ABSTRACT

This study focuses on determining the association of sex, social support and TLE
performance among and between each other, and whether or not the first three
factors could be used in predicting TLE performance of 250 grade 10 students of
Lopez National Comprehensive High School through correlation. The data
collected were analyzed through the Pearson rho correlational formula. The study
has found that the gender, social support and TLE performance has no
significant associations and does not significantly affect each other. Therefore,
LNCHS must conduct further studies to determine other factors which could
affect TLE performance of students.

KEY WORDS: Sex, Social Support and TLE performance

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Education plays a big role in everyone’s life wherein everyone needs to find ways

to improve it. Some researchers are trying to find a reason on what could be the effect

of every factor when it comes to education. There are many factors involved in student

learning and a failure. Out of ≥1000 grade 10 students of Lopez National

Comprehensive High School the researcher randomly selected 250 respondents. The

present study was undertaken to determine the association of their gender, social

support scores, health status scores, and TLE performance and to study the

relationship which exists between and among these variables. The researchers found

the need to determine these factors to clearly understand the factors which could affect

their performance in TLE.

1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1. What is the profile of Respondents in terms of?

1.1 Sex

1.2 Social Support System

1.3 TLE Performance

2. What is the relationship between Sex and TLE performance of LNCHS Grade 10

students?

3. What is the relationship between Social Support and TLE performance of LNCHS

Grade 10 students?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Gender is selected as a demographic risk factor primarily because male gender

was related to lower GPA and greater likelihood of academic warning. However, a

review of the research literature suggests that gender is not a consistent predictor

of overall academic achievement (Bridgeman & Wendler, 1991), although it has

been shown that males tend to outperform females in certain types of courses

(e.g., economics and electrical engineering courses) while females on average do

better in other types of courses (e.g., nutrition and dietetics) (Keller, Crouse, &

Trusheim, 1993; Schram, 1996). Prior studies have shown an inconsistent

relationship between gender and academic retention (Galicki & McEwen, 1989;

Ryland, Riordan, & Brack, 1994).

A measure of social support is included as a potential predictor. The transition

to higher level of education involves a noticeable increase in stress level in most

students (Fisher & Hood, 1987; Towbes & Cohen, 1996). One potential buffer of

2
stress is social support (Arthur, 1998). It appears social support may be quite

crucial in successful transition to the school environment (Hays & Oxley, 1986).

Preliminary research has indicated that the presence of parental social support is

positively related to academic achievement (Cutrona, Cole, Colangelo, Assouline,

& Russell, 1994). There is also some consistent evidence that low perceived social

support is related to non-persistence (Mallinckrodt, 1988). In the present study, it

was expected that a measure of social support would relate to academic

achievement and attrition.

TLE performance was perceived as the perceived as the primary factor to be

associated to all factor. The factor was measured using the dtudents’ overall grade

for TLE for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grading period.

The research paradigm followed throughout the study could be seen on Figure

1.0
SEX
 MALE
 FEMALE

SOCIAL
SUPPORT

TLE
PERFORMANCE

Figure 1.0 Research Paradigm

3
 The gender factor was correlated to all the social support scores and the TLE

performance. Afterwards, the social support was correlated to TLE performance since

correlation between gender and social support was already determined. And TLE

performance served as the ending point being correlated to all the other factors.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Technology and Livelihood Education in the Philippines

Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE) is one of the nomenclatures of

subjects in the K to 12 Basic Education Program (BEP). As stated in 2013 K-12

EPP/TLE Curriculum Guide, TLE is geared toward the development of

technological proficiency and is anchored on knowledge and information,

entrepreneurial concepts, process and delivery, work values, and life skills. This

means that the TLE that works is one which is built on adequate mastery of

knowledge and information, skills and processes, and the acquisition of right work

values and life skills. The TLE that is functional is one which equips students with

skills for lifelong learning. TLE that is concerned only with mere definition of terms

is meaningless and shallow. TLE that is focused on mastery of skills and

processes without right work values is anemic and dangerous. An effective TLE is

one that is founded on the cognitive, behavioral, or psychomotor and affective

dimensions of human development. Therefore teaching TLE means teaching facts,

concepts, skills, and values in their entirety.

4
Gender Differences in Education

Past researches suggested that girls are in general more successful in school

than boys. Hartley and Sutton (2013) have recently reported that boys develop

gender stereotypes according to which girls are perceived as academically

superior with regard to motivation, ability, performance, and self-regulation.

