1

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

Background of the Study

St. Peter’s College is a school founded in 1952 in Iligan City, Lanao del Norte,

Philippines. A non-sectarian private school which no religion selected either Christian or

Muslims. (SPC manual)

Educational Facilities are valuable assets of the school that have been given

priority attention in terms of its establishment, procurements, development

improvement, maintenance, records and keeping and accountabilities. These consists

of sites building and various educational facilities which are the major support system of

the school to enhance the learning capabilities of the pupils/students for the maximum

development of their potentials, skills, talents and to become God-loving, low-abiding,

value-laden and responsible citizens of this country. (SPC manual)

An effective school facility is responsive to the changing programs of

educational delivery, and at a minimum should provide a physical environment that is

comfortable, safe, secure accessible, well illuminated, well ventilated, and aesthetically

pleasing. The school facility consists of not only the physical structure and the variety of

building system such us mechanical plumbing, electrical and power, high technology,

such as; computers, projector, security and fire suppression system. The facility also

includes furnishing, as well as various aspects of the building grounds namely, athletic

fields, playground areas for outdoor learning and vehicular parking area. (SPC manual)
 2

The Importance of educational facilities are considered indispensable to a

school: they do not only provide housing for the school serve as facilitating agents for all

the educational activities that take place in school. The school facility is much more than

a passive container of the educational process; it is rather, an integral component of the

conditions of learning. The layout and design of a facility contributes members. The

quality of its design and management, the facility can contribute to a sense of

ownership, safety and security, personalization and control privacy as well as sociality

and spaciousness or crowdedness. Availability to utilize the physical and material

resources like most especially library, laboratory and textbooks play an important role in

the achievement of educational goals and objectives and students performances. It is

important function of educational facilities is to provide the proper school environment

that is most conducive to effective teaching methods and school organization taking into

consideration the changes in educational process which has become more active,

interrelated, and has become an integral part of the community. (SPC manual)
 3

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored of the following theories, concepts and connectionism

which are all need in individuals.

According to conflict theory of Karl Marx (1971) that the key to understanding

social life and human history is through class struggle. In their view, class struggle is

brought about by competition over scarce resources in the society that is too many

people are competing over few resources available. The focus of the conflict theories is

to analyze how social actors compete and how they use their power to control,

dominate, and exploit groups in the society.

Another, in 1941, Miller and Dollard proposed the theory of social learning. In

1963 Bandura and Walters broadened the social learning theory with the principles of

observational learning and vicarious reinforcement. Bandura (1997) provided his

concept of self-efficacy in 1977, while he refuted the traditional learning theory for

understanding learning. The Social Cognitive Theory is relevant to health

communication. First, the theory deals with cognitive, emotional aspects and aspects of

behaviour for understanding behavioural change. Second, the concepts of the SCT

provide ways for new behavioural research in health education. Finally, ideas for other

theoretical areas such as psychology are welcome to provide new insights and

understanding.

Additionally, according to Yutchman and Seashores (1967) System

Resources Theory on Organizational Effectiveness guided this study. According to this

theory effectiveness is an organizations ability to secure an advantageous bargaining

 4

position in its environment and to capitalization on that position to acquire, judiciously,

distribute, and monitor utilization of scarce resource. Yutchman and Seashore (1967)

further view organizations such as school as open systems which acquire inputs,

engage in transformation process and generate outputs. This is supported by Okumbe

(1998) who equals a school to an industry which transforms given inputs into required

outputs.

Conceptual Framework

In the conceptual framework educational resources such as textbooks,

libraries, classroom, building, laboratories, canteen, water and electricity will interact

with students and teachers in the teaching learning process. The outcome will be

effective teaching and learning and students achievement.

 5

 Laboratories I

 Libraries E M

 Clinic V P

 Computer A A

laboratories L C

 Classrooms U T

 Home A O

Economic T N

Building I Academic

O Performance
 Comfort room
N
 Canteens

 Inside

campus

Fig1. Assessment of Physical Facilities-Independent variable

 6

Statement of the Problem

The main thrust of the study was simply an assessment of Physical Facilities of

Basic Education Department in St. Peter’s College, Iligan City; S.Y.2015-2016;

specifically, this study aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

2. What are the Physical Facilities that needs repair?

3. Is there a significant relationship between school age and good physical facilities of

the respondents:

3.1. Ages 3.6. Computer Laboratories

3.2. Grades 3.7. Home Economic Building

3.3. Classrooms 3.8. Clinic

3.4. Libraries 3.9. Comfort Rooms

3.5. Laboratories 3.10. Canteens

3.11. Inside the Campus

 7

Significance of the Study

This study would be beneficial to the following person.

Principal. The school principal in k-12 will maintain the harmonious effect of

the new tools in learning and each classroom should have a good atmosphere in

learning.

Teachers. They will confidently teach and feel ease because their classroom is

conducive to learning and well-ventilated.

Students. Their academic performance will be increase for they have a

complete facilities or tool in learning process.

Parents. The findings of the study serve as an eye opener for them as to their

role in the assessment of physical facilities of the school providing guidance on their

effort to help in the attainment of the school goals.

Community. The study will promote the school variety that students will be

able to enrol due to providing quality education, and also have conducive and well

ventilated building, classroom, laboratories, library and also the comfort rooms.

Future researchers. They will benefit from the results of the study through the

information that it gives. This will support on their researchers.

 8

Scope and Limitations of the study

The study aimed to seek the stand of the students towards the school

facilities and how does its effect students’ performance in school. The respondents are

50 High School students of St. Peters College, School Year: 2015-2016. The

researchers use a self-made questionnaire.

Definitions of Terms

Assessment Tools. In this study, it is the process of defining, selecting,

designing, collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and using information to increase students

learning and development.

Building. In this study, it is a structure ( such as a house, hospital, school,

etc.) with a roof and walls that is used as a place for people to live, work, do activities,

store things, etc., and the act or process of making structures by putting together

materials.

Canteen. In this study, it is a recreational facility, bar, or small general store

formerly established for the patronage of soldiers, a temporary or mobile eating place,

especially one set up in an emergency, and a usually metal container for carrying

drinking water as on a hike.

Classroom. In this study, it is a room or place especially in a school in which

classes are conducted.

Comfort room. In this study, it is a room or workplace furnished with

amenities such as facilities for resting hygiene, storage of personal items a public toilet.
 9

Educational Resources. In this study, this are freely accessible, openly

licensed documents and media that are useful for teaching, learning and assessing as

well as for research purposes.

Electricity. In this study, it refers to the electric current generated by the flow

of electrons around a circuit and used as a source of power.

Laboratory. In this study, it is a room or building with scientific equipment for

doing scientific test or for teaching science, or a place where chemicals or medicines

are produced; research laboratories, a computer laboratory and laboratory tests suggest

that the new drug may be used to treat cancer.

Libraries. In this study, it is a place in which reading materials such as

books, periodicals, and newspaper and often other materials such as musical and video

recordings, are kept for use or learning, collection of such materials, especially when

systematically arranged, a room in a private home for such a collection and an

institution or foundation maintaining such a collection.

Physical Facilities. In this study, it refers to all the Physical properties of a

school, consisting of all grounds, building, and various, facilities within the school

ground and inside the school building.

Utilization. In this study, it refers to the act of putting into use, especially to

make profitable or effective use.

Water. In this study, it is the clear liquid that falls as rain and is used for

things such as drinking and washing, the supply of water to homes and building and an

area of water that belongs to a particular place, state.

