Stressors Among Senior High School Teachers at Lamao National High

Running Head: STRESSORS AMONG SHS TEACHERS 1
Stressors among Senior High School Teachers at Lamao National High School:
Basis for School Based Stress Management Program
Amelyn R. Zulueta
Lamao National High School
Limay District
Schools Division of Bataan
(August, 2017)
SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BATAAN

STRESSORS AMONG SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS 2
Table of Contents
Title Page ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Rationale and Review of Related Literature ................................................................................... 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4
Relevant Theory ........................................................................................................................ 5
Related Literature and Studies .................................................................................................. 7
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 11
Hypothesis .............................................................................................................................. 12
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 13
Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................ 13
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Type of Research .................................................................................................................... 15
Respondents and Sampling Method ....................................................................................... 15
Instruments.............................................................................................................................. 16
Data Collection Procedure ...................................................................................................... 17
Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................ 18
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 18
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data ........................................................................ 19
Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation ........................................................... 56
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 56
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 60
Recommendation .................................................................................................................... 60
References ..................................................................................................................................... 62

Work Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Cost Estimates............................................................................................................................... 66
Plan for Dissemination and Utilization ......................................................................................... 67
Appendix A- Instruments ........................................................................................................ 68
Appendix B – Consent and Assent Letter ............................................................................... 71
Appendix C – Declaration of Anti-plagiarism ........................................................................ 72
Appendix D - Declaration of Absence of Conflict of Interest ................................................ 73

Rationale and Review of Related Literature
Introduction
Teachers are the essential aspect in the success of any educational process. They
serve in the frontline of the education implementation of any education curriculum. Thus,
empowerment of them would possibly add to the achievement and success of the
educational system. Likewise, their unproductivity has ominous implications for the future
quality of education. It can be explained that if teachers perceived themselves to be
overstressed and unprepared to meet the current expectations and challenge, then it
becomes more difficult to implement the curriculum that aims to develop learners to be
part of an epistemic and global competitive community.
Stress is a part and parcel of life. Nobody is isolated to stress. It is a very complex
mater, this was perceived as imbalance in the interface between an individual, the
environment and other individuals. Accordingly, it is defined as a specific response by the
body to a stimulus as fear or pain that disturbs or interferes with the normal physiological
equilibrium of an organism.
It is acknowledged that stress became a general element of everyday life of teacher.
Allen (2002), claimed that stress is a feeling of experience when somebody loses
confidence and capability to cope with a certain problematic situation. Researches attests
that men suffer from different kinds of stress. And this, according to Internal Labor
Organization, has emerged as one of the most serious health issue of the 21st century.
Furthermore, it makes people vulnerable to many disease. Thus, these are manifested
though negative sort of emotion like frustration, anger, depression, anxiety, and
nervousness and unproductivity.

Documentation manifested that Senior High School (SHS) teachers of Lamao
National High School – Senior High School, are suffering from stress. This is manifested
through the poor 2017 school performance reflected on the number of failures. From this
point, the researcher deemed necessary to explore on the stressors among SHS teachers.
Therefore, this study will investigate on the factors that causing the teachers stress. Further,
to come up with a school based stress management plan for teachers.
Relevant Theory
The theory considered on this study is Lazarus (1984)’ Psychological Stress
Theory. The central concepts of the theory are appraisal and coping. Appraisal is an
individual evaluation of the significance of what is happening for the ones well-being while
the latter is coping which the individuals’ efforts is in thought and action to manage specific
demands. According to this theory, stress is regarded as a relational concept. Thus, it
claimed that it is not related to the kind of external stimulation nor a specific pattern of
physiological, behavioral, or subjective reactions. Instead, stress is viewed as a relationship
or transaction between individuals and their environment. And so, it refers to a relationship
with the environment that the person appraises as significant for his or her well-being and
in which the demands tax or exceed available coping resources. This definition points to
two processes as central mediators and cognitive appraisal and coping. The first concept
deals within the person and environment transaction and the latter about appraisal and
coping.
This theory distinguishes two (2) basic forms of appraisal, primary and secondary
appraisal. These forms rely on different sources of information. Primary appraisal concerns
whether something of relevance to the individual's well-being occurs, whereas secondary

appraisal concerns coping options. Within primary appraisal, three components are
distinguished: goal relevance describes the extent to which an encounter refers to issues
about which the person cares. Goal congruence defines the extent to which an episode
proceeds in accordance with personal goals. Type of ego-involvement designates aspects
of personal commitment such as self- esteem, moral values, ego-ideal, or ego-identity.
Likewise, three secondary appraisal components are distinguished as blame or credit
results from an individual's appraisal of who is responsible for a certain event. By coping
potential, Lazarus means that a person's evaluation of the prospects for generating certain
behavioral or cognitive operations that will positively influence a personally relevant
encounter.
Accordingly, there are three kinds of stress. These are harm, threat, and challenge.
It is explained that harm refers to the damage or loss that has already happened. On the
other hand, threat is the anticipation of harm that may be imminent. And lastly is challenge.
This results from demands that a person feels confident about mastering. These different
kinds of psychological stress are embedded in specific types of emotional reactions, thus
illustrating the close conjunction of the fields of stress and emotions. According to Lazarus,
there are fifteen (15) basic emotions distinguishes. These are anger, fright, anxiety, guilt,
shame, sadness, envy, jealousy, and disgust which are known as negative and happiness,
pride, relief, and love, known as positive.
Coping as a form of stress, is intimately related to the concept of cognitive appraisal
and, hence, to the stress-relevant and person-environment transactions. Moreover, it is a
cognitive and behavioral efforts made to master, tolerate, or reduce external and internal
demands and conflicts. This implicates to that coping actions are not classified according

to their effects however according to certain characteristics of the coping process.
Furthermore, this process encompasses behavioral as well as cognitive reactions in the
individual. And in most cases, coping consists of different single acts and is organized
sequentially, forming a coping episode. In this sense, it is characterized by the simultaneous
occurrence of different action sequences and, hence, an interconnection of coping episodes.
In addition it can be distinguished by their focus on different elements of a stressful
encounter. They can attempt to change the person–environment realities behind negative
emotions or stress.
Lazarus’ Psychological Theory is considered because it explains on the
psychological realm on what is the source of stress, causes of stress and the how to lessen
or overcome stress. Because the setting of the research is a workplace, it clearly discussed
the possible emotional source of stress and the effects of it. Therefore,, with the following
justifications, this research is anchored.
Related Literature and Studies
Cyclopedia Medical Dictionary defined stress as any physical, psychological or
psychological force that disturbs equilibrium. Likewise, Tabers (2009), described it as
physical science, and physiological aspect. He further elaborated that in physical science,
this includes agents that upset homeostasis, such as infection, injury, disease internal organ
pressures or psychic strain. While the latter stated that stress included perceptions,
emotions, anxieties, and interpersonal, social, or economic events that were considered
threatening to one’s physical health, personal safety or well-being.
According to Kaur (2011), stress is considered as an involuntary response to a
dangerous situation. Working with national curriculum, teacher appraisal, lack of authority

and sanctions for disciplining students, threats of school closure, media portrayal of
teachers and inability to reconcile different roles i.e. of teacher, guide, counselor and social
worker, conflict at home and work, attack on pride by rude pupils, financial pressures, and
declining status in the community.
Based from Sawney’ (2008) study, stress tends to affect more the male species than
the females. He firmly believes that men seem to be more stress prone. They are likely to
get things that add to stress like alcoholism or smoking. Women on the other hand are
better equipped to deal with emotional issues. They are more apt to do so.
Furthermore, they undergo a lot more stress of another kind as they have to
constantly prove they are as good as their male peers. On the other hand, female teachers
averaged thirteen (13) percent more workload stress and eight (8) more classroom stress
than male teachers (Klassen & Chiu, 2010).
However, according to Joshi (2007), it is not all the case. He said that men handle
stress equally as women. However, it was explained that whoever has a mind that is not
within control will have stress. And only areas of stress will differ. Curtaz’s (2009) study,
concluded that teachers do feel stress and symptoms of burnout for many reasons.
Likewise, felt the effects and symptoms of burnout during one or more times in their
careers. Hence, it is expressed that negative impact on lives because of the demands of
their jobs.
According to Agai-Demjaha et al (2015), findings confirmed that within the control
category, the highest levels of perceived teacher’s work-related stress were caused by
changes in terms and conditions without consultation and given responsibility without the

authority to take decisions, while in the category support, the same was true for stress
factors lack of funds/resources to do the job and limited or no access to training.
According to Bousted’s (2013) study, revealed that seventy-six (76) percent of
teachers believe that workplace stress is making them ill, with fifty-six (56) percent
believing they would do a better job if they were less stressed. Those with more experience,
namely those in the eleven (11) to fifteen (15) years teaching group, were more stressed
than those in the zero (0) to five (5) years and the six (6) to ten (10) years categories
(Bolton, 2015). According to Obrien (2014), carried out by the ICTU, it was discovered
that little had changed and exposure to stress was still considered the main workplace
health and safety risk as indicated by fifty-three (53) of EU workers.
Fitzgerald’s (2008) study exposed that the common outcomes of stress in teachers
included feeling tired, demotivated, feeling under straining and a lack of confidence.
Lawver and Smith (2015) study, found in the USA that there were no significant
correlations between gender and coping techniques. With its effect, Stress Management
Society (2015), reported that not only does it keep the heart healthy but also it helps to
deplete stress hormones and release mood-enhancing chemicals, which in turn help us to
cope with stress
Mazzola, Schonfeld, and Spector (2011), highlighted the lack of information on the
frequency at which a teacher experienced stress therefore the author felt it was pivotal to
include it in this study. According to McCormick, and Barnett (2011) that teacher’s
specific sources of stress which were outline in much of the previous Irish and international
research including the student, personal and school domains as discussed.

