Philippine English in the ESL Classroom: A Much Closer Look

Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 Philippine English in the ESL Classroom: A Much Closer Look Alejandro S. Bernardo, Ph.D. University of Santo Tomas Abstract This paper primarily points out Philippine English (PhE) manifestations and structures in curricular elements and evaluates whether pedagogical practices in the English as Second Language (ESL) classrooms in the Philippines are adherent to the World Englishes (WE) paradigm. It aims at ‘finding’ PhE in three critical areas of English language instruction: (1) in the current state-prescribed English Language Teaching and Learning (ELTL) curriculum, (2) in teacher-student classroom interactions, and (3) in the tests administered by teachers to learners. Put in another way, the objective is to examine if PhE has made inroads into the ESL instructional backbone and pedagogical practices and if, to a certain extent, it has been mentioned or spoken about in ESL classrooms and promoted as a (or the or one of the) pedagogical model(s) in teaching English courses. This paper argues that for PhE to fully and to successfully reach endonormative stabilization, its presence should be evident in what teachers teach (content), in classroom conversations (actual classroom use), and in the assessment tools teachers employ (test construction). In the end, a pedagogical strategy for making the teaching of English in the Philippine ESL classrooms PhE- and WE-inspired is forwarded. Keywords: Philippine English, endonormative pedagogic model, endonormative stabilization, English as a Second Language (ESL), English Language Teaching (ELT) Introduction More and more have attempted to pinpoint where exactly Philippine English is to date. Borlongan (2016), on one hand, argues that Philippine English (PhE henceforth) is at the dawn of endonormative stabilization; in his most recent paper, with Collins as his co-author (in this issue), he posits that PhE has achieved linguistic independence. Martin (2014), on the other, affirms that PhE has developed into a nativized form. The attempt of finding PhE is brought about by the call to accurately locate it in Schneider’s Dynamic Model for Post-colonial Englishes (Schneider, 2003, 2007). Kirkpatrick (2007) argues that Schneider’s dynamic model framework is the most current and comprehensive theory explaining the development of new Englishes, and thus it would be a better map for finding the very spot PhE, or any variety for that matter, now occupies and a more reliable yardstick for assessing what an indigenized and institutionalized variety has _________________________ Author’s Affiliation: University of Santo Tomas, Espana, Manila, Philippines E-mail: [email protected]. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 117 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 become. If in the search it is found that PhE has already traversed from one developmental stage to another, i.e., transportation to endonormative stabilization, then the question of if and how PhE has permeated the ESL instructional practices as a requisite for endonormative steadiness has to be addressed. This paper, therefore, endeavors to locate PhE in the language learning program and in certain pedagogical practices in the Philippine ESL classrooms, more particularly in the English Language Teaching and Learning (ELTL) curriculum, in classroom interactions, and in test construction. Through content and documentary analyses and classroom recordings, this paper endeavors to examine if PhE has made inroads into the ESL pedagogy specifically in what teachers teach the ELT learners (content), in classroom interactions and conversations (actual classroom use), and in how students are tested (assessment). In other words, this paper points out PhE structures and PhE manifestations in curricular elements and pedagogical practices and evaluates whether these are WE-aligned. In the end, a PhE and WE-informed pedagogical strategy for teaching English is proposed with the hope of helping PhE better find its way in the present ELTL curriculum and in classroom-based curricular implementations. This paper is structured in this manner: the first subsection reports an analysis of the present K-12 English Curriculum implemented in the Philippine ESL classrooms. The primary objective is to define the scope and focus of the ELTL curriculum elements e.g., rationale, theory, objectives, methods, content, and means of evaluation. A secondary objective is to look for more concrete realizations and indications of the World Englishes paradigm in it. The second subsection presents the findings of an examination of teacher-student classroom interactions. The aim is to pinpoint the norm(s) that students and teachers adhere to when they converse or speak in English in the classroom and to describe the English spoken by educated Filipino speakers represented by English teachers and students. The third subsection discusses the results of the analysis of English tests administered to Filipino ESL learners. In the analysis, these areas were examined: the usual types of grammar tests; grammar constructs covered; and variety(ies) of English represented. The final subsection proposes a pedagogical strategy that ESL instructors may adapt to make their classroom teaching PhE- and WE-inspired. The K-12 English Language Teaching and Learning Curriculum A content analysis of the K-12 ELTL curriculum was undertaken with the aim of finding PhE traces (and the World Englishes paradigm) in it. The said curricular blueprint was secured from the Department of Education (DepEd), the government body tasked to spearhead and oversee curricular development and innovations in the Philippines. DepEd employs technical panel members commissioned to prepare the ESL curriculum to be implemented nationwide. Before it reaches its final form, a series of consultations and public hearings attended by English teachers and other stakeholders from all over the country are conducted to ensure that their comments, issues, and suggestions are addressed and incorporated in finalizing the curriculum. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 118 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 The members of technical panel are leading ESL practitioners coming from premiere educational institutions in the country, and thus it may be conjectured that they are cognizant of the World Englishes paradigm born in the 1980s. In the following section, ten provisions or stipulations are culled verbatim from the English curriculum guide (K-12 Curriculum Guide for English, 2015) with a hope that taking a critical look at them would help in finding PhE in the Philippine ELTL course map. Following them are critical claims that this paper would like to raise. 1. “Language learning should include a plethora of strategies and activities that helps students focus on both MEANING and ACCURACY.” 2. “They [students] learn to control and understand the conventions of the target language that are valued and rewarded by society and to reflect on and critically analyze their own use of language and the language of others.” 3. “Grammatical/Linguistic Competence means the acquisition of phonological rules, morphological words, syntactic rules, semantic rules and lexical items.” 4. “Since different situations call for different types of expressions as well as different beliefs, views, values, and attitudes, the development of sociolinguistic competence is essential for communicative social action.” 5. “Learners learn to create texts of their own and to engage with texts produced by other people.” 6. “Language learning involves recognizing, accepting, valuing and building on students’ existing language competence, including the use of non-standard forms of the language, and extending the range of language available to students.” 7. “The curriculum aims to help learners understand that English language is a dynamic social process which responds to and reflects changing social conditions, and that English is inextricably involved with values, beliefs and ways of thinking about ourselves and the world we dwell in.” 8. “Learning tasks and activities will be designed for learners to acquire the language in authentic and meaningful contexts of use. For example, lessons will be planned around learning outcomes, a theme, or a type of text to help learners use related language skills, grammatical items/structures and vocabulary appropriately in spoken and written language to suit the purpose, audience, context and culture.” 9. “Learners apply their knowledge of the system of the language to assist them to make meaning and to create meaning….They apply this knowledge and understanding to create their own spoken, written and visual texts. Differences in language systems are expressed in a variety of ways: for example, in grammatical differentiations, variations in word order, word selection, or general stylistic variations in texts.” 10. The learners should be able to “demonstrate grammatical awareness by being able to read, speak and write correctly, communicate effectively, in oral and written forms, using the correct grammatical structure of English.” ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 119 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 Dubbed as The K-12 Language Arts and Multiliteracies Curriculum, the present ELTL curriculum is premised within the principles that underpin language acquisition, language teaching and learning and assessment. The curriculum supposes that (1) all languages are interconnected and intertwined, (2) acquiring a language is a continuous and an active process, (3) meaning is a prerequisite to learning, (4) effective use of language is achieved through meaningful engagement and study of texts, (5) listening, speaking, reading, writing, and viewing comprise language learning and (6) language learning requires recognizing, accepting, valuing, and building on students’ existing language competence, plus the deployment of non- standard forms of the language, and outspreading the range of language accessible to students. The primary goal of the present ELTL curriculum is to produce graduates who are communicatively competent – grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, pragmatic and strategic. Further, it has five essential components, the learning process, effective language use, macroskills interrelationship, and holistic assessment and “each component is essential to the learners’ ability to communicate effectively in a language leading them to achieve communicative competence and multiliteracies in the Mother Tongue, Filipino and English” (K-12 Curriculum Guide: English, 2015, p.7). The present curriculum, therefore, highlights communicative competence as its end goal. While it is evident that the present curriculum is based on a principled design, it appears that the larger backdrop of the WE framework is not in any manner mentioned as one of the theoretical backbones that bolster the ELTL curriculum in the country. The WE paradigm is hardly unknown to local ELT practitioners and teachers (Bernardo, 2013) and thus members of the technical committees tasked to draft curricular maps would have the strong say and pedagogical clout to make it as one of the crucial considerations in curriculum design. This perceived absence is evident in the analysis of the above stipulations in the K-12 Curriculum Guide for English. A closer look at the above provisions allows one to construe that grammatical accuracy is viewed as correctness as far as the usage of syntactic items is concerned. Essentially, accuracy is the ability to produce correct sentences using correct grammar and vocabulary. It seems unclear, however, whether the yardstick of correctness purported in the K-12 English Curriculum is that of the native speakers or that of the Filipino speakers of English. As it is, Filipinos have given birth to a legitimate variety of English that has been extensively researched about, (e.g., Bautista,1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 20001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2011; Borlongan,2008; Borlongan & Dita, 2015), and has been accepted as a pedagogic model by language teachers and learners in the country (Bernardo, 2013; Bernardo & Madrunio, 2016). In honing the learner’s grammatical accuracy, teachers seem to be barely informed if they would back the ESL learners to produce grammatically acceptable written and spoken English aiming towards the accuracy of a native speaker. While it is understandable that the target language is English, one important question to answer is whose syntactic (as well as phonological, lexical, and discourse) conventions will be adhered to? whose linguistic norms or rules will be internalized? are the local norms referred to? which variety of English should be the target – is it Philippine English, American English or different varieties of English? ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 120 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 It is also worth mentioning that the present English curriculum puts emphasis on honing the sociolinguistic competence of the learners but one question is ‘are the students made aware of the communicative function of the local variety of English - Philippine English – and other varieties of English, for instance in Asia?’ It seems hazy if learners are made mindful that usage of such varieties is accepted in both formal and informal settings as far as the World Englishes paradigm is concerned. Further, it would be interesting to consider if other varieties of English are introduced through varied text types produced by nonnative educated speakers of English and if the learners are able to use print and non-print resources of language to enable them to compare the language used in the native speakers’ and nonnative speakers’ environments. Another critique that may be forwarded is that in the production of texts, it is doubtful whether learners may or should opt for the use of endonormative lexical and syntactic structures. The promotion of pedagogic efforts rooted in the sociolinguistic realities of the learners seem to be neither explicit nor implicit in the present ELTL curriculum. Simply put, it is unclear whether learners are encouraged to use features of everyday language both in creative and academic writing tasks. Lastly, how non-standard forms are treated in the curriculum is hardly expounded. One therefore may presuppose that non-standard English may refer to varieties spoken outside the Inner Circle in the Kachruvian circles of World Englishes. While it is interesting to note that the curriculum vies to aid learners understand that the English language is a dynamic social process which responds to and reflects shifting social conditions, the evolution of the language from English to Englishes is hardly underscored. Overall, it may be deduced that the WE paradigm in general and PhE in particular are hardly regarded as a serious pedagogical agendum in the present-day ELTL curriculum implemented in the Philippines. Philippine English in Classroom Interactions Twenty-four English classes in the three Philippine universities were video- or audio-recorded for purposes of (1) identifying the norm(s) that students and teachers adhere to when they converse or speak in English during class hours and (2) characterizing the English spoken by educated speakers represented by English teachers and students in Metro Manila. Teacher and student talks were transcribed by the writer and his research assistants after the recording. The transcriptions were rechecked against the tapes to detect possible inconsistencies or discrepancies. In some cases, however, there were unclear or inaudible utterances primarily because of technical limitations and other barriers, such as physical noise. The schedule of the recording was based on the availability and preferences of the English instructors involved. The recording was not executed on the target dates, i.e., beginning and middle of the first term of A.Y. 2014-2015, because of frequent suspension of classes due to inclement weather, hesitation of some teachers to be observed several times, interruption of classes caused by university-wide activities, technical glitches, unapproved requests, and differences in schedules. Thus, these constraints resulted in an unequal number of video ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 121 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 transcriptions from the three universities. A number of teachers were observed thrice; some were observed twice or only once. Despite this limitation, the total number of transcriptions may still provide a sufficient basis for specifying the model(s) consciously or unconsciously promoted in a good number of ESL classrooms. The lessons when the classes were observed varied because of the different English subjects offered in the three universities. Ideally, all the subjects that should have been observed must be purely grammar lessons, but because of the differences in curricular offerings and undesired assignment of teacher-participants, not only grammar classes were seen. The subjects observed include Introduction to College English, Writing, and Speech and Oral Communication, which also incorporate grammar lessons. Seeing different subjects, nonetheless, seems more advantageous given that more student interaction and more unrehearsed and naturally occurring conversations were captured during the video or audio recording. The lessons comprised of informative and impromptu speeches, thesis development and topic specification, verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, and writing research papers. Based on the analysis of the transcriptions and classroom observations conducted, regardless of the lessons, the students were accorded ample opportunities to speak, and the teachers had adequate time to provide input in the target language. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday classes were held for an hour; Tuesday and Thursday classes were held for one and a half. In the case one school, regular classes are done in 1.5 hours (twice a week) or 3 hours (once a week). Schedule pairings are MTh, TF, or WS. The entire period was video-or audio-recorded before briefly informing the students about the nature of the data needed and the procedure for treating the information obtained from them. The orientation was done after the recording since briefing the students about the purpose of the investigation prior to the recording might unfavorably affect the results. The participants’ identities were anonymized; thus, a coding system was used. The sample statements or utterances culled from the transcriptions are introduced by the codes [T] (Teacher) and [S] (Student). At the end of each statement is the code of the source transcription, e.g., [JFE 1]. It must be noted that the unit of analysis is the thought group given that spoken English is usually characterized by incomplete sentence constructions. Incomplete constructions were not treated as deviations, for spoken English is often loose and frequently uses incomplete sentences; and only the most observable idiosyncratic features were analyzed. The distinctive features that surfaced during classroom discussions and used by the students of different majors and the teachers of different ranks, educational qualifications, and teaching experiences are grouped into categories of variations below. Only handpicked examples for each grammatical category are presented in the succeeding section. Tag Questions 1. [T]: So if you remember it…if I remember it right, class, the last time we had a meeting, we started with the discussion on tenses, right (didn’t) we? [JFE 1] 2. [S]: It’s not easy to lose weight, right (is it)? [AVL 1] ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 122 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 Definite and Indefinite Articles Zero Article 1. [S]: We can use (a) question or quotes. [AGD 1] 2. [T]: Use (the) microphone. [RYB 1] Definite Article for a Nonspecific Reference 1. [T]: Because a violin, unlike the cello, I don’t think you can do the same thing with the (a) cello, right? [AGD 1] 2. [T]: In writing the (an) essay, one must keep in mind the 5 Cs. [ASB 2] Unnecessary Indefinite/Definite Articles 1. [T]: We should not deny the relationship between the (Ø culture and the (Ø language. [AVL 1] 2. [S]:...what can cause the (Ø) Type II Diabetes and what would be the effect of it on the person. [AVL 1] Ø Majority 1. [S]: (A) Majority of my college friends call me Ria, but my original nickname is Karylle.[SNG1] 2. [T]: (A) Majority of verbs are action verbs. [AVL2] Verb Tenses Present Perfective for Simple Past 1. [T]: So last meeting I have informed (informed) you that, first, writing or essay or paragraphs we are going to do is the definition essay. [AGD 1] 2. [T]: Again, we have the following; you have analysis, we have already discussed (discussed) this last meeting. [AGD 1] Past Perfective for Simple Past 1. [S]: The group that we had graded (graded)…overall, did a very good job in their grammar and style. [JPL 1] 2. [S]:...because when I had experienced (experienced) dating, we just went out sweet like that. [JYA1] Simple Present for Simple Past 1. [S]:…this was my first choice because I take (took) the exam in this school and I pass (passed) and but originally I wanted to take up Political Science. [SNG 1] ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 123 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 2. [S]: So my reaction to this article was, at first, I really don’t (didn’t) know that these are the positive side of dating.[JYA1] Double Verbs 1. [S]: When do present progressive tense is use? (When is the present progressive tense used)? [RYB 1] 2. [S]: Is being anorexic and bulimic can be (Ø) inborn? [AVL 1] Simple Present for Present Perfect Progressive/Continuous 1. [S]: I guess they should be considered as heroes because, just like in my case, I was in her womb and I got separated from her then from that time until now, she takes care (has been taking care) of me with my siblings and my dad. [ASB3] 2. [S]: Since high school, my friend and I share (have been sharing) the room.[JYA1] Past Progressive for Present Perfect Progressive/Continuous 1. [S]: ....since the time that I was born, my mom was working (has been working), and after, after she delivered me, I was raised by my Tito and my Yaya. [ASB3] 2. [S]: All I wanted was a happy family. I was dreaming (have been dreaming) of a happy family since I was a kid. [ASB2] Get-passives 1. [S]:I got waitlisted in Journalism and ah I realized that this program suited me so I plan to pursue it until the end. [SNG1] 2. [S]: When were, when were at the mall, you know we’re talking like, I said a joke her, but there a she’s very--she got offended easily. And then she won’t to talk to me anymore.[JYA1] Modals “Would” and “Could” 1. [S]: It’s not the arm that would hurt, it’s actually your muscles that would be sprained too much. [AVL 1] 2. [S]: So in dating (...) you can clearly know better the person you’re dating so with that, you could (will) know if you could (will) like her or not.[JYA1] Disjuncts in Ordinary Speech 1. [T]: You don’t have to get any point at all actually, right? [JFE 2] 2. [S]: Basically, they said [….] that fad diets aren’t something that we should put in our everyday life. We should actually intake the correct amount of food, it’s not in limiting the food, you take the correct amount, you exercise properly, not in excess. [AVL 1] ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 124 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 Embedding 1. [S]: So, our first objective for this paper was to identify what is type II Diabetes (what type II diabetes is). [AVL 1] 2. [T]: You hardly know what is his name (what his name is)? [AGD1] Word Placement 1. [S]: I also use the social networking sites to let out my emotions (out), my rants, my love problems,…. [ASB1] 2. [T]: That’s why you don’t only see it plotted (only) in the present part of the timeline, but in all parts of it. [JFE 1] Subject-Verb Concord 1. [T]: But as far as the use of these phrases in sentences are (is) concerned, they may be referred to either adjective or adverb….[JFE 2] 2. [T]: Of course, you don’t have problems with the usual types of adjective for the regular ones but here’s where the problems gets (get) to be cropping up every now and then with your irregular modifiers.[MFF 1] Pronoun-Antecedent Congruence 1. [T]: It’s not enough that we know how to identify a prep phrase when we see one, it’s also good that we know how they (it) can be of use in sentences, how they (it) can enhance some of the words in the sentences. [JFE 2] 2. [S]: Regular verbs are considered weak verbs because it (they) is commonly used or it is easy to make a past tense of that verb by just adding “-d” or “-ed”.[RYB 1] Pronoun Case Subjective and Objective Cases 1. [S]: Because of her, me (I) and my siblings studied in DLSU, Ateneo, UST, and Assumption. [ASB 3] 2. [T]: As far as me (I) and my students are concerned, I believe that friendship is also necessary. [VNT1] Who and Whom 1. [S]: The pancreas are the ones who (that) make the insulin so in type I….[AVL 1] 2. [T]: To who (whom) do you dedicate the song? [ASB3] ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 125 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 Nouns Plural Nouns for Singular Nouns 1. [S]: Note: Past participle of regular verbs end in “-ed” while those of irregular has a special forms (form). [RYB 1] 2. [T]: There is a tendency that students (a student) is terrified by teachers. [RYB2] Singular Nouns for Plural Nouns 1. [T]: Yes. Therefore, if I want to narrate actions A…or if I want to use actions A and C as my past actions in just one sentence, which of the two action (actions) happened first? A or C? [JFE 1] 2. [S]: So, one of the example (examples) or a… use and when you’re going to use simple past tense. [RYB 1] Nouns in Plural Form 1. [S]: I believe, I believe knowing a lot of people around you is the most important part in succeeding in your life because you will get, you will also get advices (pieces of advice) from people, good people around you and—but knowing bad people can disturb you in your life so you want to be careful in making friends. [ASB3] 2. [S]: Their furnitures (furnitures) are very expensive. Only the rich can buy some. [ASB3] Prepositions Zero Prepositions 1. [T]: This time, Ma’am, I’d like to ask you (about) the word that you think is being explained further, being modified, being described by the prepositional phrase “from the archive section”. [JFE 2] 2. [T]: So do take note that in each of the components, you are able to see the different criteria. So they will serve as the bases for the evaluation of the paper that I’d like to give correction (to). [JPL 1] Unusual Prepositions 1. [S]: Based from (on) their work, I can conclude that weight loss is also governed by psychology. [AVL 1] 2. This results to (in) like I mean this means this simply means (...) for example I have a girlfriend, and I have this friend that usually like to hear about the girl (...) and suddenly the girl, my girlfriend gets jealous (...) so there’s a lot of issues (...)[JYA1] Prepositional Phrases “with regard to” and “from your perspective” ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 126 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 1. [S]: It wasn’t mentioned what they did. They just shared about the problem that—with regards to (with regard to) that I think somehow the government is doing something. They should...they should do something and... I Think.[JYA1] 2. [S]: Yes, Miss. Teenagers are, on (from) my perspective, teenagers are still young. [JYA2] Omission 1. [S]: Note: Past participle of regular verbs end in “-ed” while those of irregular (verbs) has a special forms. [RYB 1] 2. [T]: Today I want you to be a cooperative. Just settle (down) if you cannot (…). Please sit down, because we have guest at the back. [MFF 1] “Wherein” 1. [S]: If you can’t trust each other, then why be in a relationship? I mean, it’s like, why be in a relationship wherein you only have regrets and you only like, have a relationship for the sake of having a relationship so you can boast to your friends that “Look I have a girlfriend, do you have one?” [ASB3] 2. [T]: You think dating is the only venue wherein you could actually get to know the person. Wouldn’t friendship be better?