COMMUNITY ORGANIZING

Ethics 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Agree) 4 (Strongly Agree)

Statement 1 0 0 0 19
Statement 2 0 0 1 18
Statement 3 0 0 0 19
Statement 4 0 0 2 17
Statement 5 0 0 1 18
Statement 6 0 0 0 19
Statement 7 0 0 1 18
Statement 8 0 0 1 18

Table 4.31 The above table shows the number of respondents who rate their academic
supervisor in BSW 194 (Field Instruction and Practice - Community Organizing) according to
their ethics. In statement 1, all respondents had answered “strongly agree”. In statement 2, 1
had answered “agree” while 18 respondents believed strongly to the ethics being showed by
the academic supervisor. In statement 3, 19 of the respondents also answered, “strongly
agree”. In statement 4, 2 had answered “agree” while 17 respondents answered, “strongly
agree”. In statement 5, 1 respondent answered, “agree and 18 of them answered strongly
agree”. In statement 6, 19 of them had answered “strongly agree”. In statement 7 and 8, 18 of
them had answered “strongly agree” and 1 only answered “agree” in the assessment.

Ethics (Fx1) (Fx2) (Fx3) (Fx4) Total Weighted Interpretation

Mean
Statement 1 0 0 0 76 76 4 Strongly Agree
Statement 2 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 3 0 0 0 76 76 4 Strongly Agree
Statement 4 0 0 6 68 74 3.89 Strongly Agree
Statement 5 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 6 0 0 0 76 76 4 Strongly Agree
Statement 7 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 8 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree

Table 4.32 This table typifies the result of response on the assessment of the social work
practitioner on their community organizing supervisor based on his/her ethics during the field
placement. Based on the result of the given assessment, the social work interns "strongly
agree" with the statement 1 until statement 8. The result leads to a good performance being
performed by their academic supervisor.
 Administrative Role 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Agree) 4 (Strongly Agree)
Statement 1 0 0 1 18
Statement 2 0 1 11 7
Statement 3 0 1 2 16
Statement 4 0 0 10 9
Statement 5 0 0 12 7
Statement 6 0 0 0 19
Statement 7 0 0 1 18
Statement 8 0 0 3 16
Table 4.33 The above table shows the number of respondents who rate their academic
supervisor in BSW 194 (Field Instruction and Practice - Community Organizing) towards their
administrative role. In statement 1,18 of them had answered "strongly agree" while only 1 had
answered "agree". In statement 2, 1 respondent answered "disagree", 11 had answered
"agree" and the remaining 7 answered "strongly agree". In statement 3, 1 respondent
answered "disagree", 2 had answered "agree" and 16 of them had answered "strongly agree".
In statement 4, 10 of the respondents had answered "agree" and the remaining 9 respondents
had answered "strongly agree” in statement 5, 12 respondents had answered "agree" while 7
of the respondents had answered "strongly agree". In statement 6, all the 19 respondents had
answered "strongly agree". In statement 7, 1 answered "agree" while 18 of them are "strongly
agree". In the last statement, 3 had answered "agree" while 16 had answered "strongly
disagree".

Administrative (Fx1) (Fx2) (Fx3) (Fx4) Total Weighted Interpretation

Role Mean
Statement 1 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 2 0 2 33 28 63 3.31 Strongly Agree
Statement 3 0 2 6 64 72 3.78 Strongly Agree
Statement 4 0 0 30 36 66 3.47 Strongly Agree
Statement 5 0 0 36 28 64 3.36 Strongly Agree
Statement 6 0 0 0 76 76 4 Strongly Agree
Statement 7 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 8 0 0 9 64 73 3.84 Strongly Agree

Table 4.34 This table typifies the result of response on the assessment of the social work
practitioner on their community organizing supervisor based on his/her administrative role
during the field placement. Based on the result of the given assessment, the social work interns
"strongly agree" with the role he/she performed during the practicum.
 Educative Role 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Agree) 4 (Strongly Agree)
Statement 1 0 0 1 18
Statement 2 0 0 0 19
Statement 3 0 0 2 17
Statement 4 0 0 1 18
Statement 5 0 0 1 18
Statement 6 0 0 5 14
Statement 7 0 0 0 19
Statement 8 0 0 2 17

Table 4.35 The above table shows the number of respondents who rate their academic
supervisor in BSW 194 (Field Instruction and Practice - Community Organizing) towards their
educative role. In statement 1,18 of them had answered "strongly agree" while only 1 had
answered "agree". In statement 2, all the respondents had answered "strongly agree". In
statement 3, 2 of them had answered "agree" while 17 the remaining respondents had
answered "strongly agree". In statement 4 and 5, 18 out of 19 respondents had answered
"strongly agree" while 1 respondent answered "agree". In statement 6, 5 of the respondents
had answered "agree" while 14 of them had answered "strongly agree". In statement 7, all of
them answered "strongly agree" and in statement 8, 2 had answered "agree" while "17 of them
had answered "strongly agree".

