TEACHERS’ QUALIFICATION, FACILITIES AND COMPETENCIES …

The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication TOJDAC December 2017 Special Edition

Submit Date: 01.09.2017, Acceptance Date: 04.11.2017, DOI NO: 10.7456/1070DSE/105

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication 1299

TEACHERS’ QUALIFICATION, FACILITIES AND COMPETENCIES OF

THE GRADE 7 STUDENTS IN TECHNOLOGY LIVELIHOOD

EDUCATION OF SAN VICENTE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL: BASIS

FOR INTERVENTION PROGRAM

Manilyn R. Gualiza, Sofia C. Naelga & Jennefer P. Blanco

College of Science and Technology Education

University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The research aimed to assess the teachers’ qualification, facilities and competencies of the Grade 7 students

in Technology Livelihood Education of San Vicente National High School particularly in cookery and

horticulture. Specifically, the study covered the students and teachers’ profile and the problems encountered

on the availability of facilities and equipment. The descriptive research method was employed to achieve

the objective of the study of which the survey questionnaires were used to identify the strengths of the

students based on the teachers’ qualification, the available equipment and tools and the achievement in

cookery and horticulture. The general findings revealed that there were more female than male students

enrolled in Grade 7 at San Vicente National High School. On the teacher’s profile, the teachers handling

TLE were females, all are LET passers, National Certificate II holders and have completed their academic

requirements for a Master’s Degree. In terms of facilities, tools and equipment, there were areas which have

a minimal percentage of available tools and equipment. However, it was revealed that there was a fair

number of facilities for cookery and horticulture. On the other hand, the study further revealed that there

were certain factors that affected the level of students’ competencies in both Cookery and Horticulture.

Keywords: Teacher’s Qualification, Facilities, Competencies, Parental Support

INTRODUCTION

The research aimed to assess the teachers’ qualification, facilities and competencies of the Grade 7 students

in Technology Livelihood Education of San Vicente National High School particularly in cookery and

horticulture. Specifically, the study covered the students and teachers’ profile and the problems encountered

on the availability of facilities and equipment.

The descriptive research method was employed to achieve the objective of the study of which the survey

questionnaires were used to identify the strengths of the students based on the teachers’ qualification, the

available equipment and tools and the achievement in cookery and horticulture.

The general findings revealed that there were more female than male students enrolled in Grade 7 at San

Vicente National High School. On the teachers’ profile, the teachers handling TLE were females, all are

LET passers, National Certificate II holders and have completed their academic requirements for a Master’s

Degree.

In terms of facilities, tools and equipment, there were areas which have a minimal percentage of available

tools and equipment. However, it was revealed that there was a fair number of facilities for cookery and

horticulture.

mailto:[email protected]




On the other hand, the study further revealed that there were certain factors that affected the level of

students’ competencies in both Cookery and Horticulture.

METHODS

The study employed descriptive research design. The descriptive section of the study comprised the

teaching methods and approaches of the TLE teachers and the problems encountered in the teaching TLE

and the competence of the students. This was answered by means of obtaining the information which made

use of questionnaire.

The test questionnaires were composed of fifty items. This length of examination question is required by

the Department of Education for the high school five percent from the total scores. For instance, seventy

five percent of fifty is thirty seven and five round off to thirty eight correct answers.

Locale of the Study

The study was conducted at San Vicente national High School, San Vicente, Butuan City. San Vicente

National High School is one of the empowered secondary schools in West Butuan District, Butuan City,

wherein the school caters to all the students of the said barangay. SVNHS offers two areas of specialization

in Grade7 namely: cookery and horticulture.

As for the teachers, there are two of them in the TLE Department handling cookery and horticulture.

SVNHS has its population to almost 1,289 students in four year levels and 40 teachers. There are four (4)

hours allotted for TLE in a week, one hour in a day both for lecture and laboratory.

Presently, San Vicente National High School TLE Department uses facilities, tools and equipment acquired

long ago, there has been no aid given from the administration. If not for the teachers own initiative in

looking and providing for their own instructional materials, tools and equipment.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents under study were the Grade 7 students of San Vicente National High School. Students

were selected purposive because they have been exposed to different specialization offered by the TLE

curriculum in the Grade7 namely: cookery and horticulture.

Table 1.Respondents of the Study

Sections Respondents

Total Male Percentage Female Percentage

Padolina

24

52.17

20

43.47

44

Edison 19 51.35 18 43.47 37

Darwin 9 22.50 33 48.64 42

Pasteur 32 64.00 16 77.50 48

Total 84 49.13 87 38.00 171




Research Instruments

There were two instruments used in the study. First, questionnaires were taken from the Unified Division

Test conducted in the first grading period. Second questionnaire is given in the second grading period.The

questionnaire were validated using the Table of Specification (TOS) to assure there validity. The two

questionnaires that will be used to get the knowledge, skills and attitudes learned by the students in cookery

and horticulture respectively.

Validity and Reliability

The researcher made instrument on cookery and horticulture was pretested to grade 7 students. Randomly

selected students were pretested to check for reliability of instrument. The selected students for pretest were

excluded from the sample. The instrument for dependent variables was tested for reliability using Kurder-

Richardson 21 formula, the value r for cookery is at 0.88 which means it is reliable. The r for Horticulture

is at 0.50 which mean reliable but low reliability.

Data Gathering Procedure

The research methodology included the giving of questionnaire to the teacher respondents in order to obtain

the teaching methods used and the problems encountered in teaching TLE.

Along this line, the researcher will send a letter to the School Division Superintendent requesting permission

to conduct the study to the. Upon approval, the researcher inform the school head about the study, after

which, the researcher will distribute the questionnaires for respondents to answer. Then they were corrected

immediately, examined, checked, tallied, analyzed and interpreted.

Scoring guidelines

The following scoring guidelines were used in the study both for the students’ level of competency in

cookery and horticulture.

By Competency

Score Description

9-10 Very Good

7-8 Good

5-6 Fair

3-4 Poor

1-2 Very Poor

Over-All Competency

Score Description

41-50 Very Good




Statistical Treatment of Data

Since this is a descriptive research it is made used of statistics such as frequency count, percentages, and

weighted mean were used to describe the students and teachers responses; inferential statistics such as T-

test to test students achievement when grouped according to students and teachers profile; and regression

analysis to test the effect of independent variables to the dependent variables as used in the study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Findings

Problem Number 1. What is the profile of the Grade 7 students in Technology and Livelihood

Education in terms of the following: Gender, Monthly Income, Size of the family,

Tardiness/attendance, Parental Support?

Table 1.1. Distribution of Statistics (Mean, Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Grade 7 students’

Gender, Monthly Income, Size of the family, Tardiness and attendance

Characteristics Specifications Frequency Percentage

Distribution

Gender Male 84 49.12%

Female 87 50.88%

100.00%

Family size Small 15 8.77%

Medium 79 46.20%

Large 77 45.03%

100.00%

Family Income 25,001-40,000 3 1.75%

20,001-25,000 1 0.58%

15,0001-20,000 13 7.60%

10,001-15,000 21 12.28%

5,001-10,000 91 53.22%

0-5,000 42 24.56%

31-40 Good

21-30 Fair

11-12 Poor

0-10 Very Poor




100.00%

Attendance 56-60 69 40.35%

51-55 77 45.03%

46-50 22 12.87%

40-45 3 1.75%

100.00%

Tardiness 7-8 0 0.00%

5-6 13 7.60%

3-4 15 8.77%

0-2 143 83.63%

100.00%

The data shows that majority of the grade 7 students in San Vicente National High School is female with

medium to large family size. Most of their family earns between 5000-1000 a month. Majority of the students

are present in attendance, and comes to school on time.

Table 1.2 Distribution of Statistics (Mean, Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Grade 7 students’

Parental Support

Parental Support Response F %

Did your parents support you financially? Yes 84 49.12%

No 87 50.88%

100.00%

Did your parents purchase supplies for class in TLE? Yes 160 93.57%

No 11 6.43%

100.00%

Did your parents attend quarterly meeting Yes 94 54.97%

No 77 45.03%

100.00%

Did your parents support Homeroom PTA projects? Yes 152 88.89%

No 19 11.11%




100.00%

Did your parent monitor your performance in school? Yes 105 61.40%

No 66 38.60%

100.00%

The data show that majority of the parents of the grade 7 students do not support their children financially.

However, Majority purchase supplies for their class in their TLE subjects. Parents attend quarterly meeting

regularly. They also support Homeroom PTA projects. The data further show that majority of the parents of

the grade 7 students in San Vicente National High School monitor the performance of their children.

Problem Number 2. What is the profile of the Grade 7 teachers in Technology and Livelihood

Education?

Table 2.1. Distribution of Statistics (Mean, Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Profile of the Grade 7

teachers’ Gender, Reaching experience, Educational Qualification, Training, National Certificate,

Methods of teaching and Field of Specialization

Characteristics Specifications Frequency Percentage

Distribution

Gender Male 0 0.00%

Female 2 100.0%

100.00%

Nature of appointment Contractual 0 0.00%

Permanent 2 100.0%

100.00%

Position/Designation Teacher II 1 50.00%

Teacher III 1 50.00%

100.00%

Length of Service 1-5 1 50.00%

5-10 1 50.00%

100.00%

Educational MTTE 1 50.00%




Qualification MAed 1 50.00%

100.00%

National Non-NC II Holder 0 0.00%

Certificate NC II Holder 2 100.0%

100.00%

The data show that the grade 7 TLE teachers of San Vicente National High School are female. The teachers

have permanent position with a designation of teacher II and III. They have been teaching from 1 to 10

years. They have masters’ degree and National Certificate Holders.

After gathering and analyzing the instrument, it was found that T.L.E teachers are both with MA units in

their field of specialization in Home Economics and both of them LET passers as well as NCII holders .The

data have something to do with what Castro (2012) said prior to the implementation of the program that the

teachers have a lot of new things to learn in order to implement the curriculum. He further stated that one

to two months training are not enough. Chua (2012), in his column, stated that the incompetency of teachers

is rooted to the lack of academic conferences and seminar workshops and the hasty implementation of the

new curriculum.

Problem 3. What are the available tools and facilities for, Cookery and Horticulture?

Table 3.1 Recommended list of facilities, equipment and tools, required quantity, availability and Gap in

Cookery NCII

Cookery NCII Items

Office Equipment:

Required

Quantity

Available Gap

First Aid Cabinet 3 unit 1 2

TV 1 unit 1 0

Video Player 2 unit 0 2

Emergency Light 1 unit 0 1

Computer with internet Connection 3 unit 1 2

Fax Machine 1 unit 0 1




LCD 2 unit 1 1

Laboratory Equipment

Fire Extinguisher 2 unit 2 0

Emergency Light 1 unit 0 1

Exhaust Hood 3 unit 0 2

Dishwashing Machine 1 unit 0 1

Braising Pan –Medium 8 unit 0 8

Meat Slicer-small 1 unit 0 1

Preparation Table with Sink and Shelves (45x2B) 8 unit 1 7

Working Table Fabricated 2 unit 0 2

Condiment Cabinet 2 unit 0 2

Stainless Rack (5Shelves) 2 unit 0 2

Mop Squeezer 2 pcs. 1 1

Liquid Soap Dispenser 8 pcs 0 7

TOOLS:

Boning Knife 8 pcs 1 7

Oyster Knife 4pcs 1 3

Cleaver Knife 2 pcs. 1 1

Tenderizer(small, big) 8 pcs. 0 8

Skimmer Fine 8 pcs. 0 8

Wire Skimmer Small 8 pcs. 0 8

Skimmers Spider 8 pcs. 0 8

Zester 8 pcs. 0 8

Measuring UM 4 pcs. 0 8

Ice Cream Scoop 2 pcs. 0 2

Cheese Cloth 10 pcs. 2 8

Serving Spoon 24 pcs. 5 19




Pepper and Salt Mall 4 sets 1 3

Weighing Scale 5kg. 2 units 1 1

Weighing Scale 1000grms. 4 units 0 4

Apple Corer 8 pcs. 0 8

Wire Whisk (small) 8pcs 1 7

Wire Whisk (medium) 8 pcs 1 7

Kitchen Scissor 8 pcs 2 6

Soup Ladle 3oz. 8 pcs. 2 6

Soup ladle 6 oz. 8 pcs 1 7

Soup Ladle 8oz. 3pcs. 1 2

Soup Ladle 12 oz. 2 pcs 1 1

Kitchen Spoon 8 pcs. 1 7

Kitchen Spoon Slotted 8 pcs. 0 8

Kitchen Fork 8 pcs. 0 8

Carving Fork 3 pcs. 0 8

Pocket/Pin Thermometer 3 pcs. 0 8

Stock pot Large 2 pcs. 0 8

Frying Pan (small) 12 pcs. 1 11

Frying Pan (medium) 8 pcs. 2 6

Casserole (small) 1 pcs. 0 1

Casserole (medium) 12 pcs. 0 12

Wok (small) 4 pcs. 1 3

Double Boiler (medium) 4 pcs 0 4

Paella 1 pcs 0 1

Glass Rack 12 pcs. 0 12

Soup Cup Rack 12pcs 0 12

Plate rack 12 pcs. 0 12




Baking Tray(small) 8 pcs. 2 6

Roasting Pan 4 pcs. 0 4

The table shows that most of the tools and equipment needed in Cookery NCII were not available. This

could have affected the performance of the students in competencies required in qualifying for the NC II

Certificate. Inadequacy of tools were met through the effort and resourcefulness of the trainers by bringing

some of the tools available in their respective homes. Students also used their own tools available at home.

