1

CHAPTER I

RELATED LITERATURES

Introduction

This chapter includes literatures on Multiple Intelligences, Emotional Intelligence,

Teaching Style, Teaching Performance, Resiliency Skills and Abilities and the Teachers’

Morale.

Multiple Intelligences

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard

Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion

of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight

different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and

adults. These intelligences are Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"), Logical-mathematical

intelligence ("number/reasoning smart"), Spatial intelligence ("picture smart"), Bodily-

Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart"), Musical intelligence ("music smart"), Interpersonal

intelligence ("people smart"), Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart"), and Naturalist

intelligence ("nature smart").

Dr. Gardner says that our schools and culture focus most of their attention on

linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence. We esteem the highly articulate or logical

people of our culture. However, Dr. Gardner says that we should also place equal attention

on individuals who show gifts in the other intelligences: the artists, architects, musicians,

naturalists, designers, dancers, therapists, entrepreneurs, and others who enrich the world in

which we live. Unfortunately, many children who have these gifts don’t receive much
 2

reinforcement for them in school. Many of these kids, in fact, end up being labeled "learning

disabled," "ADD (attention deficit disorder," or simply underachievers, when their unique

ways of thinking and learning aren’t addressed by a heavily linguistic or logical-

mathematical classroom. The theory of multiple intelligences proposes a major

transformation in the way our schools are run. It suggests that teachers be trained to present

their lessons in a wide variety of ways using music, cooperative learning, art activities, role

play, multimedia, field trips, inner reflection, and much more. The good news is that the

theory of multiple intelligences has grabbed the attention of many educators around the

country, and hundreds of schools are currently using its philosophy to redesign the way it

educates children. The bad new is that there are thousands of schools still out there that

teach in the same old dull way, through dry lectures, and boring worksheets and textbooks.

The challenge is to get this information out to many more teachers, school administrators,

and others who work with children, so that each child has the opportunity to learn in ways

harmonious with their unique minds.

The theory of multiple intelligences also has strong implications for adult learning

and development. Many adults find themselves in jobs that do not make optimal use of their

most highly developed intelligences (for example, the highly bodily-kinesthetic individual

who is stuck in a linguistic or logical desk-job when he or she would be much happier in a

job where they could move around, such as a recreational leader, a forest ranger, or physical

therapist). The theory of multiple intelligences gives adults a whole new way to look at their

lives, examining potentials that they left behind in their childhood (such as a love for art or

drama) but now have the opportunity to develop through courses, hobbies, or other programs

of self-development.
 3

The first theory of multiple intelligence is the Verbal-linguistic intelligence. This

theory has to do with words, spoken or written. People with verbal-linguistic intelligence

display a facility with words and languages. They are typically good at reading, writing,

telling stories, and memorizing words and dates. They tend to learn best by reading, taking

notes, and listening to lectures, and via discussion and debate. They are also frequently

skilled at explaining, teaching, and oration or persuasive speaking. Those with verbal-

linguistic intelligence learn foreign languages very easily as they have high verbal memory

and recall and an ability to understand and manipulate syntax and structure. Careers which

suit those with this intelligence include writers, lawyers, philosophers, politicians, and

teachers.

The second theory of multiple intelligence is the Logical-mathematical intelligence .

This theory has to do with logic, abstractions, inductive and deductive reasoning, and

numbers. While it is often assumed that those with this intelligence naturally excel in

mathematics, chess, computer programming, and other logical or numerical activities, a

more accurate definition places emphasis less on traditional mathematical ability and more

reasoning capabilities, abstract pattern recognition, scientific thinking and investigation, and

the ability to perform complex calculations.

Those who automatically correlate this intelligence with skill in mathematics

criticize this intelligence by arguing that logical ability is often more strongly correlated

with verbal rather than mathematical ability: for example, the old Analytic section of the

Graduate Record Examination correlated more strongly with the Verbal section than the

Mathematical. One possibility is that formal, symbolic logic, and strict logic games are

under the command of mathematical intelligence, while skills such as fallacy hunting,
 4

argument construction, etc. are under the command of verbal intelligence. Careers which

suit those with this intelligence include scientists, mathematicians, doctors, philosophers,

and economists.

The third theory of multiple intelligence is the Spatial intelligence. This theory has

to do with vision and spatial judgment. People with strong visual-spatial intelligence are

typically very good at visualizing and mentally manipulating objects. They have a strong

visual memory and are often artistically inclined. Those with visual-spatial intelligence also

generally have a very good sense of direction and may also have very good hand-eye

coordination, although this is normally seen as a characteristic of the bodily-kinesthetic

intelligence.

Some critics point out the high correlation between the spatial and mathematical

abilities, which seems to disprove the clear separation of the intelligences as Gardner

theorizes. A thorough understanding of the two intelligences precludes this criticism,

however, as the two intelligences do not precisely conform to the definitions of visual and

mathematical abilities. Although they may share certain characteristics, they are easily

distinguished by several factors, and there are many with strong logical-mathematical

intelligence and weak visual-spatial, and vice versa. Careers which suit those with this

intelligence include artists, engineers, and architects.

The fourth theory of multiple intelligence is the Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence This

theory entails the potential of using one's whole body or parts of the body to solve problems.

It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements. Howard Gardner sees

mental and physical activity as related. This area has to do with movement and doing. In

this category, people are generally adept at physical activities such as sports or dance and
 5

often prefer activities which utilize movement. They may enjoy acting or performing, and in

general they are good at building and making things. They often learn best by physically

doing something, rather than reading or hearing about it. Those with strong bodily-

kinesthetic intelligence seem to use what might be termed muscle memory; i.e., they

remember things through their body, rather than through words (verbal memory) or images

(visual memory). It requires the skills and dexterity for fine motor movements such as those

required for dancing, athletics, surgery, craft making, etc. Careers which suit those with this

intelligence include athletes, dancers, actors, comedians, builders, and artisans.

The fifth theory is the Musical intelligence. This theory has to do with rhythm,

music, and hearing. Those who have a high level of musical-rhythmic intelligence display

greater sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. They normally have good pitch and

may even have absolute pitch, and are able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose

music. Since there is a strong aural component to this intelligence, those who are strongest

in it may learn best via lecture. In addition, they will often use songs or rhythms to learn and

memorize information, and may work best with music playing. Careers which suit those

with this intelligence include musicians, singers, conductors, and composers.

The sixth theory is called the Naturalist intelligence. It has to do with nature,

nurturing, and classification. This is the newest of the intelligences and is not as widely

accepted as the original seven. Those with it are said to have greater sensitivity to nature and

their place within it, the ability to nurture and grow things, and greater ease in caring for,

taming, and interacting with animals. They are also good at recognizing and classifying

different species. The theory behind this intelligence is often criticized, much like the

spiritual or existential intelligence (see below), as it is seen by many is not indicative of

 6

intelligence but rather an interest. Careers which suit those with this intelligence include

scientists, naturalists, conservationists, gardeners, and farmers.

The seventh theory is the Intrapersonal intelligence. This has something to do with

interaction with others. People in this category are usually extroverts and are characterized

by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments, and motivations and their

ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group. They communicate effectively and

empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or followers. They typically learn

best by working with others and often enjoy discussion and debate. Careers which suit those

with this intelligence include politicians, managers, social workers, and diplomats.

The eighth theory of multiple intelligence is called the Interpersonal intelligence.

This area has to do with oneself. Those who are strongest in this intelligence are typically

introverts and prefer to work alone. They are usually highly self-aware and capable of

understanding their own emotions, goals, and motivations. They often have an affinity for

thought-based pursuits such as philosophy. They learn best when allowed to concentrate on

the subject by themselves. There is often a high level of perfectionism associated with this

intelligence. Careers which suit those with this intelligence include philosophers,

psychologists, theologians, and writers.

In essence Howard Gardner argues that he was making two essential claims about

multiple intelligences. He says that the theory is an account of human cognition in its

fullness. The intelligences provided 'a new definition of human nature, cognitively speaking'

(Gardner 1999: 44). Human beings are organisms who possess a basic set of intelligences.

The second one is that the people have a unique blend of intelligences. Gardner

argues that the big challenge facing the deployment of human resources 'is how to best take
 7

advantage of the uniqueness conferred on us as a species exhibiting several intelligences'

(ibid.: 45).

These intelligences according to Howard Gradner, are moral – they can be put to

contstructive or destructive use.

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences has not been readily accepted

within academic psychology. However, it has met with a strongly positive response from

many educators. It has been embraced by a range of educational theorists and, significantly,

applied by teachers and policymakers to the problems of schooling. A number of schools in

North America have looked to structure curricula according to the intelligences, and to

design classrooms and even whole schools to reflect the understandings that Howard

Gardner develops. The theory can also be found in use within pre-school, higher, vocational

and adult education initiatives. 

This appeal was not, at first, obvious. At first blush, this diagnosis would appear to

sound a death knell for formal education. It is hard to teach one intelligence; what if there

are seven? It is hard to enough to teach even when anything can be taught; what to do if

there are distinct limits and strong constraints on human cognition and learning? (Howard

Gardner 1993: xxiii)Howard Gardner responds to his questions by first making the point that

psychology does not directly dictate education, 'it merely helps one to understand the

conditions within which education takes place.

Seven kinds of intelligence would allow seven ways to teach, rather than one. And

powerful constraints that exist in the mind can be mobilized to introduce a particular concept

(or whole system of thinking) in a way that children are most likely to learn it and least

likely to distort it. Paradoxically, constraints can be suggestive and ultimately freeing.
 8

While there may some significant questions and issues around Howard Gardner's

notion of multiple intelligences, it still has had utility in education. It has helped a significant

number of educators to question their work and to encourage them to look beyond the

narrow confines of the dominant discourses of skilling, curriculum, and testing. For

example, Mindy Kornhaber and her colleagues at the Project SUMIT (Schools Using

Multiple Intelligences Theory) have examined the performance of a number of schools and

concluded that there have been significant gains in respect of SATs scores, parental

participation, and discipline (with the schools themselves attributing this to MI theory). To

the extent that Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory has helped educators to

reflect on their practice, and given them a basis to broaden their focus and to attend to what

might assist people to live their lives well, then it has to be judged a useful addition.

Project SUMIT (2000) uses the metaphor of Compass Points  -'routes that educators

using the theory have taken and which appear to benefit students'. They have identified the

following markers that characterize schools with some success in implementing practices

that attend to multiple intelligences theory.

When asked how educators should implement the theory of multiple intelligences,

Gardner says, "(I)t's very important that a teacher take individual differences among kids

very seriously … The bottom line is a deep interest in children and how their minds are

different from one another, and in helping them use their minds well."

An awareness of multiple-intelligence theory has stimulated teachers to find more

ways of helping all students in their classes. Some schools do this by adapting curriculum. In

"Variations on a Theme: How Teachers Interpret MI Theory," (Educational Leadership,

September 1997), Linda Campbell describes five approaches to curriculum change:

 9

Lesson design. Some schools focus on lesson design. This might involve team

teaching ("teachers focusing on their own intelligence strengths"), using all or several of the

intelligences in their lessons, or asking student opinions about the best way to teach and

learn certain topics.

Interdisciplinary units. Secondary schools often include interdisciplinary units.

Student projects. Students can learn to "initiate and manage complex projects"

when they are creating student projects.

Assessments. Assessments are devised which allow students to show what they have

learned. Sometimes this takes the form of allowing each student to devise the way he or she

will be assessed, while meeting the teacher's criteria for quality.

Apprenticeships. Apprenticeships can allow students to "gain mastery of a valued

skill gradually, with effort and discipline over time." Gardner feels that apprenticeships

“should take up about one-third of a student's schooling experience."

With an understanding of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, teachers, school

administrators, and parents can better understand the learners in their midst. They can allow

students to safely explore and learn in many ways, and they can help students direct their

own learning. Adults can help students understand and appreciate their strengths, and

identify real-world activities that will stimulate more learning.

Emotional Quotient

Emotional Intelligence, also called EI and often measured as an Emotional

Intelligence Quotient or EQ, describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and

manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. However, being a relatively new

area, the definition of emotional intelligence is constantly changing. Some psychologists,

 10

such as John D. Mayer (2005a), prefer to distinguish emotional knowledge from emotional

intelligence, as discussed below.

In 1920, E. L. Thorndike, at Columbia University, (Thorndike 1920), used the term

"social intelligence" to describe the skill of getting along with other people. In 1975,

Howard Gardner's The Shattered Mind, (Gardner 1975) began the formulation of the idea for

"Multiple Intelligences" (he identifies eight intelligences, later two more are added),

including both interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Many psychologists,

such as Gardner, believe that traditional measures of intelligence, such as the IQ test, fail to

fully explain cognitive ability. (Smith 2002)

The term "emotional intelligence" appears to have originated with Charles Darwin in

1872, who theorized of a broader emotional social intelligence used for survival and

adaptation in humans. (Bar-On, 2005)The Term however was popularized by Daniel

Goleman (1995), who has published several books and articles about emotional intelligence

and its application to business. As is the case in so many fields, language is a major barrier

and primary cause for bias when it comes to determining a subject's origin or history. Payne

may have coined the phrase for the Anglo-Saxon world, but historically he was a bit late --

in fact, about 20 years late. In the early Sixties Dutch science fiction author Carl Lans

published 2 novels in which he not only elaborates on the concept, he also actually uses the

phrase Emotional Quotient. These books were never translated. They formed the base of an

immensely popular radio show.

Research on the concept originated with Peter Salovey and John "Jack" Mayer

starting in the late 1980s. In 1990, their seminal paper (1990) defined the concept as an

intelligence. Mayer and Salovey continue to research the concept. The term "emotional
 11

quotient" seems to have originated in an article by Keith Beasley (1987). There are

numerous other assessments of emotional intelligence each advocating different models and

measures.

The distinction between intelligence and knowledge in the area of cognition (i.e. IQ)

is very clear, where generally, psychological research demonstrates that IQ is a reliable

measure of cognitive capacity, and is stable over time. In the area of emotion (i.e. EQ) the

distinction between intelligence and knowledge is murky. Current definitions of EQ are

inconsistent about what it measures: some (such as Bradberry and Greaves 2005) say that

EQ is dynamic, and can be learned or increased; whereas others (such as Mayer) say that EQ

is stable, and cannot be increased.