[JYA1] Double Comparison of Adjectives 1. [T]: So, Listen, by the time they are done, I want us to be more clearer (clearer) about the difference. [RYB 1] 2. [T]: So that is the more easier (easier) than the DNA? Easier to find out?[AVL 1] Nongradable Adjectives 1. [S]: I realized that being a player is not being the most excellent (excellent) player but you are the player who’s very disciplined and humble. [ASB3] 2. [T]: It is a more perfect (perfect) design, I guess. [RYB2] Redundancies 1. [T]: You can’t bend the rules, not unless (unless) you’ve mastered them first. [JFE 1] 2. [T]: (For example) Like for example, you established the relationship between Star City and Aliw Theater. [JFE 2] Zero Direct Objects 1. [T]: Group 2, have you submitted (your paper)? [JPL 1] 2. [T]: So, to reiterate, a few minutes from now, you’ll have to go over (it) and then after that, I’ll be requiring one representative from the group, preferably the leader, [JPL 1] ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 127 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 The analysis shows that there are distinctive grammatical features which occurred in teacher-student talk. Similar to the study of Arañas (1990) several decades ago, which aimed to characterize the English spoken by educated speakers represented by English and Mathematics teachers, the analysis likewise reveals a variety of English which may rightly be termed as educated Philippine variety of English. Arañas’ identified distinctive grammatical structures, e.g., right and isn’t it as invariant tag questions, omitted articles, omitted and peculiar use of prepositions, peculiar order of sentence elements and verb tense usage, double comparison of adjectives, redundancies, zero direct objects for transitive verbs, among others, also surfaced in the analysis. In addition, the same categories of distinctive features found by Bautista (2000b) close to twenty years ago also appeared in the corpus, e.g., lack of agreement between subject and verb, especially with intervening expressions, and peculiar use of tenses, especially with modals - an indication that students are recurrently exposed to these structures in the language learning classrooms. It seems that these features have become ‘permanent fixtures’ in educated Filipinos’ verbal interactions. Nihalani, Tongue, Hosali (1979) posit that “whatever be the model laid down on paper, in practice, however, it is always the teacher’s model that is going to work” (p.110). This assimilation is evidenced by the students’ own use of distinctive structures presented above. Although internalization of rules is induced by a confluence of factors, exposure to classroom English and interaction with ESL teachers and other ESL learners remain to be of paramount influence. The above transcriptions could also cast some light on the choice of variety of English by educated Filipinos represented by college English teachers and learners. While not all the structures outlined above are established features of PhE yet, their use or occurrence may imply that both teachers and students advance grammatical structures that differ from the expectations of a purely exogenous model. It seems customary for the teaching of a foreign language to commence with a selection of a specific regional or social variety of the language, which, in return, provides a linguistic model for learners (Preisler, 1999). The analysis of the transcripts, however, would show that ESL instructors hardly impose a specific variety to be used in spoken and written discourses. In fact, there seems to be tolerance of differing language rules as indicated by the lack of corrective feedback from the teachers themselves when the distinctive features were uttered or made, although it is possible that the teachers resisted from giving immediate corrective feedback to lower the affective filter among the students or that they hardly consider them as gross deviations from the purported norm (if there is any). Further analysis of the transcripts and the classroom observations would also suggest that while the above structures are not explicitly taught in class, their occurrences in student and teacher talks may be regarded as a manifestation of constant use of, unconscious endorsement of, adherence to, and giving license to a norm that is not purely exonormative. Finally, what is observable is that in all the classes seen, the WE framework in general and PhE in particular were scarcely mentioned or conversed about, an indication that teachers and student rarely talk about it formally and overtly in class. PhE employed as a formal pedagogical model in teaching grammar is yet to be realized. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 128 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 English Tests in Selected K-12 Schools In this section, the results of the analysis of 29 high school English tests from three of the leading educational institutions in the Philippines administer to English as Second Language (ESL) learners under the K-12 program. In the analysis, these areas were examined: (1) the usual type of grammar tests; (2) grammar constructs represented; and (3) variety(ies) of English represented. Written English tests administered to Grade 11 Senior High School students whose age range from 15-17 years old were content analyzed to reveal if they assess students’ ability to recognize and manipulate Standard American English in areas like sentence elements and sentence structure and syntax and if the principles through which they are written are prescriptive in nature, which implies that these examinations lay down the rules for English language usage, or are descriptive in orientation which promotes the rules for English usage from the language that the test-takers actually use. Another key objective of the analysis is to find out if the tests administered promote real-life discourse context and normal language use situation where the test-takers may be allowed to exhibit their communicative competence and the communicative function of the local variety of English that thrives in the Philippines. Otherwise, there is a need to rethink about the testing practices in Philippine universities considering that nontraditional testing practices should allow the students to approximate real- life use of language and are variety-sensitive as far as the WE paradigm is concerned. The examinations analyzed in this section are usually administered in the middle period of the semester which runs for about five months. The academic year in the Philippines is generally divided into two terms and students are assessed in courses such as English in the middle and end of each term. In the Philippines, Filipino students, whether English majors or taking up other degrees, usually take mandatory General Education (GenEd) English courses. Each course requires major or terminal examinations that serve as a gauge for measuring student achievement and as as a determinant for promoting the learners to the next year level and for allowing the students to tackle the next higher English course. These major teacher-made examinations generally cover all the lessons taken up within the first or second half of the term. English teachers are required to design their own tests unless departmentalized examinations are available. It must be noted, though, that rarely do college teachers administer departmentalized and standardized tests. The state, particularly the Department of Education (DepEd) and Commission on Higher Education (CHED), hardly prescribes specific types of tests and thus teachers are responsible for designing their own. CHED and DepEd only prescribe what to teach and rarely dictate how to test students in what they were taught. The examinations analyzed in this paper are those administered to students taking up introductory English courses covering not only grammar but other areas or skills such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Each of these tests may consist of a number of test types such as multiple choice and identifying errors among others. As previously stated, three ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 129 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 aspects were analyzed: types of grammar tests, grammar constructs covered in the tests, and variety(ies) of English represented. Usual Types of Grammar Tests The analysis of the samples shows that there is a preponderance of discrete-point grammar tests in the English examinations. Boddy and Langham (2000) stated that in the discrete-point approach, language is broken down into small testable segments. Each test item is intended to give information about the examinee’s ability to handle a particular point of language. In another test category, the test-takers are simply asked to identify the grammar forms or structures represented in the given sentences. Furthermore, essay tests are relatively few, and the grammar tests are hardly integrative in nature. Also, it must be noted that all the tests analyzed are traditional paper-and-pencil language tests. Items in these tests are often in fixed response format in which a number of possible answers are presented from which the candidates are required to choose. Test Type 1: Discrete-point Tests in Fixed Response Format ET 1: (Note: ET stands for English Test) ▪ I brought my ID card ______ me. a. for b. with c. by d. in ▪ The kind ladies (a. is, b. are) getting ready for the novena at the church. Test Type 2: Identification of Grammatical Forms or Structures ET 25: ▪ Identify the kind of sentence used by analyzing their purposes. Write A if it is declarative, B if it is imperative, C if it is