Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 43 no. 8 (2025)

Obstacles in the Instructional Process as Correlates to Student’s Involvement of Selected Secondary Public Teachers in Real District

Lynzy Paanod | Melchor Espiritu

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The study focused on Obstacles in the Instructional Process as Correlates to student’s involvement of selected secondary public teachers in Real District. This employed a descriptive method of research where the questionnaire is the main data gathering instrument. Eighty (80) respondents participated in the study. Statistical tools were used to measure and analyze the data results. The study revealed that the typical profile of the respondents comprised of age 21 to 30 years old, were female-dominated, were married individuals, in the Teacher I position, and attended trainings in the School Level. Also, the obstacles in the instructional process in the schools were sometimes experienced by the respondents. On obstacles related to students, it revealed the lack of student’s interest in homework. It implied that the main hindering factor in the instructional process in the students’ lack of interest in doing their homework. With regard to obstacles related to teachers it showed that the primary obstacle was heavy workloads for teachers. This showed that overloading work for teachers may affect the instructional process by damaging the instructional time allotted for the learning of the students in school. Moreover, students get often involved themselves in the instructional process in the schools as perceived by their teachers. On Emotional Engagement, it revealed that the pupils do like attending the classes. This elicited that the pupils were active in class and that they avoid absenteeism. As to Cognitive Engagement it showed that the pupils want to get good grade in class. This showed that the pupils targeted high academic performance in class as their teacher executes assessment. Then, there is no significant relationship between the obstacles in the instructional process and level of student involvement except for behavioral engagement in accordance with Obstacles related to teachers and cognitive engagement with regard to Obstacles related to teachers where it exhibited significant relationship between the obstacles in the instructional process and level of student involvement. In addition, there is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents on instructional process except for Obstacles related to textbook sources as to civil status and Obstacles related to students as to position where it exhibited significant relationship between the profile of the respondents on instructional process. Also, there is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents on student involvement except for behavioral and cognitive engagement as to civil status where it exhibited significant relationship between the profile of the respondents on student involvement. And, the intervention plan delineated and demonstrated the necessary interventions or even actions to be taken in addressing the obstacles in the instructional process and stimulate or invigorate student involvement in the schools. It is the framework or the program necessary and compulsory in streamlining and smoothing the instructional process and sustain the level of student involvement.



References:

  1. Asio, J. M. R. & Jimenez, E. C. (2020). Professional development, organizational climate, supervisory rapport and overall satisfaction of employees: An attitudinal study. International Journal of Scientific Research in Multidisciplinary Studies, vol. 6, no.4, pp. 34-40.
  2. Asio, J. M. R. & Riego de Dios, E.E. (2019). The college students’ perspective on what makes an educator well-qualified. Journal of Pedagogical Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 126-138.
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage Publications.
  4. Center for Educational Leadership (2015). 4 dimensions of instructional leadership. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Center for Educational Leadership.
  5. Cho, J., & Eberhard, B. (2013). When Pandora’s box is opened: A qualitative study of the intended and unintended impacts of Wyoming’s new standardized tests on local educators’ everyday practices. The Qualitative Report, 18(20), 1-22
  6. Danielson, C. (2011). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Retrieved from www.teachscape.com
  7. Danielson Group (2013). Framework for Teaching. Retrieved from http://danielsongroup.org/charlotte-danielson/
  8. Fink, S. & Markholt, A. (2011). The leader’s role in developing teacher expertise. In M.
  9. Grogan (Ed.) The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Fink, D., & Markholt, A. (2011). Leadership for powerful learning: A guide for instructional leaders. Corwin Press.
  11. Fink, S. & Markholt, A. (2011). Leading for instructional improvement: How successful leaders develop teaching and learning expertise. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
  12. Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. Free Press.
  13. Ghavifekr, S., Husain, H., Rsden, N. A., & Hamat, Z. W. (2019). Clinical supervision towards effective classroom teaching. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 30-42.
  14. Goe, L. & Holdheide, L. (2013). Measuring teachers’ contribution to student learning growth for “the other 69%” [PowerPoint Slides]. Washington DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.tqsourc.org/publications.
  15. Hall, P., & Simeral, A. (2015). Building teachers’ capacity for success: A collaborative approach for coaches and school leaders. ASCD.
  16. Hall, P. & Simeral, A. (2015). Teach, reflect, learn: Building your capacity for success in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Design.
  17. Holley, M. (2018). A teacher quality primer for Michigan school officials, state policymakers, media, and residents. Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
  18. Jerald, C. (2012). Ensuring accurate feedback from observations: Perspectives on practice. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
  19. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Learning from research.
  20. Legislative Council, State of Michigan, 380.1249 (2011). The revised school code act 451 of 1976, 380.1249 (2013).
  21. Lipscomb, S., Chiang, H., and Gill, B. (2012). Value-Added Estimates for Phase 1 of the Pennsylvania Teacher and Principal Evaluation Pilot. Mathematica Policy Research. April 5, 2012.
  22. Lopez, M. C. A. (2016). Classroom supervisory practices and their relationship to teacher effectiveness as perceived by secondary teachers. SMCC Higher Education Research Journal, vol. 2, pp. 119-131.
  23. Marshall, K. (2013). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: How to work smart, build collaboration, and close the achievement gap (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
  24. Marzano, R. and Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press
  25. Met Project Policy Brief (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study. (Policy and Practice Brief). Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  26. Murray, P. (2014). An Investigation of Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of Pennsylvania’s New Teacher Evaluation System, Based Upon the Danielson Framework for Teaching, and its Impact of Teachers’ Instructional Strategies in an Urban School District. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
  27. Oliva, P. F., & Pawlas, G. E. (2004). Supervision for better schools. Pearson.
  28. Pawlas, O.E. (2004). Supervision for today’s schools. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
  29. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books
  30. Reeves, D. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
  31. Republic Act No. 10533. Official Gazette. http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/05/15/republic-act-no-10533/
  32. Riego de Dios, E. E. (2020) Emotional intelligence and work values of selected instructors from a teacher education institution. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 92-97.
  33. Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S., and Brown, E. (2011). Rethinking Teacher Evaluation in Chicago: Lessons Learned from Classroom Observations, Principal-Teacher Conferences, and District Implementation. Chicago, IL: UChicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
  34. Suparto, (2020). Improving the learning quality of Math teachers through the academic supervision with technique of class observation. International Research-Based Educational Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 21-24.
  35. Tawalbeh, T. I. (2020). Instructors’ perceptions of EFL supervisors’ classroom observation practices at university level. International Journal of Education and Practice, vol. 1, pp. 45-56.
  36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  37. Weli, & Bako-Osu, N. (2019). Perceived impact of supervision on classroom management of public senior secondary schools in Port Harcourt Metropolis, River State. International Journal of Innovative Human Ecology & Nature Studies, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 59-75.

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic