COMPETENCY LEVEL AMONG MAPEH AND NON-MAPEH TEARCHERS IN

TEACHING MAPEH SUBJECT OF THE SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL

TEARCHERS IN MAUBAN, QUEZON. S.Y 2016-2017

____________________________________

A Research Paper Presented to

The Faculty of Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban
School of Education
Mauban, Quezon

____________________________

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements to the Degree
Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in Music, Arts, Physical Education and Health

____________________________________

Anareta, Arjohn T.
Quizon, Mark Roldan M.
2016
 ii

APPROVAL SHEET

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Bachelor of

Secondary Education Major in MAPEH, this research entitled “COMPETENCY

LEVEL AMONG MAPEH AND NON-MAPEH TEARCHERS IN TEACHING

MAPEH SUBJECT OF THE SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL TEARCHERS IN

MAUBAN, QUEZON. S.Y 2016-2017” had been approved and submitted by

Arjohn T. Anareta and Mark Roldan M. Quizon who are hereby recommended

for oral examination.

PROF. MARY CYL V. POROL MA. Math Ed

Research Adviser

ORAL EXAMINATION COMMITTEE

This thesis is submitted to the Dean by the above mentioned researchers

and has been approve by the committee on Oral Examination.

Shiela L. Habal, MA. Math Ed June Anne Honeylou S. Lasola

Member Member
Aris H. Sanchez
Chairperson
______________________________________________________________

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Music, Arts, Physical
Education and Health.

JOSEFINA C. LORCA, Ed. D

Date College Dean, PKM
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research study would not have been possible without the guidance and
the help of several individuals who in a way or another contributed and extended
their valuable assistance in the preparation and completion of this study.

To Almighty God, for guiding us to work with passion to be able to finish this
study.

To parents of the researchers, for guiding and supporting them a moral and
financial support to finish this study, for the unconditional love and patience that
always gave them an encouragement to make this work becomes successful.

To Dr. Josefina C. Lorca, for her approval upon the conduct of this thesis.

To Prof. Mary Cyl V. Porol, the research adviser, for valuable assistance in
the completion of the manuscript, for giving her precious time, expertise and tons of
understanding, for ideas and concepts that were used by the researchers and bases
for the success of this research work.

To committee on oral examination, for giving their precious time,

comments, suggestions during defense of this study to make it perfect.

To my partner (Arjohn and Mark Roldan), for the cooperation, patience,

and giving a precious time upon conducting the research, for valuable ideas
thoughts, and knowledge that were used to make this thesis became successful, for
extending effort and time in the completion of the study.

To all Principals, for their approval and support in conducting a research

from their school.

To BSED-3E, for the help, for the support, and for the friendship that motivate
us to enthusiastically work hard for the success of this research.

ATA

MMQ
 iv

DEDICATION

To Almighty God, who has given me knowledge and wisdom and strong

determination in making this research.

To my beloved parents, Wildy and Norma, for their love, understanding,

long patience and financial support that serve as an inspiration in conducting this

study.

To our research adviser, Prof. Mary Cyl V. Porol, for her deepest

understanding, kind attention and valuable advice and whose comments and

suggestions made this work easier.

To my friend, for all the moments that we’ve shared with the researcher

through good times and bad times. Specially to Michal, Debby and Clarisse my

college friends.

To my research partner Mark Roldan M. Quizon for giving me

suggestions, for your support, and help on this research.

To 3E family, for giving and sharing your knowledge to make this study

possible.

To “Jhe/Hon”, thank you for undying support and for making me inspired

and loved every day.

To ALL of you, THANK YOU!

ATA
 v

DEDICATION

To Almighty God, who has given me knowledge and wisdom and strong

determination in making this research.

To my beloved parents, Rodrigo and Maritess, for their love,

understanding, long patience and financial support that serve as an inspiration in

conducting this study.

To our research adviser, Prof. Mary Cyl V. Porol, for her deepest

understanding, kind attention and valuable advice and whose comments and

suggestions made this work easier.

To my friend, for all the moments that we’ve shared with the researcher

through good times and bad times.

To my research partner Arjohn T. Anareta for giving me suggestions, for

your support, and help on this research.

To 3E family, for giving and sharing your knowledge to make this study

possible.

To “Queen and my son”, thank you for undying support and for making

me inspired every day.

To ALL of you, THANK YOU!

MMQ
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE.......................................................................................................... i
APPROVAL SHEET............................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................iii
DEDICATION.......................................................................................................iv
DEDICATION........................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURE.................................................................................................ix
LIST OF APPENDICES........................................................................................x
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER I - THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction............................................................................................................1
Background of the study........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Statement of the problem......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Hypothesis.............................................................................................................3
Significant of the study..........................................................................................4
Scope and Limitation.............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER II - REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Releted Literature..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Synthesis...............................................................................................................7
Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................8
Definition of Terms................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER III - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Locale of the Study..............................................................................................10
Research Design.................................................................................................10
Population and Sampling.................................................................................... 10
Research Instrumentation...................................................................................10
Data Gathering Procedure...................................................................................11
Statistical Treatment............................................................................................11
CHAPTER IV - PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF
DATA
 vii

CHAPTER V - SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATION
Summary............................................................................................................. 20
Findings...............................................................................................................21
Conclusions.........................................................................................................23
Recommendation................................................................................................ 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................25
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................27
CURRICULUM VITAE.........................................................................................37
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1 Frequency Distribution of 13
Respondents in terms of Gender, Age
and Civil Status.
2 Frequency Distribution of 14
Respondents in terms of Educational
Attainment, and Number of Teaching
MAPEH.
3 Frequency Distribution of 15
Respondents in terms of Course and
Major, and Training and Seminar’s
attended.
4 Weighted Mean Distribution in 16
Competency level
Teachers Respondent
5 Weighted Mean Distribution in 17
Pedagogic Competency Teachers
Respondent
6 Significant Difference between 18
MAPEH and Non-MAPEH
In competency level.

