1

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Background of the Study

Academic resilience is essential for carrying out the students ' task that

the school requires. Stressful events can be turned into opportunities for

personal growth and benefit by academically resilient learners (Santhosh &

James 2013). The state of socioeconomics, deprivation, difficulties arising from

near environments, family strife, struggles encountered in the school

environment, disorder, and so on are sample problems of academic resilience.

Increasing their intellectual performance is one way to help students

enhance their academic achievement. The country has registered relatively

large numbers of students over the past three years sitting for national exams

but obtaining grades below the minimum post-secondary education

requirement. Poor student output is a matter of concern in any educational

activity. This is because school quality is the springboard for reaching both

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) including social mobility (Winga et al.

2016).

One of the Panabo City teachers interviewed, saying they had problems

with the students ' academic resilience in their school. At the same time, there

are many risk factors that make it less likely that a child will achieve it. There

are some academic readiness problems, risk factors, traits of pupils, family

attributes, and school environment. The researchers are therefore interested in

conducting a study if the supportive environment for learning would influence

the students ' academic resilience.

Statement of the Problem

 2

This study aimed to determine the domain of supportive learning

environment that best influences to academic resilience among Senior High

School Students of UMPC. Specifically, it sought answers to the following

questions:

1. What is the level of supportive learning environment of students in

terms of:

1.1. Sharing and comparing knowledge;

1.2. Relevance;

1.3. Self-control and self-reflection;

1.4. Epistemological understanding;

1.5. Teaching for understanding;

1.6. Support learning for understanding; and

1.7. Problem solving strategies?

2. What is the level of academic resilience of students in terms of:

2.1. Perseverance;

2.2. Reflecting and adaptive help-seeking; and

2.3. Negative affect and emotional response?

3. Is there a significant relationship between supportive learning

environment and academic resilience?

Hypothesis

The null hypothesis was based from research questions 3 and was

tested at 0.05 level. Which stated that there is no significant relationship

between supportive learning environment and academic resilience of senior

high school students.

 3

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

This research was rooted in the hypothesis of (Ungar, 2006) who found

out that the school setting is correlated in several ways with intellectual

resilience in schooling. Access to education is generally considered one of the

resilience variables. According to this approach, education contributes to an

individual's overall ability to adapt with life's obstacles and can therefore act, for

example, as a compensatory mechanism that gives the child a sense of

competence (chance to experience success), enables a child to withdraw from

an undesirable world for a period of time (Nickolite, & Doll, 2008), allows it

easier to substitute for shortcomings arising from other conditions, or serves as

a motivating tool in terms of motivation for further schooling, as well as a means

to relief from the setting in which they exist and a chance to start a new, more

productive and better existence (Morales, 2000).

As shown in Figure 1, the independent variable is a supportive learning

environment with seven factors; sharing and comparing knowledge is an activity

through the exchange of knowledge between people, friends, families and

communities; Relevance is the idea of one subject being related to another

topic in a way that makes it convenient to recognize the second topic while

contemplating the first; self-control and self-reflection is the ability to control

oneself when self-reflection is contemplation or deep consideration about one's

behavior, acts and motives; epistemological analysis is the

 4

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Supportive Learning Academic Resilience

Environment

 Perseverance

 Sharing and comparing  Reflecting and adaptive

knowledge help-seeking

 Relevance
 Negative affect and
emotional response
 Self-control and self-
reflection

 Epistemological
understanding

 Teaching for
understanding

 Support learning for

understanding

 Problem solving
strategies

Figure 1. Conceptual paradigm showing the variables of the study.

 5

examination of the nature of knowledge; justification, and the rationality of

belief; Teaching for understanding leads students to be able to do a variety of

thought-provoking things with a topic; supporting learning for understanding

can refer to a wide array of teaching methods, educational services or

resources provided to schools; and problem-solving methods is the process of

working through details of a problem in order to reach a solution.

Academic resilience with 3 factors is the dependent variable;

perseverance includes things with hard work and trying, not giving up, sticking

to plans and goals, accepting and using feedback, creative problem solving and

handling hardships as a chance to meet challenges and enhance as central

themes; Reflecting and finding adaptive help displays themes which include

reflecting on strengths and weaknesses, changing approaches to study,

seeking assistance, supporting and encouraging, supervising efforts and

achievements, and administering rewards and punishments; Reflecting and

finding adaptive help displays themes which include reflecting on strengths and

weaknesses, changing approaches to study, seeking assistance, supporting

and encouraging, supervising efforts and achievements, and administering

rewards and punishments; and Negative effect and emotional reaction features

themes including anxiety, catastrophic, evading negative emotional responses,

optimism and hopelessness, and is similar to the acceptance of negative effects

recorded by Connor and Davidson (2003) and Lamond et al. (2009), composure

identified by Martin and Marsh (2006) and meaningfulness reported by Wagnild

and Young (1993).

 6

Significance of the Study

This study is vital to all that are concern in making education work,

considering the domain of Supportive learning environment and academic

resilience in Senior High School Students of UMPC.

School Administration: This will be an eye opener that will guide them

to develop a program for supportive learning environment and academic

resilience of the students.

Teachers: This serves as guidelines that may give the teachers different

ideas on what the best supportive learning environment to develop the

academic resilience of the students.