The checklist, as mentioned in the previous chapter, was taken from the Training Regulation (TR) of

TESDA per course or qualification.

This year is the full implementation of the curriculum. The school is hopeful that the government would

strengthen the tie-up between Dep-Ed and TESDA to produce quality graduates who will enter into the

world of work (Salvador). There is a need for more training for TLE teachers and acquisition of more tools

and equipment

Table 3.2 Recommended list of facilities, equipment and tools, required quantity, availability and Gap in

Horticulture NCII

TOOLS

Required

Quantity Available Gap

Budding knife 25 pcs. 0 24

Bolo 12 pcs. 1 11

Basin 5 pcs. 2 3

Broomstick 10 pcs. 3 7

Pail-12Li. 25 pcs. 1 24

Cutting tools

Pruning saw 5 pcs. 0 5

Hedge shear 5 pcs. 1 4

Kitchen knife 5 pcs. 2 3

Cutter 5 pcs. 1 4

Pliers 5 pcs. 1 4

Pruning shears 25 pcs. 2 23

Digging tools

Steel bar 5 pcs. 0 5




Pick mattock 5 pcs. 1 4

Hole digger 5 pcs. 1 4

Garden hoe 5 pcs. 1 4

Shovel 5 pcs. 1 4

Crates

Wooden crates 25 pcs. 0 25

Plastic crates 25 pcs. 0 25

Styrocrates 25 pcs. 0 25

Harvesting tools

Scythe 25 pcs. 0 25

Harvesting pole 13 pcs. 0 13

Ladder 2 pcs. 0 2

Hand trowel 25 pcs. 1 24

Hard Hat 25 pcs. 1 24

Measuring cups 2 pcs. 1 1

Sprinklers 12 pcs. 1 11

tools cabinet 1 pc. 1 0

Plow 1 pc. 0 1

Scissors 25 pcs. 2 23

Rake 5 pcs. 1 4

Equipment

Soil moisture and pH meter 5 units 0 5

Wheel barrow 5 units 1 4

Comb-tooth harrow* 1 unit 0 1

Hand tractor* 1 unit 0 1

Knapsack sprayer 5 units 0 5

Hand sprayer 5 units 1 4




Power sprayer 1 unit 0 1

Grass cutter* 2 units 1 1

Overhead sprinkler 5 units 0 5

Sprinkler mist 5 units 0 5

Button dripper 5 units 0 5

LCD/Overhead projector 1 unit 1 0

Post harvest treatment equipment* 0

Desktop computer/laptop 1 unit 1 0

PPE 25 units 1 24

Materials

Petri dish 25 pcs. 1 24

Calculator 25 pcs. 1 24

Puncher 5 units 1 4

Seedling tray with different holes 100 pcs. 10 99

Agri bag/plastics 10 m. 2 8

PE bag with different sizes 1000 pcs. 10 990

Growing media (50 kg.) 10 sacks 0 10

Rooting hormone 1 bot. 0 1

Basket 25 pcs. 1 24

Fish net 20 m. 1 19

Strainer 5 pcs. 1 4

Plastic sheet 10 kilos 1 9

Fertilizers 10 kilos 0 10

Flower inducer 1 kilo 0 1

Board marker 2 pcs. 1 1

White board 1 unit 1 0

Eraser 1 pc. 1 0




Pesticides 1 bot. 1 0

Rope 1 roll 1 0

Rubber band 1 box 0 1

Seed box 5 units 1 4

Seedlings assorted 100 pcs. 10 90

Soil auger 1 unit 0 1

Detergent soap 1 box 1pc 0

Bamboo stick 1 bundle 1 0

Bond paper 1 ream 1 0

Clips 1 box 1 0

First aid supplies 1 set 1 0

Permanent pens 5 pcs. 2 3

Mulching materials 1 roll 0 0

String 1 roll 1 0

Plastic twine 1 roll 0 0

Brush 5 pcs. 1 4

Measuring tape 1 pc. 1 0

Meter stick 5 pcs. 2 3

Sharpening stone 2 pcs. 0 2

The table shows that most of the tools and equipment needed in Horticulture NCII were not available .This

problem points to the same situation experienced with the lack of cookery tools and equipment, its effect

on NC II qualification, and the temporary solution to the lack of horticulture tools and equipment.

Inadequacy of tools were met through the effort of their resourcefulness of the trainers by bringing some of

the tools available in their respective homes.

This year is the full implementation of the curriculum. The government must strengthen the tie-up with

between Dep-Ed and TESDA to produce quality graduates who will enter into the world of work (Salvador).

There is a need for more training for TLE teachers and acquisition of more tools and equipment.

Problem number 4. What is the Students level of Competency in cookery and horticulture in terms

of; Identification of tools, Uses of tools, Maintenance of tools, Occupational Safety and Impact to

health?




Table 4.1 Distribution of Statistics (Mean, Frequency and Percentage Distribution) on students’

competence in utilizing kitchen tools and equipment in Cookery

Score Description Frequency Percentage

Distribution

9-10 Very Good 2 1.17%

7-8 Good 21 12.28%

5-6 Fair 37 21.64%

3-4 Poor 71 41.52%

1-2 Very Poor 40 23.39%

100.00%

Mean: 4.02

Standard Deviation: 1.91

Indicator Percentage of Correct Responses

1.Is the most popular material used for tools and equipment,

but is more expensive. 42.11%

2.Is greatly durable and cheap material of kitchen utensils

but may not last long. 16.37%

3.An essential utensils for various task from cleaning

Vegetables to straining pasta or tin contents. 30.31%

4.To level off ingredients when measuring dry ingredients. 22.22%

5.Use for turning food items while cooking. 30.41%

6.Commonly made up of heat proof glass and transparent

so that liquid can be seen when measuring. 40.94%

7. It makes the task of cleaning seafood and removing

the shell much easier. 35.09%

8. Enables you to move easily and transfer larger food




items, poultry or meat portions 57.31%

to a serving platter, to a hot skillet or deep fryer to plate.

