The Problem and Its Background: Education Amidst Covid-19 Outbreak

1
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Education amidst Covid-19 outbreak
Every person's life is significantly influenced by their education. It serves
as a highlight for all dreams and expectations, revealing the reality of life and
living in relation to any expectations from people and the world. Some students
are unable to continue their education due to financial constraints, so they
choose to drop out; however, others are willing to make sacrifices and choose to
work while studying, particularly at the tertiary level.
The COVID-19 pandemic has an impact on educational systems all over
the world, leading to the schools, universities, and colleges have been forced to
close almost entirely. To slow the spread of the virus, most governments around
the world have temporarily closed educational institutions. Over 60% of the
world's student population will be affected by these nationwide closures. Several
other countries have imposed localized closures that will affect millions of
additional students. In the Philippines, studies on the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic revealed not only strong reactions among students, but also teachers'
anxiety during school closures. However, despite psychological stress or anxiety,
Filipino teachers maintained a positive outlook. During the pandemic, teachers
had to adjust their work and personal lives (Baloran, E.; Hernan, J., 2020).
2
Working Students situation during Pandemic
Working students are a vulnerable group that may lose their jobs, as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which will have an impact on their lives.
Working students, on the other hand, were deprived even before the pandemic,
and their difficult student life has been documented in recent years. With the
reduction of government subsidies to universities and tuition hikes in both the
public and private sectors, one of the major causes is the rising cost of tuition
(Tsurugano, Nishikitani, Inoue and Yano, 2001)
Students commonly experience a variety of issues related to their studies
and work. This causes them to experience high levels of stress and anxiety,
making them more susceptible to illness and failure in their college studies.
(Curambao, L. et. al. 2015). Students' decision to balance school, work, and a
social life with the newly acquired freedom of living away from home can be a
daunting task, affecting all aspects of a student's life as well as his physical and
mental well-being.
Self-Efficacy to Students
Bandura describes a person's belief in their ability to succeed as a
determinant of how they think, behave, and feel. In addition, self-efficacy is
defined as "the belief in one's abilities to organize and execute courses of action
required to manage prospective situations," according to Bandura's seminal 1977
paper, "Self-Efficacy: Towards a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change." It

3
determines what goals we should pursue, how we will achieve those goals, and
how we will evaluate our own performance. (Cherry, K. 2020). Hence, self-
efficacy is a positive predictor of performance outcomes in different subjects
(Doménech-Betoret, F., Abellán-Roselló, L., & Gómez-Artiga, A. 2017). Self-
efficacy can be determined through Academic, Social, Emotional and Work.
Academic self-efficacy is becoming more widely recognized as a predictor
of academic success. Performances that are educational. "A person's confidence
in their abilities to organize, execute, and regulate performance to achieve
designated types of performances" is how academic self-efficacy is defined. It is
a multifaceted set of beliefs that affects how people feel, think, motivate
themselves, and behave during various educational tasks. (Sharma H. L.; Nasa
G., 2014).
Social self-efficacy is an important component of self-efficacy, which is the
belief in one's own ability to organize and carry out the work required to achieve
specific goals. Negotiation in interpersonal conflict, meeting and learning about
new members, firmness in social attitudes, and the development of friendly
relationships and interaction with others are all examples of social self-efficacy
behaviors. It is also one's awareness of the skills that allow him to succeed
establishing social relationships and cooperating with others in dealing with
social situations and conflicts (Rababah M. M. S., 2016).
Emotional self-efficacy is an important aspect of emotional functioning,
with current assessments for children and adolescents focusing on self-beliefs in

4
relation to emotion management. The psychometric properties of the first
adaptation of the Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale for youth (Youth-ESES), which
measures additional aspects of ESE, such as perceiving and understanding
emotions and assisting others in modulating their emotions (Qualter, P.; Pool, L.
D.; Gardner, K. J.; Ashley-Kot, S.; Wise, A.; Wols, A.,2015). On the self-efficacy
in the workplace, Lunenburg (2011) stated that employees choose what they
want to learn and how they want to achieve their objectives. A variety of factors
are influenced by self-efficacy, perseverance, and effort of employees when
learning difficult tasks.
Statement of the Problem
This study focused on the “Working Student’ Self-Efficacy Amidst Covid-
19 Pandemic”.
Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions:
1. What are the Demographic Profile of the respondents as of the following;
a. Age
b. Sex
c. Degree Program
d. School Attended
e. McDonald’s Branch
f. Academic Load
g. Work shift Hours

5
2. What is the self-efficacy of students in terms of;
a. Academic Self-Efficacy
b. Social Self-Efficacy
c. Emotional Self-Efficacy
d. Work Self-Efficacy
3. Is there a significant difference in the self-efficacy of working students
when they are grouped according to their profile?
Hypothesis of the Study
This research operates with a lore hypothesis that there is no significant
differences in the self-efficacy of working students when they are grouped
according to their profile.
Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored from the theoretical support from Albert Bandura’s
Self-Efficacy Theory. Wherein it is a social cognition construct that refers to a
person's belief in their ability to perform specific tasks. It has been shown to be a
reliable predictor of motivation and task performance, as well as a factor in
personal goal setting. Furthermore, Bandura claims that in the human cognitive
self-regulation system, self-efficacy beliefs are the most pervasive influence on
people's choices, goals, the amount of effort they put into a task, their
6
perseverance in the face of failure or difficulty, the amount of stress they
experience, and the degree to which they are susceptible to depression.
Self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1994), is a person's assessment of
his or her ability to achieve or accomplish a goal, and it is a determinant for
behavioral performance. People with high self-efficacy have beliefs that influence
how they feel and think about others, motivating them to take action. Individuals
who are efficacious and capable of performing a given behavior are more likely to
be found socially engaged in providing supportive services to peers, family
members, and others in a target behavior than those who feel unskilled.
People with low self-efficacy may believe that things are harder than they
are, which can lead to stress, depression, and a limited view of how to solve a
problem. Self-efficacy beliefs are strong determinants and predictors of the level
of accomplishment that an individual eventually achieves as a result of these
influences (Iroegbu, M. N., 2015). For these reasons, Bandura (1997) asserted
that personal efficacy beliefs are factors of human agency, whereas self-efficacy
refers to one's confidence in carrying out courses of action in a wide range of
situations. Work self-efficacy is a measure of a person's ability to manage their
work environment. The theoretical underpinning is that individuals with higher
work self-efficacy are more likely to look forward to and to be successful in work
place performance.
7
Conceptual Framework
The graph explains the relationships between the Independent Variable and
Dependent Variable of the “Working Student’ Self-Efficacy Amidst Covid-19
Pandemic”.
Figure 1
Research Paradigm
INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE VARIABLE
Self-Efficacy of Working
Students
Profile of the
Academic Self-Efficacy
Respondents
Emotional Self-Efficacy
Work Self-Efficacy
Independent variables (Demographic Profile of Respondents and
Workload) are variables that are manipulated, controlled, or may vary during the
research process because they are unaffected by other variables. Dependent
variables (Self-Efficacy of Working Students, Academic Self-efficacy, Emotional
Self-efficacy, and Work Self-efficacy) are variables that are expected to be
affected and can change over the course of the study.

8
Significance of the Study
The study focused on explaining the “Working Students’ Workload on Self-
Efficacy in Santiago City.” Moreover, the results of the study will be beneficial to
the following;
Students. This research has the potential to increase student
achievement, promote emotional health and well-being, and serve as a reliable
predictor of motivation and learning.
Teachers. This will guide teachers to formulate strategies in building a
strong self-efficacy to students.
Parents. The result of this study will benefit the parents of the
respondents feel the situation and give further support to their child to decrease
psychological problems and help their child to focused despite their situation.
Companies. This will help them adjust and follow the working students
time availability to prevent conflict of schedules in both school and work. Also, to
let them provide incentives and recognition to students if necessary.
Future Researchers. The finding of this study will serve as reference
material and a guide for future researchers who wish to conduct the same study
in the future.
9
Scope and Limitation of the Study
During the Second Semester of the Academic Year 2021-2022, this study
focused on the "Working Students' Workload on Self-Efficacy in Santiago City."
The study's respondents are working students at the McDonald's Santiago Mart
One 542 and Xentro Mall 466 branches.
McDonald's Santiago employees were chosen as respondents because
90 percent of the employees are students of various state colleges and
universities.
Definition of Terms
For clear and better understanding of the study, the following terms are
herein defined conceptually and operationally.
Academic Load - this are the list of the subjects in which students are enrolled
for a given semester.
Academic Self-efficacy- it is the person's confidence in their abilities to
organize, execute, and regulate performance to achieve designated types
of performances (Sharma H. L., Nasa G., 2014).
Emotional Self-efficacy- concentrating on self-beliefs in relation to emotion
management and/or perceiving and understanding emotions, as well as
assisting others in controlling their emotions (Qualter, P.; Pool, L. D.;
Gardner, K. J.; Ashley-Kot, S.; Wise, A.; Wols, A.,2015).

