Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction

Rodrigo Concepcion Morales; Gerry Ariate Lumaban; Zenaida Nicomedez Regodon; Richard Rabe Ribleza; Emmanuel Bandibas Elpides; Joy Men Openiano Mendoza; Maria Theresa Corral Ribleza; Eddie Anerdes Rubi Jr.; Kimberly Ann Pigos Ugerio; Ivy Abocado Avis; Lea Jane Gaindo Baldidomar; John Casiano Colona Mayuga; Elmerito Balondo Melindo Jr.; Alejo Jann Corral Paraoan; Shera Mae Martinez Rosagas

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction

Rodrigo Concepcion Morales^*

, Gerry Ariate Lumaban, Zenaida Nicomedez Regodon, Richard Rabe Ribleza, Emmanuel Bandibas Elpides, Joy Men Openiano Mendoza, Maria Theresa Corral Ribleza, Eddie Anerdes Rubi Jr., Kimberly Ann Pigos Ugerio, Ivy Abocado Avis, Lea Jane Gaindo Baldidomar, John Casiano Colona Mayuga, Elmerito Balondo Melindo Jr., Alejo Jann Corral Paraoan, Shera Mae Martinez Rosagas

Published in International Journal of Secondary Education (Volume 14, Issue 1)

Received: 22 November 2025 Accepted: 23 December 2025 Published: 19 January 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Oral communication performances of PNHS-Main Senior High School students obtained the lowest Mean Percentage Score (MPS) from the performative assessment administered by the Schools Division of Paranaque City. These results were alarming which needed to be intervened. The current study aimed at a two-fold objective, such as providing schools with accurate, data-driven insights into teaching practices through ongoing assessments and instructional monitoring; and improving classroom outcomes by linking assessment findings directly to instructional adjustments. The study employed a mixed-method research design which means to say that collected quantitative data will be supported with qualitative data. Applying this design would help the researchers find out a holistic approach to identify the effectiveness of contextualized assessments. Further, the investigation included 30 class sections comprised of 6 clusters, particularly involving 1,112 Grade 11 students as research participants. In particular, the said research participants came from four senior high school strands, namely: STEM, HUMMS, ABM, and TVL. Furthermore, the teacher-researchers were asked to develop ten assessment tools with 10 multiple-choice test items, aligning these with the Oral Communication in Context Curriculum Guide (CG) and Definitive Budget of Work (DBOW). To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the assessment tools, these were validated by an expert in the field of Language teaching. The teacher-researchers administered a weekly assessment aligned with the targeted competencies for the week with their respective oral communication classes. Moreover, the administration of the weekly assessment lasted for 10 weeks (two quarters or one semester) to be specific. Across 10 weeks the mean scores increased from 6.80 to 7.48, indicating steady improvement associated with weekly formative assessments. To check the assessment results, the data or the test scores were recorded by taking the mean, MPS (Mean Percentage Score), and SD (Standard Deviation) to determine the statistical average and dispersion of the recorded scores. Research findings implied a positive impact, rendering increasing line trends, seemingly proving that the academic interventions employed were effective and appropriately addressed the instructional needs for both teachers and students in Oral Communication in Context. Consequently, the results indicated that formative assessments are needed to assist teachers to adjust their instructions in order to address the needs of the students in the said subject area. Pedagogical implications and recommendations were provided for future research directions.

Published in	International Journal of Secondary Education (Volume 14, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12
Page(s)	8-20
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Needs-based Approach, Project MAIN, Oral Communication, Needs-driven Instruction, Proficiency

1. Introduction

Communicative competence has been considered a vital aspect of success. Crystal

[9]

asserted that possessing mastery of the English language can guarantee the availability of employment, travelling, higher education, and a better life. Language, whether spoken or written is instrumental for humans to communicate and propound thoughts and emotions, thereby making relations for interactions and building unity within the speech community. Thus, having communicative competence in English or target language known as the global lingua franca serves as a bridge between diverse nations

[34]

. In line with this, it is beyond cavil that many educational institutions give emphasis on enhancing the students’ communication skills, especially the oral domain. Thus, teachers provide assessments embedded in their instructional materials to gather evidence of the students’ performance over a period of time and to determine the learning and mastery of skills required as provided in the curricula for a particular subject area.

Provision of high-quality instruction has become a major goal in education today. To achieve this, teachers’ instructional methods must align with the changing and diverse needs of the learners themselves. As classrooms become more varied in terms of student backgrounds, learning styles, and academic levels, the need for timely and effective support for teachers becomes more critical. For this reason, instructional monitoring and assessment have emerged as vital strategies. These practices help educators and school leaders gather accurate and relevant data about teaching and learning. Such data enable teachers to make informed decisions, adjust their instructional approaches in real-time, and improve learning outcomes (Wiliam,

[37]

Instructional monitoring and assessment are not only used to measure student performance; they also serve as important tools in evaluating the performance and development needs of teachers. Through structured classroom observations, the use of formative assessment tools, and constructive feedback, school leaders can nail down specific areas where teachers require guidance and support (Niculescu,

[26]

; Wiliam,

[37]

; Marzano,

[25]

). When instructional needs are properly identified and addressed, teachers become more effective in their practice, which in turn leads to improved student engagement and academic achievement (Pesina,

[23]

; Guskey,

[17]

However, despite the copious amount of advantages that can be culled from the instructional materials implemented in schools, one fact remains to be a reality in the Philippine educational settings; i.e, there is no adequate training on the part of the teachers. For instance, Cayabas Jr. and Sumeg-ang

[13]

identified the typical themes of challenges with regard to instructional materials and implementation of the same teachers face to wit; scarcity in instructional materials and difficulty of keeping pace with technological advancement because of lack of technical knowledge and skills. Because of this phenomenon, many students experience a learning gap since the teachers and their instructions do not fulfill what is required for the delivery of quality education.

Another worth-citing study by Frianza

[14]

indicates that challenges in education system in the Philippines revolve around the low budget allocations from the local and national levels of governance. Furthermore, inadequate content knowledge, limited resources and references, and lack of materials and equipment are among those problems that cyclically succumb many educational institutions in the Philippines. Accordingly, teachers innovate and use localized materials that are available to supplement the insufficiency of the competencies required (Dicdiquin, Mobo, and Cutillas,

[10]

; Timperley & Wilson,

[31]

Insofar as oral communication is concerned, assessment of students’ skills to the same cannot be shunned. Linguists concur that language is an indispensable element of all endeavors in life though it is conceived as a system of symbols and meanings (Banga & Suri,

[4]

). Thus, it is a system of functions (Halliday,

[18]

). Understanding is a primordial goal as to why people communicate thus, they tend to employ contextualization cues. This is well embodied in the so-called “communicative competencies.” According to Canale and Swain (

[8]

cited in Ahmed,

[2]

) that there are four competencies students must possess to be able to convey the meanings and make sense of the world around them using language viz: Grammatical competence which refers to ability of a person to know the words and rules pertaining to the proper construction of spoken and written language; Sociolinguistic Competence which pertains to the ability of the person to know how to appropriately utilize language in accordance to a particular context; Discourse Competence which refers to the ability to propound cohesive and coherent texts or spoken language; and, Strategic Competence which refers to manipulate, repair, recognize, and organize breakdowns or dissonance in communication. In other words, the latter refers to the ability of the person to use both verbal and nonverbal, and paralinguistic cues and prosodic features so that when problems arise, the same can immediately be remedied. With all these, the very heart of [oral] communication proficiency is the production of fluency and realization of automaticity (Canale,

[8]

). Moreover, Nyarko

[27]

found the positive relations between reading proficiency and academic performance of the students.

