Excellent (18-20) 3 6
Mean = 14.23 SD = 2.82
Logical Development
Non-college work (1-5) 0 0
Unacceptable (6-11) 9 18
Fair to Adequate (12-14) 18 36
Adequate - Good (15-17) 18 36
Good to Excellent (18-20) 5 10
Mean = 14.31 SD = 2.86
Grammar
Non-college work (1-5) 0 0
Unacceptable (6-11) 17 34
Fair to Adequate (12-14) 19 38
Adequate - Good (15-17) 12 24
Good to Excellent (18-20) 2 4
Mean = 13.10 SD = 2.70
Punctuation, Spelling, Mechanics
Non-college work (1-5) 0 0
Unacceptable (6-11) 8 16
Fair to Adequate (12-14) 17 34
Adequate - Good (15-17) 20 40
Good to Excellent (18-20) 5 10
Mean = 14.44 SD = 2.55
Style and Quality of Expression
Non-college work (1-5) 0 0
Unacceptable (6-11) 6 12
Fair to Adequate (12-14) 15 30
Adequate - Good (15-17) 22 44
Good to Excellent (18-20) 7 14
Mean = 14.93 SD = 2.61
Overall Productive Skill (Writing)

26
 Non-college work ( 1-25) 0 0
Unacceptable (26-55) 7 14
Fair to Adequate (56-70) 15 30
Adequate - Good (71-85) 20 40
Good to Excellent (86-100) 8 16
Mean = 71.01 SD = 12.94

Table 6 shows that the overall writing skills mean of the respondents is
71.01, falling under the category of “adequate-good”. Based on the scores of the
respondents in the specific domains of the evaluated writing, it appeared that all
areas were rated fair to adequate, that is, Organisation (14.23), Logical Development
of Ideas (14.31), Grammar (13.10), and Punctuation, Spelling, Mechanics (14.44),
except for Style and Quality of Expression which received a mean of 14.93 described
as adequate to good.

Table 7
Comparison of the Grammatical Competence of the Respondents Grouped by
Selected Profile

Variables and Groups Group Statistic df Computed Probability

Mean Value
Type of School T 208 1.767 0.08
Public 8.356
Private 7.058
Course F 11/198 5.923 .000**
Psychology 32.47
Political Science 29.10
Economics 30.40
Human Services 28.14
Physics 35.00
Mathematics 24.25
Chemistry 30.33
Biology 27.05
Environmental 21.33
Science
English Language 32.45
Studies
Communication 29.25
Industrial and 18.09
Commercial
Communication
Ethnicity F 4/208 1.098 .359
Tagalog 27.05
Itawes 27.27
Ilocano 28.40
Ybanag 31.14

27
 Others 31.43
Note: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level

Table 7 reveals that there was a significant difference in the respondents`

grammatical competence when grouped according to course; thus, the null
hypothesis was rejected. Grammatical competence scores did not differ when
grouped according to type of school graduated from and ethnicity, with probability
values of 0.08 and .359 (p>.05).

Table 8
Comparison of the Discourse Competence of the Respondents Grouped by Selected
Profile

Group Computed Probability

Variables and Groups Mean Statistic df Value
Type of School T 208 2.137 0.034
Public 4.417
Private 5.417
Course F 11/198 4.660 .000**
Psychology 23.24
Political Science 22.57
Economics 20.00
Human Services 21.43
Physics 25.00
Mathematics 19.75
Chemistry 22.44
Biology 20.11
Environmental 17.53
Science
English Language 23.91
Studies
Communication 23.92
Industrial and 16.82
Commercial
Communication
Ethnicity F 4/208 .664 .618
Tagalog 21.20
Itawes 20.70
Ilocano 21.32
Ybanag 23.14
Others 21.14
Note: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level

Table 8 shows that there was a significant difference in the respondents`

discourse competence when grouped according to type of school graduated from
and course; thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. The findings revealed that

28
students who graduated from private institutions scored comparatively better than
those who graduated from public schools in the discourse competence test
influence concerning whether, what, and how any individual learns a language.
Scores in discourse competence test did not differ when grouped according
to ethnicity as the probability value (.618) was higher than 0.05 level of significance;
hence, the hypothesis was accepted.