10
Self-Efficacy- it is the belief in one’s own ability to successfully accomplish
something.
Social Self-efficacy- one's awareness of the abilities that enable him to
establish social relationships and collaborate with others in dealing with
social situations and conflicts (Rababah M. M. S., 2016).
Working Student – referring to students who choose to work while studying to
help their selves due to lack of finances and or to earn for savings.
Workload – as used in the research – it is the backlogs of activities, projects,
requirements, and etc. of working students.
Work Self-efficacy – this is related to the employees, enabling themselves to
learn and know how to achieve their job goals and roles within variety of
factors.
Work Shift hours – This is the amount of time students spend at work.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDY
This chapter covers a variety of studies and literatures. It includes
important readings that are relevant to this study. These readings were culled
from books, manuals, the internet, and related studies and research, both
published and unpublished, conducted locally and abroad.
Related Literature
Self-efficacy plays a key role in the self-regulation of motivation. Most
human motivation is cognitively generated. People motivate themselves and
guide their actions anticipatorily by the exercise of forethought (Bandura, A.,
1994). They form beliefs about what they can do. They anticipate likely outcomes
of prospective actions. They set goals for themselves and plan courses of action
designed to realize valued futures.
Moreso, self-efficacy also helps determine how much effort people will
expend on activity, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and
how resilient they will be in the face of adverse situations (Wentzel, K and
Wigfield, A., 2009). People with a strong sense of efficacy are to approach
difficult tasks as challenge to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided.
They set challenging goals and maintain strong commitment to them, heighten
12
and sustain their efforts in the face of self-efficacy after setbacks. Conversely,
people with low self-efficacy may believe that things are more difficult than they
really are a belief that can foster anxiety, stress, depression, and a narrow vision
of how best to solve problem. Self-efficacy can influence one’s ultimate
accomplishments and lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy which one accomplishes
what one believes one can accomplish.
The motivation to go through specific goals and actions, is an exercise to
build a strong capacity to adhere certain dissensions that permits to low self-
beliefs – following failures to arise. With the face of adverse situation – strong
self-efficacy can hinder all of those kinds of actions; hence they have the
capacity to resolve certain conditions because it is a belief that there are no
certain problems that cannot be resolve.
Emotional and physiological states like anxiety, stress, fatigue, and mood
also have an impact on beliefs. By evaluating their own performances under
various conditions, students learn to interpret physiological arousal as an
indicator of personal competence. Strong emotional responses to school-related
tasks can indicate whether or not you are likely to succeed. Self-efficacy is
harmed by high anxiety levels. Students who are apprehensive about going to a
specific class are likely to interpret their fear as a sign of a lack of ability in that
subject. People tend to function best when their physiological arousal is neither
too high nor too low, according to Bandura (1997); physiological arousal may be
related to self-efficacy. In general, increasing students’ physical and emotional

13
well-being and reducing negative emotional states strengthens self-efficacy
(Usher, E. L.; Pajares, F., 2008).
With the abundance of physical and emotional activities, students can be
motivated to solve problems that apart from what they believe at first. In
connection with the academe, student disinterest to a certain topic can be
reciprocated by means of motivation wherein the belief that they cannot comply
with the subject can be part of their interest to solve it.
Academic self-efficacy, which refers to a students’ perceived capability to
reach explicit academic goals, has been positively linked to strategy use and self-
regulation. Better strategies are one of the reasons for the higher academic
performance among students with high self-efficacy beliefs. A vast amount of
research has furthermore shown that self-efficacy is one of the most important
variables consistently associated with achievement (Jungert, T. and Rosander,
M., 2010).
Continuance commitment is vital in today's world because employees are
worried that losing their jobs will affect their income and livelihood (Peprah, W.K.,
2019), Working students are not exempt from this rule. With the lack of support
from families and others, working students cannot comply to their academic
activities lowering their self-efficacy. Todays’ Covid-19 Pandemic is an example.
Where companies are forcedly closed due to financial problems that affects the
livelihood of working students.

14
Over the years, the concept of “work-study balance” (Nucum, 2018) has
been an ongoing struggle for working students. Financial crisis is still the primary
factor why students take a part time jobs. Running from school to work and
rushing academic requirements and side-hustles while keeping your family and
social is a truly a daunting task. Nucum’s (May, 2018) article shares the
importance of planning schedule within the concept of work-study aspect of
students – it is by using the Eisenhower Decision Matrix. This type of matrix can
help working students manage time and create a better decision in their daily
task in both work and school activities.
Figure 2
Eisenhower Decision Matrix
Related Studies
The study of Wilks (2008) entitled “Resilience amid Academic Stress: The
Moderating Impact of Social Support among Social Work Students” examined
academic stress and perceived resilience among students in social work.

15
Identifying social support as a protective factor on this connection. Data on
demographics, academic stress, family support, friend support, and resilience
were gathered via a voluntary survey. Academic stress and social support were
both modest in this group, but resilience was much higher.
Resilience and social support are adversely correlated with academic
stress. Resilience was boosted by the presence of others. Resilience levels were
primarily affected by academic stress. Resilience and academic stress have a
negative correlation. Friend support has a substantial moderating effect. The
assistance from friends may help students cope with the stress of academics.
There are implications for social work educators and internship supervisors
(Wilks, 2008).
Wilks study states that social support is part of student’s resilience
wherein, with their help students can cope up to any certain obstacles that they
need to surpass. Thus, it is their motivation and stronghold to perform well and to
wrap things at its best that will perceived by others. especially doing workloads or
tasks in the school or in work.
Furthermore, workload is defined as the amount of work which an
individual has to finish within a given period and excessive workload or role
overload is one of the job stressor or task-related stressors (Radzali, F.M.,
Ahmad, A. and Omar, Z., 2013).
Regarding the work/study conflict or balance, a great deal of the attention
in this domain over the last decades has focused on documenting the conflicts
16
between the demands of work and study, with the work/school conflict being a
key term of this tension, which analyzes, for the most part, teenagers or
university students, who are studying full-time and seek employment to satisfy
some personal need (Eller, A. M., Araujo, B., Araujo, D., 2016).
Amidst Covid-19 pandemic, students are owed with several financial
problems especially the expense for their education. Work and study are part
their daily routine to sustain their everyday needs as some are considered to be
unsupported (Independent).
Despite the lack of studies focusing on the work/study interface with non-
traditional or adult students, they comprise one of the fastest growing segments
among students of higher education. Even though it is an understudied group, for
they have more commitments and responsibilities than traditional students,
besides receiving less social support, they have more demands to be managed,
leading to greater conflicts.
Bandura pointed out four sources of information; Proficiency and expertise
performance, Indirect experiences, Verbal persuasion, and Physical and
emotional indicators (Abdel-Hadi, S. A. 2017).
Proficiency and expertise performance. It conveys a sense of efficacy.
When someone attempts something and succeeds by demonstrating mastery of
those experiences—experiences that lead to self-efficacy—individuals are more
likely to believe that they can do something new if it is similar to something they
have already done (Abdel-Hadi, S. A. 2017). As a result, performance