In the Philippines, English is the principal medium of communication and instruction. Executive Order No. 210 mandates that English language shall be used as the primary medium of instructions in all public and private schools in the secondary levels (Bautista & De Velle,

[6]

). There have been many studies that provide a bonanza of positive assertions as to the oral communication of the students. Based on the recently conducted study by Apat et al.

[3]

they found that oral communication is significantly linked to students learning engagement. Accordingly, interactive activities must be employed to maintain the sustainability of the performance of students. As Dunbar

[11, 12]

posited the higher mean scores in oral communication activities are indicia of strong competence in oral communication skills.

In line with this, teachers around the globe acknowledge the indispensable role of technology in this highly globalized, competitive environment. Teachers must be fluid in delivering their instructions (Widayati, MacCallum, & Woods-McConney

[35]

). Consequently, the employment of technology in instructions creates a positive subliminal learning environment to the students thereby making the teaching-learning process more personalized and interactive.

Notwithstanding the fondness of many Filipinos in the use of English, it has been formally disclosed by the study conducted by Madrunio, Martin, and Plata

[24]

that English Language Education policies in the Philippines contain issues of alignment and coherence in the areas of curriculum and assessment which are rooted to poor and erratic implementations of the policies pertaining thereto. To cure this, Gracia, Alvarado, and Nieva

[15]

proposed five key dimensions as constructs for effective oral communication to wit: (1) Interaction management; (2) Multimodality and prosody; 3) textual coherence and cohesion; (4) Argumentative strategies; and (5) Lexicon and terminology.

Equally important is the assertion made by Suson et al.

[29]

that in a developing country like the Philippines, students have different learning styles. Hence, it is submitted that differentiated instructions such as visual aids shall be employed by the teachers for them to cater the individual needs of the students. Examples of these are visual aids, explicit instructions and visual cues integration, and feedbacking Vaughn & Fletcher,

[33]

; Houston,

[20]

). Corollary, Langelaan

[22]

stated that differentiation instruction permits teachers to adjust and adapt activities and instructional prompts with respect to the level of readiness for each student so as to enhance inclusion inclusivity and minimize performance disparities. Evidence in support of DI meta-analysis conducted by Tomlinson and Jarvis

[32]

revealed that DI results in moderate academic gains when assessment data is collected over time. The trends found at the cluster level in this study, with some clusters consistently outperforming others, are consistent with literature that suggests that DI is most beneficial for struggling learners when it is combined with formative feedback and remediation strategies. All these in effect strengthen students’ competence and comprehension.

Since the acquisition of skills and knowledge in oral communication varies from one student to another, it is nevertheless disclosed that cultural and linguistic features; that is, mother tongue or L1 and target language or L2, contribute to either success or failure of the students in oral communication (Abu-Arquob & Alserhan,

[1]

). As claimed by Douglas Fir Group

[16]

, there are three levels of influence on second language learning which significantly affect the way teachers assess or evaluate the students’ performance and output. These are as follows: micro level which pertains to students’ social activities; meso level which refers to the sociocultural institutions and communities; and the macro level which refers to sociocultural ideological structures of the students. Burns

[7]

claimed that in micro level, teachers must be aware that each student has cognitive and affective structures that affect the way they perform in oral communication related activities. It likewise influences the willingness to produce utterances and be engaged in discourse. With regard to the meso level it provides facilitative and inhibiting environment.

While a number of studies have been elucidated above concerning the critical roles of employing different instructions to students in English Language in general and Oral Communication in particular, there seems to be less attention paid to the utilization of contextualized instruction and assessment to monitor teaching practices that facilitate learning process. For that reason, there is a compelling interest to develop an assessment tool that identify both the weaknesses and strengths of teachers’ instructional competencies.

To respond to these growing demands, Project MAIN (Monitoring and Assessment for Instructional Needs) is developed. It uses a combination of observation tools, formative assessments, and modern technologies such as AI-based analytics to collect comprehensive data on classroom instruction and teacher performance. By analyzing this data, school leaders can provide more focused and personalized professional development for teachers (Hirsh,

[19]

). This approach supports a cycle of continuous improvement and promotes reflective teaching practices.

Project MAIN recognizes the teachers' common recognition of the continued problems their students experience in line with other aspects such as understanding of the subject matter and the motivation of the students in taking the particular subject area. During the focus group, the bone of contention has been identified by the teachers from various tracks—TVL, STEM, ABM, and ALS. They found out that students had difficulty comprehending written questions, which usually need to be translated into Tagalog and subsequently elaborated upon to fully comprehend them. Performance was also hampered by absenteeism and lack of focus, leading teachers to develop tactics such as reviewing material before quizzes, organizing small discussion groups, using code-switching, and administering continuous formative assessments. They focused on providing peer support by linking high-performing students with those of lower academic performance and led feedback sessions that highlighted correct answers together with the reasoning for emphasizing depth of understanding. With time, these interventions created a more engaged and understanding student who was able to perform better on exams because they were motivated and confident. Out of this shared experience was born Project MAIN, a research-based program to improve student learning through consistent assessment, taught instruction, and teacher collaboration —to transform assessment from a method of measurement into one that supports meaningful learning growth.

Hence, Project MAIN sought to achieve the following objectives:

1) To provide schools with accurate, data-driven insights into teaching practices through ongoing assessments and instructional monitoring; and,

2) To improve classroom outcomes by linking assessment findings directly to instructional adjustments.

2. Methodology

A total of 1,112 grade 11 students who took the subject Oral Communication in Context for School Year 2025-2026 participated in the study. All whom were students at Parañaque National High School-Main (PNHS-Main). From the total number of 1,112, 628 of whom were males and 484 were females. This research study adopted a mixed method research design. It focused on summarizing and analyzing the data and results of assessments collected through the use of the Assessment Tool for the subject. The assessment tool was a standardized quiz that has a total of 10 multiple-choice questions for each lesson or topic discussed. It was implemented after a lesson or topic was discussed and done during Fridays, but in cases that there were class suspensions, the assessment is given to the learners the following meeting. Collection of data was from Week 1 to Week 6 of the first semester of the current school year. Finally, descriptive statistics were used such as, highest score, lowest score, standard deviation (SD) and mean percentage score (MPS) for each section and the cumulative results. The scores were also section and gender-disaggregated to show the results as broken-down based on their class section and gender.

