I. Profile of The Respondents

Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the study is presented in this chapter in the following order: profile of the
respondents, professional knowledge, and planning skills of the respondents.
I. Profile of the Respondents

Table 2. Frequency and Percent Distribution of Respondents by Profile
Profile Specifics Frequency Percent

Male 3 2.90
Sex
Female 100 97.10
20 - 30 years old 14 13.60
Age Group
31 - 40 years old 51 49.50
Mean Age: 39.12
41 years old and above 38 36.90
Single 11 10.70
Civil Status
Married 92 89.30
Number of Years in less than 10 years 55 53.40
Teaching 10 - 20 years 31 30.10
Mean Years: 11.65 21 years and above 17 16.50
Ilocano 66 64.10
Ethnic Affiliation Ifugao 28 27.20
Others (Kankanaey,Kalanguya etc.) 9 8.70
Highest Educational With Master's Unit 82 79.60
Attainment Masters Graduate 21 20.40
n=103
It is observed in the profile table that almost all respondents are female with 100 or 97.10
percent and only 3 or 2.90 percent are male. As to age distribution of the respondents, 51 or
49.50 percent have age that is within 31 to 40, 38 or 36.90 percent of the respondents have age
within 41 years and older, while 14 or 13.60 percent have age within 20 to 30 years old. These
respondents have a mean age of 39.12. Majority of the respondents are married with 92 or 89.30
percent while 11 or 10.70 percent are single. As to the number of years in teaching, 55 or 53.40
percent had been teaching for less than 10 years, 31 or 30.10 percent had been teaching for 10 to
23
20 years, while 17 or 16.50 percent had been teaching for 21 years or longer which leads to the
mean of 11.63. For the ethnic affiliation of the respondents, 66 or 64.10 percent are Ilocano, 28
or 27.20 percent are Ifugao, while 9 or 8.70 percent belong to other ethnic groups. For the
highest educational attainment of the respondents, 82 or 79.60 percent are with master’s units,
while 21 or 20.40 percent are master’s graduates.
II. Professional Knowledge Skills

A. Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge
Table 3. Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge Mean Description

1. Have an understanding of special education and gifted
3.11 Proficient
education.
2. Relate subject-matter to the personal and social concerns
3.20 Proficient
that appeal to the learners.
3. Know students as individuals regarding their learning
abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and 3.16 Proficient
personal interests.
4. Anticipate the conceptions, misconceptions and possible
difficulties the students are likely to have when learning 3.13 Proficient
particular content area.
5. Have accurate, cohesive and in-depth subject-matter
3.17 Proficient
knowledge.
6. Possess a coherent body of knowledge about the facts,
concepts, principles, methodology and important 3.11 Proficient
generalization of the subject areas taught.
3.17 Proficient
knowledge.
8. Make interdisciplinary connections across subject areas to
engage students in challenging, integrated and exploratory 3.18 Proficient
learning.
Grand Mean 3.15 Proficient
Legend: 3.26 – 4.00 – Highly Proficient (HP)
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
1.76 – 2.50 – Approaching Proficiency (AP)
1.00 – 1.75 – Developing Proficiency (AP)
The perceptions of the respondents on the learning and subject matter knowledge show that
they perceived themselves as “proficient” in all the statements. The highest mean of 3.20 is on
24
the statement “relate subject-matter to the personal and social concerns that appeal to the
learners,” followed by the statement “make interdisciplinary connections across subject areas to
engage students in challenging, integrated and exploratory learning.” The grand mean is 3.15
which is described as “proficient.” This implies that the respondents are proficient in dealing
with the learner and also proficient in the subject matter.
B. Curricular and Pedagogical Knowledge

Table 4. Perceptions of the Respondents on their Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge Mean Description

1. Know the school district curriculum guides and benchmarks. 3.18 Proficient
2. Understand the scope and sequence of learning goals and
3.23 Proficient
objectives.
3. Develop appropriate curriculum guides and set up outlines
3.21 Proficient
for unit plans.
4. Be able to perceive the gap between planned curriculum and
3.18 Proficient
received curriculum.
5. Choose the most effective pedagogical strategies that can
best communicate subject content topics, problems or 3.16 Proficient
issues.
6. Exhibit instructional practices that are supported by current
3.04 Proficient
research.
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
Pertaining the perceptions of the respondents on curricular and pedagogical knowledge
reveals that they perceived themselves as “proficient” in all the statements in the table. The
highest mean however is on the statement “understand the scope and sequence of learning goals
and objectives” with a mean of 3.23, followed by the statement “develop appropriate curriculum
guides and set up outlines for unit plans” with a mean of 3.21. The grand mean perception is
3.17 which is described as “proficient.” This implies that the respondents are proficient on the
curricular content and pedagogical knowledge.

25
III. Planning Skills

A. Learning and Differentiated Planning
Table 5. Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills
Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills Mean Description

1. Set clear, specific and unambiguous learning objectives to
3.17 Proficient
communicate intended learning outcomes.
2. Identify learning objectives that focus on high cognitive
levels of student learning (e.g. analysis, synthesis, 3.23 Proficient
evaluation and creation).
3. Use learning objective to design instructional strategies and
3.24 Proficient
organize learning activities.
4. Encourage students to objectively evaluate their progress
3.18 Proficient
against the benchmark.
5. Use student assessment and diagnostic data in instructional
3.17 Proficient
planning.
6. Plan a learner-centered environment that allows for student
3.21 Proficient
choice, flexibility and independence.
7. Use a variety of grouping arrangements and ensure high
3.23 Proficient
mobility within the classroom.
8. Plan advanced learning (e.g. enrichment, curriculum
3.27 Highly Proficient
compacting) for gifted learners.
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling students. 3.31 Highly Proficient
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
On the planning skills of the respondents, the respondents perceived themselves as

“highly proficient” on the statement “plan advanced learning (e.g. enrichment, curriculum
compacting) for gifted learners” and “plan remediated learning for struggling students,” On the
other hand, the respondents perceived themselves as “proficient” in the other statements in the
table. The grand mean is 3.22 which is described as “proficient.” This implies that the
respondents are proficient in in learning and differentiated planning.
26
B. Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials

Table 6. Perceptions of the Respondents on the Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials
Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials Mean Description

1. Construct a blueprint of how to address the curriculum
during the instructional time at the beginning of the school 3.32 Highly Proficient
year or semester.
2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and developmental Highly Proficient
3.34
goals for students.
3. Align daily lesson plans with district curriculum guides. 3.42 Highly Proficient
4. Sequencing learning materials and activities logically and Highly Proficient
develop appropriate timelines for the completion of 3.36
instructional units of study.
5. Identify and develop assessment strategies to determine the Highly Proficient
3.42
extent that intended learning has occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 3.40 Highly Proficient
7. Use materials from a wide variety of resources for lesson Highly Proficient
3.42
planning.
8. Determine available technology resources and integrate Highly Proficient
3.41
technology into instruction when it is value
9. Evaluate the quality of available resources when designing a Highly Proficient
3.41
unit or lesson.
Grand Mean 3.39 Highly Proficient
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
The perceptions of the respondents on their proficiency in curriculum alignment,
resources and materials reveals that find themselves as “highly proficient” in all the statements.
The highest means are found on the statements “align daily lesson plans with district curriculum
guides,” “identify and develop assessment strategies to determine the extent that intended
learning has occurred,” and “use materials from a wide variety of resources for lesson planning”
with the same means of 3.42. The grand mean is 3.39 which is described as “highly proficient.”
This means that the respondents are “highly proficient” on curriculum alignment, resources, and
materials.
27
IV. Test of Significant Differences on the Professional Knowledge