Table 9
Comparison of Respondents’ Productive Skills Grouped by Selected Profile

Variables and Groups Group Statistic df Computed Probability

Mean Value
Sex T 48 1.254 0.196
Female 2.98
Male 2.74
Type of School T 48 0.838 0.406
Public 2.72
Private 2.97
Course F 10/39 2.397 0.025*
Psychology 2.68
Political Science 2.92
Economics 2.47
Human Services 2.83
Mathematics 1.98
Chemistry 3.27
Biology 2.85
Environmental Science 2.84
English Language 3.22
Studies
Communication 3.53
Industrial and 2.16
Commercial
Communication
Ethnicity F 4/45 0.089 0.985
Tagalog 2.73
Itawes 2.83
Ilocano 2.81
Ybanag 2.87
Others 2.63
Note: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level

Table 9 shows that respondents’ speaking performance differed significantly

only when grouped according to course but not with other selected profile variables
such as sex, type of school, and ethnicity.

29
Table 10
Comparison of Respondents’ Writing Skill - Grouped by Selected Profile

Variables and Groups Group Statistic df Computed Probability

Mean Value
Sex T 48 0.838 0.406
Female 14.78
Male 14.04
Type of School T 48 0.373 0.711
Public
Private
Course F 10/39 1.672 0.123
BS Psychology 15.22
AB Political Science 14.15
AB Economics 15.87
BS Human Services 11.47
BS Mathematics 13.98
BS Chemistry 15.10
BS Biology 12.96
BS Environmental 13.22
Science
AB English Language 15.64
Studies
AB Communication 17.20
BS Industrial and 12.29
Commercial
Communication
Ethnicity F 4/45 0.960 0.439
Tagalog 13.21
Itawes 13.82
Ilocano 14.72
Ybanag 14.00
Others 15.80
Note: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level

In Table 10, the respondents’ writing performance did not vary significantly
when grouped according to sex, type of school graduated from, course, and
ethnicity.

Table 11
Relationship between Respondents’ Grammatical and Discourse Competence and
Select Profile Variables and Mass Media Exposure

Variables Grammatical Discourse Competence

Competence
r-value p-value r-value p-value

30
Father’s Highest Educational .354** .000 .291** .000
Attainment
Mother’s Highest Educational .328** .000 .247** .000
Attainment
Time Spent to Mass Media
TV .096 .166 .019 .782
*
Radio .162 .019 .062 .373
Magazine .040 .561 .022 .752
Newspaper .054 .440 .001 .994
Internet .144* .037 .084 .223
Overall .059 .398 .045 .518
Attention Given to Mass
Media
TV .182** .008 .188** .006
Radio .142* .040 .181** .009
Magazine .215** .002 .170* .014
**
Newspaper .255 .000 .233** .001
Internet .204** .003 .159* .021
**
Overall .248 .000 .232** .001
Credibility of Advertisements
in Mass Media
TV .355** .000 .314** .000
Radio .398** .000 .360** .000
**
Magazine .407 .000 .352** .000
Newspaper .461** .000 .413** .000
Internet .057 .413 .026 .710
**
Overall .402 .000 .363** .000
Frequency of Clicking Ads in .281** .000 .289** .000
Mass Media
Overall Mass Media Exposure .369** .000 .336** .000
df = 209
Note: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level

The data also revealed that grammatical competence was significantly

correlated to the respondents’ parents’ highest educational attainment with
correlation coefficients or r-values of .354 and .328 for father`s highest educational
attainment and mother`s highest educational attainment, respectively at 0.01 level
of significance (Table 11). This means that the higher the level of parental education,
the more grammatically competent the respondents would be. Media exposure and
students’ grammatical and discourse competence were also positively correlated as
indicated by the overall correlation coefficients of .369 and .366, respectively.

31
Table 12
Relationship between Respondents’ Productive Skills, Selected Profile, and Mass
Media Exposure

Variables Writing Speaking

r-value p-value r-value p-value
Father’s Education .209 .144 .255 .074
Mother’s Education .257 .071 .337* .017
Time Spent on Mass Media
TV .072 .622 .071 .625
Radio .004 .976 .264 .064
Magazine .039 .789 .002 .989
Newspaper .113 .435 .051 .727
Internet .248 .082 .028 .849
Overall .024 .866 .120 .406
Attention Given to Mass Media
TV .206 .151 .178 .216
Radio .116 .424 .310* .029
Magazine .225 .116 .236 .099
Newspaper .254 .075 .231 .106
Internet .200 .164 .169 .239
Overall .252 .077 .281* .048
Credibility of Advertisements
in Mass Media
TV .291* .040 .304* .032
Radio .154 .285 .389** .005
Magazine .401** .004 .429** .002
Newspaper .420** .002 .353* .012
Internet .020 .890 .110 .447
Overall .319* .024 .350* .013
*
Frequency of Clicking Ads in .291 .040 .304* .032
Mass Media
Overall Mass Media Exposure .302* .033 .292* .040
df = 49
Note: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level

With a correlation coefficient of .337 at 0.05 level of significance, mother’s

highest educational attainment was found to be significantly correlated to speaking
performance. The table further shows that exposure to mass media influenced
writing and speaking performance as reflected in the overall correlation coefficients
of .302 and .292, respectively.

