1

Chapter 1

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Introduction

This Action Research was undertaken to describe the impact of teacher-made

advance exercises as intervention on disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division

skills in elementary arithmetic operation. The subjects of this study were Grade Two – A

pupils who were constantly disrupting the class during Mathematics period taken from

the list made by the teacher through visual observation.

For the last two grading periods handling a cream class, a lot of repeated

disruptive behaviors such as incessant talking or getting out of their seats to name a few,

which were very taxing to the teacher, were observed. These disruptive behaviors were

mostly due to boredom especially to those pupils who got to finish their seatwork fast.

This called for a classroom management skill.

Hollowell (2013) mentioned in her article that classroom management skills are

essential for all teachers. Supervising a group of children with different personalities and

backgrounds is a challenging task. You are responsible for their academic growth while

ensuring that the learning environment stays welcoming and secure. This includes

dealing with disruptive pupils.

According to Tyson (2013), disruptive students are always present in every

classroom. Regardless of scenario or perhaps how great you happen to be as being a

 2

teacher, in one way or another they will and can be found. All of which will develop

problems provided an open possibility.

But we cannot isolate them from disrupting the whole class. Tyson (2013) further

emphasized that in relation to their presence as well as impact on virtually any class, as a

mentor, they are still your own obligation. Far more, you should apprehend them so as

not to induce further problems.

Stott (2013) cited that the days of pupils writing out pages of lines, or copying

large extracts of text as so-called sanctions or punishments are thankfully long gone. The

concept of ‘using the pupils time’, however, is still with us and with some creative

thinking can be used to reinforce behavioural expectations, while embedding a process of

problem solving.

So, to keep the class from further disruptions without giving any negative vibes to

these pupils with disruptive behavior, the researcher came up on an intervention utilizing

their active energy to their advantage.

Tyson (2013) added that coping with disruptive students is really not hard to do. It

might appear that they are probably the most challenging kinds to socialize with, however

once straightened, the once ex - bothersome types are often an asset in class. If you are

able to cause them to follow you, it's possibly one of the most satisfying durations within

your teaching career.

Thus, the study on the impact of a teacher-made advance exercises as

intervention on disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division skills in elementary

arithmetic operation was undertaken.

 3

Framework of the Study

The use of a teacher-made advance exercises as intervention in dealing disruptive

behavior of pupils when learning division skills in elementary arithmetic operation was

anchored on the theory of constraints of Goldratt (2004) which used the thinking

processes for a win-win conflict resolution.

The pupils in Grade Two – Diamond class under the K to 12 Basic Education

Curriculum belong to the top forty of the 298 grade two pupils of Manolo Fortich Central

Elementary School relative to their Grade One general average. They were most likely to

got bored or restless especially when they finished the given task early with nothing who

while waiting for the others to be through. Their boredom led to incessant talking or

getting out of their seats, thus, disrupting the class.

So, for a win-win solution, the teacher gave advance exercises for these pupils to

answer. They did not only free the class from disruption, they got enriched also through

the teacher-made advance exercises as intervention given by the teacher.

Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram where both a control group and an

experimental group are compared.

The Pretest results of both groups were individually measured prior to the start of

the 3rd Grading Period which focused only on division lessons in elementary arithmetic

operation. After which, the experimental group was given the teacher-made advance

exercises as intervention while the control group was not. A Posttest was then given at

the end of the division lessons. Disruptive behavior of pupils from the experimental

group was recorded on a 14-day period prior to and during the conduct of this research

based on visual observation of the teacher.