17
experiences influence self-efficacy beliefs; when we succeed in controlling a
behavior or domain, self-efficacy is usually higher.
Individuals observe others to form expectations about their behavior and
outcomes is called indirect experiences; observing the success of others who are
similar to them and watching them succeed can drive an individual to attempt to
develop self-efficacy, and the opposite happens when observing someone similar
while he fails, and this detracts or threatens self-efficacy, taking into account the
impact of indirect experiences on self-efficacy is linked to the extent of the
observe belief (Abdel-Hadi, S. A. 2017).
The third factor which is the Verbal persuasion, wherein verbal or social
persuasion has an effect on self-efficacy; when an individual believes he can
master a task, he is more likely to complete it (Abdel-Hadi, S. A. 2017). What
others say about abilities and chances of success influences efficiency, taking
into account the fact that the power of verbal persuasion is affected by source
characteristics such as specialization and professionalism, confidence, and
gravity.
Lastly, the Physical and the emotional indicators, Thus, physical and
emotional states can affect self-efficacy; if an individual associates’ poor
performance or perception of failure with physical discomfort and negative
emotions in a state of anxiety, he will doubt his ability and be more likely to lack
confidence in his ability to perform effectively. Physical and emotional situations

18
that arise when an individual performs a behavior, or even imagines performing
this behavior, affect self-efficacy (Abdel-Hadi, S. A. 2017).
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research method and procedures used by the
researchers in the conduct of the study. It has these components: research
design and instruments used, research environment, respondents, data
gathering instruments, data gathering procedures and analysis and treatment of
data.
Research Design
This topic titled “Working Student’ Workload on Self-Efficacy in Santiago
City is a Descriptive Design Research that attempted to accumulate existing
information data regarding the Working student’s Self-Efficacy in terms of Social,
Academic, Emotional and Work.
The descriptive method will be used in the topic. Descriptive method aims
to identify characteristics, frequencies, trends, and categories. Also, it is usually
defined as a type of quantitative research. Quantitative research is a process of
collecting and analyzing numerical data, it can be used to find patterns and
averages, make predictions, test causal relationship, and generalize results to

19
wider population (Bhandari, 2021) Moreso, quantitative research is widely used
in the natural and social sciences: biology, chemistry, psychology, economics,
sociology, marketing and etc.
This study aims to depict the Self-Efficacy of working college students of
McDonald’s Santiago Branch 1 and 2, on how they handle situations in in
regards of both ways they live – the work and the school, especially in today’s
pandemic. The researchers used descriptive method in order to verify
observations on the Working student’s Workload on Self-Efficacy in Santiago
City.
Respondents of the Study
Working students from various schools and universities were assessed at
Liangco Food and Allied Service Incorporated – McDonald's Branch 1 and 2.
Researchers use a Purposive Sampling method to select members of the
population to participate in the study, and they end up with 93 respondents from
branches 1 and 2.
Table 1
Breakdown of McDonald’s Employees
McDonald’s Branch Frequency

McDonald’s 466 – Xentro Mall 41
McDonald’s 542 – Mart One 52
Total 93
20
Locale of the Study
The study was conducted in Santiago City Particularly at McDonald’s 542
Mart One Mabini and McDonald’s Xentro Mall 466 Villasis.
Ray Croc discovered a small burger joint in California in 1954, which
became McDonald's. McDonald's has proudly grown from humble beginnings as
a small restaurant to become one of the world's leading food service brands, with
over 36,000 locations in over 100 countries.
In 1992, McDonald's Philippines opened its first stores in Visayas and
Mindanao, and in 2005, it proudly became a 100% Filipino-owned company. In
over 600 restaurants across the country, McDonald's continues to make Filipino
families happy.
Figure 3
Location of McDonald's Xentro Mall 466

21
Figure 4
Location of McDonald's Mart One 542
Liangco Food and Allied Services Incorporated, headed by Mrs. Noemi
Liangco, operates a McDonald's franchise in Santiago City. McDonald's Santiago
268- Victory Norte was the first McDonald's store in the Province of Isabela when
it opened in 2002, but it closed in August 2020 due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.
The second McDonald's opened in 2012 at Xentro Mall 466. Lastly, in 2014, the
third branch, McDonald's 542, opened in Mart One Mall as shown in Figure 4 and
Figure 5.
Data Gathering Instruments

22
The Questionnaire
To collect information about the research topic, the researchers used an
adapted version of a questionnaire. Working Students/Service Crews of
McDonald's Branches in Santiago City are given questionnaires to fill out through
printout form and Google Form. Two parts make up the survey questionnaire:
Part I : Covers the Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Part II : Covers the Information proper spread on such concerns regarding
the Self-Efficacy especially to the following;
a. Academic Self-Efficacy
b. Social Self-Efficacy
c. Emotional Self-Efficacy
d. Work Self-Efficacy
Data Gathering Procedure
Upon the approval of the topic and gathering related information, the
researchers prepared the first draft of the questionnaire, items in the
questionnaire were adapted to some trusted references from the web that
focuses on the students Self-Efficacy. Afterwards, the questionnaires were ready
for administration.
Prior to giving questionnaires to all respective crew respondents, the
researchers will send a letter to Liangco Food and Allied Services Incorporated –
23
McDonald's, requesting their approval. Following that, all questionnaires will be
retrieved and filled out personally after a short period of time.
The gathered data through the questionnaires were recorded, tallied,
tabulated, computed, analyzed and interpreted.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The statistical treatment of data, the researcher utilized the following tools;
Frequency and Percentage is a display of data that specifies the
percentage of observations that exist each data point or grouping of data points,
particularly useful method of expressing the relative frequency of survey
responses and other data, this can be used in the Demographic Profile of the
respondents (such as Age, Sex, Degree Program, School Attended, Total Units,
and Total Work shift hours)
Mean this was used to measure the working student’s response on their
self-efficacy for the following; Academic, Social, Emotional, and Work efficacy.
T-Test this was used to determine if there is a significant difference
between the means of two groups, which maybe related in a certain feature.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a statistical formula used to compare
variances across means (or average) of different groups.
The researchers are required to emphasize the importance of data privacy
due to the gathering of classified information and data.
Republic Act No. 10173, An Act Protecting Individual Personal
Information in Information and Communications Systems in the Government and

24
the Private Sector, Creating for this Purpose a National Privacy Commission and
other Purposes (National Privacy Commission, 2012).
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This section provides, analyzes, and interprets data gathered from
McDonald's 466 Xentro Mall and McDonald's 542 Santiago City working
students. Part I contains the demographic profile of the respondents, whereas
Part II covers the information properly categorized as Academic, Social,
Emotional, and Work Self-Efficacy.
Profile of the Respondents
The total sample population was originally 119, however due to time
constraints and non-responsiveness of some of the respondents, only 93
respondents participated in this research.
Table 2
Frequency and Distribution as to Age
Particulars Frequency Percent

16-20 years old 40 43
21-25 years old 53 57
Total 93 100
25
The data obtained as shown in Table 2 shows that the age group of 21-25
accounts for 53 or 57% of the entire sample. It was followed by those between
the ages of 16 and 20, who accounted for 40 of the total respondents or 43%.
According to the chart, the majority of the polled respondents are between
the ages of 21 to 25.
Table 3
Frequency and Distribution as to Degree Program
Frequenc
Particulars Percent
y
AB 2 2.15
Accountancy and Business Administration 25 26.88
BS Agriculture 4 4.30
BS Criminology 9 9.68
BS Psychology 2 2.15
BSED 13 13.98
BSIT 17 18.28
BSN 2 2.15
Engineering 9 9.68
Tourism/Hospitality Management 10 10.75
Total 93 100.00
Table 3 shows the frequency distribution of Degree Programs, the
Accountancy and Business Administration dominated with 25 or 26.88% of the
sample, followed by BSIT with 17 or 18.2%. BSED has 13 or 13.98% of the total
respondents. While Tourism/Hospitality Management had 10 respondents or
10.75%. BS Criminology and Engineering with 9 respondents or 9.68%. BS

26
Agriculture also have a 4 or 4.30% share. Lastly, AB, BS Psychology, and BSN
had 2 responders or 2.15% of the overall sample.
Table 4
Frequency and Distribution as to Sex

Male 48 51.60
Female 45 48.40
Total 93 100.00
Table 4 shows that out of 93 respondents, 48 or 51.6% are male and 45 or
48.4% are female. It simply means that the larger proportion of the respondents
are male.
Table 5
Frequency and distribution as to School Attended

Northeastern College 40 43.00
ISU Main Campus 14 15.10
IJMS 3 3.20
CVCITC 7 7.50
Philippine Normal University 1 1.10
AMA Santiago Branch 2 2.20
La Patria College 2 2.20
ULS Santiago City 15 16.10
Global Academy 1 1.10
IFSU Potia Branch 2 2.20
SISTECH 4 4.30
27
Cagayan State University 1 1.10

Undetermined 1 1.10
Total 93 100.00
As seen in Table 5, Northeastern College has 40 or 43% responses,
followed by University of La Salette (ULS) Santiago City with 15 or 16.10%
respondents. There are 14 respondents at 15.10% from Isabela State University
Main Campus (ISU-Main), CVCITC with 7 respondents or 7.50%. SISTECH with
4 or 4.30% respondents, and Infant Jesus Montessori School (IJMS) with 3 or
3.20% respondents
AMA Santiago City, La Patria College, and IFSU Potia Branch each have
2 responses, representing 2.20% of the total sample.
Finally, schools with 1.10 percent or 1 respondent, such as Philippine
Normal University (PNU), Global Academy (GATE), and Cagayan State
University (CSU).
Also, there is one respondent who is undetermined as to school attended.
The respondent left this section blank. This shows that Northeastern College
dominates the sample population.
Table 6
Frequency and Distribution as to Branch

McDonald’s 466 Xentro 41 44.10
Mall
McDonald’s 542 Mart One 52 55.90
Total 93 100.00
28
Table 6 shows that McDonald's 542 Mart One Branch had 52 or 55.90%
of the respondents, while McDonald's 466 Xentro Mall has 41 or 44.10% of the
total percentage. It simply shows that McDonald's 542 Mart One Branch has a
higher percentage of respondents.
Table 7
Frequency and Distribution as to Number of Units

3-18 units 12 12.90
19-27 units 65 69.89
28 and above 13 13.98
Undetermined 3 3.23
Total 93 100.00
Table 7 shows that 19-27 units had 65 or 69.89% of the respondents,
while 28 and above has 13 or 13.9% of the respondents. Also, 3-18 units has 12
or 12.90%.
There are 3 or 3.23% of the respondents who are undermined, because
the respondents left this section blank. It simply shows that 19-27 units has a
higher percentage of respondents.
Table 8
Frequency and Distribution as to Work Shift Hours

4-5 hours 21 22.60
6-7 hours 68 73.10
8-9 hours 3 3.20
29
10-12 hours 1 1.10

Total 93 100.00
According to Table 8, 6-7 hours has 68 respondents or 73.10% out of 93
respondents, whereas 4-5 hours has 21 respondents or 22.60%, 8-9 hours has 3
respondents or 3.20%, and 10-12 hours has 1.10% or 1 respondent. The table
below illustrates that the survey is dominated by 6-7 work shift hours.
Table 9
Academic Self-Efficacy
Qualitative
Particulars Mean
Description
1. I can get my teachers to help me when I get stuck on schoolwork. 3.60 Agree
2. I can study well when there are other interesting things to do. 3.75 Agree
3. I can get to study well the chapter for a test. 3.84 Agree
4. I can finish all my homework every day. 3.82 Agree
5. I can get to pay attention during every class. 3.84 Agree
6. I can get to succeed in passing all my subjects. 4.02 Agree
7. I can get to succeed in satisfying my parents with my schoolwork. 3.92 Agree
8. I can get to succeed in passing my test. 4.08 Agree
Total Mean 3.86 Agree
Table 9 shows the Academic Self-Efficacy of Working Students from
various schools on a 5-point scale. The survey results show that the statement "I
can get to succeed in passing my test." Had the highest rating of 4.08 or Agree.
While "I can get my professors to aid me when I'm stuck on schoolwork" got the
lowest mean of 3.60 or Agree. To sum up, the Academic Self-Efficacy of the
respondents fall under the qualitative description of Agree with a total mean
rating of 3.86.
30
Though rated Agree, statement number 1 can be seen as a concern that
most working students have difficulty achieving. Teachers actively participate in
the ability of the student to cope-up with their academic needs which are usually
with regards to the submission and compliance of their activities. Thus, making
them an important aspect in increasing working students’ academic self-efficacy.
We can deduce, however, that working students employed at the two
McDonalds branch can easily cope-up with their academic activities without
difficulty. Variables that affect their academic self-efficacy may be revealed as
the results and discussion goes further.
Table 10
Social Self-efficacy
Qualitative
Particulars Mean
Description
1. I can get to express my opinions when my classmates disagree
3.77 Agree
with me.
2. I can get to become friends with another person. 3.99 Agree
3. I can get to have a chat with an unfamiliar person 3.48 Agree
4. I can get to work in harmony with my classmates. 3.85 Agree
5. I can get to tell another person that they are doing something that I
3.70 Agree
don’t like.
6. I can get to tell a funny event to a group of person. 3.80 Agree
7. I can get to succeed in staying friends with other person. 3.91 Agree
Table 10 shows the Social Self-Efficacy survey results and qualitative
description. Ranked first is the statement "I can get to become friends with
another person" with a mean of 3.99 or Agree. The statement rated least has a
31
computed mean of 3.48 or Agree which is “I can get to have a chat with an
unfamiliar person”. Overall, the result from the above table is described as Agree.
The results suggest that even when working as a part-time at a fast food
chain, the students can still establish social relations with another person. This
can be a precedence to the nature of their work which entails that those who
work in the service industry has the capacity to engage with others and establish
rapport when necessary.
We can also deduce that the working students’ social self-efficacy is
positively rated implying that their social interaction is not compromised by the
nature of their work. Statistical results may reveal further other variables that
affect the respondents’ self-efficacy.
Table 11
Emotional Self-efficacy
Qualitative
Particulars Mean
Description
1. I can get to succeed in cheering myself up when an unpleasant
3.99 Agree
event has happened.
2. I can get to succeed in becoming calm again when I am very
3.83 Agree
scared.
3. I can get to succeed in preventing myself to become nervous. 3.86 Agree
4. I can get to succeed in controlling my feelings 4.11 Agree
5. I can get to succeed in giving myself a pep talk when I am feeling
3.90 Agree
low.
6. I can get to succeed on telling my friend that I don’t feel well. 3.80 Agree
7. I can get to succeed in suppressing unpleasant thoughts. 3.84 Agree
8. I can get to succeed in not worrying about things that might
3.77 Agree
happen.
32
Emotional Self-Efficacy was presented in the Table 11 showing that the
statement “I can get success in controlling my feelings” has the highest mean of
4.11 or Agree.
Emotional Self-Efficacy determines how well a person can bounce-back
from a stressful disposition. This allows a person to continue to work even when
they are experiencing negative emotions that could and would usually affect their
performance and over-all well-being. This implies that the students have the
confidence in managing their emotions at work and believes that they can
perform well.
Table 11 reveals that the respondents’ emotional self-efficacy is rated as
Agree which implies that they are able to cope-up emotionally, keeping their
emotions in-check for them to perform well. The ANOVA tests may reveal and
identify other variables that affect their emotional self-efficacy.
Table 12
Work Self-efficacy
Qualitative
Particulars Mean
Description
1. I complete my work tasks even I face emotional problems 3.85 Agree
2. I am able to set my boundaries at work 4.01 Agree
3. I am able to perform well at work 4.13 Agree
4. I have the energy to do well 4.12 Agree
5. I am able to concentrate in my work 4.15 Agree
6. I can handle problems at work 4.11 Agree
7. I can motivate myself to perform my job. 4.28 Strongly Agree
8. I can deal with my physical demands at work. 4.09 Agree
33
Table 12 presents the work self-efficacy of the working students using the
5-point Likert scale and resulted the following; “I can motivate myself to perform
my job” ranked first with 4.28 or “Strongly Agree”. “I can complete my work tasks
even I face emotional problem” has the lowest mean with 3.85 or” Agree”. Overall
results of the table above are considered “Agree”.
The result shows that students’ work self-efficacy is strong as students
can motivate themselves to perform well. The problems that they face is not a
hindrance to work as a part-time at the fast-food chain.
We can deduce that students have the ability to perform and motivate
themselves to do their job well even though they are facing problems at their
work.
Table 13
Differences in Working Students Self-Efficacy when grouped according to Age
Std. P
AGE N Mean t-comp
Deviation value
Academic Self-Efficacy 16-20 years old 40 3.92 0.52
0.795 0.43ns
21-25 years old 53 3.82 0.71
Social Self-Efficacy 16-20 years old 40 3.78 0.65