Some researchers believe EI is a cognitive ability just as is IQ (eg, Mayer & Salovey,

2000), others believe it is a combination of perceived abilities and traits (e.g., Schutte et al.

1998), while others consider it a skill that can be measured (such as Bradberry and Greaves

2005). These opposing views have inspired separate domains of inventories.

Self-report measures of EQ include the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal by

Bradberry and Greaves, (2005c). The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal measures the four

EQ skills from Daniel Goleman's model are self-awareness, self-management, social

awareness and relationship management.

Other assessments include the EQi, Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence

Test (SUEIT) or GENOS EI, the EQ Map, SEI, ECI, Ei360, and a test by Tett, Fox, and

Wang (2005).

Hein (2005) also give his own definition of Emotional Intelligence. According ti

him, emotional intelligence is the innate potential to feel, use, communicate, recognize,
 12

remember, learn from, manage and understand emotions.

As a practical example of emotional intelligence, and to see how even one baby’s

innate level of emotional can be different than another’s, let’s look at a baby’s feelings of

fear.

Fear, of course, is a natural feeling. Its purpose, as designed by nature, is to help the

baby survive. A baby has a natural fear of abandonment because the baby knows its life

depends on others. When it is left alone, it feels afraid. A baby is also afraid of being

separated from its parents, so if a stranger tries to take the baby away from them, it is natural

for the baby to feel afraid. But not all babies respond to fear in exactly the same way. Let’s

consider a baby’s fear as we look at each of the components of emotional intelligence. First,

here is a reminder of my definition of EI.

Another definition was given by Daniel Goleman’s Book (1995). It is stated there

that Emotional Intelligence - EQ - is a relatively recent behavioral model, rising to

prominence with Daniel Goleman's 1995 Book called 'Emotional Intelligence'. The early

Emotional Intelligence theory was originally developed during the 1970's and 80's by the

work and writings of psychologists Howard Gardner (Harvard), Peter Salovey (Yale) and

John Mayer (New Hampshire). Emotional Intelligence is increasingly relevant to

organizational development and developing people, because the EQ principles provide a

new way to understand and assess people's behaviors, management styles, attitudes,

interpersonal skills, and potential. Emotional Intelligence is an important consideration in

human resources planning, job profiling, recruitment interviewing and selection,

management development, customer relations and customer service, and more.

Emotional Intelligence links strongly with concepts of love and spirituality: bringing
 13

compassion and humanity to work, and also to ‘Multiple Intelligence' theory which

illustrates and measures the range of capabilities people possess, and the fact that everybody

has a value.

The EQ concept argues that IQ, or conventional intelligence, is too narrow; that there

are wider areas of emotional intelligence that dictate and enable how successful we are.

Success requires more than IQ (Intelligence Quotient), which has tended to be the traditional

measure of intelligence, ignoring essential behavioral and character elements. We've all met

people who are academically brilliant and yet are socially and inter-personally inept. And

we know that despite possessing a high IQ rating, success does not automatically follow.

Goleman identified the five 'domains' of EQ as knowing your emotions, managing

your own emotions, motivating yourself, recognizing and understanding other people’s

emotions, and managing relationships like managing the emotions of others.

Emotional Intelligence embraces and draws from numerous other branches of

behavioral, emotional and communications theories, such as NLP (Neuro-Linguistic

Programming), Transactional Analysis, and empathy. By developing our Emotional

Intelligence in these areas and the five EQ domains we can become more productive and

successful at what we do, and help others to be more productive and successful too. The

process and outcomes of Emotional Intelligence development also contain many elements

known to reduce stress for individuals and organizations, by decreasing conflict, improving

relationships and understanding, and increasing stability, continuity and harmony.

Teaching Style

Students will gain more knowledge, retain more information, and perform far better

when teaching styles match learning styles (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000). However, it is
 14

recognized that it is difficult to match with every learning style and therefore, a portfolio of

teaching styles is recommended (Moallem, 2001).

The four basic teaching styles are formal authority, demonstrator or personal model,

facilitator and delegator.

Formal Authority. A instructor-centered approach where the instructor feels

responsible for providing and controlling the flow of content which the student is to receive

and assimilate. The formal authority figure does not concern himself with creating a

relationship with the student nor is it important if the students build relationships with each

other.

Demonstrator or Personal Model. A instructor-centered approach where the

instructor demonstrates and models what is expected (skills and processes) and then acts as a

coach or guide to assist the students in applying the knowledge. This style encourages

student participation and utilizes various learning styles.

Facilitator. A student centered approach where the instructor facilitates and focuses

on activities. Responsibility is placed on the students to take initiative to achieve results for

the various tasks. Students who are independent, active, collaborative learners thrive in this

environment. Instructors typically design group activities which necessitate active learning,

student-to-student collaboration and problem solving.

Delegator. A student-centered approach whereby the instructor delegates and places

much control and responsibility for learning on individuals or groups of students. This type

of instructor will often require students to design and implement a complex learning project

and will act solely in a consultative role. Students are often asked to work independently or

in groups and must be able to effectively work in group situations and manage various
 15

interpersonal roles.

According to the speech of the former Dean of Harvard University College of

Education, Theodore R. Sizer (2000), brilliant teaching, at its heart reflects scholarship,

personal integrity and the ability to communicate with the young.

Scholarship is both the grasp of a realm of knowledge and a habit of mind. An

effective teacher provokes both from his students. But particularly the latter, as it is a habit

of mind, rather than facts, which endure in a person over a lifetime. Scholarship is not only

an affair of the classroom, but, at its best, is a way of life, one which is marked by respect

for evidence and for logic, by inquisitiveness and the genius to find new meaning in familiar

data, and by the ability to see things in context, to relate specificities to generalities, facts to

theories, and theories to facts.

The second characteristic of great teaching is integrity, in at least two of its separate

meanings. First there is probity: characteristics of honesty, principle and decent candor.

These qualities are fundamental, of course, to the good life for anyone, but they play a

special role in the behavior of those of us who inevitably, as we live together with them,

influence younger people by our example.

Another, but equally important, kind of integrity is completeness or unity of

character, the sense of self-confidence and personal identity a fine teacher exhibits. There is

much pop jargon around to describe this, some of it useful: "knowing who you are," "getting

it together," "not losing one's cool." Because they are teenagers, most of our students' most

painful trials are in finding their own selves, in gaining proper self-confidence, and they

look to us as people who have learned to control the ambiguities, pressures and restrictions

of life rather than having them control us. A fine teacher is not particularly one who exudes
 16

self-confidence from every pore -- a super person (more likely, a hypocrite!). Far from it, a

fine teacher does have confidence, but the honest confidence that flows from a fair

recognition of one's owns frailties as well as talents and which accommodates both joyfully.

The lack of assurance that typically marks adolescence and that takes observable form in

pettiness, distortion, scapegoat, over-reacting, or withdrawal ideally is balanced in a school

by the presence of adults who have grown to channel and control these sturdily persistent

human traits. A teenager leans little from older folk, of whatever scholarly brilliance, who as

people are themselves yet teenagers.

The ability to communicate with the young is the third basic characteristic of good

teaching. It means, obviously, liking young people, enjoying their noisy exuberance and

intense questioning, which is their process of growing up. It means the ability to empathize,

to see a situation as the student sees it. A good teacher must be, obviously, a compulsive

listener. It means the skill of provoking more out of a student than he believed possible, of

knowing the tests to which to put a young scholar in order that he be convinced of his own

learning and to lure him into further learning. It means a belief in the dignity of young

people and in the stage of life at which they now find themselves. Great teachers neither

mock nor underestimate the young.

Teaching style therefore is one of the greatest factors in child’s learning processes.

Teaching Performance

Performance is about power but looks at how it is managed, especially through

institutional and bureaucratic means.

Performance encourages us to look at not only what people say but what they do,

including at how we perform in our day to day lives.

 17

Considering the consequences of our actions and encouraging ourselves to move

away from protecting self-interests at the risk of obtaining the set goals is paramount.

It allows us to open our minds to the possibility of not only aiding our clients but in

the process of learning from both our mistakes and successes. It obliges us to grow and

continuously acquire new skills that in the end make us better at our roles as Teachers in an

otherwise thankless profession.

Thus, performance begins in the classroom. To a degree one's performance can be

discerned by how well your student does in your class. Their success rests on not only your

ability to effectively teach a subject, be it English or something other, but just as

importantly, rests also upon their shoulders! Their willingness to take advantage of your

services and those being offered at the school that you work for is paramount.

All faculty are evaluated regularly. The evaluation of part-time faculty reviews

academic qualifications, relevant experience, quality of teaching, and professional

contributions. In addition to the university-wide student evaluation, all instructional faculty

should be regularly evaluated by their colleagues through a peer review process.

Maintaining an up-to-date teaching portfolio is highly recommended for both peer

review evaluation and professional development. A portfolio offers a useful way to

document and describe one's teaching performance. It is also recommended that each

teaching portfolio contain an ongoing series of self-reflections about the teaching

experience. Below are the University requirements for evaluating teaching. In addition to

these, each academic unit may have established local criteria. Contact your academic unit's

administrative office for specific academic unit evaluation requirements.

Teachers" opinions were sought about nine possible objectives of teacher

 18

performance evaluations. Four of these objectives are formative that is; they represent the

more inclusive goal of encouraging the professional development of teachers. These are to

guide improvement of teaching skills, to recognize and reinforce teaching excellence, to

help teachers focus on student outcomes, and to plan in service education activities. Four

other objectives -- to make tenure and promotion decisions, to discharge incompetent

teachers, to help teachers define standards for their peers, and to determine teachers" pay

levels -- are summative goals involving personnel decisions. The ninth objective, to give

administrator greater control over teacher job performance, does not fit into either category.

Most teachers perceive that evaluations at their school are used to promote the development

of improved teaching skills rather than to assist administrators and other teachers to make

judgments affecting personnel decisions for teachers. Furthermore, most teachers do not

believe that the latter goals should be objectives of performance evaluations at their schools.

Resiliency Skills and Abilities

Resiliency means being able to bounce back from life developments that may feel

totally overwhelming at first. When resilient people have their lives disrupted they handle

their feelings in healthy ways. They allow themselves to feel grief, anger, loss, and

confusion when hurt and distressed, but they don't let it become a permanent feeling state.

An unexpected outcome is that they not only heal, they often bounce back stronger than

before. They are examples of Wilhelm Nietzsche's famous statement, "That which does not

kill me makes me stronger."

This is why resilient people usually handle major difficulties easier than others. They

expect to rebuild their disrupted lives in a new way that works for them, and the struggle to

overcome adversity develops new strengths in them.

 19

Resilience is more important than ever in today's world. The volatile and chaotic

period we are going through will not end soon. To sustain a good life for yourself and your

family, you must be much more resilient than people had to be in the past. People with

resiliency skills have a significant advantage over those who feel helpless or react like

victims. In this world of life-disrupting, nonstop change: corporations with highly resilient

employees have an advantage over their less resilient competitors; during downsizing, a

resilient worker with a wide range of skills has better chance of being kept on; when many

people are applying for one job, a resilient person has a better chance of being hired; when

your old job skills are no longer needed, you are quick to learn new way to earn an income;

during economic hardships, resilient people give their families a better chance of pulling

through and bouncing back; resilient people help their communities get through a hard times

better; resiliency is crucial when there are the added challenges of physical injury or living

through a territorial attack; a resilient person is best of making difficult situations work well;

and resilient people are less likely to become ill during difficult times.

Resiliency is an essential skill in every job sectoring corporations, small businesses,

public agencies, professional services, and the self-employed especially during times of

turmoil. It is important to understand that when you are hit with life-disrupting events, you

will never be the same again. You either cope or you crumble; you become better or bitter;

you emerge stronger or weaker.

In the past, individuals had to find ways to be resilient on their own. Now, however,

the emerging new science of resiliency psychology has identified what strengths to acquire

and how almost anyone can develop them. The resiliency guidelines in this book focus

mainly on resiliency in the workplace, but they apply broadly to all aspects of life. By
 20

developing resiliency skills and strengths where you work, you then have those same skills

available if hit by difficult or trying circumstances in any other area of your life. The most

empowering finding in resiliency-psychology research is that you have an inborn

predisposition to become resilient and change-proficient. The personal resiliency plan in this

book shows you how to remain calm under pressure, bounce back from setbacks, and avoid

resiliency fatigue; improve your problem-solving skills by using three different methods:

analytical, creative, and practical; keep a playful sense of humor, optimism, and positive

feelings during rough times; break free from inner barriers to resiliency by strengthening

your inner "self’s" in healthy ways and overcoming the "good child" handicap; overcome

tendencies to feel like a victim, and stay detached from "victim" reactions in others; value

your complex qualities such as selfish unselfishness, optimistic pessimism, and cooperative

nonconformity; develop your unique way of being resilient by being both self-reliant and

socially responsible; discover how your natural desire to learn is what leads to your life

getting better and better; become skillful at having things work well for you and others;

convert misfortune into good fortune; and master the art of resiliency.

People trained to think, feel, and perform as instructed may be prepared for expected

difficulties, but not for unexpected or unique difficulties. "Trained" people fear change and

don't problem solve quickly in unexpected circumstances, not in the way that resilient

people do. Resilient people are those who consciously decide that somehow, some way, they

will do the very best they can to survive, cope, and make things turn out well.

Your resiliency strengths come from self-motivated, self-managed efforts to develop

resiliency skills. Some people who hear or read about ways to become more resilient

mistakenly think that the power lies in the recommended method. They go through the steps
 21

in a detached way thinking that the technique will make things better. Then when things

don't turn out well, they blame the technique for not working. This is like tossing a can

opener at a can of food and then blaming the can opener when the can doesn't open.

A few people are born resilient. Like natural athletes, they have it in them from the

start. The rest of us have inborn resiliency potentials that we can access and develop if we

choose to. You were born with the ability to learn how to hold up under pressure, adapt

quickly to change, bounce back from setbacks, and find ways to have bad situations to turn

out well.

