1

Chapter 1
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Introduction
This Action Research wasundertaken to describe the impact of teacher-made
advance exercisesas interventionon disruptive behavior of pupils when learning
divisionskills in elementary arithmetic operation. The subjects of this study were Grade
Two A pupils who were constantly disrupting the class during Mathematics period
taken from the list made by the teacher through visual observation.
For the last two grading periods handling a cream class, a lot of repeated
disruptive behaviors such as incessant talking or getting out of their seats to name a few,
which were very taxingto the teacher,were observed. These disruptive behaviors were
mostly due to boredom especially to those pupils who got to finish their seatwork fast.
This called for a classroom management skill.
Hollowell (2013) mentioned in her article that classroom management skills are
essential for all teachers. Supervising a group of children with different personalities and
backgrounds is a challenging task. You are responsible for their academic growth while
ensuring that the learning environment stays welcoming and secure.

This includes

dealing with disruptive pupils.

According to Tyson (2013), disruptive students are always present in every
classroom. Regardless of scenario or perhaps how great you happen to be as being a

2
teacher, in one way or another they will and can befound. All of which will develop
problems provided an open possibility.
But we cannot isolate them from disrupting the whole class. Tyson (2013) further
emphasized that in relation to their presence as well as impact on virtually any class, as a
mentor, they are still your own obligation. Far more, you should apprehend them so as
not to induce further problems.
Stott (2013) cited that the days of pupils writing out pages of lines, or copying
large extracts of text as so-called sanctions or punishments are thankfully long gone. The
concept of using the pupils time, however, is still with us and with some creative
thinking can be used to reinforce behavioural expectations, while embedding a process of
problem solving.
So, to keep the class from further disruptions without giving any negative vibes to
these pupils with disruptive behavior, the researcher came up on an intervention utilizing
their active energy to their advantage.
Tyson (2013) added that coping with disruptive students is really not hard to do. It
might appear that they are probably the most challenging kinds to socialize with, however
once straightened, the once ex - bothersome types are often an asset in class. If you are
able to cause them to follow you, it's possibly one of the most satisfying durations within
your teaching career.
Thus, the study on the impactof a teacher-made advanceexercisesas intervention
on disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division skills in elementary arithmetic
operation was undertaken.

3
Framework of the Study
The use of a teacher-made advance exercisesas intervention in dealing disruptive
behavior of pupils when learning divisionskills in elementary arithmetic operation was
anchored on the theory of constraints of Goldratt (2004) which used the thinking
processes for a win-win conflict resolution.
The pupils in Grade Two Diamond class under the K to 12 Basic Education
Curriculum belong to the top forty of the 298 grade two pupilsof Manolo Fortich Central
Elementary School relative to their Grade One general average. They were most likely to
got bored or restless especially when they finished the given task early with nothing who
while waiting for the others to be through. Their boredom led to incessant talking or
getting out of their seats, thus, disrupting the class.
So, for a win-win solution, the teacher gave advance exercises for these pupils to
answer. They did not only free the class from disruption, they got enriched also through
the teacher-made advance exercisesas intervention given by the teacher.
Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram where both a control group and an
experimental group are compared.
The Pretest results of both groups were individually measured prior to the start of
the 3rd Grading Period which focused only on division lessons in elementary arithmetic
operation. After which,the experimental group was given the teacher-made advance
exercises as intervention while the control group was not. A Posttest was then given at
the end of the division lessons. Disruptive behavior of pupils from the experimental
group was recorded on a 14-day period prior to and during the conduct of this
researchbased on visual observation of the teacher.