-0.076 0.94ns
21-25 years old 53 3.79 0.62
Emotional Self-Efficacy 16-20 years old 40 3.90 0.55

0.187 0.85ns
21-25 years old 53 3.88 0.63
Work Self-Efficacy 16-20 years old 40 4.11 0.49

0.188 0.85ns
21-25 years old 53 4.08 0.54
*– significant
ns
– not significant
34
Table 13 illustrates the differences in self-efficacy between age groups
and working students. In terms of Academic Self-Efficacy, the mean difference
between 16-20 years old and 21-25 years old is 0.10. Thus, the t-comp value of
0.795 and P-value of 0.43, indicates that there is no significant difference in
students' academic self-efficacy toward age classification and does not meet the
significance level of 0.05.
On the Social Self Efficacy group, the ages 21-25 years old had the
highest mean of 3.79 compared to the ages 16-25 years old with a difference of
0.01. However, indicates that there is no significant difference due to its t-value of
-0.076 and p-value of 0.94, both of which are greater than the expected range of
0.05 significance.
Table 13 also shows the results for the Emotional Self-Efficacy of the
same age range, with a mean difference of 0.02 between the two age
classifications. As a result, 16–20 years old have higher mean of 3.90 than 21-25
years old with 3.88. As a result, the t-value of 0.187 and p-value of 0.85 suggest
that there is no significance.
Lastly, Table 13 shows the respondents’ Work Self-Efficacy across age
groups. It shows that those aged 16-20 years have the higher mean with 4.11,
while those aged 21-25 years with 4.08. However, there is no significance
because the result does not meet the expected 0.05 significance, with a t-value
of 0.188 and a p value of 0.85.

35
The results imply that age is not a factor in determining the self-efficacy of
the working students.
Table 14
Differences in Working Students Self-Efficacy when grouped according to Sex
Std.
Sex N Mean t-comp P value
Deviation
Academic Self-Efficacy Male 48 3.92 0.66
0.869 0.39ns
Female 45 3.80 0.60
Social Self-Efficacy Male 48 3.85 0.53

0.958 0.34ns
Female 45 3.72 0.72
Emotional Self-Efficacy Male 48 3.84 0.65

Female 45 3.94 0.54 -0.764 0.45ns
Work Self-Efficacy Male 48 4.09 0.58

-0.056 0.96ns
Female 45 4.10 0.46
*– significant at .05
ns
– not significant
Table 14 shows the self-efficacy of the respondents when grouped
according to their sex. The mean difference between male and female academic
self-efficacy is 0.12, indicating that males have a higher mean. Thus, the t-comp
of 0.869 and p-value of 0.39 indicates that there is no significant difference
between the male and female students' academic self-efficacy and that the
significance level of 0.05 is not met.

36
On their Social Self-Efficacy, the male had the higher mean of 3.85
compared to female with a difference of 0.13. However, the aforementioned
group shows no significant due to its t-value of 0.958 and p-value of 0.34, which
failed to meet the 0.05 significance.
Table 14 also shows the results for the Emotional Self-Efficacy between
male and female, with a mean difference of 0.10 with a t-value of -0.764 and p-
value of 0.45 which suggest that there is no significance.
Lastly, Table 14 shows the respondents’ Work Self-Efficacy. However, the
result is not significant having a t-value of -0.056 and a p-value of 0.96.
The results imply that sex is not a factor in determining the self-efficacy of
the working students.
Table 15
Differences in Working Students Self-Efficacy when grouped according to
Branch
Std.
Branch N Mean t-comp P value
Deviation
Academic Self-Efficacy 466 Xentro Mall 41 3.71a 0.69
-2.082 0.04*
542 Mart One 52 3.98a 0.57
Social Self-Efficacy 466 Xentro Mall 41 3.72 0.63

-0.876 0.38ns
542 Mart One 52 3.84 0.63
Emotional Self-Efficacy 466 Xentro Mall 41 3.86 0.59

-0.432 0.67ns
542 Mart One 52 3.91 0.61
Work Self-Efficacy 466 Xentro Mall 41 4.01 0.41

-1.308 0.19ns
542 Mart One 52 4.16 0.58
*– significant at .05 a
- significant pair
ns
– not significant
37
On Social Self Efficacy, 542 Mart One Branch had the highest mean of
3.84 compared to 466 Xentro Mall with a mean difference of 0.12. However, the
results shown that there is no significant difference between the two branches
showing t-value of -0.8756 and p-value of 0.38.
Table 15 also shows the results for the Emotional Self-Efficacy between
the two McDonald’s Branch, with a t-value of -0.432 and p-value of 0.67 which
suggest that there is no significance.
The results show that there is no significance in the respondents Work
Self-Efficacy when group according to their branch because the result does not
meet 0.05 significance, with a t-value of -0.056 and a p value of 0.96.
Meanwhile, on Academic Self-Efficacy, the mean difference between 466
Xentro Mall and 542 Mart One is 0.27, showing that 542 Mart One have a higher
academic self-efficacy which implies that working students employed in 542 Mart
One Branch have a higher self-efficacy in their academics. The t-comp is
computed at -2.082 and p-value of 0.04 indicating that there is a significant
difference.
According to the findings of Table 15, 542 Mart One Branch provides a
better possibility for their working students in terms of school activities and
requirements. This is not to say that 466 Xentro Mall Branch does not provide the
same services, but students at 542 Mart One Branch can handle their academic
tasks better than working students at 466 Xentro Mall Branch. Given that
McDonald's Branches teach their employees the significance of time

38
management, the corporation provides working students with "Time Availability"
to help them balance school and work.
Table 16
Differences in Working Students Academic Self-Efficacy when grouped
according to Degree Program
Std. f- p
Degree Program N Mean
Deviation comp value
BSED 13 3.50abc 0.76
BS Psychology 2 3.13defh 0.18
Accountancy and Business
25 3.81 0.70
Administration
Tourism/Hospitality Management 10 3.80 0.49 1.999 0.050*
Academic
AB 2 4.01 0.88
Self-
Engineering 9 4.09ad 0.50
Efficacy
BS Agriculture 4 4.41beghi 0.56
BSIT 17 3.92g 0.54
BSN 2 3.32i 0.62
BS Criminology 9 4.25cfh 0.32
Total 93 3.86 0.64
ns
– not significant
Table 16 shows the respondents self-efficacy when grouped according to
degree program. It implies that degree program of the respondents and their
Academic Self-Efficacy has a significant difference with f-comp of 1.999 and p-
value 0.050.
39
Among the significant pairs between BSED, BS Psychology, Engineering,
Agriculture, BSIT, BSN, and Criminology, BS Agriculture has the highest
Academic Self-Efficacy among all degree programs.
Between BSED and Engineering, Engineering has the higher mean rating
of 4.09 with a mean difference of 0.59.
Between BSED and BS Agriculture, BS Agriculture has the higher mean
rating of 4.41 with a mean difference of 0.94.
Between BSED and Criminology, Criminology has the higher mean rating
of 4.25 with a mean difference of 0.75.
Between BS Psychology and Engineering, Engineering has the higher
mean rating of 4.09. with a mean difference of 0.96.
Between BS Psychology and BS Agriculture, BS Agriculture has the
higher mean rating of 4.41 with a mean difference of 1.28.
Between BS Psychology and BS Criminology, BS Criminology has the
Between BS Agriculture and BSIT, BS Agriculture has the higher mean
Between BS Agriculture and BS Psychology, BS Agriculture has the
Between BS Agriculture and BS Criminology, BS Agriculture has the