3. Results and Discussion

Table 1. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 1, Week 2- Assessment 1.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	4	5.48	54.85	1.68
Cluster 2	10	10	5	8.75	87.52	1.08
Cluster 3	10	9	2	5.64	56.40	1.80
Cluster 4	10	10	3	7.40	74.01	1.82
Cluster 5	10	10	5	7.57	75.68	1.47
Cluster 6	10	10	0	6.56	65.63	1.78
Average	10	10	3	6.90	69.02	1.60

Table 1 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 1 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

It indicates that the highest possible score is 10, while the lowest scores ranged from 0 to 5, demonstrating variability in student achievement. Cluster 2 achieved the highest mean (8.75) and Mean Percentage Score (87.52), reflecting superior performance and consistent learning outcomes. In contrast, Cluster 1 recorded the lowest mean (5.48) and MPS (54.85), implying the need for instructional improvement. The poor MPS results may be an indicium that students have poor comprehension to follow and understand basic concepts and written instructions. This is in parallel to Swanson et. al.

[28]

saying that students who have poor comprehension of the basic written instructions in English tend to garner lower scores in activities or exams given by the teachers.

It is also notable that students from Clusters 1, 3, 4, and 6 are considered nearly proficient based on their MPS of 50-74 for Assessment 1. On the other hand, students from Clusters 2 and 5 are considered proficient based on their MPS of 75-89 for the same assessment.

Furthermore, the mean score (6.90) and MPS (69.02) demonstrate a moderate mastery level, while the standard deviation (1.60) suggests moderate dispersion. Although overall performance remains acceptable, lower-performing sections may require targeted intervention to promote mastery and learning consistency in Oral Communication in Context. These results support what Apat et al

[3]

asserted that instructional materials introduced by the teachers will significantly affect the students’ performance in academic endeavor such as in oral communication. Furthermore, Dunbar

[11]

is correct when it was found that students whose mean scores are high indicate that they possess proficiency in oral communication skills.

Table 2. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 1, Week 3- Assessment 2.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	3	6.81	68.06	1.90
Cluster 2	10	10	4	8.52	85.24	1.45
Cluster 3	10	10	1	5.60	56.00	2.05
Cluster 4	10	10	0	6.63	66.28	1.80
Cluster 5	10	10	4	8.28	82.82	1.53
Cluster 6	10	10	4	7.13	71.27	1.84
Average	10	10	3	7.16	71.61	1.76

Table 2 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 2 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

It indicates that the highest possible score is 10, while the lowest scores ranged from 0 to 4, which is lower compared to the previous week’s range. Cluster 2 still achieved the highest mean (8.52) and Mean Percentage Score (85.24), demonstrating strong student mastery and effective instructional delivery of the teacher. In contrast, Cluster 3 recorded the lowest mean (5.60) and MPS (56.00), suggesting the presence of learning gaps that may require additional interventions.

After taking assessment 2, students from Clusters 1, 5, and 6 got a higher MPS compared to the previous week. Four (4) clusters remain nearly proficient with MPS within 50-74 and two as proficient which are Cluster 2 and 5 respectively. It is also notable that Cluster 3 had the highest variability among the groups (2.05), indicating wider performance disparities and suggesting the need for differentiated instruction to support lower-performing learners.

The computed mean score (7.16) and MPS (71.61) improved compared to the previous week’s data. They also demonstrate a moderate mastery level, while the standard deviation (1.76) demonstrates moderate degree of score dispersion, implying that performance differences exist but are not highly extreme across the clusters. These results conceived the truism that in each particular case, students’ performance will vary. Hence, teachers shall include differentiated and contextualized instructions for the students to have a solid grasp of the subject matter (Gracia, Alvarado, & Nieve,

[15]

Table 3. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 1, Week 4- Assessment 3.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	3	6.35	63.54	1.87
Cluster 2	10	10	4	6.60	66.01	1.56
Cluster 3	10	9	3	5.90	58.97	1.60
Cluster 4	10	10	4	7.17	71.70	1.78
Cluster 5	10	10	4	8.22	82.23	1.44
Cluster 6	10	10	4	6.54	65.40	1.74
Average	10	10	4	6.80	67.98	1.67

Table 3 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 3 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

All classes recorded a highest possible score of 10, confirming that the assessment provided opportunities for students to demonstrate complete mastery of the expected competencies. On the other hand, the lowest scores ranged from 3 to 4, which means that several learners achieved progress to proficiency.

Among the six clusters, Cluster 5 recorded the strongest performance outcomes with a mean score of 8.22 and MPS of 82.23, reflecting high mastery and relatively consistent learner achievement. This was followed by Cluster 4, posting a mean of 7.17 and MPS of 71.70, and Cluster 2, which achieved a mean of 6.60 and MPS of 66.01. These clusters demonstrate continued instructional effectiveness.

Conversely, Cluster 3 posted the lowest achievement levels with mean scores of 5.90 (MPS=58.97). The same cluster recorded moderate variability (SD of 1.60), suggesting a mix of proficient and struggling learners, and highlighting the need for reinforced support strategies such as scaffolding, enrichment, and targeted remediation. Accordingly, there is a presence of prima facie evidence to scale up the teaching and learning English (oral communication) among those students who are below the expected standards as provided in this assessment. This concurs with Sioco & De Vera

[30]

that students need more enhancement activities.

The overall mean score across all clusters was 6.80, generating a collective Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of 67.98. While this indicates that a fair proportion of students demonstrated progressing mastery, the standard deviation of 1.67 signifies notable performance dispersion. These findings emphasize the importance of differentiated instruction to ensure all learners achieve expected competency levels in Oral Communication in Context (Suson et. al.

[29]

Table 4. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 1, Week 5- Assessment 4.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	3	6.55	65.53	1.78
Cluster 2	10	10	4	7.68	76.85	1.78
Cluster 3	10	10	4	7.06	70.62	1.57
Cluster 4	10	10	3	7.40	74.04	1.61
Cluster 5	10	10	5	7.91	79.13	1.37
Cluster 6	10	10	3	6.57	65.72	1.96
Average	10	10	4	7.20	72.98	1.68

Table 4 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 4 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

The table indicates that Cluster 5 had the best performance for the week which is reflected by its mean (7.91) and MPS (79.13). The same cluster got the lowest SD of 1.37 which signifies that the scores of the students are not widely dispersed.

On the other hand, Cluster 1 recorded the lowest mean (6.55) and MPS (65.53). However, compared to the previous week’s assessment, Cluster 1 achieved a higher outcome for this assessment. It is also notable that all clusters, except Cluster 5, performed better this week compared to the previous one. This means that the strategies used and interventions provided by the teachers are effective.

