International Teacher Education Conference 2014 1

International Teacher Education Conference 2014
learning, learning environment, diversity of learning, curriculum, planning, assessing and reporting, community
linkages, and personal growth and professional development. For the purpose of this study, the instrument was
modified by using numerical value to be encircled for ease in scoring. This was validated by experts.
PROCEDURES FOR DATA GATHERING
The researchers personally administered the questionnaire and checklists to student-teachers. Administration
followed immediately after they are settled for classroom observations. The administration was supplemented
with discussion to the respondents on how to properly answer the instruments.
TREATMENT OF DATA
To provide precise and objective presentation, analysis and interpretation of the qualitative and quantitative
information of the study, the following statistical tools were employed:
1. To determine the profile of the respondents, frequency and percentage were used.
2. To determine the level of competency of the student-teachers in seven (7) domains, mean was used.
3. To test the significant difference in the perception of the respondent groups on the level of competency
of SUCs student-teachers, One-Way ANOVA was used.
4. To test the significant relationship between SUCs student-teachers competency and the identified
variables in their profile, Pearson Product Moment of Correlation Coefficient was used.
The data were treated accordingly using Window-based SPSS with the help of a qualified statistician.
SCORING PROCEDURE
Each specific performance indicator under the seven (7) domains of the TEDP Checklists was provided 3-
point Likert-type scale with the following legend:
Scale
Interpretation
3 I can do this very well
2 I can do this but I need to learn more and improve
1 I am learning how to do this
The scores in each domain are added and the total is divided by the number of items (specific performance
indicators) under the domain. To obtain the competency level by individual student-teacher, the score in each
domain are added again and the total is divided by 7. The score is interpreted as follows:
Scale
Interpretation
3.25-4.00 Very Competent – satisfies most of the performance indicators
2.50-3.24 Competent – satisfies 75% of the performance indicators
1.75-2.49 Fairly Competent – satisfies 50% of the performance indicators
1.00-1.74 Poorly Competent – satisfies below 50% of the performance indicators
RESULTS
The results are presented according to the order of the Statement of the Problem as stated above.
1. Majority of the respondents of this study were female (70%) who are mostly 20 years old and below (63%).
In terms of socio-economic status of parents, the profile showed that majority of the respondents’ mothers
and fathers are elementary(39%) and high school levels (35%), respectively, who are working mostly as
unskilled or service workers. The family income reported by the respondents indicated that a great majority
have a low annual family income (77%). The profile also revealed that most of the respondents belong to a
family with six (6) members (74%). Moreover, majority of the respondents’ aptitude in OLSAT is below
average (44%); majority of the respondents have average aptitude in teaching (49%) and in English
proficiency (57%), respectively.
2. The level of competence of SUCs student-teachers as perceived by respondents on the seven domains of the
teaching and learning process when taken as a whole is high (see Tables 4, 5 and 6).
However, when each domain is considered separately, the respondents rated average only on the community
linkages.
Table 4. Level of competence of SUCS student-teachers as perceived by themselves
833