Experimental
Group
(Pupils with
Disruptive Behavior)

P
R
E
T
E
S
T

Control Group
(Pupils with
Undisruptive
Behavior)

TeacherMade
Advance
Exercises
Interventio

P
O
S
T
T
E
S
T

Impact on
Behavior and
Test
Performance

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram Showing Two Groups of Pupils,

Type of Test Conducted, and Intervention Applied

Figure 1.1 shows the interplay among the independent, dependent, and control
variables. As shown, the independent variables are the teacher-made advance exercises
intervention with the Division Skills Pretest Performance as covariate. The dependent

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Intervention
Teacher-Made
Advance Exercises
Covariate
Division Skills Pretest
Performance

Impact
Behavior
Division Skills
Posttest Performance

CONTROL VARIABLE

Figure 1.1:

Pupil Behavior
Pupils with Disruptive Behavior
Pupils with Undisruptive
Schematic Diagram Showing the Interplay
Among Independent, Dependent, and
Control Variables

5
variables are the impact on disruptive pupil behavior and DivisionSkills Posttest
Performance.

The control variable is the pupils behavior which is classified as

disruptive and undisruptive.

Statement of the Problem

This study was aimed at describing the impact of teacher-made advance
exercisesas intervention on disruptive behavior of the Grade Two- Diamond pupils of
MFCES for the third grading period, School Year 2013-204, when learning divisionskills
in elementary arithmetic operation.
More specifically, this study tried to answer the following questions:
1.

Was there adecrease of disruptive pupils in class when intervention was used
during Mathematics period?

2.

Was there an increase in DivisionSkills Posttest Performance in the experimental

group as compared to the control group?

Statement of the Hypothesis

Ho1:

There was no decrease of disruptive pupils in class when intervention was

used during Mathematics period?

Ho2:

There was no increase in Division Skills Posttest Performance in the

experimental group as compared to the control group.

Significance of the Study

The researcher believes that the present study is beneficial to the Grade Two

6
Diamondpupils with disruptive behaviorsince such intervention did not only transform
their unacceptable behavior into an acceptable one, but enrichedtheir skills in divisionin
elementary arithmetic operation as well.
On the part of the teacher, stress from reprimanding them was not only
minimized, but an increase in their performance in divisionskillswas also seen.
Furthermore, the salient findings of this study will be beneficial to the other
teachers handling cream classes and to the entire school as well relative to MTAP
contests.

Delimitation of the Study

The coverage of this study focused on the performance of the Grade TwoDiamondpupilson the impact of teacher-made advance exercises as intervention on
selected pupils with disruptive behavior when learning division skills in elementary
arithmetic operation during the third grading period of Manolo Fortich Central
Elementary School, Manolo Fortich District 1, Division of Bukidnon, School Year 20132014.
Pupils in the experimental group were taken from the list observed by the teacher
having disruptive behavior during Mathematics period. Pupils in the control group were
those with undisruptive behaviors. Both groups were given the Pretest and Posttest.
However, pupils in the experimental group were the only subjects for the teacher-made
advance exercises intervention.
A Pretest Posttest Nonequivalent Group Quasi-Experimental Design was used in
this research method (Research Method, 2013).

7
Pretest and Posttest Questions were also teacher-made based on the Third Quarter
K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum division lessons.
Behavior performance evaluation was done through visual observation of the
teacher on a 14-day period prior to the conduct of this study and during the 14-day
research period.

Definition of Terms

Covariate

This is a continuous variable that is not part of the main

experimental manipulation but has an effect on the
dependent variable. The inclusion of covariates increases
the power of the statistical test and removes the bias of
confounding variables.

Disruptive Pupils

These pupils are observed to be displaying unacceptable

behaviors like incessant talking or getting out of their seats.

Teacher-Made
Advance Exercises

These exercises are prepared by the teacher based on the

third quarter divisionlessonsbut with a higher degree of
difficulty.

8
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of existing available literature as well as related

studies on the use of interventions to pupils with disruptive behavior in class.
Teaching a class with one or several disruptive students is not only a challenge for
the teacher, but also a threat to the well-being of the class. It is imperative that the
behavior be modified in order to create a positive and comfortable classroom
environment where learning can ensue. By implementing a few simple tactics with the
disruptive student, you can address negative behavior and regain control of the classroom
(Platt, 2014). If a pupil finds the work to be easy, he tends to get bored. Diversifying a
lesson plan to include supplementary activities to challenge pupils that find the work to
be easy, and retain activities that support struggling learners is what Platt added.
In the study of Wilson and Lipsey (2007) a positive overall intervention effects
were found on aggressive and disruptive behavior and other relevant outcomes. The most
common and most effective approaches were universal programs and targeted programs
for selected/indicated children.

