1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

In the United States of America, it was found out that students who are not

socially connected with their parents, and their friends, had low academic

performance and found to have low efficacy level (Valentine and Cooper, 2007).

These students were found to have difficulties in facing obstacles and failures. In

another study conducted by Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (2008), they

divulged that children developed insecurities due to low familial, peer, and social

support. Study revealed that students who have low self-efficacy struggle in

academics. This problem is compounded by the fact that students from poor families

are found out to have low efficacy and are also most likely to drop out of school

(Suraya & Yunus, 2017).

Self-efficacy is very important for this plays a significant role in developing

students’ personality. An individual’s attitudes, abilities, and cognitive skills comprise

what is known as the self-system. This system plays a major role in how one

perceives situations and how one behaves in response to different situations. Self-

efficacy is an essential part of this self-system. Further, this serves as a motivating

force for it develops a person’s belief in his or her ability to succeed in a particular

situation. (Cherry, 2019). It was also emphasized that self-efficacy have profound

influence on students’ academic outcomes. It motivates students to take risks and go

out of their comfort zones. Most importantly, it builds students’ self-confidence which

enable them to manage their self-regulation and acquire academic success. In simple
 2

thought, students who have developed academic self-efficacy can be become

independent learners (Lambros, 2017).

In developing the academic efficacy of students as revealed in a study

conducted by Yi-Chan and Mei-Ju (2013), the parenting practices and the way how

teachers manage the classroom learning environment contribute significant impacts.

Along with this, the support of both teachers and parents may regulate children’s

emotion and build their confidence which will strengthen the academic efficacy of

students.

Further, the researches of Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, (2008)

and Zimmerman (1990) indicated that students who develop strong academic and

self-regulatory self-efficacy beliefs are better able to manage their learning and to

resist the temptations and social pressures that can undermine their academic

achievements. Students with strong self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to

successfully complete their education and be better equipped for a range of

occupational options in today’s competitive society while students who have a low

sense of self-regulatory and academic self-efficacy are more likely to engage in

problem behaviors such as dropping out of school and school failure (Bandura, 1999;

Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2008).

Consequently, it was expressed that students’ self-efficacy can influence

choice of activities, effort expenditure, persistence, and task accomplishments.

Without a sufficient level of self-confidence a person will not have a courage to try

new things and will most likely settle for mediocrity. In his study conducted in the

Philippines, he found out that many students are afraid to try the unknown and
 3

untraveled frontiers because they have less self- efficacy thereby perform poorly in

school (Yazon, 2015).

Further, in a study conducted at Philippine Normal University, it was

mentioned that students at present are in the most critical situation where there is a

need to reform the educational system to improve and secure the future of the

students. To this, the surrounding force of the learners such as the family, the school

and the support that these forces exerted need an urgent look back to address the

depressing situation of the learners (Andaya, 2015).

The researcher has read researches about parenting practices, classroom

learning environment, interpersonal support and self- efficacy in separate studies

but have not encountered any studies that these variables are being considered

in one setting. In this study, the significant impact of self-efficacy is best

understood when it is realized that learners who possess high levels of self-

efficacy are not intimidated. Students usually view challenges encountered when

carrying out complex tasks as opportunity for growth and mastery. When they are

faced with difficult situations, such as failures, they continue to persist until

success is achieved. Students who have strong self-efficacy consider failure is a

temporal challenge that they would have to overcome (Akomolafe, Ogunmakin, &

Fasooto, 2015).

Considering this significance of self-efficacy, the researcher has not come

across of a study on a structural model on students’ self-efficacy as influenced by

parenting practices, classroom learning environment and interpersonal support in

the local setting. It is in this context that the researcher is interested to determine
 4

whether the parenting practices, classroom learning environment and

interpersonal support determine the students’ self-efficacy as this can raise

concern to the intended beneficiaries of this study and possibly develop action

plans to improve teaching-learning process, thus, the need to conduct this study.

Research Objectives

The main thrust of this study was to determine the best fit model for

students’ self-efficacy. The specific objectives of the study were the following:

1. To describe the level of parenting practices of students in Region XI

terms of:

1.1 religious identity,

1.2 love and discipline,

1.3 family responsibilities,

1.4 family values,

1.5 sexual relationships, and

1.6 friendships.

2. To describe the level of classroom management of teachers in Region

XI terms of:

2.1 classroom,

2.2 diversity values,

2.3 personal, and

2.4 persistence.
 5

3. To describe the level of interpersonal support of students in Region XI in

terms of:

3.1 tangible support,

3.2 belonging support,

3.3 self-esteem, and

3.4 appraisal support.

4. To describe the level of self-efficacy of students in Region XI in terms

of:

4.1 academic self- efficacy

4.2 social self- efficacy

4.3 emotional self- efficacy.

5. To determine the significant relationship between

5.1 parenting practices and self-efficacy,

5.2 classroom management environment and self-efficacy,

5.3 interpersonal support and self-efficacy

6. To find the best fit model on students’ self-efficacy.

Hypothesis

The following hypothesis which were tested at 0.05 level of significance:

1. There was no significant relationship between:

1.1 parenting practices and self-efficacy of students in Region XI.

1.2 classroom management environment and self-efficacy of students in

Region XI.
 6

1.3 interpersonal support and self-efficacy of students in Region XI.

2. There is no model that best fits the self-efficacy of students in Region XI.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Various readings from different books, theses, journals and internet of different

authors which have a bearing to the present study are presented in this section. The

researcher focuses readings related to parenting practices, classroom learning

environment, interpersonal support and self-efficacy.

Parenting practices has the following indicators: religious identity, love and

discipline, family responsibilities, family values, sexual relationships, and friendships

(Horwarth, 2013). Classroom learning environment has the following indicators:

classroom, diversity values, personal, and persistence. (Mc Ghee, Lowell, & Lemire,

2007) while interpersonal support has the following indicators: tangible support,

belonging support, self-esteem, and appraisal support (Cohen & Hoberman,

1983; Malecki & Demaray, 2015). Meanwhile, students’ self-efficacy has the

following indicators: academic self- efficacy, social self- efficacy and emotional self-

efficacy (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2010).

Parenting Practices

Good parenting is being described by the students and parents in terms of the

characteristics of parents who are responsive, loving and involve their children, but

who are also firm and set clear boundaries (Horwarth, 2013). Along with this, he

identified six parenting practices that parents need to apply to their children to

develop their self-efficacy which this study considers as one of the variables and
 7

these are religious identity, love and discipline, family responsibilities, family values,

sexual relationships and friendships.

Parents appear to be the primary influence on a child’s interest to learn

(Wagner, 2006). They have an impact on motivation at every stage of development,

lasting through secondary school and beyond. Healthy, effective families possess

positive attitudes and behaviors toward their children which help them to succeed in

school and life. With parents being a child’s first and most important teacher, it seems

obvious that family will have a significant influence on the development of a child’s

motivation to learn. Parents get involve their selves for them to monitor their

children’s school activities and performance.

Additionally, it was pointed out that parental involvement is a part of more

comprehensive, deeply embedded cultural patterns that guide and are recreated by

parents. In a richly detailed ethnographic study, described how social class-based

cultural patterns, habits and skills are created and reinforced by differential parenting.

He observed late-elementary school-aged children from different social backgrounds

both boys and girls, white and black. She conceptualized her findings as a distinction

between the strategy of ‘concerted cultivation’ prevalent in middle-class and upper-

middle-class families and the ‘accomplishment of natural growth’ prevalent in lower-

income and working-class families (Lareau, 2008).

The first variable for parenting practices is religious identity. Many young

people are unable to articulate confidently how their faith informs the way they live.

While some might argue there has been an inadequate response to such a

significant shift away from religious practice and understandings of Christian

 8

spirituality others have suggested the Catholic Church has acted both globally and

locally by re-examining the methods used in Catholic schools to influence the

religious practices and spiritual lives of young Catholics (McCarty, 2013).

The centrality of religion in shaping human experiences has been a

prominent theme within the behavioral sciences for well over a century. This

evidence has been generated by research incorporating clinical and community

samples, a range of mental and physical health outcomes, and both cross-

sectional and longitudinal designs. Many factors and processes have been

posited as potential mechanisms through which religion can promote

individuals' well-being (Oman & Thoresen, 2005), but relatively few

explanations have been tested empirically. Therefore, an important task

remains for social and behavioral researchers to understand the mechanisms

through which higher levels of religiosity can enhance mental and physical health

(Greenfield & Marks, 2007).

Meanwhile, social identity theory provides a theoretical basis for positing that

more frequent formal religious participation would be associated with having a

stronger religious social identity. The theory advances the idea that group

characteristics such as structures, roles, and norms are internalized as part of

an individual's socio-cognitive system, and that individuals cognitive and

motivational states give rise to structural group characteristics (Turner, Hogg,

Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 2007).

Another variable for parenting practices is love and discipline. Fay (2015)

revealed that many parents are struggling with high levels of stress and lack of
 9

certainty regarding how to support their children in the development of emotional and

behavioral health. Supporting these concerns is the growing frequency and intensity

of emotional and behavioral problems observed by classroom educator.

All parents can agree that the purpose of child rearing and discipline is to help

a child become a successful, prosocial member of society. But the way a parent

raises a child to reach the apparently universal goal of becoming an upstanding

member of their community is largely based on cultural norms. Depending on where

a child is born on the globe, the cultural norms for parenting may be rooted in

traditions that go back thousands of years. However, the main reason of wanting

children grow to a better version is the love that parents have for them (Coleman,

2018).

In addition, parents should be responsible for correcting and guiding their

children. But how they express the corrective guidance makes all the difference in

how a child receives it. When one has to confront a child, avoid blaming, criticizing, or

fault-finding, which undermine self-esteem and can lead to resentment. Instead,

strive to nurture and encourage, even when disciplining a child. Making sure that they

know that although you want and expect better next time, parents need to let them

feel that there is love no matter what failures they may commit (Dowshen, 2015).

The third variable for parenting is family responsibilities. In a study conducted

by Hazel (2014) in their recent study of 692 children grades 3, 6 and 9, they

observed that those experiencing positive and supportive parent-child relationships

were far less likely to succumb to stress-related mental illness and behavior problems

when confronted with common developmental stressors. The parent-child

 10

relationship is the single most powerful environmental factor affecting the life-long

adjustment of children.

Parenting practices considered sexual relationships as the fourth indicator.

Research found out that parents can strongly influence their child’s sexual behavior

(Thorton & Camburn, 2013). Parents’ marital status, their disapproval of and

discussion with teens about the standards of behavior and the social and moral

consequence of teen sexual activity as well as parental monitoring all appear to

impact teens’ decisions to engage in sexual activity.

Correspondingly, the fifth indicator for parenting practices is family values. It is

of utmost importance to everyone to feel part of something, more specifically part of a

family. The sense of having a strong family unit reinforces a child’s sense of

belonging. What could be more important to a child than stability, knowing that his or

her family will always be there to support when things go pear shaped. Lack of this

family unit can lead to all sorts of problems, namely a lack of identity, which can often

lead to anxiety, depression and low self-worth in later life. But not to get too

downbeat, these problems can easily be avoided with reassurance. We must tell our

children often that we love them, and support them in all their endeavors. Doing so

will instill one of the most important family values into their consciousness (Hughes,

2018).

In another idea, it was stated that values learning has been a traditional

function of the family. Families introduce their children to their spiritual views. They

teach their children right from wrong and encourage them to follow the laws of the

land unless disobeying the law will benefit society. They teach their children that
 11

there are natural consequences to every action and that each person has the

freedom to make the right (or wrong) choice. They teach them the values of love,

respect, friendship, honesty, kindness, courage, equality, integrity, and responsibility,

to name a few (Oelze, 2019).

Further, the values of individual families will always differ but there are moral

values that every family is meant to enjoy and benefit from in common. Overall, these

principles are standard principles built into the family institution; any one person who

neglects these moral practices inevitably brings on consequences which are liable to

affect all if left alone. Teaching and training plays a significant role in the life of all

humanity, basically everyone is programmed to learn all that they need to live in this

world, beginning from infancy. Each timely lesson is a carving tool that shapes a

character, the capability is given to responsible family members to shape their

generation for the better, anything that generate for the worst is usually by choice of

the individual at the time of maturity (Evans, 2018).

The sixth indicator for parenting practices is friendships. Knickmeyer, Sexton

and Nishimura (2012) mentioned that friendship is a stage in interpersonal

relationship where those concerned share common interest and feelings at a

certain level. It is a supportive relationship that provides resources for adjusting

and coping with developmental tasks of that stage and even beyond. There are

levels of friendships, which determines the degree of commitment that exist in

such relationships. Basically, friendship relation act as a support process to

strengthen the values and qualities that are shared by those relationship. It is also

known to contribute significantly to individual wellbeing and adjustment. Good

 12

friendship helps those involve in it to be able to adjust to life situations that might

be challenging. The reason is that it provides the psychological and physical back

up that people need to face tough times.

Friendship is crucial to the management of marital and familial

relationships. It influences how people conceive of relationships and intimacy.

Friendship is a source of feedback, information, comparison, and reflection.

Friendship can help people to understand the disjuncture between romantic ideals

and the realities of long-term, intimate relationships (Taksaki, 2018). In relation,

marriage weakens ties to relatives, neighbors, and friends because married

couples think that they should be self-sufficient. They are more likely to depend

on each other for shared financial and emotional needs and are less likely to have

spontaneous interactions with friends and neighbors (Gerstel & Sarkisian, 2006).

Marriage changes intimate ties in personal communities, more than having

children, moving residences, or changing employment status. Married parents are

more likely to interact with friends, neighbors, and extended kin more than

childless, married couples. However, their reason for interaction is usually in

relation to child rearing (Hansen, 2004). Single and married parents spend less

time in informal leisure settings, such as hanging out with friends and neighbors

(Gerstel & Sarkisian, 2006).

The findings of a study conducted by Lansford (2014) on the associations

between family relationships and friendships were stronger and more pervasive in

Japan than in the United States. In the United States, there was some evidence

that having higher quality family relationships was associated with having higher
 13

quality friendships; in Japan, there was similar evidence for consistency in quality

across relationships, as well as evidence that qualities lacking in one relationship

were sometimes present in another. These findings extend into adulthood work

that has previously focused on family relationships and friendships of children and

suggest cultural differences in patterns of association between family

relationships and friendships.

Classroom Learning Environment

There is strong interest in every school to provide a positive environment for

all faculty, staff, and students. The need to have a positive classroom learning

environment where students feel a good learning climate should be developed (Mc

Ghee, Lowell and Lemire, 2007). To identify these learning needs, these researchers

evaluated the classroom, diversity values, personal and persistence among students

which this study considered as another variable.

The notion that learning environment is the diverse physical locations,

contexts, and cultures in which students learn. Since students may learn in a wide

variety of settings, such as outside-of-school locations and outdoor environments, the

term is often used as a more accurate or preferred alternative to classroom, which

has more limited and traditional connotations such as a room with rows of desks and

a chalkboard (Severson, 2007).

A study also revealed that the core business of schools is to provide students

with a rich learning environment that is open, respectful, caring and safe. This ideal

learning environment optimizes wellbeing. It reflects a positive school ethos that

makes the school an exciting, stimulating and welcoming place. If we want our
 14

children to have sound and agile minds, we need to help them achieve sound and

agile bodies. To educate the whole child, though, schools must devote themselves to

more than the mind-body connection alone. They must attend to the emotional and

social learning needs of children, as well as to more traditional objectives of

academic achievement and physical education (Dewey, 2008).

Classroom is considered as the first variable for classroom learning

environment. Hannah (2013) revealed that the large amount of a child’s time is spent

sitting in a school classroom. This place is where they will learn the various skills

deemed necessary and proper for them to achieve success in the global society. The

classroom is where they will gain an understanding of their place in the world and the

gifts that they have to offer it. It is where the student develops what they want their

future to look like, as well as knowledge of the skills needed to reach that goal.

Correspondingly, classroom setup is an important component in a learning

environment because it is an essential piece of classroom management to support

both teaching and learning. The physical atmosphere of the classroom can help

prevent behavior issues as well as promote and improve learning. The structuring of

the learning environment is essential for teachers and students. In fact, studies show

that the physical arrangement of the classroom can affect both student and teacher

behavior, and that a well-structured classroom management plan of design has the

ability to improve learning and behavior (Cox, 2018).

Furthermore, the classroom arrangement is the physical foundation of where

your students will learn. This means that every square foot of it needs to be used for

activities that support learning. The spatial structure of the classroom; where students
 15

will be seated, how the students will move about the classroom, and the whole

classroom atmosphere needs to be considered, as well as how the classroom will be

structured to address the academic, social, and emotional needs of the students. The

physical arrangement of the classroom should also be reflective of the student body

and must be consistent with the needs of all learners (Wannarka, 2016).

Further, diversity is another variable for classroom management environment.

Grubaugh and Houston (2013) indicated that students are diverse and those with

different can be paired with different cognitive abilities together. This will allow the

students that need help more individual attention, as well as provide an opportunity

for a student with higher academic performance to relearn the material by teaching it.

This will also promote leadership and cooperation amongst the students. Another

benefit will be that the teacher can instruct the class as a whole while knowing that

each student is receiving individual attention as well. This structure must be

addressed at the beginning of the class and monitored throughout to make sure that

each student is doing what they should be taught. It can be easy for a student who

understands the material to become frustrated with one that does not. This is a good

opportunity for the teacher to educate the former student on the benefits of helping

others.

It was viewed that some people have opposed teaching about different

cultures, religions, and traditions in schools. They have not known that having

diversity in the classroom not only helps children learn and think differently, but also

prepares them for the real world and interacting with those of different cultures in the

workplace and in daily life. Children who grow up around those of other races,
 16

ethnicities, or cultures are usually very willing to embrace a new culture, a new

mindset, or a new perspective. Having a diverse classroom and having quality

conversations about diversity can support mindfulness and tolerance in just about

any student (Smiley, 2017).

Meanwhile, parents and teachers alike constantly strive to mold and shape

their kids into the best versions of themselves, prepared to take on the world with

understanding, empathy, and love. Encouraging students to talk about and embrace

diversity from a young age fosters those characteristics, and allows students to be

more successful in life, not just as a businessman or woman, but as a human being

who is kind to others and respectful of people’s differences. Diversity is an important

element of any classroom for teaching students the importance of acknowledging and

accepting these differences which make each individual unique. This enable students

to open their mind and explore new possibilities, and have diversity and acceptance,

whether racial, ethnic, or other, become integrated into students’ daily lives (Kafle,

2013).

Moreover, personal was also used as indicator for the classroom management

environment. Higgins (2008) specified that the field of school learning environments

draws on a number of disciplines, from the purely educational to psychology,

environmental and buildings design and ergonomics, to name but a few. It has been

necessary to merge these fields for this review and sometimes this has proved

difficult, as different disciplines have a variety of paradigms for research and

reporting. Further, different personalities make up a class and teachers should be

very flexible in coping students’ needs.

 17

Significantly, the most important component of classroom management is

personal relationships. The relationships with students start at the door when

teachers shake their hands and greet them with a smile (regardless of what

misbehaviors might have happened the day before). Those relationships are

strengthened, for example, when a teacher use a student’s name and actively praise

him or her. Those relationships are solidified when they spend individual time with

each student to get to know them and then use that knowledge to create personal

learning opportunities (Johnson. 2016).

Generally, a teacher’s most important activity in a typical class environment is

one related to classroom management which involves one’s personal self. Learning

and teaching cannot take place in a mismanaged classroom which solely depend on

teachers’ personal ability. Within this framework, classroom management could

be defined as the personal initiative of teacher in arranging the classroom

environment and its physical structure under the laws in order to satisfy the

expectations of the educational system, the curriculum (of the lesson), the school, the

lesson, the teacher and of the students; constituting the rules, relation patterns and

administration of class order; planning, presenting and evaluating educational

activities; recognizing students’ assets; providing student motivation; arranging

classroom communication pattern; attaining classroom discipline; and effective and

productive employment of time, human and material resources in order to

prevent students’ undesired behavior (Kayikci, 2009).

Lastly, persistence was considered as the fourth variable for classroom

learning environment. Ivankoba and Sheldon (2012) cited that knowledge and
 18

understanding of factors contributing to students’ persistence in distributed programs

may help academic institutions better meet students’ needs, improve the quality of

their academic experiences, and increase their retention and school completion. This

is especially important today when institutions have to confront the growing problems

of revenue generation and increasing budget cuts and turn to education in distributed

environments. Knowledge of the evolving tendencies may serve as a baseline for

educational administrators in elaborating policies, designing and developing

programs, and improving distance student support.

Additionally, it was stressed that student persistence, on the other hand,

suggests that students have many forces working both for and against them. The

same family, friends, job, childcare, and health issues that support students attending

class can, in a flash, become the very things that keep them from coming to school.

These positive and negative forces are defined as being outside of the control of the

students (Roberts, 2009).

In the same way, a study found out in his study that teacher persistence helps

foster effective teaching. Specifically, teacher persistence may promote high

expectations for students, the development of teaching skills, teachers'

reflectiveness, responsiveness to diversity, teaching efficacy, effective responses to

setbacks, and successful use of reformed teaching methods. Common evaluation

practices in teacher education may undermine teacher persistence. Teacher

educators might support the development of teacher persistence by emphasizing the

knowledge that makes persistence a rational response to setbacks, by teaching self-

 19

regulation skills that support persistence, and by using evaluation practices that

require greater effort and persistence of students (Wheatley, 2012).

Interpersonal Support

Interpersonal support is an individual’s perceptions of general support or

specific supportive behaviors from people in their social network, which enhances

their functioning or may buffer them from adverse outcome (Malecki & Demaray,

2012). This may include tangible, belonging, self-esteem and appraisal support

and these were considered as the indicators for the study (Cohen & Hoberman,

1983).

The first variable for interpersonal support is tangible support. It is a multi-

dimensional construct of social support and defined as that which improves the

welfare of the person who receives it, or that which helps the recipient see realistic

alternatives to a stressful situation, gain skills, and recognize that help and resources

are available from others (Federici, 2013). It is the offering of a material service, such

as financial support, that provides concrete assistance to another person (Boundless,

2016; Danielsen, Wiium, Wilhelmsen & Wold, 2010).

On the other hand, it was also explained that emotional support is

characterized by students’ perceptions of trust, warmth, respect, and care. These

may refer to nurturing versus action-facilitating support (Cutrona & Suhr,1994;

Semmer, 2008). This support typically include students’ perceptions of being

provided with instrumental resources and practical help (Malecki & Demaray, 2003;

Suldo et al., 2009). This may include teachers’ questioning, clarifying, correcting,
 20

elaborating, and modeling behaviors that contribute to understanding, problem

solving or skill development.

Meanwhile, a common health-promoting factor often discussed in relation to

chronic life strain is social support. It refers to the material and emotional resources

available to a person through interpersonal contacts. It is associated with a reduced

risk of a wide range of health outcomes including mental health (Kawachi, 2011),

physical health and mortality (Kawachi, 2011; Umberson & Mortez, 2010). The

existence of a buffering effect requires a statistically significant interaction between

the measures of social support and stress (Uchino, 2006).

Further, the buffering effect of tangible social support may be explained by

several possible mechanisms. The perception that others can and will provide

necessary resources may redefine the potential for harm and prevent the situation

from being appraised as highly stressful (Uchino, 2006).The reception of support

signals that others care for and value the distressed person, boosting his or her

sense of mattering and self-esteem (Kawachi, 2011).

The second indicator for interpersonal support is belonging support. Riegal &

Carlson, 2014 searched concerning the beneficial effects of social support and found

out that extensive scholars have well documented these benefits in different contexts.

Support from teachers and peers can have a profound influence on students’

success and well-being (Wang & Eccles, 2013). Interactions with teachers and peers

play a central role in supporting young adolescents’ academic motivation, classroom

engagement, and sense of school belonging.

 21

Students’ perception of emotional support is related to their feeling of

belonging, relatedness or connectedness. For instance, students’ sense of belonging

and relatedness using items that assessed their feeling of being accepted and

appreciated by the teachers. Such measures differ from other measures of social

support in that they do not ask students about teacher characteristics or what

teachers do. Rather, they evaluate how students feel when they are with their

teachers (Marchand & Skinner, 2007).

In Maslow’s third edition of Motivation and Personality (1987) as cited by

Jones (2008) he further described the need for sense of belonging as humans need

to find acceptance, recognition, and be valued/appreciated by groups of people. The

support for the importance of belonging was echoed by Corey (2011) as he said that

only when we have a sense of belonging are we able to act with courage in facing

and dealing with our problems.

A study which explored that belonging uncertainty, or the proposed

phenomenon that socially stigmatized groups have less certainty in terms of their

social bonds and are thus more sensitive to things that suggest belonging may be

difficult in certain environments such as academic settings. They cited research and

literature showing belonging and related concepts such as social connectedness to

have significant impacts on mental and physical health (Walton & Cohen,2007).

The importance of belonging for children in school settings has been explored

more frequently than in adult and/or college populations. One such article that would

seemingly have some parallels to the experience of moving to college and trying to

adjust to a new environment was a study that looked on belonging in children from
 22

Somali that were brought to the US and placed in school (Kia-Keating & Ellis 2007).

This study, through the use of regression analysis, found that higher levels of sense

of school belonging was linked to lower depression and higher self-efficacy. Their

results point towards examining ways of improving school experiences in order to

positively impact mental health in students.

Self-esteem support was also used as an indicator for interpersonal support.

Teachers can help meet young adolescents’ basic and developmental needs and

promote positive adjustment by engaging in need-supportive teaching and providing

students with appropriate levels of autonomy support, structure, and involvement.

Teachers may promote choice by allowing students to select tasks they perceive as

interesting, which fosters engagement and will develop their self-esteem (Assor &

Kaplan, 2011).

Self-esteem is defined as to how a person feels about herself, good or bad,

and as manifested in a variety of ways, such as in pride or shame, but especially in

self-confidence. The standard account asserts that self-esteem can be high, low and

somewhere in between (Ferkany, 2007). However, high self-esteem is claimed to

have a variety of behavioral benefits (Krustsjansson, 2007). These include

independence, responsibility taking, toleration of frustration, resistance to peer

pressure, willingness to attempt new tasks and challenges, ability to handle positive

and negative emotions, and willingness to offer assistance to others.

Consequently, it was emphasized that schools are social worlds with their own

basic social structure, one that can be more or less supportive of self-esteem

Gerhardt, 2009). Assuming that the social bases of self-esteem for school children
 23

are the same as those for adults, schools support and foster self-esteem just when

they do not shame or humiliate children undeservedly and make it possible for all to

enjoy an appropriate esteem group (Smith, 2010).

In opposition to the above statement, it was also mentioned that many school

environments, like the social world described above, are not very supportive of self-

esteem (Gerhardt, 2009). Children themselves tend to make things difficult by

forming esteem groups that are markedly exclusive and hostile toward outsiders. For

children who find themselves on the outside, the experience can be very painful

(Ferkany, 2007; Smith, 2010).

Finally, it was affirmed that the social bases of self-esteem include esteem

groups. Relative to the classroom context, this implies that teachers are fostering

self-esteem so long as they make efforts to ensure that all children feel welcome and

safe, and can find an esteem group. Furthermore, it was mentioned that critiquing

students’ work need not be particularly shame- or humiliation-producing. Academic

evaluations need to be largely private, marks on a piece of paper easily concealed

from others (Ferkany, 2008).

Furthermore, appraisal support will be used as another indicator for

interpersonal support. Eccles and Roeser (2014) elaborated that despite

concentrated efforts at improving inferior academic outcomes among disadvantaged

students, a substantial achievement gap between the test scores of these students

and others remains. The existing models to document social–emotional factors at

multiple levels of influence undermine academic performance. Perceiving learning as

 24

relevant allows students to feel a sense of autonomy and control over their learning,

which is essential to sustained motivation.

Support from family and friends have been found to reduce the impact of

psychological problems among students (Calvete & Connor-Smith, 2006). Social

support could help students cope with everyday life stressor and lighten the burden

of academic workload. Without enough support from family and friends, they would

be in trouble and are vulnerable to depression, stress and anxiety.

This finding was supported when it was found that social support could act as

a protective factor that could decrease psychological problems among students such

as stress. The study also discovered that social support provides motivational

influence on students’ performance. This may help students build confidence in

whatever tasks they may undertake (Wentzel,1998; Dollete, 2014).

Finally, when children are being praised and given importance, they will feel

that they are supported. There are three dimensions of support provided by family

and friend that is warmth, behavioral control, and psychological autonomy-granting.

These three dimensions facilitate the development of positive self-conceptions and

social skills, responsibility and competence, and impulse control and deterrence of

deviance which in turn lead to low level of psychological problems the students. This

support has also been found necessary for healthy level of development (Oswald &

Suss, 1994).

Self-Efficacy

One of the contributing factor to success among students is their individual’s

level of self-efficacy and these can be identified through their academic self-efficacy,
 25

social self-efficacy and emotional self-efficacy (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2010).

Students with high academic self-efficacy have shown to perform better

academically. Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1994) as one’s belief in their

capability to produce designated levels of performance for events that affect their

lives, which determines how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave.

Beliefs may determine the outcome of a task more than capabilities, because belief

greatly influences effort (Pajares, 2002).

The first indicator of self-efficacy is academic self-efficacy. Galyon, Blondin,

Yaw, Nalls, and Williams (2012) conducted a study on 165 undergraduate students

investigating the relationships among academic self-efficacy and students’ class

participation, examination performance, and GPA. Galyon et al. found a stronger

relationship between academic self-efficacy and exam performance than with class

participation.

However, academic self-efficacy levels were relatively the same among

students with high, medium, and low GPAs (Galyon et al., 2012). Additionally,

Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, Langley, and Carlstrom (2004) did a meta-analysis on

over 109 studies on psychosocial and study skill factors that affect GPA. They tested

multiple academic factors including academic self-efficacy. They found academic

self-efficacy to be the most influential factor on GPA.