9. Are used for whipping eggs, butter, and for blending

gravies, sauces, and soups. 70.76%

10. Are used to measure heat intensity. 56.14%

The data show that the students were not able to got the correct answer for the question, “Is greatly durable

and cheap material of kitchen utensils but may not last long?” probably because they lacked familiarization

of such thing. Many got the correct answer for the question stated as “Used for whipping eggs, butter and

for blending gravies, sauces and soup” because this question calls for tools commonly used by them.


competence in maintain kitchen tool tools and equipment in Cookery

Description Frequency Percentage

Distribution

9-10 Very Good 86 50.29%

7-8 Good 49 28.65%

5-6 Fair 27 15.79%

3-4 Poor 7 4.09%

1-2 Very Poor 2 1.17%

100.00%

Mean: 7.99



11. Boning Knife grip 94.74%

12.Measuring cup cooking. 67.25%

13.Spatula 88.89%

14.Wire Whisk 65.50%




15.Soup Ladle with steam heat. 67.84%

16.Carving Fork . 88.30%

17.Frying Pan 74.85%

18.Scraper 80.70%

19.Steamer 85.38%

20. Weighing Scale 85.96%

The data show that the students get low (65.50%) on competence in maintaining the tools wire whisk for

the reason that they lacked familiarization or some were familiar but they were careless in answering.

However, in knife boning maintenance majority of them (94.74%) very familiar with this task because

this is a part of their daily chores.


competence in cleaning and sanitizing tools and equipment in Cookery


Distribution

9-10 Very Good 26 15.20%

7-8 Good 98 57.31%

5-6 Fair 41 23.98%

3-4 Poor 6 3.51%

1-2 Very Poor 0 0.00%

100.00%

Mean: 7.17



21. Utensils need to be thoroughly washed in cold soapy water. 53.22%

22. Follow the instructions on the sanitize container carefully. 90.06%

23. All utensils must be then be thoroughly dried before they are re-used. 77.78%




24. Chemical sanitize or very hot water were used in absence

of dishwasher. 76.84%

25. Cleaning will remove most of the dangerous bacteria present

in the utensils. 86.55%

26. Keep the dish washing and storage areas clean. 92.40%

27. Always return tools and implements to their proper places. 84.80%

28. Keep cabinet doors open to prevent accidents and

rodents from entering 65.50%

29. Do not lean or sit on equipment and work tables. 36.36%

30. Clean ingredient containers whenever they get empty or

at least once in every three weeks. 65.57%

The data show that from the question given “do not lean or sit on the equipment and work tables” few

students (36.36%) are doing it because it is usual

for them. On the other hand, on the question “Follow the instruction on sanitize container carefully” on

the first day of school there were a lot of instructions given to the students’ on the “do’s and don’ts”,

therefore almost all of them remembered this precaution easily.


competence in storing and stacking tools and equipment in Cookery


Distribution

9-10 Very Good 9 5.26%

7-8 Good 17 9.94%

5-6 Fair 34 19.88%

3-4 Poor 68 39.77%

1-2 Very P0or 43 25.15%

100.00%

Mean: 4.11






31. Always wash your hands with soap and water

before starting work, after wiping spilled foods or sweeping up 25.73%

or after visit to the locker room.

32. Keep fingernails long and dirty. 50.29%

33. Wear a hair net, cap or hat which covers the hair and

prevent it from falling. 43.86%

34. Wear costume jewelry, spangled hair net or wrist watch

in the laboratory. 42.11%

35. Defrost refrigerator once a week and remove from

electrical connection. 32.16%

36. Wash bowl and beater after each use. 24.65%

37. Store pans upside down in clean shelves or rocks. 48.54%

38. Wash refrigerator frequently to keep it clean and prevent dirt

and bacteria from 60.82%

39. Open refrigerator door always. 42.69%

40. Store utensil dry, clean and in good condition. 46.20%

The data show that on the given question “Always wash hands with soap and water before starting

to work, after wiping spilled foods or sweeping up food”, students did not listen to the instruction given or

they failed to read the question carefully. While on the question” Wash refrigerator frequently to keep it

clean and prevent from dirt and bacteria” the students’ were used to do it at home which means that they

were engaged in practical world.


competence in calculating cost of production in Cookery


Distribution

9-10 Very Good 1 0.58%

7-8 Good 3 1.75%




5-6 Fair 65 38.01%

3-4 Poor 60 35.09%

1-2 Very P0or 42 24.56%

100.00%

Mean: 3.70



41.Why should we wear gloves and why should

we wash our hands? 88.89%

42.To prevent chemical contamination, chemical should be stored… 78.95%

43.To prevent allergens from being transferred to food. 61.40%

44. When should hand antiseptic be used ? 57.31%

45. Eggs and peanuts are dangerous to people with condition? 51.46%

46. What must food handlers do after touching their hair, face or body? 8.77%

47. What should food handlers preparing food and before

using the restroom? 5.85%

48. Food handlers should keep their fingernails 4.68%

49. What should food handlers do if they cut their fingers while

preparing food? 2.34%

50. Food handlers should not eat, drink, smoke or chew gum

or tobacco while 11.11%

The data show on the given question” What should food handlers do if they cut their fingernails while preparing food” the response led to the following assumptions: many of them did not listen carefully;

some were not properly oriented to the safety rule, or experience having cut their finger. On the question

“Why should we wear gloves and why should we wash our hands “many got the correct answer because

they were used to do it, and they had observed this practice in clinics and hospitals.





competence in Cookery


Distribution

41-50 Very Good 1 0.58%

31-40 Good 39 22.81%

21-30 Fair 116 67.84%

11-12 Poor 15 8.77%

0-10 Very Poor 0 0.00%

100.00%

Mean: 27.00


The data show that majority 68% of the respondents’ level of competency in cookery is fair. The

over-all rating is also fair (mean=27). The standard deviation of 4.93 indicates that the level of competency

of the students in cookery varies a lot from each other. The data further show that 23 percent are classified

as good. And 9 percent are poor. One student is classified as very good, however none of them also are

classified as very poor.


competence in selecting and using in Horticulture


Distribution

9-10 Very Good 11 6.43%

7-8 Good 46 26.90%

5-6 Fair 44 25.73%

3-4 Poor 46 26.90%

1-2 Very Poor 24 14.04%

100.00%

Mean 5.11




SD 2.30


1. It is used for cleaning the ground and levelling the topsoil. 53.22%

2. A tool used for removing trash or soil, digging canals or ditches 56.14% and mixing soil

media.