One important principle, true for anyone motivated to increase his or her resiliency,

is to understand that we humans can learn new abilities at any age. Developing your

resiliency strengths, however, may require overcoming and breaking free from three barriers

to resiliency that handicap people who were raised to be a "good" boy or girl; are overly

socialized to conform and believe that external forces control your life; and believe the

social myth of "stress."

The steps for developing your resiliency skills and strengths follow a hierarchy of

five levels. Each one builds on the one before. These are to accomplish the following:

optimize your health and well-being; develop good problem-solving skills; develop strong

inner gatekeepers; develop high-level resiliency skills; and discover your talent for

serendipity.

The first level shows how to create and follow a personal plan for optimizing your

health and energy using a simple, practical action plan. In chapter 4, you will learn ways to

use what is known about emotional and physical mind-body connections to free yourself

from myths about stress. Level one skill includes handling your feelings in emotionally
 22

competent ways during times of too much change and too many pressures. This well-tested,

practical, realistic plan is flexible so that you can adapt it to your unique nature.

Psychologists know, for example, that a quiet person needs time alone to recover from

distress, while an outgoing person needs to talk with others.

The second level prepares you to focus outward to problem solve challenges.

Psychology research shows that problem-focused responses to unexpected difficulties lead

to resiliency, while strong emotional reactions in which you feel like a victim lead to

helplessness.

The third level focuses inward on three mind-body dimensions that determine

resiliency strong self-esteem, self-confidence, and a positive self-concept based on moral

values. If they are weak, you will not be very resilient. If they are strong and healthy, you

can access and develop many resiliency strengths.

Resiliency research shows that the biggest barrier to resiliency for some people is

their "good child" upbringing. As you will see, having been raised to be a good boy or girl

can prevent you from doing what it takes to be resilient when your world is shaken up. In

your personal resiliency plan, you will learn how to overcome inner barriers to resiliency by

developing and strengthening the three gatekeepers to an optimal level.

At the fourth level you develop abilities and skills found in highly resilient people.

The fifth level is the highest level of resiliency. People at this level have a major

advantage in a world of constant change. They don't fight against disruptive change because

they accept new realities quickly. They know that everything in the world happens the way

it should. They align rapidly to new realities and allow themselves to influence events so

that things turn out well. As shown in chapter 11, highly resilient people can dance and flow
 23

with disruptive change because they have many attitudes and perspectives that let them be

both involved and detached from the action. Resiliency lets you align quickly to new

circumstances and steer the swirling energies to reach good outcomes. A reliable strength at

this level is the talent for serendipity the ability to convert accidents and misfortune into

lucky accidents and good fortune.

The five levels of resiliency provide you with a comprehensive, personalized system

for bouncing back faster and easier and living a longer, healthier, more enjoyable life. This

program shows how to use knowledge from the new science of resiliency psychology to

learn the art of resiliency. It shows how to benefit from aligning your mind, attitudes, and

actions with the reality that our world is a vibrant, dynamic place of unceasing change.

A significant benefit from being self-confident, change-proficient, optimistic, and

skilled at making things work well is that you master the process of nonstop change. The

pressures of nonstop, disruptive change appear to be motivating a human transformation to a

new way of being. Your ability to reside over and over comes from allowing your mind,

attitudes, feelings, values, skills, and unique nature to be different in every situation,

organized by your purposeful consciousness.

The art of resiliency gives you a powerful advantage in today's world. Your learning

will be most useful if you put together your own plan for developing your way of being

resilient and don't restrict yourself only to what you read in this book. In the school of life,

the responsibility is on the learner, not the teacher.

Teacher’s Morale

Teachers are being stretched to the limit. Expectations placed on them seem to be

expanding exponentially. Increasingly their role encompasses not only teaching specific
 24

content and mentoring students in the love of learning, but functioning as frontline social

workers.

In addition to being expected to deal with a smorgasbord of broader social problems

that find their way into the classroom, many other pressures plague teachers, prompting

Parks (1983) to ask, "How does one compensate professionals for inadequate books and

supplies, large classes, disruptive students, public criticism, limited assistance, increased

duties, and the lowest salaries paid to highly educated personnel in the nation? How does

one lead a group in which morale is so low that over 40 percent of survey respondents would

not again select teaching as a profession and 57 percent are definitely planning to leave, will

leave if something better comes along, or are undecided about staying?"

Although Parks posed these questions in 1983, it appears that similar levels of

dissatisfaction persist among teachers today. For example, a survey of Texas public school

teachers in 1996 found that 44 percent of respondents were seriously considering leaving the

profession (Henderson and Henderson 1996).

Morale has been thought of variously as a feeling, a state of mind, a mental attitude,

and an emotional attitude (Mendel 1987).

One source defines morale as the feeling a worker has about his job based on how

the worker perceives himself in the organization and the extent to which the organization is

viewed as meeting the worker's own needs and expectations (Washington and Watson

1976).

Another author conceptualizes morale as "the professional interest and enthusiasm

that a person displays towards the achievement of individual and group goals in a given job

situation" (Bentley and Rempel 1980). When a healthy school environment exists and
 25

teacher morale is high, "teachers feel good about each other and, at the same time, feel a

sense of accomplishment from their jobs" (Hoy and Miskel 1987).

There are some factors that affect teachers’ morale. These are the school

environment, parent support, student responsiveness and enthusiasm and stress.

School Environment. As noted above, a healthy school environment and high

teacher morale tend to be related. A principal's ability to create a positive school climate and

culture can affect teacher morale. As Adams (1992) states, "Principals, who control many of

the contingencies in the work environment and are the source of much reinforcement for

teaching behavior, are the keys to improving the morale and self-esteem of teachers."

A recent report on job satisfaction among American teachers identified "more

administrative support and leadership, good student behavior, a positive school atmosphere,

and teacher autonomy" as working conditions associated with higher teacher satisfaction

(National Center for Education Statistics 1997). Favorable workplace conditions were

positively related to teacher's job satisfaction regardless of whether a teacher was employed

by a public or private school, an elementary or secondary school, and regardless of teachers'

background characteristics or school demographics (National Center for Education

Statistics).

Parent Support. The study also found that "teachers in any school setting who

receive a great deal of parental support are more satisfied than teachers who do not." A weak

relationship was found between teacher satisfaction and salary and benefits (National Center

for Education Statistics).

Student Responsiveness and Enthusiasm. Teachers' perceptions of students and

student learning can also affect their morale. In a cross-cultural study of teacher enthusiasm
 26

and discouragement that included teachers from the U.S. and six other nations, "Teachers

clearly identified students as the primary and central factor that has an impact on both their

professional enthusiasm and discouragement ... Teachers almost universally treasure student

responsiveness and enthusiasm as a vital factor in their own enthusiasm, and conversely list

low motivation in students as a discourager" (Stenlund 1995).

Because of their relative isolation from other adults, teachers have little opportunity

to share their successes with colleagues and administrators. This results in greater reliance

on student responsiveness for teachers' professional satisfaction (Goodwin 1987).

Stress. Stress also affects morale. It can "result in emotional and physical fatigue and

a reduction in work motivation, involvement, and satisfaction" (Stenlund). Feeling overly

stressed can result in erosion of one's idealism, sense of purpose, and enthusiasm.

Why is teachers’ morale important? Teachers’ morale is important in student

learning, student achievement and for teachers’ health.

Student Learning. Miller (1981) notes that teacher morale "can have a positive

effect on pupil attitudes and learning. Raising teacher morale level is not only making

teaching more pleasant for teachers, but also learning more pleasant for the students. This

creates an environment that is more conducive to learning."

Students’ Achievement. Morale and achievement are also related. Ellenberg (1972)

found that "where morale was high, schools showed an increase in student achievement."

Teachers’ Health. Conversely, low levels of satisfaction and morale can lead to

decreased teacher productivity and burnout, which is associated with "a loss of concern for

and detachment from the people with whom one works, decreased quality of teaching,

depression, greater use of sick leave, efforts to leave the profession, and a cynical and
 27

dehumanized perception of students" (Mendel citing Holt 1980).

Sometimes teacher morale drops almost imperceptibly over time, so subtly that

teachers may not be fully cognizant of the decline. Nothing can change, however, in the

absence of awareness. If teachers are to be encouraged, they must first recognize their

diminished status--that they are "discouraged--and take action to become 'couraged' again"

(Bolin 1987). Reassessment, when coupled with renewal, can often lead to encouragement.

Reassessment involves reexamining something in order to value it again (Bolin). And

renewal "implies recovery. To become renewed, teachers must reopen the case for teaching,

looking again at why they chose to set out on such a vocational venture" (Bolin).

Berman (1987) also emphasizes the need for individuals "to give attention to the care

and replenishing of self if they are to be dynamic, sensitive, perceptive persons--persons

who get excited about ideas and people. Teachers need to be able to keep the freshness and

spark that frequently mark a novice in the field, while at the same time embedding freshness

in wisdom and thoughtfulness."

Berman advises teachers to consider what is uplifting and energizing for them and

then work toward integrating those things more fully into their lives. She suggests breaking

out of routines and doing the unusual, planning for next steps in professional development,

developing a network of individuals to dialogue with, and investing fully in tasks at hand as

routes to replenishment.

Administrators also influence teachers’ morale. People who feel empowered tend to

have higher morale. As Maehr, Midgley, and Urdan (1993) state, "People are more

personally invested in their work with an organization when (1) they have a voice in what

happens to them; and (2) their work has meaning and significance in contributing to a higher
 28

purpose or goal."

When teachers' sense of self-determination and purpose are supported, teachers relate

to students in a qualitatively different manner (Maehr, Midgley, and Urdan).

By treating teachers in ways that empower them, such as involving them in decisions

about policies and practices and acknowledging their expertise, administrators can help

sustain teacher morale.

Principals can also strengthen teacher morale by actively standing behind teachers.

Effective principals serve as guardians of teachers' instructional time, "assist teachers with

student discipline matters, allow teachers to develop discipline codes, and support teachers'

authority in enforcing policy" (Blase and Kirby 1992).

Although teachers can take steps individually to preserve their professional

satisfaction and morale, they must also be nurtured, supported, and valued by the broader

school community. When teachers are provided with what they need to remain inspired and

enthusiastic in the classroom, students as well as teachers will be the beneficiaries.

 29

Notes in Chapter 1

Charles F. Adams, "'Finding Psychic Rewards in Today's Schools': A Rebuttal"

Clearing House 65, 6 (July-August 1992): 343, 346-47. EJ 465 147.

Ralph R. Bentley, and Averno M. Rempel. "Manual for the Purdue Teacher
Opinionaire". West Lafayette, Indiana: The University Book Store, 1980.

Louise M. Berman, "The Teacher as Decision Maker." In Teacher Renewal:

Professional Issues, Personal Choices, edited by Frances S. Bolin and Judith McConnell
Falk. New York, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1987.

Joseph Blase and Peggy Kirby. "Bringing Out the Best in Teachers: What Effective
Principals Do." Newbury Park, California: Corwin Press, 1992. 156 pages. ED 341 165.

Thomas Armstrong, “ Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom”. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1994.

Thomas Armstrong, “ 7 Kinds of Smart: Identifying and Developing Your Many

Intelligences”, New York: Plume, 1993.

Thomas Armstrong, “In Their Own Way: Discovering and Encouraging Your Child's
Personal Learning Style”, New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1987.

Thomas Armstrong, "Utopian Schools", Mothering, Winter, 1996.

Thomas Armstrong, "Multiple Intelligences: Seven Ways to Approach Curriculum,"

Educational Leadership, November, 1994.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Multiple Intelliaences CD-

ROM, and Multiple Intelligences Video Series; 1250 N. Pitt St., Alexandria, VA 22314-
1453 (800-933-2723).

Howard Gardner, “ Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences”. New

York: Basic,1983

Howard Gardner, “ Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice”. New York: Basic,
1993.

Howard Gardner, “Intelligence Reframed:  Multiple Intelligences for the 21st

Century”.  New York:  Basic, 2000.

http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/research/teaching_styles.shtml

http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/goodteac.htm
 30

http://www.resiliencycenter.com/bkstore/ResAdv-chap1.shtml

http://www.resiliencycenter.com/articles/5levels.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence / http://eqi.org/eidefs.htm /

http://www.businessballs.com/eq.htm

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

http://www.vtaide.com/png/ERIC/Teacher-Morale.htm

http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm#Multiple%20Intelligences%20Explained

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed410226.html

http://www.pz.harvard.edu/SUMIT/COMPT.HTM

http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9911/scherer2.html
 31

CHAPTER II

PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter includes the tabular presentation and interpretation of Multiple

Intelligences (Bodily-Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Musical, Intrapersonal, Spatial/Visual,

Logical/Mathematical, Verbal/Linguistic and Naturalist), Emotional Intelligence (Emotional

Competency, Self-Motivation, Emotional Awareness, Empathy and Coaching Others

Emotions), Resiliency Skills and Abilities, Teachers’ Morale, Teaching Style (Expert,

Formal Authority, Personal Model and Facilitator) and Teaching Performance.

I. Multiple Intelligences

A. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence

B. Interpersonal Intelligence

C. Musical Intelligence

D. Intrapersonal Intelligence

E. Spatial/Visual Intelligence

F. Logical/Mathematical Intelligence

G. Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence

H. Naturalist Intelligence

I. Summary Table for Teachers’ Multiple Intelligences

II. Emotional Intelligence

A. Emotional Competency

B. Self-Motivation

C. Emotional Awareness

D. Empathy
 32

E. Coaching Others Emotions

F. Summary Table for Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence

III. Resiliency Skills and Abilities

IV. Teachers’ Morale

A. Pertaining to Self as a Teacher

B. About my Work as a Teacher

C. Teaching Concern

D. Pertaining to the Head

E. Regarding Salaries, Benefits and other Compensation

F. Community Recognition about the Teaching Profession

G. Students’ Recognition of the Teachers

H. Summary Table fro Teachers’ Morale

V. Teaching Styles

A. Expert

B. Formal Authority

C. Personal Model

D. Delegator

E. Facilitator

F. Summary Table for Teachers’ Tecahing Styles

VI. Teaching Performance

 33

RESPONDENTS PROFILE

The given profile below were the teacher respondents for the Multiple Intelligences,

Emotional Intelligence, Resiliency Skills and Abilities, Teachers’ Morale and Teaching

Style survey conducted by the researcher.