Academic self-efficacy is specific to the context of academia and focuses on a

person’s belief about themselves regarding academic tasks. Academic self-efficacy is

defined by Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001) as students’ confidence in mastering

 26

academic subjects. If a student is confident in doing well in college, they are more

likely to succeed.

In a study, it was revealed that academic self-efficacy was shown to be a

major factor in academic performance. Participants were first year college students

who were given surveys near the end of their first quarter and at the end of their last

quarter of the year. They used the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale to measure self-

efficacy. They found that students with high academic self-efficacy also had higher

grade point averages (GPAs). In addition, students with higher high school GPAs

demonstrated higher academic self-efficacy, academic expectations, and academic

performance in college compared to students with lower high school GPAs

(Chemers, Hu, and Garcia, 2001).

The second indicator is social self-efficacy. Well-informed teachers of young

children recognize the importance of children’s social self-efficacy development

(Lynch & Simpson, 2013). The development of social skills lays a critical foundation

for later academic achievement as well as work-related skills (McClelland & Morrison,

2003). These behaviors promote positive interaction with others and the environment.

Some of these skills include showing empathy, participation in group activities,

generosity, helpfulness, communicating with others, negotiating, and problem

solving.

The classroom environment definitely can be structured to promote social

interaction, smooth transitions, and social communication (McEvoy, 1990). Learning

areas can be large enough to give children the space they need to play together, but

small enough to provide an intimate setting for social interaction. For example, in the
 27

housekeeping center, low dividers enable adults to supervise children as they play

and learn. They also set clear boundaries to provide sufficient space for several

children to play with the sink, appliances, and table.

Lastly, emotional self-efficacy is also considered as an indicator for self-

efficacy variable. Emotional self-efficacy is associated with well-being. When

students experience mastery over emotional challenges, learning becomes more

enjoyable, and they feel more efficacious (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004).

However, through students characteristics would be considered ideal in any

educational setting, little attention has been paid to supporting students’ emotional

self-efficacy. Given the lack of explicit trainings aimed at students' personal

development, the current educational system appears to assume that students’ have

the requisite emotional self-efficacy to achieve a warm and nurturing learning

environment, be emotionally responsive to learning activities, form supportive and

collaborative relationships with other students.

Correlation between Measures

The study implies that self-efficacy of students is being determined through

various factors that affect learning. There are studies that correlate parenting

practices and self-efficacy of students. In a study conducted by Seifi (2016), he found

out that parenting practices have a significant relationship with self-efficacy of

students. He explained that parents have a high level of control and response

requirements on their children’s behavior. They viewed their children as individuals

competent and successful and in accordance with their ability they expect. He

concluded that authoritative parenting practice toward authoritarian parenting

 28

practice landscapes and increases the self-efficacy of students. However, in another

study conducted by Masud, Ahmad, and Jamil (2016), findings showed that with the

help of structural equation modeling, structural model on academic efficacy was

tested. Results of the study indicate that parenting practices have no significant

relationship with the academic self-efficacy of students. In addition to this, self-

efficacy only mediates the relationship of authoritative parenting practices and

academic performance. It can be concluded that self-efficacy in individuals is an

important attribute necessary for the psychological development of the students. Self-

efficacy enhances the individual’s confidence to progress.

In addition, research on parenting practices and self-efficacy found a

significant correlation. The hierarchal regression analysis revealed that parenting

practices is contributing a significant amount of incremental variance in explaining

self-efficacy of students. The analysis of variance indicated that all of the criterion

measures of parenting practices differed significantly as a function in developing the

self-efficacy of students. Recommendations for future practice include more

incorporation of motivation in teaching strategies, guidance and parenting practices

as a means to improve efficacy of students. Also, the researcher recommends more

collaboration and networking among students, parents, teachers, guidance

counselors and peer leaders (Rivers, 2008).

Consequently, classroom management was identified as a potential

contributor of self- efficacy of students. The study of Kurt, Ekici and Gungor (2014),

they analyze the effect of classroom management on self-efficacy perceptions of

students regarding teaching process. In collecting the data, self-efficacy beliefs of

 29

students towards teaching process instrument was used. According to the results of

the study, self-efficacy perceptions of students towards teaching process was found

high and classroom management have a positive and medium leveled effect on self-

efficacy beliefs.

Additionally, it was found out that classroom learning environment can be a

factor in developing of students’ self-efficacy. This single skill has heavily contributed

to overall self-efficacy, student achievement and performance in the classroom and is

commonly a major concern of teachers. A study pointed out that there is significant

relationship between sense of self-efficacy among students and classroom learning

environment, and examined the depth of each relation (Hicks, 2012).

Furthermore, this study has also determined the link between interpersonal

support and self-efficacy of students. Holt (2013) studied the interpersonal support

and student’s self-efficacy by a series of correlation analyses and found out a

moderate positive correlations which suggests that interpersonal support had a

strong positive association with self-efficacy. Students become more motivated in

doing their task and achieve better performance when support is being given by their

parents, teachers and friends.

On the other hand, a study investigated the relationships between

interpersonal support, perceived stress, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction among

students. Students who reported higher levels of interpersonal support and self-

efficacy have higher levels of life satisfaction. Interpersonal support and stress

together accounted for 41 percent of the variance in life satisfaction ratings, with

social support providing the largest contribution. The findings have implications for
 30

prevention and interventions with students experiencing difficulty in adjusting to peers

(Coffman & Gilligan, 2012).

It was also manifested in a study conducted by Erozkan (2013) that the

communication and interpersonal support were found to be significantly correlated to

self-efficacy. It was also noted that interpersonal support problem solving skills

become an important predictors of self-efficacy. He elaborated that Interpersonal

support problem solving is one area of functioning that is thought to impact on

coping, and moderate the deleterious effects of stressful life-events. Interpersonal

support problem solving skills affect people’s self-efficacy expectations.

The related literatures and studies provided most needed knowledge and

background for the subject under study specifically on the relationship among

constructs and domains and how these and their indicators affect one another. The

knowledge culled out from renowned scholars contributed with much understanding

in the formulation of the theoretical framework and in the development of the

questionnaire.

Theoretical Framework

The researcher attempted to explain students’ self-efficacy being related to

parenting practices, classroom learning environment and interpersonal support. In

this study, the influencing factors that contribute to the efficacy of students are the

parenting practices, classroom learning environment and interpersonal support

that students received from their peers, family and teachers.

 31

To have a clearer understanding on nature of students’ self-efficacy, this

research was anchored on the following propositions:

Parenting practices have a significant relationship with self-efficacy of

students as they view their children as individuals who are competent and

successful and in accordance with their expectation (Seifi, 2016). It was

concluded that self-efficacy in individuals is an important attribute necessary for

the psychological development of the students’ self-efficacy which enhances the

individual’s confidence to progress (Masud, Ahmad, and Jamil; 2016).

Classroom learning environment is being identified as a potential

contributor of self- efficacy of students (Claiborne, 2016). Classroom learning

environment has an effect on self-efficacy of students as to the teaching process.

It was revealed in a quantitative study conducted by Croissant (2017) that

classroom learning environment can foster negative and/or positive students’ self-

efficacy. His study determined how different characteristics of a classroom

learning environment correlates to student self-efficacy. According to the results

of the study, classroom learning environment has a positive and medium leveled

effect on self-efficacy of students.

Additionally, it was found out that classroom learning environment has

proved to be an aspect of the development of students’ self-efficacy. This single

skill has heavily contributed to overall self-efficacy, student achievement and

performance in the classroom are commonly a major concern of teachers. This

also pointed out that there is significant relationship between a sense of students’

self-efficacy and classroom learning environment (Hicks, 2012).

 32

Interpersonal support and student’s self-efficacy has moderate positive

correlations which suggests that interpersonal support had a strong positive

association with self-efficacy. Students become more motivated in doing their task

and achieve better performance when support is being given by their parents,

teachers and friends (Holt, 2013). Further, students who reported higher levels of

interpersonal support and self-efficacy have higher levels of life satisfaction

(Coffman & Gilligan, 2012).

In another proposition, it was manifested that interpersonal support is found

to be significantly correlated to self-efficacy. It was also noted that interpersonal

support become an important predictors of self-efficacy. It was elaborated that

interpersonal support is one area of functioning that is thought to impact on

coping, and moderate the deleterious effects of stressful life-events. Interpersonal

support affect people’s self-efficacy expectations (Holt, 2013).

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual model is being presented in Figure 1 to 4 showing the variables

that contribute to the development of self-efficacy of students as perceived by the

teachers. Furthermore the hypothesized models demonstrate the direct relationships

of the domains namely: parenting practices, classroom learning environment and

interpersonal support to the self-efficacy of students.

The first exogenous variable is parenting practices which is measured by six

indicators namely: religious identity, love and discipline, family responsibilities, family

values, sexual relationships and friendships (Horwarth, 2013). Religious identify

 33

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of the Study

 34

Figure 2. Hypothesized Model 1 Showing Direct Causal Relationship

of Parenting Practices, Classroom Learning Environment, Interpersonal
Support and Self-Efficacy of Students
 35

Figure 3. Hypothesized Model 2 Showing the Interrelationship between the

Independent Variables: Parenting Practices, Classroom Learning Environment,
Interpersonal Support and Self-esteem of Students
 36

Figure 4. Hypothesized Model 4 Showing the Direct Causal Link of the

Variables toward Parenting Practices, Classroom Learning Environment
and Self-Esteem of Students
 37

refers to student’s involvement in their spiritual life. Love ad discipline is defined as

student affective attitude toward others and how they respond to rules implemented

at home, school and community. Family responsibilities is how students respond to

their duties and responsibilities. Family values refers to the attitude that students

learn at home. Sexual relationships refers to the knowledge that students learn about

opposite sex, marriage and their gender. Friendships is how students make

connections with other students and children within the community.

Consequently, the second exogenous variable is the classroom learning

environment which has four observed indicators particularly: classroom, diversity

values, personal and persistence. Classroom is defined as learning venue where

students are being taught with necessary knowledge and skills. Diversity values

refers to the different perspective, beliefs and characters that students display in the

classroom. Personal refers to how students are being treated in school by their

teachers and classmates. Lastly, persistence refers to how students are being

motivated in the classroom for them to learn. The indicators were borrowed from the

classroom learning environment questionnaire of McGhee, Lowell, and Lemire

(2007).

The third exogenous variable for this study is interpersonal support which has

the following indicators: tangible, belonging, self-esteem and appraisal support.

Tangible support refers to the physical support given to students. Belonging support

means the advice and company vested on children in times they need comfort. Self-

esteem support refers to the feelings given to students when they accomplished
 38

something. Appraisal support is the help given to students when they solutions to

problems.

Finally, the fourth and latent exogenous variable is self-efficacy. It has three

observed indicators particularly: academic self-efficacy, social self-efficacy and

emotional self-efficacy (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2010). Academic self-efficacy refers

to how students gives attention and importance on their studies. Social self-efficacy

refers to their behaviors when they are in group or with other people. Emotional self-

efficacy refers to how they handle their feelings when they encounter challenges and

trials.

In this study, the influence of parenting practices or the ways of rearing

children, classroom learning environment or the total structure and atmosphere of

which teaching occurs or takes place, the interpersonal support which refers to

companionship, self-esteem, emotional support, and instrumental support that

students gained from surrounding environment will be correlated to the academic

efficacy of students or the students’ judgments about their capability to perform

particular tasks in the teaching-learning process.

Significance of the Study

Self-efficacy is an important measure of an individual's capacity to cope with

learning and performing. The importance of a person's efficacy cannot be

underestimated as it can influence the courses of action they choose to pursue as

well as how much effort they will expend in given situations (Freudenberg, Cameron,

& Brimble, 2010). The results of the study will primarily determine whether the
 39

parenting practices, classroom learning environment and interpersonal support

correlates with self-efficacy of students.

Further, this study will give benefits to some entities. The findings of the school

may help the Department of Education Official in identifying the factors that greatly

contribute to the development of the students’ self-efficacy for them to achieve

greater learning outcome. This will enable them to determine the best mechanisms

needed by the teachers in helping students succeed. On the other hand, schools

heads can benefit as well for being an overall look out of the school, they guide and

assist teachers in improving their classroom learning environment.

Further, the teachers as classroom managers and have direct contact with

parents may strengthen their help to the students by giving them adequate support

for them to learn the needed skills. Students who are the main purpose of this study

may gain from this research since their learning needs will be addressed and their

academic efficacy will be boosted.

Definition of Terms

For better understanding of the terms used in this study, the following words

were given meaning:

Parenting Practices. The term means the various ways used by parents in

rearing their children, as well as the effort that parents invest to nurture their children.

This can be manifested through their religious identity, love and discipline, family

responsibilities, family values, sexual relationships, and friendships which this study

consider as indicators.
 40

Classroom Learning Environment. In this study, this means the physical

structure as well as the atmosphere that comprises the educational development of

students. This can be manifested in identifying the classroom situations, diversity

values, personal, and persistence.

Interpersonal Support. The term in this study is used to refer the different

activities or strategies given by peers, teachers, parents, and community members

which increase students' overall confidence. This can be determined using tangible

support, belonging support, self-esteem, and appraisal support as domains.

Self-Efficacy. The word refers to an individual's belief that they can

successfully achieve a certain task or attain a specific goal of learning. This can be

identified through students’ academic self- efficacy, social self- efficacy and

emotional self- efficacy.

 41

Chapter 2

METHOD

In this chapter, the method and procedures employed in the conduct of the

study are presented herein. These were utilized to achieve the main focus of the

study which is to determine the whether parenting practices, classroom learning

environment and interpersonal support correlates with academic efficacy of students.

This section also presents and discusses the research design, research locale,

population and sample, the instruments and the data collection procedures as well as

the statistical treatment to be employed in the study.

Research Design

In this study, the researcher utilized a quantitative non-experimental design

using the descriptive correlational method. In the generation of the best fit model,

structural equation model (SEM) was used. It used a quantitative research design in

the sense that the researcher employed measurement and observation to test the

hypotheses by collecting data through surveys which yielded a statistical data

(Creswell, 2003).

Quantitative design was suitable for this study since its objective was to

ascertain the influence of parenting practices, classroom learning environment, and

interpersonal support on self-efficacy. This design fits for the study since the

information which will be collected will serve as the source of data or information.

This means that the researcher cannot directly interact with the environment in which

she is studying in a way that would cause any changes related to the study. It is also
 42

the standard of this study to avoid any direct changes in the environment to achieve

a reliable data or information for this research.

Further, structural equation model was used to determine the best fit model.

This was used to provide a very general and convenient framework for statistical

analysis that includes several traditional multivariate procedures conducted in this

study (Hox, 2013). Structural equation models are often visualized by a graphical

path diagram. The statistical model is usually represented in a set of matrix

equations.

