Successes and Difficulties of Earist Cavite Campus Bs Criminology Students in Their Major Subjects
In:
Submitted By LePerito Words 13225 Pages 53
Constitution and protect the constituents.
But the question at stake is, how can the number of law enforcers augment to the need of the total populace? Thus, the challenge is posed … How is the making of law enforcers?
Criminology major subjects are intended to prepare those whose lives are dedicated in upholding the law and in protection to everyone.
The researchers devoted themselves to assess the Successes and Difficulties of their batch enabling them to fulfill for whatever field they may engage either Board Passers or Non-Board Passers.
Having so stated, this study focuses about: Academic & Economic Aspects in order to gauge and recommend practical, technical, legal and logistics programs and practices applicable hereto subject to the approval of the School Administration that will assure positive impact to the concerned stakeholders.
Hence, this study entitled Successes and Difficulties of EARIST Cavite Campus Bachelor of Science in Criminology Students in Their Major subjects.
Setting of the Study
Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST)- Cavite Campus, formerly called EARIST-GASAT (General Alvarez School of Arts and Trades), is a branch school of EARIST in Manila, a government state college. It operates with the funding support from the budgetary allotment of its Mother Institution, EARIST.
Established on March 24, 1982, EARIST Cavite Campus started by offering vocational-technical courses with Mr. Rodrigo P. Hipol (Dr. Hipol) who as designated as superintendent, utilizing the old NASIDA building in G.M.A. But later transferred to its present school site of 31,282 square meter lot donated by the National Housing Authority in 1986.
EARIST Cavite Campus is the only Institution in the town of General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite and it occupies a humble land along the congressional Road.
The existence of Bachelor of Science in Criminology in EARIST Cavite as stated began on June 2007 under President Eduardo S. Caillo. The school Director that time was Director Elidio Acibar with the Dean of College of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Estrellita C. Ilem and Criminology Chairperson Ms.Raquel D. Alfonso.
The Bachelor of Science in Criminology students from batch 2007-2011 were composed of 160 enrolled students and 110 graduates. The Board passers from the same years/batches were 51.
Through the Collaboration efforts of EARIST officials, the Municipal and Provincial Government officials, led by Congressman Roy M. Loyola, a two-storey Criminology building was constructed on year 2013.
Gauging the vast gap between the populace versus law enforcers in 2012 - 2014; this group of student researchers having burdened of the conditions of the Criminology graduates and students with the guidance of their adviser and instructors considered this endeavor.
Figure 1
Map of EARIST Cavite Campus
Theoretical Framework
1. Attribution Theory
The Attribution Theory proposed by Bernard Weiner (2013), looked at how people interpret success and failure. Weiner stated that our successes and failures are attributed to four things, (1) Effort – an internal and unstable factor over which can exercise a great deal of control; (2) Ability – a relatively internal and stable factor over which we do not exercise much direct control; (3) Level of task difficulty – an external and stable factor that is largely beyond our control; (4) Luck – an external and unstable factor over which we exercise very little control.
2. Theory of Difficulty
Theory of Difficulty identifies learners’ characteristic trouble spots for a particular area of instruction and includes some causal analysis of why they occur toward improved teaching and learning. This theory was proposed in 2008 by a senior professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, David Perkins (2011).
The literature on learning and development offers numerous ways of understanding conceptual difficulties, as well as recognizing problems of ritualized knowledge, inert knowledge, knowledge too foreign for learners to engage it readily, and tacit knowledge, the partly unconscious nature of which poses learning challenges. In a variety of reported studies, a strong theory of difficulty has led to improved learning. In everyday teaching, teachers’ response to recurrent difficulties may fall short. One not uncommon reaction is to blame the learners’ weaknesses and simply keep teaching in the same manner. Another somewhat more effective response is to ‘teach harder’; lavishing more time and attention on characteristic difficulties without any causal analysis of what makes them problematic. Most effective is to ‘teach smarter’ based on a causal analysis refined through experience. This theory of difficulty is an important part of the craft of teaching.