Students: This will be an instrument for them to make more curious that

supportive learning environment is very important.

Future researchers: The findings of the study will serve as baseline

information for their researches which are directly or indirectly related to this

research undertaking.

Definition of Terms

For the clarity of key terms in the study, the conceptual and operational

definitions are here under provided.

Supportive learning environment has less to do with physical

classroom and equipment than with values and relationships (Dweck, 2008). In

this research, it applies to information exchange and contrast, significance, self-

control and self-reflection, epistemological comprehension, understanding

teaching to help knowing learning, and methods to solve problems.

Academic resilience, given difficulty in the educational process, is

characterized as good academic achievement (Lamond et al., 2009). It relates

 7

in this analysis to perseverance, reflecting and finding constructive support, and

negative impact and emotional response.

 8

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter will provide us with an overview of some of the literatures

related to this study. Data references come from publications reviewed, and are

abstracted from newspapers, books and other educational resources. This

would also enable the researchers validate the study.

Developing professional expertise is the process of continuously

transforming the repertoire of knowledge, skills and behaviors required to solve

specific issues that start in late secondary education and continue all through

higher education and professional life. One educational aim is to teach students

to think more like experts and treat as an expert would the mastery of a topic.

It is challenging and time-consuming to help students build professional

expertise and determine how classes are conducive to the growth of

knowledge. (Quincy Elvira, Mien Segers, Simon Beausaert, Ben Dankbaar,

Jeroen Imants, 2016).

Supportive learning environment

A supportive environment for learning is less about principles and

partnerships than about the actual classroom and services (although these are

important). For our children, the safe learning environment is particularly

important. Negative learning outcomes will affect future learning, and to

understand how valid this is, we only need to rely on our own interactions.

Unfortunately, some students may even consider themselves smart or not

smart (Dweck, 2008). Learners with such a mind-set are much less likely to

engage in risk-involving learning, like making mistakes, and when they make

mistakes, they attempt to hide them (Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999;
 9

Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2007). These learners will benefit

from learning opportunities in learning environments that are psychologically

safe. It takes critical reflection to change what a person knows. Critical

reflection, in turn, requires a confident environment in which people could make

errors without worrying about getting negative consequences (Brookfield,

1995). In addition, the same author pointed out that if we cannot create a safe

educational environment, we should always be conscious of the alternatives,

including the loss of learners in group-thinking because nobody is willing to take

the risk of asking questions or sharing information that can make a huge

difference. Nevertheless, community mentality can be the main explanation that

progress is often challenging, as both young and old learners defend

themselves from new ideas and the risk of looking bad.

Learning environments that stimulate the creativity of students: SCALE

formation (Carmen Richardson and Punya Mishra, 2018). Creativity has been

described as a primary educational objective and necessary ability in schools

in the 21st century (Chan & Yuen, 2014; Robinson, 2011; Wagner, 2010Over

the past few years, scholars and educators have stressed the importance of

preparing students for a future that will require complex problem-solving and

creative thinking (Wagner, 2010). The type of thinking and working that will be

needed is not the industrial characteristics and skills that our educational

system has been designed for and continues to promote. There is a need to

examine how instructional experiences will help educators achieve this goal

and this need to encourage student innovation.

Environment is a place where a child develops, works and understands.

It might include a student's home, education, workplace, circle of friends, overall

 10

growth including physical, emotional, psychological needs (Akem, 2008). At

every point of the learning process, the home learning environment is primarily

responsible for educational attainment and social development of an infant

(Bull, Brooking and Campbell 2008; Kendall et al. 2008).

Sharing and comparing knowledge. Xia, S. B. (2013) The diffusion of

information can be addressed from both a theoretical and a social context.

Teachers are getting some material that other teachers use as a source of

knowledge to meet the needs of the students (Collinson & Cook, 2003;

Mawhinney, 2010), research shows that there is a lot of knowledge sharing

amongst teachers (Collinson & Cook, 2000). Teachers include the involvement

of other teachers and the application of concepts. Teachers must be organizers,

diligent and welcoming (Schon, 1987). The educator must be an institution's

disseminator is a meaningful social work force who, through sharing

knowledge, possesses the knowledge of other faculty and students (Little, et

al., 2003).

Relevance. Robertson, R. (2013) relevance as the perception that

something is worth knowing and engaging. The instructor makes the pupil

understand these two items when a teacher gives importance to a student. This

falls in line comparatively well with relevance principle observed in the cognitive

science related area. In the mid-80s, Wilson and Sperber (2004) put forward

this theory, positing: "... expressions raise expectations of relevance not just

because speakers are expected to follow the Co-operative Principles and

maxims or other specifically communicative conventions, but because the

search for relevance is a fundamental feature of human cognition that

communicators can exploit". According to (Frymier & Schulman, 1995; Martin

 11

& Dowson, 2009) being educated in the learning environment is supported by

known events to be taught outside. Relevance is significant as it is directly

linked to student engagement and encouragement in learning and teaching

(Frymier & Schulman, 1995; Martin & Dowson, 2009).

Wieman (2007) suggested providing students with purposeful and

explicit opportunities to discuss why this issue is worth learning for each topic

covered, how it works in the real world, why it makes sense, and how it relates

with things that the learner already knewBriggs S. (2014) claimed that

importance is one of the most important components of teaching and learning.