In addition, Structural Equation Modeling, or SEM, is a very general statistical

modeling technique, which is widely used in the behavioral sciences. It can be

viewed as a combination of factor analysis and regression or path analysis. The

interest in SEM is often on theoretical constructs, which are represented by the latent

factors. The relationships between the theoretical constructs are represented by

regression or path coefficients between the factors. The structural equation model

implies a structure for the covariance between the observed variables, which

provides the alternative name covariance structure modeling (Hox, 2013; Dolan,

1998).

Moreover, fitting a model to data means solving a set of equations which was

done in this study. On the one hand, there is the model with its parameters, whose

values are estimated. On the other hand, there are the sample statistics that we

‘know’ to be good estimates of the corresponding population values. In SEM, it is

usually assumed that the sample data follow a multivariate normal distribution, so

that the means and covariance matrix contain all the information. SEM software uses
 43

complex algorithms that maximize the fit of the model, taking all model restrictions

(fixed parameters, equality constraints) into account. The method most widely used

for estimation is Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation, which assumes multivariate

normal data and a reasonable sample size (Savalei, 2013).

Population and Sample

Since this study aimed to assess students’ self-efficacy in selected public

elementary schools, the researcher utilized sample random sampling which

determined the number of schools and respondents per division.

To determine the 400 respondents appropriate for Structural Equation

Modeling, the rule of the thumb was followed (Bentler, Yuan, & Wu, 2010) in which

the researcher used the correct sample per strata in quota sampling which is 10

(Changing Minds, 2012). As shown below, the schools in the 11 divisions in Region

XI were the subject of the study with a total number of 400 respondents.

The respondents of the study includes the teachers of the selected public

elementary school within Region XI. These teachers were chosen as respondents in

this study to find out the level of students’ efficacy as perceived by the teachers.

Several studies correlating self-efficacy with different domains had been conducted

among students themselves, but none was done using teachers as respondents, and

these teachers have direct contact with parents, students and learning environment.

. The researcher considers that they are the ones fit respondents for the study

as they can provide useful information which tested the hypothesis of this study.

Their day to day encounter with parents, co-teachers, students and personal
 44

experiences have served as their basis in determining their answers and perceptions

on the survey questionnaires given to them.

Excluded groups are students, parents, school heads and DepEd Officials.

This study focuses on the perception of teachers on the self-efficacy of students as

influenced by parenting practices, classroom learning environment and interpersonal

support. Thus, they cannot provide the needed information above.

The respondents can be withdrawn from the research study if he/she commits

falsification, plagiarism and other moral offenses or the respondents have health

conditions and special needs. Participants can withdraw from the research study at

time if they feel troubled or discomforted. If so, the participants should let the

researcher know that he/she wishes to withdraw. A participant may provide the

researcher with the reason(s) for leaving the study but is not required to provide their

reasons.

The respondents of the study is shown in Table 1. Davao City has the highest

number of respondents of 200 with the 50%. Tagum City has 40 respondents (10%).

Davao del Sur and Compostela Valley have the same number of respondents of 30

each (8%). Davao del Norte, Panabo City, Digos City, and Mati City have also the

same number of respondents with 20 each (5%). Island Garden City of Samal and

Davao Oriental have also the same number of respondents which is the lowest

among the respondents with 10 each (2%). Four hundred (400) teaching force of

selected public elementary schools were involved in the study and each of them has

evaluated themselves resulting to 400 samples. The 10 respondent teachers per

school is in accordance with the prescription of Changing Minds (2012) which

 45

Table 1

Respondents of the Study

Division Number of Respondents Percentage

Davao City 200 50%

Tagum City 40 10%

Davao del Sur 30 8%

Compostela Valley 30 8%

Davao del Norte 20 5%

Panabo City 20 5%

Digos City 20 5%

Mati City 20 5%

Island Garden City 10 2%

of Samal
Davao Oriental 10 2%

pronounced that quota sample of 10 per sub group is needed to avoid bias in

sampling. The 400 respondents involved in this study were taken from the eleven

divisions of Region XI through proportionate sampling with the number of school per

division as the reference point. Several studies and researches used 400

respondents as the minimum number of samples of the study (Asten, 2008) hence it

margin error is only 5% and the results of the study can be generalized to the target

situation (Omair (2014). On the contrary, some scholars argued that sample size

does not much depend on the population size, which is counter-intuitive to many
 46

researchers (Sergiovane, 2015). Hence, 400 number of respondents were

considered sufficient to answer the survey questionnaire.

Research Locale

The researcher conducted the study in public elementary schools of Region

XI, Philippines. This was considered as the venue of the study since the researcher

would like to find out on a broader scope whether parenting practices, classroom

learning environment and interpersonal support correlates with the self- efficacy of

the students within Region XI.

Region XI is one of the regions of the Philippines found at Southern part of the

Mindanao. The region covered five provinces namely Compostela Valley, Davao del

Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, and Davao Occidental and the cities of Davao,

Digos, Panabo, Tagum, Samal, and Mati City. Further, it is a melting pot of many

cultural groups. Cebuanos, Boholanos, and Ilonggos are the majority groups. Others

include Maguindanaos, Maranaos, Manobos, T'bolis, Bagobos, B'laans, Samals, and

Agtas. Smaller communities of Ilocanos, Tagalogs, Warays, and Bicolanos are also

found.

There are 1,632 public elementary schools within the region as a survey

revealed in 2018 and among these schools this study was implemented. In Figure 5,

is shown the location of the region as projected in the entire view of the country. The

figure presents the Map of Region XI which showed the different provinces wherein

this study was conducted. Only public elementary schools were considered in this

research.
 47

 DAVAO DEL NORTE

 PANABO CITY

 IGACOS

 DAVAO OCCIDENTAL

Figure 5. Map of the Philippines Showing the Locale of the Study

 48

Research Instruments

In gathering the information needed for this study, the researcher made use of

adapted questionnaires which were modified to best suit the respondents, particularly

in determining the parental practices, classroom learning environment, interpersonal

support and self-efficacy of students. The adapted standardized questionnaire is

valid in contents for they have already been tested and proven by their respective

authors as these have undergone modification to classify the questions. The

questionnaires were designed in a very comprehensive form with the help of the

expert validators to provide the respondents with ease and comfort in answering

each question and in understanding the objective of the study. However, hence the

questionnaire was modified to fit the local study, the reliability of the questionnaire

was tested through pilot testing with an average Cronbach Alpha of .919 as shown in

Table 2. It was articulated by Gliem (2003) Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient

normally ranges between 0 and 1. However, there is actually no lower limit to the

coefficient. The closer Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0 the greater the internal

consistency of the items in the scale. On the other hand, George and Mallery (2003)

provided the following rules of thumb: Cronbach’s Alpha > .9 – Excellent; Cronbach’s

Alpha > .8 – Good; Cronbach’s Alpha > .7 – Acceptable; Cronbach’s Alpha > .6 –

Questionable; Cronbach’s Alpha > .5 – Poor; and Cronbach’s Alpha < .5 –

Unacceptable. While increasing the value of alpha is partially dependent upon the

number of items in the scale, it should be noted that this has diminishing returns. It

should also be noted that an alpha of .9 which was achieved in this study is probably

a reasonable goal. When using Likert-type scales it is imperative to calculate and

 49

Table 2.

Cronbach Alpha Results

Variables Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
Self-Efficacy .689 .833 15

Parenting Practices .935 .937 20

Interpersonal Support .946 .946 20

Classroom Learning .935 .937 20

Environment
Average .919

report Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency reliability for any scales

or subscales one may be using. The analysis of the data then must use these

summated scales or subscales and not individual items. Cronbach’s alpha does not

provide reliability estimates for single items.

The first part of the questionnaire deals with parenting practices adopted from

Horwarth (2008) with indicators such as religious identity, love and discipline, family

responsibilities, family values, sexual relationships, and friendships. Questions have

been modified to meet the purpose of the study. The 30 item statement questions

were used to generate information about the parenting practices and this used the

following scale and descriptive equivalent in answering the questions:

Range of Means Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High The item statement is always observed.

3.40-4.19 High The item statement is oftentimes observed

2.60-3.39 Moderate The item statement is sometimes observed

1.80-2.59 Low The item statement is seldom observed.

 50

1.00-1.79 Very Low The item statement is always never observed

Moreover, another domain used in this study was classroom learning

environment which was determine using classroom, diversity values, personal, and

persistence (McGhee, 2003). The 20-item statements used the scale and descriptive

equivalent in answering the questions:

Range of Mean Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High The item statement is always observed.

3.40-4.19 High The item statement is oftentimes observed

2.60-3.39 Moderate The item statement is sometimes observed

1.80-2.59 Low The item statement is seldom m observed.

1.00-1.79 Very Low The item statement is always never observed.

In the same way, interpersonal support scale was being adopted from (Cohen,

2003) questionnaire. The questionnaire is composed of 20 item statements which is

being subdivided into the following indicators: tangible support, belonging support,

self-esteem support and appraisal support.

This used the following scale and descriptive equivalent in answering the

questions in analyzing the data:

Range of Mean Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High The item statement is always manifested.

3.40-4.19 High The item statement is oftentimes manifested

2.60-3.39 Moderate The item statement is sometimes manifested

1.80-2.59 Low The item statement is seldom manifested.

 51

1.00-1.79 Very Low The item statement is always never manifested.

Self-efficacy was also being considered as another domain of the study. The

scale was adopted from Bandura (2003) who considered academic self- efficacy,

social self- efficacy and emotional self- efficacy as its indicators. The following rating

scale will be used in determining the responses of the respondents:

Range of Mean Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High The item statement is always manifested.

3.40-4.19 High The item statement is oftentimes manifested

2.60-3.39 Moderate The item statement is sometimes manifested

1.80-2.59 Low The item statement is seldom manifested.

1.00-1.79 Very Low The item statement is always never manifested.

This five-point Likert scale was used for the research variables. The Likert

Scale requires individuals to tick on a box/blank in response to a large number of

items concerning an attitude, object and stimulus. It is common to treat the number

obtained from a rating scale directly as measurements by calculating averages or

more generally any arithmetic operations (Santos, 2007).

Furthermore, in identifying the Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Alternative

Model thru Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) which was used in order to identify

the best fit model, all the values of the given indices must fall with each criterion as

shown in Table 3.

Data Collection

In conducting this study, the following steps were followed to achieve its

purpose. First, the researcher asked permission to conduct the study by sending a
 52

Table 3.

Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Alternative Model thru

Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS)

Chi Square/Degree of Freedom 0 < value < 2

(CMIN/DF)

P- value > 0.05

Normative Fit Index (NFI) > 0.95

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > 0.95

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > 0.95

Tucker-Lewis Index > 0.95

Root Mean Square Error of > 0.05

Approximation (RMSEA)

P-close > 0.50

Division Superintendent together with the needed requirements in conducting a

study. The approved letter was forwarded to all District Supervisors concerned with a

letter of permission to allow her to distribute her questionnaires to the students.

The researcher personally distributed and administered the questionnaire to

the teachers. This was quite difficult because she needed to adjust to the time

availability of the teachers in conducting the study in order not to interfere with class

hours. In cases that respondents were not available, the researcher went back to the

school to conduct the study and waited for the teachers to finish answering the

questionnaires. Lastly, the researcher retrieved the questionnaire after the conduct.
 53

The responses of the filled-up instruments were tabulated in a manner that would

easy for the researcher to sort the data ready for analysis. Then, it was analyzed and

interpreted using the different statistical tools.

The study was conducted from November 2018 to March 2019, which gave

enough time for the researcher distribute her questionnaires to the different schools

within the region. With the recommendation of the University of Mindanao, through its

Dean of Graduate Study, being a post graduate student, the researcher was hereby

endorsed by the university to conduct her study.

Statistical Tools

The following statistical tools were used to tally, tabulate and analyze the data

gathered:

Mean. This tool was used to determine the level of parenting practices,

classroom learning environment, interpersonal support and academic efficacy of

students. Specifically, this will attempt to achieve objectives number 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Pearson r. This was used to identify the significant relationship between

parenting practices, classroom learning environment, interpersonal support and

academic efficacy of students, this will help achieve objective number 5.

Structural Equation Modeling. This was employed to determine which model

best fits in self-esteem of public school teachers.

Ethical Considerations

There are considerable ethical issues and concerns that had specific

ramifications for this quantitative inquest. Such issues and concerns may arise
 54

primarily from the methodology involved in this study. The ethical contests that were

pertinent to this research concern the issues of the right to conduct the study,

confidentiality and anonymity.

The researcher observed and followed full ethical standards in the conduct of

the study following the study protocol assessments and standardized criteria

particularly in managing the population and data such as, but not limited to.

Voluntary Participations. Selected teachers of different division in Region XI

were given the free-will to participate without any form of consequences or penalty or

loss of benefits. Therefore, after the purpose and the benefits of the study will be

described and presented to the participating school. Then, the rights of the

respondents to contribute to the body of knowledge will be carefully considered and

adhered upon.

Privacy and Confidentiality. The researcher kept private and with utmost

confidentiality the respondent’s personal information that may be required in the

study.

Informed Consent Process. The research questionnaires were free of

technical terms that make it easier to the respondents to understand. It gives the

respondents a clear view of the benefits they may get after the conduct of this study.

The research questionnaire was administered with the consent of the division

superintendents of the different divisions in Region XI.

Recruitment. The distribution of the respondents showed how the respondents

disseminated. Furthermore, the data collection procedures indicated as well as how

 55

the questionnaires was administered, and the manner of respondents involved in the

study.

Risks. The study did not involve in high risks of situations that the respondents

may experience in physical, psychological or socio-economic concern. The study

involves in their field of motivation towards learning.

Benefits. The study gives teachers and students relevant information to boost

and enhance study skills and habits and eventually improves teachers’ performance

in school. This may help school administrators strengthen their help to teachers by

giving them adequate supports for effective teaching.

Plagiarism. The study had no trace or evidence of misinterpretation of

someone else’s work at his own. The study undergone plagiarism detector like Turn-it

Software.

Fabrication. The study had no trace or evidence of intentional misinterpretation

what has been done. No making up of data and results, or purposefully putting

onward conclusions that are not accurate.

Falsification. The study had no trace of purposefully misrepresenting the work

fit a model or theoretical expectation and have no evidence of over claiming or

exaggeration.

Conflict of Interest (COI). The study had no trace of conflict of interest like for

example the disclosure of COI which is a set of conditions in which professional

judgment concerning primary interest such as participants’ welfare or the validity of

the research tends to be influenced by a secondary interest such as financial or

academic gains recognitions.

 56

Deceit. The study had no trace of misleading the respondents to any potential.

Authorship. The researcher of the study is a graduate of Master of Education,

major in Educational Management. The researcher of the study undergone series of

content revisions due to recommendations made by her adviser. The study also

followed the standards of the University of Mindanao Ethics Review Committee for

the guidelines of ethical consideration. After their approval, the study undergone pilot

testing and the data collected were interpreted for the consistency of the research

questionnaire.
 57

Chapter 3

RESULTS

Presented in this chapter are the data gathered in this study and its

comprehensive discussion, interpretation and implication of the findings. The first part

describes the level of parenting practices, the level of classroom learning

environment, the level of interpersonal support and the level of self- efficacy.