 4

Experimental Group Teacher-

Made P
(Pupils with P Advance O
Disruptive Behavior) R Exercises S Impact on
E Intervention T Behavior and
T
T Test
E
Control Group E Performance
S
(Pupils with S
T
Undisruptive T
Behavior)

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram Showing Two Groups of Pupils,

Type of Test Conducted, and Intervention Applied

Figure 1.1 shows the interplay among the independent, dependent, and control

variables. As shown, the independent variables are the teacher-made advance exercises

intervention with the Division Skills Pretest Performance as covariate. The dependent

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Intervention
 Teacher-Made Impact
Advance Exercises  Behavior
Covariate  Division Skills Posttest
 Division Skills Pretest Performance
Performance

CONTROL VARIABLE
Pupil Behavior
 Pupils with Disruptive Behavior
 Pupils with Undisruptive Behavior

Figure 1.1: Schematic Diagram Showing the Interplay

Among Independent, Dependent, and
Control Variables
 5

variables are the impact on disruptive pupil behavior and Division Skills Posttest

Performance. The control variable is the pupil’s behavior which is classified as

disruptive and undisruptive.

Statement of the Problem

This study was aimed at describing the impact of teacher-made advance exercises

as intervention on disruptive behavior of the Grade Two - Diamond pupils of MFCES for

the third grading period, School Year 2013-204, when learning division skills in

elementary arithmetic operation.

More specifically, this study tried to answer the following questions:

1. Was there a decrease of disruptive pupils in class when intervention was used

during Mathematics period?

2. Was there an increase in Division Skills Posttest Performance in the experimental

group as compared to the control group?

Statement of the Hypothesis

Ho1: There was no decrease of disruptive pupils in class when intervention was

used during Mathematics period?

Ho2: There was no increase in Division Skills Posttest Performance in the

experimental group as compared to the control group.

Significance of the Study

The researcher believes that the present study is beneficial to the Grade Two –
 6

Diamond pupils with disruptive behavior since such intervention did not only transform

their unacceptable behavior into an acceptable one, but enriched their skills in division in

elementary arithmetic operation as well.

On the part of the teacher, stress from reprimanding them was not only

minimized, but an increase in their performance in divisionskills was also seen.

Furthermore, the salient findings of this study will be beneficial to the other

teachers handling cream classes and to the entire school as well relative to MTAP

contests.

Delimitation of the Study

The coverage of this study focused on the performance of the Grade Two -

Diamond pupils on the impact of teacher-made advance exercises as intervention on

selected pupils with disruptive behavior when learning division skills in elementary

arithmetic operation during the third grading period of Manolo Fortich Central

Elementary School, Manolo Fortich District 1, Division of Bukidnon, School Year 2013 -

2014.

Pupils in the experimental group were taken from the list observed by the teacher

having disruptive behavior during Mathematics period. Pupils in the control group were

those with undisruptive behaviors. Both groups were given the Pretest and Posttest.

However, pupils in the experimental group were the only subjects for the teacher-made

advance exercises intervention.

A Pretest Posttest Nonequivalent Group Quasi-Experimental Design was used in

this research method (Research Method, 2013).

 7

Pretest and Posttest Questions were also teacher-made based on the Third Quarter

K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum division lessons.

Behavior performance evaluation was done through visual observation of the

teacher on a 14-day period prior to the conduct of this study and during the 14-day

research period.

Definition of Terms

Covariate This is a continuous variable that is not part of the main

experimental manipulation but has an effect on the

dependent variable. The inclusion of covariates increases

the power of the statistical test and removes the bias of

confounding variables.

Disruptive Pupils These pupils are observed to be displaying unacceptable

behaviors like incessant talking or getting out of their seats.

Teacher-Made These exercises are prepared by the teacher based on the

Advance Exercises
third quarter division lessons but with a higher degree of

difficulty.
 8

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of existing available literature as well as related

studies on the use of interventions to pupils with disruptive behavior in class.

Teaching a class with one or several disruptive students is not only a challenge for

the teacher, but also a threat to the well-being of the class. It is imperative that the

behavior be modified in order to create a positive and comfortable classroom

environment where learning can ensue. By implementing a few simple tactics with the

disruptive student, you can address negative behavior and regain control of the classroom

(Platt, 2014). If a pupil finds the work to be easy, he tends to get bored. Diversifying a

lesson plan to include supplementary activities to challenge pupils that find the work to

be easy, and retain activities that support struggling learners is what Platt added.

