Mapping Success: Analyzing LET Outcomes to Enhance Teacher Preparation at New Era University ()
1. Introduction
Teacher education stands as a cornerstone in ensuring the development of quality education, as teachers are among the most influential factors shaping student learning outcomes. In Philippines, persistent concerns about the declining performance in the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) at the national level are well-documented, as highlighted by Sinsay-Villanueva et al. (2025) [1], who note that the LET serves as a barometer of teacher education quality in Philippines and recent patterns indicate clustered pass rates with limited representation in the upper bands, mirroring a moderate but fluctuating national trend. This observation is substantiated by statistical analyses of LET performance from 2018 to 2024, which show consistently moderate mean scores and a scarcity of graduates attaining very good or exemplary ratings on the exam, thus signaling ongoing challenges in the alignment of teacher preparation with licensure requirements. These national statistics underscore why improving teacher education and licensure outcomes remains a priority and why it is crucial for studies to focus on performance patterns and institutional factors that influence LET results.
Despite the implementation of Republic of the Philippines Act 11,713 in 2022, also known as Excellence in Teacher Education Act) [2], also known as the Excellence in Teacher Education Act, challenges persist in aligning teacher preparation with national standards and contemporary educational demands (Philippine News Agency, 2023) [3]. In response to these ongoing concerns, New Era University (NEU) continually assesses its teacher education program to ensure graduates possess competencies that meet both licensure requirements and the evolving needs of the 21st-century classroom.
The analysis of the 2013-2015 dataset is particularly valuable today as it provides a historical baseline for evaluating the impact of subsequent reforms in teacher education at NEU and nationally, such as those enacted through Republic Act 11,713 and the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028. This evidence-based approach enables the identification of performance trends, persistent challenges, and the effectiveness of curricular and faculty development initiatives, ensuring that improvements are anchored in measurable outcomes rather than anecdotal evidence. As such, the 2013-2015 data play a critical role in ongoing program assessment and accountability, guiding efforts to enhance teacher preparation and keep pace with contemporary standards and expectations.
Recent national reforms in the National Economic and Development Authority in 2023, including the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023-2028 [4], emphasize the importance of quality assurance, curriculum coherence, and global readiness for teacher preparation (Head Foundation, 2023) [5]. Research indicates that LET performance depends on factors such as instructional quality, faculty qualifications, academic preparation, and institutional support (Segumpan et al., 2025 [6]; Cadosales, 2023) [7]. Additionally, the National Academy of Education (2025) [8] highlights the need for robust program evaluation systems that promote continuous improvement, alignment in curriculum design, and evidence-based teaching preparation methods.
Thus, this study, titled Mapping Success: Analyzing LET Outcomes to Enhance Teacher Preparation at New Era University, aims to analyze the performance trends of NEU graduates in the LET and identify key institutional and academic factors that shape their licensure success. In doing so, it contributes to ongoing national and institutional efforts to enhance teacher preparation, strengthen professional competencies, and ensure that future educators achieve both licensure success and instructional excellence.
Specifically, it sought to address the following research problems and questions:
1) What is the level of performance of New Era University College of Education graduates in the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) in terms of their profile?
a) Year Graduated
b) Program (BEEd or BSEd)
c) Field of Specialization
2) What are the factors that affect the respondents’ performance in the Licensure Examination for Teachers, and to what extent do these factors influence their results?
a) Faculty Competency
b) Instructional Quality
c) Learning Facilities
d) Social Environment
e) Curriculum Implementation
3) What difficulties or problems did the respondents encounter during their preparation for and taking of the Licensure Examination for Teachers?
4) What recommendations were proposed by the respondents to address the challenges and improve their performance in future examinations?
5) How can the findings of the study be utilized in designing and proposing an educational improvement plan for the College of Education’s teacher preparation program?
2. Methods and Procedures
The study employed a descriptive-survey method utilizing a cross-sectional design to examine the performance of New Era University College of Education graduates in the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) and to identify factors that influenced their outcomes. The cross-sectional survey was appropriate because it allowed data collection from a specific group of respondents at a single point in time, providing an accurate snapshot of their examination performance and related experiences. This approach followed the methodological stance of Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012) [9], who define cross-sectional surveys as effective for determining the prevalence of a phenomenon or issue within a defined population.
Purposive sampling was specifically selected for this study because it allowed the deliberate inclusion of participants who possess direct relevance to the research objectives: only New Era University education graduates from the Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) and Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) programs for the academic years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 who had completed the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) were eligible. This approach ensured that all respondents had firsthand experience of the licensure examination, making their perspectives and performance data directly comparable and highly pertinent for analyzing program impacts and factors influencing exam outcomes. Additional criteria for participant selection included: verified academic records from the College of Education, successful completion of the LET during the defined academic years, and availability for survey participation, guaranteeing the integrity and specificity of the sample and enhancing the validity of insights about training effectiveness, challenges, and institutional recommendations.
The primary research instrument was a researcher-developed questionnaire consisting of four sections: respondents’ profile, LET performance level, factors influencing performance, and problems encountered. To ensure content accuracy and reliability, the questionnaire was validated by experts in teacher education and research methodology before use. Its internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha, yielding coefficients for each domain as follows: Faculty Competency (0.846), Instruction (0.748), Learning Facility (0.515), Social Environment (0.834), and Curriculum (0.843), with the overall range of 0.515 to 0.846 indicating satisfactory reliability for most sections, though the lower value for Learning Facility suggests a potential limitation in that domain.
