DATA INTERPRETATION OF STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Table 1. Distribution
of the Profiles of the Respondents
Profiles
of the Respondents
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
Age of
respondent
|
F
|
%
|
21 - 30 -
1
|
18
|
56.3
|
31-40 - 2
|
7
|
21.9
|
41- 50- 3
|
2
|
6.25
|
51- 60 - 4
|
4
|
12.5
|
61- 65- 5
|
1
|
3.13
|
total
|
32
|
100
|
Gender
|
F
|
%
|
Male
– 1
|
2
|
6.3
|
Female
- 2
|
30
|
94
|
total
|
32
|
100
|
Educational attainment
|
F
|
%
|
BEED - 1
|
19
|
59.38
|
BSED - 2
|
9
|
28.13
|
Masters Degree - 3
|
1
|
3.13
|
Other degree 4
|
3
|
9.38
|
Post Graduate
- 5
|
0
|
0
|
total
|
32
|
100
|
Number of years in service
|
f
|
%
|
Less
than 10 years - 1
|
24
|
75
|
11-
20 years - 2
|
2
|
6.25
|
21-
30 years - 3
|
6
|
18.75
|
31
– 40 years - 4
|
0
|
0
|
more
than 40 years - 5
|
0
|
0
|
total
|
32
|
100
|
Trainings and
Seminars
|
f
|
%
|
1-
Parenting Skills
|
15
|
46.88
|
2 -The
Growth and Development of Special Children with Behavioral Problems
|
7
|
21.88
|
3 -
Achieving Quality Education for All Children with Special Needs
|
9
|
28.13
|
4 -
Strategies for Teaching Children with Developmental Behavior
|
0
|
0
|
5 - Instructional Materials for Children with
Disability
|
1
|
3.13
|
6 - Maintaining
Learner Involvement
|
0
|
0
|
7 - Early
Childhood Education for Exceptional Children
|
0
|
0
|
8 - Approaches to Behavior
Change
|
0
|
0
|
9 -
Typical Classroom Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
10 -Responding to Problem
Behaviours
|
0
|
0
|
11 -Others
total
|
0
32
|
0
100
|
Table
2. Determining Teachers’ Cognition on Applied
Behavior Analysis according to
awareness.
Statement
|
Mean
|
s
|
Level of Teachers’ Cognition
|
1.
Awareness
1.1 I have knowledge on applied
behaviour analysis (ABA).
1.2 I am Less
Knowledgeable on the different techniques of applied behavioural analysis.
1.3 I know
which behaviour to target.
1.4 I can
determine the strategies to increase positive and decrease negative
behaviors.
1.5 I have
good comprehension in understanding how to measure progress and evaluate the
effectiveness of strategies.
OVERALL
|
2.38
2.41
2.1
2.1
2.09
2.22
|
0.55
0.61
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.42
|
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
|
Table 3. Determining
Teachers’ Cognition on Applied Behavior Analysis according to Instructional delivery.
2.
Instructional Delivery
2.1 I have
enough understanding in making a behaviour intervention plan
2.2 I have
good cognizance in providing an alternative explanation for example when
students are confused.
2.3 I have
knowledge of alternative forms of communication base on the principles of ABA
to enhance their learning experience and as a tool for communication and
leisure
2.4 I
understand that the teacher needs to make the instructions clear and concise.
2.5 I know
that it needs to maintain eye contacts in giving instructions.
OVERALL
|
2.2
2.1
2.1
2
2.1
2.11
|
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
|
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
|
Statement
|
Mean
|
s
|
Level of Teachers’ Cognition
|
Statement
|
Mean
|
s
|
Level of Teachers’ Cognition
|
Table
4. Determining Teachers’ Cognition on Applied
Behavior Analysis according to
Classroom Management.
3.
Classroom Management
3.1 I am Less
Knowledgeable on the importance of the environment and provides a setting
that is safe, structured, and promotes independence to improve the behavior.
3.2 I know
to identify individualized reinforcement preferences using indirect and
direct measures on an ongoing basis.
