The teacher-researcher found out that the students’ difficulties in oral and written English were speaking or conversational English, including correct usage, listening and answering questions. The causes for these difficulties were: students have poor background in elementary; English is not heard at home; teachers prefer to speak the dialect often; lack or absence of English books

The main thrust of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of structured development lessons in English using the 4 macro-skills intended for the public science high school students. Specifically, the study answered questions on the level of language proficiency of the freshmen science high school students with reference to pronunciation and correct usage; mean pretest and posttest scores of the students based on the structured lessons of macro-skills’ learning performance; significant difference in the mean pretest and posttest scores of the students in listening, speaking, reading, and writing; mean gain in the posttest; and module which can be proposed based on the findings of the study.

The study used the Descriptive Survey Method and the main tool used was the research-made or self-made type of examination (questionnaire), including the record sheet as instrumentally utilized for the 75 students as selected freshmen in first year. The data gathered in this study were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14, a computer program used for statistical analysis.

**FINDINGS**

**1. Level of Language Proficiency of the Students Pronunciation**

Majority (81.9333) of the students got the highest rating scale of 80-89 which was rated Very Good. None of the students as counted individually obtained the rating scale of 50-59 (far below from the passing percentage).

**2. Correct Usage**

None of the students rated Excellent which belonged to the rating scale of 90 and above.

Majority (77.5867) of the students got the average rating scale of 70-79 which was rated Good.

**3. English Difficulties of the Freshmen Students Based on the Macro-Skills of English Language Teaching**

The teacher-researcher found out that the students’ difficulties in oral and written English were speaking or conversational English, including correct usage, listening and answering questions. The causes for these difficulties were: students have poor background in elementary; English is not heard at home; teachers prefer to speak the dialect often; lack or absence of English books; lack or absence of instructional materials; absence of printed materials at home; there are no television sets at home; teachers have faulty pronunciation; poor emphasis on written communications and there are no cultural shows and public speaking activities.

The teacher-researcher found out the following as difficulties felt or perceived by the students in written English: writing dictation, taking down notes, outlining, theme writing, punctuating, quoting, and observing coherence and unity in paragraph writing. The causes for these difficulties were: students have no appreciation for reading materials; lack of exposure to writing; inadequate writing activities; no ear training; teachers do not have the patience to analyze the mistakes in writing; absence of contents that can harness their potentials in essays, letters, etc.; students are poor spellers; and teachers in the elementary levels do spend their time in useless board work.

**4. Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Students**

It found out in this study, based on the macro-skills, that: the posttest mean of the group in the listening area which is 83.1067 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 75.5333. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 10.95980 while the result of posttest is 6.07959. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is 1.26553 while the result of posttest is .70201; the posttest mean of the group in the speaking area which is 87.1200 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 80.5467. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 4.92455 while the result of posttest is 3.42471.

Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .56864 while the result of posttest is .39545; the posttest mean of the group in the reading area which is 86.7333 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 84.4133. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 3.28425 while the result of posttest is 3.17649. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .37923 while the result of posttest is .36679; the posttest mean of the group in the writing area which is 85.4400 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 76.3333. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 6.26732 while the result of posttest is 5.29467. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .72369 while the result of posttest is .61138.

It found out further that the posttest score in the speaking area got 1st rank which is 87.1200 while the pretest is 80.5467 of which the difference is 6.5733; the posttest score in the reading area got 2nd rank which is 86.7333 while the pretest is 84.4133 of which the difference is 2.3200; the posttest score in the writing area got 3rd rank which is 85.4400 while the pretest is 76.3333 of which the difference is 9.1067.

**5. Paired Samples’ Test/Paired Differences: The difference between the two means was subjected to a paired t-test.**

5.1. Listening skill: the listening area was -7.57333, standard deviation was 10.63291, standard error mean was 1.22778, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was ‘”10.0974 and the difference (upper limit) was -5.12692, the c.v. result was -6.168 is greater than the t.v. result which was ‘”10.01974. Therefore, the macro-skill in the listening area was not significant.

5.2. Speaking skill: the speaking area was -6.57333, standard deviation was 5.31742, standard error mean was .61400, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -7.79676 and the difference (upper limit) was -5.34991, the c.v. result was -10.706 is lesser than the t.v. result which was -7.79676. Therefore, the macro-skill in the speaking area was significant.