Data gathering was conducted after acquiring permission from the College of Education administration. Questionnaires were disseminated both physically and electronically through email, social media platforms, and phone interviews to ensure higher response rates and greater accessibility. Data were collected within a two-month period and were thoroughly checked to ensure completeness and validity.
The quantitative data collected were processed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage were used to classify respondent profiles, while weighted means were computed to interpret the degree of influence of major variables on LET performance. Results were categorized based on standardized interpretation scales to determine overall trends and relationships among factors such as faculty competency, instruction, curriculum, learning facilities, and social environment. These methods enabled a systematic examination of how institutional and academic factors contributed to LET success, leading to evidence-based recommendations for enhancing teacher preparation at New Era University.
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Level of LET Performance of NEU Graduates
Analysis of the examination results for academic years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in Table 1 revealed that most Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) and Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) graduates achieved fair to satisfactory performance levels in both General and Professional Education components. Specifically, BEEd graduates in the 2013-2014 batch recorded a mean rating of 79.53 in General Education and 80.00 in Professional Education, while the 2014-2015 batch obtained mean scores of 81.20 and 78.70, respectively. These results suggest stable but moderate performance, indicating room for enhancement in both content mastery and test-taking strategies.
Table 1. Summary of the licensure rating of BEEd specialization in content courses batch 2013-2014, n = 15 and 2014-2015, n = 10.
% Rating |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
Batch-2013-2014 |
Batch-2014-2015 |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Very Good (92.00 - 93.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Good (89.00 - 91.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
10.0 |
- |
|
Above Average (86.00 - 88.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
10.0 |
- |
|
Average (83.00 - 85.99) |
3 |
20.0 |
3 |
20.0 |
2 |
20.0 |
- |
|
Satisfactory (81.00 - 82.99) |
5 |
33.3 |
3 |
20.0 |
2 |
20.0 |
2 |
20.0 |
Fair (78.00 - 80.99) |
4 |
26.6 |
7 |
46.7 |
2 |
20.0 |
6 |
60.0 |
Passed (75.00 - 77.99) |
2 |
13.3 |
2 |
13.3 |
1 |
10.0 |
2 |
20.0 |
FAIL |
1 |
6.7 |
- |
- |
1 |
10.0 |
- |
- |
Total |
15 |
100.0 |
15 |
100.0 |
10 |
100.0 |
10 |
100.0 |
Mean |
79.53 |
80.0 |
81.20 |
78.70 |
Standard Deviation |
3.80 |
2.51 |
5.94 |
1.83 |
Skewness |
−1.67 |
−0.88 |
−0.85 |
−0.67 |
Kurtosis |
3.29 |
1.12 |
0.73 |
0.64 |
Minimum |
69 |
75 |
69 |
75 |
Maximum |
83 |
83 |
89 |
81 |
Program-wise, BEEd graduates generally outperformed BSEd students, particularly in General Education subjects, aligning with Milanes (2010) [10], who reported similar trends in previous NEU cohorts. The BSEd English and Filipino majors mostly achieved “Fair” ratings in their major areas, which implies adequate content knowledge but insufficient exam preparedness. Notably, Social Studies majors experienced difficulties in Professional and Major Subjects, recording the lowest mean scores across programs. The results reflect patterns found in comparative studies of Philippine Teacher Education Institutions (Visco, 2015 [11]; Pochejo, 2015) [12], showing that content-heavy majors often require intensified review and faculty mentoring programs.
The results reveal that for the 2013-2014 cohort, the graduates obtained mean scores of 79.53 in General Education and 80.00 in Professional Education, which fall within the “fair” to “satisfactory” categories. The negative skewness values in both areas indicate that more graduates clustered at the upper levels of achievement, while the moderate standard deviations suggest a spread in performance between stronger and weaker examinees. In contrast, the 2014-2015 batch revealed a slight improvement in General Education with a mean of 81.20 but a decline in Professional Education with an average of 78.70. This pattern implies that the later cohort developed stronger general content knowledge but somewhat weaker mastery of pedagogical and professional competencies, consistent with findings that curriculum emphasis often favors subject mastery over teacher training skills.
The consistently negative skewness and positive kurtosis values across both years signify that most examinees achieved average to above-average performance, though few reached exemplary levels. These results mirror national trends reported by Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) performance analyses conducted in Philippines between 2018 and 2024, which documented clustered pass rates with limited representation in the “very good” band. The LET remains a reliable gauge of both academic preparation and professional readiness, yet these findings reaffirm that teacher education programs need to strengthen integration between theoretical understanding and applied teaching practice.
Recent studies have identified several factors influencing licensure success, including academic preparation, instructional quality, teacher mentoring, and institutional support structures. Segumpan (2025) [13] found that most graduates tend to perform better in General Education due to greater exposure to content-heavy subjects, while lower results in Professional Education reflect limited opportunities for practice teaching and applied pedagogy. Similarly, Igdon (2024) [14] emphasized that consistent mentoring, enhanced review programs, and faculty specialization contribute significantly to improved examination outcomes. Overall, the higher performance in General Education for both batches may indicate effective delivery of foundational knowledge, whereas the lower or marginal scores in Professional Education point to the need for more robust teaching methodology integration and competency-based assessment.
