Chapter 4

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

This chapter presents the data , its analysis and interpretation.

Problem 1: Profile of the parents in terms of age, highest educational attainment,

occupation and income.

Table 1 shows the profile of the parents in terms of age, highest educational

attainment, income and occupation.

Table 1.

Profile of Parents in terms of Age, Highest Educational Attainment,

Occupation, and Income

Profile Frequency Counts Percent

Age

20 - 30 years old 19 18.81

31 – 40 years old 69 68.32
41 – 50 years old 11 10.89
above 50 years old 2 1.98
Total 101 100%
Highest Educational
Attainment
Elementary level 16 15.84
Elementary graduate 6 5.94
High School level 32 31.68
High School graduate 19 18.81
College Level 26 25.74
College Graduate 2 1.98
Others 0 0
Total 101 100%
Income

5,000-10,000 40 39.60
11,000-15,000 23 22.77

y
more than 15,000 38 37.62
Total 101 100%

Table 1, continued

Profile Frequency Counts Percent

Occupation

Unemployed 1 0.99

Farmer 14 13.86

Laborer 10 9.90

Businessman 20 19.80

Private employee 49 48.51

Teacher 7 6.93

Total 101 100%

Table 1 reveals the profile of parents in terms of their age, highest educational

attainment, income , and occupation. In terms of age, 69 out of 101 of the respondents

(68.32%) have ages that ranges from 31-40 years old which constitutes the greater part

of the sample and only 2 parents have ages above 50 years old( 1.98%). This implies

that majority of the parents are still able and young.

For highest educational attainment, 32 out of 101 are high school level ( 31.68%)

and only 2 are college graduate ( 1.98%). This means all of the parents are educated

and expected to be independent readers. On income, 40 out of 101 parents have

income from 5,000-10,000 in a month (39.60%) and 23 parents are earning 11,000-

15,000 ( 22.77%). This means parents can support their children in a meagre and

simple way. For occupation, 49 of the parents are working in private establishments

y
which comprises 48.51%. This means parents worked despite of low salary for their

family, and for their children particularly.

Problem 2: Level of challenges of pupils and parents’ on School Self learning

modules considering the availability of resources, understanding the content,

concentration and engagement.

Table 2 presents the level of challenges of pupils and parents on School

Learning Modules considering the availability of resources.

Table 2.

Level of Challenges of Pupils and Parents on School Learning Modules

considering the Availability of Resources

Indicators Weighted Mean Standard Qualitative

Deviation Description
1. I find it hard to answer 3.4455 0.6079 Often
and help my child answer her Challenge
or his module because we do
not have books at home.
2. I find it hard to answer 2.5050 0.6874 Rarely
and help my child answer her Challenge
or his module because we do
not have gadgets or
computer at home.
3. We have too few 3.4455 0.6079 Often
resources available to help us Challenge
answer the module.
4. Activities in the module 3.4158 0.6044 Often
require us more materials. Challenge
5. Lack of access to 3.4158 0.6044 Often
technology hardware or Challenge
internet quality
Total Sometimes
3.1956 0.0307 Challenge
Legend:
4.2 – 5.0 – Always Challenge
3.40 -4.19 – Often Challenge
2.60 – 3.39 – Sometimes Challenge
1.80 – 2.59 – Rarely Challenge
1.00 – 1.79 – Never Challenge

y
 Table 2 divulge the level of challenges of pupils and parents on Self learning

modules in terms of availability of resources. Two indicators have similar results in the

survey which are described as Often Challenge. I find it hard to answer and help my

child answer her or his module because we do not have books at home ( wt.

mean=3.4455, SD=0.6079) and we have too few resources available to help us answer

the module. These indicators would tell us that the respondents both the parents and

pupils have difficulties in answering activities in the module because they don’t have

books to refer to or any resources or reference where they can read which may be

similar to the activity presented in the module. On the contrary, the indicator, I find it

hard to answer and help my child answer her or his module because we do not have

gadgets or computer at home ( wt. mean=2.5050, SD=0.6874) was the least gauge on

the availability of resources described as rarely challenge. This means only few of the

families have this indicator reasonable because the modules can be answered by

themselves if they understood the concepts as presented in the module. Moreover,

parents have no choice since they do not have the devices to help them in their search

for other details that would be considered a help in understanding the concepts. Hence,

the level of challenges of the SLMs sense by the respondents on the availability of

resources of Edukasyon sa Pagpakatao is sometimes challenge

(wt.mean=3.1956,SD=0.0307).