7 Significant Difference between 18

MAPEH and Non-MAPEH
In pedagogic competency.
 ix

LIST OF FIGURE

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1 Theoretical Framework 8
 x

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Title Page

Application for Manuscript 28 - 31

Defense
Survey Questionnaire 32 - 34

Computed Weighted Mean of 35

Competency Level
Computed Weighted Mean of 36
Competency Level
 xi

ABSTRACT

This study on “Competency level among MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers in

teaching MAPEH subject of the selected High school teachers in Mauban,

Quezon S.Y 2016-2017 ” aimed to determine the Level of Competency of

MAPEH Teachers in teaching MAPEH subject. Specifically the study aimed to 1)

determine the socio-demographic profile of the MAPEH teachers such as age,

sex, year level teaching MAPEH subject, civil status, educational attainment,

number of years teaching MAPEH, course and major, seminars and trainings; 2)

determine the level of competency of MAPEH teachers in teaching MAPEH

subject; 3) determine the level of pedagogic competency of MAPEH teachers in

teaching MAPEH subject; 4) determine the significant different between the level

of competency MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teacher teaching MAPEH subject; and

5) determine the significant different between the level of pedagogic competency

MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teacher teaching MAPEH subject.

All MAPEH teachers teaching MAPEH subject in selected high schools in

Mauban, Quezon were part of this research. These selected schools were the Dr.

Maria D. Pastrana High School, Manuel S. Enverga Memorial School Arts and

Trade, Cagsiay I National high School and Liwayway National High School.

An adopted questionnaire was used in the collection of data; data were

analyzed using frequency counts, percentage, t-value and weighted mean.

The results of the study were summarized based on the objectives of the

study. 73.68% of the overall teacher respondents who were teaching MAPEH

were Non--MAPEH teacher 26.32%.Most of teacher respondents were teaching

 xii

MAPEH subject five (5) years and below. 36.84% of teacher respondents

attended five (5) and above seminars and trainings related to MAPEH subject.

Based on the weighted means in competency level among MAPEH and

Non-MAPEH teachers they are competent in teaching MAPEH subject. They also

can demonstrate mastery in teaching MAPEH to their students.

MAPEH Teachers in selected Public Secondary Schools in North

Cotabato all agreed in pedagogic competency in teaching MAPEH subject.

Based on the research MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teacher are both competent in

the field of teaching MAPEH subject.

 1

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction

In the year of 2016-2017 in the orders of Department of Education and the

help of Government Office K to 12 curriculum was implemented all over the

nation. MAPEH (Music, Arts, Physical Education and Health) is one of the in-

demand teaching profession in the field of educating the student.

One of the most important characteristics of a qualified high school teacher is

college training in the subject in which he or she specialize. A competent teacher

seizes every opportunity to encourage learning, believing that all student can

learn. The teacher takes every opportunity to improve on his own professional

practice, in ordering to provide quality of learning. And teacher is a leader who

wins the hearts and minds of the nts. Hattie (2009) claims that teachers remain

the main and most influential resource in education.

In more than two decades of research finding are unequivocal about the

connection between teacher competencies and student performance. A good

teacher understands the importance of developing oneself before he or she is

able to provide support for his student. Not all teacher will have the same level of

competence in all areas from the outset. Because a good teacher does not occur

in a vacuum. Every competent teacher also needs to possess a strong set of

values, skills, and knowledge.

 2

The purpose of the study is to determine the competency level among

MAPEH teacher to Non-MAPEH teacher and their pedagogic competency.

Background of the Study

The researcher studied the academic performance of the students and the

teachers’ subject knowledge and specialization are very important in the

teaching-learning process and it has a bigger impact on the students’

performance. The researchers had been interested, on the Competency level

among MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers in teaching MAPEH subjects of the

selected high school teachers in Mauban, Quezon. To find out they gathered

questionnaire for the MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teacher.

This study was conducted in selected high school in Mauban, Quezon. The

objective of this study is to determine the competency level and pedagogic

competency of MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teacher in teaching MAPEH subjects.

Statement of the Problem

The intent of this study is to determine the competency level among

MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers in teaching MAPEH subjects of the selected

high school teachers in Mauban, Quezon.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following question:

1. What is the demographic profile of the teacher respondents in terms of?

1.1 Age

1.2 Sex
 3

1.3 Civil status

1.4 Educational attainment

1.5 No. Of years teaching MAPEH

1.6 Seminars and training’s

2. What is the level of competency of MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers in

teaching MAPEH subject?

3. What is the level pedagogic competency of MAPEH and Non-MAPEH

teachers in teaching MAPEH subject?

4. Is there any significant difference between the level of competency of MAPEH

and Non-MAPEH teachers?

5. Is there any significant difference between the pedagogic competency of

MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers?

Hypothesis

There is no significant difference between the competency level of the

MAPEH teacher and Non-MAPEH teachers.

There is no significant difference between the pedagogic competency of the

MAPEH teacher and Non-MAPEH teachers.