3. Expectancy Theory
Victor Vroom (2012) was the first to develop an expectancy theory with direct application to work settings.
Vroom’s expectancy theory provides a process of cognitive variables that reflects individual differences in work motivation. It identifies several important things that can be done to motivate employees by altering the person’s effort-to-performance expectancy, performance-to-reward expectancy, and reward valences.
Expectancy theory is more concerned with the cognitive antecedents that go into motivation and the way they relate to each other. That is, expectancy theory is a cognitive process theory of motivation that is based on the idea that people believe there are relationships between the effort they put forth at work, the performance they achieve from that effort, and the rewards they receive from their effort and performance. In other words, people will be motivated if they believe that strong effort will lead to good performance and good performance will lead to desired rewards.
Expectancy theory is based on four assumptions (Vroom, 2012). One assumption is that people join organizations with expectations about their needs, motivations, and past experiences. These influence how individuals react to the organization. A second assumption is that an individual’s behavior is a result of conscious choice. That is, people are free to choose those behaviors suggested by their own expectancy calculations. A third assumption is that people want different things from the organization (e.g., good salary, job security, advancement, and challenge). A fourth assumption is that people will choose among alternatives so as to optimize outcomes for them personally. The expectancy theory based on these assumptions has three key elements: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. A person is motivated to the degree that he or she believes that (a) effort will lead to acceptable performance (expectancy), (b) performance will be rewarded (instrumentality), and (c) the value of the rewards is highly positive (valence).
4. Theory of Constraints (Joseph Berger) According to Jesse Crispino and Ryan Saulsbury (2014) “A Look at the Drum-Buffer-Rope and Critical Chain Project Management Approach” Theory of Constraints: TOC applies the methods used by the “hard” sciences to understand and manage the material world of human-based systems including the lives of individuals and organizations. TOC comprises a methodology for solving problems and implementing the solution found. The traditional definition of a problem is a source of perplexity, distress or irritation. The TOC/hard science definition of a problem is a conflict between two conditions/observations. A basic belief in science is that conflicts do not exist in reality; i.e., something is wrong in our understanding. Theory of Constraints is the TOC Thinking Processes and the breakthrough, generic solutions that were derived from applying them to specific application areas (e.g., marketing, sales, production, distribution, project management, human relations, etc.
Conceptual Framework Presented below is the research paradigm showing the input-process-output of the study which guided the researchers in understanding the flow of the research. The Input contains the Profile of the respondents as to Age, Monthly Family Income, High School GPA and ECAT Score. Academic Performance of the respondents in their major subjects. Respondents contributing factors in their major subjects (Successes and Difficulties). Followed by the research process contains the Gathering of information, Formulation of survey questionnaire, Collection of respondents’ High School GPA, ECAT Score and grades in major subjects, Administration of survey questionnaire personally, Interview and Statistical treatment of data. Lastly, the Output contains Identified successes and difficulties of 4th year Bachelor of Science in Criminology students in their major subjects and Recommendations on how to enhance the academic performance of the BS Criminology students in their major subjects.