Conceptual Framework
The framework of the research study is illustrated in the research paradigm shown
in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Research Paradigm
The figure showed the process and flow of the study. It displayed the variables, the
process and the output of the study. As the first box indicated, it contained the input data
of the research. Thus, these were the respondents’ demographic profile, work related stress
and effects of stress.
Under input, respondents’ profile was shown. It contained age, sex, civil status,
years of teaching, position held, educational attainment, previous work, specialization and
subject teaching. Under the work related stress, it encloses facilities and equipment,
teaching related stress, teacher-school head relationship, and teachers’ interpersonal
relationship. For effects of stress, these are physical, behavioral and emotional condition.
The second box is the process. These were questionnaire, interview and
documentary analysis. Thus, this contained the instruments used in the study as well as the

process on which the aforementioned tool undergone. Furthermore, the interview guide
that was utilized to verify the data gathered and documentary analysis.
The last box contains the output of the study that is the school-based stress
management program. Hence, it is the product and implication of the data gathered as well
as the information gathered through the research process. The abovementioned program
served as the proposed platform for stress management effort.
Research Questions
This study determined and investigated on the stressors among SHS teachers of
Lamao National High School. Thus, this served as basis towards an input for a stress
management program model for the aforementioned group to lessen or to control stress
factors among them.
Furthermore, it sought also to answer the following questions:
1. How respondents profile be described in term of:
1.1. age;
1.2. sex;
1.3. marital status;
1.4. position;
1.5. years in teaching;
1.6 educational attainment;
1.7. field of specialization;
1.8. previous work;
1.10.number of teaching load; and,

1.11.number of preparation?
2. What are the work-related stressors of the Senior High School teacher-respondents be
described as to:
2.1. facilities and equipment;
2.2. teaching related issues;
2.3. teacher-school head relationship;
2.4. teacher-student relationship; and
2.5. teachers’ interpersonal relationship?
3. How are the work- related stressors affect the Senior High School teacher-
respondents in terms of their
3.1. physical;
3.2. behavioral; and
3.3. emotional conditions?
4. Is there significant difference between the stressors and effects of stress to the Senior
High School teachers when grouped according to profile?
5. What management program can be proposed to minimize work-related stressors among
Senior High School teacher-respondents?
Hypothesis
There is no significant difference in the stressors and effects of stress to the Senior
High School teachers when grouped according to profile.

Significance of the Study
The study investigated on the factors contributing the stress of SHS teachers.
Likewise, it analyzed its causes to come up with appropriate school based stress
management program for the projected respondents.
Thus, the results and recommendations may be beneficial to the following groups.
Teachers. Findings of this study may help the teachers to identify work related
stressors and to cope with stressors in order for them to be effective and efficient to their
workplace.
Students. The present study is a student-centered research though it about the
teachers. Though this, students may benefited through the stress management program that
the study proposes. Hence, once teachers manages the causes and effects of their stress,
they may be productive to their work. Moreover, teachers may have better outlook of life
that might affect students’ lives.
School Administrators. The study may provide a clear background of the
occupational stress of the teacher in order to help them through school based management
program fostering coping styles with stressful situations in fulfilling their duties and
responsibilities.
Future Researchers. Findings of the study may provide data for the future
researchers on the existing problems and difficulties of SHS teachers. Findings may guide
them in the formulation future studies related to this research.
Scope and Limitations
This study identifies the stressors among SHS teachers of Lamao National High
School. Thus, this analyzes the stressors as basis for stress management program. The

research locale for this study is Lamao National High School. Accordingly, a school was
an ideal research setting or venue for an educational research (Garcia, Nuevo, & Sapa,
2007). This secondary public school is located at Barangay Lamao in the town of Limay
and the province of Bataan. As an integrated school, it caters both Junior and Senior High
School students from grade seven (7) to grade twelve (12).
The population of the study were the faculty members of Lamao SHS of the school.
It covered twenty-seven (27) teachers across academic disciplines. Because the study has
a manageable sample population, the researcher did not use any sampling method to
designate class size. Thus, all of the faculty members were considered participants of the
study.
The study was a descriptive research; thus, utilized descriptive normative survey
design of research. In general, it described the stressors among SHS teachers of Lamao
National High School descriptive. Further, it explored on respondents’ profile in terms of
age, sex, civil status, years in teaching, position held, educational attainment,
specialization, and subjects teaching.
For the respondents’ data, confidentiality was ensured to assure their anonymity.
Thus, for the statistical representation of respondents’ information, the researcher
designated alphabetical letters as variables instead of their names. Moreover, these are
treated statistically using mean, frequency, and percentage. In identifying the significant
difference of the variables, T-test will be employed. Furthermore, for analyzing the
difference of the various variables proposed in the research, analysis of variance will be
employed.

Method
Type of Research
This study is descriptive research. According to Aquino (1974), the process of
descriptive research goes beyond mere gathering and tabulation of data. Furthermore, it
involves the element or interpretation of the meaning or significance of what is describe.
Moreover, according to Manuel and Medel (1976), this focuses on the prevailing
conditions, or how a person, group or thing behaves or functions in the present.
In particular, as a descriptive research, it will utilize descriptive-survey method as
its research design. According to Calderon and Gonzales (2005), survey or normative
survey, is a fact-finding study with adequate and accurate interpretation. They also added,
it is used to collect demographic data about people’s behavior, practices, intentions, beliefs,
attitudes, opinions, judgments, interests, perceptions, and the like and then such data are
analyzed, organized and interpreted. In general, with this research type, it will determine
and describe the stressors among SHS faculty members and come up with a stress program
formulation.
Respondents and Sampling Method
The research subjects will be the LNHS faculty members specifically the SHS
teacher during the school year 2017-2018, 1st semester. Table I shows the charts
respondents of the study.
Table I
Respondents of the Study

As the table showed, Lamao Senior High School teachers were considered as the
respondents of the study. These teachers were currently employed regardless of their
position and status of employment. Hence, the group has the total number of twenty-seven
(27). Thus, this sample size is taken from the current employment status of Lamao National
High School. Because the number of projected participants was manageable, it was decided
that one hundred (100) percent of the population was considered as the total class size.
As it is indicated, there were thirteen (13) male respondents. This means that 48.15
percent of the respondents were male. On the same manner, the female respondents were
fourteen (14). This also means that 51.85 of the respondents is female.
Instruments
The research instruments used in this study as well as the instrument’s scale is a
teacher-made based from the cited literatures. Thus, the survey questionnaire has the
objective of gathering the data needed. After the initial draft of the questionnaire were
prepared, the researcher sought suggestions from experts. Therefore, different individuals
were consulted to examine and evaluate the instrument. On the basis of the evaluation,
modifications were accomplished to suit to the intended respondents of the study.
The survey questionnaire was composed of three (3) major categories. These were
respondents’ profile, stressors and effects of stressors. Directions were clearly explained
and defined to ease the participants. The first part of the instrument was about the profile
of the respondents. Hence, information like age, sex, civil status and position will be asked.
Further, information like years in teaching, educational attainment, years in teaching,
previous work and specialization were also indicated. For the last part, subject teaching for
the 1st semester was asked.

For the second phase of the questionnaire, it was about the contributors of stress.
Thus, this was divided into five categories: facilities and equipment, teaching related
issues, teacher-school head relationship, teacher-student relationship and teacher
interpersonal relationship. To determine the data, five (5) questions were allotted per each
category. Thus, these were on the basis of the related literature consulted.
The last phase of the survey questionnaire dealt on the effects of stressors to the
respondents. Hence, this was divided into three (3) major stressors’ effect. These were
physical related effect, behavioral related effect and the emotional condition effect.
Likewise, five (5) questions were allotted on each division of stressors’ effects.
Data Collection Procedure
In gathering data needed, the researcher utilized questionnaire, interview, and
documentary analysis. Questionnaires were distributed after pertinent documents in
permitting the study was received. This was done through letter of request addressed the
school head with attached sample questionnaires. The researcher personally administered
and retrieved the questionnaires. In the cases of unretrieved questionnaires, the researcher
refloated the instrument.
To ensure the reliability of the data, the researcher made use of random interviews
and observations to compliment with data. Interviews recorded the information to help in
ensuring the accuracy of the principal responses and subsequent transcriptions.
Furthermore, its items formed parallel to the survey items to get a deeper understanding on
the sources of stressors. In same manner, relevant documents deemed to be helpful in the
interpretation of data were accessed through proper coordination with school authority.

Ethical Considerations
All pertinent documents related to the study were secured. Communication letter
for conducting the study to the school head, considered. After the construction of the
instrument, face and content validation of the instrument followed. This was done through
the help of experts. Animosity of the respondents were held as well as with the data they
provided for the study.
Data Analysis
The collected data were tabulated to facilitate analysis. Simple percentage,
frequency, and mean counts will be used. Furthermore, sample T-test was employed to
identify the difference. Thus, this test is used to identify the significant difference of the
involved variables. In rating and interpreting the collected data, the researcher used
Juliano’s (2013) scale.
Stressors’ scale will be as follows:
Legend Index of Limits Verbal Description Rate of Occurrence

1 4.22 – 5.00 Not Stressful 0-20%
2 3.42 – 4.21 Slightly Stressful 21-40%
3 2.62 – 3.41 Stressful 41-60%
4 1.81 – 2.61 Seriously Stressful 61-80%
5 1.00 – 1.80 Most Seriously Stressful 81-100%
On the other hand, for work-related stressors, scale is as follows:
Legend Index of Limits Verbal Description Rate of Level

1 4.22 – 5.00 Not Affected 0-20%
2 3.42 – 4.21 Slightly Affected 21-40%
3 2.62 – 3.41 Affected 41-60%
4 1.81 – 2.61 Seriously Affected 61-80%
5 1.00 – 1.80 Most Seriously Affected 81-100%

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data relevant
to the study. It presents, analyzes and interprets the essential data gathered in reference to
the problems of this research. For clear presentation of findings, this chapter is divided into
four (4) subparts in line with the stated problem on Chapter I.
Part I defines the profile of the respondents defining the age, sex, marital status,
position, years in teaching, educational attainment, specialization, previous work, number
of preparation, and number of teaching load.
Part II describes the stressors according to facilities and equipment stressors,
stressor in line with teaching related issues, teacher and school head relationship, teacher
and students relationship stressors, and teacher interpersonal relationship stressor.
Part III analyzes the effect of stressors according to physical effect, behavioral
condition effect and emotional effect.
Part IV scrutinizes the comparison between the stressor and its effect.
Part V deals with the development of stress management program.
The successive arrangement of the questions raised are considered in presenting, analyzing
and interpreting information to arrive in consistency for better comprehension.
Part I. Respondents Profile
The Table II indicates the profile of the respondent. Thus, it is describe through
age, sex, marital status, position, years in teaching, educational attainment, specialization,
previous work, number of preparation, and number of teaching load.