 4

Significance of the Study

This study aims to find out the competency level among MAPEH teacher and

Non-MAPEH teacher.

To The Students - will benefits from the study for them to improve their

academic performance in MAPEH subject.

To The Teachers - for them to improve their strategies in teaching MAPEH

subject.

To The School Administrators- this would help them to determine the

impact of Non- MAPEH teacher to the academic performance of student.

To The Future Researchers - its help them as the basis or reference to their

similar topic for the research.

Scope and Limitation

This research was conducted in selected high school in Mauban, Quezon.

And the competency level of MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teacher in teaching

MAPEH subjects. The researcher use a questionnaire to the teachers in the

selected high school in Mauban, Quezon. The questionnaire include

(demographic profile of the teacher, competency level, and pedagogic

competency).
 5

CHAPTER II

REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the related literature and related studies about

competency level among MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers in teaching MAPEH

subject. To have a clear understanding of the problem, the researcher gathered

some data as the background information relevant to the study. The researcher

got some related literature and studies from different materials such as books,

article, and unpublished materials.

Related Literature

According to (European Commission 2012) “revise and strengthen the

professional profile of all teaching professions by reviewing the effectiveness as

well as the academic and pedagogical quality of Initial Teacher Education,

introducing coherent and adequately resourced systems for recruitment,

selection, induction and professional development of teaching staff based on

clearly defined competences needed at each stage of a teaching career, and

increasing teacher digital competence”.

Furthermore, a recent World Summit on Teaching noted that teachers need

to help students acquire not only “the skills that are easiest to teach and easiest

to test” but more importantly, ways of thinking (creativity, critical thinking,

problem-solving, decision-making and learning); ways of working (communication

and collaboration); tools for working (including information and communications

 6

technologies); and skills around citizenship, life and career and personal and

social responsibility for success in modern democracies”.

According to Darling-Hammond (2006) the task of a teacher is closely tied to

the nature of the classroom. Today’s classroom call for teacher to “prepare

virtually all student for higher order thinking and performance skills once reserved

to only a few”.

Holmes (2010) said, “The great thing in the world is not so much where we

stand, as in what direction we are moving.” the next step forward, therefore, is up

to us.

According to Crick (2008) a competence is best described as ‘a complex

combination of knowledge, skills, understanding, values, attitudes and desire

which lead to effective, embodied human action in the world, in a particular

domain. Competence is therefore distinguished from skill, which is defined as the

ability to perform complex acts with ease, precision and adaptability.

Nguyen, Griffin, and Nguyen (2006) quoted Medley who refers teacher

competence as the knowledge, abilities, and beliefs a teacher possesses and

brings to the teaching situation.

According to De-Ketele (2009) “competency is a collection of planned

activities, which takes action on subject matter in an available subject in order to

solve a problem.” A Competency as a capability to complete a particular

standardized assignment or action.

 7

According to De Bueger-Vander Borght C. (2010), “competence refers to a

state of being well-qualified to perform an activity, task or job function. A

competent person can achieve his assignment in a recognizable and verifiable

manner in a particular field or area.

Based on Panda, Mohalik, (2013) Pedagogical competency of teacher

means abilities to apply and use knowledge, skills, attitude effectively by

adopting innovative instructive strategies in the teaching learning process.

A research at Lund 166 University “Training for Teachers in Higher

Education” (2006) has described seven categories of educational competencies

for higher education teachers which were knowledge competencies, didactic

knowledge and understanding, competencies (skills) in planning and

implementation, competencies (skills) in communication, competencies (skills) in

evaluation and assessment, loyalty towards colleagues, and conditions for

professionalism.

In the study of González & Wagenaar, (2007) an understanding of teacher

competences as ‘dynamic combinations of cognitive and meta-cognitive skills’

implies that there are four fundamental aspects: learning to think, know, feel and

act as teachers Feiman-Nemser, 2008).

Synthesis

Based on the related literature, the competency level and pedagogic competency

is important to a teachers. Competency level is a skills or abilities that the

teachers While pedagogic is a strategies of teacher on how they teaching the

 8

subject. Competency level and pedagogic competency are one of the important

things that the teachers must have because they are the one who develop the

student academic performance.

Theoretical Framework

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

 Competency level
 Validation of  The competency
among MAPEH &
Non-MAPEH question that use level of MAPEH
teachers in selected to gather data. and Non-MAPEH
high school in in teaching
Mauban, Quezon.  Implementation
the questioner to MAPEH subject.
 Pedagogic the selected high
competency of  The pedagogic
MAPEH & Non-
school in competency of
MAPEH teachers in Mauban,Quezon.
MAPEH and Non-
selected high school
 Analyzing and MAPEh in
in MAuban, Quezon.
interpreting of teaching MAPEH
 Prepare Questioners data gathered. subject.
used as instrument.

Figure 1: A Modified Input, Process, Output of competency level among

MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teacher.

Figure 1 shows the sequence and pattern of the research that is going to do.

This is guide for further understanding about the step on how the researchers

conduct their study. It also shown the possible outcomes of the research which is

to know the competency level among MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teacher and

their pedagogic competency. The respondent of this study are the MAPEH and

Non-MAPEH teachers in selected high school in Mauban, Quezon.

 9

Definition of Terms

For an easier understanding of the study, important terms are defined

conceptually and operationally as follows:

Academic performance - refers to the academic grades of the student in

MAPEH subject.

Competency - is the ability of a teacher in teaching MAPEH subjects.

Teachers - is a person who teaches MAPEH subject to the student.