3.3 I know
that reinforcement system is in place for rewarding appropriate student
behavior.
3.4 I have
good insights that pupils on the autism spectrum will benefit from a clearly
organized environment, with visual cues and signposts, which should offer
information adjusted to the level of understanding of the pupil (e.g. written
information, symbols and objects of reference).
3.5 I know
how to control the disruptive behavior in the classroom and teach a more
acceptable behavior.
OVERALL
|
2.1
2.1
2
2
2
2.06
|
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.39
|
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
|
Table 5. Determining
Teachers’ Cognition on Applied Behavior Analysis according to Learner- Teacher Rapport.
Statement
|
Mean
|
s
|
Level of Teachers’ Cognition
|
4. Learner- Teacher Rapport
4.1 I have a
good perception on the importance of listening to the voice of the pupil and
identify strategies to ensure that communication systems are not just used to
inform and instruct pupils, but also offer the opportunity for pupils to
express their views.
4.2 I
understand that it needs to show respect to the child through recognizing
that the student has desires and preferences, and give him choices whenever
appropriate.
4.3 I know
that you have to use knowledge of the pupil’s interest to establish and
maintain positive relationships.
4.4 I have
idea in maintaining consistency in how you interact with the pupil and build
on the pupil and set clear rules and limits to demonstrate what is expected
in a given situation.
4.5 I
master how to interact with the child
and answer his/her questions to improve his/her behaviors
OVERALL
|
2
2
2
2
2.1
2.02
|
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.39
|
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
Less
Knowledgeable
|
Table 6. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of Awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior and Gender.
Awareness
|
||||||
Gender
|
Mean
|
s
|
Degree of Freedom
|
t-stat
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
Male
|
2.5
|
0.5
|
30
|
1.27
|
2.04
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
Female
|
2.2
|
0.09
|
||||
The
T-test was used in determining if there is a significant relationship between
the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior and the
Gender. The results showed a T-stat of
1.27 with the critical value of 2.04 indicate that the obtained value is not
significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null hypothesis
which states, there is no significant relationship between the level of
awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior and Gender is accepted at
0.05 level of significance. The results
further imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the perspective
on the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior has
something to do with their perspective on their Gender.
Instructional Delivery
|
||||||
Gender
|
Mean
|
s
|
Degree of Freedom
|
t-stat
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
Male
|
2.5
|
0.5
|
30
|
1.83
|
2.04
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
Female
|
2.08
|
0.08
|
||||
Table 7. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level o of teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior according to Instructional Delivery and the Gender.
The
T-test was used in determining if there is a significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Instructional
Delivery and the Gender. The results
showed a T-stat of 1.83 with the critical value of 2.04 indicate that the
obtained value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies
that the null hypothesis which states, there is no significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behaviour according to
Instructional Delivery and Gender is accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. The results further imply
that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level
of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Instructional Delivery
has something to do with their perspective on their Gender.
Classroom
Management
|
||||||
Gender
|
Mean
|
s
|
Degree
of Freedom
|
t-stat
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
Male
|
2.5
|
0.5
|
30
|
1.94
|
2.04
|
Not Significant @ 0.05 level
|
Female
|
2.03
|
0.1
|
||||
Table 8. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior according to Classroom Management and the Gender.
The
T-test was used in determining if there is a significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom
Management and the Gender. The results
showed a T-stat of 1.94 with the critical value of 2.04 indicate that the
obtained value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies
that the null hypothesis which states, there is no significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behaviour according to
Classroom Management and Gender is accepted at 0.05 level of significance. The results further imply that there is no
sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level of teachers’
cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom Management has something
to do with their perspective on their Gender.
Learner-Teacher
Rapport
|
||||||
Gender
|
Mean
|
s
|
Degree
of Freedom
|
t-stat
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
Male
|
2.5
|
0.5
|
30
|
2.23
|
2.04
|
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
Female
|
1.99
|
0.09
|
||||
Table 9. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior according to Learner- Teacher Rapport and the Gender.