32
Table 13
Relationship between Respondents’ Grammatical Competence and Discourse
Competence

Discourse Competence
Grammatical Competence Spoken Written
r-value p-value r-value p-value
Grammar .257** .000 .318** .000
**
Vocabulary .377 .000 .454** .000
Phonology .235** .001 .297** .000
**
Morphology .405 .000 .493** .000
Semantics .425** .000 .521** .000
*
Syntax .177 .010 .305** .000
Overall r- value = 0.433** p –value = 0.000
df = 209
Note: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level

In addition, Table 13 shows that there was a significant relationship between

grammatical competence and discourse competence. This suggests that
respondents’ knowledge in the domains of grammar, vocabulary, phonology,
morphology, semantics, and syntax were related to their knowledge of spoken and
written discourse. As scores in specific grammatical competence domains increase,
the scores in spoken and written discourse also increase.

Table 14
Relationship between Respondents’ Grammatical Discourse Competence and
Productive Skills

Productive Skills
Speaking Writing
r-value p-value r-value p-value
Grammatical Competence
Grammar .076 .601 .396** .004
Vocabulary .136 .348 .237 .098
Phonology .256 .073 .505** .000
Morphology .239 .094 .423** .002
*
Semantics .328 .020 .596** .000
Syntax .232 .105 .546** .000
Discourse Competence
Spoken .379** .007 .320* .022
Written .444** .001 .435** .002
Overall r- value = .433** p –value = .000
df = 49
Note: *significant at 0.05 level; **significant at 0.01 level

33
 Table 14 shows that grammatical competence was significantly correlated
with writing skill, while discourse competence was significantly correlated with
speaking and writing skill. The results further suggested that grammatical and
discourse competence were closely associated with speaking and writing as
ascertained by the overall correlation coefficient of .433, which was significant at
0.01 level.
The micro-skills, subsumed under grammatical competence except for
vocabulary, showed positive linear relationship with writing skill. This means that
the higher the scores in grammar, phonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax,
the better the performance of the respondents in the writing task.
A positive linear relationship between discourse competence and the
productive skills of respondents was also established by the findings, as reflected by
the correlation coefficients, which were significant at 0.01 and 0.05. This implies that
one’s ability to combine and interpret meanings and forms to achieve unified text in
different modes by using cohesion devices to relate forms and coherence rules to
organise meanings and the ability to select sequence and arrange words, structures,
and utterances to achieve a unified spoken message (discourse competence) can
manifest in real communicative situations such as in writing and speaking.
Finally, the relationship between grammatical and discourse competence
and the productive skills was reinforced by the overall correlation coefficient which
is significant at 0.01 level.

Discussion

Based on the findings, although the students’ grammar competence was average,
scores in specific dimensions of grammatical competence such grammar and syntax
were poor. The poor results in the grammar test supported findings indicating that
learners’ performance in grammar and syntax was generally poor (Merza, 2022;
Sioco & De Vera, 2018). When it comes to morphology, the result suggested that the
respondents were generally aware of the rules of morphological affixation. This
negated that of Naseeb and Ibrahim (2017), Sarfraz et al. (2018) and Hasani et al.
(2014) who found that learners lack morphological awareness. The scores in the
semantics dimension of the grammatical competence test meanwhile returned an
average categorical mean. Relative to this, Chiu (2009) reported that even high-level
ESL learners performed significantly worse than native speakers of English. The
study also revealed differences in grammatical competence scores of students when
grouped by course which concur with other studies (Razmjoo & Movahed, 2009;
Tuan, 2017).
In terms of discourse, the students’ competence was average. The results
illustrated that they had an average knowledge regarding spoken and written
discourse. Discourse competence scores were also found to vary across school type
and course. As López-Montero et al. (2014, as cited in Eccius-Wellmann & Santana,
2020) pointed out, access to cultural capital in the form of books, computers, and
internet access, “may have a profound influence upon whether, what, and how any
individual learns a language” (p. 3).