Table II
Profile of the Respondents

As the table showed, the profile of the respondents was defined. Thus, data was
categorized into age, sex, marital status, position, years in teaching, educational attainment,
specialization, previous work, number of preparation and number of teaching load. To
discuss further, the research population was composed of twenty-seven (27) respondents.
These were the faculty members of Lamao National High School – Senior High School.
For the age, it was divided into six (6) age bracket. The age bracket of “26 – 30”
and “21 – 25”, there were seven (7) or 25.9 percent of the total population. This was
considered the highest frequency which can be inferred that majority of the respondents
was young. It was followed by the age bracket of “31 – 35” that has the total frequency of
six (6) or 22.2 percent.
For the age bracket of “36 – 40”, there were 5 respondents or 18.5 percent of the
total population. For the age bracket of “41 – 45” and “46 – 50”, there was one (1)
respondent respectively. This constituted of 3.7 percent of the total population. It has the
total mean of 4.41. Thus, these age bracket constituted the minority of the respondents.
Classification of respondents according to sex, it was divided into two (2)
classifications. Thus, it was whether the respondent is female or male. It was expressed in
the table that there were fourteen (14) female respondents in the research. This constituted
the fifty-two (52) percent of the total population of the study. On the other hand, there were
thirteen (13) or forty-eight (48) percent male respondents. It has the total mean of 1.48.
Hence, it can be inferred that the population was dominated by the female respondents.
Under the marital status, it was designated whether the respondents were single,
married or divorced. But because there was no divorced respondents, the figure did not
appear to the table. As it was tabulated, there were ten (10) respondents who were single.

This established the thirty-seven (37) percent of the total population. On the other hand,
there were seventeen (17) respondents who are married. This was sixty-three (63) percent
of the total population. It has the total mean of 1.63. It could be concluded that majority of
the respondents were married.
For the position of the respondents, the table showed five (5) position categories.
As it was expressed, there was only one (1) or four (4) percent of respondent who was a
“master teacher” and “temporary teacher II” respectively. With this, it could be inferred
that these classifications were considered as the minority.
On the other hand, there were four (4) or fifteen (15) percent who are “teacher III”.
Furthermore, there were seven (7) or twenty-six (26) percent who were “temporary teacher
II”. Lastly, it was also shown in the table that there were fourteen (14) of the respondents
were “teacher II”. It has the total mean of 3.11. It was inferred that “teacher II” class
dominated the total number of the respondents.
The respondents’ years in teaching is divided into six (6) class. Majority of the
respondents’ years in teaching was on the bracket of “1 year to 3 years” of teaching
experience. This was calculated in the percentage of 37.04. It was followed by “7 years to
9 years” which has the frequency of seven (7) or 25.93 percent. For the bracket teaching
year of “10 years to 12 years”, there were five (5) or 18.52 percent.
On the other hand for the “4 years to 6 years” bracket, there were three (3)
respondents or 11.11 percent. However, for both “13 years to 15 years” and “16 years to
18 years”, there was one (1) or 3.70 percent. It has the total mean of 3.26. It could be
inferred that it was dominated by respondents who were just new to the teaching profession.

In the educational attainment, it was divided into four (4) class. As shown in the
table, there was one (1) or 3.70 percent of respondents with “Doctorate units”. Likewise,
there were three (3) or 11.1 percent who are “masters graduate”. Then, there were eleven
(11) or 40.7 percent of respondents who were currently earning their “Masters Degree”.
Lastly, there were twelve (12) or 44.4 percent who were “bachelor degree holders”. It has
the total mean of 2.52. Data provided that majority of the respondents were “Bachelors
Degree holders”.
Data provided also in the category of specialization that there were nine (9) area of
concentration. Hence, majority of the respondents were equip in teaching “English”. Thus,
this was eight (7) or 26 percent of the total population. On the other hand, for both
“Mathematics” and “Engineering”, there were four (4) or 14.8 percent.
Further, “Filipino” and “Science”, there were three (3) or 11.1 percent. Moreover,
in “Industrial Education” and “Social Sciences”, there were two (2) or 7.4 percent
respectively. Lastly, for “Information Technology” and “Business”, there was one (1) or
3.7 percent of the total population. It has the total mean of 3.52. It can be said that majority
of the respondents were English teachers.
Under previous work, it was divided into two (3) class. These were work
experiences before employment. Thus, these were Industry, teaching and no work
experience. As it is expressed in the table that both Industry and Teaching have an equal
data. Thus, there were thirteen (13) or 48.1 percent of the total population.
However, under none, there was 1 or 3.7 percent of the total population. It has the
total mean of 3.26. It can inferred that majority of the respondents were either working in
the industry or in teaching related jobs before employment.

For the number of preparation, it was divided into three class. These were one (1),
two (2) and three (3) subject preparation. It was shown that majority of the respondents
were teaching two (2) different subjects. This were twenty-two (22) or 81.5 percent of the
total population. For one (1) preparation, there was one (1) respondent. This was 3.7
percent of the total population. For three (3) subject preparation, there were four (4) or 14.8
percent. It has the total mean of 2.11. And so, majority of the respondents were teaching
under two (2) subject preparation.
For number of teaching load, there were fourteen (14) or 51.90 percent, who have
the teaching load of 21 to 25. On the other hand, under 26 – 30, there were thirteen (13) or
48.10 percent of the total population. It has the total mean of 3.48. It could be inferred that
majority of the respondents were not over loaded as prescribed. It has the mean of 3.48.
Part II. Stressors
The following tables discuss the stressors related to the respondents. Thus, these
are divided into five descriptions of stressors. These are Facilities and Equipment stressors,
Teaching Related Issues Stressors, Teacher-School Head Relationship Stressor, Teacher-
Student Stressor and Teacher Interpersonal Relationship Stressor. Form these categories
different description level of stress are rated.
A. Facilities and Equipment Stressors.
The Table III shows the facilities and equipment stressors as perceived by the
respondents. Thus, this is identified through availability of space for educational affairs,
laboratories and shops for training, location of the workplace, teaching in the classroom
and functionability of the rooms for special needs. In the same manner, this is qualify

through the remarks of most seriously stressful, seriously stressful, stressful, slightly
stressful and not stressful. Furthermore, frequency, percentage and mean are indicated.
Table III
Facilities and Equipment Stressors
As it was indicated in the table, “Availability of the Space for Educational Affair”,
the description, “Most Seriously Stressful” has two (2) or 7.41 percent. “Seriously
Stressful” has six (6) or 22.22 percent. “Slightly Stressful” has four (4) or 14.81 percent.
Moreover, “Stressful” has eleven (11) or 40.74 percent and “Not Stressful” has four (4) or
14.81 percent. This has the total mean of 3.07 which is descriptively remarked as
“stressful”. Hence, it could be inferred that the first stressor was stressing the respondents
with the occurrence rate of 41 to 60 percent.

Secondly, in the stressor – “Laboratories and Shops for Training”, “Most Seriously
Stressful” has the frequency of four (4) or 14.81 percent. Furthermore, “Slightly Stressful”
has six (6) or 22.22 percent; however, “Stressful” has three (3) or 11.11 percent. For
“Seriously Stressful”, it has ten (10) or thirty-seven (37) percent but for “Not Stressful”, it
has four (4) or 14.81 percent. This has the total mean of 2.85 that is descriptively remark
as stressful with the occurrence rate of 41 to 60 percent. It could be inferred that the second
stressor was stressing the respondents.
Thirdly, in the stressor - “Location of the Workplace”, “Most Seriously Stressful”
has three (3) or 11.1 percent but for “Slightly Stressful”, it has five (5) or 18.5 percent.
“Stressful” has four (4) or 14.8 percent while “Seriously Stressful” has the total frequency
of nine (9) or 33.33 percent. For not “Stressful”, it has six (6) or 22.22 percent. Thus,
“Location of the Workplace” has the total mean of 3.07 that is descriptively marked as
stressful with the occurrence rate of 41 – 60 percent. It could be inferred from the table that
respondents were slightly stressed by the location of the workplace.
Fourthly, in stressor – “Teaching in the Classroom”, “Most Seriously Stressful” has
the frequency of one (1) or 3.70 percent. For “Seriously Stressful”, it was marked by three
(3) or 11.11 percent while “Stressful” has nine (9) or 33.33 percent. In the remark, “Slightly
Stressful”, it has eight (8) has 29.63 percent while “Not stressful” has six (6) or 22.22
percent. This stressor has the mean of 3.58 that has the mark of slightly stressful with the
occurrence rate of 21 – 40 percent. It could be inferred through the data, teaching in the
classroom was slightly stressful to the respondents.
Lastly, in the stressor – “Functionability of Rooms for Special Needs”, “Most
Seriously Stressful” has the frequency of two (2) or 7.41 percent. “Seriously Stressful” has