In the broader context, national research on teacher development asserts that continuous faculty enhancement, curriculum alignment, and competency-based instruction are critical for improving licensure results and producing future-ready educators. The observed fluctuations in performance from 2013 to 2015 thus underscore the importance of sustaining institutional initiatives that focus on pedagogical skill-building, reflective teaching, and exam preparedness. As education systems evolve, linking academic rigor with field-based application remains fundamental to achieving higher professional education outcomes and ensuring that graduates meet the professional standards expected in the Philippine teaching workforce.
The findings from Table 2 reveal that the BEEd graduates majoring in Special Education from both batches performed within the fair to satisfactory range in both General and Professional Education components. The 2013-2014 batch obtained mean scores of 79.64 in General Education and 80.36 in Professional Education, while the 2014-2015 batch scored 81.58 and 80.33, respectively. These results reflect a marginal improvement in the later cohort’s General Education performance but similar proficiency in Professional Education, suggesting steady competence rather than significant gains over time. The negative skewness values for General Education indicate that higher scores were relatively more frequent, whereas near-zero skewness in Professional Education shows a symmetrical score distribution, reflecting a more balanced performance among examinees.
Table 2. Summary of the licensure rating of BEEd specialization in special education batch 2013-2014, n = 22 and batch 2014-2015, n = 12.
% Rating |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
Batch-2013-2014 |
Batch-2014-2015 |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Very Good (92.00 - 93.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Good (89.00 - 91.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Above Average (86.00 - 88.99) |
- |
- |
1 |
4.5 |
1 |
8.3 |
- |
- |
Average (83.00 - 85.99) |
5 |
22.7 |
5 |
22.7 |
3 |
25.0 |
2 |
16.6 |
Satisfactory (81.00 - 82.99) |
4 |
18.1 |
4 |
18.1 |
4 |
33.4 |
4 |
33.4 |
Fair (78.00 - 80.99) |
8 |
36.4 |
8 |
36.4 |
3 |
25.0 |
5 |
41.7 |
Passed (75.00 - 77.99) |
3 |
13.6 |
4 |
18.1 |
1 |
8.3 |
1 |
8.3 |
FAIL |
2 |
9.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Total |
22 |
100.0 |
22 |
100.0 |
12 |
100.0 |
12 |
100.0 |
Mean |
79.64 |
80.36 |
81.58 |
80.33 |
Standard Deviation |
3.85 |
2.94 |
2.61 |
2.27 |
Skewness |
−1.18 |
0.09 |
−0.33 |
0.12 |
Kurtosis |
1.89 |
−0.65 |
1.12 |
−1.38 |
Minimum |
69 |
75 |
76 |
77 |
Maximum |
85 |
86 |
86 |
84 |
Notably, none of the batches achieved ratings classified as very good, and only a few examinees reached the above-average band, implying that while most students met passing or satisfactory standards, few excelled beyond expectations. The 2014-2015 batch displayed a narrower standard deviation (2.61 - 2.27) than the previous year’s (3.85 - 2.94), which indicates increased consistency and a smaller gap between high and low performers. The kurtosis pattern also suggests that score concentrations were slightly peaked for General Education (1.89 and 1.12) but flatter in Professional Education (−0.65 and −1.38), pointing to wider variation in pedagogical mastery than in content knowledge. These statistical trends imply that the graduates demonstrated stronger foundational knowledge but displayed uneven performance in the applied teaching components of licensure examinations.
This level of performance mirrors national data showing that teacher education graduates often fare similarly in both General and Professional Education, with few achieving distinction. Abao (2023) [15] noted that undergraduate curriculum alignment and instructional practices heavily affect variation in licensure outcomes; institutional support mechanisms, such as review programs and practice teaching mentoring, directly correlate with exam success. Likewise, Amanonce (2020) [16] reported that graduates tend to perform best in general education subjects and least effectively in their specialization, emphasizing that mastery of content areas is often greater than pedagogical proficiency. Bugwak (2023) [17] further reinforced that BEEd cohorts nationwide exhibit fluctuating yet moderate performance, shaped by program-level interventions, exam preparation, and curriculum revision cycles.
Table 3 shows the summary of the licensure rating of BSEd Major in English, batches 2013-2014 & 2014-2015.
Table 3. Summary of the licensure rating of BSEd major in English, batch 2013-2014, n = 18 and batch 2014-2015, n = 7.