No. Respondents' Name Age Course/Major Subject Taught Years of Teaching

          Experience
1 Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 26 BEEd / with MA Units All Subjects 6
2 Isabel O. Granado 40 BSE - Math / with MA Units Math/EPP 12
3 Amor G. Orozco 30 BSIE - H.E. Values/Hekasi 7
4 Josephine E Feria 36 AB - Psychology / with MA Units All Subjects 14
5 Jay L. Pangilinan 22 BSE - CompEd Computer 3
6 Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 24 BSE - English English 1
7 Maricel M. Bonachita 33 BSE - Filipino Filipino 11
8 Jocelyn D. Policarpio 26 BEEd - Science Science 5
9 Lornalyn B. Celon 39 BEEd / with MA Units Pre-School 10
10 Glenda G. Nolasco 33 BSE - English / with MA Units English 10

Multiple Intelligence of the Teachers. The seven multiple intelligences for the

teacher respondents are shown in several tables. Table 1.A shows the Bodily-Kinesthetic

Ability of the teachers.

The given data shows that the highest mean of 4.2 were obtained by the two (2)

teacher respondents while the lowest mean of 3.2 was obtained by the three (3) teacher

respondents. The overall mean for the Bodili-Kinesthetic ability is 3.7 which is interpreted

as Strong Ability.

Table 1.A

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Multiple

Intelligence in Terms of Bodily-Kinesthetic Ability

Question Items
Respondents 4 12 31 40 49 57 65 73 80 92 97 Ave. V.I
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 3 4 4 3 5 3 3 2 5 3 3 3.5 M
2. Isabel O. Granado 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 3.2 M
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 3 2 4 4 4 1 3 4 2 4 3.2 M
4. Josephine E Feria 3 4 3 2 5 4 1 3 3 3 4 3.2 M
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 3 5 3 4 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 4.2 S
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 2 2 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4.1 S
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4.2 S
 34

8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 5 4 4 4 3.8 S

9. Lornalyn B. Celon 3 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3.8 S
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.5 M
3.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.0 3.4 4.1 3.7 4.2
Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.65 S
Legend: VS – Very Strong Ability S – Strong Ability M – Moderate Ability
L – Less Ability N – No Ability

This table shows that half of the teachers have Moderate Ability in this area and the

other half have Strong Ability.

Table 1.B shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of Interpersonal

Ability of the teachers. The highest mean value of 4.5 interpreted as Strong Ability was

obtained by one (1) teacher respondent. The lowest mean value of 2.9 interpreted as

Moderate Ability was obtained. From the given table, it shows that items 25 and 34 have the

highest mean which is 4.5 and interpreted as Strong Ability, that is when they have a

problem, they are likely to seek out another person help than attempt to work out the

problem alone. The lowest mean value of 2.9 is item 67, that is feeling comfortable in the

midst of a crowd.

The average mean of Interpersonal Ability is 3.7 interpreted as Strong Ability.

Table 1.B

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Multiple

Intelligence in Terms of Interpersonal Ability

Question Items
Respondents 7 15 25 34 43 51 59 67 75 83 99 Ave. V.I
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 3 5 5 5 3 3 4 3 3 4 5 3.9 S
2. Isabel O. Granado 3 2 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3.4 M
3. Amor G. Orozco 3 3 4 5 3 4 2 2 3 1 3 3.0 M
4. Josephine E Feria 3 3 4 3 1 5 3 1 5 2 2 2.9 M
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 4.5 S
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 3 5 5 3 5 4 3 5 3 5 4.1 S
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 1 4 3.7 S
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 3 2 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 4.1 S
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 3 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.8 S
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3.7 S
3.6 3.4 4.5 4.5 3.4 3.9 3.6 2.9 3.9 3.0 4.1
Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 S
 35

Table 1.C shows the frequency distribution and interpretation of Musical ability. The

highest mean value of 4.7 interpreted as Very Strong Ability is item 24, that is listening to

the radio, cassettes or compact discs. The lowest mean value of 1.9 interpreted as Less

ability is item 33 that is the ability to play a musical instrument.

Table 1.C

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Multiple

Intelligence in Terms of Musical Ability

Question Items
Respondents 6 14 24 33 42 50 58 66 74 81 94 Ave. V.I
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 3 2 5 1 5 5 3 4 3 4 5 3.6 S
2. Isabel O. Granado 1 1 3 1 4 3 4 2 2 4 3 2.6 M
3. Amor G. Orozco 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 2 3 2 1 2.3 L
4. Josephine E Feria 1 1 5 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 1.9 L
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 2 2 5 2 5 2 4 5 5 5 5 3.8 S
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 2 4 5 2 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 3.7 S
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 1 1 5 1 5 3 2 3 3 3 5 2.9 M
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 2 2 5 3 5 5 3 3 5 4 4 3.7 S
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3.5 M
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.9 S
2.0 2.5 4.7 1.9 4.2 3.7 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.7 3.4
Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 M

Table 1.D shows the frequency distribution and interpretation of Intrapersonal

ability. The highest mean value of 4.5 interpreted as Strong Ability is item 35, that is having

special hobby that the respondents keep pretty much to themselves. The lowest mean value

of 2.6 interpreted as Moderate ability is item 33 that is keeping personal diary or journal to

record events or the respondents’ inner life.

Table 1.D

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Multiple

Intelligence in Terms of Intrapersonal Ability

Question Items Ave

Respondents 8 16 26 35 44 52 60 68 76 84 87 90 . V.I
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3.3 M
2. Isabel O. Granado 2 1 3 4 5 3 4 3 1 3 2 3 2.8 M
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 2 1 1 5 4 3.4 M
4. Josephine E Feria 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 2 1 2 3 4 3.3 M
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 4 2 4 5 3 4.2 S
 36

6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 4 4.5 S

7. Maricel M. Bonachita 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 5 2 3 4 5 3.7 S
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4.2 S
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3.9 S
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3.7 S
4.0 3.4 4.1 4.5 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.8 3.8
Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 S

Table 1.E shows the frequency distribution and interpretation of Spatial/Visual

ability. The highest mean value of 4.3 interpreted as Strong Ability is item 38, that is

enjoying observing vivid colors and designs. The lowest mean value of 2.9 interpreted as

Moderate ability is item 64 that is Geometry as easier subject than Algebra in school.

Table 1.E

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Multiple

Intelligence in Terms of Spatial/Visual Ability

Question Items
Respondents 3 11 21 23 30 38 48 56 61 64 72 79 Ave. V.I
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 5 5 5 3 4 5 3 4 3 1 4 5 3.9 S
2. Isabel O. Granado 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 1 3 4 3.1 M
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 3 1 5 4 4 3 3 4 1 3 4 3.3 M
4. Josephine E Feria 5 3 2 5 5 4 2 3 3 4 4 3 3.6 S
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 4 5 3 5 5 4 3 5 5 4 5 4.3 S
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 2 5 5 4.5 S
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 3 3 2 1 2 2 5 2 3 3 4 3 2.8 M
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 5 4 4 5 5 3 3 4 5 4 4 4.2 S
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.9 S
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 3 4 3 4 3 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 S
3.9 3.9 3.4 3.6 4.1 4.3 3.7 3.2 3.8 2.9 3.9 4.1
Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 S

Table 1.F shows the frequency distribution and interpretation of

Logical/Mathematical ability. The highest mean value of 4.4 interpreted as Strong Ability is

item 18, that is enjoying thinking what will happen in the future. The lowest mean value of

3.3 interpreted as Moderate ability is items 2 and 10 that is enjoying mental computation and

Math and Science as the respondents’ favorite subjects in school. This only shows that only

few of the respondents were interested and likes the subjects Math and Science very much.
 37

Table 1.F

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Multiple

Intelligence in Terms of Logical/Mathematical Ability

Question Items Ave

Respondents 2 10 13 18 20 29 37 46 47 54 63 71 78 85 . V.I
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 3 3 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3.3 M
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 3.3 M
3. Amor G. Orozco 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.5 M
4. Josephine E Feria 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 3.4 M
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 5 3 4.1 S
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 2 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 2 3 3.9 S
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 3.9 S
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4.6 VS
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.1 S
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 3 3 4 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.7 S
Average 3.30 3.30 3.90 4.40 3.70 3.70 4.00 3.50 4.30 4.30 3.60 3.70 3.50 3.70 3.8 S

Table 1.G shows the frequency distribution and interpretation of Verbal/Linguistic

ability. The highest mean value of 4.3 interpreted as Strong Ability is item 86, that is the

interest of the respondents in participating in activities where they can interact with others as

a part of a team. The lowest mean value of 3.1 interpreted as Moderate ability is item 89 that

is memorizing facts and bits of information without any particular content.

Table 1.G

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Multiple

Intelligence in Terms of Verbal/Linguistic Ability

Question Items

Respondents 5 9 19 28 36 45 53 62 69 77 86 88 89 93 96 100 Ave. V.I

1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 5 5 2 3 5 4 2 3 3 5 5 4 3 1 1 3 3.4 M

2. Isabel O. Granado 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3.2 M

3. Amor G. Orozco 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 3 5 5 3 3 4 4 3.6 S

4. Josephine E Feria 2 5 3 5 3 2 1 4 4 2 3 4 2 4 2 3 3.1 M

5. Jay L. Pangilinan 3 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 3 2 5 5 3 5 5 5 4.1 S

6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 2 5 5 5 4.7 VS

7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4 3 5 3 3 4 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 4.1 S

8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 5 2 4 5 3 5 3 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 3 5 4.1 S

9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.9 S

10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 5 3 2 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 3 4 3.8 S

4.1
Average 4.00 4.00 3.90 4.10 3.90 3.70 3.40 3.70 3.70 3.50 4.30 0 3.10 3.90 3.50 4.00 3.8 S
 38

Table 1.H shows the frequency distribution and interpretation of Naturalist ability.

The highest mean value of 4.5 interpreted as Strong Ability is item 98, that is believing that

we should work hard to preserve our environment – planet.. The lowest mean value of 2.9

interpreted as Moderate ability is item 82 that is the interest of the respondents in laboratory

classes in Science instead of literature or social studies.

Table 1.H

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Multiple

Intelligence in Naturalist Ability

Question Items
Ave
Respondents 1 17 22 27 32 39 41 55 70 82 91 95 98 . V.I
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 2 5 3 3 5 3 2 3 4 2 3 2 4 3.2 M
2. Isabel O. Granado 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 4 5 3.5 M
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 2 4 4 5 3 1 3 4 2 5 5 5 3.6 S
4. Josephine E Feria 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 3 3 4 3.1 M
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 3 5 3 3 5 2 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 3.7 S
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 2 3 4 5 4.3 S
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 5 4 3.5 M
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.7 VS
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.2 S
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 3 5 3 3 4 5 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3.6 S
3.3
Average 0 4.20 3.70 3.90 4.30 3.30 3.60 3.40 4.20 2.90 3.50 3.80 4.50 3.7 S

Table 1.I shows the summary for the respondents Multiple Intelligences. The highest

mean value of 3.8 interpreted as Strong Ability, which is Logical/Mathematical Ability. The

lowest mean value of 3.2 interpreted as Moderate ability Musical Ability. This table shows

that most of the teachers find interest in the subject Math and like to think logically. On the

other hand, the musical ability is of less interest among the respondents.

Table 1.I
 39

Summary Table for Multiple Intelligences

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE
Respondents BK IP M IR S/V L/M V/L N
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 3.5 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.2
2. Isabel O. Granado 3.2 3.4 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.5
3. Amor G. Orozco 3.2 3.0 2.3 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6
4. Josephine E Feria 3.2 2.9 1.9 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.1
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4.2 4.5 3.8 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.7
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4.1 4.1 3.7 4.5 4.5 3.9 4.7 4.3
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4.2 3.7 2.9 3.7 2.8 3.9 4.1 3.5
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 3.8 4.1 3.7 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.1 4.7
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.2
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.6
Average 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7
Verbal Interpretation S S M S S S S S
Legend: BK – Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence S/V – Spatial-Visual Intelligence
IP – Interpersonal Intelligence L/M – Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
M – Musical Intelligence V/L – Verbal-Linguistic Intelligence
IR – Intrapersonal Intelligence N – Naturalist Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence of the Teachers. The result of the Emotional Intelligence

Tests for teachers was shown on the proceeding tables. Table 2.A shows the frequency

distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers Emotional Intelligence in terms of their

emotional competency.

The highest mean value of 4.9 which is interpreted as Very Emotionally Competent

and the lowest mean value of 3.7 interpreted as emotionally competent.

Table 2.A

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Emotional

Intelligence in Terms of Emotional Competency

Question Items
Respondents 1 2 4 17 19 25 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 5 5 4 5 5 4 4.7 VEC
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 3 4 4 3 2 3.3 MEC
3. Amor G. Orozco 6 3 5 5 5 6 5.0 VEC
4. Josephine E Feria 4 1 5 5 1 4 3.3 MEC
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 5 3 4 6 6 6 5.0 VEC
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 6 6 5 5 6 5 5.5 VEC
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 5 5 6 4 6 5.2 VEC
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 5 4 4 4 5 4 4.3 EC
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 2 2 5 4 2 5 3.3 MEC
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 5 5 5 5 3 3 4.3 EC
Average 4.7 3.7 4.6 4.9 4 4.5 4.4 EC
 40

Table 2.B shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers

Emotional Intelligence in terms of their self-motivational skills.

The highest mean value of 4.9 which is interpreted as Very Emotionally Competent

and the lowest mean value of 4.2 interpreted as emotionally competent.

Table 2.B

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Emotional

Intelligence in Terms of Self-Motivational Skills

Question Items
Respondents 5 6 13 14 16 22 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.7 VEC
2. Isabel O. Granado 3 3 3 4 3 3 3.2 MEC
3. Amor G. Orozco 5 4 4 4 4 3 4.0 EC
4. Josephine E Feria 5 3 3 6 5 5 4.5 EC
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 5 4 4 5 3 4 4.2 EC
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 4 4 5 4 5 4.3 EC
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 6 5 5 5 4 4 4.8 VEC
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 5 4 4 4 5 5 4.5 EC
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.8 VEC
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 5 5 5 6 5 5 5.2 VEC
Average 4.8 4.2 4.2 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.4 EC

Table 2.C shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers

Emotional Intelligence in terms of their emotional awareness.