5 or 18.5 percent while “Slightly Stressful” has two (2) or 7.41 percent. “Stressful” has
thirteen (13) or 48.15 percent while “Not Stressful” has five (5) or 18.52 percent. This
stressor has the mean of 3.11 that was marked as stressful with rate of occurrence of 41 to
60 percent. It could be inferred that functionability of rooms for special needs was stressing
the respondents.
B. Teaching Related Issues
The Table IV shows the stressor - teaching related issues.
Table IV
Teaching Related Issues
This identified whether the respondents were stressed through their teaching. These
were recognized through number of teaching load, teaching subjects not related to field of

specialization, availability of teaching material, number of teaching hour and teaching
academically challenged students.
In the same manner, stressor was described through the remarks of most seriously
stressful for the respondents who are really stressed by teaching, seriously stressful for
respondents who were not so seriously stressed with their teaching, stressful for
respondents who are stressed, slightly stressful for respondents who were moderately stress
and not stressful for respondents who were not affected by the description given.
Furthermore, frequency, percentage and mean were indicated. These were elaborated by
the second to fifth column. The total frequency for this stressor was twenty-seven that
parallel to the total number of respondents.
First, in the “Number of Teaching Load”, “Most Seriously Stressful” was two (2)
or 7.41 percent while “Seriously Stressful” was six (6) which 22.22 percent. “Stressful”
has four or 14.81 percent, ‘Not Stressful” was seven (7) or 25.93 percent and “Slightly
Stressful” was eight (8) or 29.63 percent. The calculated mean for this stressor was 3.44
that was marked as slightly stressful with the occurrence rate of 21 – 40 percent. It could
be inferred that majority of the respondents perceived number of teaching load as slightly
stressful.
Second, in the “Teaching Subject not Related to Field of Specialization”, “Most
Seriously Stressful” has three (3) or 11.11 percent while both “Seriously Stressful”,
Slightly Stressful” and “Not Stressful” have five (5) or 18.53 percent. Lastly, “Stressful”
was nine (9) or 33.33 percent; thus, this constituted the number of response which making
it as the majority. And so, teaching subject not related to the field of specialization was

perceived by respondents as stressful. This has the calculated mean of 3.15 with the
remarks of stressful and rate of occurrence of 41 – 60 percent.
Third, in the “Availability of Teaching Materials”, “Most Seriously Stressful” and
“Not Stressful” have three (3) or 11.11 percent. “Seriously Stressful” and “Slightly
Stressful” have the calculated frequency of five (5) or 18.52. Lastly, “Stressful” has eleven
(11) or 40.74 percent. This constituted the number of response making it as the majority of
the answer. And so. For availability of teaching materials, it was perceived by the
respondents as stressful; thus, having a calculated mean of 3.00 that was marked as stressful
with the rate of occurrence of 41 – 60 percent.
Fourth, “Number of Teaching Hour”, “Most Seriously Stressful” has two (2) or
7.41 percent while “Seriously Stressful” has five (5) or 18.52 percent. “Slightly Stressful
with the frequency of three (3) or 11, 1 percent. Lastly, “Stressful” has seventeen (17) or
62.96 percent. This stressor has the calculated mean of 2.78 that was marked as stressful
with the rate of occurrence of 41 – 60 percent. Thus, majority of the respondents perceived
number of teaching hours as stressful.
Last, “Teaching Academically Challenged Students”, the least response was “Not
Stressful” that has two (2) or 7.41 percent while “Most Seriously Stressful” ranked as
second for it has three (3) or 11.11 percent. This was followed by “Slightly Stressful” that
has five (5) or 18.52 percent and “Seriously Stressful” that has six (6) or 22.22 percent.
Thus, majority of respondent perceived teaching academically challenged students
stressful that has eleven (11) or 40.74 percent. This has the calculated mean of 2.89. that
was marked as stressful with rate of occurrence of 41 – 60 percent.

C. Teacher-School Head Relationship
The table V shows the teacher-school head relationship stressor.
Table V
Teacher-School Head Relationship
Thus, it is divided into five (5) description of the stressor: working relationship with
school head, considering school head as mentor, personality of the head, and attitude of the
school head and following the instruction of the school head. In the same manner, this is
qualified through the remarks of most seriously stressful, seriously stressful, stressful,
slightly stressful and not stressful. Furthermore, frequency, percentage and mean are
indicated.

First is “working relation with the school head”. “Most Stressful” and “Seriously
Stressful” have three (3) or 11.11 percent. “Not Stressful” has five (5) or 18.5 percent
however “Slightly Stressful” has six (6) or 22.2 percent. It was noted that “Stressful” has
ten (10) or 37 percent. This stressor has the total mean of 3.26 that was marked as stressful
with the rate of occurrence of 41 – 60 percent. Thus, “Teacher-School Head Relationship”
as viewed by the respondents is stressful.
Second is “considering school head as mentor”, “Most Seriously Stressful”,
“Seriously Stressful” and “Not Stressful” have four (4) or 14.81 percent. And for
“Stressful”, it has fifteen (15) or 55.56 percent. Hence, the stressor has the calculated mean
of 2.85 that was marked as stressful with rate of occurrence of 41 – 60 percent.. Summing
it up, “Considering School Head as Mentor”, majority of the respondents viewed this as
something stressful.
Third is “personality of the school head”. “Most Seriously Stressful” and “Slightly
Stressful” have four (4) or 14.8 percent. “Not Stressful” has the total frequency of three (3)
or 11.1 percent while “Seriously Stressful” is two (2) or 7.41 percent. Majority of the
respondents look at this stressor as “Stressful” that has the total frequency of fourteen (14)
or 51.85 percent. Thus, it has the calculated mean of 2.85 that was marked as stressful with
the rate of occurrence of 41 – 60 percent.
Fourth is “attitude of the school head”. “Seriously Stressful”, “Not Stressful” and
“Slightly Stressful” have similar frequency of four (4) or 14.81 percent. On the other hand,
“Most Seriously Stressful was two (2) or 7.41 percent while “Stressful” has the total
frequency of thirteen (13) or 48.15 percent. This indicated that majority of the respondents

see that the attitude of the school head is stressful. This has the calculated mean of 3.15
that has the descriptive mark of stressful with rate of occurrence of 41 – 60 percent.
Lastly is “following instruction from the school head”. This showed that majority
of the respondents sees it as “Slightly Stressful” that has the total frequency of fifteen (15)
or 55.56 percent. On the other hand, “Stressful” and “Not Stressful” have three (3) or 11.11
percent. And the least was “Seriously Stressful” that has two (2) or 7.41 percent. The
calculated mean for this stressor was 3.41 that was marked as stressful with rate of
occurrence of 41 – 60 percent.
D. Teacher-Student Relationship
The Table VI shows the student-teacher relationship stressor.
Table VI
Teacher-Student Relationship

This is divided into five (5) description of the stressor: relating with students with
special needs, relating with students with attitude problem, house visitation of the learners
with school problems and relationship with the parents. In the same manner, this is
qualified through the remarks of most seriously stressful, seriously stressful, stressful,
slightly stressful and not stressful. Furthermore, frequency, percentage and mean is
included.
The first description of stressor was “relating with students with special needs”
“Most Seriously Stressful’ and “Stressful” have three (3) or 11.11 percent. “Seriously
Stressful” has four (4) or 14.81 percent while “Not stressful” was six (6) or 22.22 percent.
Thus, majority of the respondents looked at relationship with student with special needs as
“Slightly Stressful” for it has eleven (11) or 40.74 percent. This has the calculated mean of
3.48 that was marked as slightly stressful. This has the rate of occurrence of 21 – 40 percent.
The second description of the stressor was “relating with students with attitude
Problem”. “Most Seriously Stressful” and “Stressful” have similar frequency of three (3)
or 11.11 percent. On the other hand, “Seriously Stressful” has four (4) or 14.8 percent while
“Not Stressful” was five (5) or 18.52 percent. Hence, majority of the respondents identified
this stressor as “Slightly Stressful” having twelve (12) or 44.44 percent. The general mean
is 3.44 that has the mark of slightly stressful. This has the rate of occurrence of 21 – 40.
The third description of the stressor was “house visitation of the learners” with
School Problems”. “Not Stressful” and “Seriously Stressful” have least response that was
three (3) or 11.11 percent while “Most Seriously Stressful” was one (1) or 3.70 percent.
“Slightly Stressful” has the total frequency of six (6) or 22.22 percent while majority of
response was both “Stressful” that has the frequency of eleven (11) or 40.74 percent. It has

the calculated mean of 3.04 that is marked stressful with rate of occurrence of 41 – 60
percent.
The fourth description of the stressor was “relationship with the parents”. “Most
Seriously Stressful” has the total frequency of one (1) or 3.70 percent while “Seriously
Stressful” has four (4) or 14.8 percent. “Not Stressful” was six (6) or 22.22 percent likewise
“Slightly Stressful” was seven (7) or 25.93 percent. Thus, majority of the response was
nine (9) or 33.33 percent that was “Stressful”. This stressor has the calculated mean of 3.48
that was marked slightly stressful with occurrence rate of 21 – 40 percent.
The last description of the stressor was “rapid increase of population of the school”.
“Seriously Stressful” has two (2) or 7.41 percent while “Seriously Stressful” was three (3)
or 11.11 percent. “Stressful” has the total frequency of six (6) or 22.22 percent while “Not
Stressful” was five (5) or 18.52 percent. Majority was “Slightly Stressful” that has eleven
(11) or 40.74 percent. The stressor has the calculated mean of 3.52 that was descriptively
mark as slightly stressful with rate of occurrence of 21 – 40 percent.

E. Teacher Interpersonal Relationship
The table shows the stressor – teaching interpersonal relationship,
Table VII
Teacher Interpersonal Relationship
The table was classified into five (5). These are working relationship with other
teacher, attitudes of co-teacher and department heads, treating good others despite of
anything, giving support to other teachers and personality of co-teachers and department
head. In the same manner, this is qualify through the remarks of most seriously stressful,
seriously stressful, stressful, slightly stressful and not stressful. Furthermore, frequency,
percentage and mean are indicated.

First was “working relationship with other teacher”. “Most Seriously Stressful” and
seriously stressful have three (3) or 11.11 percent while stressful has five (5) or 18.52
percent. “Slightly Stressful” has six (6) or 22.22 percent while not stressful has ten (10) or
37.04 percent. Hence, majority of the response as the table indicated, working relationship
with other as perceived by the respondents was slightly stressful. It has the calculated mean
of 3.63 that was marked slightly stressful that has the rate of occurrence of 21 – 40 percent.
Second was “attitude of co-teachers and department heads”, most seriously
stressful has one (1) or 3.7 percent, while stressful has five (5) or 18.52 percent. Slightly
stressful is seven (7) or 25.93 percent. Thus, the majority is not stressful with fourteen (14)
or 51.85 percent. It has the calculated mean of 4.22 that was marked not stressful that has
the rate of occurrence of 21 – 40 percent.
Third was “treating good others despite of anything”. “Seriously Stressful” has
three (3) or 11.11 percent while “Stressful” was two (2) or 7.41 percent. “Slightly Stressful”
has seven (7) or 25.93 percent while majority was “Not Stressful” with the frequency of
fifteen (15) or 55.56 percent. The stressor has the calculated mean of 4.26 that was marked
not stressful that has the rate of occurrence of 21 – 40 percent.
Fourth was “giving support to other teachers”. “Most Seriously Stressful” has one
(1) or 3.70 percent while both “Seriously Stressful” and “Stressful” have same frequency
of two (2) or 7.41 percent. “Slightly Stressful” has seven (7) or 25.93 percent while the
majority of response was “Not Stressful” which was fifteen (15) or 55.56 percent. It has
the calculated mean of 4.22 that was marked not stressful that has the rate of occurrence of
21 – 40 percent.