% Rating |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
Major Subject |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Very Good (92.00 - 93.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Good (89.00 - 91.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Above Average (86.00 - 88.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
28.6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Average (83.00 - 85.99) |
5 |
27.8 |
2 |
11.1 |
4 |
57.1 |
2 |
28.6 |
- |
- |
3 |
42.8 |
Satisfactory (81.00 - 82.99) |
3 |
16.7 |
2 |
11.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
22.2 |
- |
- |
Fair (78.00 - 80.99) |
8 |
44.4 |
10 |
55.5 |
1 |
14.3 |
4 |
57.1 |
10 |
55.5 |
3 |
42.9 |
Passed (75.00 - 77.99) |
2 |
11.1 |
2 |
11.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
22.4 |
1 |
14.3 |
FAIL |
- |
- |
2 |
11.1 |
- |
- |
1 |
14.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Total |
18 |
100 |
18 |
100.0 |
7 |
|
7 |
100.0 |
18 |
100 |
7 |
100 |
Mean |
79.64 |
80.36 |
84.43 |
79.14 |
79.11 |
81.00 |
Standard Deviation |
3.85 |
2.94 |
2.82 |
3.72 |
1.94 |
2.45 |
Skewness |
−1.18 |
0.09 |
−1.17 |
−1.14 |
−0.18 |
−0.38 |
Kurtosis |
1.89 |
−0.65 |
2.29 |
2.06 |
−0.21 |
−0.58 |
Minimum |
69 |
75 |
79 |
72 |
75 |
77 |
Maximum |
85 |
86 |
88 |
83 |
82 |
84 |
Both batches showed low dispersion in scores (standard deviations ranging 1.94 - 3.85), suggesting homogeneity of ability levels within each group. The negative skewness values for most subjects reflected that higher scores were more frequent, particularly in Professional Education. However, the persistently low kurtosis values (−0.58 to 2.29) indicate relatively flat distributions, implying uneven achievement across individual examinees. Despite steady averages, no student attained “very good” ratings, and the dominance of the “fair to satisfactory” range shows that graduates generally met but did not surpass expected performance levels.
Abao et al. (2023) [18] revealed that variations in licensure exam performance among teacher education graduates depend heavily on curricular alignment and consistent pedagogical training, noting that graduates excel when institutional programs integrate content mastery with teaching practice.
Similarly, Ramos and Manalo (2023) [19] found that English majors often display greater proficiency in language and grammar than in instructional strategies, attributing this gap to insufficient field exposure and limited feedback loops during practice teaching. Moreover, they emphasized that teacher education performance is most sensitive to faculty qualification and exam review intensity, two factors shown to directly affect licensure readiness and consistent achievement.
The improved performance in the major subject for the 2014-2015 batch may reflect curricular refinements in English specialization, but the simultaneous decline in Professional Education indicates that applied pedagogy remained a challenging area. National survey results from 2024 on teacher licensure examinations similarly show a pattern of content knowledge outpacing pedagogical competence, urging Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) to fortify teaching methodology training and curriculum practice integration. Overall, the data affirm that while graduates possess adequate language and professional content knowledge, greater institutional support is needed to elevate pedagogical and instructional skills essential for licensure success and classroom readiness.
Table 4 presents the summary of the licensure rating of BSEd major in Filipino, batches 2013-2014 & 2014-2015.
Table 4. Summary of the licensure rating of BSEd major in Filipino, batch 2013-2014, n = 6 and batch 2014-2015, n = 8.
% Rating |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
Major Subject |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Freq. |
% |
Very Good (92.00 - 93.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Good (89.00 - 91.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Above Average (86.00 - 88.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
16.7 |
- |
- |
Average (83.00 - 85.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
12.5 |
- |
- |
3 |
50.0 |
2 |
25.0 |
Satisfactory (81.00 - 82.99) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
37.5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Fair (78.00 - 80.99) |
2 |
33.3 |
5 |
83.3 |
1 |
12.5 |
3 |
37.5 |
2 |
33.3 |
2 |
25.0 |
Passed (75.00 - 77.99) |
3 |
50.0 |
1 |
16.7 |
1 |
12.5 |
2 |
25.0 |
|
|
3 |
37.5 |
FAIL |
1 |
16.7 |
- |
- |
2 |
25.0 |
3 |
37.5 |
- |
- |
1 |
12.5 |
Total |
6 |
100 |
6 |
100.0 |
8 |
100 |
8 |
100.0 |
6 |
100 |
8 |
100 |
Mean |
75.17 |
79.00 |
77.50 |
75.63 |
83.67 |
78.63 |
Standard Deviation |
4.71 |
1.55 |
5.88 |
2.77 |
1.51 |
3.58 |
Skewness |
−1.97 |
−1.94 |
−0.75 |
−0.28 |
0.31 |
0.209 |
Kurtosis |
4.22 |
3.96 |
−1.28 |
−1.72 |
−0.10 |
−0.269 |
Minimum |
66 |
76 |
69 |
72 |
82 |
73 |
Maximum |
79 |
80 |
83 |
79 |
86 |
84 |
The analysis of Table 4, which presents the Licensure Examination results of BSEd Filipino majors, reveals a modest but observable variation in performance between the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 batches across the three LET components. The earlier cohort achieved mean scores of 75.17 in General Education, 77.50 in Professional Education, and 83.67 in the Major Subject. This pattern indicates that while the group struggled in General and Professional components—falling below the national passing range—they exhibited relative strength in their field of specialization. Conversely, the 2014-2015 batch performed better in General Education (79.00) but registered lower means in Professional Education (75.63) and the Major Subject (78.63), reflecting improved foundational knowledge but weaker pedagogical and content mastery.
The negative skewness values for General and Professional Education in both batches (from −1.97 to −0.28) suggest that more students scored near the passing range rather than at the higher end, while flatter kurtosis values (−1.72 to −0.27) indicate wider performance variation across test-takers. The minimal number of examinees in the “Above Average” and “Average” categories further supports the interpretation that most graduates met only minimum competency standards. The mean results below 80% underscore the need to strengthen the integration of teaching strategies, particularly for Professional Education subjects.