Educative (Fx1) (Fx2) (Fx3) (Fx4) Total Weighted Interpretation

Role Mean
Statement 1 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 2 0 0 0 76 76 4 Strongly Agree
Statement 3 0 0 6 68 74 3.89 Strongly Agree
Statement 4 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 5 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 6 0 0 15 56 71 3.73 Strongly Agree
Statement 7 0 0 0 76 76 4 Strongly Agree
Statement 8 0 0 6 68 74 3.89 Strongly Agree

Table 4.36 This table typifies the result of response on the assessment of the social work
practitioner on their community organizing supervisor based on his/her educative role during
the field placement. Based on the result of the given assessment, the social work interns
"strongly agree" with the role he/she performed during the practicum.
 Supportive Role 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Agree) 4 (Strongly Agree)
Statement 1 0 0 0 19
Statement 2 0 0 1 18
Statement 3 0 0 1 18
Statement 4 0 0 2 17
Statement 5 0 0 3 16
Statement 6 0 0 2 17
Statement 7 0 0 3 16
Statement 8 0 0 2 17

Table 4.37 The above table shows the number of respondents who rate their academic
supervisor in BSW 194 (Field Instruction and Practice - Community Organizing) towards their
supportive role. In statement 1, all the respondents had answered "strongly agree". In
statement 2 and 3, 1 had answered "agree" while 18 of them had answered "strongly agree". In
statement 4, 2 of them had answered "agree" while 17 of the respondents had answered "
strongly agree". In statement 5, 16 out of the 19 respondents had answered "strongly agree"
while 3 of the remaining respondents had answered "agree". In statement 6, 2 of the
respondents had answered "agree" while 17 of the respondents had answered "strongly
agree". In statement 7, 3 of the respondents had answered "agree" while 16 of them are
"strongly disagree”. In the last statement, 2 had answered "agree" while 17 of the respondents
had answered "strongly disagree".

Supportive Role (Fx1) (Fx2 (Fx3) (Fx4) Total Weighted Interpretation

) Mean
Statement 1 0 0 0 76 76 4 Strongly Agree
Statement 2 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 3 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Strongly Agree
Statement 4 0 0 6 68 74 3.89 Strongly Agree
Statement 5 0 0 9 64 73 3.84 Strongly Agree
Statement 6 0 0 6 68 74 3.89 Strongly Agree
Statement 7 0 0 9 64 73 3.84 Strongly Agree
Statement 8 0 0 6 68 74 3.89 Strongly Agree
Table 4.38 This table typifies the result of response on the assessment of the social work
practitioner on their community organizing supervisor based on his/her supportive role during
the field placement. Based on the result of the given assessment, the social work interns
"strongly agree" with the role he/she performed during the practicum.
 Quality of Services 1 (Very Dissatisfied) 2 (Dissatisfied) 3 (Satisfied) 4 (Very Dissatisfied)
Rendered
Statement 1 0 0 0 19
Statement 2 0 0 1 18
Statement 3 0 0 0 19
Statement 4 0 0 0 19
Statement 5 0 0 0 19
Statement 6 0 0 0 19
Table 4.39 The above table shows the number of respondents with the ratings of their
academic supervisor in BSW 194 (Field Instruction and Practice - Community Organizing)
towards the quality of services they rendered. In statement 1,3,4, 5, and 6, the respondents
had all answered "very satisfied”. In statement 2, only 1 respondent answered "satisfied" while
18 of the respondents had answered "very satisfied".

Quality of Services (Fx1) (Fx2) (Fx3) (Fx4) Total Weighted Interpretation

Rendered Mean
Statement 1 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 2 0 0 3 72 75 3.94 Very Satisfied
Statement 3 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 4 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 5 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 6 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied

Table 4.40 This table typifies the result of response on the assessment of the social work
practitioners on the quality of services they rendered during the field placement. Based on the
result of the given assessment, the social work interns are "very satisfied" with the role he/she
performed during the practicum.
 Methods Used in 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Agree) 4 (Strongly Agree)
Supervising
Statement 1 0 0 0 19
Statement 2 0 0 0 19
Statement 3 0 0 0 19
Statement 4 0 0 0 19
Statement 5 0 0 0 19
Statement 6 0 0 2 17
Table 4.41 The above table shows the number of respondents who rate their academic
supervisor in BSW 194 (Field Instruction and Practice - Community Organizing) towards the
methods they used in supervising. In statement 1, 2, 3, and 4, the respondents had all answered
"very satisfied". In statement 5, 2 of the respondents had answered "satisfied" while 18 of the
respondents had answered "very satisfied".

Methods Used (Fx1 (Fx2) (Fx3) (Fx4) Total Weighted Interpretation

in Supervising ) Mean
Statement 1 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 2 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 3 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 4 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 5 0 0 0 76 76 4 Very Satisfied
Statement 6 0 0 6 68 74 3.89 Very Satisfied
Table 4.42 This table typifies the result of response on the assessment of the social work
practitioners on the methods they used in supervising during the field placement. Based on the
result of the given assessment, the social work interns are "very satisfied" with the role he/she
performed during the practicum.
 YES NO NOT SURE TOTAL
WORK EFFICIENCY 1 18 1 19
METHODS USED IN 1 18 1 19
SUPERVISING

Table 4.43 The table shows that 1 respondent had a problem with the work efficiency of the
supervisor, 18 respondents did not find any problem and 1 respondent is not sure whether
he/she is working efficient. On the other hand, 1 respondent also had a problem in the methods
used in supervising, 18 respondents had no problem with it while 1 respondent is not sure
whether the methods are used in supervising.

EXPLANATION: There is no significant relationship between the students’ profile and level of
satisfaction towards community organizing supervisor since the results are constant. Therefore,
it will not undergo further result and discussion.