3. Which tool is used for outer row cultivation. 63.16%

4. A tool used for breaking hand topsoil and for pulverizing soil. 66.67%

5. It is used for cutting a bigger size post 38.01%

6. It is used for hauling water, manure and fertilizers. 52.63%

7. It is used for watering seedling and young plants. 53.80%

8. A tool used to spray insecticides, foliar fertilizers, fungicides

and herbicides 18.13%

9. A hand held agricultural tool with a variously curved blade typically 64.33%

used for cutting weeds.

10. Which tool is used for loosening and levelling soil and for digging 44.44%

out furrows for planting?

The data show that majority of the students’ performance in selecting and using farm tools in Horticulture

is good (26.90%). The overall rating of good (mean=5.10) with a standard deviation of 2.30 indicates that

their performance varries from each other. This shows that the students need more time for familiarization

of tools and equipment used indicated in the question given such ”A tool used to spray insecticide, foliar fertilizer, fungicide and herbicides”. The response to this shows that they had not seen this tool nor they

had handled it.


competence in selecting and operating farm tools in Horticulture


Distribution

9-10 Very Good 3 1.75%




7-8 Good 44 25.73%

5-6 Fair 61 35.67%

3-4 Poor 43 25.15%

1-2 Very Poor 20 11.70%

100.00%

mean 5.04

SD 1.93


11.Which of the following is an example of a digging tool? 59.06%

12. Which tool is used for cutting grass? 23.39%

13. What tool does NOT belong to the group? 47.95%

14. Farm tools are very important in pre-horticultural operations 27.49%

because they ___

15. A tool with one end of its blade flattened and the other pointed 74.85% at right angles

to its handle is a ___________.

16. Which tool resembles the appearance of a spoon and 64.91%

is used for transferring soil?

17. What implement is being pulled by a working animal to till the land? 47.37%

18. An implement attached to a tractor that is used to pulverize 75.44% the newly

plowed soil is .

19. An open container with a single wheel at the front and two 22.81%

handlers at the back used to transport things is a __________.

20. Which of the following tools is used to harvest crops? 60.23%

The data show that majority of the students’ performance in selecting and operating farm tools in

Horticulture is fair (35.67%). The overall rating is fair (mean=5.03) and the standard deviation of 1.93

indicates that their performance varries from each other. On the question stated as “An open container with a single wheel at the front and two handlers at the back used to transport things” shows that the students




need more time for familiarization of tools and equipment used. They were not used to handle them and

they need more time to discuss about these tools and equipment. While on the question “Used to attached

to a tractor that is used to pulverized the newly plowed soil”, some got the correct answer because they had

seen it, while the others are remembered these tools.


competence in performing preventive maintenance in Horticulture


Distribution

9-10 Very Good 3 1.75%

7-8 Good 22 12.87%

5-6 Fair 68 39.77%

3-4 Poor 44 25.73%

1-2 Very P0or 34 19.88%

100.00%

Mean 4.43

SD 1.97


21. Which tool is used for loosening the soil around the growing plants and putting small

amount of manure fertilizer in the soil? 42.11%

22. A tool used for cultivating the garden plot by loosening 51.46%

the soil and removing weeds around the plant.

23. A tool used for loosening the soil, digging out root crops and turning 43.27%

over the materials in a compost heap.

24. It is a farm implements used in horticultural operations pulled by 22.22%

working animal.

25. A native wooden harrow made of wood with metal teeth for 33.92% tilling and

pulverizing the soil.

26. An implement attached to a tractor used for tilling and pulverizing 28.07%




the soil.

27. A farm equipment used to pull a plow and harrow in preparing 32.16%

a large area of land.

28. A farm equipment used to pull disc plow and disc harrow in 49.71%

preparing much bigger area of land.

29. Which equipment is used to draw irrigation water from the source? 68.42%

30. It refers to material added to the soil to support nutrient. 71.93%

The data show that majority of the students’ performance in performing preventive maintenance in

Horticulture is fair (39.77%). The overall rating is fair (mean=4.43) and the standard deviation of 1.97

indicate that their performance varies from each other. This shows that the students need more time for

familiarization of tools and equipment used. On the question given” an implement used in horticural operations pulled by carabao”, the students are not the ones who pull the carabao themselves, or maybe

they forgot the name of the tool, or they did not think carefully of the answer. The question “It refers to material added to the soil to support nutrient”. The responses (71.98%) show that they were familiar of the

material especially in gardening when they used fertilizer to make their plants healthy.


competence in performing estimation in Horticulture


Distribution

9-10 Very Good 39 22.81%

7-8 Good 30 17.54%

5-6 Fair 47 27.49%

3-4 Poor 42 24.56%

1-2 Very P0or 13 7.60%

100.00%

Mean 6.01

SD 2.54





31.It refers to the equivalent value of the product sold. 47.37%

32. It refers the amount you owned. 46.78

33. It refers to the work performed by farm workers in exchange 67.84%

for salary.

34. The value remains after all the expenses have been deducted from 58.48% the grows

income.

35. It is the development of the seed into a young plant. 47.95%

36. One meter is equivalent to how many centimetre. 65.50%

37. Five kilometre is equivalent to how many meter? 56.14%

38 The best soil for vegetable crop and farm is________. 59.06%

39. Is sunlight and fresh air needed in the backyard garden? 77.78%

40. It is the real home of plants. 74.27%

The data show that majority of the students’ performance in Performing Estimation in Horticulture is poor

to fair (27.49%). The overall rating of poor (mean=6.01) and the standard deviation of 2.54 indicate that

their performance varies from each other. This shows that the students need more time for familiarization

and internalization of tools and equipment used. On the question given “Refers to the amount you own”,

they might have not experienced it at their young age”. These things did not stay in their minds. On the

other question” Is sunlight and fresh air needed in the backyard garden?” they got a high score because

they could relate it to the fact that all living things need sunlight and fresh air.