 10

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents a review of related literature and studies gathered from

the different authors that will help much in the integration of ideas, concepts and

principles of this study. These are taken from foreign and local sources which will help

significantly in the selection of the problems.

Related literature

Adeyemi and Adu (2010), it is widely accepted that education is one of the

leading instruments for promoting economic development as it encompasses some

processes individuals go through to help them develop and utilize their potentials.

Further Okeke (2007) points out that, through education, individuals acquire knowledge,

skills and attitude that are necessary for effective living.

Adeogun and Osifila (2008) said physical resources include laboratories,

libraries, classrooms and a host of other physical infrastructure while material resources

include textbooks, charts, maps among others.

Akisanya (2010) commented that educational resources are important because

the goal of any school depends on adequate supply and utilization of physical and

material resources among others as they enhance proper teaching and learning the

reason why this study is important. Furher more to determine the differential distribution

and utilization of human resources on students’ performance in state owned and federal

schools revealed that both material and human resources were practically inadequate
 11

and where they were adequate they were not well utilized in those two types of schools.

Further, the study also revealed that physical facilities like laboratories and libraries

were inadequate which affected students’ performance.

Owoeye and Yala (2010), in some instances textbooks provide the only source

of information for students as well as the course of studies for the subjects Squire

(1991) writing on teachers reliance on textbooks stated that those seeking to improve

the quality of education in instructional materials would inevitably lead to changes in

actual teaching. While the selection of a textbook has been judged to be of vital

importance to academic achievement, it is sad to say that relevant books are not

available for teaching and learning activities..

According Owoeye and Yala (2010), the chief purpose of a school library is to

make available to the pupil at his or her easy convenience all books, periodicals and

other reproduced materials which are of interest and value which are not provided as

basic or supplementary textbooks. They further noted that as a resource the library

occupies a central and primary place in any school system as it supports all functions of

the school.

Affirming this Ogunniyi (1993) said that there is a general consensus among

science educators that the laboratory occupies a central position in science instruction.

However, many studies have established that physical and material resources in

secondary schools are inadequate in the world all over. For example World Bank (2008)

in a study on textbooks and school library provision in secondary education in Sub-

 12

Sahara Africa revealed that textbooks and libraries were not only inadequate but

unevenly distributed among rural.

Fowowe (1988) a library must be up to date and at the same time allow access

to older materials.

Similarly, Oni (1995) said that availability and quality of materials facilitates

smooth operation of any school and thereby enhancing effective teaching/learning

activity and when this is so, there is higher educational attainment by students.

For instance Ogonor (2001) reported the killing of pupils and teachers of a

primary school in Nigeria when the school walls and roofs collapsed. Even large amount

of money invested on school facilities are wasted when school buildings and equipment

are left to deteriorate without maintenance. It has been observed that school facilities

are not been maintained by school administrators and hence their depreciation. The

administrators appears to spend much time on instructional planning, curriculum

development, personnel development and community relations claiming that the

management and maintenance of school facilities is the sole preserves of the

government. This study examines school facilities in secondary schools with focus on

the state of the facilities, the adequacy of the maintenance provided, factors

encouraging school facilities depreciation and the roles of school administrators in the

management and maintenance of school facilities.

 13

Related studies

According to Adeboyeje (2000) and Emetarom (2004), school facilities are the

physical and spatial enablers of teaching and learning which will increase the production

of results. School facilities serve as pillars of support for effective teaching and learning.

Oyesola (2000) sees school facilities to include permanent and semi-permanent

structures such as machinery, laboratory equipment, the blackboard, teacher’s tools

and other equipment as well as consumables. Good quality and standard of school

depend largely on the provision, adequacy, unitization and management of educational

facilities.

Akinsolu (2004) asserted that educational curriculum cannot be sound and well

operated with poor and badly managed school facilities. From all indication, school

facilities are physical resources that facilitate effective teaching and learning. They

include blocks of classrooms, laboratories, workshops, libraries, equipment,

consumables, electricity, water, visual and audio-visual aids, tables, desks, chairs,

playground, storage space and toilets

Olagboje (1998) sees school plant maintenance as any work carried out on any

component of the plant with a view to keeping it at good working condition.

According to Hinum (1999) the quality and durability of a building largely

depend on the type and level of servicing, repairs and the rate at which the needs and

requirement change. School facilities management involves keeping records of the

facilities, supervising the facilities, planning for the facilities, motivating student and

teachers to participate in facilities maintenance and evaluating the available facilities.

 14

Plethora research reports have revealed that a significant relationship existed between

school environment and students’ attitude to schooling (Akinlua and Adeogun, 2007;

Oyira, 2007; Ikoya and Onoyase, 2008).Studies have also shown that the condition of

school facilities have a strong effect on academic performance of pupils.

Chan (1979) found that students who were taught in modernized buildings

scored consistently higher across a range of standardized tests.

Adeboyeje (2000) reported that schools with well-coordinated plant planning

and maintenance practices recorded better students’ performance.

In addition, Adesina (1999) stressed that the quality and quantity of

educational facilities available within an educational system positively correlates with

the quality and standard of the educational system.

Durosaro (1998) examined school plant planning in relation to administrative

effectiveness of secondary schools. He found that schools that planned and maintained

their facilities had higher students’ retention and is more effective than the others Ikoya

and Onoyase (2008) reported that only 26% of secondary schools across the country

have school infrastructures in adequate quality and quantity.

Ajayi (1999) reported that most of the Nigerian primary schools are

dilapidated due to inadequate funding while most tertiary institutions are living in their

past glories. Such situation hinders effective teaching and learning, making the process

rigorous and uninteresting to students and teachers. Similarly,

Owuamanam (2005) noted that the inadequacy of infrastructural facilities and

lack of maintenance for available facilities were major problems facing Nigerian

educational system. The school facilities are grossly inadequate to match the student’s
 15

population and the available facilities were poorly maintained. The availability and

maintenance of school facilities will enhance teaching and learning and improve

academic performance of students.

Researchers like Wilcockson (1994), Lawal (1996), Ajayi (1999) and Owoeye

(2000) have long identified the importance of school facilities in teaching and learning

while the inadequacy, deterioration and lack of maintenance of these facilities will spell

doom for the teachers and students in the teaching and learning activities.

Orina (2001) with increased poverty levels many parents have not been able

to meet the cost requirement under this policy leading to inadequate physical and

material resources in secondary schools.

Mutai (2006) who asserted that learning is strengthened when there is enough

reference materials such as textbooks, exercise books, teaching aids and classrooms.

Further, he asserted that academic achievement illustrates per excellence the correct

use of these materials. Negligence in the maintenance of school facilities has much

negative consequence. When school facilities are not well managed and maintained,

they constitute health hazards to pupils and teachers who use the facilities.

A study by Altbach (1993) noted that nothing has ever replaced the printed

word as the key element in the educational process and as a result textbooks are

central to schooling at all levels.

 16

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research methodology for the study. The chapter

describes the research design, research environment, respondents, sampling

procedures and data gathering procedures and statistical treatment.

Research Design

The method used in this study was the descriptive method using questionnaire.

The researchers conducted a survey through the questionnaires in Secondary level.

Descriptive statistics was used in determining the physical facilities which can affect the

academic performance of the pupils.

Research Environment

This study was conducted at Junior High School of Basic Education

Department, St. Peters College, Sabayle St., Iligan City, school year 2015-16.
 17

Fig.1.2 Locale of the study

 18

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study are Secondary Students of St. Peter’s College,

Sabayle St., Iligan City. There are 50 students respondent selected, 12 boys and 38

girls from whom the researchers were able to assess on the physical facilities, material

resources and their other school facilities utilization.