In the study of Wilson and Lipsey (2007) a positive overall intervention effects

were found on aggressive and disruptive behavior and other relevant outcomes. The most

common and most effective approaches were universal programs and targeted programs

for selected/indicated children. The mean effect sizes for these types of programs

represent a decrease in aggressive/disruptive behavior that is likely to be of practical

significance to schools. Multicomponent comprehensive programs did not show

significant effects and those for special schools or classrooms were marginal. Different

treatment modalities (e.g. behavioral, cognitive, social skills) produced largely similar

effects. Effects were larger for better-implemented programs and those involving

students at higher risk for aggressive behavior.

 9

Disruptive behavior on the classroom may be a result of a classroom with too

much free time (Lynn, 2014). This is true to those pupils who are considered “fast” in

learning the lesson. Lynn further stated that engaging the children mentally through

challenging drills may help the disruptive children stay engaged with the rest of the class.

In Gillispie’s (2005) Action Research Project on the effects of early intervention

on the defiant behavior of students using a social skill curriculum, behaviors improved

during the intervention period however many students reverted to previous behavior

during the time without intervention.

Wille (2002) stated in her study that children with ADHD may be affected by a

variety of distracting, impulsive, and inattentive symptoms. Such disruptive behaviors

may impede the student learning and instructions. Wille further stated that it is

imperative to implement effective classroom interventions to decrease such disruptive

behaviors.
 10

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the essential elements of the research process. Such

components as Research Design, Research Locale, Research Respondents, Sampling

Procedure, Research Instrument, Administration of Research Instrument, and Statistical

Treatment of Data are hereby presented.

Research Design

After a thorough research, a Non-Equivalent Groups Design (NEGD) of a Quasi-

Experimental Design is most fit for a pretest-posttest randomized experiment because the

groups used in this study were not equivalent. It used a pretest and posttest for a treated

and comparison group. The rationale behind the use of this method lies on the intention

of the researcher not just to describe the influence of intervention to disruptive pupils, but

also to determine the same when grouped according to specified variables.

Research Locale

This study was conducted in Grade Two – Diamond class of Manolo Fortich

Central Elementary, Manolo Fortich 1 District, Tankulan, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon,

School Year 2013-2014.

Research Respondents

In this study, the experimental group was composed of eight (8) pupils with
 11

disruptive behavior while the control group was composed of 32 pupils with undisruptive

behavior in class. These respondents were homogeneously grouped into this class before

the start of classes in terms of academic standing in the previous grade.

Sampling Procedure

The pupils in the experimental group were chosen based on their classroom

behavior as recorded by the class adviser on the anecdotal record.

Research Instrument

The teacher-made Pretest-Posttest which consist a 20-item test was used as

research instrument for this study. A table of frequency was prepared for a visual

evaluation of disruptive behavior of pupils in class.

Administration of Research Instrument

The researcher first sought the approval of the school principal and the district in-

charge for the action research proposal. The proposal was then forwarded to the Schools

Division Superintendent of Bukidnon for approval, with the teacher-made instrument and

intervention attached. After the approval of the Schools Division Superintendent, the

researcher then used the same to the respondents in class.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The analysis and interpretation of the gathered data were facilitated through the

use of the following measures:

 12

1. Frequency and percentage was used in determining the extent of disruptive

behavior in class with the experimental group.

2. The mean was used to measure the increase of Pretest and Posttest Performance

for both experimental and control group in elementary arithmetic operation of

division.
 13

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data and graph on the frequency and percentage of

disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division in elementary arithmetic operation

and the comparison of means of both experimental and control groups in Pretest and

Posttest. This also bears the analysis and interpretation done on these data. The

presentation of the data proceeds following the order in the statement of the problem.

