Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Region XII
Division of South Cotabato
Banga South District
RANG-AY INTEGRATED SCHOOL
========================================================================================

ADVERSITY QUOTIENT AND TEACHING PERFORMANCE OF

TEACHERS IN SAN VICENTE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL:
FRAMEWORK FOR ADVERSITY QUOTIENT
INTERVENTION MODEL

AN ACTION RESEARCH
Oral Presentation
Theme 1A: Teaching and Learning (Instruction & Curriculum)

ROSE ANN S. DOMIDER, T-I

MYRNA C. CLAVERIA, T-III

October 2020
 ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to determine the adversity quotient and

teaching performance of the teachers in Rang-ay Integrated School.

The respondents of the study were the eight (8) randomly selected

teachers coming from Grades Eleven to Twelve.

This study used the descriptive research design. Specifically, it utilized

the survey technique in gathering data on the adversity quotient and its four

dimensions. To gather data on the teachers’ performance, the researchers

used the IPCRF rating of teachers during the midyear performance review.

On the other hand, it is categorized as evaluative because it

established the significant relationship between the adversity quotient and

the teaching performance.

It was found out that the adversity quotient of teachers was below

average and the teaching performance is very satisfactory. It was also found

out that there is no significant relationship between the adversity quotient and

the teaching performance of teachers.

Keywords: Adversity Quotient; Four Dimensions of Adversity Quotient

(CORE). Individual Performance Commitment Review Form

 INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The New Webster’s Dictionary defines adversity as a “misfortune”. Its

synonyms include stress, conflict, hardship, misfortune, danger, and

challenge. Adversity refers to a given situation in which a person could be

hindered in getting what he or she desires.

Adversity Quotient is the science of human resilience. Resilience is the

ability to adapt well to stress, adversity, trauma or tragedy. It entails remaining

stable and maintaining healthy levels of physical and psychological functions,

even crashed with problems. Dr. Paul G. Stoltz (1997) is the proponent of

what is now known today as Adversity Quotient (AQ). According to him, AQ

determines whether a person stands strong and true, he or she will be

crippled or destroyed, or continue to grow when he or she is faced with

adversity. It is also a foundational factor of success that can determine how,

and to what extent his or her attitude, abilities, and performance are

manifested in the world.

Today the world is facing global economic crisis which affected society

including the educational system. The schools are no longer a safe haven for

children. Cases of drug addiction, early pregnancy, and broken family are the

common societal adversity in schools. Individual adversity is the accumulated

burden one carries due to societal and workplace adversities.

It is very common among teachers in school because they are

multitasking people. They have their obligation in their own family and their

responsibilities in school. Sometimes, there are tragic news about teachers

who commit suicide due to their stressful and depressed condition. This

condition can really disrupt the focus of the teachers to their main function

which is to teach their students and become ineffective in the teaching and

learning process. However, Stoltz (1997, 2000) provided theories on adversity

quotient (AQ) of an individual on how to resolve such challenges and strive to

overcome them as not to affect deeply what he/she will accomplish in his/her

work and towards life. It tells how well a person withstands adversity and his

ability to surmount it. In order to improve one’s Adversity Quotient, the

individual needs to possess the desire /urge to achieve what he lacks or

wants to improve.

Therefore, the researchers try to assess objectively the adversity

quotient of teachers of Rang-ay Integrated School and their teaching

performance.

Statement of the Problem

The general objective is to assess the adversity quotient and teaching

performance of teachers in Rang-ay Integrated School.

Specifically, this study attempted to find answers to the following sub-

problems:

1. What is the adversity quotient of the teachers in terms of its four

dimensions;

1.1 Control

1.2 Ownership

1.3 Reach; and

1.4 Endurance?
 2. What is the teaching performance of teachers as rated in Individual

Performance Commitment Review Form?

3. Is there a significant relationship between adversity quotient and

teaching performance of teachers?

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

The concept of Adversity Quotient discovered by Stoltz (1997) is a science

theory of human performance deeply rooted in several sciences like cognitive

psychology (control and mastery of one’s life), psychoneuro-immunology (immune

function), and neurophysiology (science of the brain). The cognitive psychology

research has found that people respond to problems in consistent patterns that do not

change unless the individual takes action to modify the behavior. This included

several essential concepts for understanding human motivation, effectiveness and

performance.