A. Learner and Subject Matter Knowledge
Table 7. Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge when
they are grouped by Age
20 – 30 31 – 40 41 years old
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge years old years old or older
Mean Des Mean Des Mean Des
1. Have an understanding of special education and
3.14 P 3.04 P 3.18 P
gifted education.
2. Relate subject-matter to the personal and social
3.50 HP 3.10 P 3.24 P
concerns that appeal to the learners.
3. Know students as individuals regarding their
learning abilities, prior achievement, cultural 3.00 P 3.12 P 3.26 HP
background and personal interests.
4. Anticipate the conceptions, misconceptions and
possible difficulties the students are likely to 3.29 HP 3.08 P 3.13 P
have when learning particular content area.
5. Have accurate, cohesive and in-depth subject-
3.36 HP 3.08 P 3.21 P
matter knowledge.
6. Possess a coherent body of knowledge about the
facts, concepts, principles, methodology and
3.29 HP 3.04 P 3.13 P
important generalization of the subject areas
taught.
3.29 HP 3.12 P 3.18 P
matter knowledge.
8. Make interdisciplinary connections across
subject areas to engage students in challenging, 3.29 HP 3.14 P 3.21 P
integrated and exploratory learning.
Grand Mean 3.27 HP 3.09 P 3.19 P
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)
The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency along learning and
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by age reveals that the respondents who are 20
to 30 years old perceived themselves as “highly proficient” in all the statements while
“proficient” by the respondents who are 31 to 40 years old and 41 years old or older. This
28
implies that the younger respondents are very proficient on learning and subject matter
knowledge as compared to their older counterparts.
Table 7a. ANOVA on the Differences in Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and
Subject Matter Knowledge when they are grouped by Age
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge F-test p-value Decision
1.672 .204 Accept Ho
education.
3.486 .043 Reject Ho
abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and 2.076 .140 Accept Ho
personal interests.
possible difficulties the students are likely to have 1.334 .278 Accept Ho
when learning particular content area.
knowledge.
concepts, principles, methodology and important 2.136 .135 Accept Ho
.622 .543 Accept Ho
knowledge.
8. Make interdisciplinary connections across subject
areas to engage students in challenging, integrated .598 .556 Accept Ho
and exploratory learning.
The analysis of variance on the differences in mean perceptions on the learning and
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by age reveals significant differences on the
statement “relate subject-matter to the personal and social concerns that appeal to the learners.”
The existence of significant result leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that
there are no significant differences on the perceptions of the respondents on their proficiency in
learning and subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by age. This implies that the age
of the respondents has something to do on their level of perception on the statement with
significant result, while age has nothing to do on their perceptions on the statements that are not
statistically significant.
This is supported by the results of the study of Mutodi et.al. (2014) that there is a
significant difference in views and attitudes towards mathematics between the two age cohorts of
students. The research reveals that the teachers’ knowledge on subject matters taught plays a
29
significant role in shaping students’ perceptions and attitudes towards mathematics. The students
believed that their teachers’ efforts will improve their performance and enhance their
achievement.
they are grouped by Civil Status
Single Married
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge
Mean Des Mean Des
3.27 HP 3.09 P
education.
3.45 HP 3.17 P
abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and 3.36 HP 3.13 P
personal interests.
difficulties the students are likely to have when learning 3.64 HP 3.07 P
3.36 HP 3.14 P
knowledge.
concepts, principles, methodology and important 3.18 P 3.10 P
3.45 HP 3.13 P
knowledge.
engage students in challenging, integrated and 3.55 HP 3.14 P
exploratory learning.
Grand Mean 3.40 HP 3.12 P
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by civil status reveals that the respondents who
are single perceived themselves as “highly proficient” in almost all the statements while
“proficient” by the respondents who are married. This implies that the respondents who are
single are “highly proficient” on learning and subject matter knowledge as compared to their
counterparts who are married.
30
Table 8a. t-Test on the Difference in Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and
Subject Matter Knowledge when they are grouped by Civil Status
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge T-test p-value Decision
-1.574 .116 Accept Ho
education.
-2.062 .039 Reject Ho
abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and -1.679 .093 Accept Ho
personal interests.
possible difficulties the students are likely to have -4.986 .000 Reject Ho
-1.656 .098 Accept Ho
knowledge.
concepts, principles, methodology and important -.707 .480 Accept Ho
-2.308 .021 Reject Ho
knowledge.
areas to engage students in challenging, integrated -2.931 .003 Reject Ho
The t-Test on the differences in mean perceptions on the learning and subject matter
knowledge when they are grouped by civil status reveals significant differences on the
statements “relate subject-matter to the personal and social concerns that appeal to the learners,”
“anticipate the conceptions, misconceptions and possible difficulties the students are likely to
have when learning particular content area” “have accurate, cohesive and in-depth subject-matter
knowledge” and “make interdisciplinary connections across subject areas to engage students in
challenging, integrated and exploratory learning”. The existence of significant result leads to the
rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there are no significant differences on the
perceptions of the respondents on their proficiency in learning and subject matter knowledge
when they are grouped by civil status. This implies that the civil status of the respondents has
something to do on their level of perception on the statements with significant result, while civil
31
status has nothing to do on their perceptions on the statements that are not statistically
significant.
Civil status affects the social interaction of an individual, thus, Vygotsky’s educational
theory supports the result in this group variable that social learning is an integral part of
cognitive development and it is culture, not developmental stage that underlies cognitive
development.
they are grouped by Number of Years Teaching
Less than 11 – 20 21 years or
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge 10 years years longer
3.05 P 3.10 P 3.29 HP
gifted education.
3.18 P 3.16 P 3.35 HP
learning abilities, prior achievement, cultural 3.04 P 3.23 P 3.41 HP
possible difficulties the students are likely to 3.09 P 3.13 P 3.24 P
3.15 P 3.13 P 3.29 HP
matter knowledge.
3.11 P 3.03 P 3.24 P
taught.
3.15 P 3.10 P 3.35 HP
matter knowledge.
subject areas to engage students in challenging, 3.15 P 3.10 P 3.47 HP
Grand Mean 3.11 P 3.12 P 3.33 HP
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by number of years teaching reveals that the
32
respondents who taught for 21 years or longer perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while
“proficient” by the rest of the groups on the statements “have an understanding of special
education and gifted education”, “relate subject-matter to the personal and social concerns that
appeal to the learners,” “know students as individuals regarding their learning abilities, prior
achievement, cultural background and personal interests”, “have accurate, cohesive and in-depth
subject-matter knowledge”, “have accurate, cohesive and in-depth subject-matter knowledge”
and “make interdisciplinary connections across subject areas to engage students in challenging,
integrated and exploratory learning.” On the other hand, all the groups found themselves as
“proficient” on the statements “anticipate the conceptions, misconceptions and possible
difficulties the students are likely to have when learning particular content area” and “possess a
coherent body of knowledge about the facts, concepts, principles, methodology and important
generalization of the subject areas taught.”
The grand mean of the respondents who taught for 21 years or longer is 3.33 which is
described as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the other groups. This implies that the
groupings as to number of years teaching caused variation on their grand mean descriptions.
Subject Matter Knowledge when they are grouped by Number of Years Teaching
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge F-test p-value Decision

education.
abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and 5.870 .004 Reject Ho
personal interests.
.965 .384 Accept Ho
knowledge.
knowledge.
33