Sampling procedures and data gathering procedures

The research instrument of the study was adopted modified questionnaire from

(Assessment Report Physical Plant Customer Satisfaction Survey, 2005 from University

of Scranton Planning, Assessment & Institutional Research). These adopted modified

questionnaires’ were the test in the physical facilities in St. Peter’s College, particularly

in Junior High School of the basic education department. These tests were given the

students to answer it within 20 minutes, the questions that we attached in the

questionnaires those physical facilities that might have the school or none, in terms in

classroom instruction.

Before fielding the research instruments or questionnaires were finalized, these

were submitted to the adviser for suggestion and comments. After the adviser checked

the questionnaire, the questionnaire is being validated by the statistician. Since the

other sets of questionnaires are standardized, validation was not being needed. After

the approval of the instruments, the researcher was reproducing the final copies. Then,

the researchers we went to the high school department head to ask permission to

administer the respondents. After the approval, researchers went to the different

advisers in high school department to conduct the survey and then personally

distributed the questionnaire and give the instructions to respondents.

 19

Research Instruments

This study utilized adopted modified research-made questionnaires from

(Assessment Report Physical Plant Customer Satisfaction Survey, 2005 from University

of Scranton Planning, Assessment & Institutional Research) and Self-made

questionnaire on Age Diversity and Teacher Performance Evaluation by Acain

(2016).This topic present a description of questionnaires.

This instrument is intended to determine the adequacy of each identified facilities

in the school. Each question’s is followed by a number of possible responses.

Corresponding to each response are percentage scales with corresponding qualitative

scales equivalents:

60-90% Very Adequate- (VA) means that your identified school facilities are very

adequate.

20-59% Adequate-(A) means that your identified school facilities are adequate.

10-19% Inadequate (IA)-means that your identified school facilities are

inadequate.

9% and below, poorly adequate (PA)-means that your identified school facilities

are poorly adequate.

 20

Table 1.Research Instrument for Identified School Facilities

Identified School Very Adequate Inadequate Poorly
Facilities Adequate Adequate
Assessing the Libraries 60-90% 20-59% 10-19% 9 %and
below
Assessing the Laboratory 60-90% 20-59% 10-19% 9% and
below
Assessing the Laboratory 60-90% 20-59% 10-19% 9% and
below
Assessing the Home 60-90% 20-59% 10-19% 9% and
Economics (HE) below
Assessing the Clinic 60-90% 20-59% 10-19% 9% and
below
Assessing the Comfort 60-90% 20-59% 10-19% 9% and
Room below
Assessing the Canteen 60-90% 20-59% 10-19% 9% and
below
Assessing Inside the 60-90% 20-59% 10-19% 9% and
Campus below

This instrument is intended to determine the age level of the Junior High School

Student in St. Peter’s College. Corresponding to each response are numeric scales with

the corresponding qualitative equivalents:

12-13 yrs. - Means that your age of junior high school students is between twelve

and thirteen years old.

13-14 yrs.- Means that your identified age level of junior high school student’s is

between thirteen and fourth ten years old.

15-16 yrs.- Means that your identified age level of junior high school student’s is

between fifth ten and sixteen years old

16-17 yrs.- Means that your identified age level of junior high school student’s is

between sixteen and seventeen years old

Research Instrument for Identified Age Level of Junior High School Students

13-14 years old_________

 21

15-16 years old__________

16-17 years old___________

This instrument is intended to determine the average grades of the Junior High

School Student in St. Peter’s College. Corresponding to each response are numeric

scales with the corresponding qualitative equivalents:

80-85-Means the average grade’s of the junior high school student is range

eighty until eighty five percentages within the school period.

86-91-Mean the average grade’s of the junior high school student is eighty six

until ninety one percentages within the school period.

92-97-Mean the average grade’s of the junior high school student is ninety two

until ninety seven percentages within the school period

Research Instrument for the Identified Average Grade of the Junior High Student

80—85___________

86-91_____________

92-97_____________

Statistical treatment

The researchers had utilized Pearson Product Correlation coefficient to

determine the effects of different variables to the grades of the respondents. The value

of r (correlations) to determine the treads between the two variables. Further, we utilized

the percentages to determine the physical facilities which of them the respondent feel

comfortable and need improvement.

 22

( ) ( )( )
√[ ( ) ( ) ][ ( ) ( ) ]

( )

n- Number of respondents who choose Very Adequate

N – Number of percentages for total respondents.

In analysing the data, the study made use of the frequency and percentage

distribution, and weighted mean to describe the activities organized and to assess of

Physical facilities and determine the level of academic performance through the basis

instrument of the facilities in the school.

• The students responses are then scored by scales with 1 for poorly adequate, 2

for in adequate, 3 for adequate, and 4 for very adequate. Scores are recorded in every

aspect of facilities.

• Scores in every aspect are then correlated to their grades to identify whether the

facilities might contribute to the increase in the grades of the respondents.

 23

CHAPTER IV

Presentation of Data, AnalySIS, and Interpretation

This chapter presents the results after the data has been investigated using

statistics. The statistical tool used is the correlation which is to show the relationship

between the factors in our facilities being interacted to the difference in the grades of

our respondents.

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

2. What are the Physical Facilities that needs repair?

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.1. Ages 3.7. Home Economic building3.1. Ages

3.2. Grades 3.8. Clinic

3.3. Classrooms 3.9. Comfort Room

3.4. Libraries 3.10. Canteen

3.5. Laboratories 3.11. Inside the Campus

3.6. Computer laboratories

 24

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.1 Status of Physical Facilities: Classroom

The (Figure 1.1) shows the response of the fifty respondents, they claim that

the thirty or sixty percent says very adequate, sixteen or thirty two percent says

adequate, two or four percent says for in adequate and poorly adequate. It shows

that there is a nice classroom that fits to the respondents. This shows that there's no

problem with the classroom. They will have the relationship between student

affective performance and classroom physical environment, social climate, and

management style were investigated in a sample of classes in secondary schools.

Physical environment and psychological environment are both important; a good

classroom environment is highly correlated with student affective performance. (Yin

Cheong Cheng, 1994).

 25

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.2 Status of Physical Facilities: Library

The (Figure 1.2) shows that thirty nine respondents or 78% are very

adequate, and eleven or 22% are adequate. Nobody choose inadequate and poorly

adequate. This means that there’s no problem with the library. It shows that, there's

no problem with library, and no need for changes and repair hence respondents

claim that the library must adequate facilities probably books and other resources of

learning. In addition, the library should be planning, organization, leadership and

effective and efficient management of control systems in libraries contain important

functions. (Ellsworth, Ralph F. 1963), existing school library problems are explored

to aid in planning for the kinds of library facilities that comprise current and future

needs. A library should contain all kinds of carriers of knowledge (Books, Audio-

visual Media, Films Tapes, Recorders, Teaching Machine) a library can function

best in a system using a form of team teaching which enables students and teachers

to have time to use the library. The concept of a school library begins with definitions

of the kinds of student and teachers activities.

 26

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.3 Status of Physical Facilities: Laboratory

The (Figure 1.3) shows that thirty five or 70% choose very adequate, thirty

teen or 26% are adequate, nobody choose inadequate and two or 4% choose poorly

adequate. The graph means that there’s a little changes needed in our laboratory

hence 2 or 4% of the respondents says that it is poorly adequate. Seventy percent

is enough to justify that the laboratory is good and hence we have 2 or 4 % who

says poorly adequate. We have to look at different angles, as on what standards are

those respondents are setting just to find revisions. However, there’s no problem

with regards the laboratory.