The second part displays the correlation between parenting practices,

classroom learning environment and interpersonal support towards self-efficacy of

students and the third part presents the different structural models on self-efficacy of

public elementary school students as perceived by their teachers.

Level of Parenting Practices

Presented in Table 4 is the level of parenting practices as measured by six

indicators, namely: religious identity, love and discipline, family responsibilities, family

values, sexual relationships and friendships. Each of these describes how parents

get involved in educating their children. The six indicators of parenting practices

generated an overall mean rating of 4.22 or very high. This meant that generally, the

parenting practices in Region XI were always observed.

The indicator with the highest mean rating is religious identity with a rating of

4.35 or very high, which indicates that parents want their children to become good

followers of God. Students believe that learning about religion is very important for

their children. Further, sexual relationships and friendships have mean ratings of 4.30

or very high, love and discipline has mean rating of 4.17 or high and family
 58

Table 4

Level of Parenting Practices

Items SD Mean D.E.

Religious Identity 0.62 4.35 Very High

Love and Discipline 0.64 4.17 High

Family Responsibilities 0.75 4.11 High

Family Values 0.84 4.08 High

Sexual Relationships 0.62 4.30 Very High

Friendships 0.67 4.30 Very High

Overall 0.50 4.22 Very High

responsibilities had a mean rating of 4.11 or high. On the other hand, the lowest

indicator though still high is family values with a mean rating of 4.08 or high. This

implied that parents are not so tight in implementing rules within the family. They are

open to realities that children nowadays are very liberated.

To understand the facets which gave meaning to the very high result of

parenting practices, the items which give contribution to the very high level are:

parents motivate their children to follow God, want their children to save having sex

for marriage and give precautions to their children in going out with boys/girls.

Parents are aware that parenthood is a great responsibility and this involves the

duties of teaching children to have faith in God and live the will of God.
 59

Level of Classroom Learning Environment

It was presented in Table 5 is the level of classroom learning environment,

with the indicators classroom, diversity values, personal and persistence which have

an overall mean rating of 4.40 or very high. This meant that the classroom learning

environment is always observed. The result showed that the indicator classroom has

the highest mean among the four indicators of classroom learning environment while

diversity values has the lowest albeit still very high with a mean rating of 4.35. Other

indicators contributing to the very high level of classroom learning environment were

persistence with a mean rating of 4.37 or very high and diversity values with mean

rating of 4.35 or very high. It could be noted from the results that students as

perceived by the teachers consider the classroom as the core component of powerful

and fruitful instructional process. This, they encourage and motivate learners in going

to school and want them to feel protected and contented in their stay in classroom.

Among the items of the different indicators of classroom learning environment,

having a teacher who encourages mutual respect among students, classroom

provides an environment for free and open expression of ideas and having a physical

environment which is comfortable and accessible for all students had the highest

which contribute on the result of the study. This meant that students want an inviting

classroom environment where teachers have a motivating character towards

students and where they can feely express their ideas towards better learning.

Students as observed and perceived by teachers become interested in learning when

they can feel that they are being given importance inside the school.
 60

Table 5

Level of Classroom Learning Environment

Items SD Mean D.E.

Classroom 0.55 4.50 Very High

Diversity Values 0.58 4.35 Very High

Personal 0.65 4.40 Very High

Persistence 0.77 4.37 Very High

Overall 0.51 4.40 Very High

Level of School Level Environment

The level of interpersonal support is shown in Table 6 with an overall mean

rating of 4.06 or described as high with a standard deviation of 0.560. This meant

that interpersonal support was oftentimes manifested by the teacher-respondent.

This indicated that teachers are very supportive towards the acquisition of learning of

their students. They are making different initiatives just to motivate their students in

learning.

It could be viewed from the findings that the indicator with the highest mean

rating of 4.25 or very high was tangible support. In reverse, the indicator with the

lowest mean rating of 3.88 or described though still described as high was –

appraisal support. On the other hand, belonging support had a mean rating of 3.99 or

high and self-esteem support had a mean rating of 4.14 or described as high. This

further emphasized that teachers are always there to help when students need some

assistance.
 61

Table 6

Level of Interpersonal Support

Items SD Mean D.E.

Tangible Support 0.63 4.25 Very High

Belonging Support 0.77 3.99 High

Self-Esteem Support 0.67 4.14 High

Appraisal Support 0.87 3.88 High

Overall 0.56 4.06 High

The high level of interpersonal support in Region XI is due to the very high

level of the items giving help to students when they need to fix something, are being

cared when they get sick and students are being assisted by parents when they get

trouble finishing a project. These practices contribute to the idea that students are

being provided with instrumental resources and practical help for them to love and

enjoy learning. They are given with action-facilitating support to let them feel that they

are cared for.

Level of Self-Efficacy of Students

The level of self-efficacy of students is presented in Table 7 and analyzed and

interpreted based on the statistical results of the following indicators: academic self-

efficacy, social self-efficacy and emotional self-efficacy. It is reflected in the table that

self-efficacy had an overall mean rating of 3.98 or high. Analyzing further, academic

self-efficacy garnered the highest mean score of 4.18 or described as high.

 62

Table 7

Level of Self-Efficacy

Items SD Mean D.E.

Academic Self-Efficacy 0.61 4.18 High

Social Self-Efficacy 0.60 3.95 High

Emotional Self-Efficacy 0.80 3.82 High

Overall 0.51 3.98 High

In contrast, emotional self-efficacy received the lowest mean score of 3.82 still high.

The indicator social self-efficacy had a mean score of 3.95 or high.

Contributing to the high level of self-efficacy of students as perceived by the

teachers are the items getting well with teachers and being helped when they get

stuck on school work, getting well with their studies even if there are other interesting

things to do and being able to become friends with others. These practices therefore

are expected to give improvement on the self-efficacy of students. Teachers

identified that building self-efficacy among students could mean building their

confidence to love and engage in learning which can become contributory to their

success later in life.

Significance on the Relationship between

Parenting Practices and Self-Efficacy of Students

The data shown in Table 8 showed the correlation of parenting services and

self-efficacy of students. It can be perceived from the results that there was a
 63

Table 8
Significance on the Relationship between Levels of Parenting Practices and Self-
Efficacy of Students

Self-Efficacy
Parenting
Practices Academic Social Self- Emotional Overall Self-
Self-Efficacy Efficacy Self-Efficacy Efficacy
Religious 0.431* 0.391* 0.320* 0.491*
Identity (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Love and 0.235* 0.363* 0.408* 0.448*
Discipline (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Family 0.086 0.349* 0.435* 0.397*
Responsibilities (0.086) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Family Values 0.103* 0.411* 0.588* 0.508*
(0.039) (0.0000 (0.000) (0.000)
Sexual 0.343* 0.289* 0.199* 0.353*
Relationships (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Friendships 0.161* 0.324* 0.341* 0.368*
(0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Overall
0.296* 0.491* 0.542* 0.592*
Parenting
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Practices
*Significant at 0.05 significance level.

significant positive strong relationship between parenting practices and self-efficacy

of students as reflected in the table, the P-value that was less than 0.05 and the r-

value = 0.592.The null hypothesis, that there was no significant relationship between

parenting practices and self-efficacy of students is therefore rejected. This meant that

parenting practices had significant relationship to self- efficacy of students.

Particularly, the data revealed that when the indicators of parenting practices

were correlated with overall self-efficacy, P-values were less than 0.05 and

correlation coefficient is 0.491 for religious identity, 0.448 for love and discipline,
 64

0.397 for family responsibility, 0.508 for family values, 0.353 for sexual relationships

and 0.368 for friendships which showed significant relationships.

Further, when indicators of self-efficacy were correlated with overall parenting

practices, results indicated that P-values were all less than 0.05 and the overall

correlation coefficient value is 0.296 for academic self-efficacy, 0.491 for social self-

efficacy, and 0.542 for emotional self-efficacy. This showed that parenting practices

had a strong relationship with self-efficacy of students. These practices helped

strengthen the confidence of students.

Significance on the Relationship between Levels of

Classroom Learning Environment
and Self-Efficacy of Students

Shown in Table 9 is the correlation between levels of classroom learning

environment and self-efficacy of students in Region XI with an overall correlation

coefficient of 0.426 and P-value of less than 0.05. This meant that the higher the

classroom learning environment, the higher the self-efficacy of students. Thus, the

null hypothesis that there was no significant relationship between classroom learning

environment and self-efficacy of students was rejected. The findings revealed that the

indicators for classroom learning environment were positively correlated with overall

self-efficacy of students, since the P-value is less than 0.05, and the overall r - value

is .345 for classroom, 0.411 for diversity values, 0.296 for personal and 0.320 for

persistence.

Meanwhile, when the indicators of self-efficacy of students were correlated

with overall classroom learning environment, P-values were all less than 0.05 and the

overall r- value is 0.245 for academic self-efficacy, 0.390 for social self-efficacy and
 65

Table 9
Significance on the Relationship between Levels of Classroom Learning Environment
and Self-Efficacy of Students

Classroom Self-Efficacy
Learning
Environment Academic Social Self- Emotional Overall Self-
Self-Efficacy Efficacy Self-Efficacy Efficacy
Classroom 0.274* 0.295* 0.232* 0.345*
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Diversity Values 0.349* 0.373* 0.242* 0.411*
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Personal 0.150* 0.281* 0.242* 0.296*
(0.003) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Persistence 0.062 0.300* 0.342* 0.320*
(0.217) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Overall
Classroom 0.245* 0.390* 0.339* 0.426*
Learning (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Environment
*Significant at 0.05 significance level.

0.339 for emotional self-efficacy. This implied that students as perceived by the

teachers consider classroom learning environment as an important factor in teaching.

Teachers become confident to do their task of teaching if they are in a positive

classroom environment. In the same way, students learn better if they are in a good

learning environment and being facilitated by confident teachers.

Significance on the Relationship between Levels of

Interpersonal Support and Self-Efficacy of Students

Similarly, the data in Table 10 shows the relationship between interpersonal

support and self-efficacy of students with an overall P-value less than 0.05 and r

value of = 0.559.This showed that the interpersonal support received by students

 66

Table 10
Significance on the Relationship between Levels of Interpersonal Support and Self-
Efficacy

Self-Efficacy
Interpersonal
Support Academic Social Self- Emotional Overall Self-
Self-Efficacy Efficacy Self-Efficacy Efficacy
Tangible 0.195* 0.295* 0.371* 0.386*
Support (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Belonging 0.288* 0.275* 0.234* 0.344*
Support (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Self-Esteem 0.224* 0.351* 0.365* 0.416*
Support (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Appraisal 0.248* 0.442* 0.497* 0.530*
Support (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Overall
0.318* 0.456* 0.489* 0.559*
Interpersonal
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Support
*Significant at 0.05 significance level.

greatly affected their self-efficacy. Thus, the null hypothesis that there was significant

relationship between interpersonal support and self-efficacy of students was rejected.

The findings suggested that in order to boost the self-efficacy of students in doing

their teaching tasks, interpersonal support should be given.

As reflected in the table, when the indicators of interpersonal support is

correlated to overall self-efficacy of students, all its indicators have P-values of less

than 0.05 and the overall correlation coefficient is 0.386 for tangible support, 0.344

for belonging support, 0.416 for self-esteem support, and 0.530 for appraisal support.

This showed a strong positive correlation. This meant that students need some

support for them to become motivated in teaching. The support also enhances their

interest in performing their duties diligently.

 67

Furthermore, data showed that all indicators of self-efficacy of students were

positively correlated with overall interpersonal support, since the P –value is less than

0.05 and the overall r-value is .318 for academic self-efficacy, .456 for social self-

efficacy and .489 for emotional self-efficacy. Hence the two variables were positively

associated. This meant that students who received higher interpersonal support will

have higher self-efficacy compared to students with a low support.

Structural Model Testing

This section highlights the analysis on the interrelationships among parenting

practices, classroom learning environment and interpersonal support to the self-

efficacy of students. There are four alternative models tested to achieve the best fit

model of self-esteem of students. Each model has a framework that could be

decomposed into two sub models which are measurement model and structural

model. The measurement model represents the measure loads on each factor to

their latent constructs while the structural model defines relations among the latent

variables. Moreover, the assessment of fit was used as baseline for accepting and

rejecting the model. As a rule, the researcher establishes the relationship of the

causality relationship of the latent variable toward the different latent variables.

Furthermore, it institutes the relationship between endogenous and exogenous

variables. The moment that structured model exhibits with suitable fit, it underscores

that there is consistency of the empirical relationships among variables inferred by

the model. The model parameter estimates entail the magnitude and direction of the

relationships among variables.

 68

The first generated structural model was Parenting Practices, Classroom

Learning Environment, Interpersonal Support, Self-Efficacy Model 1 (Fig.6). This

model considers only the direct effects of parenting practices, classroom learning

environment, interpersonal support and self-efficacy of students. Table 11 shows all

of the indices namely, Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom (CMIN/DF) = 6.909 with its P

of –Close Fit (P-close)=0.000, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)=.783, Comparative Fit

Index (CF)I=.782, Normed Fit Index (NFI)=.756, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)=.740 and

Root Means Square of Error Approximation (RMEA) =.0.122 which did not reach the

criteria and hence indicate a poor fit.

The second generated model was Parenting Practices, Classroom Learning

Environment, Interpersonal Support, Self-Efficacy Model 2 (Fig. 7). This model

considers the direct relationship of parenting practices, classroom learning

environment, and interpersonal support towards self-efficacy of students. As shown

in Table 12, the model was found a poor fit as reflected by the CMNI/DF=5.121 with

its P-close = 0.000, GFI= .924, CFI= .891, NFI= .869, TLI= .863, and RMSEA=.102

did not reach the criteria and hence indicate a very poor fit.

As depicted in Figure 8, the third generated structural model is Structural

Model 3 in Standard Solution was Parenting Practices, Classroom Learning

Environment, Interpersonal Support, Self-Efficacy Model 3. As shown in Table 13,

this model considers the interrelationship of parenting practices, classroom learning

environment, interpersonal support and self-efficacy of students. This showed a poor

fit hence its CMIN/DF=5.373 with P-close value=.000, GFI=.951, CFI=.916,

NFI=.901, TLI=.843, and RMSEA=.105.

 69

Further, Figure 9 shows the fourth generated structural model is Structural

Model 4 in Standardized Solution Parenting Practices, Classroom Learning

Environment, Interpersonal Support, Self-Efficacy Model 4. As shown in Table 14,

model considers the interrelationship of parenting practices and classroom learning

environment towards self-efficacy of students. This includes the direct causal

relationship of parenting practices and classroom learning environment to the self-

efficacy of students. Model 4 was found to have indices that consistently show a very

good fit to the data as indicated by CMIN/DF=0.914 with its P-value=.902 and

RMSEA=.000 and indices such as GFI, CFI, NFI, and TLI all greater than 0.95. All of

these falls within each criterion. Hence, this is the best fit model.