The mean effect sizes for these types of programs

represent a decrease in aggressive/disruptive behavior that is likely to be of practical

significance to schools.

Multicomponent comprehensive programs did not show

significant effects and those for special schools or classrooms were marginal. Different
treatment modalities (e.g. behavioral, cognitive, social skills) produced largely similar
effects.

Effects were larger for better-implemented programs and those involving

students at higher risk for aggressive behavior.

9
Disruptive behavior on the classroom may be a result of a classroom with too
much free time (Lynn, 2014). This is true to those pupils who are considered fast in
learning the lesson. Lynn further stated that engaging the children mentally through
challenging drills may help the disruptive children stay engaged with the rest of the class.
In Gillispies (2005) Action Research Project on the effects of early intervention
on the defiant behavior of students using a social skill curriculum, behaviors improved
during the intervention period however many students reverted to previous behavior
during the time without intervention.
Wille (2002) stated in her study that children with ADHD may be affected by a
variety of distracting, impulsive, and inattentive symptoms.Such disruptive behaviors
may impede the student learning and instructions.Wille further stated that it is imperative
to implement effective classroom interventions to decrease such disruptive behaviors.

Chapter 3

10
METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the essential elements of the research process. Such
components as Research Design, Research Locale, Research Respondents, Sampling
Procedure, Research Instrument, Administration of Research Instrument, and Statistical
Treatment of Data are hereby presented.

Research Design
After a thorough research, a Non-Equivalent Groups Design (NEGD) of a QuasiExperimental Design is most fit for a pretest-posttest randomized experiment because the
groups used in this study were not equivalent. It used a pretest and posttest for a treated
and comparison group. The rationale behind the use of this method lies on the intention
of the researcher not just to describe the influence of intervention to disruptive pupils, but
also to determine the same when grouped according to specified variables.

Research Locale
This study was conducted in Grade Two Diamond class of Manolo Fortich
Central Elementary, Manolo Fortich 1 District, Tankulan, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon,
School Year 2013-2014.

Research Respondents
In this study, the experimental groupwas composed of eight (8)pupils with

11
disruptive behavior while the control group was composed of 32 pupils with undisruptive
behavior in class. These respondents were homogeneously grouped into this class before
the start of classes in terms of academic standing in the previous grade.

Sampling Procedure
The pupils in the experimental group were chosen based on their classroom
behavior as recorded by the class adviser on the anecdotal record.

Research Instrument
The teacher-made Pretest-Posttest which consist a 20-item test was used as
research instrument for this study. A table of frequency was prepared for a visual
evaluation of disruptive behavior of pupils in class.

Administration of Research Instrument

The researcher first sought the approval ofthe school principal and the district incharge for the action research proposal. The proposal was then forwarded to the Schools
Division Superintendent of Bukidnon for approval, with the teacher-made instrument and
intervention attached. After the approval of the Schools Division Superintendent, the
researcher then used the same to the respondents in class.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The analysis and interpretation of the gathered data were facilitated through the
use of the following measures:

12
1. Frequency and percentage was used in determining the extent of disruptive
behavior in class with the experimental group.
2. The mean was used to measure theincrease of Pretest and Posttest Performance
for both experimental and control groupin elementary arithmetic operation of
division.

13
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data and graph on the frequency and percentage of
disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division in elementary arithmetic operation
and the comparisonof means of both experimental and control groups in Pretest and
Posttest.

This also bears the analysis and interpretation done on these data.

The

presentation of the data proceeds following the order in the statement of the problem.

Problem 1. Was there a decrease of disruptive pupils in class when intervention

was used during Mathematics period?