The highest mean value of 4.8 which is interpreted as Very Emotionally Competent

and the lowest mean value of 3.9 interpreted as emotionally competent.

Table 2.C

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Emotional

Intelligence in Terms of Emotional Awareness

Question Items
Respondents 3 7 8 10 18 30 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 5 5 5 4 5 5 4.8 VEC
2. Isabel O. Granado 2 2 3 2 5 5 3.2 MEC
3. Amor G. Orozco 3 3 3 3 5 2 3.2 EC
4. Josephine E Feria 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0 EC
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 3 6 5 3 5 5 4.5 EC
 41

6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 2 4 4 4 4 3 3.5 MEC

7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 5 5 4 5 4 4.7 VEC
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 5 6 5 4 4 4 4.7 VEC
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 5 5 3 5 4 4.5 EC
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 5 6 5 3 6 3 4.7 VEC
Average 3.9 4.6 4.4 3.4 4.8 3.9 4.2 EC

Table 2.D shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers

Emotional Intelligence in terms of their empathy.

The highest mean value of 4.9 which is interpreted as Very Emotionally Competent

and the lowest mean value of 4.2 interpreted as emotionally competent. The average mean is

4.5 which is interpreted as emotionally competent.

Table 2.D

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Emotional

Intelligence in Terms of Empathy

Question Items
Respondents 9 11 20 21 23 28 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 6 5 4 4 5 4 4.7 VEC
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 EC
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 5 4 6 3 2 4.0 EC
4. Josephine E Feria 6 5 3 6 3 3 4.3 EC
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 6 6 4 5 3 6 5.0 VEC
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 5 4 5 5 5 4 4.7 VEC
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.8 VEC
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 5 4 5 4 5 4.5 EC
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 3 5 4 4 4 5 4.2 EC
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 6 6 5 5 5 4 5.2 VEC
Average 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.9 4 4.2 4.5 EC

Table 2.E shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers

Emotional Intelligence in terms of coaching others’ emotion.

The highest mean value of 4.4 which is interpreted as emotionally competent and the

lowest mean value of 3.9 interpreted as emotionally competent. The average mean is 4.1

which is interpreted as emotionally competent.

Table 2.E
 42

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Emotional

Intelligence in Terms Coaching Others’ Emotions

Question Items
Respondents 12 15 24 26 27 29 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 3 4 6 5 4 4 4.3 EC
2. Isabel O. Granado 3 3 3 4 4 5 3.7 EC
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 3 2 3 2 3 2.8 MEC
4. Josephine E Feria 5 5 5 3 3 3 4.0 EC
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 3 5 3 4 6 6 4.5 EC
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 4 5 4 4 4 4.2 EC
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4 4 4 6 5 5 4.7 VEC
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 5 5 4 4 5 4.5 EC
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 5 4 4 4 5 4.5 EC
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 5 3 4 4 4 4.0 EC
Average 3.9 4.3 4 4.1 4 4.4 4.1 EC

Table 2.F shows the summary of the survey result for the respondents’ emotional

intelligence..

The highest mean value of 4.5 which is interpreted as emotionally competent is

Empathy and the lowest mean value of 4.1 interpreted also as emotionally competent is

coaching others’ emotion.

Table 2.F

Summary Table for the Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCES
Respondents EC SM EA E COE
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.3
2. Isabel O. Granado 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.8 3.7
3. Amor G. Orozco 5.0 4.0 3.2 4.0 2.8
4. Josephine E Feria 3.3 4.5 4.0 4.3 4.0
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 5.0 4.2 4.5 5.0 4.5
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 5.5 4.3 3.5 4.7 4.2
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5.2 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.5
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 3.3 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.5
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4.3 5.2 4.7 5.2 4.0
Average 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.5 4.1
Verbal Interpretation EC EC EC EC EC
Legend: VVEC – Very Very Emotionally Competent MEC – Moderately Emotionally Competent
VEC – Very Emotionally Competent LEC – Less Emotionally Competent
EC – Emotionally Competent NEC – Not Emotionally Competent
 43

Resiliency Skills and Abilities of Teachers. The table below shows the result of the

Resiliency Test for the teacher respondents. It shows that the highest average mean is 5.3

which are interpreted as very resilient and the lowest average mean is 4.0 which is

interpreted as resilient. The highest resiliency values are item 5 ( when challenged, they are

good at getting calm and focused to flow with life’s demands), item number 12 (the

respondents have calming influence on other people), item number 13 (the respondents were

able to motivate themselves to try and try again in the face of set back), item 17 (when the

time is right, the respondents face negative feelings and work through what the issue is) and

item number 18 (the respondent is capable of soothing themselves after an upsetting event).

Table 3

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Resiliency Skills and Abilities

Item
s RESPONDENTS Ave. V.I
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10    
1 3 4 2 5 6 6 4 4 5 5 4.4 R
2 6 2 4 1 5 6 6 5 4 4 4.3 R
3 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 5 5 5.2 VR
4 5 3 5 6 6 6 6 6 4 5 5.2 VR
5 5 4 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 6 5.3 VR
6 5 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 4.4 R
7 1 5 4 6 6 5 4 6 4 4 4.5 R
8 3 3 2 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4.0 R
9 4 4 3 4 6 6 5 5 3 4 4.4 R
10 5 4 4 5 6 5 4 6 4 4 4.7 VR
11 4 2 3 5 6 6 6 6 5 4 4.7 VR
12 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 3 5 5.3 VR
13 6 3 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 6 5.3 VR
14 6 4 3 6 5 6 5 4 4 4 4.7 VR
15 5 3 3 5 5 6 5 4 3 4 4.3 R
16 5 4 6 5 5 6 6 6 4 5 5.2 VR
17 3 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 4 5.3 VR
18 6 5 6 6 5 6 5 4 4 6 5.3 VR
19 6 3 4 6 5 5 6 4 4 4 4.7 VR
20 5 4 5 5 6 6 5 4 5 4 4.9 VR
21 5 4 6 5 5 6 6 4 5 4 5.0 VR
Ave. 4.7 3.9 4.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.1 4.6 4.8 VR
Legend: VVR – Very Very Resilient MR – Moderately Resilient
VR – Very Resilient LR – Less Resilient
R – Resilient NR – Not Resilient
 44

Table 4.A shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers’

morale pertaining to their self as a teacher.

This table shows that the highest mean is 4.6 interpreted as very high morale are all

about being professional, loving the profession: teaching and enjoying working with the

students.

Table 4.A

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Morale: Pertaining to Self as a Teacher

PERTAINING TO SELF AS A TEACHER

Respondents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 4 5 2 2 5 2 4 2 3 5 3.4 MM
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 4 3 3 1 3 3 3 5 4 3.3 MM
3. Amor G. Orozco 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4.6 VHM
4. Josephine E Feria 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 4.0 HM
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 3 4 3 3 5 4 5 4 4 5 4.0 HM
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 4 3 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 3.6 HM
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.7 VHM
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 5 4 3 3 5 3 5 3 5 5 4.1 HM
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 4.3 HM
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4.3 HM
4. 4. 3. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 4.
Average 2 6 4 5 1 4 2 7 6 6 4.0 HM

Table 4.B shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers’

morale about their work as a teacher.

The highest average mean is 4.4 interpreted as high morale are items 14 ( the

teachers in school cooperate with each other to achieve common, personal and professional

objectives) and 21 ( the teacher with whom the respondent work with have high professional

ethics). The average mean is 3.8 which is interpreted as high morale.

Table 4.B

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Morale: About Their Work as a Teacher

ABOUT MY WORK AS A TEACHER

Respondents 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ave. V.I.
 45

1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 2.9 MM

2. Isabel O. Granado 5 4 4 4 3 5 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 HM
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 1 4 3 5 4 4 4 3.1 MM
4. Josephine E Feria 4 3 2 4 3 4 4 2 4 5 5 2 4 4 3.4 MM
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.3 HM
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 3 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 5 4 3.4 MM
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4.5 HM
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 3 4 3 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.4 MM
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.8 HM
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 3.7 HM
3. 3. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. 3. 4.
Average 8 3 1 4 3 1 9 4 3 3 4 7 3 4 3.6 HM

Table 4.C shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers’

morale about their teaching concern.

The highest average mean is 4.6 interpreted as very high morale is items 31

( teaching enables the respondents to make their greatest contribution to the society) The

average mean is 4.0 which is interpreted as high morale.

Table 4.C

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Morale: About Their Teaching Concern

TEACHING CONCERN
Respondents 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 3.1 MM
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 4 2 2 3 3 3 3.0 MM
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 5 3 4 4 4 5 4.1 HM
4. Josephine E Feria 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 3.7 HM
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 4.1 HM
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 3 5 3 3 4 4 4 3.7 HM
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 4.6 VHM
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 5 3 4 4 4 5 4.1 HM
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 VHM
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4.0 HM
3. 4. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4.
Average 8 5 2 6 0 0 6 4.0 HM

Table 4.D shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers’

morale pertaining to the head.

 46

The highest average mean is 4.5 interpreted as high morale is item 36 (the

respondents’ head is concerned with problems of the faculty and handles it

sympathetically) .The average mean is 3.5 which is interpreted as high morale.

Table 4.D

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Morale: Pertaining to the Head

PERTAINING TO THE HEAD

Respondents 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 2 4 5 5 4 5 2 3 3.8 HM
2. Isabel O. Granado 3 3 3 4 5 5 2 3 3.5 MM
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0 HM
4. Josephine E Feria 2 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4.0 HM
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 2 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4.1 HM
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3.1 MM
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 2 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 3.9 HM
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 3 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.3 HM
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 1 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.3 HM
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 2 1 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.3 MM
2. 3. 4. 4. 4. 3. 4.
Average 3 4 4 2 5 6 4 1 3.8 HM

Table 4.E shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers’

morale regarding salaries, compensation and other benefits.

The highest average mean is 3.7 interpreted as high morale are items 41 (the salary

schedule in our school adequately recognizes teacher competency) and item 42 (within the

limits of financial measures, the institution tries to follow a generous policy regarding fringe

benefits, professional travels, professional study, etc.). The average mean is 3.5 which is

interpreted as high morale.

Table 4.E

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Morale:

Regarding Salaries, Benefits and other Compensation

REGARDING SALARIES, BENEFITS , etc.

Respondents 40 41 42 43 Ave. V.I.
 47

1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 1 1 3 2 1.8 LM

2. Isabel O. Granado 3 4 3 3 3.3 MM
3. Amor G. Orozco 3 3 3 2 2.8 MM
4. Josephine E Feria 3 4 3 3 3.3 MM
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 5 5 5 4.8 VHM
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 3 4 4 3 3.5 MM
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4 5 5 4 4.5 HM
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 3 4 4 4 3.8 HM
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 4 4 4 4.0 HM
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 3 3 3 4 3.3 MM
Average 3.1 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.5 MM

Table 4.F shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers’

morale regarding community recognition.

The highest average mean is 4.5 interpreted as high morale are items 44 (it is easy

for the teachers to gain acceptance by the people in the community) and item 48 (most of the

people in the community understand and appreciate good education). The average mean is

4.4 which is interpreted as high morale.

Table 4.F

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Morale: Regarding Community Recognition

COMMUNITY RECOGNITION
Respondents 44 45 46 47 48 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 HM
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 3 4 4 4 3.8 HM
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 4 4 4 5 4.2 HM
4. Josephine E Feria 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 VHM
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 VHM
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 4 4 4 4 4.0 HM
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 VHM
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 VHM
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 VHM
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 4 4 4 4 4.0 HM
Average 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 HM
Table 4.G shows the frequency distribution and descriptive measures of the teachers’

morale regarding students’ recognition of the teachers.

The average mean are both 4.4 interpreted as high morale The average mean is 4.4

which is interpreted as high morale.

 48

Table 4.G

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the Teachers’ Morale:

Regarding Students’ Recognition of the Teachers

STUDENTS RECOGNITION OF THE

TEACHERS
Respondents 49 50 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 4 4 4.0 HM
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 4 4.0 HM
3. Amor G. Orozco 5 4 4.5 HM
4. Josephine E Feria 5 5 5.0 VHM
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 5 5 5.0 VHM
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 3 4 3.5 MM
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 5 5.0 VHM
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 4 4.0 HM
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 5 5.0 VHM
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 4 4.0 HM
Average 4.4 4.4 4.4 HM

Teaching Styles. Table 5 shows the teaching styles of the teachers. Table 5.A shows

that the highest mean is 4.5 interpreted as very satisfactory is item number 11 (the teacher

wants the students to have a broader perspective in the topic that he/she discussed). The

average mean is 3.0 interpreted as very satisfactory.

Table 5.A

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Teaching Style: Expert

Question Items
Respondents 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 2 4 4 5 4 3 5 3 3.8 VS
2. Isabel O. Granado 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3.4 S
3. Amor G. Orozco 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4.6 O
4. Josephine E Feria 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 4.3 VS
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 2 4 5 3 4 4 5 3.9 VS
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.8 O
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4.8 O
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4.5 VS
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4.0 VS
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4.6 O
Average 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.8 3.9 3.9 4.3 4 4.3 VS
 49

Table 5.B shows that the highest mean is 4.8 interpreted as outstanding is item

number 17 (it is the teacher responsibility to define what the students must learn and how

they should learn it). The average mean is 4.2 interpreted as very satisfactory.

Table 5.B

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Teaching Style: Formal Authority

Question Items
Respondents 2 7 12 17 22 27 32 37 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 5 4.3 VS
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 1 3 3 3 4 3 3 3.0 S
3. Amor G. Orozco 5 2 4 5 5 4 5 4 4.3 VS
4. Josephine E Feria 5 1 1 5 5 4 5 3 3.6 VS
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 2 4 5 5 4 4 5 4.1 VS
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4.9 O
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9 O
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.5 VS
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 1 3 5 5 4 5 4 3.9 VS
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4.5 VS
Average 4.4 2.9 3.6 4.8 4.6 4.3 4.7 4.2 4.2 VS

Table 5.C shows that the highest mean is 4.6 interpreted as outstanding is item

number 23 (the respondents show students how they can use various principle and

concepts). The average mean is 4.3 interpreted as very satisfactory.