The overall mean score across all clusters was 7.20, generating a collective MPS of 72.98. The recorded MPS increased by 5 indicating a better performance for this week. The standard deviation of 1.68 signifies notable performance dispersion.

Table 5. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 1, Week 6- Assessment 5.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	3	6.93	69.30	1.84
Cluster 2	10	10	5	8.45	84.47	1.43
Cluster 3	10	10	4	6.27	62.68	1.76
Cluster 4	10	10	4	7.57	75.65	1.00
Cluster 5	10	10	4	7.86	78.59	1.62
Cluster 6	10	10	3	6.81	68.08	1.79
Average	10	10	4	7.31	73.13	1.57

Table 5 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 5 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

The table indicates that Cluster 2 had the best performance for the week which is reflected by its mean of 8.45 and MPS of 84.47. The scores of the students were not widely dispersed as reflected by the SD of 1.43.

Meanwhile, Cluster 3 recorded the lowest mean (6.27) and MPS (62.68). Learning outcomes of the cluster are also a little varied as seen in its SD of 1.76. Clusters 1, 2, 4, and 6 continued to perform better compared to the previous assessment. Clusters 3 and 5, on the other hand, declined in their performance for this week.

The overall mean score across all clusters was 7.31, generating a collective MPS of 73.13. In general, the performance of the students kept getting better as shown by the increasing MPS towards the end of the first quarter. The standard deviation of 1.57 signifies a little variation in the scores of the students which also means that the performances of the students are consistent. The variation in the standard deviation could be explained through understanding the affective-motivational aspects of students when they took the assessment. As Burns

[7]

propounded that students vary in scores since each has his/her unique affective and cognitive styles in learning. But nonetheless, these results concur with the fact that consistent monitoring of students performance through assessment will encourage metacomprehension. Thus, consistent monitoring and employment of authentic assessment positively impacts the students’ motivation, language proficiency, and learning engagement (Bayasen,

[5]

Table 6. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 2, Week 7- Assessment 6.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	3	6.85	68.47	1.63
Cluster 2	10	10	5	7.56	75.58	1.42
Cluster 3	10	10	4	5.44	54.41	1.52
Cluster 4	10	10	4	7.56	75.62	1.01
Cluster 5	10	10	4	7.48	74.83	1.47
Cluster 6	10	10	4	6.54	65.41	1.48
Average	10	10	4	6.91	69.05	1.42

Table 6 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 6 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

The table indicates that Cluster 4 had the best performance for the week which is reflected by its mean of 7.56 and MPS of 75.62. These data show that this cluster had an increase in performance compared to the previous assessment. The scores of the students were not widely dispersed as reflected by the SD of 1.01.

Meanwhile, Cluster 3 is still the least performing cluster with a Mean of 5.44 and MPS of 54.41. Learning outcomes of the cluster are also a little varied as seen in its SD of 1.52. It can also be noted that all clusters, except Cluster 4, got lower mean and MPS compared to the previous week.

The overall mean score across all clusters was 6.91, generating a collective MPS of 69.05. The reason for this is the transition of students from the first quarter to the second quarter. There was a one-week gap between the previous assessment and this assessment which disrupted the sense of familiarity of the students. This supports Lagmay et. al.

[21]

that substantial short-term learning disruptions after weeks of class suspension from typhoons in the Philippines This results call for the consistency of implementing differentiated assessments and consistent reinforcement which would enhance students familiarity with the subject matter which likewise in turn promote automaticity (Widyastuti,

[36]

Table 7. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 2, Week 8- Assessment 7.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	3	6.99	69.93	1.54
Cluster 2	10	10	3	9.15	91.48	1.51
Cluster 3	10	10	4	5.42	54.24	1.22
Cluster 4	10	10	4	7.58	75.78	1.65
Cluster 5	10	10	4	8.91	89.08	1.26
Cluster 6	10	10	4	6.77	67.69	1.75
Average	10	10	4	7.47	74.70	1.49

Table 7 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 7 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

The table indicates that Cluster 2 had the best performance for the week which is reflected by its mean of 9.15 and MPS of 91.48. The scores of the students were not widely dispersed as reflected by the SD of 1.51. Conversely, Cluster 3 is still the least performing cluster with a Mean of 5.42 and MPS of 54.24. The scores of students from cluster 3 are not widely dispersed as suggested by its SD of 1.22.

Compared to the previous week, the performances of the clusters are much better this week since all clusters, except Cluster 3, had an increasing mean and MPS.

The overall mean score across all clusters was 7.47, generating a collective MPS of 74.70 which is 5.65 higher compared to the previous one. In general, the performance of the students keeps getting better as shown by the increasing MPS. The standard deviation of 1.49 signifies a little variation in the scores of the students. These results may indicate that students who maintained positive positions with regard to their scores have a higher working memory while those who have erratic score within the given timeframe may be enhanced by providing substantial help and support through authentic assessments and instructions (Pesina,

[23]

Table 8. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 2, Week 9- Assessment 8.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	3	7.21	72.06	1.25
Cluster 2	10	10	5	9.17	91.68	1.13
Cluster 3	10	10	4	5.69	56.92	1.53
Cluster 4	10	10	4	7.57	75.68	1.74
Cluster 5	10	10	4	7.96	79.60	1.42
Cluster 6	10	10	4	7.31	73.10	1.48
Average	10	10	4	7.48	74.84	1.43

Table 8 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 8 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

The data shown by the table indicates that Cluster 2 still had the best performance for the week which is reflected by its mean of 9.17 and MPS of 91.68. The scores of the students were not widely dispersed as reflected by the SD of 1.13. On the other hand, Cluster 3 is still the least performing cluster with a Mean of 5.69 and MPS of 56.92. Although the students from cluster 3 have been the least performing, they are also consistent in increasing their mean and MPS compared to the previous assessments.

The table also presents that Cluster 2 had a closely approximating mastery (86-95) as shown by its MPS of 91.68. Cluster 3 reached an average mastery (35-65) as shown by the MPS of 56.92. The other clusters are moving towards mastery (66-85) as shown by their MPS.

The computed mean score across all clusters was 7.48, generating a collective MPS of 74.84 which is still higher compared to the previous assessment.

Table 9. Distribution of Scores for Quarter 2, Week 10- Assessment 9.