Kember et al. (2008), Effective Learning in Higher Education, noticed that one

of the most effective ways of encouraging student learning was to create

significance.

Self-control and self-reflection. Marcovitch, S., Jacques, S., J., Zelazo, P. D.,

Boseovski, J. (2008) argue that human beings, including those who are simply

studying vocabulary, self-reflection and self-control — researched under the

framework of "Executive Function" (EF)—have the ability to fundamentally

transform the way learning takes place. EF refers to the collection of cognitive

processes included in the cognitive control of thinking, behavior, and emotion

— processes which include repression, change, and updating (e.g., Miyake et

al., 2000). But more complex than that is the kind of reflection that is really

important to leaders. Conscious consideration and analysis of actions and

beliefs for learning purposes is the most useful reflection. Reflection provides

the brain a chance to delay, disentangle and sort through observations and

experiences in the midst of chaos, consider multiple interpretations and create

meaning. This definition becomes learning, which is then able to educate future
 12

thinking and actions. This "meaning making" is essential for leaders to their

continuous development and growth.

Costa A., Kal lick B. (2008) Reflective individual needs to link what we've

been through and learned in the past, it will render students keep moving

forward. Most educators are oriented in discussion of the present and future.

Epistemological understanding. Kuhn and her associates have

suggested a developmental paradigm that connects stages of epistemological

comprehension with critical thinking (Kuhn, 1999; Kuhn, Cheney & Weinstock,

2000; Kuhn & Dean, 2004). The developmental model suggests that there are

four stages of epistemological comprehension through which people will

advance involving specific critical thinking structures (see Table 1). Kuhn and

Dean (2004) argue that perhaps the shift from the first three levels (Realist to

Absolutist to Multiplist) takes place quite naturally without any need for adult

scaffolding. Moreover, the last transition to the Evaluativist level "requires the

concerned attention of teachers and parents, particularly if the necessary

foundation for intellectual values is this progression" (p. 273). Kuhn & Dean

recommend students need to engage in meaningful analysis and reasoning

exercises that will help them develop critical thinking skills that they trust in

making decisions. Good decision-making by educators is at the heart of

effective teaching in the dynamic learning environment.

Teaching for understanding. Training has to prepare for the successful

use of knowledge and skills in the long term (Perkins, 1992). According to him,

teaching has traditionally integrated a set of skills and understanding with

knowledge for the learners. Cognitive Science, educational psychology, and

 13

practical experience with faculty and students put us in a position to teach

comprehension and educate instructors to teach for understanding.

Support learning for understanding. Jones C (2004) Assessment as

part of activities in the classroom is a fundamental process necessary to

promote learning and ultimately achievement. Support learning is the

resources, strategies, and practices which provide physical, social, emotional,

and intellectual assistance to allow all students to have equal opportunities for

classroom success by resolving barriers and fostering teaching and learning

relationship.

Problem solving strategies. Saygılı,— S. (2017) Non-routine problem-

solving techniques are based on finding, synthesizing and struggling to

generate a formula for problem solving. Problem-solving techniques are the

steps one would use to discover the problems which are in the way of achieving

one's objective. Evans, S., Swan, M. (2014) defines design strategy intended

to promote self-assessment and peer assessment and develop the ability of

learners to compare alternative ways of solving mathematical problems in math

lessons. This involves exchanging research and approaches with students and

then presenting a statement and debating.

Academic Resilience

Academic resilience ensures that although hardship, students produce

good educational results. The word resilience applies to observations that some

people, following vulnerability to severe or persistent stressors associated with

negative effects, have relatively good psychological results (Luthar, Cicchetti,

& Becker, 2000; Rutter, 2006). The Academic Resilience Scale (ARS‐30): a

new multidimensional measure of construction (Cassidy, SF 2016). Resilience

 14

is a cognitive construct observed in several individuals which despite adversity

accounts for success. Resilience represents the ability to recover, defy the odds

and is deemed an attribute in terms of human nature. Academic resilience

elucidates the structure of resilience and reflects an increased chance of

academic success despite difficult circumstances. The paper provides an

account of the development of a new measure of academic resilience in

multidimensional construct.

Throughout academic life, various challenges, difficulties and failures

can be faced by all the graduates. Whereas some students are not working

their way through these obstacles, many are effective. The purpose of this study

is in this context to uncover the factors that play an important role in the

academic resilience of academics.

Perseverance. Includes items involving hard work and trying, not giving

up, sticking to plans and goals, accepting and using feedback, creative

problem-solving and handling struggles as an opportunity to address obstacles

and enhance as central themes. There are clear parallels between this

component and previously identified variables, involving perseverance

(involving determination through difficulty, willingness to keep battling and

exercising self-discipline, Wagnild and Young, 1993), personal control and

tenacity (Connor and Davidson, 2003), dedication and control (Martin and

Marsh, 2006), persistence, diligent work and successful strategies, and

psychological influence and target focus (Lamond et al., 2009).

Reflecting and adaptive help-seeking. Features themes that include

reflecting on strengths and weaknesses, changing strategies to study, seeking

 15

assistance, supporting and encouraging, supervising efforts and

accomplishments and prescribing positive reinforcement.

