# Macro Skills and Communicative Competence of Senior High School Students

Joseph Dave Pregoner

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Joseph Dave Pregoner. Macro Skills and Communicative Competence of Senior High School Students. IMCC Journal of Science, 2025, 5 (1), pp.25-32. hal-05205572

HAL Id: hal-05205572

https://hal.science/hal-05205572v1

Submitted on 10 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Macro Skills and Communicative Competence of Senior High School Students

Joseph Dave Pregoner

Graduate School, Philippine Christian University, Manila, Philippines

* Correspondence: joseph.pregoner.phd@pcu.edu.ph

## Abstract

This study examined the proficiency levels in macro skills and communicative competence among senior high school students in selected public schools in Davao City, Philippines, and analyzed the relationship between these constructs. It also identified challenges in developing macro skills and applying communicative competence in academic and real-world contexts. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was employed, involving 200 students in the quantitative phase and 10 purposively selected participants in the qualitative phase. Quantitative data were collected using a validated performance-based assessment, while qualitative insights were obtained through semi-structured interviews. Results indicated low proficiency in both macro skills and communicative competence, with a strong, statistically significant positive correlation between the two. Thematic analysis revealed six barriers to macro skill development—limited exposure to authentic language use, fear of errors and judgment, insufficient external learning support, grade-focused rather than communication-focused instruction, absence of individualized feedback, and digital distractions. Six challenges in communicative competence application were also identified—speaking anxiety, limited vocabulary and retrieval issues, difficulty adapting language to context, weaknesses in active listening and turn-taking, code-switching interference, and lack of real-world practice. The findings highlight the need for pedagogical interventions that create authentic communication opportunities and address emotional, cognitive, and contextual barriers to language acquisition. Future studies should assess targeted strategies to enhance both macro skills and communicative competence in senior high school learners.

**Keywords:** communicative competence; language proficiency; macro skills; senior high school students

**Type:** Original Article

Received: 01 October 2024; Revised: 05 March 2025; Accepted for publication: 03 May 2025; Published online: 12 June 2025

## 1. Introduction

Communicative competence is a cornerstone of effective education, enabling students to engage meaningfully in academic tasks, collaborate with peers, and navigate real-world social and professional settings. It involves not only the ability to speak or write, but also the capacity to understand and respond appropriately within various linguistic and cultural contexts [1]. In today's learning environments, students are expected to articulate ideas clearly, comprehend diverse perspectives, and participate actively in discussions and collaborative activities. However, many senior high school students continue to exhibit limitations in these areas, often struggling to express themselves confidently or interpret others' messages accurately. These communication gaps can lead to misunderstandings, reduced classroom participation, and poor academic performance [2]. Furthermore, weak communicative competence hinders students' ability to adapt to different social situations and professional demands [3]. As global and local communities become increasingly interconnected, the need for strong communication skills has never been more critical. Developing communicative competence is therefore essential for

both immediate educational success and long-term personal and career advancement [4].

Globally, the issue of poor communicative competence among students remains a major concern. In the United States, only 27% of 8th and 12th grade students performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level in writing [5]. In Japan, recent assessments reported that only 30% of high school students achieved the expected proficiency level in English speaking [6]. In Indonesia, national evaluations show limited success in the practical application of communication skills, reflecting challenges in implementing reforms effectively [7].

In the Philippine context, communicative competence continues to be a pressing concern among students. According to the Philippine Business for Education, only 23% of senior high school graduates are considered proficient in English communication based on national assessments [8]. These statistics reflect a widespread inability to translate language learning into functional communication, highlighting the urgent need for interventions targeting macro-skill development. In Bukidnon, classroom assessments showed that students scored below average in listening and reading comprehension [9]. In Tacloban City, teachers
reported that around 40% of students failed to express themselves clearly during oral recitations [10]. Meanwhile, in Zamboanga, school administrators observed that a large number of learners displayed weak writing skills, especially in formal and academic contexts [11].

Several researchers have investigated the relationship between macro skills and communicative competence. Studies indicate that students who excel in the four language macro skills tend to demonstrate stronger communicative abilities across different contexts. For instance, Gustanti and Ayu found a positive correlation between reading proficiency and students' ability to engage in academic discourse [12]. Similarly, speaking and listening have an influence in developing interpersonal communication skills among senior high school students [13]. Other studies have also shown that improving writing skills enhances students' clarity and coherence when communicating through various platforms [14,15].

However, despite the growing body of research on language learning, there remains a limited focus on the integrated influence of all four macro skills on communicative competence, especially among senior high school students in local contexts. Most studies tend to isolate one or two skills, failing to capture the holistic picture of how macro skills interact and influence students' communication. Furthermore, few studies have been conducted in Davao City, where diverse linguistic backgrounds may impact how students develop and use communication skills in and outside the classroom. This gap highlights the need for localized research that examines the full range of macro skills in relation to communicative competence.