Table 1 shows the table of frequency of disruptive behavior manifested by the

experimental group through visual observation of the adviser prior to the conduct of this
study on a 14-day period.Upon checking with the Class School Register (Form 1), it was
noted that on the days that these pupils were undisruptive, they were absent from class. A
95.54% of disruptive behavior was observed from the experimental group.
Table 1.1 shows the table of frequency of disruptive behavior manifested by the
experimental group through visual observation by the adviser during the 14-day research
period. It was noted that during the first day of the program, class disruption was not
manifested. That was their Pretest Day. Most of the allotted time for Mathematics period
was consumed so they hardly showed any class disruption. During the second day, which
was the first lesson in division skills, Pupils #2 and #6 manifested disruptive behavior in

14
class. They were able to finish the advance exercise given fast thus leaving them bored
while waiting for their exercises to be checked. Days 3-14 showed no more disruptions
since these two pupils were given the extra assignment of checking their exercises thus
leaving them busy with it until Mathematics period ended. A 1.79% of disruptive
behavior was observed from the experimental group.
Table 1

Pupil #1
Pupil #2
Pupil #3
Pupil #4
Pupil #5
Pupil #6
Pupil #7
Pupil #8

TOTAL

OCTOBER 2013
7

10

11

14

16

17

18

21

22

23

24

25

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

Percent
age

Pupils with
Disruptive
Behavior

Freque
ncy

Frequency and Percentage of Disruptive Behavior of Pupils (Prior)

14
14
14
14
14
13
12
12

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
92.86%
85.71%
85.71%

13 16 16 18 19 21 24 25 26 29 30 31 32 32 107

95.54
%

Table 1.1

Frequency

Percentage

Frequency and Percentage of Disruptive Behavior of Pupils (During)

10

11

12

13

14

Pupil #1

Pupil #2

Pupil #3
Pupil #4
Pupil #5

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

Pupil #6

Pupil #7

0%
7.14
%
0%
0%
0%
7.14
%
0%

Pupils with
Disruptive
Behavior

Day

15
Pupil #8

TOTAL

0%

1.79
%

Graph 1 illustrates the comparison on percentage of observed disruptive behavior

of pupils in the experimental group prior to this research and during the intervention. The
graph clearly shows a big drop on the percentage of disruptive behavior of pupils during
the intervention period.
Graph 1
Comparison on Percentage of Observed Disruptive Behavior
95.54

100
90
80
70
60
50

Percentage

40
30
20
10

1.79

0
Prior

Problem 2:

During

Was there an increase in Division Skills Posttest Performance in the

experimental group as compared to the control group?

Table 2 shows thePretest and Posttest Means of Experimental and Control

Groups. ThePretest means of both experimental and control groups are foundon the

16
second column. The third column shows the Posttest means of both experimental and
control groups.

Table 2
Pretest and Posttest Means of Experimental and Control Groups
Pretest Mean

Posttest Mean

Experimental Group

6.5

17.38

Control Group

4.63

12.94

Graph 2 is displayed for a visual linear presentation of Table 2. In Graph 2, the

red line shows the mean of the experimental group on its Pretest and Posttest. The blue
line depicts the mean of the control group on its Pretest and Posttest. It is evident in the
graph that the experimental group rated higher compared to the control group where no
intervention was given.
Thus, a higherincrease in the Posttest of the experimental group was observed as
compared to the control group.
Graph 2
Pretest and Posttest Means of Experimental and Control Groups

17
20
17.38

18
16

12.94

14
12
Experimental Group
Control Group

10
86.5
64.63
4
2
0
Pretest

Posttest

Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter recapitulates the salient features of this study in the summary. This
also reveals the findings that surfaced, as well as the conclusions made on the basis of the
findings, and the given recommendations on the basis of the findings and conclusions.

Summary
This study which utilized the Pretest-Posttest Non-Equivalent Groups Design of a
Quasi-Experimental Design intends not just to describe the impact of teacher-made
advance exercises as intervention on disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division
skills in elementary arithmetic operation but also to determine the same when these
pupils were grouped according to specified variable.