Pedagogic Competency - is the strategies of the teacher on how she/he

teaches the MAPEH subjects.

 10

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter includes the locale of the study, research design, population

and sample, instrumentation, data gathering procedure and statistical treatment.

Locale of the Study

This research has been conducted within the selected high school

in Mauban, Quezon.

Research Design

The study used the descriptive design to obtain data on determining the

level of competency of MAPEH teachers in teaching MAPEH subject in selected

secondary schools in Mauban, Quezon.

Population and Sampling

The respondent of this study are the 14 MAPEH and 5 Non-MAPEH

teachers teaching MAPEH subject in the selected high school in Mauban,

Quezon.

Research Instrumentation

The researcher use the Modified questionnaires that adapted to Samillano

(March 2015) Competency level among MAPEH teacher in teaching performing

arts in selected public secondary schools in North Cotobato were used in this

study. There was 1 set with 3 parts of questionnaires.

 11

The first part dealt with the socio-demographic profile of the MAPEH and

Non-MAPEH teacher such as: age, sex, year level teaching MAPEH subject, civil

status, educational attainment, and number of years teaching MAPEH, course

and major, seminars and trainings. The second part was on the level of

competency of MAPEH and Non MAPEH Teachers in teaching MAPEH subject.

And the third part was on the level of pedagogic competency of MAPEH and Non

MAPEH Teachers in teaching MAPEH subject.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher first prepared a letter that would be addressed to the

school’s administration of the selected high school in Mauban, Quezon

requesting a permission to conduct the study. After the permission was approved

the researcher personally administered the gathering of data. During the

administration, the researcher clearly explained to the respondents the content of

the given questionnaires for them to be able to answer the items appropriately.

Statistical Treatment

Data analysis and interpretation were done using descriptive statistics such as

frequency counts and percentages.

a. The demographic profile of the respondents was determined by using

simple frequency and percentage. Using the following formula:

P= f/N X100

Where:

P= is the simple percentage

 12

f= is the number of respondents

N= is the total number of respondents

WM = 4F+3F+2F+F

Where:

WM = weighted point mean

F = frequency of the scores

N = total number of respondent

Legend: Scale Description Weighted Mean

1 Strongly Disagree 1.00 – 1.74

2 Disagree 1.75 – 2.49

3 Agree 2.50 – 3.24

4 Strongly Agree 3.25 – 4.00

 13

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data and obtains from the

different respondents. Likewise, it presents the competency level among MAPEH

and Non-MAPEH teacher in teaching MAPEH subject of the selected high school

teachers in Mauban, Quezon.

Socio-demographic profile of MAPEH Teachers

Table 1.1
Frequency Distribution of Respondents in terms of Gender, Age and Civil
Status.
Characteristic Frequency (N=19) Percentage (%)
Gender
Female 10 52.63
Male 9 47.37
Age
21-25 6 31.58
26-30 7 36.84
31-35 0 0
36-40 4 21.05
41-45 2 10.53
Civil Status
Single 11 57.89
Married 8 42.11
Widowed/Widower 0 0
Separated/Single Parent 0 0

Table 1.1 shows the socio-demographic profile of MAPEH teachers.

Majority of respondent were female 10 (52.63%), while male is 9 (47.37%). There

are 6 respondent were at age of 21-25 (31.58%), 7 respondent at age of 26-30

(36.84%), 4 respondent at age of 36-40 (21-05%), and 2 respondent at age of

 14

41-45 (10.53). The Civil Status of respondent were single is 11 (57.84%) while

married is 8 (42.11%).

Table 1.2
Frequency Distribution of Respondents in terms of Educational Attainment,
and Number of Teaching MAPEH.
Characteristic Frequency (N=19) Percentage (%)
Educational Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree 9 47.37

Master Under graduate 9 47.37

Master’s Degree 1 5.26

Doctorate Under graduate 0 0

Doctorate Degree 0 0

Number of Years in
Teaching MAPEH

1-5 11 57.89

6-10 4 21.05

11-above 4 21.05

Table 1.2 shows that there are 9 (47.37%) respondent in Bachelor’s degree, 9

(47.37%) respondent in Master Under graduate, and 1(5.26%) for Master’s degree. The

demographic profile of teachers in terms of years of teaching experience. It

shows that 11 (57.89%) of them are teaching between 1-5 years, 4 (21.05%) of

them are teaching between 6-10 years and 4 (21.05%) of them is teaching for

more than 11 years.

 15

Table 1.3
Frequency Distribution of Respondents in terms of Course and Major, and
Training and Seminar’s attended.
Characteristic Frequency (N=19) Percentage (%)
Course and Major
English 2 10.53
Filipino 1 5.26
Mathematics 0 0
MAPEH 10 52.63
Science 0 0
TLE 0 0
PE 1 5.26
PEHM 3 15.79
Industrial Arts 1 5.26
Electronic 1 5.26
No. Training and Seminar’s
None 5 26.32
1-2 4 21.05
3-4 3 15.79
5-above 7 36.84

Table 1.3 shows that there are 2(10.53%) respondent in English, 1

(5.26%) respondent in Filipino, 10 (52.63%) respondent in MAPEH, 1 (5.26%)

respondent in P.E, 3 (15.79%) respondent in PEHM, and 1 (5.26%) in Industrial

Arts and 1 (5.26%)respondent in Electronic. There are 5 (26.32%) respondent

has no training and seminars in MAPEH, 4 (21.05) respondent 1-2 number of

training and seminars in MAPEH, 3 (15.79) respondent 3-4 number of training

and seminars in MAPEH and 7 (36.84%)respondent 5-above number of training

and seminars in MAPEH.