areas to engage students in challenging, integrated 4.819 .010 Reject Ho
The analysis of variance on the differences in mean perceptions on the learning and
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by number of years teaching reveals significant
differences on the statements “know students as individuals regarding their learning abilities,
prior achievement, cultural background and personal interests” and “make interdisciplinary
connections across subject areas to engage students in challenging, integrated and exploratory
learning.” The existence of significant result leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which
states that there are no significant differences on the perceptions of the respondents on their
proficiency in learning and subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by number of years
teaching. This implies that the number of years teaching by the respondents has something to do
on their level of perception on the statement with significant result, while number of years
teaching has nothing to do on their perceptions on the statements that are not statistically
significant.
Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) argue that professional development programs in the
past were based on a ‘deficit - training - mastery’ model. Teachers were “relatively passive
participants”, and programs frequently fail to consider the actual process of teacher learning and
what constitutes teacher development and change.
34
they are grouped by Ethnic Affiliation
Ilocano Ifugao Others
Learner and Subject Matter Knowledge
3.12 P 3.14 P 2.89 P
gifted education.
3.15 P 3.36 HP 3.11 P
learning abilities, prior achievement, cultural 3.15 P 3.25 HP 2.89 P
possible difficulties the students are likely to 3.11 P 3.25 P 2.89 P
3.17 P 3.25 P 2.89 P
matter knowledge.
3.12 P 3.18 P 2.78 P
taught.
3.21 P 3.18 P 2.78 P
matter knowledge.
subject areas to engage students in challenging, 3.18 P 3.25 P 3.00 P
Grand Mean 3.15 P 3.28 P 2.90 P
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation reveals that the
respondents who are Ifugao perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by
the Ilocano and those who belong to other ethnic groups on the statements “relate subject-matter
to the personal and social concerns that appeal to the learners” and “know students as individuals
regarding their learning abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and personal interests.”
On the other hand, all the ethnic grouped perceived themselves as “proficient” on the rest of the
35
statements. The grand means are all described as “proficient.” This implies that the groupings as
to ethnic affiliation did not cause their grand mean perceptions to vary.
Subject Matter Knowledge when they are grouped by Ethnic Affiliation
Learner and Subject Matter Knowledge F-test p-value Decision
.676 .521 Accept Ho
education.
abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and 3.104 .065 Accept Ho
personal interests.
knowledge.
knowledge.
areas to engage students in challenging, integrated .810 .459 Accept Ho
The analysis of variance on the differences in mean to the perceptions on the learning and
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation reveals significant
differences on the statement “have accurate, cohesive and in-depth subject-matter knowledge.”
The existence of significant result leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that
there are no significant differences on the perceptions of the respondents on their proficiency in
learning and subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation. This implies
that the ethnic affiliation of the respondents has something to do on their level of perception on
the statement with significant result, while age has nothing to do on their perceptions on the
statements that are not statistically significant.
Szalai, et. al. (2017) found out that the vast majority (88 per cent) of responding students
had at least one teacher whom they thought liked them, while 76 per cent assumed a teacher
disliked them. Due to the large proportion of responses that indicate “uncertainty”, especially
36
regarding negative feelings (almost 40 per cent), the emerging distributions have to be taken with
a great deal of caution.42 At any rate, it is worth noting, that students in Central European
countries, irrespective of their ethnic belonging or social status, reported less frequently about
hostile teachers than their Western peers.
they are grouped by Highest Educational Attainment
With Masters
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge Master’s Unit Graduate
Mean Des Mean Des
3.09 P 3.19 P
education.
3.21 P 3.19 P
abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and 3.16 P 3.14 P
personal interests.
difficulties the students are likely to have when learning 3.11 P 3.19 P
3.15 P 3.24 P
knowledge.
concepts, principles, methodology and important 3.12 P 3.05 P
3.20 P 3.05 P
knowledge.
engage students in challenging, integrated and 3.20 P 3.14 P
exploratory learning.
Grand Mean 3.15 P 3.14 P
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by highest educational attainment perceived
themselves as “proficient” in all the statements. The grand means of the respondents with
masters’ units is 3.15 which is slightly higher than the grand mean of the respondents who are
masters’ graduates with 3.14. Both grand means however are described as “proficient.” This
37
implies that the highest educational attainment of the respondents did not vary even if they are
grouped by highest educational attainment.
Table 11a. t-Test on the Difference in Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and
Subject Matter Knowledge when they are grouped by Highest Educational
Attainment
Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge T-test p-value Decision
education.
.391 .533 Accept Ho
abilities, prior achievement, cultural background and .062 .804 Accept Ho
personal interests.
knowledge.
concepts, principles, methodology and important .583 .447 Accept Ho
knowledge.
areas to engage students in challenging, integrated 2.498 .117 Accept Ho
The t-Test on the differences in mean perceptions on the learning and subject matter
knowledge when they are grouped by highest educational attainment reveals significant
differences on the statements “have an understanding of special education and gifted education,”
and “have accurate, cohesive and in-depth subject-matter knowledge.” The existence of
significant result leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there are no
significant differences on the perceptions of the respondents on their proficiency in learning and
subject matter knowledge when they are grouped by highest educational attainment. This implies
that the highest educational attainment of the respondents has something to do on their level of
perception on the statement with significant result, while it has nothing to do on their perceptions
on the statements that are not statistically significant.
According to Yueh, Chen, Chiu, Lee, & Wang (2012), knowledge and skills are referred
to the knowledge and information of a lecturer has and being received by the students during in
38
class session. A lecturer with expertise in a particular field could provide more grasp, knowledge
acquisition and thinking skills to students in assisting them understanding better on a subject
matter. Teaching effectiveness require the lecturer to possess an adequate knowledge in enabling
them to present information through sufficient explanations in obtaining the course objectives
(Redding, 2011).
B. Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge

Table 12. Perceptions of the Respondents on their Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge when
20 – 30 31 – 40 41 years old
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge years old years old or older
1. Know the school district curriculum guides and
3.21 P 3.10 P 3.29 HP
benchmarks.
2. Understand the scope and sequence of learning HP
3.29 HP 3.14 P 3.34
goals and objectives.
3. Develop appropriate curriculum guides and set HP
3.21 P 3.16 P 3.29
up outlines for unit plans.
4. Be able to perceive the gap between planned HP
3.29 HP 3.08 P 3.29
curriculum and received curriculum.
5. Choose the most effective pedagogical HP
strategies that can best communicate subject 3.29 HP 3.02 P 3.29
content topics, problems or issues.
6. Exhibit instructional practices that are supported HP
3.00 P 2.98 P 3.13
by current research.
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
It is shown in Table 12 that the perceptions of the respondents on their level of

proficiency in curriculum and pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by age reveals that
the respondents who are 41 years old or older perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while
“proficient” by the other age groups on the statements “know the school district curriculum
guides and benchmarks”, “develop appropriate curriculum guides and set up outlines for unit
plans,” and “exhibit instructional practices that are supported by current research.” On the other
39
hand, the respondents who are 31 to 40 years old perceived themselves as “proficient” while
“highly proficient” by the other age groups on the statements “understand the scope and
sequence of learning goals and objectives”, “be able to perceive the gap between planned
curriculum and received curriculum” and “choose the most effective pedagogical strategies that
can best communicate subject content topics, problems or issues.” The grand mean of the
respondents who are 41 years old or older is 3.27 which is described as “highly proficient” while
“proficient” by the other age groups. This implies that the age groupings caused variation on
their grand mean descriptions.
Table 12a. ANOVA on the Differences in Perceptions of the Respondents on their Curriculum
and Pedagogical Knowledge when they are grouped by Age
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge F-test p-value Decision
benchmarks.
2. Understand the scope and sequence of learning goals
and objectives.
3. Develop appropriate curriculum guides and set up
.959 .394 Accept Ho
outlines for unit plans.
4. Be able to perceive the gap between planned
5. Choose the most effective pedagogical strategies that
can best communicate subject content topics, 5.413 .010 Reject Ho
problems or issues.
6. Exhibit instructional practices that are supported by
current research.
The analysis of variance on the differences in mean perceptions on the curriculum and
pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by age reveals significant differences on the
statement “choose the most effective pedagogical strategies that can best communicate subject
content topics, problems or issues.” The existence of significant result leads to the rejection of
the null hypothesis which states that there are no significant differences on the perceptions of the
respondents on their proficiency on the curriculum and pedagogical knowledge when they are
grouped by age. This implies that the age of the respondents has something to do on their level of
perception on the statement with significant result, while it has nothing to do on their perceptions
on the statements that are not statistically significant.
40
Shah (2018) concluded that because as the age advanced the teacher becomes
experienced and he knows where to tap the potential of the students and how to make him
understand his worth. Some feel that the teacher’s enthusiasm deteriorated as the age advanced
which may be due to the boredom of teaching same content over several years and added
responsibilities on academic, administrative and research aspects
Single Married
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge
Mean Des Mean Des
3.09 P 3.20 P
benchmarks.
3.45 HP 3.21 P
objectives.
3.36 HP 3.20 P
for unit plans.
4. Be able to perceive the gap between planned curriculum
3.27 HP 3.17 P
and received curriculum.
best communicate subject content topics, problems or 3.27 HP 3.14 P
issues.
3.09 P 3.03 P
current research.
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)
The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum and

pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by civil status reveals that the respondents who
are single perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the respondents who
are married on the statements “understand the scope and sequence of learning goals and
objectives”, “develop appropriate curriculum guides and set up outlines for unit plans”, “be able
to perceive the gap between planned curriculum and received curriculum” and “choose the most
effective pedagogical strategies that can best communicate subject content topics, problems or
issues.” On the other hand, both single and married respondents perceived themselves as
41
“proficient” on the statements “know the school district curriculum guides and benchmarks,” and
“exhibit instructional practices that are supported by current research.” The grand means are both
described as “proficient.” This implies that both groups of respondents are “proficient” on
curriculum and pedagogical knowledge.
Table 13a. t-Test on the Differences in Perceptions of the Respondents on their Curriculum and
Pedagogical Knowledge when they are grouped by Civil Status
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge t-Test p-value Decision
-.657 .511 Accept Ho
benchmarks.
-1.830 .067 Accept Ho
and objectives.
-1.241 .215 Accept Ho
can best communicate subject content topics, -1.049 .294 Accept Ho
problems or issues.
current research.
The t-Test on the difference in level of proficiency of the respondents on curriculum and
pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by civil status reveals no significant result in all
the statements. The absence of significant results leads to the acceptance of the null hypothesis
which states that there are no significant differences on the perceptions of the respondents on
curriculum and pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by civil status. This implies that
the civil status of the respondents has nothing to do on their level of proficiency on curriculum
and pedagogical knowledge.
The theory of constructivism supports this result that we construct learning new ideas
based on our own prior knowledge and experiences. Learning, therefore, is unique to the
individual learner. Students adapt their models of understanding either by reflecting on prior
theories or resolving misconceptions.
42
they are grouped by Number of Years Teaching
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge 10 years years longer
3.13 P 3.16 P 3.41 HP
benchmarks.
2. Understand the scope and sequence of learning
3.15 P 3.26 VP 3.47 HP
3. Develop appropriate curriculum guides and set
3.15 P 3.26 VP 3.35 HP
3.16 P 3.23 P 3.18 P
5. Choose the most effective pedagogical
strategies that can best communicate subject 3.05 P 3.23 P 3.35 HP
6. Exhibit instructional practices that are supported
2.98 P 3.06 P 3.18 P
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)

pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by number of years teaching reveals that the
respondents who taught for 21 years or more perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while
“proficient” by the other groups on the statements “know the school district curriculum guides
and benchmarks” and “choose the most effective pedagogical strategies that can best
communicate subject content topics, problems or issues.” On the other hand, the respondents
who taught for less than 10 years perceived themselves as “proficient” while “highly proficient”
by the other groups on the statements “understand the scope and sequence of learning goals and
objectives” and “develop appropriate curriculum guides and set up outlines for unit plans.” All
the groups however perceived themselves as “proficient” on the statements “be able to perceive
the gap between planned curriculum and received curriculum” and “exhibit instructional
practices that are supported by current research.”
43
The grand mean of the respondents who taught for 21 years or longer is 3.32 which is
described as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the other groups. This implies that the
respondents with the highest number of teaching experience have higher perceptions on their
curriculum and pedagogical knowledge as compared to the respondents with lesser number of
teaching experience.
Table 14a. ANOVA on the Differences on the Perceptions of the Respondents on their
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge when they are grouped by Number of Years
Teaching
benchmarks.
and objectives.
.201 .819 Accept Ho
can best communicate subject content topics, 3.794 .026 Reject Ho
problems or issues.
current research.
pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by number of years teaching reveals significant
differences on the statement “choose the most effective pedagogical strategies that can best
communicate subject content topics, problems or issues” and “understand the scope and
sequence of learning goals and objectives.” The existence of significant result leads to the
rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there are no significant differences on the
perceptions of the respondents on their proficiency on the curriculum and pedagogical
knowledge when they are grouped by number of years teaching. This implies that the number of
years teaching by the respondents has something to do on their level of perception on the
statement with significant result, while it has nothing to do on their perceptions on the statements
that are not statistically significant.
44
Guerriero (2014) presented a model indicating that student factors are part of, and
interdependent with, the teaching learning process. These models imply that a teacher’s
knowledge regardless of length of service goes beyond mere knowledge of content and
classroom management, and should also include knowledge of learners and learning.
they are grouped by Ethnic Affiliation

Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge
3.15 P 3.25 P 3.22 P
benchmarks.
2. Understand the scope and sequence of learning
3.20 P 3.32 HP 3.22 P
3. Develop appropriate curriculum guides and set
3.26 HP 3.21 P 2.89 P
3.24 P 3.07 P 3.11 P
5. Choose the most effective pedagogical
strategies that can best communicate subject 3.20 P 3.14 P 2.89 P
6. Exhibit instructional practices that are supported
3.08 P 3.00 P 2.89 P
Grand Mean 3.18 P 3.16 P 3.03 P
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)

pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation reveals that the respondents
who are Ifugao perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the Ilocano and
those who belong to other ethnic groups on the statement “understand the scope and sequence of
learning goals and objectives.” On the other hand, the respondents who are Ilocano perceived
themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the other groups on the statement
“develop appropriate curriculum guides and set up outlines for unit plans.” All the respondents in
different ethnic groups perceived themselves as “proficient” in the rest of the statements in the
table. The grand mean descriptions are all described as “proficient.” This implies that the
groupings as to ethnic affiliation did not make a difference in their grand mean descriptions.
45
Table 15a. ANOVA on the Differences in Perceptions of the Respondents on their Curriculum
and Pedagogical Knowledge when they are grouped by Ethnic Affiliation
.432 .655 Accept Ho
benchmarks.
.714 .502 Accept Ho
and objectives.
can best communicate subject content topics, 3.118 .064 Accept Ho
problems or issues.
current research.
pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation reveals significant
differences on the statement “develop appropriate curriculum guides and set up outlines for unit
plans.” The existence of significant result leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which
proficiency on the curriculum and pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by ethnic
affiliation. This implies that the ethnic affiliation of the respondents has something to do on their
level of perception on the statement with significant result, while it has nothing to do on their
perceptions on the statements that are not statistically significant.
Szalai (2010) noted a result in his study that there is a point toward important variations
in the sharpness of ethnic inequalities and marginalization that at closer scrutiny reveal the
significance of the prevailing welfare arrangements and the substantial impact of historically
forged routines in interethnic cohabitation in how larger-scale social relations allow for
ethnically “blind” integration or continue to reproduce “mineralization” and exclusion along
ethnic lines.
46
With Masters
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge Master’s Unit Graduate
Mean Des Mean Des
3.16 P 3.29 HP
benchmarks.
3.22 P 3.29 HP
objectives.
3.23 P 3.14 P
for unit plans.
4. Be able to perceive the gap between planned curriculum
3.20 P 3.14 P
and received curriculum.
best communicate subject content topics, problems or 3.17 P 3.10 P
issues.
3.04 P 3.05 P
current research.
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by highest educational attainment reveals that the
respondents who are masters’ graduates perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while
“proficient” by the respondents with masters’ units on the statements “know the school district
curriculum guides and benchmarks” and “understand the scope and sequence of learning goals
and objectives.” Both groups however perceived themselves as “proficient” on the other
statements in the table. The grand means are both described as “proficient.” This implies that the
groupings as to highest educational attainment did not cause difference on their grand mean
descriptions.
47
Table 16a. t-Test on the Differences in Perceptions of the Respondents on their Curriculum and
Pedagogical Knowledge when they are grouped by Highest Educational Attainment
Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge T-test p-value Decision
benchmarks.
and objectives.
can best communicate subject content topics, .759 .386 Accept Ho
problems or issues.
.860 .356 Accept Ho
current research.
The t-Test on the differences in mean perceptions on the curriculum and pedagogical
knowledge when they are grouped by highest educational attainment reveals significant
differences on the statement “develop appropriate curriculum guides and set up outlines for unit
plans.” The existence of significant result leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which
proficiency on the curriculum and pedagogical knowledge when they are grouped by highest
educational attainment. This implies that the highest educational attainment of the respondents
has something to do on their level of perception on the statement with significant result, while it
has nothing to do on their perceptions on the statements that are not statistically significant.
Guerriero (2014) pointed out that several studies stress the importance of the knowledge
teachers hold, highlighting that in addition to assimilating academic knowledge, student teachers
also need to incorporate knowledge derived from experiential and practical experiences in the
classroom. research also shows that variations in ‘opportunities to learn’ in teacher preparation
are related to differences in student achievement: teachers from countries that are top performers
48
in PISA and TIMSS tend to have more opportunities to learn content, pedagogical content and
general pedagogy.
V. Test of Significant Differences on Planning Skills