40
Lastly, Between BSN and BS Agriculture, BS Agriculture has the higher
mean rating of 4.41 with a mean difference of 0.49.
The results of Table 16 shows that among all degree programs, BS
Agriculture have the highest Academic Self-Efficacy among all degree programs,
which implies that BS Agriculture working students perform better than the other
working students of other degree programs.
Table 17
Differences in Working Students Emotional Self-Efficacy when grouped
according to Degree Program
Std.
Degree Program N Mean t-comp P value
Deviation
BSED 13 3.77 0.55
BS Psychology 2 3.82 0.45
Accountancy and Business Administration 25 3.73 0.71
Tourism/Hospitality Management 10 4.03 0.53
Emotional AB 2 3.63 - 1.359 0.220 ns
Self- Engineering 9 3.97 0.64
Efficacy BS Agriculture 4 4.41 0.31
BSIT 17 4.06 0.54
BSN 2 3.07 0.09
BS Criminology 9 3.97 0.50
Total 93 3.89 0.60
ns
– not significant
Table 17 shows the differences in working students Emotional Self-
Efficacy when grouped according to Degree Program. The Degree Program that
41
has the highest mean is BS Agriculture with 4.41, followed by the BSIT with 4.06,
Third with the highest mean is Tourism/Hospitality Management with 4.03.
The results shows that degree program is not the factor in determining the
Emotional Self-Efficacy of working students employed in two McDonald’s Branch.
Table 18
Differences in Working Students Work Self-Efficacy when grouped according to
Degree Program
Std. F- P
BSED 13 3.91 0.64
BS Psychology 2 3.69 0.44
25 4.01 0.57
Administration
Tourism/Hospitality Management 10 4.09 0.35
Work
AB 2 4.26 0.88 1.860 0.564ns
Self-
Engineering 9 4.13 0.26
Efficacy
BS Agriculture 4 4.41 0.57
BSIT 17 4.21 0.55
BSN 2 3.94 0.44
BS Criminology 9 4.31 0.41
Total 93 4.09 0.52
ns
– not significant
42
Table 18 shows the differences in working students Work Self-Efficacy
when grouped according to Degree Program. The Degree Program that has the
highest mean is BS Agriculture with 4.41, followed by the AB with 4.26, Third with
the highest mean is BSIT with 4.21.
The results shows that degree program is not the factor in determining the
Work Self-Efficacy of working students employed in two McDonald’s Branch.
Table 19
Differences in Working Students Social Self-Efficacy when grouped according to
Degree Program
Std. F- P
BSED 13 3.79a 0.45
BS Psychology 2 2.94bcdo 1.15
25 3.67e 0.56
Administration
Tourism/Hospitality Management 10 3.75fg 0.65
Social 2.568 0.012*
AB 2 3.00hij -
Self-
Engineering 9 3.99bhk 0.42
Efficacy
BS Agriculture 4 4.44cefil 0.16
BSIT 17 3.86dgm 0.78
BSN 2 2.82klmn 0.26
BS Criminology 9 4.08jno 0.50
Total 93 3.79 0.63
ns
– not significant
43
Table 19 shows the respondents self-efficacy when grouped according to
degree program. It implies that degree program of the respondents and their
Social Self-Efficacy has significant difference with f-comp of 2.568 and p-value
0.012 that meet the 0.05 significance.
Among the significant pairs between BSED, BS Psychology, Accountancy
and Business Administration, Tourism/Hospitality, AB, Engineering, BS,
Agriculture, BSIT, BSN, and BS Criminology, BS Agriculture has the highest
mean rating in Social Self-Efficacy among all degree programs.
Between BSED and BSN, BSED has the higher mean rating of 3.79 with a
mean difference of 0.97.
Between BS Psychology and BS Engineering, Engineering has the higher
Between BS Psychology and BS Agriculture, BS Agriculture has the
Between BS Psychology and BSIT, BSIT has the higher mean rating of
3.86 with a mean difference of 0.92.
Between Accountancy and Business Administration and BS Agriculture,
BS Agriculture has the higher mean rating of 4.44 with a mean difference of 0.77.
Between Tourism/Hospitality Management and BS Agriculture, BS
Agriculture has the higher mean rating of 4.44 with a mean difference of 0.69.
Between Tourism/Hospitality Management and BSIT, BSIT has the higher

44
Between AB and Engineering, Engineering has the higher mean rating of
Between AB and BS Agriculture, BS Agriculture has the higher mean
Between AB and BS Criminology, BS Criminology has the higher mean
Between Engineering and BSN, Engineering has the higher mean rating of
Between BS Agriculture and BSN, BS Agriculture has the higher mean
Between BSIT and BSN, BSIT has the higher mean rating of 3.86 with a
mean difference of 1.04.
Between BSN and BS Criminology, BS Criminology has the higher mean
Between BS Criminology and BS Psychology, BS Criminology has the
Table 19 shows that across all degree programs, BS Agriculture has the
highest mean rating in Social Self-Efficacy. As a result, Agriculture students have
the capacity to build good communication skills and understand how to manage
the way they engage with people compared to various degree programs. Which
they have the willingness to commence action regardless any social conditions
45
and capable in generating social contact and they can create a new society of
friendships.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary, conclusion and recommendations of
the study.
Summary
The study focuses on Working Students Self-Efficacy Amidst Pandemic
done throughout the School Year 2021-2022 prior to their Academic, Social,
Emotional, and Work Self-Efficacy. This study also took into account the
46
demographic profile of respondents collected in the area of responsibility –
McDonalds Xentro Mall and Mart One Santiago City, with a total of 93
respondents.
Profile of the Respondents
Age. The majority of working students at McDonald's Santiago City
Branches are between the ages of 21 and 25.
Degree Program. Accountancy and Business Administration dominate in
terms of degree program, with 25 respondents. Degree programs with the fewest
respondents are AB, BS Psychology, and BSN, each with only two (2)
respondents.
Sex. Males outnumbered females by a small margin of 48 over 45.
School Attended. Northeastern College has the most respondents of 40 in
terms of school attended. Philippine Normal University (PNU), Global Academy
(GATE), and Cagayan State University (CSU) with 1 respondent among the state
universities and colleges in the survey. One respondent is undetermined, thus he
or she left the section blank.
Enrolled Units. There are 65 respondents who enrolled 16-25 units
obtaining the highest percentage, while there are 3 respondents who are
undetermined in their numbers of units representing the lowest percentage.

47
McDonald’s Branch. McDonald's Mart One has 52 respondents, whereas
McDonald's Xentro Mall has 41, indicating that McDonald's Mart One dominates
the study.
Work Shift Hours. 6-7 hours has the highest frequency with 68
respondents, while 10-12 hours having the lowest frequency with 1 respondent.
Self-Efficacy of Working Students
Academic Self-Efficacy. “I can get to pass the test” dominated the survey
with 4.08 interpreted as Agree, and the least rated among the statements is “I
can get my professor to aid me when I’m stuck on schoolwork” with 3.60
interpreted as Agree. According to the survey, Academic Self-Efficacy
statements are interpreted as Agree with a mean of 3.86.
Social Self-Efficacy. “I can get to become friends with another person”
dominate the survey with 3.99 described as Agree, while the statement rated
least is “I can get to have a chat with unfamiliar person” with 3.48 mean
interpreted as Agree. Overall, the statements result are interpreted as Agree with
a mean of 3.78.
Emotional Self-Efficacy. The result shows that “I can get success in
controlling my feelings” with a mean of 4.11 interpreted as Agree dominates the
survey. The least among the statements is “I can get to succeed in not worrying
about things that might happen” with a mean of 3.77 interpreted as Agree.
Overall, the statements are interpreted as Agree with mean of 3.78.