Adversity strikes without warning. It attacks with intense anger through

trial, heartache, or an emotional setback. Stories in the world are about

adversity and conflict that can create comedy, drama, romance, action,

mystery and a world of other emotions and themes for without adversity there

is no story to tell (Hewitt, 2002). Relationship adversity is among the

adversities categorized separately because it is a tool for character

development. Dealing with the difficulties of each day, and the difficult people

with whom one interacts, is an ongoing challenge. Stoltz (1997,2000)

provided theories on adversity quotient (AQ) of an individual on how to

resolve such challenge and strive to overcome it so as not to affect deeply

what he/she will accomplish in his/her work and towards life. He defined AQ
as the measure of one’s resilience and ability to persevere in the face of

constant change, stress and difficulty or AQ is simply a measure of how you

respond to adversity.

Adversity Quotient predicts how well one withstand adversity,

overcome it, and foresee who will be crushed; who will exceed and fall short

of their expectations in performance and potential; and who gives up and

prevails. Stoltz (1997) found out that AQ has three forms: It is built upon a

substantial base of familiar research, which offers a practical, new

combination of knowledge which redefines what it takes to succeed. Adversity

quotient encompasses four dimensions which exactly measures the AQ of an

individual. They are control, origin and ownership, reach, and endurance

embodied in the acronym CO2 RE.

The Adversity Response Profile (ARP), a self- rating questionnaire

developed by Stoltz in 1997 was used to measure the individual’s style of

responding to adverse situations. Findings revealed that business and

industry leaders scored high on ARP and can be interpreted that the business

and industry leaders respond more effectively to adverse conditions than their

education leaders’ counterparts. Furthermore, it indicated that business and

industry leaders are honed to address adversity for they react positively and

are more hardy and resilient leaders.

The research made by Williams (2003) showed that students attained

higher achievement score in schools with higher AQ principals. This study

examines the relationship between a principal’s responses to adversity and

student achievement, the relationship between principal and teacher’s

response to adversity, and principal’s perceptions of adversity in education.

Indicators of hardiness include the ability to: (a) stay committed, (b) feel in

control, (c) be challenged rather than threatened by stress, (d) see work as

strenuous but exciting, and (e) consider challenge as a change to develop

rather than as an enemy (Goleman, 1997).

People who cannot handle adversity become easily overwhelmed and

emotional, then pull back and stop trying. People who successfully apply

Adversity Quotient perform optimally in the face of adversity.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

The concept is illustrated in a schematic diagram which showed the

relationship between two (2) variables.

The independent variable of the study on the first frame focused on the

adversity quotient of teachers in terms of control, ownership, reach, and

endurance.

The dependent variable at the second frame is the teachers’

performance as measured by their rating in Individual Performance

Commitment Review Form.

Moreover, these frames were set to find out if there is a significant

relationship between the adversity quotient and the teaching performance of

teachers.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

ADVERSITY QUOTIENT TEACHERS’
PERFORMANCE
• Control
• Ownership •
Individual
• Reach Performance
• Endurance Commitment Review
Form
Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study
 METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study used the descriptive research design. Specifically, it utilized

the survey technique in gathering data on the adversity quotient and its

relation to the teaching performance of teachers.

The descriptive study design is appropriate because this will attempt to

describe the teachers’ adversity quotient. It will also assess the teaching

performance of these teachers as measured by their Individual Performance

Commitment Review Form.

On the other hand, it will be categorized as evaluative because it will

establish the significant relationship between the adversity quotient and

teaching performance.

Respondents of the Study

In this study, the respondents involved teachers of Rang-ay Integrated

School for school year 2020-2021.

The teachers are used as the respondents since they give the best

source of information on the relationship of their adversity quotient and how

this affects their individual teaching performance.

Sampling

Considering the nature of the study which was conducted in Rang-ay

Integrated School, stratified sampling technique of the respondents was

utilized.
 Considering the size of the target population for the teacher

respondents, thirty percent (30%) of the total population was used in

determining the sample population.

Data Gathering Instrument

The pertinent data of this study was gathered through the use of the

Adversity Quotient survey questionnaire adapted from the study of Dr. Paul G.

Stoltz, 2009. This is a self-rating instrument that measures an individual’s

style of responding to adverse situation and measure one’s adversity level.

It presents 20 scenarios or events, each of which is followed by

motivating questions to be responded on a 5-point Likert scale. The updated

descriptive interpretations of AQ®P scores were sent by Stoltz, 2009 as

follows:

Range of Adversity Quotient Descriptive Interpretation

177 - 200 High

165 – 176 Above Average

145 – 164 Average

134 – 144 Below Average

40 - 133 Low

Each of the questions was represented and was scored on a distinct

dimension of adversity quotient as Control, Ownership, Reach and

Endurance. The CORE equivalent was also sent by Stoltz, 2009 to interpret
teachers’ AQ dimensions. Each dimension of adversity quotient is interpreted

as follows:

Dimension of Adversity Quotient Descriptive Interpretation

49 - 50 High

45 - 48 Above Average

38 - 44 Average

34 - 37 Below Average

10 - 33 Low

The Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form of

Teachers for SY 2019-2020, midyear review was used to measure the

teaching performance of the teachers and interpreted as follows:

Numerical Rating Descriptive Rating

4.500 – 5.000 Outstanding

3.500 – 4.499 Very Satisfactory

2.500 – 3.499 Satisfactory

1.500 – 2.499 Unsatisfactory

Below 1.499 Poor

Statistical Treatment

The data will be analyzed using the descriptive and inferential

statistics.
 In describing the adversity quotient of teachers, the weighted means

was used. Simple means will also be used in determining the teaching

performance of teachers.

