Summary, Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter presents the summary and findings, discuss relevant conclusions, suggest recommendations, in the light of the conclusions drawn from the study.
This study attempted to determine the extent of factors associated with disruptive behavior affecting the school performance of Grade IV and V pupils in Cabanglasan District, school year 2013-2014.
This study employed the descriptive method. The respondent were 43 pupils of Cabanglasan District, Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. The extent of disruptive behavior of the pupils was taken based on the answers in the questionnaire of their teachers. Teachers observation to the respondents during class hours or during classroom instruction were been reflected by answering the said questionnaires. Statistical tools were _____________________.
The instrument was administered personally by the researcher to the teachers that have pupils who were identified by them as having disruptive behavior of grade 4 and grade 5 pupils in Cabanglasan District, school year 2013-2014. Purposive sampling was used on selecting the respondents, picking all the cases that meet the criterion. The teachers answered their questionnaire during vacant time and or anytime that were convenient to them. Other teachers answered their questionnaire at home.
Based on the data gathered the major findings of the study are the following:
- Majority of the respondents are male (39), aged 11 years old and up (27), parents who are elementary graduate of (27) mother with (34) father, having 4-6 in the family (29) and belong to a poor family or families that were beneficiaries of “Pantawid Program” (31).
- All of the respondents identified by their teachers as having a disruptive behavior were subjected to “parents’ intervention” (43) or 100%. Some of them have been subjected once only (16) while the majority has subjected to 2 times and more (27).
- Generally, the extent of factors associated with disruptive behavior in terms of overt inattentiveness, misbehavior and aggressiveness were rated disruptive behavior while persistent tardiness and laziness has rated highly disruptive behavior. The rating of the respondents that are disruptive reconciled to the result that all of the respondents were subjected to “parents’ intervention” not only once but some were twice and even more.
- It was found out that there has no significant difference on the extent of factors associated with disruptive behavior affecting the school performance of pupils in terms of misbehavior, overt inattentiveness, aggressiveness and persistent tardiness & laziness which has a significant difference in terms of gender as demographic profile.
- It was found out that children having disruptive behavior and highly disruptive behavior affects their school performance to the extent of poor rating in overall their grades.
In the light of the findings, the following conclusions emerged:
- There are more male pupils in Cabanglasan District who were on their age of 11 years old and up who are not on their proper age against the grade 4 and grade 5 level whose parents were elementary graduate with enough number of children in the family and majority are poor families. Therefore these children are product of very occupied and busy parents who cannot give enough support financially, emotionally to their children especially towards school programs and activities.
- The greater the grade 4 and grade 5 pupils are exposed to disruptive behavior in terms of overt inattentiveness, misbehavior, aggressiveness and highly disruptive behavior on persistent tardiness and laziness during classroom instructions, the greater the chances for them to be affected in their school performance.
- “Parents intervention” is the right move for the teachers to do but not just end that way. Teachers / school administrators and parents must set down to talk about existing behavior of the pupils especially to persistent tardiness and laziness which rated highly disruptive.
- Grade IV and V pupils were affected when there are disruptive behavior that occurred such as overt inattentiveness, misbehavior, aggressiveness, and persistent tardiness and laziness. Such interruptions, not along the respondent or the one who made disruptions were affected but all the individual found in the class.
- Parents’ intervention among pupils cannot guarantee that disruptive behavior will be minimized in the class unless there has something to introduce to educate the parents of what is “parenthood”.
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are presented:
- Dep-Ed authorities like school administrator, teachers, and staff should maximize their capacity and initiative to tap stakeholders support like parents to work hand in hand in the improvements and giving/formulating interventions for the pupils having disruptive behavior to learn more virtues, skills and uplift the pupils’ attitude and interests.
- Dep-Ed officials and stakeholders such as Parents Teachers Associations, must design a program/project as a sort of alternatives/ options for the pupils such that parents are an essential part of treatment for their child’s disruptive behavior disorder. The most effective interventions seen are “parent-based.” Stakeholders such as Barangay Officials and PTA will work for this by promoting seminars that can educate the parents who are majority elementary graduate. This will be realized as early as possible when Dep-Ed will tap its activites during “Pantawid Program’ meetings or gathering which usually done not less than one in a month in their respective barangays.Through educating them that would let them enlightened their responsibilities as parents and able to understand about the behavior of their children and to make alternatives to improve it.
- Dep-Ed communities of stakeholders must work collectively to plan in service trainings for teachers as well as school administrators on matters pertaining to minimizing or even control the disruptive behavior of children by improving their school facilities and some other priorities for the childrens’ welfare and be good citizen in the future. A sort of a program or organizations that parents and children will interact with the cooperation/guidance of Dep-Ed personnel.
- Diane L. Smallwood and Evangeline Kern “Defusing Violent Behavior in Schools” Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
2. Chris D. Erickson, Ph.D. and Monica M. Megivern, Ed.D. A study “COMPARING TREATMENTS FOR AGGRESSION AMONG CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE” at George Washington University,
3. Department of Counseling/Human and Organizational Studies,Washington, DC.
4. Chris D. Erickson, Ph.D. and Monica M. Megivern, Ed.D. at George Washington University, Department of Counseling/Human and Organizational Studies,Washington, DC.
5. William H. Blahd, Jr., MD, FACEP – Emergency Medicine & H. Michael O’Connor, MD – Emergency Medicine
- Barton, P.E.,Coley, R.J., & Wenglinsky,H. (1998). Order in the Classroom: Violence, Discipline and Student Achievement. Policy Information Center: Research Division. University of the philippines
- Brannon, D. (2008). Character Education: It’s a Joint Responsibility. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(2), 62-65. Retrieved from ERIC: 2816294
- Brimi, H. (2009). Academic Instructors or Moral Guides? Moral Education in America and the Teacher’s Dilemma. Clearing House, 82(3), 125-130. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete: 35608363
- Bryan, L. (2005). Once Upon a Time: A Grimm Approach to Character Education. Journal of Social Studies Research, 29(1), 3-6. Retrieved from ERIC 161376614
- Butler-Banks, C. (2010, February 4,). PRIDE in school and self: Waterloo Middle School uses character education to improve academics. New York Teacher, LI(9), 18-
- Bulach, C. (2002). Implementing a Character Education Curriculum and Assessing Its Impact on Student Behavior. Clearing House, 76(2), 79. Retrieved from ERIC:9270870
- Tubigon, E. (2013) Looking at Filipino pre-service teacher’s value for education and Childrens’ Character. The Asia- Pacific Education Researcher.
- Fernandez, R. (2003) Why Kids Disrupt? “Health and Home Philippines”
- Kim-Cohen J; Caspi A; Moffitt TE; Harrington HL; Milne BJ; Poulton
R (2006): What are the “warning signs” for violent behavior in children?