Negative affect and emotional response. Includes concepts like fear,

tragedy, resisting negative emotional reactions, motivation which hopelessness

and is related to the recognition of the negative effects identified by Connor and

Davidson (2003) and Lamond et al. (2009), calm (low anxiety) recorded by

Martin and Marsh (2006) and meaningfulness (belief that one has purpose in

life and something to work for) reported by Wagnild and Young (1993).

Several ways associate education, school, school environment and

school performance with resilience. Access to education is typically considered

one of the best resilience factors (Ungar, 2006). According to this view,

schooling leads to an individual's general ability to cope with adversities in life

and can therefore function, for example, as a compensating force that gives the

child a sense of competence (chance of success), allows a child to break free

from an undesired atmosphere for a period of time (Nickolite, & Doll, 2008),

allows compensation for inadequacies resulting from other disabilities, or plays

as a reward factor in terms of motivation for further education, as well as a way

to escape from the environment in which they live and a chance to start a new,

more successful and quality life (Morales, 2000).

 16

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

This chapter presents the methodological framework for the study, the

research design, research subject, research instruments, research procedure,

and statistical tools.

Research Design

Non-experimental research design is one of the broad categories of

study projects, where the researchers studied the phenomenon when they

occur naturally, and no additional factors are added. This research employed

non-experimental correlation and the researchers used questionnaires to be

surveyed that were distributed to the respondents in order to achieve the study's

main objective of examining the relationship between Academic Resilience and

Supportive Learning Environment.

This was also supported by Creswell's (2012) opinion that researchers

use the correlational statistical test to identify and measure the degree of

association (or relationship) between two or more variables or sets of scores in

correlational research design. To establish relationships or associations

between variables, quantitative, descriptive studies were used (Gail, Borg, &

Borg, 2007).

The correlational process included investigating the interactions

between two or more factors. Although researchers used tests to see if there

was a connection, researchers did not control the variables themselves.

Nonexperimental research does not rely on variables being manipulated.

Instead, it makes findings about how variables were connected and described

the finding.
 17

Research Subject

For selection of the sample stratified random sampling techniques was

used. The sample comprised of senior secondary school students in University

of Mindanao Panabo College to examine the Supportive learning environment

and academic resilience.

Table 1
Distribution of Respondents
Strands Number of Respondents

ABM 59

ICT 26

TOTAL 85

Research Instrument

The research questionnaire has been updated and used by the

researchers and is validated by the experts adapted from the analysis under

the title Development and validation of supportive learning environment for the

questionnaire on competence design (Quincy Elvira, Simon Beausaert, Mien

Segers, Jeroen Imants and Ben Dankbaar , 2015) and Academic resilience

Scale (ARS-30): a new multidimensional construct measure ( Cassidy, SF.

2016).

Supportive learning environment has seven indicators: (1) Sharing and

comparing knowledge; (2) Relevance; (3) Self-control and self-reflection; (4)

Epistemological understanding; (5) Teaching for understanding; (6) Support

 18

learning for understanding; and (7) Problem solving strategies. The following

indicators will be rated according to Likert scale: (5) Strongly Agree (4) Agree

(3) Neither agree nor disagree (2) Disagree (1) Strongly Disagree. The rating

scale below was used to answer the level of supportive learning environment.

To determine the respondents’ responses in the supportive leaning

environment the following parameters were used:

Range of Mean Descriptive Equivalent Interpretation

Supportive learning
4.21 – 5.00 Very High
environment are always

observed.

Supportive learning
3.41 – 4.20 High
environment are often

observed.

Supportive learning
2.61 – 3.40 Moderate
environment are

sometimes observed.

Supportive learning
1.1 – 2.60 Low
environment are rarely

observed.
 19

Supportive learning
1.00 – 1.80 Very Low
environment are never

observed.

The next part was considered the academic resilience scale of the

respondents as a student. Academic resilience has three indicators: (1)

Perseverance; (2) Reflecting and adaptive help-seeking; and (3) Negative

affect and emotional response. The following indicators according to Likert type

scale (5) Always (4) Often (3) Sometimes (2) Rarely (1) Never. The rating scale

below was used to answer the level of student’s responsibility.

To determine the respondents’ responses in the academic resilience the

following parameters were used:

Range of Mean Descriptive Equivalent Interpretation

4.21 – 5.00 Very High Academic Resilience Is

always observed.

3.41 – 4.20 High Academic Resilience is

often observed.

2.61 – 3.40 Moderate Academic Resilience is

sometimes observed.

.
 20

1.81 – 2.60 Low Academic Resilience rarely

observed.

1.00 – 1.80 Very Low Academic Resilience is

never observed.

Research Procedure

The researchers observed the following steps in data gathering.

Permission to conduct study. The researchers sent a letter to the

school director asking permission to conduct the study to the senior high school

students of UM Panabo College enrolled in Grade 12.

Validation of Questionnaire. The questionnaire used was a

standardized, modified by the researchers and validated by experts. The

revision was made until the questionnaire was polished and ready for the

administration to the respondents.

Administration of Questionnaires. Upon the approval to conduct the

study, the researchers personally conducted the questionnaire to the

respondents.