competence in performing basic workplace calculation in Horticulture


Distribution

9-10 Very Good 38 22.22%

7-8 Good 27 15.79%

5-6 Fair 34 19.88%

3-4 Poor 36 21.05%

1-2 Very P0or 36 21.05%




100.00%

Mean 5.44

SD 3.17


41. Sprinkler 69.59%

42. Knife 51.46%

43. Hand Fork 44.44%

44.Bolo 40.94%

45.Rake 45.03%

46.Shovel 54.97%

47.Prunning Shear 48.54%

48.Sprayer 71.35%

49.Pail 60.23%

50. Axe 57.31%

The data show that majority of the students’ performance in Performing basic workplace calculation in

Horticulture is poor to very good (22.22%). The overall rating of very good (mean=5.43) and the standard

deviation of 3.17 indicate that their performance differs from each other. This implies that the students have

time for familiarization and internalization of tools and equipment used. Although bolo is a very common

tool, the respondents scored low here probably because they did not read the question very well. While they

scored high in sprayer, this response was not indicative that they were sure of their answer because they did

not mind whether it is correct or wrong.


competence in Horticulture


Distribution

41-50 Very Good 8 4.68%

31-40 Good 56 32.75%




21-30 Fair 47 27.49%

11-12 Poor 54 31.58%

0-10 Very Poor 6 3.51%

100.00%

Mean: 26.02

SD 9.52

The data show that majority 59% of the respondents’ level of competency in cooker is from poor to fair.

The over-all rating is fair (mean=26.02). The standard deviation of 9.52 indicates that the level of

competency of the students in horticulture varies a lot from each other. The data further show that 33 percent

are classified as good, and 5 percent as very good. However 4 percent of the students are classified as very

poor in horticulture.

Problem Number 5. Is there a significant difference in students’ achievement in TLE when grouped

according to students and teachers profile?

Table 5.1 Distribution of statistics (T-Test) on Students’ level of competence when grouped according to

gender

Gender T –Value

Female

(n=87)

Male

(n=84)

Cookery 27.68 26.41 1.64 NS

Horticulture 25.79 26.26 0.32 NS

The table shows the distribution of statistics on respondents’ performance when grouped according to

gender. There were two groups being compared: male and female. The null hypothesis, there is no

significant difference in the respondents’ performance when grouped according to gender is ACCEPTED.

The result indicate that there is no significant difference (T=1.64 NS) in cookery (T=0.32) horticulture in

respondents’ performance when grouped according to gender. In terms of distribution of respondents

according to gender. The data indicate that there are more female respondents than male counterparts as

revealed in the frequency count of 84 males and 87 for females. According to the study of Delos Santos

(2010), gender affects the academic performance of the Technology and Livelihood Education students.


family income.




Family Income Below 10K

(n=121)

Above 10K

(n=50)

T-Value

Cookery 27.29 26.48 0.96 NS



family Income. There were two groups being compared: family income of below 10,000 and above 10,000.

The null hypothesis, there is no significant difference in the respondent’s performance when grouped

according to family income is ACCEPTED. The results indicate that there is no significant difference

(T=0.96 NS) in cookery (T=0.18 NS) and horticulture in respondents’ performance when grouped

according to family income. According to the study of Delos Santos (2010), family income affects the

academic performance of the students in Technology and Livelihood Education.


attendance.

Attendance Below 55

(n=102)

Above 55

(n=69)

T-Value

Cookery 27.04 27.07 0.03 NS



attendance. There were two groups being compared: below 55 and above 55. The null hypothesis, there is

no significant difference in the respondent’s performance when group according to attendance is

ACCEPTED. The result indicates that there is no significant difference (T=0.03 NS) in Cookery (T=0.26

NS) and Horticulture in respondents’ performance when grouped according to attendance.

It shows that there were a number of reasons for non-attendance, which include issues relating to financial

hardship and worthiness. According to (Devadoss& Foltz, 1996) students who miss classes perform poorly

compared to those who attend classes.


tardiness.

Tardiness 0 to 1 tardy

(n=103)

2-5 tardy

(n=68)

T-Value




Cookery 27.00 27.13 0.15 NS



tardiness. There were two groups being compared: 0 to 1 tardy and 2 to 5 tardiness. The null hypothesis,

there is no significant difference in the respondents’ performance when grouped according to tardiness is

ACCEPTED. The result indicates that there is no significant difference (T=0.15 NS) in Cookery (T=1.42

NS) and Horticulture in respondents’ performance when grouped according to tardiness. According to

(Harrman, 2007). Tardiness is a major problem in TLE. Not only do students lose valuable educational

instruction when they arrive late, but they disrupt the educational environment and distract others who are

in the class. Excessive student tardiness has a negative impact upon a student's future (Ried, 2000). Some

of the implications are academic failure, high school drop-outs, emotional dependency, and drug

dependency, fighting and bullying (Chang & Romero, 2008). Student tardiness is a key factor in

determining if a child will become at risk (Greenfield, 2002). Without intervention, tardy behaviors often

result in serious emotional and social problems (Harrman, 2007). Within a qualitative design, the researcher

interviewed chronically tardy students individually and in a focus group. Study findings evolved into

functional suggestions for intervention strategies focused on students and parents which can be

implemented by schools and local, state and national government agencies with the goal of reducing

tardiness in the middle school.


Parental Support #3.

Parental Support#3

Did your parents attend

quarterly meeting?

YES

(n=94)

NO

(n=77)

T-Value

Cookery 26.77 27.42 0.83 NS



Parental Support #3. There were two groups being compared: those who answered yes and no. The null

hypothesis, there is no significant difference in the respondents’ performance when grouped according to

Parental Support #3 is ACCEPTED. The result indicates that there is no significant difference (T=0.83 NS)

in Cookery and (T=1.18 NS) in Horticulture in respondents’ performance when grouped according to


It shows that education goal, and school readiness, recognize a need for young children to be better prepared

for entry into secondary school. Many low-income children exhibit a pattern of underachievement in

Technology Livelihood Education. This is revealed in the developmental gap between parents and their

children with respect to the extent of their numerical knowledge.






Parental Support #5

Did your parents monitor

student performance?