Table 5.C

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Teaching Style: Personal Model

Question Items
Respondents 3 8 13 18 23 28 33 38 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 4.3 VS
2. Isabel O. Granado 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3.4 S
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4.4 VS
4. Josephine E Feria 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 4.4 VS
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4.4 VS
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4.8 O
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.8 O
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4.4 VS
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 4.1 VS
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4.6 O
Average 4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.3 VS
 50

Table 5.D shows that the highest mean is 4.7 interpreted as outstanding is item

number 20 (the respondents are concerned with developing the ability of the students to

think and work independently). The average mean is 4.3 interpreted as very satisfactory.

Table 5.D

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Teaching Style: Delegator

Question Items
Respondents 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 2 4 3 4 4 5 3 4 3.6 VS
2. Isabel O. Granado 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3.0 S
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4.3 VS
4. Josephine E Feria 4 5 4 5 4 3 3 4 4.0 VS
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4.4 VS
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.6 O
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.9 O
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4.4 VS
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 4.5 VS
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 O
Average 3.9 4.5 4.1 4.7 4.3 4.1 4 4.5 4.3 VS

Table 5.E shows that the highest mean is 4.8 interpreted as outstanding is item

number 39 (the respondents give students a lot of personal support and encouragement to do

well in class). The average mean is 4.4 interpreted as very satisfactory.

Table 5.E

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teachers’ Teaching Style: Facilitator

Question Items
Respondents 4 9 14 19 24 29 34 39 Ave. V.I.
1. Melissa Marie S. Ceñidoza 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 4.6 O
2. Isabel O. Granado 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 4 2.8 S
3. Amor G. Orozco 4 3 5 3 4 4 4 5 4.0 VS
4. Josephine E Feria 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4.6 O
5. Jay L. Pangilinan 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.8 O
6. Johanna Paula F. Malabonga 4 3 5 4 5 3 5 5 4.3 VS
7. Maricel M. Bonachita 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.9 O
8. Jocelyn D. Policarpio 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.6 O
9. Lornalyn B. Celon 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4.6 O
10. Glenda G. Nolasco 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 O
Average 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.1 4.4 4.8 4.4 VS
 51

Teaching Performance. The selected ten (10) teacher’s performances were also

evaluated by selected 200 students of Trinitas College.

The tables below show the profile of the teachers and the frequency distribution and

descriptive measures of their teaching performance as evaluated by their students.

Table 6.A shows the teaching performance of Ma. Cecilia Clemente who taught

mathematics and Physics subjects for high school. From the data below, it shows that her

average mean is 3.7 which is interpreted as very satisfactory.

Table 6.A

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Ma. Cecilia Clemente S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: Math III and Physics

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 9 6 5 0 0 4.2 VS
2 7 8 4 1 0 4.1 VS
3 4 8 6 1 1 3.7 VS
4 5 8 6 1 0 3.9 VS
5 4 8 8 0 0 3.8 VS
6 7 6 7 0 0 4.0 VS
7 5 9 4 1 1 3.8 VS
8 6 4 9 1 0 3.8 VS
9 5 6 8 1 0 3.8 VS
10 3 10 5 2 0 3.7 VS
11 5 5 7 3 0 3.6 VS
12 6 6 8 0 0 3.9 VS
13 4 8 7 0 1 3.7 VS
14 5 5 9 0 1 3.7 VS
15 7 6 6 0 1 3.9 VS
16 4 5 10 1 0 3.6 VS
17 5 5 9 1 0 3.7 VS
18 5 4 10 1 0 3.7 VS
19 5 4 9 1 1 3.6 VS
20 7 3 9 0 1 3.8 VS
21 6 3 10 0 1 3.7 VS
22 5 5 8 1 1 3.6 VS
23 5 5 9 0 1 3.7 VS
24 4 6 8 1 1 3.6 VS
25 4 6 9 0 1 3.6 VS
26 6 3 8 3 0 3.6 VS
27 5 6 8 0 1 3.7 VS
 52

28 6 4 8 1 0 3.6 VS
29 4 7 6 3 0 3.6 VS
30 4 5 9 1 0 3.5 S
31 8 3 7 1 1 3.8 VS
32 4 4 10 1 1 3.5 S
33 6 4 7 2 1 3.6 VS
34 4 6 6 3 0 3.4 S
35 5 3 10 1 1 3.5 S
36 5 3 10 2 0 3.6 VS
37 4 6 7 2 1 3.5 S
38 6 3 8 3 0 3.6 VS
39 4 8 6 1 1 3.7 VS
40 5 6 7 1 1 3.7 VS
Average 3.7 VS

Table 6.B shows the teaching performance of Norman Contreras who taught English

subjects for high school. From the data below, it shows that his average mean is 4.6 which is

interpreted as outstanding. This survey was very remarkable and interesting for the teachers

being evaluated because of a very high remarks given to him by his students.

Table 6.B

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Norman B. Contreras S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: English

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 11 8 1 0 0 4.5 VS
2 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
3 11 6 3 0 0 4.4 VS
4 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
5 13 2 5 0 0 4.4 VS
6 13 6 0 1 0 4.6 O
7 11 6 2 1 0 4.4 VS
8 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
9 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
10 13 4 3 0 0 4.5 VS
11 16 3 1 0 0 4.8 O
12 17 2 1 0 0 4.8 O
13 15 4 1 0 0 4.7 O
14 14 5 1 0 0 4.7 O
15 14 5 1 0 0 4.7 O
16 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
17 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
18 12 8 0 0 0 4.6 O
19 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
20 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
 53

21 16 2 2 0 0 4.7 O
22 15 4 1 0 0 4.7 O
23 13 4 3 0 0 4.5 VS
24 14 4 2 0 0 4.6 O
25 15 1 4 0 0 4.6 O
26 14 3 3 0 0 4.6 O
27 13 3 4 0 0 4.5 VS
28 15 3 2 0 0 4.7 O
29 14 4 1 1 0 4.6 O
30 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
31 15 4 1 0 0 4.7 O
32 14 6 0 0 0 4.7 O
33 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
34 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
35 13 4 3 0 0 4.5 VS
36 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
37 14 2 4 0 0 4.5 VS
38 14 4 2 0 0 4.6 O
39 14 5 1 0 0 4.7 O
40 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
Average 4.6 O

Table 6.C shows the teaching performance of Gerard Gaza who taught AP and

Economics subjects for high school. From the data below, it shows that his average mean is

4.4 which is interpreted as very satisfactory.

Table 6.C

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Gerard Gaza S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: AP and Economics

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 11 8 1 0 0 4.5 VS
2 13 7 0 0 0 4.7 O
3 4 15 1 0 0 4.2 VS
4 9 8 3 0 0 4.3 VS
5 6 11 3 0 0 4.2 VS
6 8 9 3 0 0 4.3 VS
7 13 4 3 0 0 4.5 VS
8 9 6 5 0 0 4.2 VS
9 11 5 4 0 0 4.4 VS
10 12 5 2 1 0 4.4 VS
11 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
12 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
13 9 9 2 0 0 4.4 VS
14 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
15 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
16 8 10 2 0 0 4.3 VS
 54

17 10 8 2 0 0 4.4 VS
18 6 8 6 0 0 4.0 VS
19 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
20 10 7 3 0 0 4.4 VS
21 10 9 1 0 0 4.5 VS
22 8 11 1 0 0 4.4 VS
23 11 7 2 0 0 4.5 VS
24 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
25 9 9 2 0 0 4.4 VS
26 11 4 5 0 0 4.3 VS
27 10 7 3 0 0 4.4 VS
28 10 7 3 0 0 4.4 VS
29 12 4 4 0 0 4.4 VS
30 10 7 3 0 0 4.4 VS
31 11 8 1 0 0 4.5 VS
32 10 9 1 0 0 4.5 VS
33 9 9 2 0 0 4.4 VS
34 8 9 3 0 0 4.3 VS
35 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
36 12 5 3 0 0 4.5 VS
37 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
38 9 6 5 0 0 4.2 VS
39 10 5 5 0 0 4.3 VS
40 10 9 1 0 0 4.5 VS
Average 4.4 VS

Table 6.D shows the teaching performance of Aurora Tan who taught Math and

Chemistry subjects for high school. From the data below, it shows that her average mean is

3.3 which is interpreted as satisfactory. This teacher was found by her students very sweet

and caring like a mother.

Table 6.D

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Aurora Tan S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: Math and Chemistry

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 3 8 8 0 1 3.6 VS
2 1 7 8 4 0 3.3 S
3 2 7 8 3 0 3.4 S
4 3 6 8 3 0 3.5 S
5 2 8 9 1 0 3.6 VS
 55

6 0 6 11 3 0 3.2 S
7 1 6 12 1 0 3.4 S
8 2 3 11 4 0 3.2 S
9 1 8 8 3 0 3.4 S
10 4 5 11 0 0 3.7 VS
11 4 4 9 3 0 3.5 S
12 2 8 8 2 0 3.5 S
13 0 4 10 6 0 2.9 S
14 0 4 12 3 1 3.0 S
15 2 7 8 3 0 3.4 S
16 3 4 11 1 1 3.4 S
17 2 8 8 1 1 3.5 S
18 2 5 9 3 1 3.2 S
19 4 7 7 1 1 3.6 VS
20 4 8 7 1 0 3.8 VS
21 0 4 13 3 0 3.1 S
22 1 5 12 2 0 3.3 S
23 2 5 10 3 0 3.3 S
24 4 7 6 3 0 3.6 VS
25 3 4 13 0 0 3.5 S
26 2 8 8 2 0 3.5 S
27 0 5 10 4 1 3.0 S
28 0 7 10 1 0 3.0 S
29 2 6 7 2 0 3.0 S
30 5 6 7 5 0 4.0 VS
31 2 5 10 1 0 3.1 S
32 4 8 8 2 0 4.0 VS
33 2 5 11 3 0 3.5 S
34 1 3 11 3 0 2.8 S
35 3 7 7 2 1 3.5 S
36 1 6 10 3 0 3.3 S
37 1 8 5 2 0 2.8 S
38 5 6 9 4 0 4.2 VS
39 1 3 8 4 1 2.5 F
40 4 5 5 6 0 3.4 S
Average 3.3 S

Table 6.E shows the teaching performance of Cheryll Barreda who taught Filipino

and AP subjects for high school. From the data below, it shows that her average mean is 4.5

which is interpreted as very satisfactory. She was found very interesting by her students

because of her humor in the field of teaching.

Table 6.E

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Cheryll Barreda S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: Filipino and AP
 56

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 7 11 2 0 0 4.3 VS
2 12 7 0 1 0 4.5 VS
3 7 13 0 0 0 4.4 VS
4 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
5 9 10 0 1 0 4.4 VS
6 7 13 0 0 0 4.4 VS
7 10 8 1 1 0 4.4 VS
8 7 11 1 1 0 4.2 VS
9 10 8 2 0 0 4.4 VS
10 6 13 1 0 0 4.3 VS
11 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
12 16 3 1 0 0 4.8 O
13 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
14 9 7 4 0 0 4.3 VS
15 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
16 8 11 1 0 0 4.4 VS
17 14 3 2 1 0 4.5 VS
18 11 7 2 0 0 4.5 VS
19 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
20 15 3 2 0 0 4.7 O
21 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
22 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
23 7 12 1 0 0 4.3 VS
24 13 7 0 0 0 4.7 O
25 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
26 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
27 13 7 0 0 0 4.7 O
28 9 11 0 0 0 4.5 VS
29 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
30 8 11 1 0 0 4.4 VS
31 11 8 0 1 0 4.5 VS
32 10 10 0 0 0 4.5 VS
33 10 9 1 0 0 4.5 VS
34 10 6 4 0 0 4.3 VS
35 11 9 0 0 0 4.6 O
36 9 10 1 0 0 4.4 VS
37 17 2 1 0 0 4.8 O
38 15 3 2 0 0 4.7 O
39 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
40 15 4 1 0 0 4.7 O
Average 4.5 VS

Table 6.F shows the teaching performance of Sheryl Magaling who taught Filipino

subjects for high school. From the data below, it shows that her average mean is 4.1 which is

interpreted as very satisfactory.

Table 6.F

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher
 57

Name of the Teacher: Sheryl Magaling S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: Filipino

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 9 7 3 1 0 4.2 VS
2 10 6 3 1 0 4.3 VS
3 7 8 5 0 0 4.1 VS
4 11 6 3 0 0 4.4 VS
5 9 4 7 0 0 4.1 VS
6 7 6 7 0 0 4.0 VS
7 7 7 4 2 0 4.0 VS
8 7 7 5 1 0 4.0 VS
9 8 6 5 1 0 4.1 VS
10 8 8 4 0 0 4.2 VS
11 10 3 7 0 0 4.2 VS
12 9 7 2 2 0 4.2 VS
13 7 7 5 1 0 4.0 VS
14 6 8 5 1 0 4.0 VS
15 12 5 3 0 0 4.5 VS
16 9 7 4 0 0 4.3 VS
17 6 8 6 0 0 4.0 VS
18 4 9 6 1 0 3.8 VS
19 7 9 4 0 0 4.2 VS
20 8 7 4 1 0 4.1 VS
21 9 5 4 2 0 4.1 VS
22 9 5 4 2 0 4.1 VS
23 7 7 4 2 0 4.0 VS
24 5 12 3 0 0 4.1 VS
25 8 6 6 0 0 4.1 VS
26 7 10 3 0 0 4.2 VS
27 6 7 7 0 0 4.0 VS
28 8 6 6 0 0 4.1 VS
29 9 2 8 1 0 4.0 VS
30 6 7 5 2 0 3.9 VS
31 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
32 10 7 3 0 0 4.4 VS
33 9 10 1 0 0 4.4 VS
34 8 11 1 0 0 4.4 VS
35 8 6 6 0 0 4.1 VS
36 8 7 5 0 0 4.2 VS
37 9 5 5 1 0 4.1 VS
38 11 3 6 0 0 4.3 VS
39 10 5 5 0 0 4.3 VS
40 10 3 7 0 0 4.2 VS
Average 4.1 VS

Table 6.G shows the teaching performance of Jocelyn Policarpio who taught Science

subjects for the Intermediate level. From the data below, it shows that her average mean is
 58

4.7 which is interpreted as outstanding. This is another inspiring result because it shows that

the students appreciated so much the effort of the teacher in teaching the subject.