1. Identified
Successes and difficulties of 4th year BS Criminology students in their major subjects
2.Recommendations on how to enhance the academic performance of the BS Criminology students in their major subjects
1. Gathering of information
2. Formulation of survey questionnaire
3. Collection
Of respondents’
High School
GPA, ECAT
Score and grades in
Major subjects
4.Administration of the survey questionnaire personally
5. Interview
6. Statistical treatment of data 1. The profile of the respondents as to: 1.1 Age 1.2 Monthly Family income 1.3 High School GPA 1.4 ECAT Score
2. Academic performance of the respondents as to: 2.1 CA 2.2 CDI 2.3 CLJ 2.4 CRIM 2.5 CRMLISTICS 2.6 LEA
3. Respondents contributing factors in their major subjects as to:
3.1 Successes 3.2 Difficulties
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Feedback
Figure 2. IPO Model
Statement of the Problem
This endeavor aims to assess the Successes and Difficulties of the respondents’ in their major subjects.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions: 1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1 Age
1.2 Monthly Family Income
1.3 High School GPA
1.4 ECAT Score
2. What is the Academic Performance of the respondents as to their General Weighted Average in terms of: 2.1 Correctional Administration
2.2 Crime Detection & Investigation
2.3 Criminal Law & Jurisprudence
2.4 Criminal Sociology, Ethics & Human Relation
2.5 Criminalistics
2.6 Law Enforcement Administration 3. What are the respondents’ contributing factors in their major subjects as to:
3.1 Successes
3.2 Difficulties 4. Is there a significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents’ and the contributing factors as to:
4.1 Correctional Administration
4.2 Crime Detection & Investigation
4.3 Criminal Law & Jurisprudence
4.4 Criminal Sociology, Ethics & Human Relation
4.5 Criminalistics
4.6 Law Enforcement Administration
5. Is there a significant relationship between the Academic performance of the respondents in their major subjects and to the contributing factors in the respondents’ major subjects?
6. What specific interventions the institution concerned can do for effective implementation of the proposed recommendations this study will present?
Hypotheses
In the foregoing study the following hypothetical questions were drawn using the Null Hypothesis: 1. There is no significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents’ and the contributing factors in the respondents’ major subjects.
2. There is no significant relationship between the Academic performance of the respondents in their major subjects and to the contributing factors in the respondents’ major subjects.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
This research entitled Successes and Difficulties of EARIST Cavite Campus Bachelor of Science in Criminology Students in their Major Subjects.
Focused its scope among the 4th year level of Bachelor of Science in Criminology student this 1st semester 2015-2016. And also focused in all Criminology major subjects such as Correctional Administration subjects, Crime Detection & Investigation subjects, Criminal Law & Jurisprudence subjects, Criminal Sociology, Ethics & Human Relations’ subjects, Criminalistics subjects and Law Enforcement Administration subjects.
It limits its coverage under study on the Economic and Academic Aspects in all criminology major subjects only.
Significance of the Study
Result of the study will be significant to the following:
Students. This study will serve as a guide for them to know the importance of the all the major subjects in order to enhance their performance that will sharpen their better future.
School. This study will help the school to know what must be improved or developed in their services within the concerns of the students.
Curriculum Developer. This study will serve as an additional idea on what to improve on the curriculum of EARIST Cavite Campus Bachelor of Science in Criminology program.
Department. This study will help the Department of Criminology in producing best Bachelor of Science in Criminology students turning them to become an effective law enforcement officer.
Faculty. This study will help those faculty members to be aware of their role in the enhancement of the students’ interest in academics.
Administration. Its commitment to transcend beyond their vision & mission will provide them a guiding light in their pursuit for excellence.
Future Researcher. This study will give them additional information for their future research paper.
Parents. This study will help the parents to be aware on the services of the institution that best suit & satisfy the needs of their children for their educational and professional needs.
Community. This study will give the community more competent Bachelor of Science in Criminology students for manpower pooling.
Definition of Terms Academic Performance it refers to the respondents educational performance on the major subjects under study.
Assessment it refers to measurement of the respondents’ successes and difficulties in their major subjects.
Contributing factors it refers to the successes and difficulties of the respondents to their major subjects.
Crime Rate it refers to the number of crime incidents in a given period of time for every 100,000 inhabitants of an area.
Crime Volume it refers to the number of crime incidents committed in a given area over a period of time which include the index and non-index crimes.
Criminology Students it refers to the ones’ taking up Bachelor of Science in Criminology and refers to the respondent students’ under study.
Difficulties it refers to the things or situations that frustrates the respondents, either because of school works or lacking of elements they need in enhancing their performance in their major subjects.
ECAT Score it refers to the respondents’ total score in their EARIST College Admission Test or Entrance Examination.
Monthly Family Income it refers to the financial income of the respondents per month.