In evaluating any significant relationship on the teachers’ adversity

quotient and teaching performance; Pearson r analysis was used.

Ethical Considerations

In the conduct of the study, the researchers considered the ethical

issues. The respondents were protected with their rights.

Implied Consent

We are currently working on our action research entitled, “Adversity

Quotient and Teaching Performance of the Teachers” as our entry for the

research congress.

As a teacher of this school, your participation and information will be

helpful in providing a better result to the outcome of the study.

Your participation is voluntary and if you choose not to participate or to

withdraw from the study there will be no consequence, penalty or loss of

benefit to you. Rest assured that your participation is completely anonymous

as no identifying information will be collected. The data that you will provide

will be treated with utmost respect and confidentiality, and that the results will

be used for research and educational purposed only.

As a respondent in this study, you should understand the following: (1)

you may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time

without consequences. (2) your identity will be kept confidential. (3) the
researchers have thoroughly explained the parameters of the research study

and all of your questions and concerns have been addressed. (4) data will be

stored in a secure area. (5) The research results will be used for action

research only.

By returning the answered questionnaire, you acknowledge that you

understand the nature of the study, the potential risks to you as a participant,

and the means by which your identity will be kept confidential. And this also

indicates that you give permission to voluntarily serve as a respondent in the

study described.

Thank you.

The Researchers
 ADDIE MODEL FOR ADVERSITY QUOTIENT INTERVENTION

Time Frame: June

Phase 1
1. Identify target population using the ARP-those who
belong to low AQ will be the participants.
Analysis Stage 2. Identify personality traits and stress contributors in
the workplace

Time Frame: July to August

Phase 2 1. List down objectives of the program

2. Present the strategies appropriate for the
participants.
Design Stage 3. Select topics that would address the identified work
stress of the teachers.

Phase 3 Time Frame: September -October

1. Involve all teachers and school head in organizing,

Development planning, and implementing the program.
2. Assign focal person to facilitate the program
Stage 3. Present the flow and continuity of the program.
4. Preparing/sourcing the instructional materials-
handouts/exercises.

Phase 4 Time Frame: November to December

1. Invite resource persons to give lectures on the
Implementation scheduled seminar.
2. Lectures on the selected topics
Stage 3. Source out funds for the resource persons
4. Deliver the program to the target participants

Phase 5 Time Frame: January-February

1. Monitor and evaluate the implementation, identify

Evaluation what went well and went wrong
mplied2.Consent
Assess whether objectives were attained.
Stage 3. Allow participants to reflect on their Adversity
Quotient® level results as to CORE dimensions:
Control, Ownership, Reach, and Endurance.

4.
 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The general objective of this research was to determine the adversity

quotient and teaching performance of the teachers of Rang-ay Integrated

School.

The research aimed to find the answer to the following questions:

1. What is the adversity quotient of teachers in terms of its four

dimensions namely:

1.1 Control

1.2 Ownership

1.3 Reach; and

1.4 Endurance?

Table 1 Teachers’ Adversity Quotient with its Four Dimensions

Control (C) 17

Ownership (O) 18

Reach (R) 19

Endurance (E) 18

Mean 144

The computed mean score of the adversity quotient of the teachers is

equal to 144 which is within below average range of the AQ descriptive

interpretation. This AQ scores indicated a below average capacity to resolve

challenges, difficulties, setbacks and it demands to make every effort to

overcome them so as not to affect one’s work. However, as one’s world

becomes increasingly complex, chaotic, and challenging, he may be suffering

unnecessarily. A person can reduce adversity and strengthen his resilience

by raising an AQ.

Table 2 facilitates the basis of discussion of the mean of the CORE

dimensions of adversity quotient. The comparisons of computed and standard

scores of control, ownership, reach and endurance are discussed.

Table 2 The Teachers’ Adversity Quotient Descriptive Interpretation

Descriptive
AQ Dimensions Mean
Interpretation
1. Control 17 Low

2. Ownership 18 Low

3. Reach 19 Low

4. Endurance 18 Low

The four dimensions represented by an acronym of CORE summed up

to AQ scores. The C mean score of 17 demonstrated by the teacher is a low

score in control over their performance. The teachers with this score

according to the study have the greater tendency to feel helpless in the face

of adversity that affected his/her performance (Rotter, 1966; Podsakoff &

Farh, 1989).