The
T-test was used in determining if there is a significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner-
Teacher Rapport and the Gender. The
results showed a T-stat of 2.23 with the critical value of 2.04 indicate that
the obtained value is significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies
that the alternative hypothesis which states, there is a significant
relationship between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behaviour
according to Learner- Teacher Rapport and Gender is accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. The results further imply
that there is a sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level
of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner- Teacher
Rapport has something to do with their perspective on their Gender.
> The “t-stat” is
the computed value using T-stat
> The “critical
value” is the tabular value
> If critical value
is less than the t-stat, the decision is significant. It means there is a
significant relationship at 0.05 level of significance.
> If the critical-value
is greater than the t-stat, the decision is not significant. It means that
there is no significant relationship at a 0.5 level.
> Statistics Used: t-Test:
Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
LEARNER-CENTERED RAPPORT
|
||||||||
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
BEED
|
2.10
|
19
|
4
27
31
|
0.46
|
0.92
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
BSED
|
1.84
|
9
|
||||||
Master’s
Degree
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Other Degree
|
2
|
3
|
||||||
Post Graduate
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Table 13. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner-
Teacher Rapport and Teacher’s Educational
Attainment.
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to
Learner- teacher Rapport and the teacher’s Educational Attainment. The results showed an F-value of 0.92; and
p-value = 0.46 with the F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained
value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null
hypothesis which states, there is no significant relationship between the level
of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner- Teacher
Rapport and teacher’s Educational Attainment is accepted at 0.05 level of significance. The results further imply that there is no
sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level of teachers’
cognition on applied behavior according to Learner- Teacher Rapport has
something to do with their perspective on their Educational Attainment.
Table 12. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom
Management and Teacher’s Educational
Attainment.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
|
||||||||
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
BEED
|
2.14
|
19
|
4
27
31
|
0.64
|
0.64
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
BSED
|
1.91
|
9
|
||||||
Master’s
Degree
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Other Degree
|
2
|
3
|
||||||
Post Graduate
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to
Classroom Management and the teacher’s Educational Attainment. The results showed an F-value of 0.64; and
p-value = 0.64 with the F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained
value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null
hypothesis which states, there is no significant relationship between the level
of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner- Teacher
Rapport and teacher’s Educational Attainment is accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. The results further imply
that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level of
teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom Management has
something to do with their perspective on their Educational Attainment.
INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY
|
||||||||
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
BEED
|
2.16
|
19
|
4
27
31
|
0.88
|
0.28
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
BSED
|
2.04
|
9
|
||||||
Master’s
Degree
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Other Degree
|
2
|
3
|
||||||
Post Graduate
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Table 11. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Instructional
Delivery and Teacher’s Educational Attainment.
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to
Instructional Delivery and the teacher’s Educational Attainment. The results showed an F-value of 0.28; and
p-value = 0.88 with the F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained
value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null
hypothesis which states, there is no significant relationship between the level
of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom Management
and teacher’s Educational Attainment is accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. The results further imply
that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level of
teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom Management has
something to do with their perspective on their Educational Attainment.
AWARENESS
|
||||||||
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
BEED
|
2.32
|
19
|
4
27
31
|
0.27
|
1.38
|
2.73
|
Significant
@ 0.05 level
|
|
BSED
|
2.09
|
9
|
||||||
Master’s
Degree
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Other Degree
|
2
|
3
|
||||||
Post Graduate
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Table 10. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of Awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior and Teacher’s
Educational Attainment.
The
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant
relationship between the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior and the teacher’s Educational Attainment. The results showed an F-value of 1.38; and p-value
= 0.27 with the F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained value is
not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null
hypothesis which states, there is no significant relationship between the level
of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior and teacher’s
Educational Attainment is accepted at 0.05 level of significance. The results further imply that there is no
sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level of awareness on
teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom Management has
something to do with their perspective on their Educational Attainment
AWARENESS
|
||||||||
AGE
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
21-30
|
2.29
|
18
|
4
27
31
|
1.15
|
19.59
|
2.73
|
Significant
@ 0.05 level
|
|
31-40
|
2.29
|
7
|
||||||
41-50
|
1.9
|
2
|
||||||
51-60
|
2
|
4
|
||||||
61-65
|
5
|
1
|
||||||
Table 14. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior and Teacher’s Age.