 27

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.4 Status of Physical Facilities: Computer Laboratory

The (Figure 1.4) shows that thirty seven or 78% are very adequate, twelve or

24% are adequate, and one or 2% is inadequate. This means that the school has a

nice computer laboratory that during the computer laboratory classes. However,

(Kevan H. Namazi&Mary McClintic, 2003)Computers play an important role in

modern society by allowing people to communicate and be connected with sources

of activities whether social, political, recreational, and so forth. The respondents is

enough for that as long as they have access e-mail, write letters, work on special

projects, search the Web for special issues/items, and play games.
 28

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.5 Status of Physical Facilities: Home Economic Building

The (Figure 1.5) shows that fourteen or 28% are very adequate nine or 18%

are adequate five or 10% are inadequate and 22 or 44% are poorly adequate. This

implies that more than half of the respondents are not satisfied with the HE building.

There must be some repairs or introduction of additional facilities and maintenance

in the HE building. There is need for constant training and retraining of Home

Economics teachers so that they will have adequate knowledge of the subject to

enable them implement the curriculum. They should be encouraged to practice what

they learn in school and at home, and by so doing, the family life style and standard

would be improved. (Sulton, 1975).

 29

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.6 Status of Physical Facilities: Clinic

The (Figure 1.6) shows that forty one or 82% of the respondents are very

adequate and nine or 18% of the respondents are adequate. This implies that

there’s no problem with the clinic hence the respondents feel very adequate. No

problems are found in the facilities on the clinic. This means that the clinic has the

necessary requirements for treatment to common illness that needs attention before

they are to be treated at the hospital or consulting a doctor. (Fatma Pakdil*&Timothy

N. Harwood, 1998).One of the most important quality dimensions and key success

indicators in health care is patient satisfaction.

 30

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.7 Status of Physical Facilities: Comfort Room

The (Figure 1.7) shows the respondents choice to the comfort room. Thirty

three or 66% of the respondents are very adequate, ten or20% are adequate three

or 6% are inadequate and four or 8% are poorly adequate. The graph means that

the respondents feel very adequate with the comfort room with a small percentage in

the In-adequate and poorly adequate. That accounts to the standards set by the

respondents. When looking at the comfort room, others feel adequate, while others

are not satisfied with it. It is because; probably those respondents who feel In-

adequate might have a nice comfort room at home when compared in school. For

instance, (Joyce Chan, 1996) they investigated the physical environment and

organizational factors that influenced the process of providing care to terminally ill

nursing home residents.

 31

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.8 Status of Physical Facilities: Canteen

For our canteen twenty eight or 56% are very adequate, sixteen or 32% are

adequate, five or ten percent are inadequate, and only one or 2% are poorly

adequate. This means that we have a good canteen in school. The choice or

preference in the canteen reflects the needs of the respondents. Our respondents

are high school students and their taste on foods is different from us. Probably our

respondent wants the junk foods or they like the foods found in Dunkin Dunots or

Jollibee. The choice in the canteen spreads in both directions because young people

are not aware of nutrition and wellness. However, (Vicky LONG, 2008) Its annual

reports advocated the establishment of canteens, in which workers were afforded

the opportunity to purchase and consume food, and mess rooms, which provided

workers with a space within work premises to eat food they had brought in from

home. In the absence of such provisions, the Inspectorate feared that workers
 32

imperilled their health by subsisting on inadequate food rations, heated in stoves

used for manufacturing processes and hastily consumed amidst the debris of

industrial production. Inadequate dining facilities were a particular concern in

industrial sectors where raw materials were known to pose a risk to health.

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very adequate adequate In adequate poorly adequate

Figure 1.9 Status of Physical Facilities: Inside the Campus

The (Figure 1.9) shows that thirty eight or 76% are very adequate, and twelve

or 24% are adequate inside the campus. This means that there’s no problem with

the campus. And it is nice hence it leads to our desirable classroom where nobody

wants to be absent or cutting classes, since they like to be inside the campus.
 33

2. what are the Physical Facilities that needs repaired?

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
poorly
adequate
Very adequate

Figure 2.1 Physical facilities that needs improvement

The (Figure 21.)That there’s a need for the HE building to be improve, hence

it can affect the family’s choice. The figure is a summary of the facilities in school.

We need to repair and additional facilities to our HE Building hence we need to

improve it as what the respondents needs. As for other school facilities, there are no

major repairs to be done. Probably we can launch another study to locate as to what

minor changes to those facilities are needed. What we need to improve is our H.E

Building.
 34

3.Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.1. Ages

3.2. Grades

Table 3.1 Table for the relationship between the age of the respondents and the

increase in their grades.

Ho1: there is no significant relationship between the ages of the respondents and the

increase in grades from first to second grading.

Significant Level α=0.0

Respon- Age 1st 2nd Differ- Respon- Age 1st 2nd Differ-
dents grade grade ence dents grade grade ence
in in
grades grades
1 16 85 89.56 4.56 26 14 97 97 0
2 15 80 81 1 27 14 86 86 0
3 14 92 92 0 28 14 88 89 1
4 14 89 90 1 29 15 90 91 1
5 14 97 98 1 30 15 85 85 0
6 13 80 82 2 31 15 85 82 -3
7 14 78 80 2 32 14 93.617 92.33 -1.287
8 16 83 80 -3 33 16 80 81 1
9 14 94 96 2 34 15 93.444 93.8888 0.4448
10 15 85 85 0 35 14 90 87 -3
11 14 89 90 1 36 16 0 0 0
12 13 85 85 0 37 13 96 96 0
13 14 0 0 0 38 12 96.87 97.66 0.79
14 17 80 81 1 39 16 87 90.22 3.22
15 14 90 82 -8 40 16 91.33 93 1.67
 35

16 14 96 96 0 41 14 94.014 94 -0.014
17 15 92.107 94.55 2.443 42 16 87 92 5
18 14 90.87 91.98 1.11 43 15 93.05 92.04 -1.01
19 15 94.65 95.75 1.1 44 16 93 94 1
20 16 80 82 2 45 16 92 90 -2
21 15 80 80 0 46 16 91.32 93 1.68
22 14 92 91.3 -0.7 47 13 92 94 2
23 15 84 85.33 1.33 48 15 95 92 -3
24 14 81 81 0 49 15 0
25 14 84 88.33 4.33 50 14 91 89 -2

When the data above is graphed the figure is shown below. The figure is the result

using the Minitab 14.

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen
-0.2

Figure 3.1 Correlations: Age, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of age and difference in grades r= 0.141

P-Value = 0.330

With this value we have r2=0.0199.

 36

The minitab result shows that 2 percent of the data accounts for the

linearity. Since our P-value is greater 0.05 we fail to reject our null hypothesis. Thus

we claim that the ages of the respondents is not a factor of the increase in the

grades of the respondents. Therefore the ages of the respondents is not related to

the increaseinthe grades.