This results is supported by the study of Lever-Duffy & McDonald which says

that the availability of technology and resources is one of the problems encountered in

distance learning or self-modality learning. Some difficulties faced include providing

devices, applications, and technical support; the efficiency and speed of one’s Internet

y
connection; and teachers’ and students’ insufficient skills in using these technologies

and applications (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2018). The most problematic and beneficial

parts of distance learning for parents, according to Sorensen's (2012) study, are

keeping their children on track while completing coursework and interactions with the

child's teachers. Furthermore, schools and instructors just lack the resources necessary

to promote parental engagement, particularly through the efficient use of technology

and other resources (Goodall, 2016). Economic resources (Hohlfeld et al., 2010); lack of

internet access (Hollingworth et al., 2011); lack of interest in using technology

(Beckman et al., 2019); and having low digital self-efficacy are all challenges that may

effect parental involvement in remote learning environments (Povey et al., 2016).

Aspects of wellness were also crucial; when parents had to consider supplying their

children with technological devices, they also had to train youngsters who had never

used them before, while continuing to complete their work tasks to assure the continuity

of their home lives.

Table 3 shows the level of challenges of pupils and parents on School Learning

Modules in terms of understanding the content.

Table 3.

Level of Challenges of Pupils and Parents on School Learning Modules

in terms of Understanding the Content

Indicators Weighted Mean Standard Qualitative

Deviation Description

y
 1.The instruction in the 2.6900 0.5064 Sometimes
module is easy. Challenge
2.Instructions in the module 2.0891 0.8497 Rarely
can be understood by the Challenge
pupils alone even without the
help of their parents.
3.The contents are 3.4158 0.6044 Often
appropriate for my child’s Challenge
age.
4.Content is direct and Often
simple. 3.4455 0.6079 Challenge
5.The module contains
complete learning skills my 3.4158 0.6208 Often
child needs Challenge

Total 3.0112 0.0848 Sometimes

Challenge
Legend:
4.2 – 5.0 – Always Challenge
3.40 -4.19 – Often challenge
2.60 – 3.39 – Sometimes Challenge
1.80 – 2.59 – Rarely Challenge
1.00 – 1.79 – Never Challenge

Table 3 reveals that the indicator content is direct and simple has the highest

mean ( wt.mean=3.4455, SD-0.6079) described as Often Challenge. SLMs are written

contextually and locally. Teacher writers are very careful in presenting the lesson. They

use simple words that can be understood by the pupils and examples that pupils

themselves have experienced. The lowest indicator described as rarely challenge

Instructions in the module can be understood by the pupils alone even without the help

of their parents ( wt. mean=2.0891, SD=0.8497). Pupils in the lower grades needs

guidance from an elder sibling, their parents or friends. These pupils lack

comprehension yet. They do not know what to do. Some of them are non readers or

frustration readers and they cannot understand what they are reading . To sum up the

level of pupils and parents challenges on the SLMs in terms of understanding the

content is sometimes challenge ( wt, mean=3.0112, SD=0.0848).

y
 The result is contradicted by some studies which says that teachers really have

hard time on designing educational content; teachers face obstacles when preparing

digital or printed educational material in ensuring that they will be sufficient for learners

achieve learning goals with high efficiency. Further, teachers face hardships in choosing

teaching strategies and methods that take into account students’ different learning

needs and patterns, as well as in choosing appropriate tools to measure student

learning (Al-Mukhaini, 2017; Al-Rawadiyah et al., 2014; Al-Sajini & Khalil, 2017).

Table 4 shows the level of challenges of pupils and parents on the self learning

modules considering concentration and engagement.

Table 4.

Level of Challenges of Pupils and Parents on School Learning Modules

Considering Concentration and Engagement

Indicators Weighted Mean Standard Qualitative

Deviation Description
1.The activities in the module 1.6000 0.5685 Never
are engaging. Challenge
2.The activities in the module 3.4158 0.6044 Often
encourage my child to focus Challenge
in understanding the content
3.There are activities in the
module that invites 3.4158 0.6044 Often
engagement with other Challenge
people.
4.My child is so focus in 0.5357
studying his or her module. 2.5743 Rarely
5.The activities are well Challenge
3.4455 0.6079 Often
prepared so that children will
be focused at the same time Challenge
engaged in their exercises in
the module.
Total 2.8903 0.0257 Sometimes
Challenge
Legend:
4.2 – 5.0 – Always Challenge
3.40 -4.19 – Often challenge
2.60 – 3.39 – Sometimes Challenge

y
 1.80 – 2.59 – Rarely Challenge
1.00 – 1.79 – Never Challenge

Table 4 reveals that taken as a whole with a mean of 2.8903, respondents said

that they are sometimes challenge on the aspect of concentration and engagement.

Interaction refers to communication between the professor and the learner about

the learning contents, and it can be regarded as asking questions or asking for help with

learning. Cognitive task solving refers to a learner’s internal cognitive processes, such

as knowledge formation, understanding, application, and memorization. Learning

satisfaction is a psychological condition that includes interest in learning, expectations

about learning, and enjoyment of learning. A sense of belonging refers to the degree of

connection with friends and colleagues in the learning community. Finally, learning

passion refers to possessing an active mindset when a learner learns, and it may

manifest itself as mental energy in learning and a willingness to confront challenges in

the learning process.

y
Problem 3: Test for significant difference between the parents’ demographic

profile and the level of challenges of pupils and parents feedback on self

learning module.

Table 5 shows the test for significant difference using One way ANOVA between

parents’ demographic profile and the level of challenges of pupils and parents feedback

on self learning modules.

Table 5.

Test for Significant Difference between Parents’ Age and the Level of challenges of

Pupils’ and Parents’ Feedback on Self Learning Modules

Sources Degrees of Sum of Mean F value p-value Remarks

Freedom Squares Square
(df)) (SS) (MS
Availability of 5 208.3 41.6690 10.7.74 0.000 Significant
Resources
Within Groups 600 232.1 0.3868
Total 605 440.4
Understanding 5 241.4 48.2701 116.85 0.000 Significant
the Content
Within Groups 599 247.4 0.4131
Total 604 488.8
Concentration 5 336.7 67.3318 193.39 0.000 Significant
and
Engagement
Within Groups 599 208.6 0.3482
Total 604 545.2
Level of significance α= 0.05, N=101

The ANOVA table in Table 5 shows that the p-value (0.000) for availability of

resources, understanding the content, and concentration and engagement indicates

that there is sufficient evidence that not all the means are equal when alpha is set at

0.05. This means that there is a significant difference between the age of the parents

y
and the level of challenges of pupils and parents feedback on SLMs. This is accounted

for in the findings that most of the respondents with ages from 31 – 40 years old are still

very active and resilient for their children’s sake. This implies that the age of parents

has direct relationship with how the parents see or experience SLMs. Therefore, the

higher the age of the parents are, the higher the level of challenges of pupils and

parents feedback on SLMs.

In contrast to other research, the results show that the older the parents are, the

more involved they are in their children's academics and the better they understand the

assignments and modules of their child, and the better the child's educational process

is. Even after adjusting for socioeconomic resources, recent sociological and

demographic evidence from a number of low- and middle-income countries suggests

that maternal age has a monotonic, non-linear positive relationship with children's

probability of secondary school completion and years of schooling because the older

the mother age, the more she comprehends the books and modules of her child (Fall et

al., 2015). Similar findings have recently been discovered for high-income countries

(Myrskylä et al., 2017). Even when family background composition is taken into

account, Mare and Tzeng (1989) found that delayed fathering is good for boys'

educational performance. The positive impacts of later parenthood on children's

outcomes could stem from older fathers and mothers being more "ready" and satisfied

with childbearing, which could translate into better parenting practices and the success

in the educational pursuit of the children (Fall et al., 2015). A macro-level process could

possibly explain these favorable benefits. Indeed, deferring parenting means having a

y
kid in a later calendar year and cohort, when quality of life, health, and life expectancy—

as well as educational levels—have all improved (Myrskylä et al., 2013).

Table 6 presents the test for significant difference between Parents’ Educational

Attainment and the Level of challenges of Pupils’ and Parents’ Feedback on Self

Learning Modules.

Table 6.

Test for Significant Difference between Parents’ Educational Attainment and the Level

of challenges of Pupils’ and Parents’ Feedback on Self Learning Modules

Sources Degrees of Sum of Mean F value p-value Remarks

Freedom Squares Square
(df)) (SS) (MS
Availability of 5 71 14.1997 21.84 0.000 Significant
Resources
Within Groups 600 390.16 0.6503
Total 605 461.16
Understandin 5 160.1 32.0209 47.30 0.000 Significant
g the Content
Within Groups 599 405.5 0.6770
Total 604 565.7
Concentration 5 284.0 56.7949 92.79 0.000 Significant
and
Engagement
Within Groups 599 366.7 0.6121
Total 604 650.6
Level of significance α= 0.05, N=101

The result shows that there is significant difference between parents’ educational

attainment and the level of challenges of pupils’ and parents’ feedback on self-learning

modules.

Many research back up this conclusion, including one by Dornbusch, Ritter,

Leiderman, Roberts, and Fraleigh. They claim that parental education levels influence

parenting style, as well as the obstacles they have in helping their children understand

and complete tasks, which has an impact on their academic success. Families with

y
higher educational levels are more likely to be permissive and less rigid in their

parenting, according to Dombrusch et al. Parental education, according to Mullis and

Jenkins (2015) and White (2015), has a strong link to students' academic achievement.

Parents with lower educational attainment, according to DeBaryshe, Patterson, and

Capaldi (2015), utilized aggressive punishment tactics, which predisposed their children

to antisocial and deviant behaviors. In the lower classes, such youngsters did poorly

(DeBaryshe et al.).

Despite the enormous financial returns of learning, children raised in less

advantageous circumstances receive less education (Heckman and Masterov) (2015).

Indeed, there is a strong link between parents' educational levels and their children's

educational outcomes, particularly in terms of how parents deal with and overcome

problems in their children's schooling (Björklund and Salvanes) (2015).

Table 7 shows the test for significant difference between Parents’ Income and

the Level of challenges of Pupils’ and Parents’ Feedback on Self Learning Modules.

Table 7.

Test for Significant Difference between Parents’ Income and the Level of challenges of

Pupils’ and Parents’ Feedback on Self Learning Modules

Sources Degrees of Sum of Mean F value p-value Remarks

Freedom Squares Square
(df)) (SS) (MS
Availability of 5 204.1 40.8188 89.98 0.000 Significant
Resources
Within Groups 600 272.2 0.4536
Total 605 476.3
Understandin 5 237.9 47.5759 99.10 0.000 Significant

y
 g the Content
Within Groups 599 287.6 0.4801
Total 604 525.4
Concentration 5 333.6 66.7169 160.71 0.000 Significant
and
Engagement
Within Groups 599 248.7 0.4151
Total 604 582.3
Level of significance α= 0.05, N=101

The result shows that there is significant difference between parents’ income and the

level of challenges of pupils’ and parents’ feedback on self-learning modules.

Because it is connected with unobservable factors that are correlated with the

child's educational achievement, or because the parental education effect is transferred

through income, parental income is potentially endogenous. Jiang Guohe and Wen

Guangfen (2015) investigated the relationship between urban-rural family capital and

junior high school students' academic achievement. It became out that the disparity

between urban and rural locations in terms of family capital (parental occupation, parent

education level, and family income) is expanding, resulting in the discrepancy (Jiang

Guohe and Yan Guangfen 2015). According to Liu Xiaofei and Lu Ke (2015), the higher

the family's socioeconomic index, the better the student's grades will be (Liu Xiaofei and

Lu Ke. 2015).

Family money has a considerable impact on children's educational levels, which

are expected to rise as income rises. A wealthy family can provide more, particularly in

the area of education. Parents in lower-income families are often rushing around for

work and expecting little from their children, and they may even choose survival over

their children's education. This also indicates that individuals who wish to better their

lives by studying hard are being naive, as the bar is rising and the wealth disparity is

expanding.

y
 Table 8 shows the test for significant difference between Parents’ Occupation

and the Level of challenges of Pupils’ and Parents’ Feedback on Self Learning Modules.

Table 8.