Table 6.G

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Jocelyn Policario S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: Intermediate Subject Taught: Science 4 - 6

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 15 4 1 0 0 4.7 O
2 17 3 0 0 0 4.9 O
3 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
4 14 6 0 0 0 4.7 O
5 11 8 1 0 0 4.5 VS
6 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
7 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
8 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
9 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
10 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
11 16 4 0 0 0 4.8 O
12 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
13 16 4 0 0 0 4.8 O
14 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
15 14 6 0 0 0 4.7 O
16 16 4 0 0 0 4.8 O
17 11 9 0 0 0 4.6 O
18 16 4 0 0 0 4.8 O
19 14 6 0 0 0 4.7 O
20 17 2 1 0 0 4.8 O
21 15 4 1 0 0 4.7 O
22 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
23 16 4 0 0 0 4.8 O
24 17 3 0 0 0 4.9 O
25 18 2 0 0 0 4.9 O
26 19 1 0 0 0 5.0 O
27 16 4 0 0 0 4.8 O
28 14 6 0 0 0 4.7 O
29 16 3 1 0 0 4.8 O
30 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
31 17 1 2 0 0 4.8 O
32 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
33 13 7 0 0 0 4.7 O
34 13 7 0 0 0 4.7 O
35 17 2 1 0 0 4.8 O
36 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
37 18 2 0 0 0 4.9 O
38 17 3 0 0 0 4.9 O
39 13 7 0 0 0 4.7 O
40 14 6 0 0 0 4.7 O
 59

Average 4.7 O

Table 6.H shows the teaching performance of Johanna Paula Malabonga who taught

English subjects for high school. From the data below, it shows that her average mean is 4.4

which is interpreted as very satisfactory. This teacher can communicate very well in English

and can deliver the thoughts to the students clearly.

Table 6.H

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Johanna Paula Malabonga S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: English

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 8 10 2 0 0 4.3 VS
2 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
3 10 8 2 0 0 4.4 VS
4 10 9 1 0 0 4.5 VS
5 8 10 2 0 0 4.3 VS
6 7 11 2 0 0 4.3 VS
7 7 9 4 0 0 4.2 VS
8 6 10 4 0 0 4.1 VS
9 10 6 4 0 0 4.3 VS
10 10 8 2 0 0 4.4 VS
11 8 10 2 0 0 4.3 VS
12 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
13 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
14 11 8 1 0 0 4.5 VS
15 11 5 4 0 0 4.4 VS
16 8 11 0 1 0 4.3 VS
17 9 7 4 0 0 4.3 VS
18 10 10 0 0 0 4.5 VS
19 9 7 4 0 0 4.3 VS
20 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
21 8 12 0 0 0 4.4 VS
22 8 7 5 0 0 4.2 VS
23 6 13 1 0 0 4.3 VS
24 10 5 4 1 0 4.2 VS
25 14 5 1 0 0 4.7 O
26 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
27 8 10 2 0 0 4.3 VS
28 8 11 1 0 0 4.4 VS
29 10 7 3 0 0 4.4 VS
30 8 11 1 0 0 4.4 VS
31 11 7 2 0 0 4.5 VS
32 9 7 3 1 0 4.2 VS
 60

33 10 7 3 0 0 4.4 VS
34 9 9 2 0 0 4.4 VS
35 9 9 2 0 0 4.4 VS
36 11 7 2 0 0 4.5 VS
37 11 7 2 0 0 4.5 VS
38 11 7 1 1 0 4.4 VS
39 10 8 2 0 0 4.4 VS
40 12 8 0 0 0 4.6 O
Average 4.4 VS

Table 6.I shows the teaching performance of Irene Avila who taught Science for high

school students. From the data below, it shows that her average mean is 4.5 which is

interpreted as very satisfactory. This teacher is found to be very jolly while inside the

classroom.

Table 6.I

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Irene Avila S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: Science

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
2 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
3 11 7 2 0 0 4.5 VS
4 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
5 13 5 1 1 0 4.5 VS
6 10 9 1 0 0 4.5 VS
7 11 7 2 0 0 4.5 VS
8 14 5 1 0 0 4.7 O
9 12 6 1 1 0 4.5 VS
10 14 5 0 1 0 4.6 O
11 15 2 3 0 0 4.6 O
12 17 2 1 0 0 4.8 O
13 15 4 1 0 0 4.7 O
14 12 7 0 1 0 4.5 VS
15 12 8 0 0 0 4.6 O
16 14 6 0 0 0 4.7 O
17 10 8 2 0 0 4.4 VS
18 8 8 3 1 0 4.2 VS
19 11 6 2 1 0 4.4 VS
20 18 1 0 1 0 4.8 O
21 15 5 0 0 0 4.8 O
22 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
23 13 6 1 0 0 4.6 O
24 11 8 0 1 0 4.5 VS
 61

25 11 8 0 1 0 4.5 VS
26 15 4 1 0 0 4.7 O
27 14 5 0 0 0 4.5 VS
28 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
29 12 7 1 0 0 4.6 O
30 12 4 4 0 0 4.4 VS
31 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
32 13 5 2 0 0 4.6 O
33 11 8 1 0 0 4.5 VS
34 12 5 2 1 0 4.4 VS
35 12 5 3 0 0 4.5 VS
36 12 6 2 0 0 4.5 VS
37 16 3 1 0 0 4.8 O
38 12 8 0 0 0 4.6 O
39 9 7 3 1 0 4.2 VS
40 14 5 1 0 0 4.7 O
Average 4.5 VS

Table 6.J shows the teaching performance of Maria Antonette Limuco who taught

Math subjects for high school students. From the data below, it shows that her average mean

is 4.0 which is interpreted as very satisfactory. This teacher is found to have a very well

modulated voice that everyone inside the classroom could be able to hear what she is saying.

Table 6.J

Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Measures of the

Teaching Performance of the Teacher

Name of the Teacher: Ma. Antonette Limuco S.Y.: 2006-2007

Department: High School Subject Taught: Math

Items 5 4 3 2 1 Ave. V.I.

1 8 3 8 0 1 3.9 VS
2 8 7 4 1 0 4.1 VS
3 5 10 5 0 0 4.0 VS
4 9 3 7 1 0 4.0 VS
5 7 10 3 0 0 4.2 VS
6 5 8 6 1 0 3.9 VS
7 7 9 3 1 0 4.1 VS
8 5 8 4 3 0 3.8 VS
9 5 10 3 2 0 3.9 VS
10 6 8 6 0 0 4.0 VS
11 7 10 3 0 0 4.2 VS
12 11 7 2 0 0 4.5 VS
13 11 6 2 1 0 4.4 VS
 62

14 7 10 2 0 0 4.1 VS
15 6 8 6 0 0 4.0 VS
16 7 9 4 0 0 4.2 VS
17 3 8 8 1 0 3.7 VS
18 6 9 5 0 0 4.1 VS
19 3 14 2 1 0 4.0 VS
20 8 11 0 1 0 4.3 VS
21 7 9 4 0 0 4.2 VS
22 4 9 5 2 0 3.8 VS
23 5 8 7 0 0 3.9 VS
24 7 9 3 1 0 4.1 VS
25 6 9 1 4 0 3.9 VS
26 9 6 5 0 0 4.2 VS
27 8 7 4 1 0 4.1 VS
28 6 9 4 1 0 4.0 VS
29 7 9 4 0 0 4.2 VS
30 9 6 4 1 0 4.2 VS
31 8 6 6 0 0 4.1 VS
32 6 8 5 1 0 4.0 VS
33 5 9 6 0 0 4.0 VS
34 7 7 4 1 1 3.9 VS
35 5 4 11 0 0 3.7 VS
36 5 8 5 2 0 3.8 VS
37 7 7 5 1 0 4.0 VS
38 6 11 2 1 0 4.1 VS
39 4 7 8 1 0 3.7 VS
40 6 9 4 1 0 4.0 VS
Average 4.0 VS

Appendix A

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Name of Teacher:______________________________________________________
Department:__________________________________________________________
School Year:__________________________________________________________
Subject Taught:________________________________________________________

Instruction: Please evaluate the performance of the faculty concerned using the following
scale:
5 – Outstanding 3 – Satisfactory 1 – Needs Improvement
4 – Very Satisfactory 2 – Fair

1. COMMITMENT ( 25%)
This refers to the faculty member’s deep sense of responsibility to render
5 4 3 2 1
service for the development of the students’ well-being and the
advancement of his/her discipline.
1.1 Recognizes strengths and weaknesses
1.2 Shows concern in students as persons
1.3 Integrates learning objectives with students’ objectives in a
 63

collaborative process
1.4 Participates in collaborative efforts to address students’ or class
problems
1.5 Makes himself/herself available for consultation even beyond official
time
1.6 Shows sensitivity to individual student’s needs
1.7 Begins and ends the class promptly unless obstructed by highly valid
reasons
1.8 Assists in coordinating student’s needs with legitimate group inside and
outside of the
campus
1.9 Provide supplemental resources to facilitate teaching-learning activities
1.10 Displays continuous enthusiasm in the acquisition of knowledge and
skills

2. KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ( 25%)

This includes the faculty member’s scholarship and expertise in his/her 5 4 3 2 1
discipline
2.1 Explains the subject matter without completely relying on the
prescribed textbooks
2.2 Explains the lesson by citing examples and situations
2.3 Presents the lesson clearly and in an organized manner
2.4 Explains the subject matter with depth
2.5 Relates the subject matter to previous topics and to other related topics
2.6 Integrates topics discussed in the lesson
2.7 Cites current or up-to-date information on the subject matter
2.8 Integrates current and relevant developments to supplement information
in textbooks
2.9 Raises problems/issues relevant to the topics
2.10 Shows confidence in the delivery of lectures and conduct of
discussions

3. TEACHING FOR INDEPENDENT LEARNING ( 25%)

This pertains to the faculty member’s ability to organize the teaching- 5 4 3 2 1
learning process to maximize the learning potential of his/her students
3.1 Allows students to apply concepts learned to demonstrate
understanding of the lesson
3.2 Creates teaching strategies that allows students to learn concepts they
need to
understand
3.3 Stimulates learning by encouraging students to raise problems and
present solutions
3.4 Provides exercises which develop creative and critical thinking among
students
3.5 Enhances student’s self-esteem through proper recognition of their
 64

abilities
3.6 Motivates students to do their best
3.7 Accomplishes the objectives of the course through the lesson
3.8 Allows students to organize their academic related activities along well
defined objectives and acceptable student teacher rules
3.9 Promotes self-reliance and self-discipline among students
3.10 Allows students to make their own decisions and be accountable for
their performance

4. MANAGEMENT OF LEARNING ( 25%)

This refers to the faculty member’s ability to create and manage a conducive
5 4 3 2 1
learning environment and at the same time, guide, monitor and evaluate
student learning
4.1 Explains the syllabus at the beginning of the term
4.2 Provides opportunities for extensive participation of students in the
teaching-learning process
4.3 Assumes roles as facilitator, coach, inquisitor, integrator and referee in
drawing or encouraging students to acquire knowledge and understanding of
the concepts
4.4 Monitors student’s learning regularly
4.5 Designs and implements learning conditions and experiences that
promote healthy exchange of ideas and/or confrontation
4.6 Maintains an atmosphere conducive to learning
4.7 Summarizes major points in lessons and discussions
4.8 Uses varied teaching methods to enhance attainment of collective
learning objectives
4.9 Adopts other teaching methods if student performance are below
satisfactory
4.10 Stimulates students desire and interest to learn more about the subject
matter

Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B

Multiple Intelligence Asessment Scale

Place a "√" in the box beside each of the sentences listed below.
The numbers on the right side correspond to the following:
5 - very much like me 2 - not much like me
4 - considerably like me 1 - nothing like me
 65

3 - somewhat like me

Statements 5 4 3 2 1
1 I like all kinds of animals.          
2 I enjoy computing numbers in my head.          
3 I often speak clear images when I close my eyes.          
I engage in at least one sport or physical activity on a regular
4
basis.          
5 Magazines, newspapers and books are important to me.          
6 I have a pleasant singing voice.          
I'm the kind of person that people come for advice or counsel at
7
work or in my neighborhood.          
I regularly spend time alone meditating, reflecting or thinking
8
about important life questions.          
I can hear words in my heads before I read, speak, or write them
9
down.          
10 Math and/or science are among my favorite subjects in school.          
11 I often sensitive to color.          
12 I find it difficult to sit still for long periods to time.          
13 I like to organize things or straighten things out.          
14 I can tell when a musical note it off key.          
I prefer group sports like badminton, volleyball, softball to solo
15
sports such as swimming or jogging.          
I have attended counseling sessions or personal growth seminars
16
to learn more about myself.          
17 I enjoy nature and being outside.          
18 I enjoy thinking about what will happen in the future.          
I get more out of listening to the radio or a spoken word cassette
19
than I do from television or films.          
I enjoy playing games or solving brain teasers that require
20
logical thinking.          
I frequently a camera or camcorder to record when I see around
21
me.          
22 I spend a lot time thinking about where the mankind came from.          
I like working with my hands on activities such as sewing,
23
weaving, carrying, carpentry or model building.          
24 I frequently listen to the radio, cassettes, or compact discs.          
When I Have problem I more likely to seek out another person
25
for help than attempt to work it out on my own.          
26 I am able to respond to set backs with resilience.          
27 I enjoy investigating the "why" of the word around us.          
28 I enjoy games like scrabbles, anagrams, or passwords.          
29 I like to setup little "what if " experiments.          
30 I enjoy doing jigsaw puzzles, mazes and other visual puzzles.          
 66

My best ideas come to me when I'm out for a long walk or jog or
31
when I'm engaged in some other kind of physical activity.          
32 I enjoy fishing, hunting and growing, plants or cooking.          
33 I play musical instrument.          
34 I have at least three close friends.          
I have a special hobby or interest that I keep pretty much to
35
myself.          
I enjoy entertaining my self or others with tongue twisters,
36
nonsense rhymes or puns.          
My mind searches patterns, regularities or logical sequences of
37
things.          
38 I enjoy observing vivid colors and designs.          
I make collections like rocks, shells, leaves, insects/ butterflies,
39
stamps, sports card or jewelry.          
40 I often like to spend my free time out doors.          
41 "Who am I"? Has always fascinated me.          
42 My life would be poorer if there were no music in it.          
I favor social past times like monopoly or bridge over individual
43
recreations such as video games and solitaire.          
I have some important goals for my life that I think about on a
44
regular basis.          
Other people sometimes have to stop and ask me to explain the
45
meaning of words I use in my writing and speaking.          
My closets, drawers and top of my work area are generally tidy
46
and neat.          
47 I'm interested in new development in science.          
48 I can generally find my way around unfamiliar territory.          
I frequently used hand gestures or other forms of body language
49
when conversing with someone.          
Sometimes catch myself walking down the street with a
50
television jingle or other running through mind.          
I enjoy the challenge of teaching another person or group of
51
people, what I know what to do.          
52 I have a realistic view of my strengths and weaknesses.          
English, social studies, and history were easier for me in school
53
than math and science.          
54 I believe that almost everything has a rational explanation.          
55 I regularly check the weather reports for changing conditions.          
56 I am constantly drawing and or doodling.          
57 I need to touch things in order to learn more about them.          
I can easily keep time to a piece of music with a simple
58
percussion instrument like a drum or tambourine.          
59 I consider myself to be a leader or other usually expect me to be.          
60 I would prefer to spend a week end alone in a cabin in the words
         
 67

rather than a t a fancy resort with lots of people around.