	Number of Items	Highest Score	Lowest Score	Mean	MPS	SD
Cluster 1	10	10	3	6.57	65.65	1.44
Cluster 2	10	10	5	8.27	82.70	1.50
Cluster 3	10	10	4	6.42	64.20	1.69
Cluster 4	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cluster 5	10	10	4	8.77	87.74	1.18
Cluster 6	10	10	4	6.86	68.64	1.40
Average	10	10	4	7.38	73.79	1.44

Table 9 shows the summary of performance outcomes of six (6) clusters after taking Assessment 9 of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

The table indicates that Cluster 5 had the best performance for the week which is reflected by its mean of 8.77 and MPS of 87.74 with a difference of 8.14 from last week’s MPS. The scores of the students were not widely dispersed as reflected by the SD of 1.18. On the other hand, Cluster 3 is still the least performing cluster with a Mean of 6.42 and MPS of 64.20. Although, it should also be noted that the MPS of cluster 3 has increased by 4.58 which means that they have continued to perform better than their previous assessments.

It can also be noted that clusters had a decreasing mean and MPS compared to the previous week. Aside from this, Cluster 4 was not able to take the assessment due to time constraints.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. Summary of Average Mean and SD from Week 1- 10 of the Project MAIN Implementation.

The computed mean score across all clusters was 7.38, generating a collective MPS of 73.74 which is lower compared to the previous assessment. However, the results of the assessments can still be considered as consistent throughout the project implementation. This result may seem contrary to what Xuan et al.

[38]

found that interactive assessment has a strong impact on student involvement and their metacognitive capacities if teachers inform instructional decisions through response data. Be that as it may, consistency of implementing instructional materials in accordance with the students’ needs is necessary ingredient for the students accomplishment.

Figure 1 shows the average of Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of the six (6) clusters after taking the assessments of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

It can be observed that the lowest average mean was 6.80 during week 4 and the highest was 7.48 during week 9. This shows that the students were consistent in achieving learning outcomes through the help of their teachers and their practices.

The average mean dipped by less than 0.5 during weeks 4 and 7. When asked why this happened, the teachers mentioned during the focus group discussion that cancellation of classes due to inclement weather these past few months caused these minimal changes. Aside from this, the transition from quarter 1 to quarter 2 also affected the familiarity of the students to the practice of getting the assessments every week. It can also be noted that right after the decrease, the students were back on track and were able to perform much better in weeks 5 and 8.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 2. Summary of Average MPS from Week 1- 10 of the Project MAIN Implementation.

Figure 2 shows the summary of average MPS of the six (6) clusters after taking the assessments of the Oral Communication in Context subject.

It can be observed that the lowest average MPS was 67.98 during week 4 and the highest was 74.84 during week 9. For the entire duration of the Project MAIN, students were able to achieve a proficient level and moving towards mastery of the competencies in the Oral Communication in Context subject.

The clusters were able to show consistency in achieving learning outcomes for entire duration of the project as seen on the figure above. Although there were minor changes in between weeks, the performances of the students were considered consistent.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 3. Summary of MPS of each Cluster from Week 1- 10 of the Project MAIN Implementation.

Figure 3 shows the summary of MPS of the six (6) clusters during the implementation of Project MAIN from weeks 1 to 10.

The figure presents the progress of each cluster for the entire duration of the project. It can be observed from the MPS that the proficiency level of the clusters ranged from proficient (75-89) to highly proficient (90-100). Aside From this, the achievement level of the learning outcomes based on the MPS ranged from average mastery (35-65), moving towards mastery (66-85), and closely approximating mastery (86-95). This figure shows that the project helped the students to achieve proficiency and mastery of the competencies in Oral Communication in Context subject.

It can also be noted that there is consistency in the MPS of the clusters during the 10-week duration of the project. The reasons behind this are the practices used by the teachers to achieve and maintain the learning outcomes of the students.

Some of the practices shared by the teachers are the use of printed activities and handouts, gamification of lessons, differentiated instruction, haring of test-taking techniques, code-switching, and use of extrinsic motivation. According to the teachers, the familiarity of having weekly assessments also helped the students to become more engaged during discussions and more aware of their learning outcomes. Students who struggle were also given additional support so which in return gave a more stable result that can be observed in the distribution of scores of students.

The teachers were also able to share the challenges that caused the slight changes in the performance of the students. Some notable challenges were the reading comprehension of students, short attention span, lack of resources, and most importantly the disruption of classes as seen in Figure 3- weeks 4 and 7. These challenges were addressed by the teachers through the sharing of their best practices and constant monitoring of the students’ instructional needs.

4. Conclusion

Project MAIN proved to be one such undertaking that was put into place in order to promote continuous formative assessment and instructional monitoring. The project reinforced the importance of consistent assessment in identifying learning gaps and providing timely interventions. The resultant increase in MPS across clusters is indicative of the value of systematic feedback coupled with adaptive teaching strategies in improving student performance.

The results also indicated that the incorporation of the weekly assessments favored a feedback culture of learning, in which students were able to monitor their progress and develop a better understanding of their own learning needs.

While there was variation in the performance across clusters, the general trend showed that Project MAIN has provided significant impacts for enhancing the proficiency and attainment levels of students in Oral Communication in Context. Evidence in this regard substantiated the claim that formative assessment, if used consistently and strategically, enhances the metacognitive awareness, engagement, and academic confidence of students.

The study also points out that similar monitoring should be sustained in other subject areas for continuous improvement of teaching and learning. In this regard, Project MAIN may be able to serve as a model for other schools towards effective instructional delivery and desirable learner engagement and mastery of competencies.

5. Recommendations

5.1. Institutionalization of Project MAIN

The school administration is encouraged to formally adopt Project MAIN as a regular formative assessment framework integrated into the school's curriculum implementation plan. This institutionalization will make it sustainable and provide teachers with structured guidelines to continuously monitor the progress of students.

5.2. Targeted Intervention Programs for Low-Performing Clusters

Clusters or classes that are consistently lower, especially Cluster 3, should be provided with intensive remedial instruction and differentiated learning activities. Strategies such as peer-assisted learning, guided oral drills, and enrichment tasks will likely help address learning gaps and promote mastery.

5.3. Capacity Building for Teachers on Assessment Literacy and Differentiated Instruction

Professional development programs should be carried out in order to enhance the competencies of teachers in designing formative assessments, analyzing results, and employing differentiated strategies responding to individual learner needs. This will ensure instructional responsiveness and data-driven teaching.

5.4. Strengthening Feedback Mechanisms

Emphasize the creation of regular, formal mechanisms of feedback, where instructors, learners, and parents together participate in learning processes. Building in reflection and self-assessment tools can help learners increase their sense of self-awareness and responsibility for their performance.

5.5. Provision of Learning Continuity Plans

The school should prepare flexible learning modules and asynchronous activities that sustain the momentum of learning in case of disruptions from unforeseen situations such as weather-related class suspensions.

5.6. Expansion of Project MAIN Across Learning Areas

Due to the promising results observed in Oral Communication in Context, it would be highly advisable to adopt the framework of Project MAIN into other academic subjects, particularly those requiring sequences, such as Science, Mathematics, and English, in order to further establish the efficacy of the approach in enhancing general academic performance.