18
Conducted in Grade Two Diamond Class of Manolo Fortich Central Elementary
School, School Year 2013-2014, eight (8) pupils were assigned to the experimental group
who were noted to have disruptive behavior in class. The remaining 32 pupils whose
behavior was undisruptive were assigned to the control group.
To collect data needed for this study, the teacher-made Pretest-Posttest results of
the experimental and control groups were used. The visual observations of the disruptive
behavior of the experimental group before and during intervention were also used.
The following findings surfaced along the course of this study:
1.

With the use of the teacher-made intervention, disruptive behavior of pupils under the
experimental group was hardly noticed. However, after the intervention period, it was
observed that disruptive behavior of such group recurred.

2.

The means of both experimental and control groups increased in the Posttest, however,
the mean of the experimental group rated higher compared to the control group.
Conclusions
On the basis of the findings, the researcher drew the following conclusions:

1.

There was a positive impact on the teacher-made advance exercises as intervention on

disruptive behavior of pupils when learning division in elementary arithmetic operation.
Disruptive behavior of pupils in the classroom was somehow avoided through the use of
interventions to fill the gaps after having finished early on their seatwork in class.

2.

A strong positive linear relationship between the experimental and the control group
relative to its Pretest and Posttest means suggests that indeed both groups learned from
the class discussions. However, with the use of advance exercises as intervention to the
experimental group, the increase on the Posttest performance of the experimental

19
groupwas higher than the increase on the Posttest performance ofcontrol group based on
the result.
Recommendations
On the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the researcher offers the
following recommendations:
1.

Teachers should prepare in advance teacher-made exercises or other interventions that

could challenge the fast learners especially in the cream class for those pupils who tend to
get bored easily when they have an idle time in class to minimize if not eliminate
disruptive behavior.

2.

Teachers should be prepared with different kinds of intervention which are appropriate
for each subject and to the kind of learner as well.

3.

Future researchers are encouraged to undertake another study on the possible cause of
disruptive behavior of pupils making the results of this research as springboard.

4.

More in-depth study may be made on the impact of teacher-made advance exercises as
intervention on disruptive behavior of pupils.

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WORKS CITED SECTION:

Gillispie, Patricia M.(May 2005).
Diverting Disruptive Behavior.Retrieved from
http://www.nefstem.org/project/final_reports/Gillispie.pdf
Goldratt, Eliyahu M. (October 2013). Theory of Constraints.
http://www.toc-goldratt.cn/Theory_of_Constraints/?stay=1

Retrieved from

Hollowell, Karen. (October 2013). How to Handle Disruptive Students in the Classroom.
Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/how_2181266_handle-disruptive-studentsclassroom.html
Lynn, Diane. (March 2014). Strategies for Controlling Disruptive Behavior in the
Classroom.
Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/list_7677431_strategiescontrolling-disruptive-behavior-classroom.html
Platt, Lauren. (March 2014). How to Prevent Classroom Behaviors. Retrieved from
http://www.ehow.com/how_7844034_prevent-classroom-behaviors.html
Research
Method.
(October
2013).
Retrieved
http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/quasiexperimentaldesign.html

from

Stott, Dave. (October 2013). How to React to Disruptive Pupils. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingexpertise.com/e-bulletins/how-react-disruptive-pupils-3873

21
Tyson, Bennet. (October 2013). Just How to Deal with Disruptive Students Efficiently.
Retrieved from http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/just-how-to-dealwith-disruptive-students-efficiently-2829004.html
Wille, Jessica R. (August 2002). Reducing Disruptive Classroom Behavior with
Multicomponent Interventon:
A Literature Review.
Retrieved from
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2002/2002willej.pdf
Wilson, PhD., Sandra Jo and Lipsey, PhD., Mark W. (2007).
School-Based
Interventions for Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior: Retrieve from
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/School_Wilson-Lipsey_Article.pdf