Test for Significant Difference between Parents’ Occupation and the Level of

challenges of Pupils’ and Parents’ Feedback on Self Learning Modules

Sources Degrees of Sum of Mean F value p-value Remarks

Freedom Squares Square
(df)) (SS) (MS
Availability of 5 148.9 29.7799 52.33 0.000 Significant
Resources
Within Groups 600 341.4 0.5690
Total 605 490.3
Understandin 5 270.7 54.1357 90.88 0.000 Significant
g the Content
Within Groups 599 356.8 0.5957
Total 604 627.5
Concentration 5 411.2 82.2420 154.95 0.000 Significant
and
Engagement
Within Groups 599 317.9 0.5308
Total 604 729.1
Level of significance α= 0.05, N=101

Table 8 reveals the ANOVA table where the p-value ( 0.000) of all the indicators

availability of resources, understanding content, and concentration and engagement

indicates that there is sufficient evidence that not all the means are equal when alpha is

set at 0.05. This implies that there is a significant difference between the parents’

occupation and the level of challenges of pupils and parents’ feedback on SLMs. Based

on the results of the demographic profile of parents and the level of challenges of

feedback on the use of SLMs, the p-value ( 0.000) was less than the significance level

y
set at α= 0.05, hence, the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between

these two variables is rejected.

Many studies back up this conclusion, claiming that a parent's occupation has a

significant impact on a child's schooling. It will influence how parents and children will

overcome the obstacles they face, particularly when it comes to distance learning.

Parents' occupation has an impact on their children's academic success (Omalde,

Kassim, & Modupe, 2014: Odoh, Ugwuanyi, Odigbo & Chukwuani, 2017). However, a

parent's occupation has a negative impact on a learner's academic motivation and

success. In comparison to kids from parents with low and moderate occupation levels,

pupils from parents with high occupation levels scored poorly (Walter, 2018). Parents

with part-time work, mostly self-employed with no promise of a steady income, can't

afford to devote much time to their children (Usaini&Abubukar, 2015). When compared

to their friends whose parents had low educational and employment levels, those with

highly educated parents with high or low occupation levels had superior outcomes

(Gulada, Chillon, Ruiz& Pavon, 2011). Families with a high level of occupation are more

likely to acknowledge and support their children's homework and aspirations for a solid

profession (Almatalka, 2014). Parents who work more and have more education tend to

instill a greater level of education and performance in their children (Rabo, 2014)

Problem 4: Test for significant relationship between the level of challenges of

pupils and parents’ feedback on the school self-learning module.

y
 Table 9 shows the test for significant relationship by computing the Pearson

Moment of Correlation Coefficient between the level of challenges of pupils and parents’

feedback on the self learning modules or SLMs and the academic Achievement of

pupils in Edukasyon sa Pagpakatao.

Table 9.

Test for Significant Relationship between the Level of Challenges of Pupils’ and

Parents’ Feedback on Self Learning Modules and the Academic Achievement of Pupils

in Edukasyon sa Pagpakatao

Indicators Correlation p-value Remarks

Coefficient r
Availability of -0.030 0.768 Not significant
Resources
Understanding the -0.071 0.483 Not significant
Content
Concentration and -0.053 0.600 Not significant
Engagement

The Pearson Correlation coefficient between availability of resources and

achievement in EsP is -0.030, between understanding the content and achievement in

EsP is -0.071 and between concentration and engagement and achievement in EsP is

-0.053. Since all the p-values are bigger than the level of significance set at α=0.05,

there is no sufficient evidence that the correlations are zero which means that there is

no significant relationship between the level of challenges of pupils’ and parents

feedback on SLMs and the academic achievement in Edukasyon sa Pagpakatao.

Hence, the hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between the level of

challenges of pupils’ and parents feedback on SLMs and the academic achievement in

Edukasyon sa Pagpakatao is accepted.

y
 This means that the academic achievement in Edukasyon sa Pagpakatao of the

pupils are not affected with the level of challenges of pupils’ and parents feedback on

SLMs. This implies that regardless of the challenges that the pupils and parents faced in

the use of SLMs in this pandemic, it does not affect academic achievement in

Edukasyon sa Pagpakatao of the pupils. This connotes that parents as well as pupils

are really doing their best to perform well in Edukasyon sa Pagpakatao despite the

inconveniences in the use of SLMs. This might also be related to the fact that the

content of the SLMs are simple and easily understood by the parents and pupils despite

the lack of resources in answering their SLMs.