YES

(n=105)

No

(n=66)

T-Value

Cookery 28.10 25.39 3.52**

Horticulture 27.31 23.97 2.26*


Parental Support #5. There were two groups being compared: those who answered yes and those who

answered no. The null hypothesis, that there is NO significant difference in the respondent’s performance

when grouped according to Parental Support #5 is REJECTED. The result indicates that there a highly

significant difference (T=3.52 **) in Cookery and (T=2.26*) Horticulture in respondents’ performance

when grouped according to Parental Support #5. This shows that the students need parental support that

requires the parent to do their task. Moreover, Harb and El-Shaarawi (2006) found that the most important

factor with positive effect on students' performance is parental support.


teachers’ educational background and teaching experience

Teachers Educational background and teaching experience T –Value

MTTE 9 Years

(n=92)

MaED 3 years

(n=79)

Cookery 27.89 23.85 2.82 **

Horticulture 26.42 27.27 -1.7 NS


teachers’ educational background and teaching experience. There were two groups being compared: MTTE

and 9 years teaching experience and MAED with 3 years teaching experience. The null hypothesis, there is

no significant difference in the respondents’ performance when grouped according to teachers educational

background and teaching experience is REJECTED in Cookery but accepted in Horticulture . The result

indicates that there is a highly significant difference (T=2.82 **) in Cookery and (T=1.72 NS) in

Horticulture in respondents’ performance when grouped according to teachers educational background and

teaching experience.

Problem 6. To what extent students and teachers profile explain students level of competencies in

Cookery




Table 6.1 Muliple linear regression analysis between students, teachers profile and students level of

competencies in cookery

Variables Regression coefficient T-stat P- Value

Family size -0.43 -0.70 0.4822NS

Family Monthly Income -0.06 -1.01 0.3155NS

Attendance 0.15 1.11 0.2681NS

Tardiness 0.01 0.03 0.9769NS

Parental support 1 0.27 0.06 0.9562NS




Parental support 5 3.10 3.58 0.0004**

Age of teacher -0.01 -0.17 0.8617NS

Teachers Major 0.64 0.46 0.6445NS

NS: not significant

**: Highly Significant

Constant: 19.51

Adjusted R: 0.05

F- Value: 1.95

Significance Level: 0.0364

Regression model:

For every unit increase in the respondents family size there is a corresponding decrease of 0.43 in

respondents’ level of competency in Cookery.

For every unit increase in the respondents Family Monthly Income there is a corresponding decrease of

0.06 in respondents’ level of competency in Cookery.

For every unit increase in the respondents Attendance there is a corresponding increase of 0.15 in


For every unit increase in the respondent tardiness there is a corresponding increase of 0.01 in respondents’

level of competency in Cookery.




For every unit increase in the respondent parental support number 1 (Did your parents support you

financially) there is a corresponding increase of 0.27 in respondents’ level of competency in Cookery.

For every unit increase in the respondent parental support number 2 (Did your parents purchase supplies

for class in TLE?) there is a corresponding increase of 0.08 in respondents’ level of competency in Cookery.

For every unit increase in the respondent parental support number 3 (Did your parents attend quarterly

meeting) there is a corresponding increase of 1.64 in respondents’ level of competency in Cookery.

For every unit increase in the respondent parental support number 4 (Did your parents support Homeroom

PTA projects?) there is a corresponding increase of 1.64 in respondents’ level of competency in Cookery.

For every unit increase in the respondent parental support number 5 (Did your parent monitor your

performance in school?) there is a corresponding increase of 3.10 in respondents’ level of competency in

Cookery. And the relationship is highly significant.

For every unit increase in the respondent age of teacher there is a corresponding decrease of 0.01 in


For every unit increase in the respondent major of teacher (MA to MTTE) there is a corresponding increase

of 0.64 in respondents’ level of competency in Cookery.

The value of adjusted coefficient of multiple determination is 0.05 which explains that 5 percent of the total

variation of the students’ level of competency in cookery achievement is explained by the variation of the

student and teachers profile. The remaining 95 percent is due to unexplained variables. The regression

model is almost significant (F= 1.95) with (P-value= 0.0364)

Table 6.2 Multiple linear regression analysis between students, teachers profile and students level of

competencies in Horticulture

Variables Regression coefficient T Stat P- value

Family size -1.40 -1.31 0.1891NS

Family Monthly Income 0.02 0.21 0.8292NS

Attendance 0.01 0.06 0.9446NS

Tardiness -0.09 -0.20 0.8412NS

Parental support 1 -10.3 -1.17 0.2398NS

Parental support 2 -6.23 -2.23 0.0270+

Parental support 3 3.17 2.16 0.0321+


Parental support 5 -5.95 -3.94 0.0001**

Age of teacher 0.86 4.98 0.0000**




Teachers Major 7.85 3.21 0.0015**

+ almost significant

NS: not significant

**: Highly Significant

Constant: 4.67

Adjusted R: 0.18

F- Value: 4.60

Significance Level: 0.000

Regression model:

For every unit increase in the respondents’ family size there is a corresponding decrease of 1.40 in

respondents’ level of competency in Horticulture.

For every unit increase in the respondents’ Family Monthly Income there is a corresponding increase of

0.06 in respondents’ level of competency in Horticulture.

For every unit increase in the respondents Attendance there is a corresponding increase of 0.01 in

respondents’ level of competency in Horticulture. For every unit increase in the respondent’

tardiness there is a corresponding decrease of 0.91 in respondents’ level of competency in Horticulture.

For every unit increase in the respondents’ parental support number 1 (Did your parents support you

financially) there is a corresponding decrease of 10.3 in respondents’ level of competency in Horticulture.

For every unit increase in the respondents’ parental support number 2 (Did your parents purchase supplies

for class in TLE?) there is a corresponding decrease of 6.23 in respondents’ level of competency in

Horticulture. And the relationship is almost significant.

For every unit increase in the respondents’ parental support number 3 (Did your parents attend quarterly

meeting) there is a corresponding increase of 3.17 in respondents’ level of competency in Horticulture. And

the relationship is almost significant.

For every unit increase in the respondents’ parental support number 4 (Did your parents support Homeroom

PTA projects?) there is a corresponding increase of 3.77 in respondents’ level of competency in Cookery.

For every unit increase in the respondents’ parental support number 5 (Did your parent monitor your

performance in school?) there is a corresponding decrease of 5.95 in respondents’ level of competency in

Horticulture. And the relationship is highly significant.

For every unit increase in the respondents’ age of teacher there is a corresponding decrease of 0.86 in

respondents’ level of competency in Horticulture. And the relationship is highly significant.

For every unit increase in the respondent major of teacher (MA to MTTE) there is a corresponding increase

of 7.85 in respondents’ level of competency in Horticulture.




The value of adjusted coefficient of multiple determination is 0.18 which explains that 18 percent of the

total variation of the students level of competency in

Horticulture achievement is explained by the variation of the student and teachers profile. The remaining

82 percent is due to unexplained variables. The regression model is highly significant (F=4.60) with (p-

value= 0.0000).