 16

Table 2
Weighted Mean Distribution in Competency level
Teachers Respondents.
Non-MAPEH MAPEH
STATEMENTS WM QD WM QD
1. I always encourage my 4 SA 4 SA
student to participate on
class discussion and
activities.
2. I inform my students about 3.8 SA 3.93 SA
competencies they will be
expected to acquire in
MAPEH subjects.
3. I present the contents 3.8 SA 3.93 SA
following a clear and logical
framework, highlighting the
important aspects for my
student in MAPEH subjects.

4. I promote individual work 3.8 SA 4 SA

and teamwork to my
students.
5. I allow my student to 3.6 SA 3.86 SA
organize and distribute part
of the assignments to be
performed in the course.
6. I show appreciation in 3.6 SA 3.93 SA
MAPEH subjects through
watching, performing,
reporting and other
performance activities.
7. I can perform well in any 3.4 SA 3.71 SA
parts of MAPEH subjects.
8. I can demonstrate mastery in 3.4 SA 4 SA
teaching MAPEH subject to
my students.
9. I can share my knowledge 4 SA 3.93 SA
and experiences to my
student for them learn more
about the topic.
10. I apply the assessment criteria 3.8 SA 4 SA
of the activities as established
into their activities.
Average Weighted Mean 3.72 SA 3.93 SA

Legend: Scale Description Weighted Mean

1 Strongly Disagree 1.00 – 1.74

2 Disagree 1.75 – 2.49
3 Agree 2.50 – 3.24
 17

4 Strongly Agree 3.25 – 4.00

Table 2 shows that Non-MAPEH and MAPEH teachers possessed 10 out

of 10 competencies with a weighted mean of 3.72 and 3.93. This indicates that

all of the respondents strongly agree to the statements which reflected their

competency.

Table 3
Weighted Mean Distribution in Pedagogic Competency in
Teachers Respondents.

Non-MAPEH MAPEH

STATEMENTs WM QD WM QD

1. I make good use of allotted 4 SA 3.93 SA

instructional time in teaching in MAPEH
subjects.
2. I monitor regularly and provide 3.8 SA 3.79 SA
feedbacks on learners understanding in
the topic.
3.8 SA 4 SA
3. I establish learning environments that
related to my topic.
4. I relate different cultures to my 3.6 SA 3.79 SA
students in teaching MAPEH subjects.

3.8 SA 3.86 SA
5. I encourage learners to ask questions
about the topic.
4 SA 3.79 SA
6. I reflect my teaching style on the
attainment of learning goals.
7. I design lessons that fits to the learners 4 SA 4 SA
needs.

Average Weighted Mean 3.86 SA 3.88 SA

Legend: Scale Description Weighted Mean

1 Strongly Disagree 1.00 – 1.74

2 Disagree 1.75 – 2.49
3 Agree 2.50 – 3.24
 18

4 Strongly Agree 3.25 – 4.00

Table 3 shows all of the pedagogic competencies of Non-MAPEH and

MAPEH teachers had a weighted means of 3.86 and 3.88. This indicated that all

of the respondents strongly agreed to the statements which reflected their

pedagogic competencies.

Table 4
Significant Difference between MAPEH and Non-MAPEH in competency
level.

Major Mean Mean Different Computed Decision

n
t-value

MAPEH 14 3.93 0.21 2.07 accepted

Non-MAPEH 5 3.72

At the 0.05 level of significance

Table 4 shows the comparison of the competency level of MAPEH and

Non-MAPEH. The table shows the t-value of 2.07. The data indicated that there

no significant comparison of MAPEH and Non-MAPEH, the null hypothesis was

accepted.

Table 5
Significant Difference between MAPEH and Non-MAPEH in
Pedagogic competency.

Major Mean Mean Different Computed Decisio

n n
t-value

MAPEH 14 3.88 0.02 0.28 accepted

Non-MAPEH 5 3.86
At the 0.05 level of significance
 19

Table 5 shows that there is no significant difference between MAPEH and

Non-MAPEH teachers in pedagogic competency in teaching MAPEH subject.

The null hypothesis was accepted.

 20

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusions and recommendations

of the study about the competency level among MAPEH and Non-MAPEH

teacher in teaching MAPEH subject of the selected high school teachers in

Mauban, Quezon.

SUMMARY

The intent of this study is to determine the competency level among

MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers in teaching MAPEH subjects of the selected

high school teachers in Mauban, Quezon.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following question:

1. What is the demographic profile of the teacher respondents in terms of?

1.1 Age

1.2 Sex

1.3 Civil status

1.4 Educational attainment

1.5 No. Of years teaching MAPEH

1.6 Seminars and training’s

2. What is the level of competency of MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers in

teaching MAPEH subject?

 21

3. What is the level pedagogic competency of MAPEH and Non-MAPEH

teachers in teaching MAPEH subject?

4. Is there any significant difference between the level of competency of MAPEH

and Non-MAPEH teachers?

5. Is there any significant difference between the pedagogic competency of

MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers?

FINDINGS

Based from the analysis made by the researchers the following results were

obtained:

1. The demographic profile of the respondents in terms of the

following:

Shows the socio-demographic profile of MAPEH teachers.Majority

of respondent were female 10 (52.63%), while male is 9 (47.37%). There

are 6 respondent were at age of 21-25 (31.58%), 7 respondent at age of

26-30 (36.84%), 4 respondent at age of 36-40 (21-05%), and 2

respondent at age of 41-45 (10.53). The Civil Status of respondent were

single is 11 (57.84%) while married is 8 (42.11%).