O is a measure of the extent of origin and ownership of the difficult

situations. The O mean score of 18 fell on Low range which signified a non-

ideal level of responsibility for improving difficult situations. The low scores

could be attributed to the teacher who disowns outcome of the problem

regardless of their cause.

R is a measure of the degree on how good and bad events get in touch

into other areas of life. The R mean score of 19 were within the low range that
when the teacher is faced with adversity can become intense, prolong, and

complicated.

E is a measure of length of time over which good and bad events and

their consequences will last. E mean score of 18 obtained a low range. This

means that the teacher’s perspective under stressful times cannot be dealt

with as it arises.

2. What is the teaching performance of teachers as rated in Individual

Performance Commitment Review Form during the midyear evaluation?

Teachers’ Teaching Performance

This study also evaluated the teachers’ performance using their

Individual Performance Commitment Form Rating SY 2019-2020, midyear

evaluation.

Table 3 The Teachers’ Teaching Performance as reflected in their

Individual Performance Commitment Review Form (IPCRF)

Numerical Rating Frequency Percentage Descriptive Rating

4.500 – 5.000 1 12% Outstanding

3.500 – 4.499 7 88% Very Satisfactory

2.500 – 3.499 0 0% Satisfactory

1.500 – 2.499 0 0% Unsatisfactory

Below 1.499 0 0% Poor

Mean 4.127 Very Satisfactory

Among the teachers’ respondents, the highest percentage (88%) got a

performance rating of 3.500 to 4.499. This performance is considered Very

Satisfactory. Only 12% obtained the rating 4.500 – 5.000 which is described

as Outstanding

The over-all mean rating of teacher’s performance is 4.127 with a

descriptive rating of Very Satisfactory.

3. Is there a significant relationship between adversity quotient and teaching

performance of teachers?

Relationship between Adversity Quotient and Teaching Performance of

Teachers

This study also evaluated the relationship between the adversity

quotient and teaching performance of teachers. Table 6 shows the result

using the Pearson r.

Table 4 Relationship between Adversity Quotient and Teaching

Performance of Teachers

IPCRF Adversity Quotient

IPCRF Pearson 1 .171

Correlation .686

Sig. (two-tailed)

AQ Pearson Correlation .171

Sig. (two-tailed) .686

p≤0.05, significant

The result of the correlation showed that there is No Significant

Relationship between the adversity quotient and the teaching performance of

teachers.
 Thus, this clearly shows that adversity quotient does not affect the

teaching performance of the teacher as shown in the p –value = 0.686.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis of the gathered data, the following were the

findings and conclusions of the study:

Findings

The following findings were drawn from the study:

1. The adversity quotient of teachers is below average as shown in its

computed mean of 144. The four dimensions of adversity quotient have

different average scores, however all dimensions are within low

description.

2. The teachers performed very satisfactorily in their teaching

performance with weighted mean of 4.127.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are

made:

1. The adversity quotient of teachers is below average. The four

dimensions of adversity quotient have different average scores,

however all dimensions are within low description. This means that

most of the teachers are easily affected by various situations and

difficulties that test their resilience and require their ability and to deal

with them.
 2. The teachers performed very satisfactorily in their teaching

performance. This implies that teachers are performing as to the

standard of delivering quality education.

3. There is No Significant Relationship between the adversity quotient

and the teaching performance of teachers. This means that adversity

quotient could not affect the teaching performance of the teachers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Increase the resilience of teachers in facing adversity. This could be

done by attending seminars, workshops and activity in relation with

adversity and stress-positive thinking and personal development.

2. Strengthen the peer sharing activity among colleagues to lessen

one’s burden.

3. Lessen teachers’ responsibilities like coordinatorships that defeat

the main purpose of teaching.

4. Further studies to be conducted by other researchers to widen the

scope of the study by considering the number of respondents.

References

Deal, T.E. & Peterson, K. (2000). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and

artistry in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Basey

Hewitt, J. (2002). Building characters through adversity..

Peterson, C., Maier,S., & Seligman, M. (1993). Learned helplessness: Theory

for the age of personal control, New York: Oxford University Press.

Seligman, M.(1991). Learned optimism. New York: Knopf

Stoltz, P.G. (2000). Adversity quotient at work; make everyday challenges the

key to your success_ Putting the principles of AQ into action. New

York: Morrow

Williams, M. (2003). The relationship between principal response to adversity

and student achievement.Dissertation,College Education, Cardinal

Stritch University