This study aims to determine the level of macro skills among senior high school students in terms of reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing. It also seeks to assess the level of communicative competence of senior high school students in the areas of vocabulary, grammar, spoken and written discourse, actional competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. Furthermore, the study aims to determine the significant relationship between the students' macro skills and their communicative competence. Moreover, the study explores the challenges that senior high school students encounter in developing their macro skills both inside and outside the classroom. Lastly, it examines the specific difficulties students face in applying communicative competence during classroom interactions and real-life communication situations.

# 2. Methodology

## 2.1 Research Design

This research utilized an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase employed quantitative methods to determine the level of macro skills among senior high school students in terms of reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing. It also assessed the students' level of communicative competence across various domains, including vocabulary, grammar, spoken discourse, written discourse, actional competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. The second phase of the study used qualitative methods to explore the challenges students face in developing their macro skills and in applying communicative competence during classroom and real-life communication situations. This design was chosen to first establish the extent and relationship between the variables and then explore the deeper context behind these results

through students' lived experiences. The qualitative findings served to explain or elaborate on the results from the quantitative phase, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.

## 2.2 Locale and Participants

The study was conducted in selected public senior high schools in Davao City, a highly urbanized area in the southern Philippines known for its linguistic and cultural diversity. For the quantitative phase, the respondents consisted of 200 senior high school students selected through stratified random sampling to ensure representation across academic strands (e.g., HUMSS, STEM, ABM, TVL). These students were enrolled in Grade 11 and Grade 12 during the school year 2023-2024. For the qualitative phase, ten participants were purposively selected from among those who participated in the survey. They were identified based on their willingness to participate in interviews and their ability to articulate their experiences regarding macro skills and communicative competence.

## 2.3 Research Instrument

A two-phase approach was utilized to gather data. In the first phase, the researcher developed a performance-based assessment tool designed to evaluate students' proficiency in specific language domains. The tool consisted of two major components. The first component assessed the level of students' macro skills in terms of reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing. Each macro skill was rated independently using a 100-point performance scale. The second component measured communicative competence across the domains of vocabulary, grammar, spoken discourse, written discourse, actional competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. Each of these domains was likewise rated on a 100-point performance scale. Descriptive interpretations of the scores were based on the Department of Education's grading system and were aligned with qualitative descriptors for analysis. A score of 90-100 was labeled as "outstanding", which corresponds to a very high level of performance. A score of 85-89 was considered "very satisfactory", indicating a high level. A score of 80-84 was rated as "satisfactory", reflecting a moderate level. Scores between 75-79 were labeled "fairly satisfactory", representing a low level, while scores below 75 were categorized as "did not meet expectations", corresponding to a very low level of performance.

Both assessment tools were validated by a panel of experts in the fields of language and education to ensure content relevance, clarity, and alignment with curricular standards. A pilot test was conducted with a sample of 30 senior high school students to determine the reliability of the instruments, resulting in a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91 (macro skills) and 0.94 (communicative competence), indicating high internal consistency.

The second phase of the study employed semi-structured interview guides to explore the specific challenges encountered by students in developing their macro skills and applying their communicative competence. These guides were also subjected to expert validation to ensure clarity and alignment with the research objectives.

## 2.4 Data Collection and Analysis

Prior to data gathering, necessary permissions were obtained from school authorities, and informed consent was secured from both participants and their parents or guardians. For the
quantitative phase, the macro skills and communicative competence assessment tools were personally administered to the students during regular class hours. The data collection spanned a period of two weeks to ensure all target participants were reached. Following the completion and preliminary analysis of the quantitative data, the qualitative phase commenced. A total of ten students were purposively selected for in-depth interviews to explore the challenges they experienced in developing their macro skills and applying communicative competence. The interviews were held in a quiet, private room within the school campus to ensure comfort and confidentiality. Conversations were conducted in either English or Filipino, based on the participants' language preference, and were audio-recorded with their full consent. Each session lasted between 30 to 45 minutes. Throughout the data collection process, ethical considerations were strictly observed, adhering to the Philippine National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Education Research.

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25. Mean was used to determine the levels of macro skills and communicative competence. Pearson r correlation was employed to assess the relationship between the two variables. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all inferential tests. For the qualitative phase, responses from the interviews were transcribed and analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-step thematic analysis method. Emerging themes related to students' challenges in macro skills and communicative competence were identified and triangulated with the results of the quantitative phase to draw deeper conclusions and implications.

# 3. Results and Discussion

## 3.1 Quantitative Phase

Table 1 shows the level of macro skills among senior high school students. Speaking recorded the highest mean score of 81.00 with a descriptive level of moderate. Reading followed with a mean score of 80.00 and a descriptive level of moderate. Listening obtained a mean score of 79.00 and was described as low. Writing had a mean score of 77.00 with a descriptive level of low. Viewing posted the lowest mean score of 76.00 and was also described as low. The overall mean score was 78.60, corresponding to a descriptive level of low.

This implies that the senior high school students generally demonstrated a low level of proficiency in their macro skills, indicating limited competence in the fundamental areas of language learning such as reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing. These skills are essential for effective communication and academic success, and a low performance suggests the need for instructional improvements and targeted interventions. The low scores may reflect challenges in comprehension, expression, and processing of information, which can negatively impact their ability to participate fully in classroom discussions, understand learning materials, and produce quality outputs.

This finding is consistent with the view that students with low macro skills often struggle to comprehend texts, express ideas clearly, and respond effectively in communication tasks [16]. Weak reading abilities hinder their capacity to extract key information, make inferences, and understand context, while poor listening skills reduce their ability to follow oral instructions and grasp details during discussions or lectures, leading to confusion and disengagement [17]. Limited writing skills result in unorganized and

grammatically incorrect outputs that obstruct the clear transmission of ideas [18], and low speaking proficiency diminishes vocabulary use, confidence, and fluency in expressing opinions [19]. Furthermore, poor viewing skills restrict students' ability to interpret visual materials such as graphs, videos, and multimedia content, limiting their capacity to process multimodal learning resources [20].

Table 2 shows the level of communicative competence among senior high school students. Spoken discourse registered the highest mean score of 81.00 with a descriptive level of moderate. Sociolinguistic followed with a mean score of 80.00 and a descriptive level of moderate. Linguistic/Vocabulary obtained a mean score of 79.00 and was described as low. Actional had a mean score of 78.00 with a descriptive level of low. Written discourse recorded a mean score of 77.00 and was also described as low. Linguistic/Grammar yielded a mean score of 76.00 with a descriptive level of low. Strategic competence posted the lowest mean score of 75.00 and was classified as low. The overall mean score of 77.71 corresponds to a descriptive level of low.

This implies that the senior high school students possess a generally low level of communicative competence, which suggests difficulties in effectively using language in various contexts. The low performance across domains such as vocabulary, grammar, written and spoken discourse, and strategic competence indicates that students may struggle to express ideas clearly, adapt language appropriately in social interactions, or maintain meaningful conversations. These limitations can hinder their academic performance, peer interactions, and overall confidence in communication.

This finding aligns with the view that low communicative competence hinders students from clearly expressing their thoughts, responding appropriately in conversations, and interpreting both verbal and non-verbal cues [21]. Insufficient vocabulary and grammatical control often result in fragmented sentences or incorrect structures, making messages unclear or misunderstood, which can lead to communication breakdowns where students cannot sustain conversations or negotiate meaning during interactions [22]. Limited discourse skills further impede the logical organization of ideas in speaking or writing, affecting coherence and fluency [23]. Low levels of sociolinguistic and strategic competence also prevent learners from adjusting language based on context, audience, or communicative purpose, sometimes leading to overly formal or inappropriate expressions that hinder effective interaction [24]. Moreover, low communicative competence is frequently associated with anxiety, fear of embarrassment, and reluctance to participate in discussions, which obstructs language practice and delays the development of confidence and fluency [25].

Table 3 presents the relationship between macro skills and communicative competence among senior high school students. The computed correlation coefficient of 0.70 indicates a high level of relationship between the two variables. The p-value of 0.021 signifies that the relationship is statistically significant. This means that as students' macro skills increase, their communicative competence also tends to improve, suggesting a meaningful connection between the two areas.
<table><caption>Table 1: Level of macro skills among senior high school students.</caption><thead><tr><td>Macro skills</td><td>Mean Score</td><td>Descriptive Level</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Reading</td><td>80.00</td><td>Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>Writing</td><td>77.00</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Listening</td><td>79.00</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Speaking</td><td>81.00</td><td>Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>Viewing</td><td>76.00</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Overall</td><td>78.60</td><td>Low</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 2: Level of communicative competence among senior high school students.</caption><thead><tr><td>Communicative Competence</td><td>Mean Score</td><td>Descriptive Level</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Linguistic/Vocabulary</td><td>79.00</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Linguistic/Grammar</td><td>76.00</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Spoken Discourse</td><td>81.00</td><td>Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>Written Discourse</td><td>77.00</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Actional</td><td>78.00</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Sociolinguistic</td><td>80.00</td><td>Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>Strategic</td><td>75.00</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Overall</td><td>77.71</td><td>Low</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3: Relationship between macro skills and communicative competence among senior high school students.</caption><thead><tr><td>Variables</td><td>r</td><td>p-value</td><td>Level</td><td>Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Macro Skills and Communicative Competence</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.021</td><td>High</td><td>Significant</td></tr></tbody></table>

This implies that students who demonstrate stronger macro skills are likely to exhibit higher levels of communicative competence. The significant correlation suggests that proficiency in areas such as reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing is closely linked with their ability to use language effectively in both spoken and written forms. It further implies that the development of one domain tends to reflect in the other, indicating that macro skills and communicative competence are interrelated aspects of language learning. The finding highlights the interconnected nature of these competencies among senior high school students.

The relationship between macro skills and communicative competence among senior high school students shows a strong and statistically significant connection, with students who demonstrate competence in reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing communicating more effectively in academic and social contexts [26]. These macro skills form the foundation of language proficiency, and when developed in balance, they enhance learners' capacity to express, comprehend, and interact meaningfully. Communicative competence extends beyond fluent speaking to include the integration of multiple language processes, such as understanding a message while preparing an appropriate response [27]. Strengthening one macro skill often reinforces others, creating a cycle of language growth, as students who engage in reading and writing tasks tend to organize their thoughts more effectively, thereby improving both verbal and written communication [28]. Likewise, attentive listening and critical viewing foster responsiveness and thoughtfulness in communication [29].

## 3.2 Qualitative Phase

### 3.2.1 Challenges Encountered by Senior High School Students in Developing Macro Skills Inside and Outside the Classroom

#### Theme 1: Limited Exposure to Real-Life Language Use

Students shared that they rarely encounter opportunities to apply their language skills in authentic situations beyond the classroom. Inside school, most language activities are confined to drills and seatwork, offering minimal interaction. Outside, many students live in communities where English is seldom used. One student commented: "We mostly answer worksheets and do book activities. We don't really get to speak English in real conversations.

Even at home, we speak in Filipino or Bisaya, so there's not much chance to practice." (Student 4)

This theme aligns with findings that students struggle to develop macro skills effectively when they lack sufficient opportunities to engage with authentic language materials and real-life communication situations [30]. Listening and speaking skills require frequent interaction with native or fluent speakers in natural contexts to reach full development [31], while reading and writing skills remain limited when exposure is restricted to academic texts without access to diverse, practical materials such as news articles, blogs, or workplace documents [32]. A narrow range of communication tasks both inside and outside the classroom further constrains the integration of the four macro skills into cohesive language competence [33].

#### Theme 2: Fear of Making Mistakes and Being Judged

A major barrier reported by students was their anxiety about committing errors when speaking or writing. This fear, especially in front of peers, led to hesitation and withdrawal from active participation. Even those who understood lessons said they were reluctant to engage because of a lack of confidence. One student expressed: "Sometimes I know the answer, but I'm too shy to say it out loud. I get nervous that I might pronounce words wrong or that my grammar isn't good. I'm afraid my classmates will laugh." (Student 7)

This theme reflects findings that students often hesitate to participate in communicative tasks due to anxiety about making grammatical or pronunciation errors in front of peers [34]. Fear of negative evaluation can lead learners to remain silent during discussions, impeding the development of both speaking and listening skills [35], while excessive self-consciousness may cause them to avoid writing and reading aloud, thereby limiting opportunities to strengthen literacy and oral fluency [36].

#### Theme 3: Inadequate Access to Learning Support Outside School

Many students emphasized the lack of resources at home to practice and reinforce macro skills. While some schools offer materials, internet access and a supportive environment outside the classroom are not always available. These limitations hinder their ability to develop skills like reading comprehension or writing fluency. One student reflected: "We don't have Wi-Fi at home, and I
*can't really practice reading or watching English videos. I also help with chores, so there's no time to write or review my lessons.* (Student 9)

This theme highlights that the absence of sufficient learning resources outside the classroom—such as reading materials, internet access, or language-rich environments—limits students' ability to reinforce macro skills independently [37]. Students from underprivileged backgrounds often lack spaces or opportunities for reading, writing, speaking, or listening practice beyond school hours [38], and the absence of after-school tutoring, parental guidance, or academic support systems further hinders the improvement of comprehension and fluency in both formal and informal contexts [39].

## Theme 4: Overemphasis on Grades Rather than Communication

Students expressed that macro skills are often taught mainly for test preparation, which limits opportunities to focus on actual communication or creativity. They feel pressured to memorize answers for exams rather than practice meaningful expression. "We're always told to prepare for the exam, so the teacher focuses more on what might come out in the test. We don't get to practice writing our own ideas or having conversations." (Student 6)

This theme aligns with the view that when educational systems prioritize high test scores over communicative ability, students often focus on memorization rather than meaningful language use [40]. An excessive emphasis on written exams and grammar-based assessments can discourage learners from practicing real-life communication skills such as speaking and listening [41], while equating success solely with academic performance on paper may lead students to overlook the practical applications of language in authentic interactions [42].

## Theme 5: Lack of Personalized Feedback

Several students felt they were not receiving sufficient or specific feedback on their speaking or writing tasks. This lack of feedback made it difficult for them to identify and correct their mistakes, thus hindering improvement. "I submit my essay, but I don't know what I did wrong. I just get a grade. If I don't know what to improve, how can I get better?" (Student 8)

This theme reflects findings that the absence of tailored feedback prevents students from identifying specific weaknesses in their communication skills [43]. When learners receive only generic or delayed responses, they find it difficult to refine their speaking, listening, reading, and writing abilities in meaningful ways [44], and without individualized guidance, they may repeat the same language errors or remain uncertain about their progress [45].

## Theme 6: Influence of Digital Distractions

Students admitted that while they have access to digital tools, they often use them for entertainment rather than educational purposes. Social media, mobile games, and streaming videos consume much of their free time, leaving little for reading, writing, or speaking practice. One commented: "I know I could use YouTube to watch English lessons or practice pronunciation, but I usually end up watching K-dramas or scrolling on TikTok. I get distracted easily." (Student 10)

This theme aligns with the view that excessive exposure to digital platforms can divert students' attention away from meaningful language tasks [46]. Many learners prioritize online entertainment over reading academic texts, writing reflective pieces, or engaging

in deep listening and speaking activities [47], while constant digital interruptions such as notifications and social media engagement disrupt cognitive flow and diminish focus during language learning [48].

### 3.2.2 Difficulties Students Face in Applying Communicative Competence in Classroom and Real-Life Interactions

#### Theme 1: Anxiety and Self-Consciousness When Speaking

Many students reported feeling nervous and overly conscious when speaking in front of others. This affects their fluency and willingness to communicate, especially in English. One shared: "I know what to say in my head, but when I speak, I get nervous and stutter. I feel like my classmates are judging me." (Student 1)

This theme reflects findings that students often experience heightened anxiety and self-consciousness when speaking in front of others, particularly in a second language [49]. Such emotional barriers can hinder fluency as learners focus on fears of embarrassment, negative evaluation, or grammatical errors [50]. Speaking anxiety, one of the most common obstacles in language classrooms, frequently leads students to avoid participation even when they have a clear understanding of the topic [51].

#### Theme 2: Limited Vocabulary and Word Retrieval

Students frequently struggle to find the right words, especially when shifting between informal and formal communication contexts. This affects both oral and written tasks. One reflected: "I want to explain my ideas clearly, but sometimes I don't know the exact English words to use. I just end up using simple or wrong words." (Student 2)

This theme aligns with findings that students with limited vocabulary often struggle to express ideas clearly, which can hinder their overall academic performance [52]. Word retrieval difficulties can also affect fluency and confidence during oral communication tasks [53], while restricted lexical resources limit the ability to engage in complex conversations, thereby reducing both academic and social interactions [54]. Targeted interventions that improve vocabulary and retrieval skills have been shown to significantly enhance communicative competence and learning outcomes [55].

#### Theme 3: Difficulty Adjusting Language Based on Context

Students find it hard to change the tone, formality, or structure of their speech depending on who they're talking to (e.g., peers vs. teachers). One verbalized: "I get confused if I should speak formally or casually. Sometimes I sound too informal when talking to teachers or strangers." (Student 6)

This theme reflects findings that learners often struggle to modify their language appropriately for different social or academic settings [56]. Students who have difficulty adjusting their language register may encounter challenges in both formal and informal communication [57], and the inability to tailor language to context can result in misunderstandings and reduced effectiveness in message delivery [58]. Teaching pragmatic language skills enables learners to better recognize and respond to contextual cues, thereby enhancing their communicative competence [59].

#### Theme 4: Struggles with Active Listening and Turn-Taking

In group discussions and conversations, students find it difficult to listen actively, take turns properly, and respond appropriately,
often interrupting or zoning out. One mentioned: "During group work, I want to share my ideas, but I don't know when to speak. Sometimes I talk over someone, or I just stay quiet because I don't know what to say back." (Student 7)

This theme corresponds with findings that difficulties in active listening can lead to misunderstandings and hinder effective communication among students [60]. Challenges in turn-taking may also disrupt the natural flow of conversations, causing frustration for both speakers and listeners [61], while learners who struggle with these interactive skills often miss important information and participate less in group discussions [62]. Explicit training in active listening and turn-taking has been shown to significantly improve students' engagement and collaborative communication abilities [63].

## Theme 5: Code-Switching Interference

Some students tend to switch back and forth between Filipino and English even when instructed to use only English. This affects their communicative consistency and confidence. One commented: "Even when I try to speak English, I sometimes mix in Tagalog or Bisaya. It's easier, but I feel like I'm doing it wrong in class." (Student 9)

This theme reflects findings that frequent code-switching between languages can disrupt the flow of communication and cause confusion in learners' language production [64]. Code-switching interference may also lead to errors in grammar and vocabulary usage, thereby affecting overall language proficiency [65], and while it is a natural bilingual behavior, excessive reliance on it can hinder the development of full communicative competence in either language [66]. Teachers are encouraged to implement strategies that minimize the negative effects of code-switching while still valuing learners' linguistic identities [67].

## Theme 6: Lack of Real-Life Practice Opportunities

Students pointed out that classroom communication is too scripted, and they don't get to apply language in natural, spontaneous ways outside school. One said: "Most of the time, our dialogues are written in the book. I don't get to practice talking freely like in real conversations." (Student 10)

This theme aligns with findings that limited opportunities for students to practice language skills in authentic contexts hinder their communicative development [68]. Without real-life interaction, learners often struggle to transfer classroom knowledge to practical use [69], and insufficient exposure to everyday language situations can reduce confidence and motivation to communicate [70]. Incorporating more real-world practice into language programs has been shown to significantly enhance learners' fluency and pragmatic competence.

## 4. Conclusions

The findings of this study reveal that senior high school students generally exhibit low levels of proficiency in both macro skills and communicative competence. Additionally, there is a strong and statistically significant correlation between macro skills and communicative competence. Several challenges contribute to the low proficiency in macro skills, including limited exposure to real-life language use, fear of making mistakes and being judged, inadequate access to learning support outside school, overemphasis on grades rather than communication, lack of personalized feedback, and influence of digital distractions. Additionally,

students face obstacles such as difficulty adjusting language based on context, struggles with active listening and turn-taking, code-switching interference, limited vocabulary and word retrieval, anxiety and self-consciousness when speaking, and lack of real-life practice opportunities, which further hinder their communicative effectiveness.

To address the challenges identified in this study, it is recommended that schools increase opportunities for students to engage in authentic language use by incorporating activities such as role-plays, language clubs, and community interactions. Creating a supportive learning environment that encourages risk-taking and reduces fear of making mistakes will help build students' confidence in both speaking and writing.

Additionally, improving access to learning resources outside the classroom, such as providing internet connectivity, language practice centers, and after-school tutoring, is essential to reinforce skill development. A shift in curricular focus from solely emphasizing grades and test performance to promoting meaningful communication and practical language use can motivate students and foster deeper learning. Teachers may also provide personalized, constructive feedback that targets individual students' strengths and weaknesses, guiding them toward continuous improvement.

Furthermore, explicit instruction on pragmatic communication skills, including adjusting language to context, active listening, turn-taking, and managing code-switching, can enhance students' overall communicative competence. Addressing vocabulary limitations and speaking anxiety through targeted activities and confidence-building exercises will further support language proficiency. Moreover, integrating more real-life practice opportunities, both inside and outside the classroom, will allow students to apply their language skills in spontaneous and meaningful ways, ultimately improving their academic success and communication effectiveness.

For future studies, it is recommended to explore the effectiveness of specific instructional strategies and interventions aimed at improving macro skills and communicative competence, as well as investigating other factors such as motivation, cultural influences, and technology use that may affect language learning among senior high school students.

## Acknowledgement

The author extends his thanks to the anonymous reviewers whose valuable suggestions greatly enhanced this paper.

## Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

## Author Contributions

The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation. The author has approved the final version of this manuscript.
## References

[1] Shamsiddin, X. The subject is interactive methods that develop communicative competence in students. *Int J Pedagogics* 2024, 4, 117-122.

[2] Lee, W.W.S.; Yang, M. Effective collaborative learning from Chinese students' perspective: a qualitative study in a teacher-training course. *Teach High Educ* 2023, 28, 221-237.

[3] Qobilovna, A.M. Communicative competence as a factor of teacher's professional competency. *Am J Soc Sci Humanit Res* 2023, 3, 32-44.

[4] Wong, M.; Lam, C.Y. Advancing career opportunities: Employers' perspectives into the role of English proficiency and communication skills in boosting employability. *Int J Environ Sci* 2025, 2044-2058.

[5] National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP standards gap: 27% of 8th and 12th graders proficient or above in writing. *Future Educ* 2025.

[6] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Only 30% of Japanese high school students achieved required English speaking proficiency. *Int J Prog Res Educ Manag Stud* 2025.

[7] Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Republic of Indonesia. *Reflections on Indonesia's Merdeka Belajar reform 2024*.

[8] Philippine Business for Education. Tracking senior high school graduates' English communication proficiency. *Dep Educ* 2021.

[9] Echalico-Bermillo, J.; Aradilla, F.J.R. Developing students' listening comprehension and metacognitive awareness through metacognitive process-based listening instruction. *J Engl Lang Teach Appl Linguist* 2022, 4, 84-93.

[10] Docena, V.T.; Buenaventura, K.H.; Lobingco, W.; Manlimos, S.; Nacionales, J.J.; Claridad, N. Investigating oral presentation anxiety of freshmen English major students in a Philippine higher educational institution. *J Lang Pragmat Stud* 2023, 2, 173-189.

[11] Saavedra, A. Factors that contribute to the poor writing skills in Filipino and English of the elementary pupils. *Int J Innov Creat Change* 2020.

[12] Gustanti, Y.; Ayu, M. The correlation between cognitive reading strategies and students' English proficiency test. *J Eng Lang* 2021, 2, 95-100.

[13] Sofi, S.; Ansor, J.; Lusia, M.O. Improving high school students' interpersonal communication skills through collaborative learning: An experimental study. *J Educ Technol Innov* 2025, 8, 75-85.

[14] Alejandro, M.N.L. New technologies and writing skills. 2025.

[15] Abdushukirovna, T.R.; Alimzhanovna, K.T.; Alikhanovich, Z.A. Enhancing students' writing skill through social media integration. *Endless Light Sci* 2025, 67-77.

[16] Moyo, I.; Intja, N.; Mangundu, A.F.S. Developing the four macro-communication language skills amongst Rumanyo learners: Perspectives of Rumanyo teachers in Namibia. *Open Access Libr J* 2023, 10, 1-16.

[17] Alharbi, M.A.; Al-Ahdal, A.A.M.H. Communication barriers in the EFL classroom: Is poor listening the culprit that obstructs learning? *Interact Learn Environ* 2024, 32, 772-786.

[18] Taye, T.; Mengesha, M. Identifying and analyzing common English writing challenges among regular undergraduate students. *Heliyon* 2024, 10, e12345.

[19] Hijra, H.; Rahim, T.R.; Syarif, A.R. Barriers to oral proficiency: Exploring causes of speaking inhibition in EFL learners. *Klasikal J Educ Lang Teach Sci* 2024, 6, 409-418.

[20] Alabi, M. Visual learning: The power of visual aids and multimedia. *J Educ Technol* 2024, 15, 123-135.

[21] Rahman, M.H.A.; Jaafar, J.; Huda, M. Information and communication skills for higher learners competence model. In Proc Comput Methods Syst Softw; Springer Int Publ: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 357-375.

[22] Mohammadi Zenouzagh, Z.; Admiraal, W.; Saab, N. Potential of computer-mediated communications in directing communication repair, co-regulation patterns and student engagement. *J Comput Assist Learn* 2024, 40, 2121-2134.

[23] Rashid, M.; Quereshi, A.M. Efficacy of pre-writing oral discussion as a method for enhancing writing abilities. *J Teach Engl Spec Acad Purp* 2024, 293-303.

[24] Dorgham, R. Implementation of the sociolinguistic competence strategies in teaching and learning English as a foreign language. *J Lang Teach Res* 2024, 15, 1189-1199.

[25] Ahmad, C.V. Causes of students' reluctance to participate in classroom discussions. *ASEAN J Sci Eng Educ* 2021, 1, 47-62.

[26] Al-Jiboury, T.H.A. Teaching four skills of English language writing, reading, speaking, and listening through literature. *South Asian Res J Art Lang Lit* 2024, 6, 63-72.

[27] Hong, T.K. Enhancing communicative competence in English language learners through the combined teaching of listening and speaking skills. *2025*.

[28] Orazova, F. The way of improving reading and writing skills during the lessons. *Int Eng J Res Dev* 2020, 5, 140-146.

[29] Edwards-Groves, C.; Davidson, C. Noticing the multidimensionality of active listening in a dialogic classroom. *Aust J Lang Lit* 2020, 43, 83-94.

[30] Yusupalieva, S. Developing students communicative competence using authentic materials with information technologies. *Int J Ind Eng Technol Oper Manag* 2024, 2, 59-62.

[31] Yu, M.H.; Reynolds, B.L.; Ding, C. Listening and speaking for real-world communication: What teachers do and what students learn from classroom assessments. *Sage Open* 2021, 11, 21582440211009163.

[32] Loh, C.E.; Sun, B.; Lim, F.V. 'Because I'm always moving': A mobile ethnography study of adolescent girls' everyday print and digital reading practices. *Learn Media Technol* 2023, 48, 612-631.

[33] Shooli, E.; Rahimi Esfahani, F.; Sepehri, M. Impacts of flipped classroom on micro/macro writing subskills in Iranian EFL context. *J Mod Res Engl Lang Stud* 2021, 8, 85-109.

[34] Boutheyna, G.M.; Oumayma, S.O.U.K.O.U. Investigating the pronunciation challenges hindering EFL students' speaking skills enhancement. Ph.D. Thesis, University Center of Abdalhafid Boussouf-Mila, 2024.

[35] Yue, Y.; Wang, X. Self-efficacy and negative silence in the classroom: The mediating role of fear of negative evaluation. *Nurse Educ Pract* 2022, 62, 103379.

[36] Samira, M.C. The effects of reading-aloud on the EFL learners' comprehension: The case of second year pupils of Zahaf El Hadj Middle. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Mostaganem, 2023.

[37] Adongo, M.A. The role of home environment in the reading proficiency achievement of primary two English language learners. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cape Coast, 2023.

[38] Uddin, E. Enhancing the school environment for underprivileged minority children through social identity, cultural capital, and preparedness. In Social Psychology Theories and Methods in Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 182-195.

[39] Jones-Russell, L. Teacher and parent perception of a middle school after school tutoring program. Ph.D. Thesis, Walden University, 2022.

[40] Yasmin, F.; Farooq, M.U.; Shah, S.K. Impact of exam-oriented education system on undergraduate students' cognitive, affective and psychomotor competencies. *Int J Linguist Cult* 2023, 4, 109-125.

[41] Lovrić, D. Grammar assessment in EFL classrooms. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Zadar, Department of English, 2024.

[42] Fang, W.C.; Yeh, H.C.; Luo, B.R.; Chen, N.S. Effects of mobile-supported task-based language teaching on EFL students' linguistic achievement and conversational interaction. *ReCALL* 2021, 33, 71-87.

[43] Al-Sheikhly, D.; Östlundh, L.; Arayssi, T. Remediation of learners struggling with communication skills: A systematic review. *BMC Med Educ* 2020, 20, 215.

[44] Tiwari, H.P. Challenges in teaching pronunciation: Secondary level English teachers' perspectives. *J Linguist Lang Educ* 2023, 17, 1-29.
[45]Ko, C.J. Online individualized corrective feedback on EFL learners' grammatical error correction. *Comput Assist Lang Learn* **2024**, *37*, 1449-1477.

[46]Almohesh, A.R.I.; Altamimi, J.A.H. Wow, I cannot stop: A concentration on vocabulary learning via Instagram and its effects on informal digital learning of English, technostress, and online engagement. *BMC Psychol* **2024**, *12*, 8.

[47]Tsang, A. The best way to learn a language is not to learn it!: Hedonism and insights into successful EFL learners' experiences in engagement with spoken (listening) and written (reading) input. *TESOL Q* **2023**, *57*, 511-536.

[48]Cholili, A.H.; Hamim, H. Attentional distraction in app-based language learning with mobile phones: A literature review. *J Simbol J Magister Pendidik Bhs Sastra Indonesia* **2024**, *12*, 478-493.

[49]Chahrazad, M.M.; Kamel, K. Dealing with foreign language speaking anxiety: What every language teacher should know. *Train Lang Cult* **2022**, *6*, 20-32.

[50]Dauba, J.G.; Jullanda, R.E. Psychological barriers to English language fluency among selected students in private higher education institutions: Basis for an intervention program. *Int Res J Mod Eng Technol Sci* **2024**, *6*, 2649-2666.

[51]Suparlan, S. Factors contributing students' speaking anxiety. *J Lang Lang Teach* **2021**, *9*, 160-169.

[52]Wei, L. Teaching academic vocabulary to English language learners (ELLs). *Theory Pract Lang Stud* **2021**, *11*, 12.

[53]Chou, M.H. Communication strategies, difficulties, and speaking tasks in foreign language learning. *SAGE Open* **2024**, *14*, 21582440241266324.

[54]Levlin, M.; Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C.; Sandgren, O.; Karlsson, S.; Jonsson, B. Evaluating the effect of rich vocabulary instruction and retrieval practice on the classroom vocabulary skills of children with (developmental) language disorder. *Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch* **2022**, *53*, 542-560.

[55]Ismail, S.M.; Rahul, D.R.; Patra, I.; Rezvani, E. Formative vs. summative assessment: Impacts on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. *Lang Test Asia* **2022**, *12*, 40.

[56]Bustamante, J.A.; Reyes, O.J.P.; Prejoles, C.A. Communication registers of online students in the new normal. *Int J Sci Manag Stud* **2022**, *254-277*.

[57]Ye, Z. Language barriers in intercultural communication and their translation strategies. *Finance Econ Humanist Sociol Educ Dev* **2024**, *6*.

[58]Henderson, J.; Reed, L. Pragmatic competence in second language acquisition: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. **2025**.

[59]Nita, M. Poor listening skills: A barrier to effective communication. *Univ Pedagogic* **2024**, *83*, 39-43.

[60]Ryan, J.; Forrest, L. No chance to speak: Developing a pedagogical response to turn-taking problems. *Innov Lang Learn Teach* **2021**, *15*, 103-116.

[61]Ahmad, C.V. Causes of students' reluctance to participate in classroom discussions. *ASEAN J Sci Eng Educ* **2021**, *1*, 47-62.

[62]Sianturi, I.; Marwa, M.; Indriyani, I.; Sirait, G. Turn-taking mechanisms in English language classroom group work activities. *Pedagog Res J* **2025**, *3*, 1.

[63]Coraima, A.S.H. Code-switching and oral production. **2025**.

[64]Noorbar, S.; Mamaghani, H.J. The effect of code-switching on Iranian elementary EFL learners' oral fluency, accuracy, and willingness to communicate. *J Mod Res Engl Lang Stud* **2023**, *3*, 103-175.

[65]Tenés, L.S.; Weiner-Bühler, J.C.; Volpin, L.; Grob, A.; Skoruppa, K.; Segerer, R.K. Language proficiency predictors of code-switching behavior in dual-language-learning children. *Biling Lang Cogn* **2023**, *26*, 942-958.

[66]Aziz, A.; Malik, M.; Rana, A.M.; Shafi, M. ESL teachers' attitudes and perceptions towards code-switching in the classroom. *Jahan-e-Tahqeeq* **2023**, *6*, 219-228.

[67]Yusupalieva, S. Developing students communicative competence using authentic materials with information technologies. *Int J Ind Eng Technol Oper Manag* **2024**, *2*, 59-62.

[68]Lowell, V.L.; Moore, R.L. Developing practical knowledge and skills of online instructional design students through authentic learning and real-world activities. *TechTrends* **2020**, *64*, 581-590.

[69]Aashiq, I.; Zahid, Z. Analysis of self-confidence and lack of exposure on English speaking skills of EFL learners: A study at BS level. *Pak Soc Sci Rev* **2024**, *8*, 809-820.

[70]Henderson, J.; Reed, L. Pragmatic competence in second language acquisition: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. **2025**.

Publisher's Note: IMCC stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Copyright of this article belongs to the journal and the Iligan Medical Center College. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).