These findings align with recent national patterns of Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) performance among Filipino majors. Abao et al. (2023) [20] reported that Filipino and English majors frequently demonstrate satisfactory results in content knowledge but show gaps in applied pedagogy, emphasizing the necessity for intensive teacher mentoring and practical exposure. Sion, Fiscal, and Roman (2024) [21] mirrored this observation in their retrospective study of BSEd Filipino graduates in CALABARZON, noting overall pass rates averaging 73.97% and consistently higher specialization scores compared with general or professional components. Similarly, Amanonce (2020) [16] asserted that the quality of professional preparation strongly predicts licensure outcomes, as deficiencies in methodological instruction tend to lower LET performance.
The 2013-2014 cohort’s higher specialization mean indicates that Filipino majors benefited from traditional emphasis on literary and linguistic courses, whereas the 2014-2015 graduates’ stronger General Education performance may reflect early programmatic revisions preceding CHED Curriculum 2012 implementation. However, these results also emphasize the importance of consolidating Professional Education courses and practice teaching components to bridge content mastery and instructional competence. As the Performance Analysis on Licensure Examination for Teachers (2023) [17] concluded, sustainable exam improvement requires synergy between curriculum design, faculty mentoring, and review participation.
Overall, the study affirms that although graduates possess proficiency in language and Filipino content, their professional pedagogical readiness remains below optimal levels. Strengthening faculty training, enhancing practice teaching programs, and aligning teaching standards to LET competencies are vital for raising licensure performance among future BSEd Filipino graduates.
The analysis of Table 5 summarizes LET outcomes for BSEd mathematics majors, showing strong and consistent performance in both general and specialization domains, notably higher than in other specializations. For the 2013-2014 batch (n = 1), the examinee attained “very good” (92.00) in both General Education and Major Subject, and “above average” (87) in Professional Education—indicating high proficiency in content and sufficient pedagogical grasp. The 2014-2015 batch (n = 3) presents similar trends: all takers scored from “average” to “very good” in General Education (84, 88, 90). While Professional Education scores varied from “satisfactory” to “fair” (80 - 82), all achieved “average” (83) in the Major Subject, showing uniformity and adequate mastery, though slightly lower in pedagogy.
Table 5. Summary of the licensure rating of BSEd major in mathematics, batch 2013-2014, n = 1 and batch 2014-2015, n = 3.
2013-2014, n = 1 |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
Major Subject Mathematics |
Student 1 |
Very Good 92.00 |
Above Average 87 |
Very Good 92.00 |
2014-2015, n = 3 |
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
Major Subject Math |
Student 1 |
Very Good 90.00 |
Fair 80 |
Average 83.00 |
Student 2 |
Above Average 88.00 |
Satisfactory 82 |
Average 83.00 |
Student 3 |
Average 84 |
Fair 80 |
Average 83.00 |
This pattern—consistently high scores in General Education and content specialization among Math majors—reflects the strong academic preparation typical in these programs and corresponds closely with national trends. Candelario-Aplaon (2024) [22] found that BSEd Math graduates in Mindoro consistently achieve above-average LET results, notably outperforming their peers in other majors, particularly in the specialization component, owing to strong subject preparation and effective review systems. Makiling et al. (2025) [23] support this, finding that professional education and general education achievement are both significant predictors of LET performance among mathematics majors, but content knowledge remains the decisive strength in LET outcomes. Navida and Cocal (2022) [24] also observed that academic performance in Professional Education notably impacts overall LET results for BSEd Math, though strong general and specialization knowledge consistently predicts licensure success.
Although low sample sizes preclude broad generalization, the consistently high and uniform performance within these cohorts signals effective pre-service training and solid foundational learning in mathematics education. Several national studies now recommend that mathematics teacher training retain its strong emphasis on content, while providing additional supports for pedagogical development to further raise overall LET performance and readiness for the classroom.
Table 6 presents LET results for BSEd Social Studies majors from the 2014-2015 batch (n = 3), revealing modest but consistent performance across all three exam components. The graduates achieved ratings primarily in the “fair” category, with means ranging from 76 - 82 across General Education, Professional Education, and Major Subject areas. Student 1 scored 80.00, 76, and 78, respectively; Student 2 achieved uniform scores of 79 across all components; and Student 3 performed slightly better with 82, 78, and 79. This pattern indicates that while all examinees met the minimum passing requirements, none exceeded the “satisfactory” threshold, suggesting adequate but not exceptional preparation in social studies content and pedagogy.
Table 6. Licensure rating of BSEd major in social studies, batch 2014-2015, n = 3.
|
General Education Subject |
Professional Education Subject |
Major Subject Social Studies |
Student 1 |
Fair 80.00 |
Passed 76 |
Fair 78 |
Student 2 |
Fair 79.00 |
Fair 79 |
Fair 79 |
Student 3 |
Satisfactory 82 |
Fair 78 |
Fair 79 |
The uniformly modest performance aligns with national trends documented in recent LET analyses. Abao et al. (2023) [18] found that Social Studies majors consistently rank in the middle tier among BSEd specializations, typically outperforming skill-based majors like MAPEH and TLE but trailing behind Math, Science, and English graduates. The study noted that Social Studies test-takers often face challenges due to the broad interdisciplinary nature of their field, which encompasses history, geography, economics, and civics—requiring extensive content mastery across multiple domains. Similarly, research by Bahian et al. (2025) [25] from Western Leyte College indicated that BSEd graduates generally perform better in General Education than in their specialization areas, with Social Studies majors showing particular difficulty in achieving distinction in their major subject examinations.