Last was “personality of co-teachers and department heads”. “Most Seriously
Stressful” has one (1) or 3.7 percent while “Seriously Stressful” was two (2) or 7.4 percent.
“Stressful” has the total frequency of three (3) or 11.1 percent while “Slightly Stressful”
was six (6) or 22.2 percent. Thus, majority of the response was “Not Stressful” which has
the frequency of fifteen (15) or 55.6 percent. This stressor has the calculated mean of 4.19
that was marked not stressful that has the rate of occurrence of 21 – 40 percent.
Part III. Effect of Stressors
The following tables discuss the effects of stressors related to the respondents.
Thus, these are divided into three (3) descriptions of effects. These are physical effect of
stressors, behavioral condition effect of the stressors and the emotional effect of the
stressors. These classes are rated through different description level of effect as ratings.
A. Physical Effect of Stressors
The table shown the physical effect of the stressors as perceived by the respondents.
This is identified through loss of appetite hypertension, indigestion, nausea and stomach
pain of the respondents after being stressed. Moreover, these are descriptively rated as most
seriously affected, seriously affected, affected and not affected.

Table VIII
Physical Effect of Stressors
The first physical effect of stressor was “loss of appetite”. “Most Seriously
Affected” has the frequency of three (3) or 11.11 percent while both “Seriously Affected”
and “Affected” have the frequency of four (4) or 14.81 percent. However, majority of the
responses was both “Slightly Affected” and “Not Affected” have similar frequency that
was eight (8) or 29.63 percent. Therefore, it could be inferred that the majority of the effect
in relation to the loss of appetite could be either respondents were slightly affected or not
affected. This effect has the calculated mean of 3.52 which was marked as slightly affected
with the rate level of 21 – 40 percent.
The second physical effect of stressor was “hypertension”. “Most Seriously
Affected” and “Seriously Affected” have same frequency of four (4) or 14.81 percent while
“Affected” was three (3) or 11.11 percent. Thus, majority of the responses was both slightly
affected and not affected that have same frequency of eight (8) or 29.63 percent. Summing
it up, on this effect, it was either the respondents were slightly affected or not affected at
all. This effect has the calculated mean of 3.44 which was marked as slightly affected with
the rate level of 21 – 40 percent.
The third physical effect of stressor was “indigestion”. “Most Seriously Affected”
and “Affected” have same frequency of three (3) or 11.11 percent while “Seriously
Affected” has four (4) or 14.8 percent. On the other hand, “Slightly Affected” has eight (8)
or 29.63 percent while the majority of the responses were nine (9) or 33.32 percent which
was “Not Affected”. It could be inferred that for indigestion, respondents don’t experience
this physical effect on their stress. Hence this has the calculated mean of 3.59 which was
marked as slightly affected with the rate level of 21 – 40 percent.
The fourth physical effect of stressor was “nausea”. “Most Seriously Affected” and
“Affected” have same frequency of three (3) and 11.1 percent while “Seriously Affected”
has four (4) or 14.8 percent. “Slightly Affected” was six (6) while the majority of the
responses were “Not Affected” that has eleven (11) or 40.7 percent. Summing it up, for
this physical effect of the stressor, respondents don’t experience this on their stressed
moments. Thus, this has the calculated mean of 3.67 which was marked as slightly affected
with the rate level of 21 – 40 percent
The last physical effect of stressor was “stomach pain”. “Most Seriously Affected”
was two (2) or 7.4 percent while “Seriously Affected” was four (4) or 14.8 percent.
“Affected” has the frequency of five (5) or 18.5 percent while majority of responses were
either “Slightly Affected” or “Not Affected” that was eight (8) or 29.6 percent. This last

physical effect has the calculated mean of 3.59 which was marked as slightly affected with
the rate level of 21 – 40 percent.
B. Behavioral Condition Effect of the Stressors
The Table IX shows the behavioral condition effect of the stressor to the
respondents.
Table IX
Behavioral Condition Effect of the Stressors
This was identified through difficulty in handling frustrations, appearing angry,
putting blame of other, arguing and throwing tantrums and easily getting annoyed.
Moreover, these were descriptively rated as most seriously affected, seriously affected,
affected and not affected.

The first behavioral condition effect of stressor was “difficulty in handling
frustrations. “Most Seriously Affected” has four (4) or 14.81 percent. “Seriously Affected”
and “Not Affected” have same the frequency of three (3) or 11.11 percent. “Affected” has
the frequency of five (5) or 18.52 percent while the majority of responses was “Slightly
Affected” with twelve (12) or 44.44 percent. This effect - behavioral condition has the
calculated mean of 3.26 which was descriptively marked as affected with rate of level 41
– 60 percent.
The second behavioral condition effect was “appearing angry”. “Most Seriously
Affected” and “Not Affected” have four (4) or 14.8 percent while “Seriously Affected”
was three (3) or 11.11 percent. “Affected” has the total frequency of seven (7) or 25.93
percent while the majority of responses was nine (9) or 33.33 percent. This has the
calculated mean of 3.22 which was descriptively marked as affected with rate of level 41
– 60 percent.
The third behavioral condition effect was “putting blame of others”. “Most
Seriously Affected” has three (3) or 11.11 percent while “Seriously Affected” has two (2)
or 7.41 percent. On the other hand, “Affected” and “Slightly Affected” have same
frequency of four (4) or 14.81 percent. Thus, majority of the response has the frequency of
fourteen (14) or 51.85 percent that was not affected. It has the calculated mean of 3.89
which was descriptively marked as slightly affected with rate of level 21 – 40 percent.
The fourth behavioral condition effect was “arguing and throwing tantrums”. “Most
Seriously Affected” has two (2) or 7.41 while “Most Affected” and “Not Affected” have
same frequency of five (5) or 18.52 percent. Thus, majority of the response has the
frequency of nine (9) or 33.3 percent which was “Slightly Affected”. This description has

the calculated mean of 3.37 which was descriptively marked as affected with rate of level
41 – 60 percent.
The last behavioral condition effect was “easily getting annoyed”. “Most Seriously
Affected” has two (2) or 7.41 percent while “Seriously Affected” and “Not Affected” have
same frequency of six (6) or 22.22 percent. On the other hand, “Affected” has the frequency
of five (5) or 18.5 percent while the majority of response was “Slightly Affected” that has
eight (8) or 29 percent. This description of affected by stress has the calculated mean of
3.37 that was descriptively marked as affected with rate of level 41 – 60 percent.
C. Emotional Effect of the Stressors
The Table X showed the emotional effect of stressor. This was identified through
anger, depression, anxiety, impulsiveness, and inattention. Moreover, these are
descriptively rated as most seriously affected if the respondents most seriously emotionally
affected by stressed, seriously affected if the respondents are emotionally seriously affected
by stressors, emotionally affected and not affected at all. This also indicates the frequency,
percentage and mean of the effect of stressor

Table X
Emotional Effect of the Stressors
In the effect of stressors identified as “anger” and “depression”, “Most Seriously
Affected” has two (2) or 7.41 percent while both “Seriously Affected’ and “Not Affected”
have five (5) or 18.52 percent. “Affected” has the frequency of four (4) or 14.81 percent
while the majority of response was “Slightly Affected” with eleven (11) or 40.74 percent.
It has the calculated mean of 3.34 that was marked as slightly affected with rate of level,
21 – 40 percent.
In the effect of stressors identified as “anxiety”, “Most Seriously Affected” has the
frequency of three (3) or 11.11 percent while both “Seriously Affected” and “Affected”
have same frequency of four (4) or 14.81 percent. “Not affected” has the frequency of six

(6) or 22.22 percent while the majority of response was “Slightly Affected” with the
frequency of ten (10) or 37.04 percent. The two effect of stressors – “Anger” and
“Depression” have the calculated mean of 3.44 that was marked as slightly affected with
rate of level, 21 – 40 percent.
In the effect of stressors identified as “impulsiveness”, “Most Seriously Affected”
has the frequency of three (3) or 11.11 percent while “Seriously Affected’ was two (2) or
7.41 percent. ‘Affected” and “Not Affected” have same frequency of seven (7) or 25.93
percent while the majority of response was “Slightly Affected” with the frequency of eight
(8) or 29.6 percent. This effect has the calculated mean of 3.52 that was marked as slightly
affected with rate of level, 21 – 40 percent.
Lastly, in the effect of stressor identified as “inattention”, “Most Seriously
Affected” was three (3) or 11.1 percent while “Seriously Affected” was two (2) or 7.41
percent. “Affected” has the total frequency of seven (7) or 25.93 while “Not Affected” was
six (6) or 22.22 percent while the majority of response was “Slightly Affected” with the
frequency of 9 or 33.33 percent. Inattention as an effect of stressors has the calculated mean
of 3.48 that was marked as slightly affected with rate of level, 21 – 40 percent.
Part IV. Comparison between Effects and Stressors
This part contains the significant difference between the effects of stress to
stressors. Thus, it is divided into three (3) tables. These are comparison between stressors
and physical effects, emotional effects and behavioral condition effects respectively.
A. Comparison between Physical Effects and Stressors
Table XI presents the comparison between physical effects and stressors.