However, previous studies revealed rather inconsistent results concerning gender

differences in different domains of school achievement. While in some studies,

boys exceeded girls in academic achievement; in other studies no gender

differences in academic achievement were found (Hannover and Kessels, 2011).

For instance, Machin and Pekkarinen (2008) argued that mixed evidence for

gender differences in school achievement could be explained in part by a higher

variance of boys' in comparison to girls' school achievement.

As Hyde (1990) pointed out, meta-analyses have consistently shown that there

are no significant gender differences in general cognitive abilities. Thus, although

cognitive abilities are significantly and positively related to school achievement,

they cannot explain gender differences in school achievement (Spinath et

al., 2010). Therefore, further “non-cognitive” variables have been examined in an

attempt to explain gender differences in school achievement. For instance, Spinath

et al. (2010) highlighted the importance of personality and motivation for gender

differences in school achievement. They found that a higher level of extraversion

was associated with higher grades for girls but lower grades for boys. Pomerantz

et al. (2002) noted that girls want to please adults to a higher degree than do boys,

which leads to girls' higher school grades. Furthermore, stereotypes are an

5
important influence on school achievement in that negative stereotypes disrupt

girls' mathematics performance (e.g., Keller and Dauenheimer, 2003).

Use of Support system

A person often feels disorganized when exposed to enormous amount of stress

(Casarez-Levison, 1992) and will often seek others for support (Greenberg &

Ruback, 1992; Leymann & Lindell, 1992; Norris et al., 1997). Everly et al. (2000)

indicated that helpful social supports could provide information, companionship,

emotional support and instrumental support. As Nolen-Hoeksema and Davis

(1999) pointed out, receiving positive social support after a trauma is related to

better adjustment. Researchers have distinguished between these several types of

social support (Leymann & Lindell, 1992). Emotional support is characterized by a

focus on esteem, concern and listening with a focus on the victim's feelings and

emotional reactions. Appraisal support focuses on social comparison, affirmation

and feedback targeted at helping the victim make sense of his or her experiences.

Informational support focuses on advice, suggestions, directives and information

that the victim might need. Finally, instrumental support focuses on tangible

support such as money, shelter, time or effort (Leymann & Lindell, 1992). For

example, although police and other members of the criminal justice system may

not be emotionally supportive (Campbell et al., 1999) they may be more supportive

with respect to providing information or offering tangible support through

investigation (Norris et al., 1997). Furthermore, Greenberg and Ruback's (1992)

decision-making model included social comparison (appraisal support) and

information seeking (informational support) and their research reinforced the strong

6
 influence bystanders can have on the victim's decisions in providing these forms of

support.

RELATED STUDIES

Laura Friedlander, Graham Reid, Naomi Shupak & Robert Cribbie (2007)

explored the joint effects of stress, social support, and self esteem on adjustment

to higher education. The total samples were 115 students, spss package have

been used to analysis the data where multiple regressions predicting adjustment to

university from perceived family social support, stress, and self-esteem were

conducted. From the fall to winter semesters, increased social support from

friends, but not from family, predicted improved adjustment. Decreased stress

predicted improved overall, academic, personal-emotional, and social adjustment.

Increased global, academic, and social self-esteem predicted decreased

depression and increased academic and social adjustment. Results are discussed

with respect to potential mechanisms through which support and self-esteem may

operate.

Akbar Hussain, Ashutosh Kumar & Abid Husain (2008), in their study

“Academic Stress and Adjustment Among High School Students”, examined the

level of academic stress and overall adjustment among Public and Government

high school students and also to see relationship between the two variables

(academic stress and adjustment). For that purpose 100 students of class IX were

selected randomly from two different schools out of which 50 were taken from

Public and the remaining 50 were taken from Government school Sinha. And

7
 Sinha scale for measuring academic stress was used to see the magnitude of

stress and Sinha and Singh Adjustment Inventory for school students was used to

examine level of adjustment among the students. Results indicated that magnitude

of academic stress was significantly higher among the Public school students

where as Government school students were significantly better in terms of their

level of adjustment. However, inverse but significant relationships between

academic stress and adjustment were found for both the group of students and for

each type of school.

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN

A cross-sectional correlation research design was used for this study where the

Grade 10 students’ Sex, MPSSS scores and SF-36 scores were assessed and

correlated to their TLE performance. This design enabled the researcher to observe

two or more variables at the point in time and was useful for describing a

relationship between two or more variables (Breakwell, Hammond & Fife-Schaw,

1995).

THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents are consisted of 250 randomly selected Grade 10 students of

LNCHS.

8
INSTRUMENTS USED

SEX

The genders of the respondents were gathered thru a part of the questionnaire

prompting them of their name, contact number, gender, etc.

Social Support

Social support was assessed with the Revised Multidimensional Perceived

Social Support Scale (MPSSS) (Dahlem, Zimet, Walker, 1990; Zimet, Dahlem,

Zimet, Farley, 1988). The MPSSS is a 12-item scale employing a 7- point Liken-

type format (1 =very strongly disagree; 7=very strongly agree). The instrument

used for this study employed a 4-point Like-type format (1=strongly disagree;

4=strongly agree)

TLE Performance

TLE Performance was assessed by their average TLE grade for 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd

Grading Period.

DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

To accomplish the study, the following procedures were considered and followed:

The researchers first constructed a questionnaire for data collection after

which, sought approval from the research adviser. After the research adviser

approved the questionnaire, permission from the concerned school was sought

9
 through a letter addressed to the principal. Afterwards, all data were collected and

have undergone recording and analyzing process.

STATISTICAL TEST

The researchers used the Pearson Rho Correlation Formulation as the primary

tool for analyses. The mean measure of central tendency was also used to analyze the

data.

RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION

The study targeted 250 Grade 10 students of LNCHS. The researchers got a

response rate of 100%.

1. SEX

The first part of the questionnaire asked the respondents some personal

information including their corresponding sex. The data was quantified as 1 for Male

and 2 for Female to be able to compute the necessary data.

Table 1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Sex

Number Percentage

Male (1) 129 51.6%

Female (2) 121 48.4%

TOTAL 250 100.00%

Table 1.1 shows that 129 or 52.6% of the respondents are male while 121 or

48.4% are female.

10
2. Social Support

Social Support variable was quantified thru the Revised MPSSS

administered to the respondents:

Table 2.1. Frequency Distribution of the answers in each question.

Legend:

1 = Strongly Disagree 3 = Agree

2 = Disagree 4 = Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4

1. There is a special person who is around when I am in need. 21 38 127 64

2. There is a special person with whom I can share my joys

14 46 90 100
and sorrows.

3. My family tries to help me. 14 11 83 142

4. I get the emotional help and support I need from my family. 3 21 139 87

5. I have a special person who is real source of comfort to me. 18 69 100 63

6. My friends really try to help me. 14 29 128 79

7. I can Count on my friends when things go wrong. 4 14 145 87

8. I can talk to my about my problems with my family. 20 112 75 43

9. I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows. 7 35 158 50

10. There is a special person in my life who cares about my

6 127 49 68
feelings.

11. My family is willing to help me make decisions. 0 34 152 64

11
Table 2.2. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 1.

Q1. There is a special person who is around when I am in need.

1 2 3 4

21 (8%) 38 (15%) 127 (51%) 64 (26%)

The table shows that in question number 1, 127 or 51% of the respondents have agreed

that there is a special person who is around when they are in need.

Table 2.3. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 2.

Q2. There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows.

1 2 3 4

14 (6%) 46 (18%) 90 (36%) 100 (40%)

The table shows that in question number 2, 100 or 40% of the respondents strongly

agrees that there is a special person with whom they could share their joys and

sorrows.

Table 2.4. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 3.

Q3. My family tries to help me.

1 2 3 4

14 (6%) 11 (4%) 83 (33%) 142 (57%)

The table shows that in question number 3, 142 or 57% of the respondents strongly

agrees that their family is trying to help them.

12
Table 2.5. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 4.

Q4. I get the emotional help and support I need from my family.

1 2 3 4

3 (1%) 21 (8%) 139 (56%) 87 (35%)

The table shows that in question number 4, 139 or 56% of the respondents have agreed

that the family is trying to help them.

Table 2.6. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 5.

Q5. I have a special person who is real source of comfort to me.

1 2 3 4

18 (7%) 69 (28%) 100 (40%) 63 (25%)

The table shows that in question number 5, 100 or 40% of the respondents have agreed

that there is a special person who is giving them comfort.

Table 2.7. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 6.

Q6. My friends really try to help me.

1 2 3 4

13 (5%) 29 (12%) 128 (51%) 80 (32%)

The table shows that in question number 6, 128 or 51% of the respondents have agreed

that their friends are really helping them.

13
Table 2.8. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 7.

Q7. I can Count on my friends when things go wrong.

1 2 3 4

3 (1%) 15 (6%) 145 (58%) 87 (35%)

The table shows that in question number 7, 145 or 58% of the respondents have agreed

that they can count on their friends when things go wrong.

Table 2.9. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 8.

Q8. I can talk to my about my problems with my family.

1 2 3 4

20 (8%) 112 (45%) 75 (30%) 43 (17%)

The table shows that in question number 8, 112 or 48% of the respondents have

disagreed that they can talk about their problems to their family.

Table 2.10. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 9.

Q9. I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows.

1 2 3 4

7 (3%) 35 (14%) 158 (63%) 50 (20%)

The table shows that in question number 9, 158 or 63% of the respondents have agreed

that they have friends with whom they can share their joys and sorrows.

14
Table 2.11. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 10.

Q10. There is a special person in my life who cares about my feelings.

1 2 3 4

6 (2%) 127 (51%) 49 (20%) 68 (27%)

The table shows that in question number 10, 127 or 51% of the respondents have

disagreed that they have a special person who cares about their feelings.

Table 2.12. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of answers for Question 11.

Q11. My family is willing to help me make decisions.

1 2 3 4

0 (0%) 33 (13%) 153 (61%) 64 (26%)

The table shows that in question number 11, 153 or 61% of the respondents have

agreed that their family is willing to help them in making decisions.

15
3. TLE PERFORMANCE

The variable TLE Performance was quantified through the respondents’ GPA for

their TLE Subject on three grading periods.

Table 3.1. Average TLE Performance for Three Grading Periods

MALE FEMALE

91.82 92.45

Hartley and Sutton (2013) have recently reported that boys develop gender stereotypes

according to which girls are perceived as academically superior with regard to

motivation, ability, performance, and self-regulation. However, previous studies

revealed rather inconsistent results concerning gender differences in different domains

of school achievement. However, Hyde (1990) pointed out that meta-analyses have

consistently shown that there are no significant gender differences in general cognitive

abilities. Thus, although cognitive abilities are significantly and positively related to

school achievement, they cannot explain gender differences in school achievement

(Spinath et al., 2010). Therefore, further “non-cognitive” variables have been examined

in an attempt to explain gender differences in school achievement. For instance,

Spinath et al. (2010) highlighted the importance of personality and motivation for gender

differences in school achievement. They found that a higher level of extraversion was

associated with higher grades for girls but lower grades for boys. Pomerantz et al.

(2002) noted that girls want to please adults to a higher degree than do boys, which

leads to girls' higher school grades.

16
4. SEX AND TLE PERFORMANCE

Table 4.1. Pearson Rho Computation between Sex and TLE Performance.

X Values Y Values

∑ = 371 ∑ = 22659

Mean = 1.484 Mean = 90.636

∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 62.436 ∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 1668.599

R Calculation

r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 43.384 / √((62.436)(1668.599)) = 0.1344

The value of R between Sex and TLE Performance is 0.1344. Although technically a

positive correlation, the relationship between your variables is weak (nb. the nearer the

value is to zero, the weaker the relationship).

17
5. SOCIAL SUPPORT AND TLE PERFORMANCE

Table 5.1. Pearson Rho Computation between Social Support and TLE Performance

X Values Y Values

∑ = 759.49 ∑ = 22659

Mean = 3.038 Mean = 90.636

∑(X - Mx)2 = SSx = 35.108 ∑(Y - My)2 = SSy = 1668.599

R Calculation

r = ∑((X - My)(Y - Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 22.665 / √((35.108)(1668.599)) = 0.0936

The value of R between Social Support and TLE Performance is 0.0936. Although

technically a positive correlation, the relationship between your variables is weak (nb.

the nearer the value is to zero, the weaker the relationship).

18
CONCLUSION

After the presentation and analysis of the collected data, the researchers therefore

conclude that:

1. There is little correlation between Sex and TLE Performance.

This finding further supports Bridgeman & Wendler’s (1991) claims that

gender is not a consistent predictor of overall academic achievement or in

this case, TLE Performance, although it has been shown that males tend

to outperform females in certain types of courses (e.g., economics and

electrical engineering courses) while females on average do better in

other types of courses (e.g., nutrition and dietetics) (Keller, Crouse, &

Trusheim, 1993; Schram, 1996). Prior studies have shown an inconsistent

relationship between gender and academic retention (Galicki & McEwen,

1989; Ryland, Riordan, & Brack, 1994).

In addition, Hartley and Sutton (2013) have recently reported that boys

develop gender stereotypes according to which girls are perceived as

academically superior with regard to motivation, ability, performance, and

self-regulation. However, previous studies revealed rather inconsistent

results concerning gender differences in different domains of school

achievement. While in some studies, boys exceeded girls in academic

achievement; in other studies no gender differences in academic

achievement were found (Hannover and Kessels, 2011). For instance,

Machin and Pekkarinen (2008) argued that mixed evidence for gender

19
 differences in school achievement could be explained in part by a higher

variance of boys' in comparison to girls' school achievement.