Retrieval of Questionnaire. After conducting the questionnaire,

collection of data followed by getting the instruments from the students and was

subjected to statistical treatment and analysis.

Collection of questionnaire and Scoring Data. The responses were

collected, tallied and statistically processed by statistician.

 21

The procedure above has to be taken carefully one by one to prevent

the emergence of mistakes during the research. Furthermore, the explanation

about the procedure is clearly presented in the next section.

Statistical Tools

The following statistical tools were used to answer the research

problem:

Weighted Mean. This was used to determine the level of supportive

learning environment and academic resilience.

Pearson-r Product moment correlation. This statistical tool was used

to determine the correlation and its significance of the relationship between two

variables: supportive learning environment and academic resilience

 22

CHAPTER 4

PRSENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Presented in this chapter are the results of the study in answer to the

question on Chapter 1 which are both in tabular and textual form. The

interpretation and analysis of data gathered are also presented with the

corresponding implications supporting the analytical discussions.

Level of Supportive Learning Environment

Presented in Table 2 is the level of supportive learning environment

among the senior high school students of UM Panabo College with a grand

mean of 3.94 with a descriptive equivalent of high. It entails that the supportive

learning environment are often observed. The safe learning environment is

especially important for our children. Negative learning experiences will affect

future learning, and to understand how valid this is, we only need to rely on our

own interactions. Sadly, certain students may even think themselves clever or

not smart (Dweck, 2008).

In sharing and comparing knowledge, the overall mean is 3.81 which

means that in sharing and comparing knowledge is often observed. In item no.

3, We are encouraged to explain examples from the book to each other

garnered the highest mean of 4.06 while item no. 4, The teacher must compare

our solutions to an assignment with those of an expert got the lowest mean of

3.48 which means that the sharing and comparing knowledge is high and highly

evident.
 23

Table 2
Level of Supportive Learning Environment among Senior High School
Students of UM Panabo College
Descriptive
Statement Mean
Equivalent
Sharing and Comparing Knowledge
1 We are encouraged to review each other’s work. 3.86 High
2 We are encouraged to discuss with fellow 3.83 High
students how we study Management &
Organization.
3 We are encouraged to explain examples from the 4.06 High
book to each other.
4 The teacher has must compare our solutions to 3.48 High
an assignment with those of an expert.
Over-all Mean 3.81 High
Relevance
1 The assignments in the book/ hand-out deal with 3.91 High
examples from the professional world.
2 We are given various assignments that are taken 3.80 High
from the professional world.
3 Many of our assignments are linked to events 3.27 Moderate
from the news (radio, television, newspaper,
annual reports).
4 We are given assignments that relate to our 3.43 High
everyday life.
Over-all Mean 3.60 High
Self-control and self-reflection
1 We draw up a plan for the tasks that we should 3.73 High
carry out independently.
2 When working on an assignment we keep track 3.76 High
of time ourselves.
3 We learn how to comment on fellow students’ 3.71 High
work.
4 The teacher teaches us how to deal with 3.90 High
feedback.
Over-all Mean 3.77 High
Epistemological understanding
1 We learn that knowledge related to the subject 3.83 High
Management & Organization evolves over time.
2 We learn that some terms may have more than 4.14 High
one meaning.
3 We learn how the subject Management & 3.95 High
Organization relates to the content of other
school subjects.
Over-all Mean 3.97 High

Teaching for understanding

1 The teacher uses examples related to the topic. 4.52 Very High
2 We learn what various concepts and ideas have 4.19 High
in common and how they differ.
 24

3 The teacher helps us understand the links 4.03 High

between various components of the subject
matter.
4 The teacher shows us the relationships between 4.13 High
various components of the subject Management
& Organization.
5 We have deadlines for our assignments. 4.43 Very High
6 When carrying out an assignment, we are 4.19 High
encouraged to use the learning materials.
7 To carry out an assignment, we need to have 4.19 High
sufficient understanding of the material.
Over-all Mean 4.24 Very High
Support learning for understanding
1 The teacher gives us a chance to recall what we 4.43 Very High
already know about a certain topic.
2 We are encouraged to describe the subject 4.19 High
matter in our own words.
3 When solving a problem, we are encouraged to 3.84 High
draw on our existing knowledge.
4 We think about possible ways of solving the 4.02 High
problem.
Over-all Mean 4.12 High
Problem solving strategies
1 The teacher encourages us to clearly describe 4.06 High
what exactly the assignment entails.
2 The teacher helps us to approach an assignment 4.05 High
step by step.
3 The teacher discusses how a problem can be 4.13 High
approached.
4 The teacher shows the class how to tackle an 4.02 High
assignment.
Over-all Mean 4.06 High
Grand Mean 3.94 High

Legend:
Scale Descriptive Equivalent
4.21-5.00 Very High
3.41-4.20 High
2.61-3.40 Moderate
1.81-2.60 Low
1.00-1.80 Poor
 25

In relevance, the overall mean is 3.60 which means that relevance is

often observed. In item no. 1, The assignments in the book/ hand-out deal with

examples from the professional world got the highest mean of 3.91 while item

no. 3, Many of our assignments are linked to events from the news (radio,

television, newspaper, annual reports) garnered the lowest mean of 3.27 which

means that relevance is high and moderately evident.