48
Work Self-Efficacy. Ranked first among the statements is “I can motivate
myself to perform my job” with 4.28 describe as Strongly Agree. With the least is
“I can complete my work tasks even I face emotional problem” mean of 3.85 and
interpreted as Agree. According to the survey, the statements are described as
Agree with a mean of 4.09.
Working Students’ Self-Efficacy when Grouped According to their Profile
Significant Difference According to McDonald’s Branch. There is a
significant difference between McDonald’s Branches in the Academic Self-
Efficacy of working students employed with a p-value of 0.04. Given that
McDonald's Branches teach their employees the value of time management.
McDonald’s offers working students "Time Availability" to assist them in
balancing school and work. Thus, McDonald’s Mart One considered as a
provider of better possibilities for their working students’ employees in terms of
work and school. This not to say that McDonald’s Xentro Mall does not do the
same attribute.
Significant Difference According to Degree Program. There is a significant
difference between Degree Program and the Academic Self-Self Efficacy of the
employed working students with a p-value of 0.050. BS Agriculture have the
highest Academic Self-Efficacy among all degree programs, which indicates that
BS Agriculture working students perform better than the other working students
49
of other degree programs. They can also be considered to be capable in time
management despite their hectic schedules in both school and work.
Also, there is a significant difference between Degree Program and the
Social Self-Efficacy of Working students employed at McDonald’s Branches with
a p-value of 0.012 that meet the 0.05 significance. BS Agriculture has the highest
mean rating in Social Self-Efficacy. As a result, Agriculture students have the
capacity to create effective communication skills and understand how to manage
the way they communicate with others compared to various degree programs.
Which they have the willingness to initiate activity regardless any social situations
and capable in producing social contact and they can create friendships to other.
Conclusion
From the findings of the study, the following conclusions are drawn:
The age range of the respondents, which ranges from 21 to 25, influences
the study's findings in such a way that it shows that the majority of those who
obtained strong self-efficacy and can handle in any situation, including the Covid-
19 Pandemic. The majority of working students hired at two McDonald's
Branches are in the Accounting and Business Administration. While the majority
of the population is male, Northeastern College has the highest enrollment of
working students of any other institution. The Xentro Mall Branch was
outnumbered by McDonald's Mart One in terms of the number of working
students. The majority of working students who are enrolled has 19–27 units per
50
semester, and as a condition of doing so, they work 6-7 hours per day, in
accordance with their time availability.
On the Academic Self-Efficacy Assessment, working students give
passing exams, quizzes, and other school evaluations a high importance.
Working students organize their time to pass the test by adhering to the time
constraints set by the store, planning ahead the day before the exams, and
communicating their concerns to the store management.
Social contact helps students become more capable of establishing
themselves in a variety of social contexts, which is related to their social self-
efficacy. Working students, on the other hand, were more concerned with
assimilating into their surroundings, such as hanging out with friends or
establishing trusting bonds with individuals for better social interaction.
Students who work hard perform well on the Emotional Self-Efficacy
Assessment when it comes to controlling their emotions in response to varied life
circumstances. In contrast, students who are actively engaged in their studies
learn to control their emotions by calming and consoling themselves as well as
by thinking things through before acting – a problem solver.
For the work self-efficacy, despite any working student's condition in both
academe and the workforce, they nevertheless choose to adhere to norms that
make it difficult for them to work effectively. Their ability to persevere is only
made possible by motivation. In light of their management experiences at work,
working students were assessed with confidence.

51
McDonald’s Branch are significantly affected by working students’
academic self-efficacy; thus, the management must give prior support and
motivation to the employed working students for them to eased themselves to be
active in both school and their work or to follow students time availability as part
of terms and conditions of the company.
Working students' degree programs are significantly affected by their
academic self-efficacy, thus, there needs to be a close relationship between
them and their school, particularly their department and work management. This
will help them adjust to certain scenarios that will occur. Furthermore, because
coworkers and friends are seen as the people they contact with on a daily basis,
having great relationships with them can help those with low social self-efficacy
stick with them.
Lastly, working students’ degree programs are significantly affected by
their social self-efficacy, wherein, students must have the confidence to engage
to their surroundings despite differences. Also, to build their interpersonal
relationships through strong connections to other people.
Recommendations
Based from the summary of findings and conclusions, the researcher
suggests the following;
The school should develop a policy in handling working students to align
their hours to their number of units as compliance with their work schedules
52
because the degree program has a substantial impact on the students' Academic
Self-Efficacy.
Teachers of working students must be aware of student’s conditions and
guide them in adhering to the academic backlogs of working students.
To their work, management should heave monthly programs such as team
building and seminars that will relieve their employees' stress and also to regain
their knowledge about the companies’ standard procedures, particularly working
students, and urge them to progress forward.
Students must come up with certain strategies to balance work and
school, regardless of their circumstances.
Social interaction can help students release their stresses amidst certain
circumstances. Students must attend to a youth camp, seminars/webinars, and
other programs that the local government offers.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Hadi, S. A. (2017). Emotional Self-Efficacy among A Sample of Faculty

Members and its Relation to Gender (Male/Female), Experience,
53
Qualification, and Specialization. Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 212-213.

doi.10.5539/ies.v10n1p211.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

human behavior. Vol. 4, p. 4. New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H.
Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press,
1998).
Baloran, E.; Hernan, J. (2020). Crisis Self-Efficacy and Work Commitment of
Education Workers among Public Schools during COVID-19 Pandemic. p.1,
2020070599 doi: 10.20944/preprints202007.0599.v1.
Cherry, K. (2020). Self-Efficacy and Why Believing in Yourself Matters. Verywell
Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/
Curambao, L. et. al. (2015). Problems Encountered by Working Students and Its
Effect on their Academic Performance: Proposed Action Plan. p. 3
Doménech-Betoret, F.; Abellán-Roselló, L.; Gómez-Artiga, A. (2017). Self-

Efficacy, Satisfaction, and Academic Achievement: The Mediator Role of
Students’ Expectancy-Value Beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology,
8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01193
Eller, A. M.; Araujo, B., Araujo, D., (2016). Balancing Work, Study and Home: A
Research with Master’s Students in a Brazilian University, 17(3), p.62-63.
doi:10.1590/1678-69712016
Iroegbu, M. N. (2015) Self-Efficacy and Work Performance: A Theoretical

Framework of Albert Bandura's Model, Review of Findings, Implications
and Directions for Future Research. Psychology and Behavioral
Sciences. Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 170-173. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20150404.15
Jungert, T.; Rosander, M. (2010). Self-efficacy and strategies to influence the

study environment. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 647–659.
doi:10.1080/13562517.2010.522080
Lunenburg F. C. (2011). Self-Efficacy in the Workplace: Implications for Motivation

Motivation and Performance, Vol. 14 No. 1, p.1
National Privacy Commission. (2012, June 6). Republic Act 10173 An Act
Protecting Individual Personal Information in Information and
Communications Systems In The Government And The Private Sector,
Creating For This Purpose A National Privacy Commission, And For Other
Purposes. https://www.privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/
54
Nucum, K. N. (2018, May 18). Balancing job and academics as a working student
in the Philippines. The Vision Board.
https://www.edukasyon.ph/blog/balancing-job-and-academics-as-a-working-
student-in-the-philippines
Peprah, W.K., (2019). Compensation and Social Suppport on Continuance

Commitment of Working Students in Adventist University of the Philippines,
Vol. 7 No. 1. doi.org/10.35974/isc.v7i1.952
Qualter, P.; Pool, L. D.; Gardner, K. J.; Ashley-Kot, S.; Wise, A.; Wols, A.
(2015). The Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale: Adaptation and Validation for
Young Adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(1), 33–
45. doi:10.1177/0734282914550383
Rababah M. M. S.,(2016). Social Self-Efficacy and its Realationship with both

Depression and Anxiety, Stress among a Sample of Jadara University
Students, Vol. 7 No. 35, p. 84. ISSN 2222-1735
Radzali, F.M., Ahmad, A. and Omar, Z. (2013). Workload, Job Stress, Family-to-
Work Conflict and Deviant Workplace Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 12, doi:
10.6007/IJARBSS/v3-i12/417
Sharma H. L., Nasa G., 2014. Academic Self-Efficacy: Reliable Predictor of
Educational Performances, Bol. 2 No.3, p.57. doi:
10.20944/preprints202007.0599.v1
Tsurugano, S., Nishikitani, M., Inoue, M., & Yano, E. (2021). Impact of the
COVID‐19 pandemic on working students: Results from the Labour Force
Survey and the student lifestyle survey. Journal of Occupational Health,
63(1). doi:10.1002/1348-9585.12209
Usher, E. L.; Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of Self-Efficacy in School: Critical

Review of the Literature and Future Directions. Review of Educational
Research, 78(4), p.754. doi:10.3102/0034654308321456
Wentzel, K. and Wigfield, A. (2009), Handbook of Motivation at School, p.38.