General Weighted Average (GWA) it refers to the grade of the respondent students’ in their major subjects.
Grade Point Average (GPA) it refers to the respondents’ 4th year High School Grade Point Average.
Law Enforcers it refers to police officers in the Philippines.
Major Subjects it refers to Correctional Administration subjects, Crime Detection & Investigation subjects, Criminal Law & Jurisprudence subjects, Criminal Sociology, Ethics & Human Relations’ subjects, Criminalistics’ subjects and Law Enforcement Administration subjects.
Respondents Profile it refers to the age, monthly family income, high school GPA and ECAT Score of the respondents.
Successes it refers to the outcome or results, achievements and accomplishments of the respondents regarding to their major subjects.
Total Population it refers to the yearly total number of inhabitants in Philippines.
CHAPTER 2
Review of Related Literature and Studies
This chapter introduces the studies, the literature gathered, read and evaluated by the researchers with the substructure of information needed to pursue the necessary recommendations. The following facts were based on both from foreign and local sources.
Foreign Literature
According to Feldman (2014), the way in which we view the causes of success and failure is, in fact, directly related to our success. Students who generally see effort and hard work as the reason behind their performance usually do better in college.
It is argued that the link between trust bases and a trustful state of expectation is mark weaker than is commonly assumed.
Georg Simmel recognizes a “further element”, a kind of faith that is required to explain trust in his unique nature.
His work has influenced key authors in the field such as Luhmann and Giddens crucial, proverbial leap of trust is still underdeveloped. Hence, the article proceeds to conceptualize trust as a mental process of three (3) elements: Expectation; Interpretation; and Suspension. Expectation is the state at the end or the outcome of the process. Interpretation concerns the experiencing of reality that provides “Good reason”. It is recognized that current trust research already moves away from the rational choice model and allows for effective and abstract (moral) trust bases. However, any form of interpretation is limited and does not inevitably enable expectation, lastly, suspension is the mechanism of bracketing the unknowable, thus, and making interpretative knowledge momentarily certain suspension enables the leap of trust. Functional consequence of trust such as risk-taking, co-operation, relationship or social capital should not be confounded with trust.
Shepard (2010) provided that the intentions of standards-based education—to focus greater attention on student learning, to ensure the participation and success of all students, and to provide guidance for educational improvement—are in the best interest of the country.
According to Feldman (2014), Prepare, Organize, Work, Evaluate and Rethink are the five key steps in achieving success and P.O.W.E.R. learning provides an increasing chances of success at any task.
Success
As stated in Business dictionary, Success can also mean completing an objective or reaching a goal. Success can be expanded to encompass an entire project or be restricted to a single component of a project or task. It can be achieved within the workplace, or in an individual’s personal life.
According to Thomas J. Watson “If you want to succeed double your failure rate”.
Difficulties
The problems and difficulties are categorized into: personal problems, emotional problems, problems on teacher’s instruction, problems in adjusting to classmates/board mates, problems with school adjustment and problems arising from over extended schedule/workloads for practice in different competitions.
People with learning difficulties are generally regarded as being an ‘at risk’ group in terms of poor treatment by others, lack of available opportunities, poor physical and mental health and social well-being (Seale and Nind, 2010). We often seek to eliminate difficulties in learning, to our own detriment (Jeff Bye, 2011).
Class size is one of the factors that impact upon academic performance and the general relationship is a negative one (Heinesen, 2010), as such a vicious cycle seems to have been created. It is important, therefore, that an investigation be carried out to identify some of the factors that are closely associated with poor academic performance in this course so that corrective measures, where possible, can be taken.
Economic
Socio-economic factors like attendance in the class, family income, and mother’s and father’s education, teachers-student ratio, presence of trained teacher in school, sex of the student, and distance of school are also affected the performance of the students. Parental involvement in a child education along with environmental and economic factors may affect child development in areas such as cognition, language, social skills.