In self-control and self-reflection, the overall mean is 3.77 which means

that self-control and self-reflection is often observed. In item no. 4, The teacher

teaches us how to deal with feedback garnered the highest mean of 3.90 while

item no. 3, We learn how to comment on fellow students’ work got the lowest

mean of 3.71 which means self-control and self-reflection is high and highly

evident.

In epistemological understanding, the overall mean is 3.97 which means

that epistemological understanding is often observed. In item no. 2, We learn

that some terms may have more than one meaning garnered the highest mean

of 4.14 while item no. 1, We learn that knowledge related to the subject

Management & Organization evolves over time got the lowest mean of 3.83

which means that epistemological understanding is high and highly evident.

In teaching for understanding, the overall mean is 4.24 which means that

teaching for understanding is always observed. In item no. 1, The teacher uses

examples related to the topic got the highest mean of 4.52 while item no. 3, The

teacher helps us understand the links between various components of the

subject matter garnered the lowest mean of 4.03 which means that teaching for

understanding is very high and highly evident.

 26

In support learning for understanding, the overall mean is 4.12 which

means that support learning for understanding is often observed. In item no. 1,

The teacher gives us a chance to recall what we already know about a certain

topic garnered the highest mean of 4.43 while item no. 3, When solving a

problem, we are encouraged to draw on our existing knowledge got the lowest

mean of 3.84 which means that support learning for understanding is very high

and highly evident.

In problem solving strategies, the overall mean is 4.06 which means that

problem solving strategies is often observed. In item no. 3, The teacher

discusses how a problem can be approached garnered the highest mean of

4.13 while item no. 4, The teacher shows the class how to tackle an assignment

got the lowest mean of 4.02 which means that problem solving strategies is

high and highly evident.

Level of Academic Resilience

Presented in Table 3 is the level of students’ academic resilience

among the senior high school students of UM Panabo College with a grand

mean of 3.66 with a descriptive equivalent of high. It entails that the academic

resilience is often observed.

As noted in chapter 2, there are strong similarities between this factor

and previously identified factors including: perseverance (involving persistence

despite adversity, willingness to continue fighting and practice self-discipline,

Wagnild and Young, 1993); reflecting on weaknesses and strengths, changing

approaches to study, seeking assistance, supporting and encouraging,

supervising efforts and achievements and prescribing rewards and

punishments; and anxiety, negative thinking, evading negative psychological

 27

Table 3
Level of Academic Resilience among Senior High School Students of UM
Panabo College
Descriptive
Statement Mean
Equivalent
Perseverance
1 I would work harder. 4.58 Very High
2 I would use the feedback to improve my work. 4.61 Very High
3 I would just give up. 2.39 Low
4 I would try to think of new solutions. 4.27 Very High
5 I would use the situation to motivate myself. 4.52 Very High
6 I would not change my long-term goals and 4.24 Very High
ambitions.
7 I would see the situation as a challenge. 4.37 Very High
8 I would look forward to showing that I can improve 4.61 Very High
my grades.
9 I would see the situation as temporary. 3.97 Very High
10 I would do my best to stop thinking negative 4.25 Very High
thoughts.
11 I would blame the tutor. 1.90 Low
12 I would not accept the tutors’ feedback. 1.96 Low
13 I would change my career plans. 2.47 Low
14 I would keep trying. 4.44 Very High
Over-all Mean 3.76 High
Reflecting and adaptive help-seeking
1 I would try to think more about my strengths and 4.65 Very High
weaknesses to help me work better.
2 I would give myself encouragement. 4.54 Very High
3 I would seek encouragement from my family and 4.44 Very High
friends.
4 I would try different ways to study. 4.45 Very High
5 I would set my own goals for achievement. 4.62 Very High
6 I would seek help from my tutors. 4.06 High
7 I would start to monitor and evaluate my 4.26 Very High
achievements and effort.
8 I would start to self-impose rewards and 4.05 High
punishments depending on my performance.
9 I would use my past successes to help motivate 4.34 Very High
myself.
Over-all Mean 4.38 Very High
Negative effect and emotional response
1 I would feel like everything was ruined and was 3.00 Moderate
going wrong.
2 I would begin to think my chances of success at 2.96 Moderate
university were poor.
3 I would probably get depressed. 2.43 Low
4 I would be very disappointed. 2.55 Moderate
 28

5 I would begin to think my chances of getting the 2.72 Moderate

job I want were poor.
6 I would probably get annoyed. 2.51 Low
7 I would stop myself from panicking. 3.67 High
Over-all Mean 2.84 Moderate
Grand Mean 3.66 High
Legend:
Scale Descriptive Equivalent
4.21-5.00 Very High
3.41-4.20 High
2.61-3.40 Moderate
1.81-2.60 Low
1.00-1.80 Poor
 29

responses, optimism and hopelessness, and is similar to accepting the negative

effects reported by Connor and Davidson (2003) and Lamond et al. (2009).

In perseverance, the data showed an overall mean of 3.76, which means

that perseverance is often observed towards the students. In item no. 2, I would

use the feedback to improve my work and item no. 8, I would look forward to

showing that I can improve my grades garnered the highest mean of 4.61, while

item no. 11, I would blame the tutor got the lowest mean of 1.90 which means

that the perseverance is very high and lowly evident.