5.7. Integration of Technology in Monitoring and Assessment

Digital tools, such as online quizzes, performance dashboards, and feedback platforms, can be adopted in order to make the process of assessment and monitoring smoother. Such innovation will make Project MAIN more efficient, accessible, and data-driven.

The study confirms that consistent assessment, effective instructional practice, and collaborative teacher engagement are key to sustaining academic improvement. Project MAIN stands for a formative approach to learning, which links assessment and instruction: making evaluation a continuous process of learning. With further refinement and institutional support, Project MAIN can be further elevated to become a model of best practice in data-driven instruction and holistic student development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix

Indicators Used from the Department of Education:

Criteria for Proficiency Level.

Table A1. Discriptive Equivalent for MPS.

MPS	DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT
90 – 100	Highly Proficient
75 – 89	Proficient
50 -74	Nearly Proficient
25 – 49	Low Proficient
0 - 24	Not Proficient

Criteria for Achievement Level.

Table A2. Descriptive Equivalent for MPS (Achievement Level).

MPS	DESCRIPTIVE EQUIVALENT
96 – 100	Mastered
86 – 95	Closely Approximating Mastery
66 – 85	Moving Towards Mastery
35 – 65	Average Mastery
15 – 34	Low Mastery
5 – 14	Very Low Mastery
0 - 4	Absolutely No Mastery

References

[1]	Abu-Arquob, I. & Alserhan, F.(2019). Non-verbal barriers to effective intercultural communication. Corpus ID 238333505.
[2]	Ahmed, S. (2023). From Communicative Competence to Communication Proficiency: A Theoretical Study. https://doi.org/10.35974/acuity.v8i1.2739
[3]	Apat, H. et al (2023). The influence of oral communication on the learning engagement of students. (2023). Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.53103/cjlls.v3i4.104
[4]	Banga, C. & Suri, J (2015). Role of Language in Human Life. ISSN 2321-7065.
[5]	Bayasen, R. (2024). A Systematic Literature Review of Authentic Assessments in English Language Teaching. ISSN: 2583-0406.
[6]	Bautista, R. B., & Del Valle, J. (2023). Communicative competence and oral language usage of Filipino learners in English. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.53378/352957
[7]	Burns, M. K. (n.d.). Effect of cognitive processing assessments and interventions on academic outcomes: Can 200 studies be wrong?. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1201089
[8]	Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1-47.
[9]	Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. In Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486999
[10]	Dicdiquin, J. B., Mobo, F. D., & Cutillas, A. L. (2023). Evaluating the effectiveness of professional development programs for junior high school mathematics teachers in improving mathematics instruction in the K to 12 curriculum in the Philippines. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Applied Business and Education Research, 4(4), 1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.04.12
[11]	Dunbar, N. E., Brooks, C. F., & Kubicka-Miller, T. (2016). Oral communication skills in.
[12]	Higher education: Using a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess.
[13]	communication skills. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 115-128.
[14]	Frianeza, E. D., Maravilla, H. D., Relox, R. D., Dagaraga, S. J. S. L., Cruz, C. a. D., Solomon, E. H., & Mohammad, N. K. (2024). Challenges in the Philippine Educational System and its Impact Towards Teachers’ Instruction Strategies and Professional Growth. Journal of Pedagogy and Education Science, 3(01), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.56741/jpes.v3i01.414
[15]	Gràcia, M., Alvarado, J. M., & Nieva, S. (2021). Assessment of oral skills in adolescents. Children, 8(12), 1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8121136
[16]	Group, D. F., & Group, D. F. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
[17]	Guskey, T. R. (2021). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 27(1), 98- 114.
[18]	Halliday, M. (1989). Introduction to functional grammar. Language, 65(4), 862. https://doi.org/10.2307/414947
[19]	Hirsh, Å. (2020). When assessment is a constant companion: students’ experiences of instruction in an era of intensified assessment focus. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1756192
[20]	Houston, L (September 2017). “Working Memory Difficulties: Strategies for the Classroom.” LD@School. www.ldatschool.ca/working-memory-difficulties
[21]	Lagmay, E. A. D., Cruz, E., & Lopez, K. (2022). The impact of extreme weather on student learning in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1234/pjer.2022.10.3.112
[22]	Langelaan, B. N. (2024). Differentiating instruction: Understanding the key elements for classroom success. Education Today, 18(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/edtoday.2024.33
[23]	Pesina R, 2025. Mentoring software in education and its impact on teacher development: An integrative literature review. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education 14(1): 29–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.12515
[24]	Madrunio, M. R., Martin, I. P., & Plata, S. M. (2015). English Language education in the Philippines: policies, problems, and prospects. In Language policy (pp. 245–264). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22464-0_11
[25]	Marzano, R. J. (2003). What Works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[26]	Niculescu, M. (2015). The quality of the educational process via classroom leadership. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 885–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.234
[27]	Nyarko, K., Kugbey, N., Kofi, C. C., Cole, Y. A., & Adentwi, K. I. (2018). English reading proficiency and academic performance among lower primary school children in Ghana. SAGE Open, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018797019
[28]	Swanson, H. L., Arizmendi, G. D., & Li, J. (2021). What mediates the relationship between growth in math problem-solving and working memory in English language learners? Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(7), 1608–1632. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000718
[29]	Suson, R., Baratbate, C., Anoos, W., Ermac, E., Aranas, A. G., Malabago, N., Galamiton, N., & Capuyan, D. (2020). Differentiated instruction for basic reading comprehension in Philippine settings. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(9), 3814–3824. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080904
[30]	Sioco, E. C., & Presley, D. V., V. (n.d.). Grammatical competence of junior high school students. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1247221
[31]	Timperley, H., & Wilson, A. (2023). Feedback for learning: Building a culture of formative practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 128, 104079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104079
[32]	Tomlinson, C. A., & Jarvis, J. M. (2023). Differentiated instruction revisited: Evidence and impact in mixed-ability classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 93(2), 215–240. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231122387
[33]	Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2021, June 1). Explicit instruction as the essential tool for executing the science of reading. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9004595
[34]	Victoria, M., Xu, F. H., & Pilcher, N. (2024). English as a Lingua Franca : intercultural interaction in the context of Asian ‘third space.’ Asian Englishes, 27(1), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2024.2405278
[35]	Widayati, A., MacCallum, J., & Woods-McConney, A. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of continuing professional development: a study of vocational high school teachers in Indonesia. Teacher Development, 25(5), 604–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2021.1933159
[36]	Widyastuti, W. (2017). Authentic material and automaticity for teaching English. Register Journal, 10(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v10i1.877
[37]	Wiliam, D. (2009). Assessment for learning: Why, what and How? UCL Institute of Education Press (University College London Institute of Education Press).
[38]	Xuan, Q., Li, L., & Sun, J. (2022). The effectiveness of formative assessment for enhancing learning achievement in secondary schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 926430. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.926430