Problem 1. Was there a decrease of disruptive pupils in class when intervention

was used during Mathematics period?

Table 1 shows the table of frequency of disruptive behavior manifested by the

experimental group through visual observation of the adviser prior to the conduct of this

study on a 14-day period. Upon checking with the Class School Register (Form 1), it was

noted that on the days that these pupils were undisruptive, they were absent from class.

A 95.54% of disruptive behavior was observed from the experimental group.

Table 1.1 shows the table of frequency of disruptive behavior manifested by the

experimental group through visual observation by the adviser during the 14-day research

period. It was noted that during the first day of the program, class disruption was not

manifested. That was their Pretest Day. Most of the allotted time for Mathematics

period was consumed so they hardly showed any class disruption. During the second

day, which was the first lesson in division skills, Pupils #2 and #6 manifested disruptive
 14

behavior in class. They were able to finish the advance exercise given fast thus leaving

them bored while waiting for their exercises to be checked. Days 3-14 showed no more

disruptions since these two pupils were given the extra assignment of checking their

exercises thus leaving them busy with it until Mathematics period ended. A 1.79% of

disruptive behavior was observed from the experimental group.

Table 1

Frequency and Percentage of Disruptive Behavior of Pupils (Prior)

Percentage
Frequency
Pupils with OCTOBER 2013
Disruptive
Behavior
7 8 9 10 11 14 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25

Pupil #1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 100%
Pupil #2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 100%
Pupil #3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 100%
Pupil #4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 100%
Pupil #5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 100%
Pupil #6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 13 92.86%
Pupil #7 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 85.71%
Pupil #8 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 85.71%
TOTAL 13 16 16 18 19 21 24 25 26 29 30 31 32 32 107 95.54%

Table 1.1

Frequency and Percentage of Disruptive Behavior of Pupils (During)

Frequency

Percentag

Pupils with Day

Disruptive
e

Behavior
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Pupil #1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Pupil #2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.14%
Pupil #3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Pupil #4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Pupil #5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Pupil #6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.14%
Pupil #7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Pupil #8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
TOTAL 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.79%
 15

Graph 1 illustrates the comparison on percentage of observed disruptive behavior

of pupils in the experimental group prior to this research and during the intervention. The

graph clearly shows a big drop on the percentage of disruptive behavior of pupils during

the intervention period.

Graph 1

Comparison on Percentage of Observed Disruptive Behavior

100 95.54
90
80
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10 1.79
0
Prior During

Problem 2: Was there an increase in Division Skills Posttest Performance in the

experimental group as compared to the control group?

Table 2 shows the Pretest and Posttest Means of Experimental and Control

Groups. The Pretest means of both experimental and control groups are found on the

second column. The third column shows the Posttest means of both experimental and

control groups.
 16

Table 2

Pretest and Posttest Means of Experimental and Control Groups

Pretest Mean Posttest Mean

Experimental Group 6.5 17.38
Control Group 4.63 12.94

Graph 2 is displayed for a visual linear presentation of Table 2. In Graph 2, the

red line shows the mean of the experimental group on its Pretest and Posttest. The blue

line depicts the mean of the control group on its Pretest and Posttest. It is evident in the

graph that the experimental group rated higher compared to the control group where no

intervention was given.

Thus, a higher increase in the Posttest of the experimental group was observed as

compared to the control group.

Graph 2

Pretest and Posttest Means of Experimental and Control Groups

20
17.38
18

16

14 12.94

12

Experimental Group 10
Control Group
8 6.5
6 4.63

0
Pretest Posttest
 17

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter recapitulates the salient features of this study in the summary. This

also reveals the findings that surfaced, as well as the conclusions made on the basis of the

findings, and the given recommendations on the basis of the findings and conclusions.

Summary

This study which utilized the Pretest-Posttest Non-Equivalent Groups Design of a

Quasi-Experimental Design intends not just to describe the impact of teacher-made

advance exercises as intervention on disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division

skills in elementary arithmetic operation but also to determine the same when these

pupils were grouped according to specified variable.