34
 On the other hand, the speaking test revealed encouraging results as
students’ performance was described “competent”, while their writing skills were
rated “adequate-good”. It is important to note that speaking performance differed
significantly only when grouped according to course. This result was similar to
Betonio (2017), who assessed students’ English oral proficiency based on degree
programmes and found that there was a highly significant difference in the oral
proficiency level of students when compared using the academic courses that they
were enrolled in.
The study also revealed an association between grammatical competence
and discourse competence. These two competences appeared to interact with each
other. The recognition and production of grammatically correct sentences as well as
comprehension of their propositional content are critical in the creation of discourse
(Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 2007; Flowerdew, 2013). Elements at the lexical
and grammatical levels are united in the formulation of discourse. Hence, both
grammatical and discourse competence reflect the use of the grammatical system
itself (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 2007).
In terms of writing, the results confirm as well as negate results from studies
that explored writing performance and errors of ESL and EFL students when
language dimensions and select profile variables are considered. No significant
structural differences between writing factors across the gender group was found by
Woods (2016), contradicting Al-Saadi (2020) who found that women did better than
men in terms of writing fluency and text quality. dos Santos and Hage (2015)
reported that students at private institutions had better writing abilities than those
at public institutions. Exposure to mass media helped students in their speaking
skills (Albayrak & Yanar, 2013; Sioco & De Vera, 2018).
The main concern of this research, however, was whether grammatical and
discourse competence are correlated with the productive skills of speaking and
writing. Results revealed that grammatical competence, in general, showed positive
linear relationship with writing skill. Mulyaningsih et al. (2013) confirmed that there
was a positive correlation between grammatical competence and writing ability.
They explained that the decrease or increase in the students` grammatical
competence led to the decrease or increase in writing ability. Moreover, the most
grammatically competent students proved to be the best student-writers (Shattah,
2008). One’s ability to combine and interpret meanings and forms can manifest in
real communicative situations such as in writing and speaking. In the context of the
theory of the transfer of learning, the present study suggests that the respondents`
grammatical and discourse knowledge facilitate, contribute, or was translated to
speaking and writing performance.

Conclusion

The first-year students of the College of Arts and Sciences, Cagayan State University
have an average competence level along with grammatical competence and
discourse competence. While they were competent in speaking, they were only
adequate to good in writing. The course they were taking was a contributory factor
and correlated significantly in grammatical competence, discourse competence, and

35
speaking. Parents’ highest educational attainment and mass media exposure were
found to be significantly correlated with both grammatical and discourse
competence, while for discourse level, only the type of school one graduated from
was found to be significant. There was also a significant relationship between
linguistic competence and discourse competence. Finally, grammatical competence
was found to be significantly correlated with writing skill, while discourse
competence was significantly correlated with speaking and writing skills.
Grammatical and discourse knowledge facilitated both the productive skill of
speaking and writing and were established as vital for better written and spoken
language outputs. Future research can include sociolinguistic and strategic
competences, two promising areas for further investigation in the present area.

References

Ahangari, S., & Barghi, A. H. (2012). Consistency of measured accuracy in grammar

knowledge tests and writing: TOEFL PBT. Language Testing in Asia 2(2), 5-21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-2-2-5
Al-Saadi, Z. (2020). Gender differences in writing: The mediating effect of language
proficiency and writing fluency in text quality. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1770923
Albayrak, S., & Yanar, M. (2013). Effects of mass media tools on speaking skills in
teaching maritime English. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
290443783_EFFECTS_OF_MASS_MEDIATOOLS_ON_SPEAKING_SKILLS_IN_TE
ACHING_MARITIME_ENGLISH
Baclig, C. E. (2020, November 20). Philippines drops further in global English
proficiency rankings. Inquirer.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1362951/philippines-drops-further-in-global-
english-proficiency-rankings
Betonio, R. (2017). Assessment of students’ English oral proficiency based on degree
programs: Implications for admission examinations. Journal for Humanities
and Social Sciences, 7(23), 38-60. https://www.msuiit.edu.ph/academics/
colleges/cass/research/langkit/2017/Article%203.pdf
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL
teacher’s course. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Chiu, C. (2009). ESL learners' semantic awareness of English words. Language
Awareness, 18(3-4), 294-309. DOI: 10.1080/09658410903197272
Domantay, M., & Ramos, L. (2018). English writing performance of grade 11
students. Journal of Advanced Studies, 1(1), 1-19. https://psurj.org/wp-
content /uploads/2018/12/JAS-002.pdf
dos Santos, M. A., & Hage, S. (2015). Textual production of children without learning
difficulties. CoDAS, 27(4), 350-358. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-
1782/20152014037