exclamatory, and D if it is interrogative. Punctuation has been purposely omitted from the sentence. o Help the house is on fire ▪ Determine the structure used in the given sentences. Write A if it is a simple sentence, B if it is a compound sentence, C if it is complex, and D if it is a compound-complex sentence. o The most basic business ethics concepts can be summed up as the values of honesty, integrity and fairness. ▪ Write A if the run-on is a fused sentence, and B if it is a comma splice. o No one understands him but people still love him. ET 4: ▪ Identify what type of nouns the following words are. Use PN for proper nouns, CN for common nouns, CL for collective nouns. o audience ▪ Identify what type of nouns the following words are. Write AB for abstract nouns and CN for concrete nouns. o x-ray ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 130 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 ▪ Determine the sentence pattern for each sentence given below. o The personality test found Jenkins unsuitable for the position. a. S-LV-C b. S-TV-IO-DO c. S-TV-DO d. S-TV-DO-OC Test Type 3: Essay or Paragraph Writing ET 4: ▪ Answer the following questions substantially. (5 points each) o What do you think are the factors that affect students’ inability to speak and write well in English? How do you relate the importance of reading to improve your performance despite this deficiency? ET 14: ▪ The Department of Education estimates that more than three million Filipino adults are functionally illiterate, unable to read such things as warning signs, food labels and farming instructions. Write an analogy that begins, “To be functionally illiterate in the Philippine society is like…” Grammar Constructs Represented in English Tests The analysis of the sample test items also suggests that language learners are tested on their knowledge of the following grammar constructs: (1) sentences and fragments; (2) verbs and subject-verb agreement; (3) acceptable expressions in formal written English; (4) correct use of prepositions; (5) correct word choice; (6) pluralization of nouns; (7) pronouns and pronoun- antecedent congruence; (8) adjectives; (9) abstract and collective nouns; (10); spelling; (11) correct usage; (12) structural and transitional devices; (13) passive and active voice; (14) tag and embedded questions; (15) misplaced and dangling modifiers; (16) conditionals; (17) indirect and reported speech; and (18) perfect tenses. (Sample test items are presented below.) These tests were designed to help students check their English grammar level, and they seem to cover a wide range of English grammar aspects – from identifying parts of speech to using formal English. ET 1: ▪ On the space provided in the answer sheet, choose whether the given expression is a sentence (A) or (B) if it is a fragment. o Christmas lights are flickering. ▪ Analyze the given statements. Explain the suitability of the verb as used in the sentence based on the rules on the agreement between the subject and the verb. o One of the best staff leave/ is leaving/ will leave/ is going to leave next Tuesday. ▪ Each item consists of a sentence in which four words or phrases are underlined. Choose the underlined word or phrase that is not acceptable in formal written English. o It is more better to give than to receive. No error. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 131 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 ▪ Complete the following paragraph by supplying the prepositions. Choose from the given options. o Don Quixote is a comical figure (a. in b. on c. through d. by) 46. ______ Literature. ET 3: ▪ Select the words that best fit the given statements. Shade the item that corresponds to the letter of your choice on the answer sheet provided. o Nobody among the boys who _____ basketball catch colds. a. plays b. play c. playing d. played ▪ Each item consists of a sentence in which four words or phrases are underlined. Choose the underlined word or phrase that is not acceptable in formal written English. o The Philippines are borrowing new money from foreign banks to finance her economic recovery. No error. ▪ Each number has four sentences. Read them carefully and decide which one is acceptable in Standard English. o A. While the dog ate, the cat stayed away from the dish. B. Whereas the dog ate, the cat stayed away from the dish. C. If the dog ate, the cat stayed away from the dish. D. But the dog ate, the cat stayed away from the dish. ▪ Select the word or pair of words that best complete the sentences. Write your answer on the space provided. o These two slices of pizza needs to be ________. a. heat b. heats c. hotted d. heated ET 10: ▪ Fill in the blank with the appropriate pronoun. o Cats are the world’s best hunters for ________ go after any animal ________ they can catch and kill. ________ move in complete silence and rely on stealth and secrecy to catch ________ prey. ▪ Examine each sentence below. Identify among the underlined word/s the error in the sentence. Choose the letter that corresponds to your answer (write E if there is no error in the sentence). Write you answer on the blank. o BecauseA they played byB the rules, the members of the team were givenC a standing ovation even though itD did not win the match. No errorE. A closer look at the sample examinations would show that there is hardly any explicit hint that a particular variety of English shall be observed in answering the test items. Even the very few essay tests hardly bear instructions on the use of a specific variety of English in writing the students’ answers. It must be noted, too, that with respect to choice of words, both American English (AmE) and British English (BrE) varieties seem to be represented. For example, towards (BrE) and toward (AmE) are used in some of the examinations: ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 132 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 (1) We are looking _________ his improvement. a. towards b. over to c. after to d. forward to (2) Your attitude toward money when you were a child as opposed to your attitude now. (3) ...placing longer adjectives towards the end (4) Engaging in these games doesn’t automatically translate to aggression towards self and others. Furthermore, the BrE variant acknowledgement is preferred in one of the examinations, while the AmE variant dialog appears in another. The BrE terms favourite and colourful are found in one of the tests, and the PhE terms jeepney and trapo are seen in one examination. In one of the tests, a subtest on varieties of English is given. It is, however, limited to matching AmE vocabularies with their BrE counterparts. In relation to pluralizing nouns, it appears that traditional rules are observed. In the example below, students are asked to give the plural equivalent of the noun in parenthesis. The rogue scientists were able to invent several (formula) for physical transformation. a. formulai b. formulii c. formulae In must be noted that another possible answer to the above item, based on modern grammar, is formulas. An indication that an external norm is adhered to in writing the test items is illustrated in these examples: Most of the evidence presented in court _____(affirm/affirms) the testimonies of the witnesses. Some research ______ (suggest/suggests) a link between obesity and diabetes. It usually serves as a topic sentence for somewhat more extensive of a topic resulting in what is called an amplified, expanded, or extended definition. The test writers could have written the noun phrases most of the evidences, and some researches, and the phrasal verb resulting to since these are also considered variants of PhE (Bautista, 1997), the variety of English used by the educated circle of Filipino speakers. Varieties of English Reflected in the English Tests It is also interesting to observe the presence of the following distinctive grammatical structures (represented by those in italics whose counterpart in Standard American English usage are given in parentheses) that appeared in the different subparts of the English tests examined. These structures may not be evident either in standard AmE or BrE, but they are used by ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 133 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 educated speakers represented by the English teachers who designed the English tests. Students might regard these structures as correct or acceptable since the teachers who designed the examinations also use or propagate them and because of the simple reason that these appear in English tests. ET 5: ▪ Select the word or pair of words that best complete (completes) the sentences. ET 6: ▪ Identify the audience and the purpose for (of) your writing during the _____ stage. ▪ 50. ___________is a broad term referring to (a) language that appeals to the senses. ▪ Underline the antecedent and the pronoun that agree (agrees) with each other (it). (2 pts. Each) ▪ Underline the descriptive adjectives that can be made into abstract nouns. Write the new word on the blanks (blank). (2 points each). ▪ Write X if the statement is true, and if the statement is false, change the underlined word/s to the correct one. Write your answer (answers) at (on) the blanks on the right column. ET 8: ▪ Write your answer on the spaces (space) provided. ▪ In this level of reading comprehension, how and why questions are often asked that requires reasoning, assumptions and implications. In this level of reading comprehension, how and why questions that requires (require) reasoning, assumptions and implications (are often asked). ET 10: ▪ Arrange the following statements as they would appear in a paragraph. Place the topic sentence on top followed by the supporting details, and end with the clinching sentence (tell whether it is a restatement, a summary or a generalization/conclusion). If there is no topic sentence or no clinching sentence, write none on the blank beside them (it). Write only the letter of your answer. ET 21: ▪ Reading results to (in) higher intellectual development. ▪ The (Ø) OPAC means, (Ø) Online Public Availability Catalogue. ▪ Good study habits result to (in) good academic standings. ▪ Unity is essential in achieving the (a) smooth flow of the ideas in the (a) paragraph. ▪ It contains a summary of a journal article or the summary of the contents of a theses (thesis) or dissertation. ▪ Systematically arranged lists or articles in journals that helps (help) us to identify or trace the information or sources. ▪ It is the “holding together” of the sentences in the (a) paragraph. ▪ It takes the place of the (a) noun. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 134 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 ▪ It refers to the characteristics of equal grammatical structures in the (a) paragraph. Overall, the analysis shows that the sample examinations are generally discrete-point tests. This implies that there is dearth of real-life discourse context and normal language use situation where the test-takers may be allowed to exhibit their communicative competence of which sociolinguistic competence is an integral component. Sociolinguistic competence as defined by Muniandy et al. (2010) “is the knowledge of the socio-cultural rules of language and of discourse” (p. 146). From this definition, it may be deduced that sociolinguistic competence is the facility to construe or interpret the social meaning and implication of the choice of linguistic varieties and the ability to use language in an appropriate situation. This suggests that students should be assessed not only in terms of how they understand linguistic rules but also how they manipulate and apply these rules for functional or practical purposes and in varied communication situations. Further, while the sample examinations attempt to make the learners realize the value of the so-called Standard English in academic and formal contexts, these tests hardly make the Filipino students cognizant of the communicative functions of the local variety of English. Furthermore, the tests analyzed appear to be devoted to grammatical accuracy alone; thus, the communicative function of language is neglected. The foregoing examples would also illustrate Esquinca, Yaden, and Rueda’s (2005) assertion that “…a typical language proficiency test would not allow for nuances in meaning made by speakers of so-called non-Standard varieties of English.” (p. 677). Acquiring knowledge about syntactic structures may no longer be sufficient and mastering no more than linguistic information may not be practical in current ELT practices because appropriateness in certain contexts may not be the same when compared to another. What may be appropriate in one speech community may not be appropriate and applicable in another, e.g. based on in American English which is based from as far as PhE is concerned. The World Englishes paradigm, particularly the results of corpus-based grammatical studies of PhE, has not been regarded as an overarching philosophy that informs language assessment practices in the country. Language tests - borrowing the words of Borlongan and Lim (2012) - must “recognize variation as acceptable and not labeled as learner errors” (p. 56). They also eloquently worded that: …efforts should remain unrelenting as to the development of standardized tests that accurately measure language proficiency and competence, and this kind of proficiency and competence must include sensitivity to the reality of the existence of a local English, which is legitimate and not that that falls short of American or British English. It is at this stage of reenvisioning a more world Englishes-informed language assessment that findings of corpus-based studies will be most important and truly necessary. (p.58) The very presence of distinctive English usage in grammar tests designed by Filipino teachers implies that language teachers use two English varieties – they allegedly adhere to ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 135 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 AmE as a default variety in testing students’ proficiency in English grammar but, surprisingly, use both PhE and AmE in writing test items. In addition, students are ‘momentarily’ required to answer English grammar tests using their knowledge of AmE rules although it is possible that they frequently use PhE grammatical features outside the testing situation. For this reason, Canagarajah (2006) argues that language practitioners have to veer away from the “either–or” perspective in the testing debate to a “both and more” standpoint. To this end, Canagarajah eloquently posits: … norms are relative, variable, heterogeneous, and changing. Posing the options as either “native English norms” or “new Englishes norms” is misleading. A proficient speaker of English in the postmodern world needs an awareness of both. He or she should be able to shuttle between different norms, recognizing the systematic and legitimate status of different varieties of English in this diverse family of languages. (p. 234) The implication is that both language teaching and language testing should move from “grammar to pragmatics” (Canagarajah, 2006) and from what is ideal to what is real. Since English is no longer a possession of the native speakers alone, it might be useful to consider other varieties, particularly in language testing milieus. While it is important to follow a particular standard if the English language is regarded as an international medium (Jenkins, 2006), a different set of assessment criteria is needed if the spotlight is on the communicative effectiveness of language tests. Test developers need to consider the varieties of English against which students will be judged, and give them the liberty to choose answers to grammar items that mirror their actual use of the language. While universities undergo improvement to make their curriculum more relevant, changes are not supposed to stop with program revision and development of instructional materials but with the design of assessment tools that conform to the changes effected. The question of whether PhE has found inroads in the English tests may now be addressed in this manner: PhE is used in writing the test items alongside inner-circle varieties; however, PhE is not explicitly prescribed as a norm as far as selection of grammatical items and making linguistic decisions is concerned. Its presence seems to be limited to the writing of the test items but not as an available option when linguistic norms or rules have to be applied. Pedagogic Model for Teaching English For a paradigm shift to fully take effect, ELTL approaches and methods will have to assume a different shape and form. For WE to be treated as a serious curricular agendum, pedagogical changes will have to start from somewhere. Y. Kachru and Nelson (2006) believe that indigenous varieties should be legitimized in the classroom while Canagarajah (1999) calls for a pedagogy of appropriation and a pluricentric view of language acquisition. Farrell and Martin (2009) promoted a balanced approach to instruction while Shin-ying (2009) advocates the inclusion of critical pedagogy in the curriculum, which necessitates the involvement of learners in its design. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 136 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 Kumaradadevelu (2003) strongly argues that Western-oriented second language acquisition methods is unbeneficial in any teaching and learning climate. Kumaradadevelu further advances that effort has to be exerted in examining more appropriate instructional methodologies and in decolonizing methodological aspects of English language teaching. He proposes a macrostrategic framework and suggested macro and micro strategies to achieve this. A survey of the current literature would also show that a good number of ELT practitioners have attempted to devise ways of thinking and doing to make the language teaching and learning process WE-inspired and WE-informed. Jindapitak and Teo (2013), for example, suggest that English language teaching and learning should adhere, both theoretically and pragmatically, to an English as an International Language (EIL) ideology. This approach implies veering away from the old ELT paradigm that treats native speakers as symbols of authorities. At the instructional level, Baik and Shim (2002) proposed a 15-week plan for teaching world Englishes through the internet. The program aims at enhancing learners’ awareness of more than 18 varieties of English. Assessment came in the form of various activities and classroom exercises. Song and Drummond (2009) designed a project that aims to enhance the awareness of the different varieties of English of advanced language learners and their appreciation of World Englishes speakers. Learners were asked to complete a task of looking for English speakers – native and nonnative – who to them epitomize commendable language attributes. Jindapitak and Teo (2012) forwarded an attitudinal neutrality activity to be implemented in language classroom while Vetorrel (2015) promoted