Conducted in Grade Two – Diamond Class of Manolo Fortich Central Elementary

School, School Year 2013-2014, eight (8) pupils were assigned to the experimental group

who were noted to have disruptive behavior in class. The remaining 32 pupils whose

behavior was undisruptive were assigned to the control group.

To collect data needed for this study, the teacher-made Pretest-Posttest results of

the experimental and control groups were used. The visual observations of the disruptive

behavior of the experimental group before and during intervention were also used.

The following findings surfaced along the course of this study:

1. With the use of the teacher-made intervention, disruptive behavior of pupils under

the experimental group was hardly noticed. However, after the intervention

period, it was observed that disruptive behavior of such group recurred.

 18

2. The means of both experimental and control groups increased in the Posttest,

however, the mean of the experimental group rated higher compared to the

control group.

Conclusions

On the basis of the findings, the researcher drew the following conclusions:

1. There was a positive impact on the teacher-made advance exercises as

intervention on disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division in elementary

arithmetic operation. Disruptive behavior of pupils in the classroom was

somehow avoided through the use of interventions to fill the gaps after having

finished early on their seatwork in class.

2. A strong positive linear relationship between the experimental and the control

group relative to its Pretest and Posttest means suggests that indeed both groups

learned from the class discussions. However, with the use of advance exercises as

intervention to the experimental group, the increase on the Posttest performance

of the experimental group was higher than the increase on the Posttest

performance of control group based on the result.

Recommendations

On the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the researcher offers the

following recommendations:

1. Teachers should prepare in advance teacher-made exercises or other interventions

that could challenge the fast learners especially in the cream class for those pupils

who tend to get bored easily when they have an idle time in class to minimize if

not eliminate disruptive behavior.

 19

2. Teachers should be prepared with different kinds of intervention which are

appropriate for each subject and to the kind of learner as well.

3. Future researchers are encouraged to undertake another study on the possible

cause of disruptive behavior of pupils making the results of this research as

springboard.

4. More in-depth study may be made on the impact of teacher-made advance

exercises as intervention on disruptive behavior of pupils.

 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WORKS CITED SECTION:

Gillispie, Patricia M. (May 2005). Diverting Disruptive Behavior. Retrieved from

http://www.nefstem.org/project/final_reports/Gillispie.pdf

Goldratt, Eliyahu M. (October 2013). Theory of Constraints. Retrieved from

http://www.toc-goldratt.cn/Theory_of_Constraints/?stay=1

Hollowell, Karen. (October 2013). How to Handle Disruptive Students in the Classroom.
Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/how_2181266_handle-disruptive-students-
classroom.html

Lynn, Diane. (March 2014). Strategies for Controlling Disruptive Behavior in the
Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/list_7677431_strategies-
controlling-disruptive-behavior-classroom.html

Platt, Lauren. (March 2014). How to Prevent Classroom Behaviors. Retrieved from
http://www.ehow.com/how_7844034_prevent-classroom-behaviors.html

Research Method. (October 2013). Retrieved from

http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/quasiexperimentaldesign.html

Stott, Dave. (October 2013). How to React to Disruptive Pupils. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingexpertise.com/e-bulletins/how-react-disruptive-pupils-3873

Tyson, Bennet. (October 2013). Just How to Deal with Disruptive Students Efficiently.
Retrieved from http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/just-how-to-deal-
with-disruptive-students-efficiently-2829004.html

Wille, Jessica R. (August 2002). Reducing Disruptive Classroom Behavior with

Multicomponent Interventon: A Literature Review. Retrieved from
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2002/2002willej.pdf

Wilson, PhD., Sandra Jo and Lipsey, PhD., Mark W. (2007). School-Based

Interventions for Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior: Retrieve from
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/School_Wilson-Lipsey_Article.pdf
21
22