A. Learning and Differentiated Planning
Table 17. Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and Differentiated Planning when
20 – 30 31 – 40 41 years old
Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills years old years old or older
1. Set clear, specific and unambiguous learning
objectives to communicate intended learning 3.14 P 3.12 P 3.26 HP
outcomes.
2. Identify learning objectives that focus on high
cognitive levels of student learning (e.g. 3.29 HP 3.22 P 3.24 P
analysis, synthesis, evaluation and creation).
3. Use learning objective to design instructional
3.29 HP 3.22 P 3.26 HP
strategies and organize learning activities.
4. Encourage students to objectively evaluate their
3.14 P 3.16 P 3.24 P
progress against the benchmark.
5. Use student assessment and diagnostic data in
3.07 P 3.12 P 3.29 HP
instructional planning.
6. Plan a learner-centered environment that allows
for student choice, flexibility and 3.29 HP 3.16 P 3.26 HP
independence.
7. Use a variety of grouping arrangements and
3.21 P 3.16 P 3.34 HP
ensure high mobility within the classroom.
8. Plan advanced learning (e.g. enrichment,
3.29 HP 3.24 P 3.32 HP
curriculum compacting) for gifted learners.
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling
3.21 P 3.25 P 3.42 HP
students.
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)
49
The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in learning and
differentiated planning when they are grouped by age reveals that the respondents who are 41
years or older perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the other age
groups on the statements “set clear, specific and unambiguous learning objectives to
communicate intended learning outcomes”, “use student assessment and diagnostic data in
instructional planning”, “use a variety of grouping arrangements and ensure high mobility within
the classroom” and “plan remediated learning for struggling students.” On the other hand, the
respondents who are 31 to 40 years old perceived themselves as “proficient” while “highly
proficient” by the other age groups on the statements “use learning objective to design
instructional strategies and organize learning activities”, “plan a learner-centered environment
that allows for student choice, flexibility and independence” and “plan advanced learning (e.g.
enrichment, curriculum compacting) for gifted learners.”
The grand mean of the respondents who are 41-year-old or older is 3.29 which is
described as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the other age groups. This implies that the
respondents with longer years of teaching experience have higher perceptions on their skills in
learning and differentiated planning as compared to their counterparts with lesser number of
years in teaching.
50
Differentiated Planning when they are grouped by Age
Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills F-test p-value Decision
objectives to communicate intended learning .905 .408 Accept Ho
outcomes.
cognitive levels of student learning (e.g. analysis, .112 .894 Accept Ho
synthesis, evaluation and creation).
.189 .828 Accept Ho
.392 .677 Accept Ho
6. Plan a learner-centered environment that allows for
.719 .490 Accept Ho
student choice, flexibility and independence.
7. Use a variety of grouping arrangements and ensure
high mobility within the classroom.
.255 .775 Accept Ho
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling students. 1.485 .231 Accept Ho
The analysis of variances on the differences in the level of proficiency along learning and
differentiated planning when they are grouped by age reveals no significant results. The absence
of significant results leads to the acceptance of the null hypothesis which states that there are no
significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on learning and
differentiated planning when they are grouped by age. This implies that the age of the
respondents has nothing to do on their perceptions on learning and differentiated planning.
Shah (2018) presented that in their study, age of the teacher was not taken as important
attribute by the students. 44 % (33) of the students preferred young and 43% (32) preferred older
teachers while 13% of them did not have specific age preference. This data for preference of age
51
by students was not statistically significant. (P value > 0.05) Bodhe et al., also had similar
findings (Bodhe et al., 2015). In view of all these, it is quite obvious that more recently the
students did not consider the age of the teachers and the looks of the teacher important. They
have their own views. In special remarks our students also suggested that knowledge of the
teacher, clarity of thought or idea, the concept, its explanation, confidence of teacher, the
organization of lecture material, command over the language and the subject, the classroom
control and use of proper audiovisual aids with recent knowledge are more important attributes.
Use of innovative and creative teaching techniques and student learning activities prevent
boredom. However, these are supplementary not a substitute to a teacher.
Single Married
Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills
Mean Des Mean Des
3.36 HP 3.15 P
2. Identify learning objectives that focus on high cognitive HP
levels of student learning (e.g. analysis, synthesis, 3.36 3.22 P
3. Use learning objective to design instructional strategies HP
3.55 3.21 P
and organize learning activities.
4. Encourage students to objectively evaluate their progress HP
3.45 3.15 P
5. Use student assessment and diagnostic data in HP
3.18 3.17 P
6. Plan a learner-centered environment that allows for HP
3.27 3.21 P
7. Use a variety of grouping arrangements and ensure high HP
3.36 3.22 P
8. Plan advanced learning (e.g. enrichment, curriculum HP
3.45 3.25 P
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling students. 3.27 HP 3.32 HP
Grand Mean 3.36 HP 3.21 P
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)
52

differentiated planning when they are grouped by civil status reveals that both groups of
respondents perceived themselves as “proficient” on the statement “use student assessment and
diagnostic data in instructional planning” while “highly proficient” on the statement “plan
remediated learning for struggling students.” On the other hand, the respondents who are single
perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the respondents who are
married in the other statements in the table. The grand mean of the respondents who are single is
3.36 which is described as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the respondents who are
married. This implies that the respondents who are single have higher perceptions on skills in
learning and differentiated planning as compared to the married counterparts.
Table 18a. t-Test on the Differences on the Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and
Differentiated Planning Skills when they are grouped by Civil Status
Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills T-test p-value Decision

objectives to communicate intended learning 1.296 .198 Accept Ho
outcomes.
.061 .952 Accept Ho
.432 .666 Accept Ho
.868 .388 Accept Ho
.956 .359 Accept Ho
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling students. -.262 .794 Accept Ho
The t-Test on the difference in the level of proficiency along learning and differentiated
planning when they are grouped by civil status reveals significant result on the statement “use
53
learning objective to design instructional strategies and organize learning activities.” The
existence of significant results leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there
are no significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on learning and
differentiated planning when they are grouped by civil status. This implies that the civil status of
the respondents has something to do on their perceptions on the statement with significant result,
but it has nothing to do on their level of proficiency on the statements that are not statistically
significant.
Safizal and Osman (2015) found out in their study that there are significant differences in
the teaching effectiveness of single to married teachers using a practical set of standards and
assessments. This study was undertaken in attempt to examine comparatively the influential
factors on teaching effectiveness of the single and married faculty academic members as
perceived by the final year business administration program students of public universities in the
Northern region of Malaysia.
when they are grouped by Number of Years in Teaching
Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills 10 years years longer
1. Set clear, specific and unambiguous learning HP
objectives to communicate intended learning 3.11 P 3.19 P 3.35
outcomes.
2. Identify learning objectives that focus on high HP
cognitive levels of student learning (e.g. 3.22 P 3.23 P 3.29
3. Use learning objective to design instructional HP
3.20 P 3.26 HP 3.35
4. Encourage students to objectively evaluate their HP
3.13 P 3.16 P 3.41
5. Use student assessment and diagnostic data in HP
3.09 P 3.19 P 3.41
6. Plan a learner-centered environment that allows HP
for student choice, flexibility and 3.24 P 3.10 P 3.35
independence.
7. Use a variety of grouping arrangements and HP
3.18 P 3.19 P 3.47
8. Plan advanced learning (e.g. enrichment, HP
3.25 P 3.16 P 3.53
54
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling HP