Shows that there are 9 (47.37%) respondent in Bachelor’s degree,

9 (47.37%) respondent in Master Under graduate, and 1(5.26%) for

Master’s degree. The demographic profile of teachers in terms of years of

teaching experience. It shows that 11 (57.89%) of them are teaching

 22

between 1-5 years, 4 (21.05%) of them are teaching between 6-10 years

and 4 (21.05%) of them is teaching for more than 11 years.

Shows that there are 2(10.53%) respondent in English, 1 (5.26%)

respondent in Filipino, 10 (52.63%) respondent in MAPEH, 1 (5.26%)

respondent in P.E, 3 (15.79%) respondent in PEHM, and 1 (5.26%) in

Industrial Arts and 1 (5.26%)respondent in Electronic. There are 5

(26.32%) respondent has no training and seminars in MAPEH, 4 (21.05)

respondent 1-2 number of training and seminars in MAPEH, 3 (15.79)

respondent 3-4 number of training and seminars in MAPEH and 7

(36.84%)respondent 5-above number of training and seminars in MAPEH.

2. The competency level of the respondents in terms of the following:

Shows that selected high school teachers possessed 10 out of 10

competencies with a weighted mean ranging from 3.25 - 4. This indicates

that all of the respondents strongly agree to the statements which

reflected their competency.

3. The pedagogic competency of the respondents in terms of the

following:

Shows all of the pedagogic competencies of MAPEH teachers had

a weighted means of 3.25 - 4. This indicated that all of the respondents

strongly agreed to the statements which reflected their pedagogic

competencies.
 23

4. Significant Difference between MAPEH and Non-MAPEH in

competency level.

Shows the comparison of the competency level of MAPEH and

Non-MAPEH. The table shows the t-value of 2.07. The data indicated that

there no significant comparison of MAPEH and Non-MAPEH, the null

hypothesis was accepted.

5. Significant Difference between MAPEH and Non-MAPEH in

pedagogic competency.

Shows that there is no significant difference between MAPEH and

Non-MAPEH teachers in pedagogic competency in teaching MAPEH

subject. The null hypothesis was accepted.

CONCLUSION

1. Most of the respondent are MAPEH teachers. There are 10 female and 9 male

respondent. Most of them is single. 9 of them are Bachelor Degree, 9 of them

are Master Undergraduate and 1 is Master Degree.

2. MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers are strongly agree that they are competent

in teaching MAPEH subject

3. MAPEH and Non- MAPEH teachers are strongly agree that they are

pedagogic competent in teaching MAPEH subject.

4. There is no significant different between the level of competency of MAPEH

and Non-MAPEH teachers.

5. There is no significant different between the pedagogic competency of MAPEH

and Non-MAPEH teachers.

 24

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the findings and conclusion of this study, the following are

recommended:

To the Teacher provide experiential learning to MAPEH teachers through

seminars, workshops and trainings to know the basic skills or to enhance their

skills in teaching MAPEH subject.

To the School Administrators should take into consideration on the

standard hiring of MAPEH Teachers who are qualified to teach MAPEH

subject.

To the School Administrators should considered that Non-MAPEH teacher

needed a trainings and workshop to improve their knowledge in teaching

MAPEH subject.

To the Future Researcher further research its help them as the basis or

reference to their similar topic for the research.

 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, S. P. (1999). Marion Country School System Teachers' Perceptions

of the Professional Education Personnel Evaluation Program of

Alabama (PEPE). (Ed.D., The University Of Alabama, 1999).

Dissertation Abstracts International, A~1837

Aziz, F. 2014, Impact Of Training On Teachers Competencies At Higher

Education Level In Pakistan Vol.– V, Issue – 1, Jan. 2014 [121],

From

Http://Www.Researchersworld.Com/Vol5/Issue1/Paper_15.Pdf

Chandra, A. (1976). Study of Emotive Aspects of Work (A Perception of College

Teachers). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Agra University

Edwards, G., & Kelley, A.V. (1998). Experience and Education: Towards an

Alternative National Curriculum. In A.V. Kelley (Ed.), The

Curriculum: Theory: And Practice (Pp. 199-200). London: Paul

Chapman.

González & Wagenaar, (2007) an understanding of teacher competences

Lund 166 University 2006 -Training for Teachers in Higher Education

Panda, Mohalik, (2013) Pedagogical competency of teacher

 26

Popham, W. J 1997, IMPACT OF TEACHER’S BEHAVIOUR ON THE

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS, From

Http://Prr.Hec.Gov.Pk/Thesis/293S.Pdf.

Singh, S. P. & Grewal, S.S. (1991), “Professional Competency of Physical

Education Teachers In Relation To Their Intelligence, Emotional

Maturity And Self Esteem”.

Fromhttp://Shodhganga.Inflibnet.Ac.In:8080/Jspui/Bitstream/10603/

8071/10/10_Chapter%202.Pdf.
 27

APPENDICES
 28

APPENDICES 1.A
Letter of Request to Conduct the Study
Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban
Mauban, Quezon

November 02, 2016

ELMER C. RAVINA
Principal II
Dr. Maria D. Pastrana National High School
Mauban, Quezon

Sir:

Greetings!