Between the years ending 30 June 2010 and 30 June 2013 (2009/10 to 2012/13), average annual household income, for those receiving income from regular sources, increased from $76,733 to $85,588 (11.5 percent). Over the same period, average annual personal income for those aged 15 years and over who were receiving income from regular sources, increased from $39,512 to $44,426 (12.4 percent). Contributing to these increases were rises in income from wages and salaries, and New Zealand Superannuation and war pensions. The number of people earning income from these sources also increased (Statistics New Zealand, 2013).
Learning is the influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relationship, and communication with others and enhanced when children have an opportunity to interact with and collaborate with others on instructional task. In this situation, children have opportunities for perspective taking and reflective thinking that can enhanced their self-esteem and development.
According to Shindler (2010), growth versus fixed ability orientation as related to one’s self efficacy, sense of belonging and acceptance versus isolation and worthlessness and internal versus external locus of control are the three factors that make up a psychological orientation toward success.
Local Literature
Law Enforcement Administration is a major professional subject in Criminology. It covers the study of police organizations, their administration and management, police operations, security management and the principles, theories and their application.
Law Enforcement Administration is primarily laid down in the hands of the Philippine National Police- the main government agency for law enforcement. It is both a national and a local police force that provides all law enforcement services throughout the country (Manwong and San Diego 2012).
According to Soriano (2011), in most cases the police to population ratio is 1:1000 as maybe prescribed by regulations promulgated by the National Police Commission or NAPOLCOM.
The Philippine National Police (PNP) plans to improve its police to population ratio by opening its door to more civilians for administrative and technical positions. Based on international standard, the ideal police to population ratio is about one policeman for every 500 people. But the country’s police to civilian population ratio is 1/800 (Vargas, 2014).
Senate President Franklin Drilon underscored the need to increase police visibility to deter crime and respond to any crisis rapidly and urged the National Police to commit to the ratio mandated by law of one policeman for every 500 people, saying police visibility was critical to reducing crime especially in the critical areas.
The average police-to-population ratio is 1:645, but the current ratio is quite higher in some places, particularly in Metro Manila where the police-to-population ratio is 1:1,000 (Araneta,2013).
With a Philippine population of 92 million, the 150,000-police force still lacks the manpower for the ideal police to population ratio, based on international standards, of one policeman for every 500 people (Marcelo, 2014).
According to Philippine National Police (2014), the current police to population ratio is one policeman for every 700 people. In some areas, the police to population ratio is one policeman for every 1,000 people.
According to Chief Supt. Reuben Theodore Sindac (2014) , for a law enforcement organization which has been desperately trying to keep up with the international standard of one policeman for every 500 people, the growing population is really a cause for worry.
Sindacs (2014) also stated that the increase in population has impact on cases of poverty that eventually boils down to the issue of additional crime volume, law enforcement-wise. And with the deployment of more uniformed cops in the streets, the Philippines will be nearing the ideal police-population ratio of one cop per every 500 people.
According to Recuenca (2014), the police to population ratio stands at one for every 700 Filipinos. It is higher in some areas where there is one cop for every 1,000 people.
In the Philippines, one of the important strategies of helping students achieve better in scholastic endeavors is to immerse them in field works or industrial exposures so that they could apply their theoretical ability to real-life experiences. But this approach must be studied very well since variability of students’ placements in industry, commerce and the public sector, the differing quality of learning opportunities and the diverse approaches to the supervision of students are some of the hindrances to the assessment of learning at the workplace.
According to Buendicho (2013), Assessment is the process of making a judgment or measurement of worth of an entity e.g. person, process or program. Educational Assessment involves gathering and evaluating data evolving from planned learning activities or program. This form of Assessment is often referred to as evaluation. According to her, the aim of assessment is to improve and develop student learning, not just to find out how good students are at some kinds of examination. Assessment system should be convenient for all students and should contribute to the development of all the students’ potentials towards a higher level of learning.