3.24 P 3.32 HP 3.53
students.
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)

differentiated planning when they are grouped by number of years teaching shows that the
respondents who taught for 21 years or longer perceived themselves as “highly proficient” in all
the statements while “proficient” by the respondents who taught for less than 10 years. On the
other hand, the respondents who taught for 11 to 20 years find themselves as “very proficient’ on
the statements “use learning objective to design instructional strategies and organize learning
activities” and “plan remediated learning for struggling students” but “proficient” in the other
statements.
The grand mean of the respondents who taught for the most number of years is 3.41
which is described as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the other groups. This implies
that the respondents who taught for 21 years or longer have higher perceptions on their level of
proficiency on learning and differentiated planning as compared to the other groups.
Differentiated Planning Skills when they are grouped by Number of Years in
Teaching

outcomes.
.762 .469 Accept Ho
55

The analysis of variance on the difference in the level of proficiency along learning and
differentiated planning when they are grouped by number of years teaching reveals significant
result on the statement “use student assessment and diagnostic data in instructional planning.”
The existence of significant results leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that
there are no significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on learning and
differentiated planning skills when they are grouped by number of years teaching. This implies
that the number of years teaching by the respondents has something to do on their perceptions on
the statement with significant result, but it has nothing to do on their level of proficiency on the
Theall and Franklin (2001) mentioned that lecturers with less teaching experience
somehow are less able to control as well as to communicate effectively with the students due to
least understanding on the actual needs and demands.
when they are grouped by Ethnic Affiliation

Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills
objectives to communicate intended learning 3.23 P 3.11 P 3.00 P
outcomes.
cognitive levels of student learning (e.g. 3.23 P 3.32 HP 3.00 P
3.23 P 3.32 VP 3.11 P
3.18 P 3.25 P 3.00 P
56

3.18 P 3.14 P 3.22 P
6. Plan a learner-centered environment that allows
for student choice, flexibility and 3.24 P 3.18 P 3.11 P
independence.
7. Use a variety of grouping arrangements and
3.30 HP 3.18 P 2.89 P
8. Plan advanced learning (e.g. enrichment,
3.32 HP 3.32 HP 2.78 P
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling
3.38 HP 3.25 P 3.00 P
students.
Grand Mean 3.25 P 3.23 P 3.01 P
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)

differentiated planning when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation reveals that the respondents
who are Ifugao perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the other
ethnic groups on the statements “identify learning objectives that focus on high cognitive levels
of student learning (e.g. analysis, synthesis, evaluation and creation)” and “use learning objective
to design instructional strategies and organize learning activities.” On the other hand, the
respondents who are Ilocano perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by
the other groups on the statements “use a variety of grouping arrangements and ensure high
mobility within the classroom” and “plan remediated learning for struggling students.” All
groups of respondents perceived themselves as “proficient” in the rest of the statements in the
table. The grand means are all described as “proficient.” This implies that the groupings as to
ethnic affiliation did not cause difference in their grand mean descriptions.
Differentiated Planning Skills when they are grouped by Ethnic Affiliation

outcomes.
57

cognitive levels of student learning (e.g. analysis, 1.497 .229 Accept Ho
.838 .436 Accept Ho
.155 .857 Accept Ho
.397 .673 Accept Ho
The analysis of variance on the difference in the level of proficiency along learning and
differentiated planning when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation reveals significant result on
the statement “plan advanced learning (e.g. enrichment, curriculum compacting) for gifted
learners.” The existence of significant results leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which
states that there are no significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on
learning and differentiated planning when they are grouped by number of ethnic affiliation. This
implies that the ethnic affiliation of the respondents has something to do on their perceptions on
the statement with significant result, but it has nothing to do on their level of proficiency on the
Sankar (2009) stated that an educator is able to accumulate knowledge through certain
learning activities by interacting with environment, understanding the ethnic backgrounds and
beliefs, utilize language, visualization and planning to manage thinking, understanding,
memorizing and logically. With this ways, a learner would be able to relate the current and
previous learning and hence formulate new implication even if the subject matter is tough.
58
With Masters
Learning and Differentiated Planning Master’s Unit Graduate
Mean Des Mean Des
3.20 P 3.10 P
2. Identify learning objectives that focus on high cognitive
levels of student learning (e.g. analysis, synthesis, 3.23 P 3.24 P
3. Use learning objective to design instructional strategies
3.27 HP 3.14 P
and organize learning activities.
4. Encourage students to objectively evaluate their progress
3.18 P 3.19 P
3.16 P 3.24 P
3.23 P 3.14 P
7. Use a variety of grouping arrangements and ensure high
3.27 HP 3.10 P
3.28 HP 3.24 P
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling students. 3.33 HP 3.24 P
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)
59


differentiated planning when they are grouped by highest educational attainment shows that the
respondents with master’s units perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient”
by the respondents who are masters’ degree holders on the statements “use learning objective to
design instructional strategies and organize learning activities”, “use a variety of grouping
arrangements and ensure high mobility within the classroom”, “plan advanced learning (e.g.
enrichment, curriculum compacting) for gifted learners” and “plan remediated learning for
struggling students.” Both groups of respondents perceived themselves as “proficient” in the
other statements in the table. The grand means are both described as “proficient.” This means
that the highest educational attainment of the respondents did not cause variation on their grand
mean descriptions.
Table 21a. t-Test on the Differences in Perceptions of the Respondents on their Learning and
Differentiated Planning Skills when they are grouped by Highest Educational Attainment
Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills T-test p-value Decision
objectives to communicate intended learning .795 .429 Accept Ho
outcomes.
cognitive levels of student learning (e.g. analysis, -.053 .958 Accept Ho
.925 .360 Accept Ho
.327 .744 Accept Ho
9. Plan remediated learning for struggling students. .736 .464 Accept Ho
60
The t-Test on the differences in the level of proficiency along learning and differentiated
planning when they are grouped by highest educational attainment reveals no significant results.
The absence of significant results leads to the acceptance of the null hypothesis which states that
there are no significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on learning and
differentiated planning when they are grouped by highest educational attainment. This implies
that the highest educational attainment of the respondents has nothing to do on their perceptions
on learning and differentiated planning.
According to Heck (2008), quality of teaching is the preparation and knowledge an
educator possesses, knowing the content to be delivered to learners and ways should be
disseminate in an effective classroom. An educator’s personal qualities are definitely related with
teacher effectiveness. The qualities that drive the educators to be efficacious included the
educators’ philosophy or principles, honesty and integrity as well (Al-Barwani, Al-Ani and
Amzat; 2012).
B. Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials
Table 22. Perceptions of the Respondents on the Curriculum Alignment, Resources and
Materials when they are grouped by Age
20 – 30 31 – 40 41 years old
Curriculum Alignment, Resources and
years old years old or older
Materials
1. Construct a blueprint of how to address the
curriculum during the instructional time at the 2.93 P 3.37 HP 3.39 HP
beginning of the school year or semester.
2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and HP HP
2.93 P 3.35 3.47
developmental goals for students.
3. Align daily lesson plans with district curriculum HP HP
3.07 P 3.43 3.53
guides.
4. Sequencing learning materials and activities
logically and develop appropriate timelines for 3.14 P 3.35 HP 3.45 H
the completion of instructional units of study.
5. Identify and develop assessment strategies to
determine the extent that intended learning has 3.00 P 3.47 HP 3.50 HP
occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 3.00 P 3.47 HP 3.45 HP
7. Use materials from a wide variety of resources
3.29 HP 3.45 HP 3.42 HP
for lesson planning.
61
8. Determine available technology resources and