We, the undersigned 3th Year Bachelor of Secondary Education student Major in Music, Arts,
Physical Education and Health (MAPEH) of Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban are presently
working a research entitled “COMPETENCY LEVEL AMONG MAPEH AND NON-MAPEH
TEACHERS IN TEACHING MAPEH SUBJECT OF THE SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL
TEACHERS IN MAUBAN QUEZON” as a part of our requirement in the subject Research in
MAPEH. Our respondents will be all MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers of the selected schools.

In this regard, we humbly ask permission from your good office that to allow us to conduct our
research in your school.

Thank you very much for your generous support. God bless and more power!

Very truly yours,

(sdg) ARJOHN T. ANARETA

Researcher

(sdg) MARK ROLDAN QUIZON

Researcher

Noted by:

(sdg) PROF. MARY CYL POROL

Research Adviser

(sdg) DR. JOSEFINA C. LORCA

Dean

Approved by:

(sdg) ELMER C. RAVINA

Principal II
Dr. Maria D. Pastrana National High School
Mauban, Quezon
 29

APPENDICES 1.B
Letter of Request to Conduct the Study
Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban
Mauban, Quezon

November 02, 2016

LAWRENCE C. CONSUL
Vocational Administrator I
Manuel S. Enverga Memorial School Arts and Trade
Mauban, Quezon

Sir:

Greetings!

We, the undersigned 3th Year Bachelor of Secondary Education student Major in Music, Arts,
Physical Education and Health (MAPEH) of Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban are presently
working a research entitled “COMPETENCY LEVEL AMONG MAPEH AND NON-MAPEH
TEACHERS IN TEACHING MAPEH SUBJECT OF THE SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL
TEACHERS IN MAUBAN QUEZON” as a part of our requirement in the subject Research in
MAPEH. Our respondents will be all MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers of the selected schools.

In this regard, we humbly ask permission from your good office that to allow us to conduct our
research in your school.

Thank you very much for your generous support. God bless and more power!

Very truly yours,

(sdg) ARJOHN T. ANARETA

Researcher

(sdg) MARK ROLDAN QUIZON

Researcher

Noted by:

(sdg) PROF. MARY CYL POROL

Research Adviser

(sdg) DR. JOSEFINA C. LORCA

Dean

Approved by:

(sdg) LAWRENCE C. CONSUL

Vocational Administrator I
Manuel S. Enverga Memorial School Arts and Trade
 30

Mauban, Quezon

APPENDICES 1.C
Letter of Request to Conduct the Study
Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban
Mauban, Quezon

November 02, 2016

ARIES BARAGO
Principal I
Liwayway National High School
Mauban, Quezon

Sir:

Greetings!

We, the undersigned 3th Year Bachelor of Secondary Education student Major in Music, Arts,
Physical Education and Health (MAPEH) of Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban are presently
working a research entitled “COMPETENCY LEVEL AMONG MAPEH AND NON-MAPEH
TEACHERS IN TEACHING MAPEH SUBJECT OF THE SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL
TEACHERS IN MAUBAN QUEZON” as a part of our requirement in the subject Research in
MAPEH. Our respondents will be all MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers of the selected schools.

In this regard, we humbly ask permission from your good office that to allow us to conduct our
research in your school.

Thank you very much for your generous support. God bless and more power!

Very truly yours,

(sdg) ARJOHN T. ANARETA

Researcher

(sdg) MARK ROLDAN QUIZON

Researcher

Noted by:

(sdg) PROF. MARY CYL POROL

Research Adviser

(sdg) DR. JOSEFINA C. LORCA

Dean

Approved by:

(sdg) ARIES BARAGO

Principal I
 31

Liwayway National High School

Mauban, Quezon
APPENDICES 1.D
Letter of Request to Conduct the Study
Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban
Mauban, Quezon

November 02, 2016

MYLA V. COMBALICER
Principal I
Cagsiay 1 National High School
Mauban, Quezon

Ma’am

Greetings!

We, the undersigned 3th Year Bachelor of Secondary Education student Major in Music, Arts,
Physical Education and Health (MAPEH) of Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban are presently
working a research entitled “COMPETENCY LEVEL AMONG MAPEH AND NON-MAPEH
TEACHERS IN TEACHING MAPEH SUBJECT OF THE SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL
TEACHERS IN MAUBAN QUEZON” as a part of our requirement in the subject Research in
MAPEH. Our respondents will be all MAPEH and Non-MAPEH teachers of the selected schools.

In this regard, we humbly ask permission from your good office that to allow us to conduct our
research in your school.

Thank you very much for your generous support. God bless and more power!

Very truly yours,

(sdg) ARJOHN T. ANARETA

Researcher

(sdg) MARK ROLDAN QUIZON

Researcher

Noted by:

(sdg) PROF. MARY CYL POROL

Research Adviser

(sdg) DR. JOSEFINA C. LORCA

Dean

Approved by:

(sdg) MYLA V. COMBALICER

Principal I
 32

Cagsiay 1 National High School

Mauban, Quezon
APPENDICES 2

Questionnaire to Evaluate the COMPETENCY LEVEL AMONG MAPEH AND NON-MAPEH

TEACHER IN TEACHING MAPEH SUBJECT OF THE SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS
IN MAUBAN, QUEZON

Part I. Socio-demographic Profile (Teacher Respondents)

For demographic purposes, please check the boxes that are appropriate:

Name: _____________________________
Year Level Teaching MAPEH: ____________________
Name of School: _____________________________________________

Sex: ________ Age: ________

Female 21 - 25

Male 26 - 30

Civil Status: 31 - 35

Single 36 - 40

Married 41 - 45

Widowed/Widower 46 - 50

Separated /Single Parent 51 - 55

Educational Attainment:

Bachelor’s Degree Master Under graduate

Master’s Degree Doctorate Under graduate

Doctorate Degree

Number of years in teaching MAPEH: __________

Course: ______________________________________

Major: ______________________

Number of Seminars and Trainings related to MAPEH subject attended:

 Provincial ______ National ______

 Regional ______
 33

II - A. Level of Competency of MAPEH teachers

Direction: Please read the statements below and check (/) what field
corresponds on how you rate yourself in teaching MAPEH subjects.
4- Strongly Agree 3- Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree
Statement 4 3 2 1

1. I always encourage my student to participate on

class discussion and activities.
2. I inform my students about competencies they will
be expected to acquire in MAPEH subjects.
3. I present the contents following a clear and logical
framework, highlighting the important aspects for
my student in MAPEH subjects.

4. I promote individual work and teamwork to my

students.
5. I allow my student to organize and distribute part of
the assignments to be performed in the course.
6. I show appreciation in MAPEH subjects through
watching, performing, reporting and other
performance activities.
7. I can perform well in any parts of MAPEH subjects.
8. I can demonstrate mastery in teaching MAPEH
subject to my students.
9. I can share my knowledge and experiences to my
student for them learn more about the topic.
10. I apply the assessment criteria of the activities as
established into their activities.
 34

B. Pedagogic Competency of the teacher respondent.

Direction: Please read the statements below and check (/) what field
corresponds on how you rate yourself in teaching performing arts.
4- Strongly Agree 3- Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree

Statements 4 3 2 1
1. I make good use of allotted instructional time in
teaching in MAPEH subjects.
2. I monitor regularly and provide feedbacks on learners
understanding in the topic.
3. I establish learning environments that related to my
topic.
4. I relate different cultures to my students in teaching
MAPEH subjects.
5. I encourage learners to ask questions about the topic.

6. I reflect my teaching style on the attainment of

learning goals.
7. I design lessons that fit to the learners needs.

APPENDICES 3
 35

COMPUTED WIEGHTED MEAN OF COMPETENCY LEVEL

STATEMENTS MAPEH NON-MAPEH
1 WM= 4(14)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(5)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0)
19 5
=4 =4
2 WM= 4(13)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(4)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0)
19 5
= 3.93 = 3.8

3 WM= 4(13)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(4)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0)

19 5
= 3.93 = 3.8

4 WM= 4(14)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(4)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
=4 = 3.8

5 WM= 4(12)+3(2)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(3)+3(2)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
= 3.86 = 3.6

6 WM= 4(13)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(3)+3(2)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
= 3.93 = 3.6

7 WM= 4(10)+3(4)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(2)+3(3)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
= 3.71 = 3.4

8 WM= 4(14)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(2)+3(3)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
=4 = 3.4

9 WM= 4(13)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(5)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
= 3.93 =4

10 WM= 4(14)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(4)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
=4 = 3.8

APPENDICES 4
 36

COMPUTED WIEGHTED MEAN OF PEDAGOGIC

COMPETENCY

STATEMENTS MAPEH NON-MAPEH

1 WM= 4(13)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(5)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
= 3.93 =4
2 WM= 4(11)+3(3)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(4)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0)
14 5
= 3.79 = 3.8

3 WM= 4(14)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(4)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
=4 = 3.8

4 WM= 4(11)+3(3)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(3)+3(2)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
= 3.79 = 3.6

5 WM= 4(12)+3(2)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(4)+3(1)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
= 3.8 = 38

6 WM= 4(11)+3(3)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(5)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
= 3.79 =4

7 WM= 4(14)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0) WM= 4(5)+3(0)+2(0)+1(0)

14 5
=4 =4
 37

CURRICULUM VITAE

ANARETA, ARJOHN TOK.

Brgy. San. Vicente
Mauban, Quezon
Cellphone Number: 09754307390
E-mail: [email protected]

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Birthday: August 13, 1994

Birth Place: Mauban, Quezon
Age: 22 years old
Sex: Male
Civil Status: Single
Religion: Roman Catholic
Citizenship: Filipino
Father’s Name: Wildy C. Anareta
Mother’s Name: Norma T. Anareta

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

TERTIARY:

2014 - Present Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban

Mauban, Quezon

Degree: Bachelor of Secondary Education

Major: Music, Arts, Physical Education & Health

SECONDARY:

2007 – 2010 Dr. Maria D. Pastrana High School

Mauban, Quezon

ELEMENTARY:

2001 – 2006 Mauban South Central Elementary School

Mauban, Quezon
 38

CURRICULUM VITAE

Mark Roldan M. Quizon.

Brgy. Lual Bo.
Mauban, Quezon
Cellphone Number: 09071660794
E-mail: [email protected]

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Birthday: May 26, 1994

Birth Place: Mauban, Quezon
Age: 22 years old
Sex: Male
Civil Status: Single
Religion: Roman Catholic
Citizenship: Filipino
Father’s Name: Rodrigo Quizon
Mother’s Name: Maritess M. Quizon

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

TERTIARY:

2014 - Present Pambayang Kolehiyo ng Mauban

Mauban, Quezon

Degree: Bachelor of Secondary Education

Major: Music, Arts, Physical Education & Health

SECONDARY:

2007 – 2010 Dr. Maria D. Pastrana High School

Mauban, Quezon

ELEMENTARY:

2001 – 2010 Mauban South Central Elementary School

Mauban , Quezon