5.3. Reading skill: the reading area was -2.32000, standard deviation was 2.98265, standard error mean was .34441, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -3.00625 and the difference (upper limit) was -1.63375, the c.v. result was -6.736 is lesser than the t.v. result which was -3.00625. Therefore, the macro-skill in the reading area was significant.

5.4. Writing skill: the writing area was -9.10667, standard deviation was 7.38621, standard error mean was .85289, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -10.80608 and the difference (upper limit) was -7.40726, the c.v. result was -10.677 is greater than the t.v. result which was -10.80608. Therefore, the macro-skill in the writing area was not significant.

**6. Mean Gain of the Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Students: Mean gain based on the macro-skills of language teaching such as listening, speaking, reading and writing**

Mean gain of singled-out freshmen students based on the macro-skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing as structured in the lessons was used as a result in statistical analysis and computation of the mean pretest and mean posttest. It was disclosed upon interpretation of data that the mean gain in the listening area was obtained as the result of the subtraction of number from the mean pretest which was 75.5333 from the mean posttest which was 83.1067. The findings revealed that only the areas in speaking and reading got the highest posttest percentages. In the writing area, the mean gain was obtained as the result of the subtraction from the pretest which was 76.3333 from the mean posttest which was 85.4400.

To find out and to have the final results: in the listening. In area, the mean posttest was 83.1067 while the mean gain was -7.57333 which had the lowest mean pretest and posttest percentages as compared to the other areas; in the speaking area, the mean posttest was 87.1200 while the mean gain was -6.57333 which got the 1st rank posttest percentage; in the reading area, the mean gain was -2.32000 which got the 2nd rank posttest percentage and also got 1st rank pretest percentage among them; and in the writing area, the mean gain was -9.10667 which got 3rd rank posttest percentage, next to the speaking and reading areas.

It found out further that the posttest mean of the group in the listening area which is 83.1067 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 75.5333; the posttest mean of the group in the speaking area which is 87.1200 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 80.5467; the posttest mean of the group in the reading area which is 86.7333 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 84.4133; and the posttest mean of the group in the writing area which is 85.4400 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 76.3333.

**CONCLUSION**

The researcher concluded in this study that the language education of the freshmen in a science high school rejects partly the theory of Lado and Orleans (2000) which is based on the structured macro-skills’ development lessons in English. However, there were some areas of language teaching that the students need to improve. The reason was that some previous English teachers in the elementary levels lacked the competence in treating the objectives of the subject area. Language teacher must possess the needed specialization required to teach the subject. It is further sought that the theoretical approach in teaching the language was proven inadequate. There should be a wider exposure of students to various English language experiences. The teachers must also be sent to various in-service trainings utilizing the macro-skills of English language teaching.

In conclusion, the students were not provided with experiential and practicum-learning orientation. Based on the findings, proposed module was formulated.

**RECOMMENDATIONS**

These recommendations are then suggested. The proposed module enrichment designed by the researcher based on the findings of the study should be utilized because it gives more emphasis to the activities to enhance macro-skills of the language. The school administration should implement policies that ensure quality teaching and learning in the classroom. The school should continuously provide the necessary teaching materials like newly updated books, supplementary reading materials and teaching aids. The teacher-student ratio should be kept at the optimum to facilitate learning within the timeframe allotted.

The school administration should also endeavor to send the teachers to trainings to enhance their knowledge and skills in both the oral and written aspects to make them effective teachers by modeling to the students. The emphasis should be directed towards the English communication skills development of teachers. The environment is influential in the acquisition of skills. Teachers who are fluent speakers of English make students also become voluble speakers.

The teachers should motivate themselves to take advance courses in English to acquire knowledge in the recent development of the English language in the areas of grammar and usage. English is a growing language. This move will enhance their competence in teaching the subject.

The speech course should be enforced to enhance better speaking competence and capabilities among the freshmen students and to institute a system that will encourage students to study English.

If you found this article on **How to Write a Dissertation with Good Upshots: Summary, Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations** helpful you may like to read our article on **A Sample Dissertation on the Rationale of the Study: Structured Macro-skills’ Development Lessons**, which you can find here: http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/1080737/ermetes_adolfo_jr.html