In reflecting and adaptive help-seeking, the data showed an overall

mean of 4.38, which means that it is very high and always observed. In item no.

1, I would try to think more about my strengths and weaknesses to help me

work better garnered the highest mean of 4.65, while item no. 8, I would start

to self-impose rewards and punishments depending on my performance got the

lowest mean of 4.05 which means that the reflecting and adaptive help-seeking

is very high and highly evident.

In negative affect and emotional response, the data showed an overall

mean of 2.84, which means that it is moderate and sometimes observed. In

item no. 7, I would stop myself from panicking garnered the highest mean of

3.67, while item no. 3, I would probably get depressed got the lowest mean of

2.43 which means that the negative affect and emotional response is high and

lowly evident.
 30

Significant Relationship between

Supportive Learning Environment and Academic Resilience

Table 4 shows the significant relationship between Supportive Learning

Environment and Academic Resilience. The relationship value is described as

moderately high and implies that as academic resilience increases

(respectively decreases), the supportive learning environment also increases

(respectively decreases). Therefore, 13.69% of the academic resilience can be

attributed to supportive learning environment and the other 86.31% is due to

other factors.

As Cassidy cites, S. (2016), a positive and important relationship

between a supportive learning environment and academic resilience was

revealed. From this research it is evident that a supportive learning environment

really helps those learners with academic resilience to become more

academically successful and making them more likely to flourish academically.

Therefore, educators should embrace efforts to support academic resilience

such as providing a safe learning environment, as developing greater resilience

in learners has many positive impacts.

 31

Table 4
Significant Relationship between Supportive Learning Environment and
Academic Resilience

Correlation Coefficient

Academic Resilience

Supportive Learning Environment 0.373*

P-value (0.000) < 0.05

 32

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Presented in this chapter were the summary of the findings, conclusions

are recommendations.

Summary of Findings
The following were the findings of the study.

1. The grand mean result in supportive learning environment is 3.94,

describe that the students highly agreed.

2. The grand mean result in academic resilience is 3.66, describe the

students highly agreed.

3. The p-value 0.373 in the supportive learning environment and academic

resilience is less than a = 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null

hypothesis of the significant relationship between the supportive learning

environment and academic resilience is rejected.

Conclusion

The following conclusions are drawn based on the findings of the study.

1. The level of supportive learning environment of the respondents has

an overall mean of 3.94 which means the descriptive equivalent is

highly agreed.
 33

2. The level of the students’ academic resilience has an overall mean

of 3.66 which means the descriptive equivalent is highly agreed.

3. There is a significant relationship between supportive learning

environment and academic resilience among senior high school

students of UM Panabo College.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions, the following suggestions are

provided:

1. Teachers may often give students short articles and questions at the

end of the class to help reinforce the current topics and let them read

the article in individually or in groups to work and discuss the

questions.

2. To the teachers and tutors, make learning more interesting by using

a variety of ways to explain the material and show your enthusiasm;

try to make the material more relevant to the tutee’s life; and if you

can present things in a different perspective then they were

presented in class.

3. To the future researchers who will conduct the same study,

researchers will make use of other variables that serve as

moderators to determine other factors that correlate to the academic

resilience of the students.

 34

References

Akem, J. A. (2008). Continuous assessment: A practical handbook from

schools. Makurdi: Selfers academic press limited. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aca
demia.edu

Briggs, S. (2014). How To Make Learning Relevant To Your Students (And Why
It’s Crucial To Their Success). Retrieved from
https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/how-to-make-
learning-relevant/

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from https://www.worldcat.org/title/becoming-a-
critically-reflective-teacher/oclc/32430634

Bull, A., Brooking, K. & Campbell, R. (2008). Successful home-school

partnerships. Report prepared for Ministry of Education by New Zealand
Council for Educational Research. Available:
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/28415/3

Cassidy, S. (2016). The academic resilience scale (ARS-30): A new

multidimensional construct measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article
1787. Retrieved from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/40582/, doi:
10.3389/psyg.2016.01787

Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting
teachers’ creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 12, 69–77. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.003

Collinson, V. & Cook, T. F. (2000). I don’t have enough time: Teachers’

interpretations of time as a key to learning and school change. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. New Orleans, LA, April 24-28. Retrieved from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/0957823011039288
4/full/html.

Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2003). Learning To Share, Sharing To Learn:

Fostering Organizational Learning through Teachers' Dissemination of
Knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED477733

Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience scale: The

Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) Depression and
Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76–82. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12964174/
 35

Costa, A.L., & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16
essential characteristics for success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved
from http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/Learning-and-
Leading-with-Habits-of-Mind.aspx.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson.
Retrieved from
https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/Reference
sPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=757162

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Harper and Row.
Retrieved from http://www.sciepub.com/reference/88746

Elvira, Q., Beausaert, S., Segers, M., Imants, J., & Dankbaar, B. (2016).
Development and validation of a Supportive Learning Environment for
Expertise Development Questionnaire (SLEED-Q). Learning Environments
Research, 19(1), 17-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9197-y