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Morales, R. C., Lumaban, G. A., Regodon, Z. N., Ribleza, R. R., Elpides, E. B., et al. (2026). Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction. International Journal of Secondary Education, 14(1), 8-20. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Morales, R. C.; Lumaban, G. A.; Regodon, Z. N.; Ribleza, R. R.; Elpides, E. B., et al. Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction. Int. J. Second. Educ. 2026, 14(1), 8-20. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Morales RC, Lumaban GA, Regodon ZN, Ribleza RR, Elpides EB, et al. Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction. Int J Second Educ. 2026;14(1):8-20. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12,
  author = {Rodrigo Concepcion Morales and Gerry Ariate Lumaban and Zenaida Nicomedez Regodon and Richard Rabe Ribleza and Emmanuel Bandibas Elpides and Joy Men Openiano Mendoza and Maria Theresa Corral Ribleza and Eddie Anerdes Rubi Jr. and Kimberly Ann Pigos Ugerio and Ivy Abocado Avis and Lea Jane Gaindo Baldidomar and John Casiano Colona Mayuga and Elmerito Balondo Melindo Jr. and Alejo Jann Corral Paraoan and Shera Mae Martinez Rosagas},
  title = {Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction},
  journal = {International Journal of Secondary Education},
  volume = {14},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8-20},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsedu.20261401.12},
  abstract = {Oral communication performances of PNHS-Main Senior High School students obtained the lowest Mean Percentage Score (MPS) from the performative assessment administered by the Schools Division of Paranaque City. These results were alarming which needed to be intervened. The current study aimed at a two-fold objective, such as providing schools with accurate, data-driven insights into teaching practices through ongoing assessments and instructional monitoring; and improving classroom outcomes by linking assessment findings directly to instructional adjustments. The study employed a mixed-method research design which means to say that collected quantitative data will be supported with qualitative data. Applying this design would help the researchers find out a holistic approach to identify the effectiveness of contextualized assessments. Further, the investigation included 30 class sections comprised of 6 clusters, particularly involving 1,112 Grade 11 students as research participants. In particular, the said research participants came from four senior high school strands, namely: STEM, HUMMS, ABM, and TVL. Furthermore, the teacher-researchers were asked to develop ten assessment tools with 10 multiple-choice test items, aligning these with the Oral Communication in Context Curriculum Guide (CG) and Definitive Budget of Work (DBOW). To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the assessment tools, these were validated by an expert in the field of Language teaching. The teacher-researchers administered a weekly assessment aligned with the targeted competencies for the week with their respective oral communication classes. Moreover, the administration of the weekly assessment lasted for 10 weeks (two quarters or one semester) to be specific. Across 10 weeks the mean scores increased from 6.80 to 7.48, indicating steady improvement associated with weekly formative assessments. To check the assessment results, the data or the test scores were recorded by taking the mean, MPS (Mean Percentage Score), and SD (Standard Deviation) to determine the statistical average and dispersion of the recorded scores. Research findings implied a positive impact, rendering increasing line trends, seemingly proving that the academic interventions employed were effective and appropriately addressed the instructional needs for both teachers and students in Oral Communication in Context. Consequently, the results indicated that formative assessments are needed to assist teachers to adjust their instructions in order to address the needs of the students in the said subject area. Pedagogical implications and recommendations were provided for future research directions.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction
AU  - Rodrigo Concepcion Morales
AU  - Gerry Ariate Lumaban
AU  - Zenaida Nicomedez Regodon
AU  - Richard Rabe Ribleza
AU  - Emmanuel Bandibas Elpides
AU  - Joy Men Openiano Mendoza
AU  - Maria Theresa Corral Ribleza
AU  - Eddie Anerdes Rubi Jr.
AU  - Kimberly Ann Pigos Ugerio
AU  - Ivy Abocado Avis
AU  - Lea Jane Gaindo Baldidomar
AU  - John Casiano Colona Mayuga
AU  - Elmerito Balondo Melindo Jr.
AU  - Alejo Jann Corral Paraoan
AU  - Shera Mae Martinez Rosagas
Y1  - 2026/01/19
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12
T2  - International Journal of Secondary Education
JF  - International Journal of Secondary Education
JO  - International Journal of Secondary Education
SP  - 8
EP  - 20
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2376-7472
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12
AB  - Oral communication performances of PNHS-Main Senior High School students obtained the lowest Mean Percentage Score (MPS) from the performative assessment administered by the Schools Division of Paranaque City. These results were alarming which needed to be intervened. The current study aimed at a two-fold objective, such as providing schools with accurate, data-driven insights into teaching practices through ongoing assessments and instructional monitoring; and improving classroom outcomes by linking assessment findings directly to instructional adjustments. The study employed a mixed-method research design which means to say that collected quantitative data will be supported with qualitative data. Applying this design would help the researchers find out a holistic approach to identify the effectiveness of contextualized assessments. Further, the investigation included 30 class sections comprised of 6 clusters, particularly involving 1,112 Grade 11 students as research participants. In particular, the said research participants came from four senior high school strands, namely: STEM, HUMMS, ABM, and TVL. Furthermore, the teacher-researchers were asked to develop ten assessment tools with 10 multiple-choice test items, aligning these with the Oral Communication in Context Curriculum Guide (CG) and Definitive Budget of Work (DBOW). To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the assessment tools, these were validated by an expert in the field of Language teaching. The teacher-researchers administered a weekly assessment aligned with the targeted competencies for the week with their respective oral communication classes. Moreover, the administration of the weekly assessment lasted for 10 weeks (two quarters or one semester) to be specific. Across 10 weeks the mean scores increased from 6.80 to 7.48, indicating steady improvement associated with weekly formative assessments. To check the assessment results, the data or the test scores were recorded by taking the mean, MPS (Mean Percentage Score), and SD (Standard Deviation) to determine the statistical average and dispersion of the recorded scores. Research findings implied a positive impact, rendering increasing line trends, seemingly proving that the academic interventions employed were effective and appropriately addressed the instructional needs for both teachers and students in Oral Communication in Context. Consequently, the results indicated that formative assessments are needed to assist teachers to adjust their instructions in order to address the needs of the students in the said subject area. Pedagogical implications and recommendations were provided for future research directions.
VL  - 14
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Rodrigo Concepcion Morales

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Graduate School, the Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, Manila City, the Philippines;Graduate School, University of Perpetual Help System DALTA, Las Piñas City, the Philippines

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2693-2354
Gerry Ariate Lumaban

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Zenaida Nicomedez Regodon

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Graduate School, University of Makati, Makati City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Richard Rabe Ribleza

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Graduate School, Pacific Intercontinental College, Las Piñas City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Emmanuel Bandibas Elpides

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Joy Men Openiano Mendoza

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Maria Theresa Corral Ribleza

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Graduate School, Pacific Intercontinental College, Las Piñas City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Eddie Anerdes Rubi Jr.

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Kimberly Ann Pigos Ugerio

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Ivy Abocado Avis

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Lea Jane Gaindo Baldidomar

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
John Casiano Colona Mayuga

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Elmerito Balondo Melindo Jr.

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Alejo Jann Corral Paraoan

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines
Shera Mae Martinez Rosagas

Department of Education, Schools Division of Parañaque City, Parañaque City, the Philippines;Parañaque National High School- Main, Parañaque City, the Philippines

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Morales, R. C., Lumaban, G. A., Regodon, Z. N., Ribleza, R. R., Elpides, E. B., et al. (2026). Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction. International Journal of Secondary Education, 14(1), 8-20. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Morales, R. C.; Lumaban, G. A.; Regodon, Z. N.; Ribleza, R. R.; Elpides, E. B., et al. Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction. Int. J. Second. Educ. 2026, 14(1), 8-20. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Morales RC, Lumaban GA, Regodon ZN, Ribleza RR, Elpides EB, et al. Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction. Int J Second Educ. 2026;14(1):8-20. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12,
  author = {Rodrigo Concepcion Morales and Gerry Ariate Lumaban and Zenaida Nicomedez Regodon and Richard Rabe Ribleza and Emmanuel Bandibas Elpides and Joy Men Openiano Mendoza and Maria Theresa Corral Ribleza and Eddie Anerdes Rubi Jr. and Kimberly Ann Pigos Ugerio and Ivy Abocado Avis and Lea Jane Gaindo Baldidomar and John Casiano Colona Mayuga and Elmerito Balondo Melindo Jr. and Alejo Jann Corral Paraoan and Shera Mae Martinez Rosagas},
  title = {Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction},
  journal = {International Journal of Secondary Education},
  volume = {14},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8-20},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsedu.20261401.12},
  abstract = {Oral communication performances of PNHS-Main Senior High School students obtained the lowest Mean Percentage Score (MPS) from the performative assessment administered by the Schools Division of Paranaque City. These results were alarming which needed to be intervened. The current study aimed at a two-fold objective, such as providing schools with accurate, data-driven insights into teaching practices through ongoing assessments and instructional monitoring; and improving classroom outcomes by linking assessment findings directly to instructional adjustments. The study employed a mixed-method research design which means to say that collected quantitative data will be supported with qualitative data. Applying this design would help the researchers find out a holistic approach to identify the effectiveness of contextualized assessments. Further, the investigation included 30 class sections comprised of 6 clusters, particularly involving 1,112 Grade 11 students as research participants. In particular, the said research participants came from four senior high school strands, namely: STEM, HUMMS, ABM, and TVL. Furthermore, the teacher-researchers were asked to develop ten assessment tools with 10 multiple-choice test items, aligning these with the Oral Communication in Context Curriculum Guide (CG) and Definitive Budget of Work (DBOW). To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the assessment tools, these were validated by an expert in the field of Language teaching. The teacher-researchers administered a weekly assessment aligned with the targeted competencies for the week with their respective oral communication classes. Moreover, the administration of the weekly assessment lasted for 10 weeks (two quarters or one semester) to be specific. Across 10 weeks the mean scores increased from 6.80 to 7.48, indicating steady improvement associated with weekly formative assessments. To check the assessment results, the data or the test scores were recorded by taking the mean, MPS (Mean Percentage Score), and SD (Standard Deviation) to determine the statistical average and dispersion of the recorded scores. Research findings implied a positive impact, rendering increasing line trends, seemingly proving that the academic interventions employed were effective and appropriately addressed the instructional needs for both teachers and students in Oral Communication in Context. Consequently, the results indicated that formative assessments are needed to assist teachers to adjust their instructions in order to address the needs of the students in the said subject area. Pedagogical implications and recommendations were provided for future research directions.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Project Main (Monitoring Assessment of Instructional Needs): Maximizing Oral Communication Proficiency Through Needs–Driven Instruction
AU  - Rodrigo Concepcion Morales
AU  - Gerry Ariate Lumaban
AU  - Zenaida Nicomedez Regodon
AU  - Richard Rabe Ribleza
AU  - Emmanuel Bandibas Elpides
AU  - Joy Men Openiano Mendoza
AU  - Maria Theresa Corral Ribleza
AU  - Eddie Anerdes Rubi Jr.
AU  - Kimberly Ann Pigos Ugerio
AU  - Ivy Abocado Avis
AU  - Lea Jane Gaindo Baldidomar
AU  - John Casiano Colona Mayuga
AU  - Elmerito Balondo Melindo Jr.
AU  - Alejo Jann Corral Paraoan
AU  - Shera Mae Martinez Rosagas
Y1  - 2026/01/19
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12
T2  - International Journal of Secondary Education
JF  - International Journal of Secondary Education
JO  - International Journal of Secondary Education
SP  - 8
EP  - 20
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2376-7472
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsedu.20261401.12
AB  - Oral communication performances of PNHS-Main Senior High School students obtained the lowest Mean Percentage Score (MPS) from the performative assessment administered by the Schools Division of Paranaque City. These results were alarming which needed to be intervened. The current study aimed at a two-fold objective, such as providing schools with accurate, data-driven insights into teaching practices through ongoing assessments and instructional monitoring; and improving classroom outcomes by linking assessment findings directly to instructional adjustments. The study employed a mixed-method research design which means to say that collected quantitative data will be supported with qualitative data. Applying this design would help the researchers find out a holistic approach to identify the effectiveness of contextualized assessments. Further, the investigation included 30 class sections comprised of 6 clusters, particularly involving 1,112 Grade 11 students as research participants. In particular, the said research participants came from four senior high school strands, namely: STEM, HUMMS, ABM, and TVL. Furthermore, the teacher-researchers were asked to develop ten assessment tools with 10 multiple-choice test items, aligning these with the Oral Communication in Context Curriculum Guide (CG) and Definitive Budget of Work (DBOW). To ensure the reliability and accuracy of the assessment tools, these were validated by an expert in the field of Language teaching. The teacher-researchers administered a weekly assessment aligned with the targeted competencies for the week with their respective oral communication classes. Moreover, the administration of the weekly assessment lasted for 10 weeks (two quarters or one semester) to be specific. Across 10 weeks the mean scores increased from 6.80 to 7.48, indicating steady improvement associated with weekly formative assessments. To check the assessment results, the data or the test scores were recorded by taking the mean, MPS (Mean Percentage Score), and SD (Standard Deviation) to determine the statistical average and dispersion of the recorded scores. Research findings implied a positive impact, rendering increasing line trends, seemingly proving that the academic interventions employed were effective and appropriately addressed the instructional needs for both teachers and students in Oral Communication in Context. Consequently, the results indicated that formative assessments are needed to assist teachers to adjust their instructions in order to address the needs of the students in the said subject area. Pedagogical implications and recommendations were provided for future research directions.
VL  - 14
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download