In Buendicho’s (2013) book of Assessment of Student Learning 1, Assessment defined as the systematic collection, review, and use of information about educational programs undertaken for the purpose of improving student learning and development. It is a formative process that focuses on student learning that involves setting explicit student learning goals or outcomes for an academic program, evaluating the extent to which students are reaching those goals and using the information for program development and improvement.
The assertion of Aguirre and de Cadiz (2011) emphasized that credible assessment and accreditation of curricula will usher the offering of programs for students to acquire specialized skills suited to the demands of various industries.
Foreign Studies
Stinidou, Gerogiannis and Fitsilis, (2010), stated that educational services are often not tangible and are difficult to measure because they result in the form of transformation of knowledge, Life skills and behavior modifications of learners. To improve the educational productivity, some of the teaching staff sought to mainstream technology within education , developing traditional techniques and using new educational methods.
According to Raychauduri et al. (2010), Kernan, Bogart and Wheat (2011), academic success of graduate student will be enhanced if the optimal health related barriers are low. There is negative relationship between collage credit and stress but weak relationship between the GPA (Grade Point Average) and stress.
The older students were supposed to perform better than the younger ones, but the findings are different. The result of hypothesis two shows that there is no significant different between undergraduates academic performance based on age. The plausible reason for this could be drawn from Piaget theory which says that at adolescent, the individual’s brain is fully developed and can get involved in complex as well as abstract thinking. The younger students tend to be more focused on their academic pursuits than the older ones. This could be because the older ones are encumbered with other nonacademic pressing needs than their attention (Okoh, 2010).
Alavi and Shafeq (2011), indicated that the most disturbing categories of problems among international students at UTM are social and recreational as well as the curriculum and Method of Teaching Problems.
Bye (2011) stated that, “instructors facilitate learning by making it easier, it may increase short-term performance, but it may decrease long-term retention”. Bjork (2013) suggests that once instructors decide what they want students to remember a year after their course is over, they then think about how to implement desirable difficulties into their course.
Economic
Carnavale, Rose and Cheah (2011), Stated that the student performance depends less on the economic level of the parents and more on the value they attach to learning, As well as on their level of education. Research shows that the economic payoff for having a college degree, versus a high school diploma, is higher than ever.
In the study of “ Why Do Students Fails in Academic Leaders’ Perspectives”, conducted by Abour H. Cherif, Gerald E. Adams, Farahnaz Movahedzadeh, and Margaret A. Martyn (2015), Economic issues (primarily, lack of resources) was another category of reasons for student failure. This root cause ranked eight in the study (cited 23 times, or 3 percent of responses). As in the earlier study conducted with faculty, a number of academic leaders labeled lack of resources “economic disability” with a direct link to student failing to complete college. While many participants thought that socioeconomic demographics play a major role in the student success, a significant number a participant said that if the student make the grades at the high school level, there is always a way for them to come to college without worrying that much about the cost of their education. Other participants said that if colleges can develop means by which students can borrow textbooks, laptop, computers and access to the Internet when they can’t otherwise afford them, this could alleviate some measure of financial difficulty.
Shindler (2010), stated that self-esteem, achievement psychology, intrinsic motivation, movement psychology, and success psychology are all characteristics are fundamental components of academic success.
Cherif et al. (2014), posed a question to 190 faculty members from two- and four-year institutions to ask their perspectives of why students fail courses and drop out of colleges. Faculty members’ responses were grouped into eight categories, including students not being ready for college (38 percent); faculty instruction and behavior (12 percent); students’ lack of motivation (12 percent); students’ lack of effort (12 percent); students’ life, work, and career issues (9 percent); facilities, materials, and delivery systems (8 percent); students’ personality issues (6 percent); and economic issues (3 percent).
Local Studies
Salandanan (2012) stated, that assessment is a process of gathering information on how instructional objective or purpose is being achieved. With the result of the appropriate and valid assessment tool administered to the students, a teacher will be able to know further input or discussion in order to meet the learning needs of the students as well as the development of the students with another enhancement exercise.