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.3. Classroom

Table 3.2: Table for the relationship between the perception of the respondents in

their classroom and the increase in their grades

Ho2: there is no significant relationship between the perception of the classroom of

the respondents and the increase in grades from first to second grading

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent Classroom Difference Respondent Classroom Difference

scores in grades scores in grades

1 51 4.56 26 91 0
2 92 1 27 100 0
3 88 0 28 80 1
4 76 1 29 61 1
5 71 1 30 57 0
6 104 2 31 91 -3
7 100 2 32 74 -1.287
8 73 -3 33 50 1
9 56 2 34 78 0.4448
10 56 0 35 57 -3
11 85 1 36 58 0
12 55 0 37 63 0
13 2.443 38 47 5
14 64 1.11 39 39 -1.01
15 106 1.1 40 41 1
16 87 2 41 57 -2
 37

17 91 0 42 55 1.68
18 68 -0.7 43 77 2
19 73 1.33 44 67 -3
20 77 0 45 113 0
21 96 4.33 46 100 -2
22 54 0 47 68 0.79
23 70 1 48 90 3.22
24 101 -8 49 76 1.67
25 72 0 50 73 -0.014

The (Figure 3.2) shows the respondents perception about their classroom and the

difference in their average grades from first grading to their second grades.

6
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-2 Series1
-4
-6
-8
-10

Figure 3.2 Correlations: Classroom, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of classroom and difference in grades, r= -0.095

P-Value = 0.510, r2=0.009025

The (Table 3.2) above shows that ten percent of the data has the linearity

between the grades and the classroom perception of the respondents. The data has

weak relationship between the classroom perception and the increase in the grades

of the respondents.The classroom has not contributed to the change in the grades of

the respondents.
 38

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.4 Library

Table 3.3: Table for the relationship between the perception of the respondents in

their library and the increase in their grades.

Ho3: There is no significant difference between the perception of the library and the

increase in the grades of the respondents

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent Library Difference Respondent Library Difference

scores in grades scores in grades

1 66 4.56 26 105 1
2 102 1 27 108 -8
3 99 0 28 70 0
4 90 1 29 85 2.443
5 86 1 30 57 1.11
6 98 2 31 88 1.1
7 93 2 32 82 2
8 92 -3 33 54 0
9 72 2 34 88 -0.7
10 59 0 35 81 1.33
11 104 1 36 115 0
12 109 0 37 88 4.33
13 105 0 38 92 0
14 102 0 39 98 3.22
15 115 1 40 91 1.67
16 72 1 41 81 -0.014
17 70 0 42 84 5
18 83 -3 43 43 -1.01
19 85 -1.287 44 66 1
20 84 1 45 60 -2
21 11 0.4448 46 63 1.68
22 110 -3 47 92 2
23 80 0 48 105 -3
24 75 0 49 109 0
25 77 0.79 50 117 -2
 39

The (Figure 3.3) below is the Minitab result of the respondent’s perception about

the library and the increase in the grades of the respondents

6
4
2
0
-2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Series1
-4
-6
-8
-10

Figure 3.3 Correlations: Library, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of library and difference in grades r= -0.170

P-Value = 0.238, r2=0.0289

The (Table 3.3) shows that there is a weak relationship between the

perceptions of the library when it comes to the increase in their grades of the

respondents. This means that students having a slow increase in their grades look

more positive about the library. With P-value greater than 0.05 we fail to reject our

null hypothesis and we have no enough evidence to show that the library contributes

to the increase in the grades of the respondents.

 40

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.5 Laboratory

Table 3.4: Table for the relationship between the perception of the respondents in

their laboratory and the increase in their grades.

Ho4: There is no significant difference between the perception of the laboratory and

the increase in the grades of the respondents

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent Laboratory Difference Respondent Laboratory Difference

scores in grades scores in grades

1 43 4.56 26 98 1
2 108 1 27 115 -8
3 122 0 28 75 0
4 63 1 29 84 2.443
5 80 1 30 72 1.11
6 78 2 31 118 1.1
7 88 2 32 86 2
8 5 -3 33 106 0
9 65 2 34 84 -0.7
10 38 0 35 85 1.33
11 78 1 36 110 0
12 72 0 37 116 4.33
13 115 0 38 90 0
14 110 0 39 67 3.22
15 110 1 40 77 1.67
16 54 1 41 95 -0.014
17 69 0 42 70 5
18 101 -3 43 49 -1.01
19 88 -1.287 44 68 1
20 90 1 45 56 -2
21 99 0.4448 46 49 1.68
22 115 -3 47 90 2
23 59 0 48 101 -3
 41

24 76 0 49 107 0
25 72 0.79 50 112 -2

Below is the Minitab graph of perception of the respondents of the laboratory and its

relationship with the increase in the grades of the respondents.

6
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10

Figure 3.4 Correlations: Laboratory, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of laboratory and difference in grades, r = -0.319

P-Value = 0.024

The above result is P-value and Pearson correlation of the laboratory and

the difference in the grades. With P-value 0.024 which is less than 0.05. This

implies that the laboratory has an impact on the increase in the student’s grades. By

improving the laboratory it might lead to the increase in the grades of the

respondents.
 42

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents,

3.6 Computer Laboratory

Table 3.5: Table for the relationship between the perception of the respondents in

their computer and the increase in their grades.

Ho5: There is no significant difference between the perception of the computer and

the increase in the grades of the respondents

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent Computer Difference Respondent Computer Difference

Laboratory in grades Laboratory in grades
scores scores

1 54 4.56 26 64 1
2 80 1 27 83 -8
3 73 0 28 67 0
4 78 1 29 73 2.443
5 72 1 30 40 1.11
6 85 2 31 57 1.1
7 62 2 32 76 2
8 76 -3 33 65 0
9 49 2 34 61 -0.7
10 48 0 35 81 1.33
11 74 1 36 85 0
12 51 0 37 71 4.33
13 85 0 38 77 0
14 79 0 39 68 3.22
15 79 1 40 63 1.67
16 51 1 41 62 -0.014
17 51 0 42 70 5
18 69 -3 43 42 -1.01
19 73 -1.287 44 43 1
20 61 1 45 50 -2
21 60 0.4448 46 41 1.68
22 69 -3 47 71 2
23 65 0 48 79 -3
 43

24 67 0 49 82 0
25 62 0.79 50 84 -2

Below is the graph of the student’s perception on computer laboratory in the school

in relation to the increase in the grades of the respondents.

6
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10

Figure 3.5 Correlations: Computer, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of computer and difference in grades, r= -0.184

P-Value = 0.200

The (Table 3.5) shows the Pearson correlation result of the computer and its

relation to the increase in the grades of the respondents. The P-value of 0.200 we

had no enough evidence to reject our null hypothesis. Though computer is very

important but then most of our respondents probably have their computers at home.
 44

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.7 Home Economic Building

Table 3. 6: Table for the relationship between the perceptions of the respondents in

their HE: Home Economics and the increase in their grades.

Ho6: There is no significant difference between the perception of the Home

Economic Building and the increase in the grades of the respondents

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent H.E Difference Respondent H.E Difference

Building in grades Building in grades
scores scores

1 31 4.56 24 43 1.1
2 108 1 25 48 2
3 64 0 26 66 0
4 45 1 27 14 -0.7
5 66 2 28 66 1.33
6 53 2 29 15 4.33
7 52 -3 30 48 0
8 32 0 31 65 0
9 54 1 32 67 1
10 48 0 33 42 1
11 14 1 34 48 0
12 65 -8 35 62 -3
13 23 0 36 14 -1.287
14 14 2.443 37 52 1
15 32 1.11 38 16 0.4448
16 14 -3 39 16 1
17 38 0 40 16 -2
18 61 0 41 32 1.68
19 61 0.79 42 64 2
20 54 3.22 43 59 -3
21 41 1.67 44 62 0
22 16 5 45 60 -2
23 35 -1.01 46 60 -1
 45

6
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10

Figure 3.6 Correlations: Home Economic building, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of HE and difference in grades, r = -0.160

P-Value = 0.292

The (Table 3.6) above shows the Minitab results of the Pearson correlation on

the relationship between the Home Economics Room and the increase in the grades

of the respondents. With P-value greater than 0.05, we still have no evidence to

reject our null hypothesis. And this implies that the Home Economics Room has not

contributed to the increase in the grades of the respondents.