36
Eccius-Wellmann, C., & Santana, J. (2020). Variables that Influence language
proficiency in students from public and private high schools in Mexico.
MexTesol Journal, 44(2), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1191%2F0265532202lt226oa
Fitriani, D., & Wardah, R. (2015). A study on student’s English speaking problems in
speaking performance. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa,
4(9), 1-13.
https://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jpdpb/article/download/11345/10753
Flowerdew, J. (2013) Discourse in English language education. Routledge.
GMA News Online. (2018, February 21). English proficiency of Pinoy students,
teachers lagging - survey.
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/ 644114/english-
proficiency-of-pinoy-students-teachers-lagging-survey/story/
Hajian, S. (2019). Transfer of learning and teaching: A review of transfer theories and
effective instructional practices. IAFOR Journal of Education, 7(1), 93-111.
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.7.1.06
Hasani, M., Mousavi, S., & Zarei, A. A. (2014). The effect of the number of affixes on
vocabulary learning of Iranian intermediate EFL students. International
Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(3), 84-96.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312470102_THE_EFFECT_OF_TH
E_NUMBER_OF_AFFIXES_ON_VOCABULARY_LEARNING_OF_IRANIAN_INTER
MEDIATE_EFL_STUDENTS
Heriansyah, H. (2012). Speaking problems faced by the English department students
of Syiah Kuala University. Lingua Didaktika, 6, 37-44.
https://doi.org/10.24036 /ld.v6i1.7398
Islam, M. S., & Stapa, M. B. (2021). Students’ low proficiency in spoken English in
private universities in Bangladesh: Reasons and remedies. Lang Test Asia,
11(22). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00139-0
Leberman, S., & Doyle, S. (2006). The transfer of learning participants' perspectives
of adult education and training. Routledge.
Mahripah, S. (2014). EFL learners’ attitudes towards the improvement of their
English speaking performance. Jurnal Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra dan
Pengajarannya, 12(2), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.21831/ltr.v12i02.1590
Merza, H. N. (2022). English grammar competence of Filipino college freshmen.
Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 2949-2958.
https://journalppw.com /index.php/jpsp/article/view/3766/2466
Mulyaningsih, A., Rais, D., & Sulistyawati, H. (2013). A correlation study between
grammatical competence, verbal linguistic intelligence, and writing ability.
English Education: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sebelas
Maret, 2(1), 224-233. https://jurnal.fkip.uns.ac.id/index.php/bhs_
inggris/article/ download/7911/5758
Naseeb, M., & Ibrahim, M. A. (2017). Morphological derivations: Learning difficulties
encountered by public secondary school students in Amman/Jordan. English
Language Teaching, 10(12), 172-181.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n12p172
Nunan, D. (2009). Second language teaching and learning. ESP Printers, Inc.

37
Rahman, M. M., Islam, M. S., Hasan, M. K., & Singh, M. K. M. (2021). English medium
instruction: Beliefs and attitudes of university lecturers in Bangladesh and
Malaysia. Issues in Educational Research, 31(4), 1213-1225.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357079585_English_medium_in
struction_Beliefs_and_attitudes_of_university_lecturers_in_Bangladesh_an
d_Malaysia
Razmjoo, S., & Movahed, M. (2009). On the relationship between socio-cultural
factors and language proficiency. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 13(2), 59-76. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ868852.pdf
Sarfraz, S., Tariq U., & Abbas, A. (2018). Effectiveness of morphological awareness in
English writing composition of Pakistani students at the undergraduate
level-Case study. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(19), 78-84.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234641795.pdf
Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
Separa, L. A., Generales, L., & Medina, R. J. (2020). Situational speaking difficulties of
English as second language learners in the Philippines. Journal of Southeast
Asian Studies, 25(1), 144-167. https://doi.org/10.22452/jati.vol25no1.8
Sermsook, K., Liamnimitr, J., & Pochakor, R. (2017). An analysis of errors in written
English sentences: A case study of Thai EFL students. English Language
Teaching, 10(3), 101-110. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1130033.pdf
Shattah, A. (2008). Investigating the relationship between grammatical competence
and EFL (English as a foreign language) learners’ writing quality. [Degree
dissertation, University of Khartoum].
Sioco, E., & De Vera, P. (2018). Grammatical competence of junior high school
students. TESOL International Journal, 13(1), 81-94.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1247221
Tuan, V. (2017). Communicative competence of the fourth year students: Basis for
proposed English language program. English Language Teaching, 10(7), 104-
122. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n7p104
Woods, L. (2016). Examining gender differences in writing skill with latent factor
modeling. [Master dissertation, University of Washington].
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/36586
Yano, Y. (2003). Communicative competence and English as an International
Language. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 10, 75-83. https://web.uri.
edu/iaics/files/07-Yasukata-Yano.pdf

38