This model clearly illustrates the importance of parenting practices and

classroom learning environment as the main predictor of self-efficacy of students.

Thus, the finding suggests that the self-efficacy of teachers is best anchored to the

parenting practices as supported by two sub-constructs namely religious identity and

sexual relationships and classroom learning environment as supported by its two

sub-constructs namely classroom and diversity values. Further, this indicates that

students become more confident in teaching when they see positive parenting

practices given to them and they belong to positive classroom learning environment.
 70

Figure 6. Structural Model 1 in Standardized Solution

Legend: RI –Religious Identity
LD –Love and Discipline
FR –Family Responsibility
FV –Family Values
SR –Sexual Relationship
FRIEND – Friendship
PP –Parenting Practices

CLASSROOM –Classroom
DV –Diversity Values
PERSONAL –Personal
PERSIST –Persistent
CLE –Classroom Learning Environment

TS –Tangible Support
BS –Belonging Support
SE –Self-Esteem
AS –Appraisal Support

ASE –Academic Self-Efficacy

SSE –Social Self-Efficacy
ESE –Emotional Self-Efficacy
SELFeffica –Self-Efficacy
 71

Table 11
Goodness of Fit Measures of Structural Model 1

INDEX CRITERION MODEL FIT VALUE

0.000
P-Close > 0.05

6.909
CMIN/DF 0 < value < 2

0.783
GFI > 0.95

0.782
CFI > 0.95

0.756
NFI > 0.95

0.740
TLI > 0.95

0.122
RMSEA < 0.05

Legend:

CMIN/DF - Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom

NFI - Normed Fit Index
TLI - Tucker-Lewis Index
CFI - Comparative Fit Index
GFI - Goodness of Fit Index
RMSEA - Root Means Square of Error Approximation
P-close - P of Close Fit
 72

Figure 7. Structural Model 2 in Standardized Solution

Legend: RI –Religious Identity

LD –Love and Discipline

FR –Family Responsibility
FV –Family Values
SR –Sexual Relationship
FRIEND – Friendship
PP –Parenting Practices

CLASSROOM –Classroom
DV –Diversity Values
PERSONAL –Personal
PERSIST –Persistent
CLE –Classroom Learning Environment

TS –Tangible Support
BS –Belonging Support
SE –Self-Esteem
AS –Appraisal Support

ASE –Academic Self-Efficacy

SSE –Social Self-Efficacy
ESE –Emotional Self-Efficacy
SELFeffica –Self-Efficacy
 73

Table 12
Goodness of Fit Measures of Structural Model 2

INDEX CRITERION MODEL FIT VALUE

0.000
P-Close > 0.05

5.121
CMIN/DF 0 < value < 2

0.924
GFI > 0.95

0.891
CFI > 0.95

0.869
NFI > 0.95

0.863
TLI > 0.95

0.102
RMSEA < 0.05

Legend:

CMIN/DF - Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom

NFI - Normed Fit Index
TLI - Tucker-Lewis Index
CFI - Comparative Fit Index
GFI - Goodness of Fit Index
RMSEA - Root Means Square of Error Approximation
Pclose - P of Close Fit
 74

Figure 8. Structural Model 3 in Standardized Solution

Legend: RI –Religious Identity
LD –Love and Discipline
FR –Family Responsibility
FV –Family Values
SR –Sexual Relationship
FRIEND – Friendship
PP –Parenting Practices

CLASSROOM –Classroom
DV –Diversity Values
PERSONAL –Personal
PERSIST –Persistent
CLE –Classroom Learning Environment

TS –Tangible Support
BS –Belonging Support
SE –Self-Esteem
AS –Appraisal Support

ASE –Academic Self-Efficacy

SSE –Social Self-Efficacy
ESE –Emotional Self-Efficacy
SELF effica –Self-Efficacy
 75

Table 13
Goodness of Fit Measures of Structural Model 3

INDEX CRITERION MODEL FIT VALUE

0.000
P-Close > 0.05

5.373
CMIN/DF 0 < value < 2

0.951
GFI > 0.95

0.916
CFI > 0.95

0.901
NFI > 0.95

0.843
TLI > 0.95

0.105
RMSEA < 0.05

Legend:

CMIN/DF - Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom

NFI - Normed Fit Index
TLI - Tucker-Lewis Index
CFI - Comparative Fit Index
GFI - Goodness of Fit Index
RMSEA - Root Means Square of Error Approximation
Pclose - P of Close Fit
 76

Figure 9. Structural Model 4 in Standardized Solution

Legend: II –Idealized Influence

IM –Inspirational Motivation
IS –Intellectual Stimulation
IC –Individualized Consideration
TransL –Transformational Leadership

IL –Individual Learning
TL –Team Learning
INSTLEAR – Institutional Learning
OL –Organizational Learning

KMSTRAT –KM Strategy

PM –Performance Measuring
ER –Elimination of Restrictions

PS –Performance Scale
QP –Quality Performance
WS –Work Speed
KMP –Knowledge Management Performance
 77

Table 14

Goodness of Fit Measures of Structural Model 4

INDEX CRITERION MODEL FIT VALUE

0.902
P-Close > 0.05

0.914
CMIN/DF 0 < value < 2

0.995
GFI > 0.95

1.000
CFI > 0.95

0.988
NFI > 0.95

1.002
TLI > 0.95

0.000
RMSEA < 0.05

Legend:

CMIN/DF - Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom

NFI - Normed Fit Index
TLI - Tucker-Lewis Index
CFI - Comparative Fit Index
GFI - Goodness of Fit Index
RMSEA - Root Means Square of Error Approximation
Pclose - P of Close Fit
 78

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

Presented in this chapter is the discussion of the findings based on the

statistical results concerning parenting practices, classroom learning environment,

interpersonal support and self-efficacy of students from the selected public

elementary schools in Davao Region. Discourse on the significance of the

relationship of the independent variables on self-efficacy of teachers as well as the

construct of best fit model on self-efficacy of teachers are comprehensively presented

with supporting principles, concepts, ideas and theories which helped to formulate

the conclusion and recommendation of the study.

Level of Parenting Practices

The level of parenting is very high. This was due to the very high level of its

three indictors namely: religious identity, sexual relationships and friendships. The

three statements with the highest means which contributed to the very high level of

parenting practices are: motivate their children to follow God, wanting their children to

save having sex for marriage, giving precautions to their children in going out with

boys and girls.

The very high level result of parenting practices among the respondents is

congruent to the idea that parents are the primary influence on a child’s interest to

learn. Healthy, effective families possess positive attitudes and behaviors which help

students succeed in school and life. With parents being a child’s first and most
 79

important teacher, it seems obvious that family has a significant influence on the

development of a child’s motivation to learn (Wagner, 2016).

Parallel to this, one of the most important parenting practices being manifested

is the building up of religious identity among children in which they want to influence

them to uphold some religious practices and mold their spiritual lives according to

their faith (McCarty, 2013). This is because the parents want their children to grow

according to the will of God where good values in life are being adhered.

As part of parenting obligation, the result has also bearing on Thorton and

Camburn (2013) ideas that parents can strongly influence their child’s sexual

behavior. Their marital status, their disapproval of and discussion with teens about

the standards of behavior and the social and moral consequence of teen sexual

activity as well as parental monitoring all appear to impact their teens’ decisions to

engage in sexual activity.

Level of Classroom Learning Environment

The level of classroom learning environment is very high. Findings which

contribute to the very high level of classroom learning environment are the very high

level of all its indicators namely: classroom, diversity values, personal and

persistence.

The three highest statements for classroom learning environment which are

having a teacher who encourages mutual respect among all students, classroom

providing an environment for free and open expression of ideas and having a

physical environment which is comfortable and accessible to all students.

 80

The findings of the study implied the need to have a positive classroom

learning environment where students feel a good learning climate should be

developed (Mc Ghee, Lowell and Lemire, 2007). This is also in conformance with

what Severson (2007) stressed that learning environment is the diverse physical

locations, contexts, and cultures in which students learn in a wide variety of settings,

such as outside-of-school locations and outdoor environments, the term is often used

as a more accurate or preferred alternative to classroom.

Therefore, since the large amount of a child’s time is spent sitting in a school

classroom, as a component of learning environment, this should be given the highest

priority in determining a learning environment (Hannah (2013). This place is where

they will learn the various skills deemed necessary and proper for them to achieve

success in the global society. The classroom is where they will gain an understanding

of their place in the world and the gifts that they have to offer it. It is where the

student develops what they want their future to look like, as well as knowledge of the

skills needed to reach that goal.

Level of Interpersonal Support

The level of interpersonal support is high. Findings of the study revealed that

out of the three indicators, the highest is tangible support with a descriptive rating of

very high and the lowest is appraisal support which has a high descriptive rating. This

implied that students consider the importance of giving a helping hand to those who

are in need. They are feel happy when somebody takes effort in helping them in their

needs.
 81

Among the item-statements on interpersonal support, the three highest are

giving help to students when they need to fix things, are being happy with their

accomplishments and are being cared whenever they get sick. This finding is on

conformance with the contention of different authors (Boundless, 2016; Danielsen,

Wiium, Wilhelmsen & Wold, 2010) who pointed out that students want to improve

their performance to give the best in school. They also look on realistic alternatives to

a stressful situation, gain skills, and recognize that help and resources are available

from others. They appreciate the offering of a material service, such as financial

support, that provides concrete assistance to another person.

Additionally, the very high level of interpersonal support from family and

friends have been found to reduce the impact of psychological problems among

students (Calvete & Connor-Smith, 2016). Social support could help students to cope

with everyday life stressor and lighten the burden of academic workload. Without

enough support from family and friends, they would be in trouble and are vulnerable

to depression, stress and anxiety.

Level of Self-Efficacy of Students

The overall level of self-efficacy of students is high. Contributory to the high

level findings of self -efficacy of students are the three indicators with high result and

these are: academic self-efficacy, social self-efficacy and emotional self-efficacy. This

result emphasized that teachers perceived that their students are very much concern

about their studies and that they are making some initiatives to improve their learning

such as asking some help, studying and being attentive in classes.

 82

The three statements with the highest means which greatly affect the high

result are: getting well with teachers and being helped when students stuck on school

works, getting well with their studies even if there are other interesting things to do

and being able to become with friends with others. This result has bearing on the

ideas of Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2015) who related that the contributing factor to

success among students is their individual’s level of self-efficacy and these can be

identified through their academic self-efficacy, social self-efficacy and emotional self-

efficacy. Additionally, self-efficacy improves learning achievement. As pointed out by

Galyon, Blondin, Yaw, Nalls, and Williams (2012) academic self-efficacy has a strong

relationship with exam performance which is being supported by the ideas of

Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2015) who gave a specific view that in the context of

academia, students focus on a belief about themselves regarding academic tasks.

Academic self-efficacy is the students’ confidence in mastering academic subjects. If

a student is confident in doing well in school, they are more likely to succeed in life.

Significance on the Relationship between

Parenting Practices and Self-Efficacy of Students

There was a significant relationship between parenting practices and self-

efficacy of students as reflected in the results of the study. These findings are aligned

with the result of the study of Taran, Kalantari, Dahaghin and Abhari (2015) who

investigated the relationship between parenting styles and self-efficacy of students.

He discovered that there is positive significant relationship between parenting

practices and self-efficacy of students as it was found out that the family influence is

one of the most effective and the most influential factor in the character of
 83

students. For this reason, the family situation should also be considered both in

the study of students’ academic problems and academic achievement .

Further, the manifestations of the findings are consistent with research

findings of Ahmadian (2015) and Shaw (2017) that the early efficiency

experiences of students are focused in family. The successful experience and

practice of self-control is essential for early development of social and cognitive

competence. If the parents provide rich physical environment for their children

and give them freedom of movement to explore the environment, they will

educate their children such that they will have good cognitive-social position.

The result is also supported by the finding of the study of Tam, Chong, and

Kho (2017) who found out that authoritative parenting style is highly associated

with self-efficacy. Regression result showed that authoritative parenting style

contributes towards student’s self-efficacy.

Significance on the Relationship between

Classroom Learning Environment and Self-Efficacy of Students

The result of the study showed a significant relationship between classroom

learning environment and self-efficacy of students. The result is anchored on

Bandura’s Self- Efficacy Theory which focused that self-efficacy relates to the

individuals’ confidence in their capability to learn or do particular tasks (Bandura,

1986, 1997). Self-efficacy is being preconditioned according to the status of the

learning environment which may affect one’s behavior in learning.

The result actually supported the concepts of Tan and Chen (2017) who

pointed out that classroom learning environment refers to the personal, educational,
 84

social, and psychological context of a classroom. Teachers have influential roles in

maintaining the classroom learning environment and that they need to be equipped in

order to perform their duty excellently. It was emphasized that environment and

individuals are in direct relation with each other and it is not possible to consider them

separately. In schools, the quality of classroom learning environment influences

teachers and students’ self-image, their confidence, the learning, and the attitudes

they have towards learning areas. In particular, classroom learning environment

includes a wide scope of educational concepts like the physical setting, the

psychological environment, and various instructional components.

Significance on the Relationship between

Interpersonal Support and Self-Efficacy of Students

There was a significant relationship between interpersonal support and self-

efficacy of students as manifested by the findings of the study. The result supports

the contention of Garcia-Ros, Fuentes and Fernandez (2015) who specified the

importance of support in developing the self-efficacy of students. All the construct of

interpersonal support present satisfactory levels of internal consistency and

association to self-efficacy. They also found out that the three self-efficacy constructs

present significant levels of association with interpersonal support.

Anent to the above, Grayson and Alvarez (2008) found that teachers who

succeed when they receive a positive interpersonal support and are more likely to

stay motivated and enthusiastic in their teaching job and enjoy their work. They find

confidence in performing their task and happy working with others. In line with this,

Gu (2014) found that teacher–student interpersonal relationships has been

 85

considered a primary source of students’ long-term job fulfillment and resilience—

through which teachers feel that their hard work is rewarded and valued by students.

Moreover, the quality of interpersonal relationships in class has been found to be

positively related to students’ self-efficacy.

In line with the above findings, the Interpersonal Theory (Horowitz and Strack

2010) has also bearing on the study. Interpersonal theory provides a framework for

describing interpersonal relationships and processes. This theory posits that two

independent dimensions, which have consistently been found in research, are both

necessary and sufficient to describe interpersonal processes and relationships. The

two meta-labels for these dimensions are agency and communion. The agency

dimension concerns social influence and control and ranges from dominance to

submissiveness which can be seen within the interpersonal support while communion

dimension concerns affiliation and warmth and ranges from agreeable to

quarrelsome which can be seen within self-efficacy of teachers (Fournier, 2011).

Best Structural Model for Self-Efficacy

The model that satisfied the criteria for best fit model was Hypothesized Model

4. This showed the importance that two factors of parenting practices, two factors of

classroom learning environment and two factors of self-efficacy of students have

strong interconnectedness with each other. Indicators of parenting practices namely

religious identity and sexual relationships have direct association with self-efficacy of

teachers. The same way, indicators of classroom learning environment namely

classroom and diversity values have direct association with self-efficacy of teachers.