exposure to English and Englishes in the educational context through content and language integrated learning in all school levels and extends the curricula beyond the walls of the classroom where meeting with pluralized forms of English are prevalent. These changed pedagogical practices and ways of thinking seem to be successful in making the learners recognize that they are learning English that they own and that they can find their identity with it (Norton, 1997). Classroom practices, therefore, should operate under the truism that celebrates and respects varieties of English. Promoting awareness of the prurilithic nature of English in the classrooms serves as the starting point for a heightened recognition of how the English language has evolved across the years. Hence, it is necessary that the classroom approaches, methodologies, and strategies are WE – based or WE-adherent. What is advanced in this section is an instructional approach which may be adopted by ESL practitioners in teaching English – the endonormative pedagogic model (Bernardo, 2013) in which both English teachers and students shift their linguistic attention and pedagogical interest not only to Standard American English but also to Standard Philippine English as their point of reference in teaching and learning English pronunciation, lexicon, and grammar. Adherence to this approach entails the formal study of and reference to the highly acceptable phonological, lexical, and grammatical features of PhE in the teachers’ and students’ attempt to teach and learn the grammar of the target language. At the axiomatic level, the endonormativeness of grammar teaching and learning may be achieved by making grammar instruction corpus-driven, by designing Philippine- and American-English-based ELT syllabi, ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 137 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 by conducting pedagogical acceptability judgment tests, by featuring both Philippine English and American English grammar in ESL textbooks and work texts, by incorporating the WE framework in textbooks and work texts, and by testing learners on varieties of the language. At the procedural level, the following five-stage strategy is suggested: Stage 1: Notice - Students are made to notice the distinctive features of PhE. Teachers direct students’ attention to grammatical, lexical or phonological items that significantly differ from American English or British English. Stage 2: Compare - Teachers lead the students to compare and contrast idiosyncratic PhE phonological, syntactic, or lexical features with American English or British English highlighting that the differences are acceptable and not strange. Stage 3: Comment - The teacher comments that the distinctive features are not errors and abnormalities rather they are innovations that are allowed and permissible in formal and informal discourses. Stage 4: Encourage - Teachers encourage learners to use the local variety both in formal and informal discourses without uncertainties or hesitations or fear of being penalized or laughed or frowned at. Stage 5: Familiarize: Teachers encourage students to be familiar with other established varieties of English and train them to shuttle from one variety to another to effect more successful communication. The endonormativeness of teaching English may take effect if inspiration is drawn from the WE paradigm. It is gathered that the English curricula aspire to harness not only familiarity with but also acceptance and recognition of the local variety of English, a tangible outcome or behavior that is to be realized at the end of any ELT curricular program. ELT curriculum designers are expected to consider local sociolinguistic realities that surround Filipino learners. Any curriculum is based on local and global standards set out by various institutions and stakeholders but it should be remembered that curricula will have to be reframed to situate English language teaching and learning in its sociolinguistic context. The ELT syllabi and teaching guides are designed in such a way that they explicitly stipulate and advocate the local variety of English that serves as the target of every learner. Furthermore, the syllabus is seen as a written guide that makes explicit the PhE variety’s phonological, lexical, and syntactic features, indigenous sociolinguistic realities, and local pedagogies that will give rise to the promotion and adherence to the nativized variety of English. As it is, a syllabus dictates what is to be taught. This, however, does not suggest that training learners to shuttle from one variety to another is of no value. In fact, the ability to shift from one variety to another may give the learners a competitive edge. What needs to be ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 138 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 underscored though is the need to expose, train, and allow the Filipino learners to function more effectively in the local variety first since it serves a pivotal communicative role especially in Filipino-to-Filipino interactions in English. Further, now that more and more tertiary students are enticed to the ELT enterprise, the teacher education program especially designed for the English majors may be re-examined to ensure that would-be English teachers are being prepared and equipped with the needed pedagogical skills to boldly confront the sociolinguistic existences that encase ELT in this day and age. The WE paradigm is construed as an integral component of every specialized course in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. It has been underscored that the WE framework also serves as a very strong backdrop against which the teaching of English is set and thus should seep into the teaching of academic writing, oral communication and other skills. As how Hamid, Zhu, and Baldauf, Jr., (2014) articulately put it: The changing norms and varieties of English in the globalising world should have important input into teacher education programs. The inclusion of WE in teacher education courses may contribute to teachers’ knowledge base which, in turn, may empower them in judging their students’ language use. At the same time, it would be important for teachers to collectively deal with examples of their students’ language use at the institutional level in the form of professional development workshops (p. 91-92). Concluding Remarks and Further Insights What has been found so far is that the World Englishes paradigm and Philippine English are neither explicitly nor implicitly reflected in the present K-12 English curriculum blueprint. This goes to show that it hardly subscribes to the WE framework – something that is expected of a curriculum that is abreast with and attuned to the demands of the modern-day ELT enterprise. It was also found that idiosyncratic features of Philippine English abound in student and teacher conversations and in the examinations that teachers prepare and thus the curriculum could have considered and anticipated this important linguistic phenomenon and reality and curricular input when the ELT curriculum was drafted. The above analysis has shown that Philippine English does thrive in the ESL classrooms and thus it may now find inroads in the formal curriculum document whose fundamental intent anyway is to embody and to communicate course goals and contents e.g., the grammar of Philippine English, to the learners. The formal reference to and the teaching of Philippine English may be legitimized if the ELT curriculum says that it be done. The curriculum serves as teachers’ roadmap in their day-to-day instruction and mirrors the pedagogical and content agenda to be conveyed and learned. A curriculum renewal is, therefore, of utmost importance to make the World Englishes framework an inspiration and a theoretical advice when the ELT curriculum is (re)designed and introduced into the existing educational system. In doing so, B. Kachru’s (1995, p. 4) proposal of introducing a ‘variety repertoire’ may be beneficial. B. Kachru posits that the curriculum cover courses that feature selected varieties of English from the region, that text from such varieties be used to illustrate the distinctiveness in acculturation and nativization of a variety and that eligible teachers acquainted with other varieties be employed to teach English, to offer learners ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 139 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 exposure to different Englishes. At the instructional level, teachers may further heighten students’ awareness and acceptance of the local variety of English by escorting them in the five-step WE-inspired instructional process of noticing, comparing, commenting, encouraging and familiarizing. Another important conjecture that may be construed out of the analyses is that Philippine English has begun and continues to stabilize endonormatively. This is supported by the emergence of a local standard embraced by the vast majority of the key players in the ELT classrooms. The formal adherence to local norm would simply have to be concretely etched on the present ELT curriculum to signal its pedagogical acceptance and to elevate it to a much higher echelon in the instructional purview. The usage and manifestations of Philippine English in the classroom signal that the localized variety, Philippine English, has indeed come of age. It has finally traversed from nativization to endonormative stabilization phase. As a final note, PhE syntactic variants, together with the sound system and lexicon of PhE, may now form part the linguistic contents presented to the learners. While it is possible that these are put vis-à-vis their American English counterparts, ESL classroom discussions should be directed to the assimilation of PhE features which later on will be translated into favorable attitude toward PhE and its legitimization. What is left to be seen is a comprehensive compendium of the grammar of PhE which could serve as teacher’s and learner’s reference point in teaching and learning grammar, for instance. Alluding to this comprehensive grammar of PhE would make both teachers and learners realize that every variety of English has its own rules and systems. References Arañas, P. (1990). The Philippine variety of English in selected universities in Metro Manila. Philippine Studies 38, 333-67. Baik, M. J. & Shim, R. J. (2002). Teaching world Englishes via the internet. World Englishes, 21(3), 427-430. Bautista, M.L.S. (1997). The lexicon of Philippine English. In M.L. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian Language: The Philippine context (pp. 49-72). Australia: The Macquarie Library Pty., Ltd. Bautista, M.L.S. (2000a). Studies of Philippine English in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 31(1), 39-65. Bautista, M.L.S. (2000b). Defining standard Philippine English: Its status and grammatical features. Manila: De la Salle University Press. Bautista, M.L.S. (2000c). The grammatical features of educated Philippine English. In M.L. Bautista, T. LLamson, & B. Sibayan (Eds.), Parangal cang Brother Andrew: Festschrift ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 140 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday (pp. 146-158). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Phiilppines. Bautista, M.L.S. (2001a). Studies of Philippine English: Implications for English language teaching in the Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Education 2(2), 271-295. Bautista, M.L.S. (2001b) Attitudes of English language faculty in three leading Philippine universities towards Philippine English. Asian Englishes, 4(1), 4-32. Bautista, M.L.S. (2001c) Attitudes of selected Luzon University students and faculty towards Philippine English. In M. L. G. Tayao et al. (Eds.), Rosario E. Maminta in focus: Selected writings in applied linguistics (pp. 263-273). Quezon City: Philippine Association for Language Teaching. Bautista, M.L.S. (2003). The new Englishes and the teaching of grammar. In J.E. James (Ed.), Grammar in the language classroom: Changing approaches and practices (pp. 62-90). Anthology Series 43. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Bautista, M.L.S. (2004). The verb in Philippine English: A preliminary analysis of the modal would. In M. Bautista & K. Bolton (Eds.), World Englishes 23(1), 113-128. Bautista, M.L.S. (2008). Investigating the grammatical features of Philippine English. In M.L. Bautista and K. Bolton (Eds.), Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives (pp. 201-218). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Bautista, M.L.S. (2011). Studies of Philippine English. Exploring the Philippine component of the international corpus of English. Manila: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Bernardo, A. S. (2013). Toward an endonormative pedagogic model for teaching English in Philippine higher education institutions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Santo Tomas, Manila, the Philippines. Bernardo, A.S. & Madrunio, M.R. (2015). A framework for designing a Philippine-English- based pedagogic model for teaching English grammar. Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 3. 67-98. Boddy, N. & Langham, C. (2000). Communicative language testing: An attainable goal? Retrieved from http:// www.tsukuba-g.ac.jp/library/ kiyou/2000/5.LANGHAM.pdf Borlongan, A.M. (2008). Tag questions in Philippine English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 39(1-2), 109-34. Borlongan, A. M. (2011). A grammar of the verb in Philippine English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). De La Salle University, Manila, the Philippines. Borlongan, A.M. (2016). Relocating Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. Asian Englishes, DOI: 10.1080/13488678.2016.1223067 ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 141 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 Borlongan, A. M., & Dita, S. N. (2015). Taking a look at expanded predicates in Philippine English across time. Asian Englishes, 17(3), 1–8. Borlongan, A.M. & Lim, J. (2012). Corpus-based grammatical studies of Philippine English and language assessment: Issues and perspectives. The Assessment Handbook 8, 51-62. Canagarajah, S. (1999). On EFL teachers, awareness, and agency. ELT Journal, 53(3), 207– 214. Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly 3(3), 229– 242. Esquinca, A., Yaden, D., & Rueda, R. (2005). Current language proficiency tests and their implications for preschool English. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 674-680) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Farrell, T.S.C. & Martin, S. (2009). To teach Standard English or World Englishes? A balanced approach to instruction. English Teaching Forum, 2, 1-7. Hamid, M., Zhu, L., & Baldauf, R. B. (2014). Norms and varieties of English and TESOL teacher agency. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(10). Jenkins, J. (2006). The spread of English as an international language: A testing time for testers. ELT Journal 60, 51–60. Jindapitak, N. & Teo, A. (2012). Thai tertiary English majors attitudes towards and awareness of World Englishes. Journal of English Studies, 7, 74-116. Jindapitak, N. & Teo, A. (2013). The emergence of World Englishes: Implication for English language teaching. Asian Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 2(2), 190-199. Kachru, B. B. (1983). The Indianization of English. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B.B. (1995). Past imperfect: The other side of English in Asia. Paper presented at the Second International Association of World Englishes (IAWE) Conference, Nagoya, Japan, May 25-27. Kachru, B.B. (1996). World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy [Electronic version]. Journal of Aesthetic Education 30(2), 135-155. Kachru, B. B. (1997). English as an Asian language. In M. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian language. The Philippine context (pp. 1-23). Australia: The Macquarie Library Pty., Ltd. Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C (2006). World Englishes in Asian context. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 142 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. K-12 Curriculum Guide: English (2015). Department of Education. Meralco Avenue, Pasig City. Kumaradadevelu, B. (2003). Critical language pedagogy. A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550. Martin, I. P. (2014). Beyond nativization?: Philippine English in Schneider’s dynamic model. In S. Buschfeld, T. Homann, M. Huber, & A. Kautszsch (Eds.), The evolution of Englishes: The dynamic model and beyond (pp. 70–85). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Muniandy, M.K. (2010). Sociolinguistic competence and Malaysian students’ English language proficiency. English Language Teaching 3(3), 145-151. Nihalani, P., Tongue, R. K., & Hosali, Priya. (1979). Indian and British English: A handbook of usage and pronunciation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409—429. Preisler, B. (1999). ‘Functions and forms of English in a European EFL country.’ In T. Bex & R.J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The Widening Debate (pp.239- 267). London: Routledge. Schneider, E. W. (2003). The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language, 79, 233–281. Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties of English around the world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Shin-ying, H. (2009). Global English and EFL learners: Implications for critical pedagogy. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(3), 327-350. Song, K. & Drummond, H. (2009) Helping students recognize and appreciate English language variations. Foreign Language Research and Education, Hiroshima University, 12, 201- 215. Vetorrel, P. (2015). World Englishes and English as a lingua franca: Implications for teacher education and ELT. Saggi/Essays, 6, 229-244. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 143 Philippine ESL Journal Vol. 19, July 2017 About the Author Alejandro Sapitan Bernardo, Ph.D. facilitates teacher and student trainings and delivers lectures on English Language Teaching (ELT)-related trends and issues across the country. He started as a basic education teacher at the University of Regina Carmeli (URC), now La Consolacion University-Philippines (LCUP). He earned both his bachelor’s (BSEd-General Science) and master’s (MAEd-English) degrees from LCUP and his Ph.D. in English Language Studies from the University of Santo Tomas (UST) (cum laude). At LCUP, he served as chair of the Basic Education Department of Languages for four years, as university-wide publication coordinator for one year, and as chair of the Department of Languages of the College of Liberal Arts for one year. At present, he is a full-time and a tenured member of the faculty of the UST Department of English where he has just recently been promoted to associate professorship. He is also serves as the Faculty Secretary of the UST Graduate School. ©2015 ELE Publishing ISSN 1718-2298 Page 144