CONCLUSION

Based on the problem posed in Chapter 1, the following are the conclusions:

1. There were more female respondents than male handling TLE. Majority of the family had income

below 10,000/mos. which is not enough to meet the needs of the whole family. In terms of attendance,

there were more students who were not attending their classes even though there were times they were

tardy. Parents were not supportive in terms of monitoring the performance of their children.

2. Both TLE teachers are female, LET passers, NCII holders and have completed their academic

requirements for a Master’s Degree.

3. Facilities of the school were insufficient to cater to the needs of the students in Cookery and

Horticulture.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are suggested:

1. The teachers and trainers of Technical-Vocational Education Training Programs (TVET) are

encouraged to attend continuing technical education and trainings to be effective in teaching the prescribed

competencies necessary for ASEAN competitiveness.

2. Revision of the curriculum is highly recommended were instructional technology comes with

instructional planning for practicality and appropriateness in relation to the learners, and the competencies

to be developed to match the goal of globalization.

3. The procurement process should also be improved in order to facilitate the acquisition of equipment

and materials needed for the competency-based training and development geared towards

internationalization.

4. The Department of Education plays an important role in evaluating the implementation of K-12

Program of San Vicente National High School, Butuan City, in terms of employability and job

opportunities.

5. The Technology Livelihood Education teachers should continue creating and using innovative

techniques and strategies in the classroom to cater to varied needs of students.

REFERENCES

ACT (2009). The Path to Career Success: High school achievement, certainty of career choice, and college

readiness make a difference. Retrieved on May 3, 2015 from www.act.org/research/policy/make/rs/pdf/

Aguirre, R. T. (2013). Importance of learning T.L.E. subjects in one’s life. Retrieved on May 5, 2015 from

http://sourcecode112.blogspot.com/2013/01/importance-of-learning-tle-subject-in.html





Aloraini E. 2005. Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis 31,: 416–440.

Anislang, MC. Q. (2013). Importance of learning T.L.E. subjects in one’s life. Retrieved on May 5, 2015

from http://sourcecode112.blogspot.com/2013/01/importance-of-learning-tle-subject-in.html

Arrellano, Juniver.(2005). Implementation of Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE) in Gingoog

City. Master’s Thesis. Mindanao Polytechnique State College. Cagayande Oro City

Balcita, Epitacio Jr. C. “The Implementation of Technology and Home Economics Program of Tadian

School of Arts and Trades”, Unpublished Masteral Thesis, Osias Educational Foundation, Balaoan, La

Union. 1993

Carame, A. H. (2010). Technology Education in the Philippines. National Bookstore.

Carullo, H. M. (2014). Technology & Livelihood Education (TLE) – Key Subject Area in the K + 12

Curriculum. Retrieved on May 5, 2015 from http://www.bicolmail.com/2012/?p=17546

Castro,France.(2012): Allied of Concerned Teachers blog

Collado, E. C. (2013). Importance of learning T.L.E. subjects in one’s life. Retrieved on May 5, 2015 from http://sourcecode112.blogspot.com/2013/01/importance-of-learning-tle-subject-in.html

Dhand, Harry. Techniques of Teaching, 1s Edition, New Delhi. APA Publishigco.,2008

De Alca, Jocelyn de Asis (2008) Factors related to the Performance of Secondary Students in Technology

Livelihood Education.

De los Santos A. (2010) Perception of Teacher Knowledge, Attitude and Teaching Skills as Predictor of

Academic Performance in Secondary Schools. Educational Research and Review.

Delos Santos “Related Variables that Affect the Performance of Technology and Livelihood Education

1” Master Thesis 2010

DepEd. Order 31, s, 2012. ceap.org.ph/upload/download/201210/1714521500_1.pdf

Desimone, L., and D. Long. 2010. Teacher effects and the achievement gap: do teacher and teaching quality

influence the achievement gap between black and white and high- and low-SES students in the early grades.

Fitsilis, O. (2010) Students and Teachers Perception of the Causes of Academic Performance of United

State.

Gardoque, N. S. (2010). Teacher’s performance in Benigno Ninoy Aquino high school in technology and

livelihood education as perceived by the students.

K to 12 Modules. Exploratory courses: Carpentry, Commercial Cooking, Electrical Installation and

Maintenance, and Mechanical Drafting Grade 7 and 8.

K to 12 Module Commercial Cooking EXPLORATORY COURSE Grade 7 and 8

Kumazhege et.al. (2014), Technical teachers perception of factors affecting practical skill acquisition

among technical college graduates in Adamawa State of Nigeria.

Lanting, C. S, (2012). Related variables that affect the performance of technology and livelihood education.

Lazo, Samuel R., “The Secondary Technology and Home Economics I Program in the OLD National High

Schools in Region I”. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertations, University

Luistro, A. (2012). Enhanced Basic Education Program (k to 12) The 21st Century Learning for work and

life. Retrieve March 1, 2015 from http://goo.gl/ow4hts

Mushtaq, A. L., Nawaz, B. C. & Khan, D. V. (2012). Factors affecting students’ academic performance.

Palispis, E. (2007). Sociology and Anthropology. Rex Publishing House.

Pasion, R. B. (2012). The efficacy of strategic intervention materials in teaching social studies among the

third year high school of Bugsukan integrated secondary school, Butuan city.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7796 - An Act creating the Technical Education and Skills De-

velopment Authority Providing for it proves, structure and for other Pur-

poses.

Romer,1993 “Related Variables that Affect the Performance of Technology and Livelihood

Education.


http://www.bicolmail.com/2012/?p=17546





Rosenshine, G. (1996). Review of the research on the relationship between school buildings, student

achievement, and student behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council of Educational

Facilities Planners, International (Tarpon Springs, Florida, October 8, 1996).

Teichert and Stacy. 2002. Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of

Labor Economics 25,: 95–135. doi:10.1086/508733.

TESDA Policy Brief: TechVoc Policy Implications of the K-12: Enhanced Basic Education; Issue 2

December 2013 planning Office

Sarmiento, Adorima M., Redirecting Home Economics in Secondary Education. The Modern

Teacher.Vol. XLLVII, No.10

Siodina, RM. Y. (2013). Importance of learning T.L.E. subjects in one’s life. Retrieved on May 5, 2015

from http://sourcecode112.blogspot.com/2013/01/importance-of-learning-tle-subject-in.html


Documents

TEACHERS’ QUALIFICATION, FACILITIES AND COMPETENCIES …