The best fit model showed that the two indicators for parenting practices and two
 86

indicators for classroom learning environment have strong association with the two

constructs of self-efficacy namely academic self-efficacy and emotional self-efficacy.

A path model, utilizing structural equation model was conducted to examine

relationships parenting practices, classroom learning environment, interpersonal

support and self-efficacy of teachers. The best fit model utilized the proposition of

Taran, Kalantari, Dahaghin and Abhari (2015) who emphasized the relationship

between parenting practices and self-efficacy. Further, the current study considered

Bandura’s Self-Efficacy (1997) as a support to the best fit model as self-efficacy of

teachers is being preconditioned according to the status of the learning environment

which include both the parents’ practices and classroom learning environment which

may affect performance in teaching. For this reason in the new model, parenting

practices and classroom learning environment were considered as exogenous

variables of the self-efficacy of teachers (endogenous variable).

Parallel to this, the outcomes of this study is geared towards the proposition of

Tan and Chen (2017) who pointed out that self-efficacy of students are being

affected by the learning environment which refers to the personal, educational, social,

and psychological context of a classroom. It was emphasized that school

environment which is composed of both the community where parents belong and

school where classroom learning environment belong and in direct relation with each

other and have association with self-efficacy of students. In schools, the quality of

classroom learning environment influences students self-image, their confidence, the

learning process, and the attitudes they have towards teaching. In particular,

classroom learning environment includes a wide scope of educational concepts like

 87

the physical setting, the psychological environment, and various instructional

components.

Conclusion

The use of structural equation model strengthened the reliability and

thoroughness of this research because the analysis goes through the steps of model

specification, model estimation and model evaluation. Results revealed that the level

of Parenting Practices is Very High; the level of Classroom learning Environment is

Very High; the level of Interpersonal Support is High; the level of Self-Efficacy of

Teachers is High; and there is a significant relationship between parenting practices

and self-efficacy of students, classroom learning environment and self-efficacy of

students and interpersonal support and self-efficacy of students. Among the four

explored structural models, only model 4 had indices that consistently indicated an

outstanding fit to the data; therefore, it is identified as the best fitting structural model.

This model indicates that parenting practices and classroom learning environment

strongly influenced the self-efficacy of students.

The self-efficacy of students can be attributed to many factors. These factors

may have been postulated and evaluated by other studies to manifest self-efficacy of

students towards work performance. It is reasonable that other factors which

manifest more protractedly in the respondents were not among those included in this

study. The model fit for self-efficacy of students in this study is strongly associated

with parenting practices and classroom learning environment and is in consonance

with the proposition of Claiborne (2011) who found out an empirical linkages that

classroom learning environment and parenting practices strengthen students’ self-

 88

efficacy. The result showed how important the learning environment and the

experiences they gained from their parents in developing their self-efficacy. From this

perspective, parenting practices and classroom learning environment may involve

organizing, regulating and reflecting which both influenced the self-efficacy (Schunk

& Meece, 2006).

Recommendation

The findings of the study showed a very high level of parenting practices, high

level of school climate, very high level of classroom learning environment, high level

of interpersonal support and high level of self-efficacy of students. From this result, it

was identified that the indicator family values in parenting practices has the lowest

mean. Although high, this indicates that there are still problems in the formation of

values among parents. This needs concern and should be addressed by conducting

another study that will only focus on the factors affecting the formation of family

values. This future study can be a qualitative one in order to explore ideas affecting

the current results based on the personal perception of teachers.

In addition, in classroom learning environment, diversity of values indicator is

the lowest albeit very high. The indicator diversity values got the lowest mean which

emphasized the need to accept differences in the classroom learning environment.

The school and administration may initiate activities and programs that will cater

different cultures, different perspective and different attitudes and behaviors. These

initiatives may be conducted not only to address individual differences but to monitor

and assessed the learning styles and learning needs of students. Identifying

differences can help students acquire knowledge and skills, facilitate the
 89

development of appropriate attitudes and foster self-directed, lifelong

learning.

In the level of interpersonal support, appraisal support has the lowest mean

score which demands teachers to give appreciation on the task being

accomplished by the students. A simple word of appreciation may give a big

impact on the students. It is an important thing to discover individual needs,

recognize good work when one see it and offer timely recognition in the way that

means the most to them.

Further, it is best to explore for an intervention program utilizing the

PP_CLE_SELFeffica Model 4 which was identified as best fit model of this study

which showed that parenting practices and self-efficacy have been found to have

significant correlation. The hierarchal regression analysis revealed that parenting

practice is contributing a significant amount of incremental variance in explaining self-

efficacy of students. To this, parent may help students improve their self-efficacy by

implementing practices that will enhance good home values in life.

The analysis of variance indicated that all of the criterion measures of self-

efficacy including academic efficacy differed significantly as a function in developing

the self-efficacy of students. School heads need also to motivate teachers in shaping

the classroom learning environment and one of their most important tasks is to create

a school environment that enhances and sustains students’ motivation and engages

students in learning. Thus, it is also recommended to explore for other researches

related to the self-efficacy of students which will then serve as the basis in
 90

determining specific factors that both affect work performance of teachers and school

performance of students.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
(Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.],
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G.V. (1999). Self-efficacy
pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 258-269.
Caprara, G.V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G.M., Barbaranelli,
C., & Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived
self-efficacy for self-regulated Self-efficacy, Academic Aspirations, and
Delinquency learning in academic continuance and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (3), 525-534.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year
college student performance and adjustment. Encyclopedia of mental
health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Coffman, D. & Gilligan, T. (2012). Social support, stress, and self-efficacy: Effects on
students' satisfaction. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2190/BV7X-
F87X-2MXL-2B3L
Coleman, P. (2018). Child rearing discipline practices across cultures. Every parent
wants their child to be successful, but how to ensure a kid develops
good behavior is based on cultural context. Retrieved from
https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/child-rearing-discipline-
practices-across-cultures/.
Cox, J. (2018). Classroom management for an effective learning environment.
Retrieved from http://www.teachhub.com/classroom-management-
effective-learning-environment
 91

Dolan, C.V., Bechger, T.M. & Molenaar, P.C.M. (1998). Using structural equation
modeling to fit models incorporating principal components. Structural
Equation Modeling. USA: In press.
Dowshen, S. (2015). Nine steps to more effective parenting. Retrieved from
https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/nine-steps.html
Evans, L. (2018). Maintaining family values in today's society. Retrieved from
https://hubpages.com/family/Maintaining-family-values-in-todays-
society
Galyon, C. E., Blondin, C. A., Yaw, J. S., Nalls, M. L., Williams, R. L. (2012).
Relationship of academic self-efficacy to class participation and exam
performance. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 233-249. doi:
10.1007/s11218-011-9175-x
Hoogland, J. & Boomsma, A. (1997). Robustness studies in covariance structure
modeling: An overview and a meta-analysis. Sociological Methods &
Research Journal, 26, 329-367
Hox, J. (2013). An Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling. Family Science
Review, 11, 354-373.
Hughes, D. (2018). The importance of instilling family values in our children.
Retrieved from http://www.familyfriendlyhq.ie/family-blog/the-
importance-of-instilling-family-values-in-our-children
Johnson, B. (2016). The five priorities of classroom management. Retrieved from
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/5-priorities-classroom-management-ben-
johnson
Kafle, N. (2013). Classroom management: a concern for educational leaders. Journal
of Educational Research Vol. 2(4), pp. 057 – 061 Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/3626594/Classroom_Management_A_Conc
ern_for_Educational_Leaders
Kurta, H., Ekici, G. & Gungor, F. (2014). The effect of classroom management course
on self-efficacy of student teachers regarding teaching. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.299
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2012). Applications of structural equation modeling
in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.
Masud, H., Ahmad, M., & Jamil, A. (2016). Relationship between parenting styles and
academic performance of adolescents: mediating role of self-efficacy.
Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12564-015-
9413-6.
Nevid, J. S. (2009). Psychology: Concepts and applications (3rd ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=LsVK0kSpzx8C
 92

Oelze, P. (2019). What is the importance of family in modern society? Retrieved from
https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/family/what-is-the-importance-of-
family-in-modern-society/
Pajares F. (2002). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic contexts: An outline. Retrieved
January 28, 2017 from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/efftalk.html.
Pajares, F. (2009). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation: The role of
self-efficacy beliefs. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner & M. J. Furlong (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 149-160). New
York: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=5qhjolwnQIEC
Redmond, B. (2016). Self-efficacy and social cognitive theory. Retrieved on February
6, 2017 from https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/7.+Self-
Efficacy+and+Social+Cognitive+Theories
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261-288. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.130.2.261
Savalei, V. (2015). Structural equation modeling. California: Academic Press.
Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of performance
ambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (3), 572-581. doi:10.1037/a0018289
Smiley, L. (2017). Importance of diversity in the classroom. Retrieved from
http://www.societyfordiversity.org/importance-of-diversity-in-the-
classroom/
Takasaki, K. (2017). Friends and family in relationship communities: The Importance
of friendship during the transition to adulthood. University of Austin
Journal. 22 (55) 2346456.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mfr.4919087.0021.105.
Valentine, J.C., DuBois, D.L., & Cooper, H. (2007). The relation between self-beliefs
and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational
Psychologist, 39 (2), 111-133.
Wannarka, O. (2016). Organization in the classroom. The best teaching practices.
Retrieved from http://teachingonpurpose.org/journal/organization-in-the-
classroom/
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The
emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology
Review, 2 (2), 173-201.
 93

APPENDICES
 94

APPENDIX A
Letter to Conduct the Study and Endorsement
 95

APPENDIX B
Letter to the Validators
 96

APPENDIX C
Validation Sheet
 97

APPENDIX D
Research Instrument
 98

APPENDIX E
Statistical Table
 99

Table 1.1

Level of Parenting Practices in terms of Religious Identity

Items SD Mean D.E.

Want their children to learn about religion. 0.723 4.41 Very High
Motivate their children to follow God. 0.722 4.50 Very High
View religion extremely. 0.785 4.23 Very High
Want their children to stand on what they believe. 0.787 4.27 Very High
Say that their religious beliefs and practices are 0.805 4.35 Very High
important.
Overall 0.629 4.35 Very High

Table 1.2

Level of Parenting Practices in terms of Love and Discipline

Items SD Mean D.E.

Say that discipline should be firm but fair. 0.722 4.36 Very High
Are loving but also very strict. 0.817 4.21 Very High
Want their children to obey what their father says. 0.860 4.05 High
Talk about love in their family. 0.853 4.08 High
Want their children to get on really well with their family. 0.850 4.13 High
Overall 0.647 4.17 High

Table 1.3

Level of Parenting Practices in terms of Family Responsibilities

Items SD Mean D.E.

Thinking that children should do something that is of 0.858 4.13 High
value to the community.
Wanting the children to find a job in the future that will 0.940 4.04 High
earn a lot of money.
Saying that children need to find a job to help their 0.920 4.02 High
siblings.
Teaching children to do good things for their family’s 0.898 4.15 High
reputation.
Wanting their children to be a good example in the 0.907 4.23 Very High
community.
Overall 0.753 4.11 High

Table 1.4
 100

Level of Parenting Practices in terms of Family Values

Items SD Mean D.E.

Saying that children should be careful in their choice of 0.980 4.02 High
friends and relaxation.
Wanting the children to be away from worldly things. 0.945 4.01 High
Wanting their children to wear clothes which are 0.940 4.02 High
descent so they may not be given wrong impression.
Worry if children get wrong. 0.990 4.14 High
Saying that children should take care of their body and 0.944 4.24 Very High
respecting it for it is a temple of God.
Overall 0.840 4.08 High

Table 1.5

Level of Parenting Practices in terms of Sexual Relationship

Items SD Mean D.E.

Wanting their children to save having sex for marriage. 0.785 4.47 Very High
Giving precautions to their children in going out with 0.700 4.46 Very High
boys/girls.
Keeping topics about sex out in their conversation. 0.806 4.18 High
Wanting their children to be straight and act with their 0.793 4.23 Very High
gender.
Preventing children from doing things not aligned with 0.802 4.18 High
their gender.
Overall 0.623 4.30 Very High

Table 1.6

Level of Parenting Practices in terms of Friendships

Items SD Mean D.E.

Challenging children to make good friends. 0.784 4.34 Very High
Wanting children to have friends who are religious. 0.772 4.25 Very High
Telling children to stay cool in terms of treating friends. 0.774 4.25 Very High
Want children to choose friends with good values. 0.858 4.36 Very High
Giving children the time to be with friends but warn them 0.871 4.32 Very High
not to go beyond the time.
Overall 0.673 4.30 Very High

Table 2.1
 101

Level of Classroom Learning Environment in terms of Classroom

Items SD Mean D.E.

Classroom providing an environment for free and open 0.647 4.55 Very High
expression of ideas.
Having a physical environment which is comfortable and 0.648 4.52 Very High
accessible to all students.
Having a teacher who encourages mutual respect 0.653 4.57 Very High
among all students.
Having a teacher who is fair and unbiased in treating all 0.801 4.40 Very High
students.
Having a teacher who encourages equal participation of 0.758 4.45 Very High
all students.
Overall 0.554 4.50 Very High

Table 2.2

Level of Classroom Learning Environment in terms of Diversity Values

Items SD Mean D.E.

Students are enjoying from hearing different perspective 0.721 4.31 Very High
in the class.
Students are enjoying the learning areas that challenge 0.703 4.41 Very High
their values and beliefs.
Learning about different cultures is very important. 0.697 4.40 Very High
Students are enjoying talking about values different 0.736 4.35 Very High
from them.
Students are being interested in dealing with different 0.789 4.28 Very High
students.
Overall 0.582 4.35 Very High

Table 2.3
 102

Level of Classroom Learning Environment in terms of Personal

Items SD Mean D.E.

The teacher are making necessary comments in student 0.775 4.31 Very High
ideas and views.
Having a teacher who considers individual differences. 0.792 4.38 Very High
Students are being much welcomed in the class. 0.802 4.44 Very High
Everybody in the class is being encouraged to 0.845 4.42 Very High
participate in the class activities.
Having a classroom that has a welcoming atmosphere 0.770 4.44 Very High
and students are being treated well.
Overall 0.659 4.40 Very High

Table 2.4

Level of Classroom Learning Environment in terms of Persistence

Items SD Mean D.E.

Having a school that encourages students to work hard 0.819 4.43 Very High
for their education.
Students are being motivated to join in any programs 0.845 4.39 Very High
that the school initiates.
Having teachers who make initiatives to achieve 0.917 4.36 Very High
maximum participation in the class.
Students are making initiatives to pass the subjects. 0.948 4.26 Very High
Having teachers who motivate students to try harder to 0.880 4.41 Very High
achieve success.
Overall 0.777 4.37 Very High
 103

Table 3.1

Level of Interpersonal Support in terms of Tangible Support

Items SD Mean D.E.