ISBN 0-203-87949-X
Wilks, S., (2008). Resillience amid Academic Stress: The Moderating Impact of
Social Support among Social Work Students, Vol. 9 No.2. doi:10.18060/51
55
APPENDICES
56
APPENDIX A. Research Questionnaire

Below are the questions for our research titled “Working Students
Workload Self-Efficacy Amidst Covid-19 Pandemic” to gather data and
information we needed. Everything you put in this questionnaire will be
confidential and in accordance with "Republic Act No. 10173, An Act Protecting
Individual Personal Information in Government and Private Sector Information
and Communications Systems, Creating a National Privacy Commission and
Other Purposes" (National Privacy Commission, 2012). The information in this
survey will only be accessible to the researchers who are involved.
PART I. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE:

Name (optional): __________________________________________________
Age: □ 16-20 yrs. Old
□ 21-25 yrs. Old
□ 26-30 yrs. Old
Sex: □ Male
□ Female
Degree Program: ______________________________________________
School Attended: ______________________________________________
Branch: □ McDonald’s Xentro Mall 466
□ McDonald’s Mart One 542
Total units (current semester): ____
Work shift hours: □ 4-5 hours
□ 6-7 hours
□ 8-9 hours
□10-12 hours
57
PART II. INFORMATION PROPER

DIRECTIONS: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each
statement in the survey using the 5-point Likert scale by putting a CHECK ( / ) in
the box. Your responses will be kept completely CONFIDENTIAL, and you will
not be identified.
5-point Likert Scale
POINT DESCRIPTIVE DESCRIPTION
5 4.51-5.00Strongly Agree
4 3.51- 4.51Agree
3 2.51- 3.50Neutral
2 1.51- 2.50Disagree
1 1.00 -1.50Strongly Disagree
1. Academic Self-Efficacy
PARTICULARS 5 4 3 2 1
1. I can get my teachers to help me when I get stuck
on schoolwork.
2. I can study well when there are other interesting
things to do.
3. I can get to study well the chapter for a test.
4. I can finish all my homework every day.
5. I can get to pay attention during every class.
6. I can get to succeed in passing all my subjects.
7. I can get to succeed in satisfying my parents with
my schoolwork.
8. I can get to succeed in passing my test.
2. Social Self-Efficacy
1. I can get to express my opinions when my
classmates disagree with me.
2. I can get to become friends with another person.
3. I can get to have a chat with an unfamiliar person
4. I can get to work in harmony with my classmates.
5. I can get to tell another person that they are doing
something that I don’t like.
6. I can get to tell a funny event to a group of person.
58
7. I can get to succeed in staying friends with other

person
8. I can get to succeed in preventing quarrels with
other person.
3. Emotional Self-Efficacy
1. I can get to succeed in cheering myself up when an
unpleasant event has happened.
2. I can get to succeed in becoming calm again when I
am very scared.
3. I can get to succeed in preventing myself to
become nervous.
4. I can get to succeed in controlling my feelings
5. I can get to succeed in giving myself a pep talk
when I am feeling low.
6. I can get to succeed on telling my friend that I don’t
feel well.
7. I can get to succeed in suppressing unpleasant
thoughts.
8. I can get to succeed in not worrying about things
that might happen.
4. Work Self-Efficacy
1. I complete my work tasks even I face emotional
problems
2. I am able to set my boundaries at work
3. I am able to perform well at work
4. I have the energy to do well
5. I am able to concentrate in my work
6. I can handle problems at work
7. I can motivate myself to perform my job.
8. I can deal with my physical demands at work.
Thank you for your kind participation, this will give a better outcome to our
research.
Sincerely,
THE RESEARCHERS
59
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name JAY MARK P. TAPAR
Date of Birth August 20, 2000
Place of Birth Bianoan, Casiguran, Aurora
Educational Attainment
Collegiate Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English

Northeastern College
2019-present
Villasis, Santiago City
Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English

Infant Jesus Montessori School Incorporated
2018-2019
Malvar, Santiago City, Isabela
Secondary
Junior Dabubu National High School

2012-2016
Dabubu Pequeno, San Agustin, Isabela
Senior Northeastern College - High School

2016-2018
Villasis, Santiago City, Isabela
60
Elementary Dabubu Grande Elementary School

2007-2012
Dabubu Grande, San Agustin, Isabela
61
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name SYRELLE T. NAVAL
Date of Birth June 29, 1999
Place of Birth Wigan, Cordon, Isabela

2019-present
Secondary
Junior Cagasat National High School

2014-2017
Magsaysay, Cordon, Isabela
Senior Cagasat National High School

2017-2019
Elementary Wigan Integrated School

2006-2013
Wigan, Cordon, Isabela
62
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name KATHLYN JOYCE C. TUMANUT
Date of Birth June 20, 2001
Place of Birth Capirpirawan, Cordon, Isabela

2019-present
Secondary
Junior St. John Berchmans High School

2014-2017
Senior Cagasat National High School

2017-2019
Elementary Cordon North Central School

2006-2013
Turod Norte, Cordon, Isabela
63
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name KATRINA MAE D. LERIN
Date of Birth December 19, 2001
Place of Birth Project 8, Quezon City

2019-present
Secondary
Junior Palayan Region High School

2014-2017
Bagnos, Alicia, Isabela
Senior Alicia National High School

2017-2019
Paddad, Alicia, Isabela
Elementary Toro Hills, Elementary School

2006-2013
Barangay Bahay Toro Project 8, Quezon City
64

The Problem and Its Background: Education Amidst Covid-19 Outbreak

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

The Problem and Its Background: Education Amidst Covid-19 Outbreak

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Education amidst Covid-19 outbreak

Every person's life is significantly influenced by their education. It serves

are unable to continue their education due to financial constraints, so they

work while studying, particularly at the tertiary level.

The COVID-19 pandemic has an impact on educational systems all over

world's student population will be affected by these nationwide closures. Several

additional students. In the Philippines, studies on the impact of the COVID-19

anxiety during school closures. However, despite psychological stress or anxiety,

Filipino teachers maintained a positive outlook. During the pandemic, teachers

Working Students situation during Pandemic

reduction of government subsidies to universities and tuition hikes in both the

(Tsurugano, Nishikitani, Inoue and Yano, 2001)

Students commonly experience a variety of issues related to their studies

Bandura describes a person's belief in their ability to succeed as a

determinant of how they think, behave, and feel. In addition, self-efficacy is

required to manage prospective situations," according to Bandura's seminal 1977

paper, "Self-Efficacy: Towards a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change." It

efficacy is a positive predictor of performance outcomes in different subjects

(Doménech-Betoret, F., Abellán-Roselló, L., & Gómez-Artiga, A. 2017). Self-

efficacy can be determined through Academic, Social, Emotional and Work.

Academic self-efficacy is becoming more widely recognized as a predictor

of academic success. Performances that are educational. "A person's confidence

in their abilities to organize, execute, and regulate performance to achieve

designated types of performances" is how academic self-efficacy is defined. It is

Social self-efficacy is an important component of self-efficacy, which is the

specific goals. Negotiation in interpersonal conflict, meeting and learning about

new members, firmness in social attitudes, and the development of friendly

establishing social relationships and cooperating with others in dealing with

social situations and conflicts (Rababah M. M. S., 2016).

Emotional self-efficacy is an important aspect of emotional functioning,

with current assessments for children and adolescents focusing on self-beliefs in

relation to emotion management. The psychometric properties of the first

adaptation of the Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale for youth (Youth-ESES), which

measures additional aspects of ESE, such as perceiving and understanding

are influenced by self-efficacy, perseverance, and effort of employees when

learning difficult tasks.

Statement of the Problem

This study focused on the “Working Student’ Self-Efficacy Amidst Covid-

Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions:

1. What are the Demographic Profile of the respondents as of the following;

g. Work shift Hours

2. What is the self-efficacy of students in terms of;

3. Is there a significant difference in the self-efficacy of working students

when they are grouped according to their profile?

Hypothesis of the Study

This research operates with a lore hypothesis that there is no significant

differences in the self-efficacy of working students when they are grouped

according to their profile.

Self-Efficacy Theory. Wherein it is a social cognition construct that refers to a

reliable predictor of motivation and task performance, as well as a factor in

self-regulation system, self-efficacy beliefs are the most pervasive influence on

perseverance in the face of failure or difficulty, the amount of stress they

experience, and the degree to which they are susceptible to depression.

Self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1994), is a person's assessment of

his or her ability to achieve or accomplish a goal, and it is a determinant for

be found socially engaged in providing supportive services to peers, family

of accomplishment that an individual eventually achieves as a result of these

refers to one's confidence in carrying out courses of action in a wide range of

situations. Work self-efficacy is a measure of a person's ability to manage their

work environment. The theoretical underpinning is that individuals with higher