The relatively low Professional Education scores (76 - 79) observed in this cohort reflect a common pattern among social studies teachers, where content knowledge acquisition often exceeds pedagogical skill development. Recent studies emphasize that Social Studies education requires specialized teaching strategies—such as inquiry-based learning, critical thinking development, and civic engagement—that demand intensive practice teaching and mentorship. Dimas (2024) [26] identified curriculum alignment and in-house review programs as critical factors affecting LET performance, particularly for majors like Social Studies, where the breadth of content can dilute focused preparation.
Despite the modest results, the consistent passing rates across all three students suggest that the teacher preparation program provided adequate foundational knowledge. However, the absence of higher-level performance indicates opportunities for curriculum enhancement, particularly in pedagogical methods specific to social studies instruction. As national data consistently shows, Social Studies majors benefit significantly from targeted review programs and enhanced practice teaching experiences to bridge content mastery with effective classroom instruction.
3.2. Factors Affecting LET Performance
The factors affecting LET Performance are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Factors affecting LET performance.
Factors |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
Weighted Mean |
Verbal Interpretation |
Weighted Mean |
Verbal Interpretation |
Faculty Fluency |
4.34 |
High Extent |
4.18 |
High Extent |
Instruction |
4.48 |
High Extent |
4.20 |
High Extent |
Learning Facilities |
4.20 |
High Extent |
3.92 |
High Extent |
Social Environment |
4.62 |
Very High Extent |
4.53 |
Very High Extent |
Curriculum |
4.42 |
High Extent |
4.17 |
High Extent |
Overall Weighted Mean |
4.41 |
High Extent |
4.20 |
High Extent |
Results showed that the respondents rated Faculty Competency (M = 4.34), Instructional Quality (M = 4.48), Learning Facilities (M = 4.20), Curriculum (M = 4.42), and Social Environment (M = 4.62) as factors that influence LET performance to a high extent. Faculty competency emerged as the most significant determinant, especially in the domain of connecting classroom instruction with professional practice. Respondents emphasized that the ability of teachers to relate theory to real-world applications and to employ digital tools effectively fosters motivation and retention of concepts.
Instruction also played a crucial role, as students reported the use of varied teaching strategies such as cooperative learning, group discussion, and reflective journals. This is consistent with NEU College of Education’s results in the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities Commission on Accreditation (PACUCOA) [27] Level III status, where “Instruction” was recognized as one of its institutional strengths. Moreover, the curriculum’s alignment with outcomes-based education was seen as a positive step; however, limited access to updated laboratory and resource materials affected students’ readiness for licensure exams. This finding supports Yap’s (2013) [28] recommendation that enhancement of learning resources improves both retention and application of pedagogical concepts.
3.3. Problems Encountered in LET Preparation
Graduates reported a range of challenges during their LET preparation as shown in Table 8, including lack of structured review programs, inadequate academic facilities, and limited time for study. In particular, many respondents cited that no formal review sessions were organized for their batches, compelling them to rely on self-review and commercial centers. Time constraints due to employment or personal obligations were also identified as barriers to optimal preparation. These issues mirror those discussed in Mahinay (2013) [29], who noted that limited institutional support in pre-board preparation correlates with moderate LET outcomes.
Table 8. Problems encountered in LET preparation.
Statements |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
Weighted Mean |
Verbal Interpretation |
Weighted Mean |
Verbal Interpretation |
1) I made a careless mistake (attention) |
3.31 |
Moderate Extent |
3.81 |
High Extent |
2) I never studied that part (planning) |
3.76 |
High Extent |
3.84 |
High Extent |
3) I didn’t really understand the question (comprehension of question) |
3.03 |
Moderate Extent |
3.40 |
Moderate Extent |
4) I get bored or have trouble concentrating while trying to study. |
3.48 |
Moderate Extent |
3.81 |
High Extent |
5) I skip over some questions. |
3.23 |
Moderate Extent |
3.95 |
High Extent |
6) I worked too fast, made careless errors and decided not to check my work. |
3.06 |
Moderate Extent |
3.49 |
Moderate Extent |
7) I have trouble predicting what will be on the test |
3.42 |
Moderate Extent |
3.84 |
High Extent |
8) I ran out of time. |
2.98 |
Moderate Extent |
3.56 |
High Extent |
9) I guessed too much. |
3.02 |
Moderate Extent |
3.21 |
Moderate Extent |
10) I gave up during the test |
2.65 |
Moderate Extent |
2.58 |
Moderate Extent |
Overall Weighted Mean |
3.19 |
Moderate Extent |
3.55 |
High Extent |
The results presented in Table 8 indicate that both batches encountered common problems during their Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) preparation, although the later cohort (2014-2015) experienced these challenges to a greater degree. Batch 2013-2014 recorded an overall weighted mean of 3.19, interpreted as moderate extent, while Batch 2014-2015 showed 3.55, equivalent to high extent. The increasing severity across all indicators suggests that succeeding cohorts faced more intense difficulty in managing cognitive, emotional, and study-related issues as they prepared for the licensure exam.
Among the highest-rated problems were related to planning and attention errors, such as “I never studied that part” (3.76 - 3.84) and “I made a careless mistake” (3.31 - 3.81). These reflect lapses in test preparation strategies and concentration, which, according to Blanco (2025), can largely be attributed to poor time management, conflicted priorities, and inadequate rest during review weeks. Difficulties in maintaining focus while studying also became prominent, as seen in “I get bored or have trouble concentrating” (3.48 - 3.81), which supports findings by Cortel and Jinon (2024) [30] that pre-service teachers often struggle with mental fatigue and low motivation caused by continuous online or modular instruction during their preparation.
Other recurrent issues included poor test-taking behavior, such as skipping questions (3.23 - 3.95), making careless errors (3.06 - 3.49), and trouble predicting what will appear on the test (3.42 - 3.84). This reflects gaps in examination skills and critical reading, aligning with Albina et al.’s (2022) [31] findings that many LET takers exhibit insufficient metacognitive strategies when approaching complex test items. Test anxiety and time-related stress were also evident, e.g., “I ran out of time” (2.98 - 3.56). Accordingly, such conditions affect concentration, recall, and problem-solving, contributing to avoidable mistakes. Furthermore, the moderate frequency of “I gave up during the test” (2.65 - 2.58) suggests that while most examinees persevered, fatigue and pressure still lowered optimal performance levels-consistent with the phenomenological accounts of graduate students who described stress, overwork, and fear of failure as major barriers to LET success.
Across both batches, students’ self-reported difficulties emphasize the need for systematic interventions to build test preparedness and emotional resilience. Effective review designs should include counseling for stress management, study skills training, and simulated test conditions to help students develop adaptive coping mechanisms. With the evident increase in difficulty across year levels, teacher education institutions should prioritize collaborative review sessions, professional coaching, and workshops on attention and self‑regulation to enhance test readiness. The findings affirm that academic preparation alone is insufficient without addressing critical psychological and behavioral factors that influence exam performance.
3.4. Recommendations for Improvement
Respondents suggested several measures to enhance the College of Education’s teacher training program: 1) institutionalize comprehensive in-house LET review programs; 2) strengthen teaching practice supervision and mentorship; 3) augment library and ICT resources; 4) conduct pedagogy-based workshops; and 5) foster a more supportive academic environment through peer study circles and advisory sessions. They emphasized that these interventions would better prepare students for licensure tests and classroom realities, as shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Recommendations for improvement.
Recommendations |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
f |
% |
Rank |
f |
% |
Rank |
1) Always pray, asked guidance for your LET |
10 |
14.28 |
2 |
13 |
20.00 |
1 |
2) Focus on your study (1st to 4th year) |
13 |
18.57 |
1 |
10 |
15.38 |
2.5 |
3) Attend review classes |
9 |
12.86 |
3 |
10 |
15.38 |
2.5 |
4) Time management in reviewing (plan the subjects to be reviewed) |
2 |
2.85 |
12 |
6 |
9.23 |
5 |
5) Ocular inspection in the testing center |
3 |
4.29 |
8.5 |
4 |
6.15 |
6 |
6) Be familiar with rules of PRC during exam |
1 |
1.42 |
13 |
9 |
13.84 |
4 |
7) Asked passer some tips clue on how to take the LET |
3 |
4.29 |
8.5 |
3 |
4.61 |
7 |
8) Have a self-confidence |
3 |
4.29 |
8.5 |
2 |
3.07 |
10.5 |
9) Review with friends |
3 |
4.29 |
8.5 |
3 |
4.61 |
7 |
10) Prepare review materials (Index Card, handouts, etc.) |
7 |
10.00 |
5 |
2 |
3.07 |
10.5 |
11) Professor should comply to the curriculum |
5 |
7.14 |
6 |
3 |
4.61 |
7 |
12) Colleges to conduct review classes |
8 |
11.42 |
4 |
65 |
100 |
|
13) Subjects for the 4th year should be OJT only |
3 |
4.29 |
8.5 |
13 |
20.00 |
1 |
Total |
70 |
100 |
|
10 |
15.38 |
|
Recent literature and practical guides affirm the value of the recommendations summarized in Table 9. Across both cohorts, examinees emphasized strategies such as prayer for guidance, focus on undergraduate study, attendance in review classes, effective time management, and familiarity with exam logistics and protocols. The most highly ranked and frequently mentioned strategies-prayer, focused study during all school years, and participation in review classes-work synergistically to support motivation, sustained learning, and exam-specific preparation.
National survey findings from Blanco (2025) [32] and the “Ultimate Guide to Passing the LET Examination”, as well as firsthand accounts from LET topnotchers, confirm that sustained attention to coursework (not only during the fourth year), disciplined review schedules, and deliberate preparation with review materials are core predictors of LET success. Institutional supports—such as review classes conducted by colleges and professors’ compliance with curriculum coverage—were also seen as critical, echoing the recommendations of Ventayen (2020) [33] that coordinated institutional review programs and robust curriculum execution increase pass rates and lessen student anxiety. Additionally, strategies such as seeking tips from LET passers, building self-confidence, and reviewing with peers foster a supportive learning environment, helping students manage exam-related stress and expectations.