Elvira, Quincy; Beausaert, Simon; Segers, Mien; Imants, Jeroen; Dankbaar,

Ben (2016). Development and Validation of a Supportive Learning
Environment for Expertise Development Questionnaire (SLEED-Q).
Learning Environments Research, v19 n1 p17-41 Apr 2016. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1088095

Evans, S., Swan, M. (2014). Developing students' strategies for problem

solving in mathematics: the role of pre-designed "Sample Student Work",
Education Designer, 7. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/

Frymier, A.B., & Schulman, G.M. (1995). “What’s in it for me?” Increasing
content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication
Education, 44, 40-50. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-
31010-001

Hoge, E. A., Austin, E. D., and Pollack, M. H. (2007). Resilience: research

evidence and conceptual considerations for posttraumatic stress
disorder. Depress. Anxiety 24, 139–152. doi: 10.1002/da.20175. Retrieved
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16892420/.

Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories,
attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599. Retrieved from
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-11174-012

Jones C (2004). Putting learning first: the effective delivery of vocational A-

levels. Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://colleenyo
ung.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/10_assessment_for_learning_guide.pdf
 36

Kember, D., Ho, A. and Hong, C. 2008. The importance of establishing

relevance in motivating student learning. Active Learning in Higher
Education 9:249-263.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational

Researcher, 28,16-25.

Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive

psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43, 268-273.
doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4304_4

Lamond, J., Dhonau, M., Rose, C. and Proverbs, D. (2009) Overcoming the
barriers to installing property level flood protection: Retrieve from:
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16945

Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at Student
Work for Teacher Learning, Teacher Community, and School Reform. Phi
Delta Kappan, 85(3), 185-192.

Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A
critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3),
543-562.

Marcovitch, S., Jacques, S., Boseovski, J. J., & Zelazo, P. D. (2008). Self-
Reflection and the cognitive control of behavior: Implications for
learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2(3), 136-
141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00044.x

Martin A. J., Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and psychological and

educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the
school, 43, 267-282.

Martin, A.J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation,

engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and
educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327- 365.

Mawhinney, L. (2010). Let’s lunch and learn: Professional knowledge sharing

in teachers’ lounges and other congregational spaces. Teaching and
Teacher Education 26, 972-978.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.039

Miyake, A., Friedman, N.P., Emerson, M.J., Witzki, A.H., et al. (2000) Unity and
diversity of executive functions and their contribution to complex ‘frontal
lobe’ tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.
doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Morales, E. E. (2000). A contextual understanding of the process of educational

resilience: High achieving Dominican American students and the resilience
cycle. Innovative Higher Education, 25(1), 7–22.
 37

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine

motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 33–52.

Mwangi, C. N., Okatcha, F. N., Kinai, T. K., & Ireri, A. M. (2015). Relationship
between academic resilience and academic achievement among
secondary school students in Kiambu County, Kenya. International Journal
of School and Cognitive Psychology, 1-5. https://doi:10.4172/ijscp.S2-003.

Nickolite, A., & Doll, B. (2008). Resilience Applied in School: Strengthening

Classroom Environments for Learning. Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, 23, 94–113.

Non-routine Problems ,E-International Journal of Educational Research, Vol: 8,

No: 2, 2017, pp. 91-114.

Perkins, D.N. (1986) Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Perkins, D.N. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating

minds: New York: The Free Press.

Perrone, V. (1991a). A letter to teachers: Reflections on schooling and the art

of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Porter, J. (2017). Make Time for Self-Reflection (Even If You Hate Doing It).
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/03/why-you-should-make-time-for-self-
reflection-even-if-you-hate-doing-it

Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support

student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 27, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004

Roberson, R. (2013). Helping students find relevance. American Psychological

Association Psychology Teacher Network. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/ptn/2013/09/students-relevance

Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds. West Sussex, United Kingdom:

Capstone Publishing.
Rutter, M. (2006). Implication of reselience concepts for scientific
understanding. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1094, 1-12.

Santhosh, R., & James, J. (2013). The effect of resilience on burnout among
the blue collared employees in metal factories. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Management Studies, 3(6).

Saygılı, S. (2017). Examining The Problem Solving Skills and The Strategies
Used by High School Students in Solving.
 38

Schön, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Toward a New

Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: The
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ungar, M. (2006). The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 38, Issue 2,
February 2008, Pages 218–235, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl343

Wagner, T. (2010). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools
don't teach the new survival skills our children need–and what we can do
about it. New York: Basic Books.

Wagnild, G. M., Young, H. M. (1993). Development ang phychometric

evaluation of the eselience scale. J. Nurs. Meas. 1, 165-178.

Wieman, 2007. Why not try a scientific approach to science education. Change.
Sept/Oct: 9-15.

Wilson, D., & D. Sperber (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn, & G. L. Ward
(Eds.), the Handbook of Pragmatics. (pp. 607-632). Malden, Mass:
Blackwell.

Xia, B. S. (2013). Learning outcomes and knowledge sharing using web-based

technologies in Finnish forest education from an educational experience
point of view. E-Learning and Digital Media 10 (1), 95-106.

Yarrow, A., Millwater, J., & Fraser, B. (1997). Improving university and primary
school classroom environments through preservice teachers’ action
research. Practical Experiences in Professional Education, 1(1), 68–93.