The
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant
relationship between the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior and the teacher’s age. The
results showed an F-value of 19.59; and p-value = 1.15 with the F-critical
value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained value is significant at 0.05 level of
significance. It implies that the alternative hypothesis which states, there is
a significant relationship between the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition
on applied behavior and teacher’s age is accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. The results further imply
that there is a sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level
of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior has something to do
with their perspective on their ages.
Table 15. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Instructional
Delivery and Teacher’s Age.
INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY
|
||||||||
AGE
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
21-30
|
2.17
|
18
|
4
27
31
|
1.15
|
0.46
|
2.73
|
Not Significant @
0.05 level
|
|
31-40
|
2.08
|
7
|
||||||
41-50
|
1.9
|
2
|
||||||
51-60
|
2
|
4
|
||||||
61-65
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to
Instructional Delivery and the teacher’s age.
The results showed an F-value of 0.56; and p-value = 1.15 with the
F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained value is not significant at
0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null hypothesis which states,
there is no significant relationship between the level of teachers’ cognition
on applied behavior according to Instructional Delivery and teacher’s age is
accepted at 0.05 level of significance.
The results further imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show
that the perspective on the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior about
Instructional Delivery has something to do with their perspective on their ages.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
|
||||||||
AGE
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
21-30
|
2.14
|
18
|
4
27
31
|
0.46
|
0.46
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
31-40
|
1.97
|
7
|
||||||
41-50
|
1.7
|
2
|
||||||
51-60
|
2
|
4
|
||||||
61-65
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Table 16. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom
Management and Teacher’s Age.
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to
Classroom Management and the teacher’s age.
The results showed an F-value of 0.46; and p-value = 0.46 with the
F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained value is not significant at
0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null hypothesis which states,
there is no significant relationship between the level of teachers’ cognition
on applied behavior according to Classroom Management and teacher’s age is
accepted at 0.05 level of significance.
The results further imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show
that the perspective on the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according
to Classroom Management has something to do with their perspective on their ages.
LEARNER-TEACHER RAPPORT
|
||||||||
AGE
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
21-30
|
2.11
|
18
|
4
27
31
|
0.16
|
1.81
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
31-40
|
1.94
|
7
|
||||||
41-50
|
1.5
|
2
|
||||||
51-60
|
2
|
4
|
||||||
61-65
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Table 17. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner-
Teacher raport and Teacher’s Age.
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to
Learner- teacher Rapport and the teacher’s age.
The results showed an F-value of 1.81; and p-value = 0.16 with the
F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained value is not significant at
0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null hypothesis which states,
there is no significant relationship between the level of teachers’ cognition
on applied behavior according to Learner- Teacher Rapport and teacher’s age is
accepted at 0.05 level of significance.
The results further imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show
that the perspective on the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according
to Learner- Teacher Rapport has something to do with their perspective on their
ages.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
|
|||||||
No. of Years in Service
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
Less
than 10 years
|
2.1
|
24
|
4
27
31
|
0.65
|
0.62
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
11-20
years
|
1.7
|
2
|
|||||
21-30
years
|
2
|
6
|
|||||
31-40 years
|
0
|
0
|
|||||
More than 40 years
|
0
|
0
|
|||||
Table 20. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior according to Classroom Management and Number of years in Service.
The
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant
relationship between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior
according to Classroom Management and the teacher’s number of years in
service. The results showed an F-value
of 0.62; and p-value = 0.65 with the F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the
obtained value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies
that the null hypothesis which states, there is a no significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior- Classroom
Management and teacher’s number of years in service is accepted at 0.05 level
of significance. The results further
imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the
level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior- Classroom Management has
something to do with their perspective on their number of years in service.