Practical advice from nationwide LET preparation guides includes time management (scheduling and prioritization), familiarizing oneself with testing protocols and the exam venue, preparing all needed materials in advance, and balancing individual and group study sessions. The literature also consistently highlights the need for teacher education programs to embed practical testing skills and study strategies in their regular curriculum, ensuring that teacher candidates are test-ready well before graduation.
3.5. Utilization of Findings for Program Enhancement
Based on the results, the study proposed an Educational Improvement Framework for NEU College of Education focusing on three key areas: 1) faculty development through regular seminar-workshops and postgraduate studies; 2) curriculum integration of LET review subjects and higher-order reasoning modules; and 3) learning facility upgrades aligned with outcomes-based education principles. The approach aims to refine instructional delivery, improve exam readiness, and reinforce the college’s goal of producing globally competent and licensure-ready educators.
4. Conclusions
This study’s primary contribution lies in providing a unique institutional benchmark for quality assurance in teacher preparation, as it systematically analyzes the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) outcomes of New Era University graduates and distinguishes the specific academic and institutional factors affecting their performance. The analysis serves as a reference point for institutional self-assessment and policy refinement, enabling the College of Education to continuously align its curricular design, faculty development, and resources with national standards and evolving education demands. Furthermore, by situating these findings within national performance trends and synthesizing the influence of faculty competency, curriculum, and instructional quality, the study enriches the broader literature on teacher education evaluation and programmatic impact, paving the way for future comparative studies and the formulation of targeted improvement plans in Philippine teacher education institutions.
The study was limited to the graduates of the Bachelor of Elementary Education and Bachelor of Secondary Education programs of New Era University for academic years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 who took and passed the Licensure Examination for Teachers. It focused only on their performance levels, the perceived factors affecting their scores, and the problems encountered, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other batches or educational institutions. Moreover, as the research employed a cross-sectional survey design, it could not establish cause-and-effect relationships between identified variables and LET outcomes, given that data were collected only at a single point in time.
5. Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study on the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) performance of New Era University (NEU) College of Education graduates for academic years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, the following recommendations are proposed to enhance teacher preparation, program delivery, and institutional outcomes.
First, the College of Education should institutionalize a comprehensive LET review program that integrates both theoretical reinforcement and practical application. This in-house program may include diagnostic pre-tests, modular review sessions, and mock examinations that simulate the actual PRC board structure. Partnering with accredited review centers or inviting top-performing alumni as resource lecturers can also provide more contextual guidance and strengthen graduates’ exam readiness.
Second, faculty development initiatives must be intensified by encouraging instructors to pursue advanced academic degrees, attend national and international conferences, and participate in pedagogy-based training aligned with 21st-century learning standards. Faculty who handles professional education courses should consistently update syllabi with outcomes-based instructional strategies that reflect current licensing frameworks and competencies expected of global teachers.
Third, the administration should strengthen the curriculum and pedagogical design by embedding LET-oriented competencies and assessment modules across all year levels. The curriculum must highlight higher-order thinking, problem-solving, language proficiency, and reflective teaching skills, ensuring that students are adequately trained for both theoretical mastery and field-based application.
Fourth, it is recommended that learning facilities and resources be upgraded to support interactive and technology-enhanced instruction. The enhancement of library resources, creation of digital learning laboratories, and access to open educational resources can significantly enrich pre-service teacher training and self-directed learning.
Fifth, the college should establish mentoring and peer-support systems that connect current students with LET passers or faculty mentors for guidance in study habits, test preparation, and emotional readiness. Mentoring can provide not only academic reinforcement but also moral and motivational support, increasing the likelihood of examination success.
Finally, the findings of this study may be used by school administrators as a basis for continuous quality assurance and policy enhancement. Regular performance tracking, tracer studies, and partnership with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) could help monitor improvement across cohorts. Implementing these recommendations can lead to more sustainable academic interventions, ultimately ensuring that NEU College of Education continues to produce licensure-ready, competent, and globally competitive educators.
Acknowledgements
This study would not have been possible without the guidance, encouragement, and unwavering support of many individuals and institutions to whom I owe my deepest gratitude.
First and foremost, I extend my profound appreciation to New Era University, my beloved alma mater, for laying the strong academic and spiritual foundation that inspired me to pursue this scholarly journey. The university’s commitment to excellence, discipline, and service has greatly shaped my values as an educator and researcher. I am deeply thankful to my former professors and mentors who continuously motivated me to aim higher and to serve with integrity.
My heartfelt thanks also go to my fellow LET (Licensure Examination for Teachers) passers, mentors, and colleagues, whose shared passion for teaching and dedication to lifelong learning have inspired me throughout this endeavor. Their encouragement reminded me that the teaching profession is not merely a job, but a mission of heart and purpose.
To my family and friends, thank you for your unending love, patience, and prayers. Your moral and emotional support kept me strong during the most challenging parts of this research. You have been my source of strength, motivation, and joy.
Above all, I give glory and honor to God Almighty for the wisdom, courage, and perseverance to complete this study. Truly, everything has been possible through his guidance and grace.