Table XI
Comparison between Physical Effects and Stressors
As the table indicated, the result of comparison between loss of appetite as physical
effects and stressors resulted to the value of .968 that is 9.193. Thus, the calculated level
of significance was to .047. It can be inferred that the comparison between loss of appetite
and the stressors was significantly different.
On other hand, hypertension resulted to the value of .980. Thus, the calculated level
of significance is .024. In addition, this was interpreted as significantly different. Moreover,
for indigestion, the comparison resulted to .495 value; thus, with .938 level of significance.
Therefore, for this physical effect, it accepts the null hypothesis that there is no significant
relationship between indigestion to the physical effects. In addition, nausea as effect, it
resulted to the value of .805 with .481 level of significance. Thus, this rejects the null of
hypothesis about their difference.
Lastly, stomach pain, it has the value of .372 that has level of significance of .984.
Thus, it accepts the null hypothesis of significant difference. Therefore, following the data

gathered, majority of the variables tested for comparison, both stomach pain and
indigestion showed in the table.
B. Comparison between Emotional Effects and Stressors
Table XII shows the comparison between emotional effect and stressors.
Table XII
Comparison between Emotional Effects and Stressors
As the table indicated, in the relationship of the emotional effect to the stressor,
difficulty in handling frustrations has the value of .99 with F of 30.729. Thus, it has the
significant value of .01 that is interpreted as significant. In appearing angry and the
stressors, it has the value of .96 with 6.843 rate with the level of significance of .07. This
s interpreted as not significant.
For putting blame of others, it has the value of .9 with the rating of 6.843. Hence,
it has the calculated level of significance of .23. Thus, it is interpreted as significant. For
arguing and throwing tantrum, it has the value of .99 with F rate of 23.583 that has the level

of significance of .23. This is interpreted as significant. Lastly, easily getting annoyed, it

has the value of .99 with rate of 46.717. It has the significant value of 0.00. Thus, it is
interpreted as significantly different.
C. Comparison between Behavioral Condition Effects and Stressors
Table XIII presents the difference between behavioral condition and stressors.
Table XIII
Difference between Behavioral Condition and Stressors
As the table indicated, both anger and depression’s comparison to the stressors have
the value of .00 with level of significance of 1.00. Thus, it is interpreted as significantly
different. While anxiety, has the result of .98 value with 13.989 rate. It has the significant
level of .03; hence, it is interpreted as significantly different. Impulsiveness when related
to stressor, it resulted to the value of .96 or 7.5 rate. Thus, it has .06 level of significance.

Lastly, inattention, has the value of .930 and rate of 3.965. Thus, it has the level of
significance of .142. This is interpreted as not significantly different.
Part VI. Stress Management Program
PROPOSED STRESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
I. Rationale
This stress management program formulated based on the data and results research
of this, which dealt with the Stressors among Senior High School Teachers. The findings
of the study discovered that teachers are selflessly serving the learners despite of stress and
demand of the work. This proves that teaching is not really a stressful profession. And so,
it is suggested in the urgent and necessity of providing the school administrators effective
strategies to aid and help teachers to cope and to overcome stress.
II. Objectives
The stress management program was conceptualized and formulated that is
intended for the SHS teachers of Lamao National High School. Further, this will be an
indeed help for school head to obtain sufficient knowledge about stress and to apply a
suitable management program to minimalize or to overcome the consequences and
outcome of stress. With this, teachers will become a more productive and competent
facilitators of learning.
Furthermore, the program will deal also with understanding stress as a
psychological phenomenon and the clinical effects of it. This is to help the school head to
realize the following objectives:
1. Define stress as a psychological disturbance and its effects to the mental, emotional
and behavioral aspect of human person.

2. Understand stress on psychological perspective. Further, be informed about the
effects of this to the life of the person who is experiencing stress.
3. Explore of the psychologically prescribed practices on coping and dealing with
stress. Moreover, earn knowledge on the best practices in winning over it.
4. Learn to divert stress to a more productive way wherein both learners and
administrators will be benefited.
5. Provide with more resources in empowering teachers realizing the objective of
stress management program.
6. Lastly, conduct a productive seminar-workshop on stress awareness among SHS
teachers of Lamao National High School.
III. Personalized Strategies for Managing Stress
Time Management. Senior High School teachers will be encouraged to have a
good time management program. This will serve as a guide for them to have a stress free
day. Thus, they will be advised to have a regular daily checklist of what they are going to
do every day. And there will be an allotted time for them to relax and release their stress
through a conducive room that they can relax and release their stress.
Relaxation. The administration building will be open to the teachers who are free
or vacant. There will be also a special corner for them to stretch and unburden themselves
about what they feel that is stressing them. They can have a regular talk during vacant hours
to the head-in-charge about the things that is stressing them.
Self-Control. Senior High School teachers will be empowered through seminars
about self-control. Thus, they will learn to hold their temper and manage themselves to
whatever stressors they will be encountering.

Diversion of Stress through Productive Activity. The school will plan for a
productive activity for teachers on occasional time to divert their stress into a productive
way. This can be involvement through sports or enjoyable activities like scouting and
mentoring.
Stress Out Area. The school administration will provide a stress out area for
teachers who are suffering from it. This area can be utilized by the teachers if they are free
or during their vacant time. Here, without any presence of anybody, once can release their
stress by sitting down and cooling down oneself.
IV. Proposed Programs for Stress Management
Stress Management Seminar to be Conducted by an Expert. One program that
can help the Senior High School Teachers about stress management is through seminar and
workshop. Through this activity they will be aware of their own stress and will have
sufficient knowledge how to deal with their stress, control themselves and to overcome
effects of stress. This will be accomplish through the help of any Non-Government
Organization (NGO) or the Department Social Welfare and Development who are experts
in dealing with the problem of stress.
Proper Allocation of Budget for Instructional Materials. The school will
annually properly allocate budget for the instructional materials of the teacher that is
allowable by the Department of Education (DEPeD). Moreover, school properties that can
be utilized for the benefits of the students helping teachers to be more innovative.
Strengthening the of Adopt a School Program. The school through the initiative
of the school head will look for generous individuals or groups that can help the school
through the Adopt a School Program by the Department of Education. Through this,

improvement of the school through having a functional library, conducive and student
friendly classroom will be provided for the students and teachers.
Proper Information about Localization of Teachers. The teachers will be
empowered about their rights and legal basis for localization. This can be done through
LAC Sessions or personal dialogue about what the Department is saying about transferring
to other station or Localization. Teachers who are living far from the school, twill be
encouraged to be transferred and help them to find ways to be stationed near to their house.
Seminar/ LAC Session/ Workshop about Teachers’ Duties and
Responsibilities. Teachers will be empowered through seminars and alike about their
duties and responsibilities in the classroom and to the learners as promulgated by
Department of Education.
On Going Parenting Seminar for Stakeholders. Involvement of the parents in
the formation of the learners will be observed by the school through on going parenting
seminars and formation. This will enable them to fully function as good stewards to their
children who are studying in the school.
Regular Faculty Meeting with the School Head. There will be a regular faculty
meeting with the school head in presence of the teachers. This will give them an avenue to
understand the plans and activities of the school. Teachers will be also involved in planning
and structuring the school. Active participation of them will enable them to function well
in any school activities from classroom teaching and to internal and external activities of
the school.
Regular Dialogue with the School Head. The school head will have a regular
dialogue to all teachers assigning them to a tete-a-tete for the both side to know and

understand each other. This will promote to a more personal and good working relationship
with each other.
Structured Mentoring to New Teachers. Teachers who are old to the teaching
career will be advised to have a mentor teacher so that they will have a clear idea and
wisdom on how to overcome some classroom problems.
Team Building Seminar. In any opportunity, the school will promote and conduct
a team building seminar for both teachers and school administrators. This will promote a
good working relationship to each other.
Empowering the Guidance Counselor about Stress Related Therapy. The
school will look for an opportunity to equip Guidance Counselors about stress related
therapy. This will enable to help teachers who are suffering from the effects of stress and
to aid them to overcome stress.
Allotment of Stress Release Area. The school will allot a stress release area for
teachers who are suffering from stress. This will help them to unburden them from
whatever is stressing them.

V. Annual Stress Management Plan
VI. Emphasis of the Program
This stress management program shall be pursued within the work-related stressors
among Senior High School Teachers. It will seek to provide the school head and teachers
with adequate knowledge on the different work-related stressors and how it affects their
job performance. Moreover this will broaden their horizons in such a way that they become
more productive, efficient, effective and efficacious in the performance of their principals

job. As a result they become effective contributors to the realization of quality education,
community development and national development in general.
V. Suggestions to Ensure a Successful Stress Management Program
Cooperation. All teachers will be encourage to cooperate and collaborate with the
stress programs.
Honesty. All teachers will be encourage to be honest in accepting that they are
stressed and affected by stressors. Thus, they advised to commit themselves in the willings
to overcome those stressors.
Perseverance. Teachers will be advised to persevere in overcoming stress. And
through which they will have a better view on their work and will become efficient and
productive. Thus, will be selfless by imparting their knowledge and time for the learners
who are in need of them.
Dedication. Teachers are advised to dedicate themselves through overcoming the
stressors. They will do it not for the sake of requirement but for the sake of their vocation
as a teacher.
VI. Evaluating the Program
Evaluation of the program will be done through constant monitoring of the
performance of the teachers through observations and performances. There will be also a
constant and continuous dialogue about their experiences on dealing with stress and how
the program on stress management help them. Survey questionnaires will be floated also
every time there will be seminars and workshops on stress management and through all the
programs about it.
VII. Promoting the Program

Promotion of the stress management program will be done through these methods:
1. School Memorandum.
2. Announcement through Meetings
3. Brochures
4. Personal Dialogues
VII. Resources
Programs that can be outsourced in the school fund will be utilized. Aside from it,
school head will look for expert in NGO who are offering free services about stress
management. Moreover, linkages from the government will be also contacted to
materialize programs related to stress management.
VIII. Expected Outcome
At the end of the Management Program the Senior High School Teachers…
1. Existence of Stress to the work place will be recognized
2. Manifestations of stress will be diagnosed and identified.
3. Stress will be decreased or overcome.
4. Stress will be prevented and reduced.
5. Techniques and skills to cope with stress will be learned and acquired.
6. Teachers will be efficient and productive.

Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation
This chapter presents the summary of the research’s findings based on the gathered
data. This also includes conclusion drawn, which are derived from the findings and
recommendation of its utility to the readers and researchers.
Summary
The general problem of the study is: Based on the stressors and its effect, what is
the suitable management program for the SHS teachers.
Furthermore, it will seek also to answer the following questions:
1. How respondents profile be described in term of:
1.1. age;
1.2. sex;
1.3. marital status;
1.4. position;
1.5. years in teaching;
1.6 educational attainment;
1.8. previous work;
1.10.number of teaching load; and,
1.11.number of preparation?
2. What are the work-related stressors of the Senior High School teacher-respondents be
described as to:
2.1. facilities and equipment;

2.2. teaching related issues;
2.3. teacher-school head relationship;
2.4. teacher-student relationship; and
2.5. teachers interpersonal relationship?
3. How are the work- related stressors affect the Senior High School teacher-
respondents in terms of their
3.1. physical;
3.2. behavioral; and
3.3. emotional conditions?
4. Is there a significant difference between the stressors and the effects of stress to the
Senior High School teachers when grouped according to profile?
5. What management program can be proposed to minimize work-related stressors among
Senior High School teacher-respondents?
Significant Findings
The findings of the study were summarized as follows:
Profile of the Respondents
Age. The result indicated that majority of the respondents is either under the age
bracket of 26 – 30 or 21 – 25 years old. And so, it can be inferred that the Senior High
School teachers are either just newly hired or new to the teaching profession. Further, they
are still in the coping stage with the profession they have chosen.
Sex. Findings indicated that Senior High School Faculty is composed in majority
of the female. However, it can be inferred that males are outnumbered by the female. Male
respondents has a good number also.

Marital Status. Finding showed that majority of the respondents are married. And
so, it can be tailed that these respondents have other priorities in their lives aside from their
workplace.
Educational Attainment. The result showed that the respondents are just
Bachelors Degree Holder. Thus, they need further studies to earn knowledge about
teaching and student relationship.
Specialization. It is noted that majority of the respondents are English teachers.
Previous work. Result showed that more than half of the respondents are from the
industry which implies that they lack knowledge about teaching
Number of Preparation. Result implied that the respondents have minimal
teaching preparation.
Number of Teaching Load. Findings indicated that the respondents have the
minimum teaching load. Thus, no overloading of teaching was seen or identified.
Stressors
Facilities and Equipment. The result of showed that in “Facilities and Equipment”
stressors like “Availability of Space for Educational Affairs”, “Laboratories and Shops for
Training”, “Location of the Workplace” and “Functionability of Rooms for Special Needs”
were perceived by the respondents as “Stressful” while “Teaching in the Classroom” was
seen as “Slightly Stressful”. Therefore, the respondents were stressed by this stressor.
Teaching Related Issues. It was identified that “Teaching Related Issues” like
“Teaching Subject Not Related to Field of Specialization”, “Availability of Teaching
Materials”, Number of Teaching Hour”, and “Teaching Academically Challenged
Student” were perceived as “Stressful” while “Number of Teaching Load” was seen as

“Slightly Stressful”. Therefore, for this stressor, it is implied that the respondents were
stressed by these stressors.
Teacher-School Head Relationship. It was determined that “Teacher-School
Head Relationship” was causing stress to the respondents. It was identified through
descriptions of stressors were seen as stressful by them. Hence, “Working Relation with
School Head”, Considering School Head as Mentor”, “Personality of the School Head”,
“Attitude of the School Head” and “Following the Instruction of the School Head” were
all stressing the respondents. It can be inferred that there was no direct relation between
school head and the teachers.
Teacher-Student Relationship. As it was determined that “Teacher-Student
Relationship” like “Relating with Students with Special Needs”, “Relating with Students
with Attitude Problem”, “Relationship with the Parents”, and “Rapid Increase of
Population of the School” were all “Slightly Stressful” the respondent while “House
Visitation of the Learners with School Problems” was “Stressful” to them. It could be
inferred that in this stressor, respondents were slightly stressed with their relationship with
the students.
Teacher Interpersonal Relationship. Findings indicated with the stressor –
“Teacher Interpersonal Relationship” majority of the description were “Not Stressful”.
Hence, “Attitude of Co-teachers and Department Heads”, Treating Good Others Despite
of Anything”, “Giving Support to Other Teachers” and “Personality of Co-Teachers and
Department Heads” were all “Not Stressful” for the respondents while “Working
Relationship with Other Teachers” perceived as “Slightly Stressful”.

Effects of Stressors
Physical Effects of Stressor. Given the result, “Physical Effects of Stressor” as
identified as “Loss of Appetite”, “Hypertension”, “Indigestion”, “Nausea” and “Stomach
Pain” were “Slightly Affected” by the stressors. It can be inferred that the respondents are
not so affected through the stressors and can somehow manage themselves confronting
stress and affecting their physical condition.
Behavioral Condition Effect of Stressors. In the “Behavioral Condition Effect of
the Stressors”, it was identified that in “Difficulty in Handling Frustrations”, “Appearing
Angry”, “Arguing and Throwing Tantrums” and “Easily Getting Annoyed” were all
affecting the respondents. However, in “Putting Blame of Others”, it was perceived as
“Slightly Affected”. Therefore, for this effect of stressor, it can be concluded that stressor
was highly influencing the respondents’ behavioral condition.
Emotional Effect of Stressor. Given the result, it was indicated that the Emotional
Effect of the stressors like, “Anger”, “Depression”, “Anxiety”, “Impulsiveness”, and
“Inattentions” were “Slightly Affecting” the respondents. And so, this this could be
inferred that the respondents can control their emotion despite of any stressors.
Conclusion
Given the findings, the conclusion is that there is significant difference between the
stressors and effects of stress to the Senior High School teachers when grouped according
to profile. Thus, stress management program is needed to ease and to decrease the level of
stress among the aforementioned teachers.
Recommendation
In light of the findings of this research, the following recommendations are hereby
proposed:

It is recommended that Senior High School Teachers should be honest in accepting
the fact that they are stressed. They should also equip themselves on identifying work
related stressors and mechanism or techniques to cope with stressors in order for them to
be effective and efficient to their workplace.
It was suggested that the present study should implemented for it would benefit the
students. Furthermore, though this, students would be benefited through the stress
management program that the study proposed. Findings of this study may help the teachers
to identify work related stressors and to cope with stressors in order for them to be effective
and efficient to their workplace.
The present study is a student-centered research though it about the teachers.
Though this, students may benefited through the stress management program that the study
proposes. Hence, once teachers manages the causes and effects of their stress, they may be
productive to their work. Moreover, teachers would have better outlook of life that might
affect students’ lives.
School Administrators should provide a clear background of the occupational stress
management program for the teacher in order to help them through school based
management program fostering coping styles with stressful situations in fulfilling their
duties and responsibilities.
Findings of the study would provide data for the future researchers on the existing
problems and difficulties of SHS teachers. Findings might guide them in the formulation
future studies related to this research. Further, they were encourage to conduct the study in
different locality and in a large number of population to strengthen its claims and strength
established assumptions and findings of the study.

References
Agai-Demjaha, T., Minov, J., Stoleski, S., & Zafirova, B. (2015). Stress Causing Factors
Among Teacher in Elementary Schools and their Relationship with Demographic
and Job Characteristic. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences,
493-499.
Allen, D. (2002). Promoting Resilience In your Child. Washington: Heldref Publications.
Anandi. (2005). Towards a Model for the Determinants of Occupational Stress Among
School Teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 355-373.
Antonio, A. (2006). Disruptive Student Behavior, Perceived Self-Efficacy, and Teacher
Burnout. 108th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association.
Washington: ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
Aquino, G. V. (1974). Essential of Research and Thesis. Quezon City: Alemars-Phoenix
Publishing House INC.
Bolton, M. (2015). Work Related Stress among Second Level Teachers in Ireland.
Ireland: National College of Ireland.
Bousted, M. (2013). Teacher Network. Retrieved from The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com
Calderon, J., & Gonzales, E. (2005). Methods of Research and Thesis Writing.
Mandaluyong: National Bookstore, Inc.
Cotton, J. (2003). Ten Sure Ways of Tackling Stress. London: Hodde Inc.
Curtaz, D. (2009). Perceived causes of Stress and Burnout as Reported by Elementary
Teachers at Urban School. New York: Praeger.
Fitzgerald, B. (2008). Teachers and Workplace Stress. ASTIR, 17-18.
Garcia, A., Nuevo, J. J., & Sapa, E. (2007). Research for All Disciplines. Valenzuela :
Mega-Jesta Prints Inc.
Grau, R., Salanova, M., & Peirò, J. (2001). Moderator effects of self-efficacy on
occupational stress . Psychology in Spain, 63–74.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2000). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School
Effectiveness, 1980-1995. Retrieved from Institute for Educational Leadership:
http://k6educators.about.com/

Hodson, M. A. (2003). Stress and Stress Management Strategies Among Elementary

School Principals. Dissertation Abstracts International , 64.
Joshi, M. (2007). Teacher Understanding of Student Understanding. Illonois.
Juliano, J. (2013). Stressors among Elementary Principals’ in the Province of Tarlac
towards Inputs for a Stress Management Program Model. . Tarlac City:
University of La Salle.
Kaur, S. (2011). Comparative Study of Occupational Stress among Teacher of Private
and Government Schools in Relation to their Age, Gender, and Teaching
Experience. International Journal of Educational Planning and Administration,
151-160.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on Teachers' Self-Efficacy and Job
Satisfaction: Teacher Sex, Years of Experience, and Job Stress. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 741 – 756.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: directions for future research. Educational Review,
27-35.
Langle. (2003). Stress and job satisfaction among primary school teachers. Educational
Review, 271-279.
Lawver, R. G., & Smith, K. (2015). Exercise. Retrieved from Stress Management Society
: http://www.stress.org.uk
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From Psychological Stress to the Emotion: A HIstory of Changing
Outlooks. California: University of California.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer
Publishing Company.
Manuel, B., & Paz, M. (1976). A Practical Guide to Methodology of Research and Thesis
Writing. Manila: GIC Enterprise and Company.
Mazzola, J. J., Schonfeld, I. S., & Spector, P. E. (2011). What Qualitative Research Has
Taught us about Occupational Stress. Stress and Health, pp. 93-110.
McCormick, J., & Barnett, K. (2011). Teachers' Attributions for Stress and their
Relationships with Burnout. International Journal of Education Management,
278-294.
Obrien, B. (2014). Retrieved from Irish Congress of Trade Unions: http://www.ictu.ie

Paulse. (2005). Sources of Occupational Stress for Teachers. New York: Wiley.
Sawney. (2008). Stress Management. Thousand Oaks. California: Cage Publication.
Schmity. (2001). The Emotions of Teacher Stress. London: Falmer Press.
Selye, A. (2001). Dimensions of Teacher Self-Efficacy and Relations with Strain Factors,
Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy, and Teacher Burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 611-625.
Stress Management Society . (2015). Exercise. Retrieved from Stress.Org:
http://www.stress.org.uk
Tabers, J. R. (2009). Job Satisfaction Among High School Assistant Principals in Seven
Florida Counties. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68.
Whitehead. (2000). Changed-link Related stress in British teachers. Research in
Education, 1-12.

Work Plan
August September October November December
Conceptualizing
Research, Title
Introduction
Background of
the Study
Literature Review
Research
Methodology
Instrument
Data Gathering
Data Analysis
Discussion of
Findings
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Printing of the
Manuscript
Submission of the
Final Research
Output
Presentation of
Proposed Policy
Guidelines to the
SGOD, CID,
ASDS and SDS of
the SDO-Bataan
Dissemination of
the Study through
Division
Memorandum
Orientation of the
Division Policy
Guidelines to the
CID, SGOD,
Administrative
Services, PSDS,
School Heads

Cost Estimates
Particulars Amount
A. Implementation of the Approved
Research Proposal
 Supplies and Materials for
1,500
Conducting Research
 Local Transportation for
Validation/Pilot Testing of 500
Instrument and Gathering Data
 Food 1,000
 Communication 500
 Reproduction of Research
500
Instruments
 Reproduction of Final Copy of
1,000
Research Paper
B. Results Dissemination
 District/Cluster Research
2,000
Congress/Colloquium
Grand Total 7,000

Plan for Dissemination and Utilization
Resources
Activities Time Persons Expected
Needed/
Frame Involved Outcome
Funding
School 1 month School head, Empowerment

application on SHS on the
the basis of the Teachers importance of
recommendation stress
management
Dissemination
of research 1 day SHS Control and
result through Teachers and Management
LAC Session Junior High of Stressors
School
Teachers
Recommending Acceptance of
the findings and DEPED the possible
result of the 1 day BATAAN plan for stress
research to the management
District to program
Division Level
Formulating 3days Researcher Come up with

strategy in the possible
Annual Plan program for
related to Stress stress related
Management activities
Program

Appendix A - Instruments
Instruments



Appendix B – Consent and Assent Letter
Consent and Assent Letter
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR’S CONFORME

I hereby endorse the attached research proposal. I certify that the proponent has the capacity
to implement a research study without compromising his office functions.
______________________________
Name and Signature of Immediate
Supervisor
Position / Designation :
________________
Date: ____________

Appendix C – Declaration of Anti-plag iarism
Declaration of Anti-plagiarism
1. I, AMELYN R. ZULUETA, understand that plagiarism is the act of taking and using
another’s ideas and works and passing them of as one’s own. This includes explicitly
copying the whole work of another person and/or using some parts of their work without
proper acknowledgement and referencing.
2. I hereby attest to the originality of this research proposal and has cited properly all the
references used. I further commit that all deliverables and the final research study
emanating from this proposal shall be of original content. I shall use appropriate citations
in referencing other works from various sources.
3. I understand that violation from this declaration and commitment shall be subject to
consequences and shall be dealt with accordingly by the Department of Education and the
__________________________ grant facility.
Proponent: AMELYN R. ZULUETA

Signature:_________________________
Date: August 10, 2017

Appendix D - Declaration of Absence of Conflict of Interest
Declaration of Absence of Conflict of Interest

1. I, AMELYN R. ZULUETA, understand that conflict of interest refers to situations in
which financial or other personal considerations may compromise my judgment in
evaluating, conducting, or reporting research.
2. I hereby declare that I do not have any personal conflict of interest that may arise from
my application and submission of my research proposal. I understand that my research
proposal may be returned to me if found out that there is conflict of interest during the
initial screening.
3. Further, in case of any form of conflict of interest (possible or actual) which may
inadvertedly emerge during the conduct of our research, I will duly report it to the research
committee for immediate action.
4. I understand that I may be held accountable by the Department of Education and the
__________________________ grant facility.
Proponent: AMELYN R. ZULUETA

Signature:__________________________
Date: August 10, 2017

Appendix E - Request Letter
Request Letter
August 10, 2017
CESAR L. VALENZUELA
School Principal II
Lamao, Limay, Bataan
Sir:
The undersigned is proposing an applied research entitled “STRESSORS AMONG

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AT LAMAO NATIONAL HIGH: BASIS
FOR SCHOOL BASED STRESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MODEL”. The said
study will identify and examine the stressors among the Senior High School Teachers.
On this regard, she is respectfully requesting your good office the permission to conduct
the aforementioned study.
Your support and valuable suggestion on the completion of this undertaking will be highly
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
AMELYN R. ZULUETA
OIC – Assistant School Principal II

Research Proposal Application Form and Endorsement of Immediate Supervisor

A. RESEARCH INFORMATION
RESARCH TITLE
STRESSORS AMONG SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AT LAMAO
NATIONAL HIGH: BASIS FOR SCHOOL BASED STRESS MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM PROGRAM
SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH

The study aims to identify the factors contributing to the stress of the Senior High
School Teachers of Lamao National High School. This will serve as a basis for
formulating and implementing a school based stress management program model.
Research Category (check only one) RESEARCH AGENDA CATEGORY

National (check only one main research theme)
Region Teaching and Learning
Schools Division Child Protection
District Human Resource Development
School Governance
(check up to one cross-cutting theme, if
(check only one) applicable)
Applied Research DRRM
Action Research Gender and Development
Inclusive Education
Others (specify) _______________
FUND SOURCE (e.g. BERF, SEF, AMOUNT
others)
SEF 7,000
TOTAL AMOUNT

B. PROPONENT INFORMATION
LEAD PROPONENT
LAST NAME: FIRST NAME: MIDDLE NAME:
Zulueta Amelyn Rama
BIRTHDATE SEX: POSITION/DESIGNATION:
(mm/dd/yyy) Female OIC Assistant Principal II
12/5/1969
REGION/DIVISION/SCHOOL (whichever is applicable)
Region III – Bataan – Lamao National High School
CONTACT NUMBER 1: CONTACT NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS:
09176224204 2: amelynrzulueta@gmail.com
EDUCATIONAL TITLE OF THESIS / RELATED RESEARCH

ATTAINMENT: PROJECT
(DEGREE TITLE)
MAED – Academic
Requirement
BS in Agriculture Major
in Agriculture
SIGNATURE OF PROPONENT:

Stressors Among Senior High School Teachers at Lamao National High

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stressors Among Senior High School Teachers at Lamao National High

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: STRESSORS AMONG SHS TEACHERS 1

Basis for School Based Stress Management Program

Lamao National High School

Schools Division of Bataan

SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BATAAN

Relevant Theory ........................................................................................................................ 5

Related Literature and Studies .................................................................................................. 7

Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 10

Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 11

Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 13

Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................ 13

Type of Research .................................................................................................................... 15

Respondents and Sampling Method ....................................................................................... 15

Data Collection Procedure ...................................................................................................... 17

Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................ 18

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 18

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data ........................................................................ 19

Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation ........................................................... 56

SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BATAAN

Work Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 65

Plan for Dissemination and Utilization ......................................................................................... 67

Appendix A- Instruments ........................................................................................................ 68

Appendix B – Consent and Assent Letter ............................................................................... 71

Appendix C – Declaration of Anti-plagiarism ........................................................................ 72

Appendix D - Declaration of Absence of Conflict of Interest ................................................ 73

SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BATAAN

Rationale and Review of Related Literature

quality of education. It can be explained that if teachers perceived themselves to be

part of an epistemic and global competitive community.

environment and other individuals. Accordingly, it is defined as a specific response by the

It is acknowledged that stress became a general element of everyday life of teacher.

nervousness and unproductivity.

SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BATAAN

Documentation manifested that Senior High School (SHS) teachers of Lamao

to come up with a school based stress management plan for teachers.

The theory considered on this study is Lazarus (1984)’ Psychological Stress

demands. According to this theory, stress is regarded as a relational concept. Thus, it

physiological, behavioral, or subjective reactions. Instead, stress is viewed as a relationship

whether something of relevance to the individual's well-being occurs, whereas secondary

SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BATAAN

proceeds in accordance with personal goals. Type of ego-involvement designates aspects

of personal commitment such as self- esteem, moral values, ego-ideal, or ego-identity.

Likewise, three secondary appraisal components are distinguished as blame or credit

behavioral or cognitive operations that will positively influence a personally relevant

pride, relief, and love, known as positive.

Coping as a form of stress, is intimately related to the concept of cognitive appraisal

and, hence, to the stress-relevant and person-environment transactions. Moreover, it is a

SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BATAAN

to their effects however according to certain characteristics of the coping process.

Furthermore, this process encompasses behavioral as well as cognitive reactions in the

sequentially, forming a coping episode. In this sense, it is characterized by the simultaneous

occurrence of different action sequences and, hence, an interconnection of coping episodes.

In addition it can be distinguished by their focus on different elements of a stressful

Lazarus’ Psychological Theory is considered because it explains on the

justifications, this research is anchored.

Related Literature and Studies

Cyclopedia Medical Dictionary defined stress as any physical, psychological or

psychological force that disturbs equilibrium. Likewise, Tabers (2009), described it as

threatening to one’s physical health, personal safety or well-being.

According to Kaur (2011), stress is considered as an involuntary response to a

SCHOOLS DIVISION OF BATAAN

declining status in the community.

than male teachers (Klassen & Chiu, 2010).