AWARENESS
|
||||||||
No. of Years in Service
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
Less
than 10 years
|
2.3
|
24
|
4
27
31
|
0.19
|
0.65
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
11-20
years
|
1.9
|
2
|
||||||
21-30
years
|
2
|
6
|
||||||
31-40 years
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
More than 40 years
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Table 18. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior and Number of years in Service.
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior and
the teacher’s number of years in service.
The results showed an F-value of 0.65; and p-value = 0.19 with the
F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained value is not significant at
0.05 level of significance. It implies that the null hypothesis which states,
there is a no significant relationship between the level of awareness on teachers’
cognition on applied behavior and teacher’s number of years in service is
accepted at 0.05 level of significance.
The results further imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show
that the perspective on the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on
applied behavior has something to do with their perspective on their number of
years in service.
Table 19. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior according to Instructional Delivery and Number of years in Service.
INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY
|
||||||||
No. of Years in Service
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
Less
than 10 years
|
2.15
|
24
|
4
27
31
|
0.78
|
0.44
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
11-20
years
|
1.9
|
2
|
||||||
21-30
years
|
2
|
6
|
||||||
31-40 years
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
More than 40 years
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to
Instructional delivery and the teacher’s number of years in service. The results showed an F-value of 0.44; and
p-value = 0.78 with the F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained
value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the
null hypothesis which states, there is a no significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Instructional
Delivery and teacher’s number of years in service is accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. The results further imply
that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level
of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior Instructional Delivery has something
to do with their perspective on their number of years in service.
LEARNER-TEACHER RAPPORT
|
||||||||
No. of Years in Service
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
Less
than 10 years
|
2.07
|
24
|
4
27
31
|
0.96
|
1.40
|
2.73
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
11-20
years
|
1.5
|
2
|
||||||
21-30
years
|
2
|
6
|
||||||
31-40 years
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
More than 40 years
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Table 21. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior according to Learner- Teacher Rapport and Number of years in Service.
The Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner-
Teacher Rapport and the teacher’s number of years in service. The results showed an F-value of 1.40; and
p-value = 0.96 with the F-critical value of 2.73 indicate that the obtained
value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the
null hypothesis which states, there is a no significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner-
Teacher Rapport and teacher’s number of years in service is accepted at 0.05
level of significance. The results
further imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the perspective
on the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner-
Teacher Rapport has something to do with their perspective on their number of
years in service.
Table 22. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of Awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior and Training and Seminars Attended regarding
SPED.
AWARENESS
|
||||||||
Trainings and Seminars Attended
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
Parenting Skills
|
2.33
|
15
|
10
21
31
|
0.98
|
0.28
|
2.32
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
The Growth and Development of
Special Children with Behavioral Problems
|
2.11
|
7
|
||||||
Achieving Quality Education for
All Children with Special Needs
|
2.13
|
9
|
||||||
Strategies for Teaching Children
with Developmental Behavior
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Instructional Materials for
Children with Disability
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Early Childhood Education for
Exceptional Children
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Approaches to Behavior Change
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Typical Classroom Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Responding to Problem Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior and
the teacher’s seminars and trainings attended related to SPED. The results showed an F-value of 0.28; and
p-value = 0.98 with the F-critical value of 2.32 indicate that the obtained
value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the
null hypothesis which states, there is a no significant relationship between
the level of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior and teacher’s
seminars and trainings attended related to SPED is accepted at 0.05 level of
significance. The results further imply
that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level
of awareness on teachers’ cognition on applied behavior has something to do
with their perspective on their seminars and trainings attended related to
SPED.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
|
||||||||
Trainings and Seminars Attended
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
Parenting Skills
|
2.17
|
15
|
10
21
31
|
0.98
|
0.28
|
2.32
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
The Growth and Development of
Special Children with Behavioral Problems
|
1.89
|
7
|
||||||
Achieving Quality Education for
All Children with Special Needs
|
2
|
9
|
||||||
Strategies for Teaching Children
with Developmental Behavior
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Instructional Materials for
Children with Disability
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Early Childhood Education for
Exceptional Children
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Approaches to Behavior Change
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Typical Classroom Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Responding to Problem Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Table 24. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level of teachers’ cognition on applied
behavior according to Classroom management and Training/ Seminars Attended regarding
SPED.
The Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom
management and the teacher’s seminars and trainings attended related to SPED. The results showed an F-value of 0.28; and
p-value = 0.98 with the F-critical value of 2.32 indicate that the obtained
value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the
null hypothesis which states, there is a no significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Classroom
Management and teacher’s seminars and trainings attended related to SPED is
accepted at 0.05 level of significance.
The results further imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show
that the perspective on the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior
according to Classroom Management has something to do with their perspective on
their seminars and trainings attended related to SPED.
Table 25. Distribution
of the Relationship between the Level teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Learner-
Teacher Rapport and Training and Seminars
Attended regarding SPED.
LEARNER-
TEACHER RAPPORT
|
||||||||
Trainings
and Seminars Attended
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree
of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
1.
Parenting Skills
|
2.12
|
15
|
10
21
31
|
0.98
|
0.28
|
2.32
|
Not Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
2.
The Growth and Development of Special Children with Behavioral Problems
|
1.83
|
7
|
||||||
3.
Achieving Quality Education for All Children with Special Needs
|
2
|
9
|
||||||
4.
Strategies for Teaching Children with Developmental Behavior
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
5.
Instructional Materials for Children with Disability
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
6.
Early Childhood Education for Exceptional Children
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
7.
Approaches to Behavior Change
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
8.
Typical Classroom Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Responding
to Problem Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was used in determining if there is a significant relationship
between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to
Learner- Teacher Rapport and the teacher’s seminars and trainings attended
related to SPED. The results showed an
F-value of 0.28; and p-value = 0.98 with the F-critical value of 2.32 indicate
that the obtained value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It
implies that the null hypothesis which states, there is a no significant
relationship between the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior
according to Leaner- Teacher Rapport and teacher’s seminars and trainings
attended related to SPED is accepted at 0.05 level of significance. The results further imply that there is no
sufficient evidence to show that the perspective on the level of teachers’
cognition on applied behavior according to Learner- Teacher rapport has
something to do with their perspective on their seminars and trainings attended
related to SPED.
INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY
|
||||||||
Trainings and Seminars Attended
|
Mean
|
n
|
Degree of Freedom
|
P-Value
|
F
|
critical-value
|
Decision
|
|
Parenting Skills
|
2.24
|
15
|
10
21
31
|
0.94
|
0.39
|
2.32
|
Not
Significant @ 0.05 level
|
|
The Growth and Development of
Special Children with Behavioral Problems
|
1.97
|
7
|
||||||
Achieving Quality Education for
All Children with Special Needs
|
2
|
9
|
||||||
Strategies for Teaching Children
with Developmental Behavior
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Instructional Materials for
Children with Disability
|
2
|
1
|
||||||
Maintaining learner involvement
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Early Childhood Education for
Exceptional Children
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Approaches to Behavior Change
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Typical Classroom Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Responding to Problem Behaviors
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Others
|
0
|
0
|
||||||
Table
23. Distribution of the Relationship between the
Level teachers’ cognition on applied behavior
According to Instructional Delivery and Training and Seminars Attended regarding
SPED.
The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used in
determining if there is a significant relationship between the level of
teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Instructional Delivery and
the teacher’s seminars and trainings attended related to SPED. The results showed an F-value of 0.39; and
p-value = 0.94 with the F-critical value of 2.32 indicate that the obtained
value is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. It implies that the
null hypothesis which states, there is a no significant relationship between
the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior according to Instructional
Delivery and teacher’s seminars and trainings attended related to SPED is
accepted at 0.05 level of significance.
The results further imply that there is no sufficient evidence to show
that the perspective on the level of teachers’ cognition on applied behavior
according to Instructional Delivery has something to do with their perspective
on their seminars and trainings attended related to SPED.
THE TOOL
PART 1.Profile of Respondent
Direction:
Kindly put a check mark (/) on the appropriate space and/ or provide the
necessary information.