 46

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3..8 Clinic

Table 3.7: Table for the relationship between the perception of the respondents in

their Clinic and the increase in their grades.

Ho7: There is no significant difference between the perception of the Clinic and the

increase in the grades of the respondents

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent Clini Difference Respondents Clinic Difference

scores in grades scores in grades

1 99 4.56 26 110 1
2 117 1 27 117 -8
3 121 0 28 118 0
4 105 1 29 119 2.443
5 104 1 30 66 1.11
6 125 2 31 99 1.1
7 93 2 32 112 2
8 65 -3 33 94 0
9 103 2 34 110 -0.7
10 83 0 35 115 1.33
11 123 1 36 125 0
12 75 0 37 119 4.33
13 120 0 38 102 0
14 125 0 39 94 3.22
15 121 1 40 92 1.67
16 76 1 41 109 -0.014
17 84 0 42 103 5
18 118 -3 43 69 -1.01
19 121 -1.287 44 66 1
20 80 1 45 74 -2
21 115 0.4448 46 69 1.68
22 125 -3 47 115 2
23 112 0 48 124 -3
24 103 0 49 94 0
25 93 0.79 50 122 -2
 47

The (Figure 3.7) below is a graph of the relationship between the clinic and the

increase in the grades of the respondents.

6
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10

Figure 3.7 Correlations: Clinic, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of clinic and difference in grades, r= -0.076

P-Value = 0.602

The (Table 3.7) above is the minitab result of the Pearson correlation between

the clinic and the increase in the grades of the respondents. With P-value greater

than 0.05 , we fail to reject our null hypothesis , and that clinic has no effect on the

increase in the grades of the respondents.

 48

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.9 comfort room

Table 3.8: Table for the relationship between the perception of the respondents in

the Comfort Room and the increase in their grades.

Ho8: There is no significant difference between the perception of the Comfort Room

and the increase in the grades of the respondents

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent Comfort Difference Respondent Comfort Difference

Room in grades Room in grades
scores scores
1 24 4.56 25 49 4.33
2 58 1 26 48 0
3 57 0 27 50 1
4 48 1 28 28 1
5 44 1 29 36 0
6 60 2 30 50 -3
7 45 2 31 48 -1.287
8 47 -3 32 48 1
9 26 2 33 36 0.4448
10 36 0 34 28 -3
11 43 1 35 35 0
12 32 0 36 35 0
13 60 0 37 34 0.79
14 54 1 38 39 1.67
15 52 -8 39 27 -0.014
16 34 0 40 37 5
17 48 2.443 41 29 -1.01
18 27 1.11 42 27 1
19 49 1.1 43 30 -2
20 54 2 44 25 1.68
21 37 0 45 44 2
22 34 -0.7 46 33 -3
23 53 1.33 47 52 0
24 53 0 48 52 -2
 49

The (Figure 3.8) below is the minitab result of a graph of the relationship between

the Comfort Room and the increase in the grades of the respondents.

6
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-2 Series1
-4
-6
-8
-10

Figure 3.8 Correlations: Comfort room, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of comfort room and difference in grades, r= -0.062

P-Value = 0.674

The (Table 3.8) above is the minitab result of the relationship between the

comfort room and the difference or increase in the grades of the respondents. The

P-value of 0.674, which is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject our null hypothesis and

claim that the comfort room has no relationship in the increase or difference in the

grades of the respondents.

 50

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.10. Canteen

Table 3.9: Table for the relationship between the perception of the respondents in

the Canteen and the increase in their grades.

Ho9: There is no significant difference between the perception of the Canteen and

the increase in the grades of the respondents

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent Canteen Difference Respondent Canteen Difference

scores in grades scores in grades
1 29 4.56 26 51 0
2 54 1 27 55 0
3 52 0 28 46 1
4 26 1 29 28 1
5 33 1 30 33 0
6 55 2 31 31 -3
7 42 2 32 51 -1.287
8 40 -3 33 44 1
9 30 2 34 29 0.4448
10 28 0 35 22 -3
11 39 1 36 23 0
12 30 0 37 25 0
13 43 0 38 37 0.79
14 31 1 39 45 3.22
15 47 -8 40 30 1.67
16 32 0 41 41 -0.014
17 46 2.443 42 42 5
18 24 1.11 43 31 -1.01
19 46 1.1 44 19 1
20 43 2 45 31 -2
21 34 0 46 28 1.68
22 41 -0.7 47 43 2
23 47 1.33 48 41 -3
24 55 0 49 55 0
25 51 4.33 50 50 -2
 51

The (Figure 3.9) below is the minitab result of the relationship between the Canteen

and the difference in grades (increase in the grades).

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

Figure 3.9 Correlations: Canteen, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of canteen and difference in grades, r = 0.019

P-Value = 0.896

The (Figure 3.9) above is the Minitab result of the respondent’s perception of

the canteen and its relation to the increase in the grades. With P-value of 0.896

which is greater than 0.05 we fail to reject our null hypothesis hence canteen has no

relation to the increase in the grades of the respondents.

 52

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of the

respondents:

3.11. inside the campus

Table 3.10: Table for the relationship between the perception of the respondents in

the Inside the campus and the increase in their grades.

Ho10: There is no significant difference between the perception of the Inside the

campus and the increase in the grades of the respondents

Significant Level α=0.05

Respondent Canteen Difference Respondent Canteen Difference

scores in grades scores in grades
1 29 4.56 26 51 0
2 54 1 27 55 0
3 52 0 28 46 1
4 26 1 29 28 1
5 33 1 30 33 0
6 55 2 31 31 -3
7 42 2 32 51 -1.287
8 40 -3 33 44 1
9 30 2 34 29 0.4448
10 28 0 35 22 -3
11 39 1 36 23 0
12 30 0 37 25 0
13 43 0 38 37 0.79
14 31 1 39 45 3.22
15 47 -8 40 30 1.67
16 32 0 41 41 -0.014
17 46 2.443 42 42 5
18 24 1.11 43 31 -1.01
19 46 1.1 44 19 1
20 43 2 45 31 -2
21 34 0 46 28 1.68
22 41 -0.7 47 43 2
23 47 1.33 48 41 -3
24 55 0 49 55 0
25 51 4.33 50 50 -2
 53

The (Figure 3.10) below is the graph of the relationship between the perceptions of

the respondents inside the campus to the increase in their grades

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
.

Figure 3.10 Correlations: Inside the campus, difference in grades

Pearson correlation of inside the campus and difference in grades, r = -0.077

P-Value = 0.59

The Minitab result is about the respondents’ perception on Inside the campus

in relation to the increase in their grades. With P-value greater than 0.05 we fail to

reject our null hypothesis, hence staying inside the school campus does not

contribute to the increase in the grades of the respondents.

 54

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The chapter encompasses the summary, findings, conclusions, and

recommendations based on the results of the data gathered.

Summary

The study is to investigate on how the facilities of the school may contribute or

enhance the grades of the respondents. The respondents are the high school

students of St. Peter’s College.

