DATA INTERPRETATION

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

               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