Giving help to students when they need to fix 0.695 4.37 Very High
something.
Students are being assisted by parents when they get 0.760 4.26 Very High
trouble finishing a project.
Are being cared whenever they get sick. 0.777 4.29 Very High
Are being given financial help when they need it in 0.870 4.15 High
buying their projects.
Are being helped when they need someone to assist in 0.841 4.19 High
doing a certain task.
Overall 0.631 4.25 Very High

Table 3.2

Level of Interpersonal Support in terms of Belonging Support

Items SD Mean D.E.

Are being accompanied whenever they want to go 0.968 4.00 High
somewhere else.
Easily finding time to go with children if they need to 0.992 3.93 High
visit a place.
Having parents who could easily find someone to go 1.019 3.91 High
with them for a lunch in school.
Are being given advice by their friends. 0.823 4.14 High
Turning to someone when they have problems. 0.899 3.96 High
Overall 0.772 3.99 High
 104

Table 3.3

Level of Interpersonal Support in terms of Self-Esteem Support

Items SD Mean D.E.

Finding most of their friends interesting. 0.806 4.26 Very High
Are being happy with their accomplishments. 0.800 4.32 Very High
Thinkng that most of their friend are good at helping 0.839 4.02 High
their problem.
Are being as good as doing things as most other people 0.830 4.02 High
are.
Are being satisfied with their life. 0.888 4.07 High
Overall 0.673 4.14 High

Table 3.4

Level of Interpersonal Support in terms of Appraisal Support

Items SD Mean D.E.

Feeling comfortable talking about personal problems. 1.011 3.84 High
Are being able to handle their problems well with the 0.999 3.85 High
help of other people.
Sharing their worries and fears with someone. 1.041 3.81 High
Being able to turn to other people when they need 0.982 3.89 High
suggestions on how to deal with personal problems.
Knowing whose advice to really trust. 0.953 4.03 High
Overall 0.872 3.88 High
 105

Table 4.1

Level of Self-Efficacy in terms of Academic Self-Efficacy

Items SD Mean D.E.

Getting well with teachers and being helped when they 0.692 4.45 Very High
get Stuck on school work.
Getting well with their studies even if there are other 0.720 4.31 Very High
interesting things to do.
Studying every time they have a test. 0.911 4.09 High
Finishing all their homework everyday. 0.884 3.99 High
Paying attention during classes and understand all the 0.821 4.07 High
subjects.
Overall 0.618 4.18 High

Table 4.2

Level of Self-Efficacy in terms of Social Self-Efficacy

Items SD Mean D.E.

Being able to express their opinions. 0.778 4.08 Very High
Being able to become friends with others. 0.762 4.26 Very High
Being able to have a chat with an unfamiliar person. 0.998 3.46 High
Being able to work in harmony with their classmates. 0.847 4.11 High
Being able to tell other children that they are doing 0.912 3.82 High
something that they don’t like.
Overall 0.607 3.95 High

Table 4.3

Level of Self-Efficacy in terms of Emotional Self-Efficacy

Items SD Mean D.E.

Being able to succeed in cheering others when 0.890 3.92 High
unpleasant event has happened.
Being able to succeed in becoming calm again when 0.944 3.87 High
they are scared.
Being able to prevent from become nervous. 0.937 3.76 High
Being able to control their feelings. 0.964 3.80 High
Being able to give their selves a pep talk when they feel 1.042 3.73 High
low.
Overall 0.808 3.82 High
 106

Table 13

Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model 1)

Estimate
ESE .491
SSE .415
ASE .139
AS .547
SE .612
BS .192
TS .391
PERSIST .643
PERSONAL .694
DV .294
CLASSROOM .460
FRIEND .479
SR .250
FV .470
FR .485
LD .561
RI .360
 107

Table 14

Estimates of Variable Regression Weights in Structural Model 1

B S.E. C.R. BETA P

SELFeffica <--- PP .579 .111 5.195 .947 ***
SELFeffica <--- CLE -.425 .090 -4.699 -.692 ***
SELFeffica <--- IS .376 .082 4.606 .644 ***
RI <--- PP 1.000 .600
LD <--- PP 1.285 .111 11.582 .749 ***
FR <--- PP 1.390 .126 11.019 .696 ***
FV <--- PP 1.526 .140 10.896 .685 ***
SR <--- PP .825 .097 8.541 .500 ***
FRIEND <--- PP 1.236 .113 10.976 .692 ***
CLASSROOM <--- CLE 1.000 .678
DV <--- CLE .840 .086 9.759 .542 ***
PERSONAL <--- CLE 1.460 .104 14.101 .833 ***
PERSIST <--- CLE 1.659 .121 13.727 .802 ***
TS <--- IS 1.000 .626
BS <--- IS .856 .113 7.569 .438 ***
SE <--- IS 1.334 .112 11.919 .782 ***
AS <--- IS 1.634 .142 11.514 .740 ***
ASE <--- SELFeffica 1.000 .373
SSE <--- SELFeffica 1.696 .257 6.591 .645 ***
ESE <--- SELFeffica 2.455 .364 6.748 .700 ***
Chi-square = 787.607
Degrees of freedom = 114
Probability level = .000
 108

Table 16

Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model 2)

Estimate
ESE .435
SSE .603
ASE .225
BS .166
TS .366
DV .586
CLASSROOM .509
FRIEND .350
SR .423
RI .563
 109

Table 17

Estimates of Variable Regression Weights in Structural Model 2

B S.E. C.R. BETA P

SELFeffica <--- PP .320 .274 1.168 .515 .243
SELFeffica <--- CLE -1.568 .612 -2.563 -2.117 .010
SELFeffica <--- IS 1.850 .618 2.993 2.412 .003
RI <--- PP 1.000 .750
SR <--- PP .859 .078 11.008 .650 ***
FRIEND <--- PP .844 .083 10.149 .591 ***
CLASSROOM <--- CLE 1.000 .714
DV <--- CLE 1.127 .094 11.953 .766 ***
TS <--- IS 1.000 .605
BS <--- IS .822 .120 6.851 .407 ***
ASE <--- SELFeffica 1.000 .474
SSE <--- SELFeffica 1.608 .201 7.992 .776 ***
ESE <--- SELFeffica 1.819 .235 7.725 .659 ***
Chi-square = 153.617
Degrees of freedom = 30
Probability level = .000
 110

Table 19

Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model 3)

Estimate
ESE .203
ASE .286
BS .199
TS .424
DV .610
CLASSROOM .497
SR .432
RI .633
 111

Table 20

Estimates of Variable Regression Weights in Structural Model 3

B S.E. C.R. BETA P

SELFeffica <--- PP .464 .124 3.731 .703 ***
SELFeffica <--- CLE -.317 .339 -.933 -.375 .351
SELFeffica <--- IS .590 .347 1.702 .735 .089
RI <--- PP 1.000 .795
SR <--- PP .818 .079 10.414 .657 ***
CLASSROOM <--- CLE 1.000 .705
DV <--- CLE 1.164 .101 11.511 .781 ***
TS <--- IS 1.000 .651
BS <--- IS .838 .123 6.815 .446 ***
ASE <--- SELFeffica 1.000 .534
ESE <--- SELFeffica 1.103 .162 6.800 .451 ***

Chi-square = 80.590
Degrees of freedom = 15
Probability level = .000
 112

Table22

Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model 4)

Estimate
QP .759
PS .880
ER .641
KMSTRAT .614
TL .789
IL .749
IM .787
II .825
 113

Table 23

Estimates of Variable Regression Weights in Structural Model 4

B S.E. C.R. BETA P

SELFeffica <--- PP .575 .121 4.748 .873 ***
SELFeffica <--- CLE .148 .145 1.025 .167 .306
RI <--- PP 1.000 .798
SR <--- PP .808 .077 10.448 .651 ***
CLASSROOM <--- CLE 1.000 .674
DV <--- CLE 1.272 .130 9.814 .816 ***
ASE <--- SELFeffica 1.000 .535
ESE <--- SELFeffica .922 .151 6.088 .377 ***

Chi-square = 6.401
Degrees of freedom = 7
Probability level = .494
 114

APPENDIX F

Hypothesized Models
 115

Figure 6. Structural Model 1 in Standardized Solution

Legend: RI –Religious Identity
LD –Love and Discipline
FR –Family Responsibility
FV –Family Values
SR –Sexual Relationship
FRIEND – Friendship
PP –Parenting Practices

CLASSROOM –Classroom
DV –Diversity Values
PERSONAL –Personal
PERSIST –Persistent
CLE –Classroom Learning Environment

TS –Tangible Support
BS –Belonging Support
SE –Self-Esteem
AS –Appraisal Support

ASE –Academic Self-Efficacy

SSE –Social Self-Efficacy
ESE –Emotional Self-Efficacy
SELFeffica –Self-Efficacy
 116

Figure 7. Structural Model 2 in Standardized Solution

Legend: RI –Religious Identity

LD –Love and Discipline

FR –Family Responsibility
FV –Family Values
SR –Sexual Relationship
FRIEND – Friendship
PP –Parenting Practices

CLASSROOM –Classroom
DV –Diversity Values
PERSONAL –Personal
PERSIST –Persistent
CLE –Classroom Learning Environment

TS –Tangible Support
BS –Belonging Support
SE –Self-Esteem
AS –Appraisal Support

ASE –Academic Self-Efficacy

SSE –Social Self-Efficacy
ESE –Emotional Self-Efficacy
SELFeffica –Self-Efficacy
 117

Figure 8. Structural Model 3 in Standardized Solution

Legend: RI –Religious Identity
LD –Love and Discipline
FR –Family Responsibility
FV –Family Values
SR –Sexual Relationship
FRIEND – Friendship
PP –Parenting Practices

CLASSROOM –Classroom
DV –Diversity Values
PERSONAL –Personal
PERSIST –Persistent
CLE –Classroom Learning Environment

TS –Tangible Support
BS –Belonging Support
SE –Self-Esteem
AS –Appraisal Support

ASE –Academic Self-Efficacy

SSE –Social Self-Efficacy
ESE –Emotional Self-Efficacy
SELF effica –Self-Efficacy
 118

Figure 9. Structural Model 4 in Standardized Solution

Legend: II –Idealized Influence
IM –Inspirational Motivation
IS –Intellectual Stimulation
IC –Individualized Consideration
TransL –Transformational Leadership

IL –Individual Learning
TL –Team Learning
INSTLEAR – Institutional Learning
OL –Organizational Learning

KMSTRAT –KM Strategy

PM –Performance Measuring
ER –Elimination of Restrictions

PS –Performance Scale
QP –Quality Performance
WS –Work Speed
KMP –Knowledge Management Performance
 119

APPENDIX G
Ethics Compliance Certificate
 120

APPENDIX H
Certification of Public Forum
 121

APPENDIX I

International Journal Publication Acceptance Certificate

 122

APPENDIX J
Turnitin (plagiarism Checker) Result
 123

CURRICULUM VITAE
 124

CURRICULUM VITAE

I. PERSONAL DATA

Name : RUBY MABALOT PUMIKPIK - CABALDA

Date of Birth : July 12, 1970

Place of Birth :` Mampising , Mabini, Davao

Address : Block 1 Lot 1 Villa Patricia

Mankilam, Tagum City
Davao del Norte 8100

Height : 5’3”

Weight : 53 kilos

Religion : Roman Catholic

Mobile Number : 09166607820

Parents : Antonio T. Pumikpik, Sr. (Deceased)

Trifina M. Pumikpik

Spouse Name : Elmer M. Cabalda

Name of Children : Jerome Francis P. Cabalda

Jodie Faye P. Cabalda
 125

II. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Level Name of School Year Graduated

Elementary Mabini Central Elementary School 1983

Mabini, Compostela Valley

Secondary Maryknoll High School of Mabini 1987

Mabini, Compostela Valley

Tertiary Bachelor of Arts in Literature 1991

Bachelor of Elementary Education Earned Units (1991)
Saint Mary’s College
Tagum City

Graduate Studies Master of Arts in Education 2002

Major in Administration and Supervision
University of Mindanao
Tagum City

III. ELIGIBILITY

Type of Examination Place of Examination Date of Examination Rating

Professional Board Tagum City November 25, 1993 72.43%

Examination for Teachers

IV. WORK EXPERIENCE

Inclusive Dates Position Agency

08/01/2008 - Present Master Teacher II Department of Education

Mabini Central Elementary School
Mabini District

06/01/2006-7/31/2006 Master Teacher I Department of Education

Mabini Central Elementary School
Mabini District
 126

6/10/2003-5/31/2006 Teacher III Department of Education

Mabini Central Elementary School
Mabini District

09/03/1998-06/09/2003 Teacher I Department of Education

Mabini Central Elementary School
Mabini District

V. SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT

Federated Faculty President of Mabini District

Secretary of Mabini Teachers Association
Treasurer of Mabini District Master Teachers Association
Faculty President of Mabini Central Elementary School
Parent Teachers Association Board of Directors
Academic Affairs Coordinator
Drum and Bugle Corp. Coordinator

VI. LIST OF TRAININGS/ SEMINAR ATTENDED

Title Inclusive Dates

Orientation on Program on Awards and Incentives December 13-14, 2018

For Service Excellence (PRAISE) for Division and
District PRAISE

Childrens Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation November 14-15, 2018

(CHAST) Training-Division Level

Three Day Training on the Enhancement of the October 23-252018

Pedagogical Skills in Teaching Reading in the
Mother Tongue and the Bridging Process of
Teachers Teaching MTB-MLE

District Roll-out Training on the Results-based August 1-3, 2018

Performance Management system (RPMS)
Manual for Teachers

Division Training of Trainers (DTOT) on the July 17-19, 2018

Results-based Performance Management
System (RPMS) Manual for Teachers
 127

Research Management Guidelines and the November 3, 2017

Basic Education Research Agenda

Conduct Regional Training on Early Language, October 17-26, 2017

Literacy and Numeracy (ELLN) Batch 2

2017 Mabini District Sports Clinic October 8-10, 2017

Two-Day Live Out Capacity Enhancement September 6-7,2017

Training for Teachers : The Joys of Teaching

Troop Leaders Update July 28-30, 2017

Teachers’ Training on Bayanihan Para Sa March 30-31,2017

Karunungan Season 4

Two-Day Academic Enhancement Training of October 13-14,2016

Teachers Teaching MTB-MLE

Council Workshop Seminar on Free Being Me September 30-October 2, 2016

Programs for Adult Leaders

Refresher Course of Literacy Intervention Program September 9, 2016

For Grade III Teachers

3-Day Live-Out Curriculum Enhancement August 26-28,2016

Seminar Workshop for all Grade 3 and 4
Teachers for Elementary, Grade 7-8 Teachers
For Secondary and Grade 11 Teachers Teaching
Science

Division Training Workshop for Teacher-Coaches August 12, 2016

In MTB-MLE

District Roll Out Training on Child Protection June 6-8,2016

Policy Batch 2

Three-Day Live Out Seminar Workshop for May 25-27, 2016

School Coordinator on Basic Computer Installation
And Trouble Shooting, Computer Networking
And Computer Software