Our study is to answer the questions as to the following:

1. What physical facilities adequate for classroom learning?

2. What are the Physical Facilities that needs repair?

3. Is there a significant relationship between age and good physical facilities of

the respondents:

3.1. Ages

3.2. Grades

3.3. Classrooms

3.4. Libraries

3.5. Laboratories
 55

3.6. Computer Laboratories

3.7. Home Economic building

3.8. Clinic

3.9. Comfort Rooms

3.10. Canteens

3.11. Inside the Campus

Findings

Here are the findings after the data has been investigated with the use of

statistical tools:

1. Classroom, Library, Laboratory, Computer Laboratory, Clinic, Comfort

room, Canteen and Inside campus. All the listed facilities are Very adequate for

classroom learning except for the HE Building that need repaired.

2. There is a need for repair in Home Economic Building.

3.1 There is no significant relationship between the age and the increase in

the scores of the respondents.

3.2. There is no significant relationship between the classroom and the

increase in the scores of the respondents

3.3. There is no significant relationship between the library and the increase

in the scores of the respondents

 56

3.4. There is a significant relationship between the laboratory and the

increase in the scores of the respondents

3.5. There is no significant relationship between the computer laboratory and

the increase in the scores of the respondents

3.6There is no significant relationship between the H.E Room and the

increase in the scores of the respondents

3.7. There is no significant relationship between the Clinic and the increase in

the scores of the respondents

3.8. There is no significant relationship between the comfort room and the

increase in the scores of the respondents

3.9. There is no significant relationship between the canteen and the increase

in the scores of the respondents

3.10. There is no significant relationship between the area inside the school

campus and the increase in the scores of the respondents.

 57

Conclusions

Here are the conclusions derived from the results of the study during the

research:

That Age; Classroom, Library, Computer Laboratory, H.E Room, Clinic,

Comfort Room, Canteen, and the area Inside the School Campus are not related to

the increase in the grades of the respondents. The institution needs to have major

repair on H.E building. There is weak negative correlation between the increase in

grades and the School Laboratory.

Recommendations

Based on our analysis after the study, the researchers recommends that the

School Home Economic building shall be given attention since it is also part of the

school facility that attracts those clients.

 58

REFERENCES

Adeboyeje, R.A. (2000). Management of School Physical facilities.Ibadan.

Adeogun, A A: and G Osifila: (2008): Relationship Between Educational

Resources and Students Academic Performance in Lagos State Nigeria.

Adeyemi T.O: and E.T Adu: (2010): Middle-East J.SCI RE 5, 5(1):14-21.

Akinsanya O: (2010): Differential Distribution and Utilization of Human and Material

Resources on Students Academic Performance in Secondary Schools in

Ogun State. African Journal for the Study of educational issues Vol (3, 4) 2010.

Akinsolu A.O: (2003): Provision and Management of Facilities for Primary

Education in Nigeria. Paper Presented at the Conference of Nigeria

Association of Education administration and Planning (NAEAP) University

of Ibadan Oct-29th -31.

Altbach,P.G:(1983): Key Issues of Textbooks Provision in the Third World.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.

Chan, Joyce CY, et al. "Factor VII deficiency rescues the intrauterine lethality in

mice associated with a tissue factor pathway inhibitor deficit." The Journal of

clinical inv.

Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Classroom environment and student affective performance: An

effective profile. The Journal of experimental education, 62(3), 221- 239.

 59

Ellsworth, R. F. (1963) The School Libray, Facilities for Independent .Study in the

Secondary School.

Fowowe, S.O: (1988): Finding Academic Libraries in Nigerian University Libraries.

llorin Journal of Education, Vol. 8, (12-16)

Marx, Karl (1971). Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Tr.

S. W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb. London: Lawrence & Whishart.

Mutai, B.K: (2006): How to Write Quality Research Proposal; A complete and

simplified Recipe New York. Talley.

Namazi, Kevan H., and Mary McClintic. "Computer use among elderly persons in

long- term care facilities." Educational Gerontology 29.6 (2003): 535-550.

Ogonor, B. O., and G. A. Sanni. "Maintenance of secondary school facilities in

Midwestern Nigeria." Current Issues in (2001).

Ogunniyi, M.B: (1983): Analysis of Laboratory Activities in Selected Nigerian

Secondary Schools. European Journal and Science Education, Vol. 5m (2)

Okeke: (2007): Theoretical Model of Primary Frequency Microsesms Geographical

Journal of the Royal Astronomic Society Volume 27, issue 3 pages 287 – 299

Owoeye and Yara: (2010): School Facilities and Academic Achievement of

Secondary School Agricultural Science in Ekiti State Nigeria. Orina M:

(2001): Availability, Acquisition and Utilization of Resources by Teachers of

Geography in Nyamira District. Unpublished MED Thesis Kenyatta

 60

University.

Pakdil, Fatma, and Timothy N. Harwood. "Patient satisfaction in a preoperative

assessment clinic: an analysis using SERVQUAL dimensions." Total Quality

Management & Business Excellence 16.1 (2005): 15-30.

Sulton, G. M. (1975) Housecraft Today. London. Butler and TannerLtd.

Squire,J.R. (1991): Textbook Publishing in Encyclopaedia of Educational Research,

vol 4(6th Edition),Macmillan,PP,1419.

World Bank: (2008): Text Book and School Library Provision in Secondary

education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C: African Region Human

Development Department.

Yutchman, E:& Seashore S: (1967): A System Resource Approach to

Organizational Effectiveness, American Sociological Review, 32 891-

903.
 61

INTERNET

http://irlibrary.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/8976/Mucai,%20Esther%20Wanjiku.pdf?sequen

ce=1

http://irlibrary.ku.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/8976/Mucai,%20Esther%20Wanjiku.pdf?sequen

ce=1 rnational Journal of Educational Management VOL.5 and 6

http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220973.1994.9943842#.V5qCzBLOzcsestigation

103.4 (1999): 475-482.

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED002231

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1478336042000255622#.V5qAshLOzcs

http://www.academia.edu/8482858/HOME_ECONOMICS_1
 62

St. Peter’s College

Sabayle St. Iligan City

APPENDIX A

(Letter permission to conduct survey)

Amparo P. Fernandez, EdD.

Principal

High School Department

St. Peter’s College

Sabayle St. Iligan City

Dear Ma’am;

We are Students of Educational Research (Educ14) of the College of Education in St.

Peter’s College. We would like to request permission to conduct a survey entitled

―Assessing of Physical Facilities in secondary level, school year 2015-2016.

Your kind consideration and approval of this highly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

You’re respectfully yours,

(SGD) IRENE S. MAGHINAY

(SGD) ANGEL D. QUIOBE

(SGD) EUGENIANO S. REBALDE JR.

Noted by:

(SGD) TITO G. MAÑACAP, EdD.

INSTRUCTOR
 63

St. Peter’s College

Sabayle St. Iligan City

APPENDIX B

(Letter of the different adviser)

Class Adviser

High School Department

St. Peter’s College

Sabayle St. Iligan City

Dear Ma’am;

We are Students of Educational Research (Educ14) of the College of Education in St.

Peter’s College. We would like to request permission to conduct a survey entitled

―Assessing of Physical Facilities, in your class, school year 2015-2016.

Your kind consideration and approval of this highly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

You’re respectfully yours,

(SGD) IRENE S. MAGHINAY

(SGD) ANGEL D. QUIOBE

(SGD) EUGENIANO S. REBALDE JR.

Noted by:

(SGD) TITO G. MAÑACAP, EdD.

INSTRUCTOR
 64

St. Peter’s College

Sabayle St. Iligan city

APPENDIX C

(Letter of the respondents)

Dear Respondents;

We are Students of Educational Research (Educ14) of the College of Education in St.

Peter’s College. We would like to request permission to conduct a survey entitled

―Assessing of Physical Facilities in secondary level, school year 2015-2016.

Please answer honestly the following questions. Rest your answer is keep confidential.

Thank you very much.

You’re respectfully yours,

(SGD) IRENE S. MAGHINAY

(SGD) ANGEL D. QUIOBE

(SGD) EUGENIANO S. REBALDE JR.

Noted by:

(SGD) TITO G. MAÑACAP, EdD.

INSTRUCTOR
 65

St. Peter’s College

Sabayle St. Iligan City

Survey Questioner

Name : ______________________________________________

Age : _________

Gender : _________________________

Grade : ______________

First Grading Grade: _____________ Second Grading Grade: ______________

I. Please indicate your response to the following statements.

The Physical Facilities condition of each of the building features listed below. Refers to

the rating scale show below and select one per each features listed and then put check.

4. Very Adequate: Only routine maintenance or minor repair required /Same

preventive maintains or corrective repair required

3. Adequate: Fails to meet code and functional requirements in some cases,

extensive repair

2. In adequate: Consistent substandard performance, major corrective repair

1. Poorly adequate: Not available

 66

Very Adequate In Poorly

PHYSICAL FACILITIES adequate adequate adequate

1. Classroom

Exterior walls

Windows

Door

Chairs

Chalkboard

White Board

Bulletin Boards

Students Cabinet

Teacher’s Table

Lectern

Boards and Charts

Bulletin Board

Textbooks

LCD TV

Trashcan

Plumbing

Heat Ventilation and Air

 67

condition

Electrical Power

Electrical Lighting

Warning systems:

Exit signs

Fire

Extinguisher

Bell Ringing

Comfort Room

2. Library Very Adequate In Poorly

adequate adequate adequate

Exterior walls

Windows

Doors

Plumbing

Heat Ventilation and air condition

Electrical lighting

Life safety requirements:

Emergency lighting

Emergency warning system;

Exits signs
 68

Fire Extinguishers

Student’s Logbook

Bell Ringing

Reading section

Magazines section

Card catalogue forms

Microforms

Audio-visual Materials

Computer Station

Printer

TV Station

DVC and CDC Collection

Community meeting room

Photo Copy Machine

CCTV Camera

3. Laboratory Very Adequate In Poorly

adequate adequate adequate

Exterior walls

Windows

Doors

Stool
 69

Plumbing

Finishes

Heat Ventilation and Air

Conditioning

Electrical Power

Electrical Lighting

Life safety requirements:

Emergency warning system;

Exits sign

Fire Extinguisher

Laboratory Apparatus

First Aid Facilities

Roller Type Chalkboard

Movable Bench

Teacher’s Bench

Gas supply

Chalkboard

Fume exhaust

Storage cupboard for chemical

waste

Cupboard up to celling

Island Bench
 70

Side Bench

Concrete side bench

4. Computer Laboratory Very Adequate In Poorly

adequate adequate adequate

Exterior Walls

Electrical Power

Electrical Lighting

Air Condition

Doors

Chairs

White board

Computers

Projector

Router

Monitor

Keyboard

Speaker

Mouse

LCD TV

Photo Copy Machine

 71

Printer

5. H.E ROOM Very Adequate In Poorly

(Home Economics Building) adequate adequate adequate

Exterior walls

Electrical Power

Electrical lighting

Life safety tools;

Fire Extinguisher

Exits Signs

Students Log book

Sala Set for Visitor

Tables

Chairs

Bulletin Boards

Hand washing area

Cooking Area

Plumbing

Refrigerator

Equipment’s for Cooking

 72

6. Clinic Very Adequate In Poorly

adequate adequate adequate

Exterior walls

Windows

Doors

Chairs

Tables

Plumbing

Finishes

Heat Ventilation and air condition

Electrical Power

Electrical Lighting

Medicines

Nurse’ gown

Doctor’s gown

Rest Room

Hand wash area

Patient Logbook

Medical Equipment:

First Aid Cabinet

Dental Engine

Oxygen
 73

Nebulizer

Thermometer

Baby Apparatus

Cystoscopies

Weighing Scale

Wall Growth Chart

7. Comfort Room Very Adequate In Poorly

adequate adequate adequate

Exterior Wall

Electrical Power

Electrical lighting

Plumbing

Window

Trashcan

Tissues

Bowl

Hand washing

Soap

Mirror

Lock of the door

Poorly
 74

Very Adequate In adequate

8. Canteen adequate adequate

Exterior Wall

Window

Hand wash area

Electrical Lighting

Food court

Chairs

Tables

Drinking Fountain

Foods

Counter

Garbage

9. Inside the Campus

Security Guard System

CCTV Camera

Guidance Office

Principal’s Office

Faculty Office
 75

Registrar Office

Accounting Office;

Cashier office

Free Drinking Water Fountain

Hand Washing Area

Parking Lot Area

School Bus

Field Area;

Basketball court

Playing Ground

Audio Visual Room

Stage

Flagpole

Students Locker

Bulletin Board

Waiting area

Trashcans
 76

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL

Name : Irene S. Maghinay

Gender : Female

Civil Status : Single

Address : Palao, Iligan City

Place of Birth : Bayawan, Negros Oriental

Date of Birth : July 15, 1995

Age : 20

Parents : Virginia S. Maghinay

: Jesus C. Maghinay

Complexion : Fair

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Catholic

Height : 4’9

Weight : 45 kg.
 77

ACADEMIC

Graduate : St. Peter’s College

: Bachelor of Elementary Education

: S.Y. 2016-2017

Secondary : School Education

: Iligan City National High School

: Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte

: SY.2011-2012

Elementary : Elementary Education

: Gamao, Elementary School

: Negros Oriental

: SY.2007-2008
 78

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL

Name : ANGEL D. QUIOBE

Gender : Female

Civil Status : Single

Address : Dalipuga, Iligan City

Place of Birth : Arayat Pampanga, Manila

Date of Birth : May 5, 1995

Age : 20

Parents : Alicia D. Quiobe

: Decease

Complexion : Fair

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Catholic

Height : 4’11

Weight : 47 kg.
 79

ACADEMIC

Graduate : St. Peter’s College

: Bachelor of Elementary Education

: S.Y. 2016-2017

Secondary : School Education

: Lugait, National High School

: Misamis Oriental

: SY.2011-2012

Elementary : Elementary Education

: Central, Lugait School

: SY.2007-2008
 80

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL

Name : Eugeniano S. Rebalde Jr.

Gender : Male

Civil Status : Single

Address : Ditucalan,Iligan City

Place of Birth : Iligan City

Date of Birth : January 08, 1996

Age : 20

Parents : Eugeniano M. Rebalde Sr.

: Judylyn S. Rebalde

Complexion : Fair

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Catholic

Height : 5’7

Weight : 60 kg.
 81

ACADEMIC

Graduate : St. Peter’s College

: Bachelor of Elementary Education

S.Y. 2016-2017

Secondary : School Education

: Our Lady of Perpetual helps Academy,

: Lanao del Norte

: SY.2011-2012

Elementary : Elementary Education

: Ditucalan Elemetary School

: SY.2008-2009
82