integrate technology into instruction when it is 3.00 P 3.51 HP 3.42 HP
value
9. Evaluate the quality of available resources when HP HP
3.14 P 3.41 3.50
designing a unit or lesson.
Grand Mean 3.05 P 3.42 HP 3.45 HP
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)
The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum alignment,
resources and materials when they are grouped by age shows that the respondents who are 20 to
30 years old perceived themselves as “highly proficient” on the statement “use materials from a
wide variety of resources for lesson planning” but “proficient” on the rest of the statements. On
the other hand, the respondents who are 31 to 40 and 41 years old or older perceived themselves
as “highly proficient” on curriculum alignment, resources and materials. The grand mean of the
respondents who are 20 to 30 years old is described as “proficient” while “highly proficient” by
the other age groups. This implies that the age groups of the respondents caused the grand mean
descriptions of the respondents to vary.
Table 22a. ANOVA on the Differences in Perceptions of the Respondents on the Curriculum
Alignment, Resources and Materials when they are grouped by Age
Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials F-test p-value Decision

curriculum during the instructional time at the 4.173 .018 Reject Ho
2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and
3. Align daily lesson plans with district curriculum
guides.
4. Sequencing learning materials and activities logically
and develop appropriate timelines for the completion 1.454 .238 Accept Ho
of instructional units of study.
62

determine the extent that intended learning has 5.039 .008 Reject Ho
occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 4.284 .016 Reject Ho
7. Use materials from a wide variety of resources for
.489 .615 Accept Ho
lesson planning.
integrate technology into instruction when it is value
9. Evaluate the quality of available resources when
The analysis of variance on the differences in level of perceptions along curriculum

alignment, resources and materials reveals significant differences in perceptions in almost all the
statements. This leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis which states that there are no
significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on curriculum alignment,
resources and materials when they are grouped by age. This implies that the age of the
respondents have something to do on their perceptions on the statements with significant result
while it has nothing to do on their perceptions on the statements which are not statistically
significant.
Shah (2018) elucidated in his study that students did not discriminate teachers in terms of
their age, as long as they are teaching effectively, enthusiastically, with effective communication
and problem solving. Good teaching is essentially a good communication. It involves transfer of
knowledge rather than information to students igniting their capacity to think and making them
acquire good skills.
Materials when they are grouped by Civil Status
Single Married
Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials
Mean Des Mean Des
during the instructional time at the beginning of the 3.00 P 3.36 HP
school year or semester.
2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and developmental
3.09 P 3.37 HP
goals for students.
3. Align daily lesson plans with district curriculum guides. 3.27 HP 3.43 HP
63
4. Sequencing learning materials and activities logically and

develop appropriate timelines for the completion of 3.27 HP 3.37 HP
5. Identify and develop assessment strategies to determine
3.36 HP 3.42 HP
the extent that intended learning has occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 3.45 HP 3.39 HP
7. Use materials from a wide variety of resources for lesson
3.36 HP 3.42 HP
planning.
8. Determine available technology resources and integrate
3.18 P 3.43 HP
9. Evaluate the quality of available resources when designing
3.27 HP 3.42 HP
a unit or lesson.
Grand Mean 3.25 P 3.40 HP
2.51 – 3.25 – Proficient (P)

resources and materials when they are grouped by civil status shows that the respondents who
are married perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while “proficient” by the respondents
who are single on the statements “construct a blueprint of how to address the curriculum during
the instructional time at the beginning of the school year or semester”, “plan appropriate log-
range learning and developmental goals for students” and “determine available technology
resources and integrate technology into instruction when it is value.” Both group of respondents
perceived themselves as “highly proficient” on the other statements in the table.
The grand mean of the respondents who are married is 3.40 which is described as
“highly proficient” while “proficient by the respondents who are single. This implies that the
respondents who are married have higher perceptions on curriculum alignment, resources and
materials as compared to their single respondents.
Table 23a. t-Test on the Differences in Perceptions of the Respondents on the Curriculum
Alignment, Resources and Materials when they are grouped by Civil Status
t-Test p- Decision
value
during the instructional time at the beginning of the school -5.879 .000 Reject Ho
year or semester.
64
2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and developmental goals

-1.603 .133 Accept Ho
for students.
3. Align daily lesson plans with district curriculum guides. -1.080 .300 Accept Ho
develop appropriate timelines for the completion of -.526 .600 Accept Ho
5. Identify and develop assessment strategies to determine the
extent that intended learning has occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. .349 .728 Accept Ho
planning.
-1.858 .082 Accept Ho
9. Evaluate the quality of available resources when designing a
unit or lesson.
The analysis of variance on the differences in level of perceptions along curriculum

alignment, resources and materials reveals when they are grouped by civil status reveals
significant result on the statement “construct a blueprint of how to address the curriculum during
the instructional time at the beginning of the school year or semester.” This leads to the rejection
of the null hypothesis which states that there are no significant differences on the level of
proficiency of the respondents on curriculum alignment, resources and materials when they are
grouped by civil status. This implies that the civil status of the respondents have something to do
on their perceptions on the statements with significant result while it has nothing to do on their
perceptions on the statements which are not statistically significant.
Safizal (2015) observed that students are naturally friendly to younger and single teachers
and regard them as peers. Students commonly get acquainted with peers and adults, and their
social perceptions and relations are related to and predictive of education outcomes. The
perception by students of their classroom environment involve affiliation, cohesion, fairness,
mutual respect as well educators’ support which relate to motivational level and achievement
behaviours.
Materials when they are grouped by Number of Years Teaching
Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials Less than 10 11 – 20 years 21 years or
years longer
65

curriculum during the instructional time at the 3.29 HP 3.26 HP 3.53 HP
2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and HP HP HP
3.27 3.39 3.47
3. Align daily lesson plans with district curriculum HP HP HP
3.33 3.48 3.59
guides.
logically and develop appropriate timelines for the 3.35 HP 3.29 HP 3.53 HP
completion of instructional units of study.
determine the extent that intended learning has 3.31 HP 3.52 HP 3.59 HP
occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 3.31 HP 3.45 HP 3.59 HP
7. Use materials from a wide variety of resources for HP HP HP
3.36 3.52 3.41
lesson planning.
integrate technology into instruction when it is 3.36 HP 3.52 HP 3.35 HP
value
9. Evaluate the quality of available resources when HP HP HP
3.35 3.42 3.59
Grand Mean 3.32 HP 3.42 HP 3.51 HP
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)

resources and materials when they are grouped by number of years teaching reveals that all the
groups perceived themselves as “highly proficient” on all the statements. The grand mean of the
respondents who had been teaching for 21 years or longer is 3.51, 3.42 by the respondents who
taught for 11 to 20 years while 3.32 by the respondents who taught for less than 10 years or
lesser with 3.32. All grand means however are described as “highly proficient.” This implies that
the groupings as to the number of years teaching did not cause variation on their grand mean
descriptions.
Alignment, Resources and Materials when they are grouped by Number of Years
Teaching
66

curriculum during the instructional time at the 1.445 .241 Accept Ho
.881 .418 Accept Ho
guides. 2.253 .110 Accept Ho
and develop appropriate timelines for the completion .983 .378 Accept Ho
determine the extent that intended learning has 2.438 .093 Accept Ho
occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 1.806 .170 Accept Ho
.755 .473 Accept Ho
lesson planning.
.807 .449 Accept Ho
The analysis of variance on their differences in perceptions along curriculum alignment,

resources and materials when they are grouped by number of years teaching reveals no
significant results in all the statements. This leads to the acceptance of the null hypothesis which
states that there are no significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on
curriculum alignment, resources and materials when they are grouped by number of years
teaching. This implies that the number of years teaching by the respondents has nothing to do on
their perceptions on all the statements.
Stronge (2014) states that teachers should consistently plan using state and local school
district curricula and standards, effective strategies, resources, and data to address the
differentiated needs of all students. For a better instructional planning the author suggests that
teachers should continually seek and use multiple data and real world resources to plan
differentiated instruction to meet the individual student needs and interests in order to promote
student accountability and engagement.
67
Materials when they are grouped by Ethnic Affiliation
curriculum during the instructional time at the 3.38 HP 3.29 HP 3.00 P
2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and HP
3.47 3.18 P 2.89 P
68
3. Align daily lesson plans with district curriculum HP