1.1
Sex ( ) Male ( ) Female
1.2
Age of respondent _____________________________
1.3
Educational attainment
( ) BEED ( ) BSED ( )
Other degree with units earned in education
( ) Masters Degree ( ) Post Graduate Studies
1.4 Number of years in service
Less than 10 years ( ) 21- 30 years ( ) more than 40 years ( )
11- 20 years ( ) 31 – 40 years ( )
1.5
Trainings/ Seminars Related to SPED (Kindly put a checkmark on the space
provided before the seminar-workshop/training title if applicable).
TITLE
______
Parenting Skills
______
The Growth and Development of Special Children with Behavioral Problems
______
Achieving Quality Education for All Children with Special Needs
______
Strategies for Teaching Children with Developmental Behavior
______
Instructional Materials for Children with Disability
______
Maintaining Learner Involvement
______
Early Childhood Education for Exceptional Children
______
Approaches to Behavior Change
______
Typical Classroom Behaviors
______
Responding to Problem Behaviours
______
Others: Please specify _____________________________________________
Part II. Determining Teachers’ Cognition
on Applied Behavior Analysis
Directions: The following are items
describing teachers’ cognition on applied behavior analysis. Kindly indicate
your answer by putting a check mark ( ) on the appropriate column corresponding
to your answer. Use the following code of your guide.
VK - Very Knowledgeable
K - Knowledgeable
LK - Less Knowledgeable
K - Knowledgeable
LK - Less Knowledgeable
NK – Not Knowledgeable
Category/Indication
|
VK
|
K
|
LK
|
NK
|
1. Awareness
|
||||
1.1
I have knowledge on applied behaviour analysis (ABA).
|
||||
1.2
I am aware on the different techniques of applied behavioural analysis.
|
||||
1.3
I know which behaviour to target.
|
||||
1.4
I can determine the strategies to increase positive and decrease negative behaviors.
|
||||
1.5
I have good comprehension in understanding how to measure progress and
evaluate the effectiveness of strategies.
|
||||
2. Instructional
Delivery
|
||||
2.1
I have enough understanding in making a behaviour intervention plan
|
||||
2.2
I have good cognizance in providing an alternative explanation or example
when students are confused.
|
||||
2.3
I have knowledge of alternative forms of communication base on the principles
of ABA to enhance their learning experience and as a tool for communication
and leisure
|
||||
2.4
I understand that the teacher needs to make the instructions clear and
concise.
|
||||
2.5
I know that it needs to maintain eye contacts in giving instructions.
|
||||
3. Classroom
Management
|
||||
3.1
I am aware on the importance of the environment and provides a setting that
is safe, structured, and promotes independence to improve the behavior.
|
||||
3.2
I know to identify individualized reinforcement preferences using indirect
and direct measures on an ongoing basis.
|
||||
3.3
I know that reinforcement system is in place for rewarding appropriate
student behavior.
|
||||
3.4
I have good insights that pupils on the autism spectrum will benefit from a
clearly organised environment, with visual cues and signposts, which should
offer information adjusted to the level of understanding of the pupil (e.g.
written information, symbols and objects of reference).
|
||||
3.5
I know how to control the disruptive behavior in the classroom and teach a
more acceptable behavior.
|
||||
4. Learner- Teacher Rapport
|
||||
4.1
I have a good perception on the importance of listening to the voice of the
pupil and identify strategies to ensure that communication systems are not
just used to inform and instruct pupils, but also offer the opportunity for
pupils to express their views.
|
||||
4.2
I understand that it needs to show respect to the child through recognizing
that the student has desires and preferences, and give him choices whenever
appropriate.
|
||||
4.3
I know that you have to use knowledge of the pupil’s interest to establish
and maintain positive relationships.
|
||||
4.4
I have idea in maintaining consistency in how you interact with the pupil and
build on the pupil and set clear rules and limits to demonstrate what is
expected in a given situation.
|
||||
4.5
I master how to interact with the
child and answer his/her questions to improve his/her behaviors
|