2. There is little correlation between Social Support and TLE

Performance.

In general, other researches have indicated that the presence of

parental social support is positively related to academic achievement

(Cutrona, Cole, Colangelo, Assouline, & Russell, 1994). There is also

some consistent evidence that low perceived social support is related to

non-persistence (Mallinckrodt, 1988). Casarez-Levison, (1992) discussed

that a person often feels disorganized when exposed to enormous amount

of stress and will often seek others for support (Greenberg & Ruback,

1992; Leymann & Lindell, 1992; Norris et al., 1997). Everly et al. (2000)

indicated that helpful social supports could provide information,

companionship, emotional support and instrumental support. As Nolen-

Hoeksema and Davis (1999) pointed out, receiving positive social support

after a trauma is related to better adjustment. Researchers have

distinguished between these several types of social support (Leymann &

Lindell, 1992). Emotional support is characterized by a focus on esteem,

concern and listening with a focus on the victim's feelings and emotional

reactions. Appraisal support focuses on social comparison, affirmation and

feedback targeted at helping the victim make sense of his or her

experiences. Informational support focuses on advice, suggestions,

directives and information that the victim might need. Finally, instrumental

20
 support focuses on tangible support such as money, shelter, time or effort

(Leymann & Lindell, 1992). For example, although police and other

members of the criminal justice system may not be emotionally supportive

(Campbell et al., 1999) they may be more supportive with respect to

providing information or offering tangible support through investigation

(Norris et al., 1997). Furthermore, Greenberg and Ruback's (1992)

decision-making model included social comparison (appraisal support)

and information seeking (informational support) and their research

reinforced the strong

RECOMMENDATIONS

After the conduct of this study, the researchers recommend;

1. Conduct further research regarding other factors which may affect the TLE

Performance of the Grade 10 Students of Lopez National Comprehensive High

School.

2. The school/department concerned should closely monitor the students’ TLE

Performance by, but not limited to:

2.1. Administering Diagnostic and Achievement Tests solely for TLE Subjects; and

2.2. Providing graded tasks to test skills of students.

21
IV. REFERENCES

Arthur, N. (1998). The Effects of Stress, Depression, and Anxiety on Post-

Secondary Students Coping Strategies. Journal of College Student Development,

39, (1), 11-22.

Baldacchino. D., & Draper, P. (2001). Spiritual coping strategies: A review of

the nursing research literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34, 833-841.

Bray, N. J., Braxton, J. M., & Sullivan, A. S. (1999). The Influence of Stress-

related Coping Strategies on College Student Departure Decisions. Journal of

College Student Development, 40 (6), 645-657.

Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (1991). Gender Differences in Predictors of

College Mathematics Performance and in College Mathematics Grades. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 83 (2), 275-284.

Brown, N. W., & Cross, E. J. (1997). Coping Resources and Family

Environment for Female Engineering Students. College Student Journal, 31 (2),

282-288.

Butler, Adam B., Desiree Spencer and Kama Dodge. 2011. Academic

Demands are Associated with Reduced Alcohol Consumption by College Students:

Evidence from a Daily Analysis. Journal of Drug Education 41(4): 359-367.

Carver, C. S. (2011). Coping. In R. J. Contrada & A. Baum (Eds.), The

handbook of stress science: Biology, psychology, and health: New York, NY:

Springer Publishing Company. 221–229.

22
 DeGraff, A., & Schaffer, J. (2008). Emotion-Focused Coping: A Primary

Defense Against Stress for People Living with Spinal Cord Injury. Journal Of

Rehabilitation, 74(1), 19-24.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and Promise. Annual

Review of Psychology, 55(1), 745-774.

Dahlem, N. W. Zimet, G. D., Walker, R. R. (1991). The Multidimensional Scale

of Perceived Social Support: A Confirmation Study. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

47 (6), 756-761.

Hays, R. B., & Oxley, D. (1986). Social Network Development and Functioning

During Life Transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 305-313.

Hussain, A., Kumar A. & Husain A. (2008), Academic Stress and Adjustment

Among High School Students. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied

Psychology, 34, 70-73

Lyles, T. (2005). Stress Recovery Manual. Florida: Healthful Communications,

Inc.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory

of Emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819.

Laureate Education, Inc. (2012). The Focus of Coping. [Handout]. Baltimore:

Author.

23