3.42 3.39 HP 3.44 P
guides.
logically and develop appropriate timelines for 3.44 HP 3.25 P 3.11 P
the completion of instructional units of study.
determine the extent that intended learning has 3.50 HP 3.32 HP 3.11 P
occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 3.48 HP 3.36 HP 2.89 P
7. Use materials from a wide variety of resources HP
3.48 3.36 HP 3.11 P
for lesson planning.
integrate technology into instruction when it is 3.53 HP 3.25 P 3.00 P
value
9. Evaluate the quality of available resources when HP
3.53 3.25 P 3.00 P
Grand Mean 3.47 HP 3.29 HP 3.06 P
Legend:3.26 – 4.00 – Highly Proficient (HP)
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)

resources and materials when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation reveals that the respondents
who belong to other ethnic groups perceived themselves as “proficient” while “highly proficient”
by the Ilocano and the Ifugao on the statements “construct a blueprint of how to address the
curriculum during the instructional time at the beginning of the school year or semester”, “align
daily lesson plans with district curriculum guides”, “identify and develop assessment strategies
to determine the extent that intended learning has occurred”, “integrate other content areas when
appropriate” and “use materials from a wide variety of resources for lesson planning.” On the
other hand, the respondents who Ilocano are perceived themselves as “highly proficient” while
“proficient” by the other ethnic groups on the other statements in the table.
The grand mean of the respondents who belong to other ethnic groups is 3.06 which is
described as “proficient’ while “highly proficient” by the other ethnic groups. This means that
the ethnic affiliation of the respondents causes variations on their grand mean descriptions.
69
Alignment, Resources and Materials when they are grouped by Ethnic Affiliation
curriculum during the instructional time at the 1.892 .156 Accept Ho
2. Plan appropriate range learning and developmental
goals for students.
.053 .948 Accept Ho
guides.
and develop appropriate timelines for the completion 2.025 .137 Accept Ho
determine the extent that intended learning has 2.632 .077 Accept Ho
occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 4.827 .010 Reject Ho
lesson planning.
The analysis of variance on their differences in perceptions along curriculum alignment,

resources and materials when they are grouped by ethnic affiliation reveals significant results on
the statements “plan appropriate log-range learning and developmental goals for students,”
integrate other content areas when appropriate”, “determine available technology resources and
integrate technology into instruction when it is value” and “evaluate the quality of available
resources when designing a unit or lesson.” This leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis
which states that there are no significant differences on the level of proficiency of the
respondents on curriculum alignment, resources and materials when they are grouped by ethnic
affiliation. This implies that the ethnic affiliation of the respondents has something to do on their
perceptions on the statements with significant results, while it has nothing to do on their
perceptions on the statements with no significant differences.
Materials when they are grouped by Highest Educational Attainment
70
With Masters
Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials Master’s Unit Graduate
Mean Des Mean Des
during the instructional time at the beginning of the 3.33 HP 3.29 HP
school year or semester.
2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and developmental
3.35 HP 3.29 HP
goals for students.
3. Align daily lesson plans with district curriculum guides. 3.39 HP 3.52 HP
develop appropriate timelines for the completion of 3.39 HP 3.24 P
5. Identify and develop assessment strategies to determine
3.43 HP 3.38 HP
the extent that intended learning has occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. 3.40 HP 3.38 HP
3.41 HP 3.43 HP
planning.
3.41 HP 3.38 HP
9. Evaluate the quality of available resources when designing
3.44 HP 3.29 HP
a unit or lesson.
Grand Mean 3.39 HP 3.35 HP
2.51 – 3.25 - Proficient (P)

resources and materials when they are grouped by highest educational attainment reveals that the
respondents with masters’ units perceived themselves as “highly proficient,” while “proficient”
by the respondents who are masters’ graduates. Both groups however perceived themselves as
“highly proficient” in the rest of the statements in the table. The grand means are both described
as “highly proficient” which means that the highest educational attainment groupings did not
cause variation on their grand means.
Alignment, Resources and Materials when they are grouped by Highest Educational
Attainment
Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials T-test p-value Decision
71

curriculum during the instructional time at the .314 .754 Accept Ho
.472 .638 Accept Ho
-1.103 .273 Accept Ho
guides.
and develop app ropriate timelines for the completion 1.083 .281 Accept Ho
determine the extent that intended learning has .339 .736 Accept Ho
occurred.
6. Integrate other content areas when appropriate. .154 .878 Accept Ho
lesson planning.
.241 .810 Accept Ho
The t-Test on their differences in perceptions along curriculum alignment, resources and
materials when they are grouped by highest educational attainment reveals no significant results
in all the statements. This leads to the acceptance of the null hypothesis which states that there
are no significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on curriculum
alignment, resources and materials when they are grouped by highest educational attainment.
This implies that the highest educational attainment by the respondents has nothing to do on their
perceptions on all the statements.
Sankar (2009) stated that regardless of educational attainment, an educator is able to
accumulate knowledge through certain learning activities by interacting with environment and
utilize language, visualization and planning to manage thinking, understanding, memorizing and
logically. With this ways, a learner would be able to relate the current and previous learning and
hence formulate new implication even if the subject matter is tough.

I. Profile of The Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I. Profile of The Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

respondents, professional knowledge, and planning skills of the respondents.

I. Profile of the Respondents

Profile Specifics Frequency Percent

while 21 or 20.40 percent are master’s graduates.

II. Professional Knowledge Skills

Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge Mean Description

with the learner and also proficient in the subject matter.

B. Curricular and Pedagogical Knowledge

Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge Mean Description

Pertaining the perceptions of the respondents on curricular and pedagogical knowledge

curricular content and pedagogical knowledge.

III. Planning Skills

Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills Mean Description

On the planning skills of the respondents, the respondents perceived themselves as

B. Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials

Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials Mean Description

The perceptions of the respondents on their proficiency in curriculum alignment,

IV. Test of Significant Differences on the Professional Knowledge

Learning and Subject Matter Knowledge F-test p-value Decision

8. Make interdisciplinary connections across subject

B. Curriculum and Pedagogical Knowledge

It is shown in Table 12 that the perceptions of the respondents on their level of

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum and

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum and

Ilocano Ifugao Others

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum and

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum and

V. Test of Significant Differences on Planning Skills

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in learning and

instructional strategies and organize learning activities”, “plan a learner-centered environment

enrichment, curriculum compacting) for gifted learners.”

significant differences on the level of proficiency of the respondents on learning and

respondents has nothing to do on their perceptions on learning and differentiated planning.

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in learning and

Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills T-test p-value Decision

9. Plan remediated learning for struggling HP

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in learning and

Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills F-test p-value Decision

6. Plan a learner-centered environment that allows for

Ilocano Ifugao Others

5. Use student assessment and diagnostic data in

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in learning and

Learning and Differentiated Planning Skills F-test p-value Decision

2. Identify learning objectives that focus on high

1.76 – 2.50 – Approaching Proficiency (AP)

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in learning and

8. Determine available technology resources and

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum alignment,

descriptions of the respondents to vary.

Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials F-test p-value Decision

5. Identify and develop assessment strategies to

The analysis of variance on the differences in level of perceptions along curriculum

4. Sequencing learning materials and activities logically and

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum alignment,

2. Plan appropriate log-range learning and developmental goals

The analysis of variance on the differences in level of perceptions along curriculum

Mean Des Mean Des Mean Des

The perceptions of the respondents on their level of proficiency in curriculum alignment,

Curriculum Alignment, Resources and Materials F-test p-value Decision

The analysis of variance on their differences in perceptions along curriculum alignment,