I have always enjoyed categorizing or classifying objects into
61
similar groups.          
When I drive down the freeway, I pay more attention to the
62
words written on billboards than to the scenery.          
I sometimes think in clear, abstract, wordless, imageless,
63
concepts.          
64 Geometry was easier than algebra in school.          
I enjoy daredevil amusement drives or similar thrilling physical
65
experiences.          
66 I know the tones to many different songs or musical pieces.          
67 I feel comfortable in the midst of a crowd.          
68 I consider myself to be strong willed or independent minded.          
My conversations include frequent references to things that I've
69
heard or read.          
70 I want to understand "how things work".          
71 I find logical flaws in things that people say and do at home, at
work, or at school.          
I can comfortably imagine how something might appear if it
72 were looked down upon from directly above in a bird's eye-
view.          
73 I would describe my self as well coordinated.          
If I hear musical selection once to twice, I am usually able to
74
sing.          
I like to get involved in social activities, connected with my
75
words, school, church or community.          
I keep a personal diary or journal to record events o my inner
76
life.          
77 I enjoy having writing and having others acknowledge my skills.          
I feel more comfortable when something has been measured
78 categorized, analyzed or quantified in some way.          
79 I prefer t reading material that is heavily illustrated.          
I need to practice a new skill rather than reading about it or
80
seeing a video that describes it.          
I often make tapping sounds or sing brittle melodies while
81
working, studying or learning something new.          
My favorite classes in school involved laboratory science
82
instead of literature or social studies.          
I would rather spend my evening at lively party than staying at
83
home alone.          
I am self- employed or have at least thought seriously about
84
starting my own business.          
85 I like situations where I can follow set routine.          
86 I like to participate in activities where I can interact with others
         
 68

as part of a team.
87 I like projects in which I can work alone.          
88 I have been fascinated by the comparison of "god" to "God".          
I like to memorize facts and bits of information without any
89
particular content.          
When making decisions, I tend to rely on my own ideas and
90
ways of doing things.          
I enjoy walking in the forest observing the plants and animals all
91
about me.          
92 I like types of activity running, swimming and walking.          
93 I enjoy discussing "Who am I?"          
94 I like to dance.          
95 I enjoy helping things to grow: from a seed to an adult plant.          
96 I struggle with the argument "Which comes first the chicken or
the egg".          
97 I enjoy walking slowly and quickly both keep my heart healthy.          
98 I believe we should work hard to preserve our environment the
planet.          
99 I enjoy writing letters or notes to my friends.          
I can support the idea: "We can have a civilization without
100
having conflict".          
Appendix C

QUESTIONNAIRE ON MORALE

Respond to the following questions using the scale below:

5 - strongly agree 3 – moderately agree 1 – do not agree

4 – agree 2 – less agree

Please check the column that corresponds to your answer.

A.
Pertaining to Self as a Teacher 5 4 3 2 1
1 I feel that I am an important part of the school system.
2 I take the time to keep up professionally.
3 I am satisfied with the policies under which pay raises are granted.
4 I feel that my work is judged fairly by my dean.
5 To me there is no more challenging work than teaching.
6 I am well satisfied with my present teaching position.
I find contact with my students for the most part, highly satisfying and
7 rewarding.
8 I feel successful and competent in my present position.
9 I love to teach.
10 I really enjoy working with my students.
B. About my Work as a Teacher
 69

The work of individual faculty member is appreciated and commended

11 by our dean.
The faculty feels that their suggestions pertaining to salaries are
12 adequately transmitted by administration to the Board of Trustees.
As a teacher in the community, my non-professional activities outside
13 of the school are not restricted.
The teachers in our school cooperate with each other to achieve
14 common, personal and professional objectives.
15 Teachers clearly understand the policies governing salary increases.
Teachers in this school are expected to do a reasonable amount of
16 record keeping and clerical work.
The lines and methods of communications between teachers and the
17 dean in our school are well developed and maintained.
Teacher in our community feel free to discuss controversial issues in
18 their classes.
The cooperativeness of teachers in our school helps my work to be
19 more enjoyable.
Teachers feel free to go to the dean about problems of personal and
20 group welfare.
21 The teachers with whom I work have high professional ethics.
22 As a teacher, I think I am competent as most other teachers.
The teachers in our school have a desirable influence on the values and
23 attitudes of their students.

24 My teaching load is reasonable.

C.
Teaching Concern
My reasonable teaching load provides an adequate drive to pursue my
25 professional activities.
26 Teaching gives me a great deal of professional activities.
My teaching job enables me to provide a satisfactory standard of living
27 for my family.
Teaching enables me to enjoy many of the material and cultural things
28 I like.
29 Our teaching staff is congenial to work with.
My teaching position gives me the social status in the community that I
30 desire.
31 Teaching enables me to make my greatest contribution to society.
D.
Pertaining to Dean as Supervisor
32 Our dean shows favoritism in his relation with teachers in our school.
My dean supervises rather than “snooper vises” the teachers in our
33 school.
Our dean’s leadership in faculty meetings challenges and stimulates
34 my professional growth.
35 My dean shows a real interest in my department.
My dean is concerned with problems of the faculty and handles these
36 problems sympathetically.
 70

My dean has a reasonable understanding of the problems connected

37 with my teaching assignment.
38 My dean makes my work easier and more pleasant.
My dean makes effective use of the individual teacher’s capacity and
39 talent.
E.
Regarding Salaries, Benefits, and Other Compensation
40 Salary policies are administered with fairness and justice.
The salary schedule in our school adequately recognizes teacher
41 competency.
Within the limits of financial measures, the school tries to follow a
generous policy regarding fringe benefits, professional travels,
42 professional study, etc.
Salaries paid in this school system compares favorably with salaries in
43 other system with which I am familiar.
F.
Community Recognition about the Teaching Profession
It is easy for teachers to gain acceptance by the people in the
44 community.
45 Community cooperation inspires me to do my best as a teacher.
The community expects its teachers to meet reasonable personal
46 standards.
The community supports ethical procedures regarding the appointment
47 of members of the teaching staff.
Most of the people in this community understand and appreciate good
48 education.
G.
Students’ Recognition of the Teacher
49 My students appreciate the help I give them with their school work.
My students regard me with respect and seem to have confidence in
50 my profession.

Appendix D

RESILIENCY SKILLS AND ABILITIES SCALE

Read each question carefully and then rate yourself as to whether you agree or disagree with the
statement. Please answer all the questions and check the column that corresponds to your answer.
Use the following scale.
6 – strongly agree 4 – slightly agree 2 – moderately disagree
5 – moderately agree 3 – slightly disagree 1 – strongly disagree

Statements 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 Sometimes it is worth it to take risks that I shouldn’t.
2 I can tell when others are upset.
3 I have a lot of hope.
 71

4 Sometimes I need to take risks to make things better.

Someday I will be able to use what I have learned to help
5 others.
6 I can feel what other people are feeling.
7 That past is not as important as the future.
8 Some people cannot make it because of their childhood.
9 I can usually recognize when situations might be dangerous.
10 I am able to make my friends feel better when they are sad.
11 I get a lot of pleasure out of giving to others.
12 Someday I will be able to make my dreams come true.
13 Everyone is able to be loved.
14 If I have to, I take a lot of risks.
15 I can feel when a situation is dangerous.
16 I am happy with my life.
Even though parents hurt their children, they can still be good
17 parents.
18 In general, life is good.
19 People can depend on me.
I believe that it is best to take a risk, no matter what the
20 consequences.
21 A person can do a bad thing and still be a really good person.

Appendix E

TEACHING STYLE SURVEY

The following is a Grasha-Riechmann teaching style survey. Respond to each of the items
below in terms of how you teach. Try to answer as honestly and as objectively as you can. Resist
the temptation to respond as you believe you should or ought to think or behave, or in terms of what
you believe is the expected or proper thing to do.

Respond to questions below by using the following rating scale:

1 – strongly disagree 3 - undecided 5 - strongly agree
2 – moderately disagree 4 – moderately agree

Statements 1 2 3 4 5
Facts, concepts, and principles are the most important things that
1
students should acquire.
 72

2 I set high standards for students in this class.

What I say and do models appropriate ways for students to think about
3
issues in the content.
My teaching goals and methods address a variety of students learning
4
styles.
Students typically work on course projects alone with little
5
supervision from me.
Sharing my knowledge and expertise with students is very important
6
to me.
I give students negative feedback when their performance is
7
unsatisfactory.
Joining activities in this class encourage students to develop their own
8
ideas about content issues.
I spend time consulting with students on how to improve their work on
9
individual and/or group projects.
Activities in this class encourage students to develop their own ideas
10
about content issues.
What I have to say about a topic is important for students to acquire a
11
broader perspective on the issues in that area.
Students would describe my standards and expectations as somewhat
12
strict and rigid.
I typically show students how and what to do in order to master course
13
content.
Small group discussions are employed to help students develop their
14
ability to think critically.
15 Students design one of more self-directed learning experiences.
I want students to leave this course well prepared for further work in
16
this area.
It is my responsibility to define what students must learn and how they
17
should learn it.
Examples from my personal experiences often are used to illustrate
18
points about the material.
I guide students’ work on course projects by asking questions,
19
exploring options, and suggesting alternative ways to do things.
Developing the ability of students to think and work independently is
20
an important goal.
21 Lecturing is a significant part of how I teach each off the class session.
I provide very clear guidelines of how I want tasks completed in this
22
course.
I often show students how they can use various principles and
23
concepts.
Course activities encourage students to take initiative and
24
responsibility for their learning.
25 Students take responsibility for teaching part of the class sessions.
My expertise is typically used to resolve disagreements about content
26
issues.
This course has very specific goals and objectives that I want to
27
accomplish.
Students receive frequent verbal and/or written comments on their
28
performance.
 73

29 I solicit students’ advice about how and what to teach in this course.
Students set their pace for completing independent and/or group
30
projects.
Students might describe me as “storehouse of knowledge” who
31
dispense the fact, principles, and concepts they need.
My expectations for what I want students to do in this class are clearly
32
defined in the syllabus.
33 Eventually, many students begin to think like me about course content.
Students can make choices among activities in order to complete
34
course requirements.
My approach to teaching is similar to a manager of a work group who
35
delegates tasks and responsibilities to subordinates.
There is more material in this course than I have time available to
36
cover it.
My standards and expectations help students develop the discipline the
37
need to learn.
Students might describe me as a “coach” who works closely with
38
someone to correct problems in how they think and behave.
I give students a lot of personal support and encouragement to do well
39
in this course.
I assume the role of a resource person who is available to students
40
whenever they need help.

Appendix F

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE SURVEY

The purpose of this test is to measure your Emotional Intelligence
tendencies and abilities. Please write in the number that describes
your agreement with the statements. Use the following scale:

1 - disagree very much 2 - disagree moderately 3 - disagree slightly

4 - agree slightly 5 - agree moderately 6 - agree very much

I use negative and positive emotions as a source of wisdom about how to

1
navigate my life.  
2 Negative feelings help me to address what I need to change in my life.  
3 I am calm under pressure.  
4 I have the ability to monitor my feelings from moment to moment.  
When challenged, I am good at getting calm and focused to flow with life's
5
demands.  
When challenged, I am able to summon a wide range of positive emotions
6
such as fun, joy, fighting spirit, and humor.  
7 I am in charged of how I feel.  
 74

8 After something has upset me, I find it easy to regain my composure.  

9 I am effective at listening to other people's problems.  
10 I do not recycle or dwell on negative emotions.  
11 I am sensitive to the emotional needs of others.  
12 I have a calming influence on other people.  
13 I am able to motivate myself to try and try again in the face of setback.  
14 I try to be creative with life's challenges.  
15 I respond appropriately to other people's mood, motivations, and desires.  
I can easily enter into a "zone" state, or a state characterized by calmness,
16
alertness and focus.  
When time is right, I face my negative feelings and work through what the
17
issue is.  
18 I am capable of soothing myself after an upsetting event.  
19 Knowing my true feelings is crucial to my well-being.  
I am good at understanding the emotions of other people even when the
20
emotions are not directly expressed.  
21 I am adept at reading people's feelings by their facial expressions.  
22 I can easily set negative feelings aside when called upon to perform.  
23 I am aware of subtle social signals that indicate what others need.  
24 People view me as an effective coach for other's emotions.  
25 People who are aware of true feelings are better pilots of their lives.  
26 I am often able to improve the moods of others.  
27 I am a good person to come for advice about handling relationships.  
28 I am strongly attuned to other's feelings.  
29 I help others use their motivations to achieve their personal goals.  
30 I can easily shake off negative feelings.