According to Jala (2013), without evaluation and measurement, it is impossible to know the student’s needs and preferences.
Synthesis of Related Literature and Studies The review of related literature and studies were served as backbones in this study, and gave the researchers more knowledge about factors that affects students’ academic performance and what successes and difficulties does the students encountered or can be encountered.
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
This chapter present the method used in this study. It includes the population and sampling, respondents of the study, instrument used, the data gathering procedures in collection of data and the statistical treatment.
Research Design
Descriptive method of research was used by the research in order to assess the success and difficulty factors of the respondent students. This method is supported with survey analysis to explain the prevailing situations and information as one instrument.
According to Calderon (2012), Descriptive Method of Research is a purposive process of gathering, analyzing, classifying, and tabulating data about prevailing conditions, practices, beliefs, processes, trends, and cause-effect relationship and then making an adequate and accurate interpretation about such data with or without the aid of statistical methods.
Population and Sampling The researchers used purposive sampling design in the selection of respondents. These respondents are mainly 4th year criminology students School Year 2015-2016 of EARIST Cavite Campus.
Table 1
Distribution of Respondents as to Age Age | Population | Sample | | Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | 18 | 2 | 3.33 | 2 | 3.33 | 19 | 14 | 23.33 | 9 | 15 | 20 | 9 | 15 | 8 | 13.33 | 21 | 14 | 23.33 | 12 | 20 | 22 | 9 | 15 | 8 | 13.33 | 23 | 4 | 6.67 | 1 | 1.67 | 24 | 5 | 8.33 | 3 | 5 | 25 | 1 | 1.67 | 1 | 1.67 | 26 | 1 | 1.67 | 1 | 1.67 | 27 | 1 | 1.67 | 1 | 1.67 | Total | 60 | 100% | 46 | 76.67 |
It can be gleaned above that the total population is 46 and the total sample is 46 with a total percentage of 76.67.
Respondents of the study The respondents of the study are the EARIST CAVITE CAMPUS’ BS Criminology students of the school year 2015-2016 with the year level of 4th.
Research Instruments
Interview. This instrument was used to approach the respondents to gather necessary information about their successes and difficulties in their major subjects. The interview was used to enable researchers to gain insights into their research problems and possible way to counter it.
Internet Searching. This method was used by the researchers to gather information limited or difficult to find in libraries. This method also gains information in a fast and easy way.
Library Technique. The researchers read and analyze books, published and unpublished works and other material useful for study.
Survey Questionnaire. This is the main instrument in this study. It elicited information as to the practices encountered by the practices encountered by the persons directly involved in the study. The survey questionnaire has two parts that are being formulated & distributed to the respondents. The two parts of the survey questionnaire are: (1) Respondents Profile (2) Academic Performance of the Respondents and (3) Academic Aspects in terms of Contributing Factors such as successes and difficulties.
Data Gathering Procedures The main source of data gathering was the survey questionnaire. It was researchers’ made questionnaire and own design with the help of their thesis adviser and instructor. It contains items that would answer the problems that are being investigated. After the validation of survey questionnaire, it was distributed to the respondents to answer. The answered questionnaires from respondents were sent back to the researchers, and then the gathered data was tabulated, analyzed, tallied and subjected to statistical treatment.
Statistical treatment of data The following statistical tools were used in the treatment of the data generated in this study:
1. Frequency and Percentage was used to determine the profile of the respondents.
Formula
P = f/n x 100 Where: P = Percentage f = frequency n = total no. of respondents
2. Weighted Mean was used to determine the degree of contributing factors of the respondents.
Formula
Where: f = frequency n = number of respondents
The assigned points, together with the corresponding numerical range and verbal interpretation, are as follows: Scale Numerical Range Verbal Interpretation
5 (4.50 – 5.00) Very Highly Successful
4 (3.50 – 4.49) Highly Successful
3 (2.50 – 3.49) Successful
2 (1.50 – 2.49) Moderately Successful
1 (1.00 – 1.49) Not Successful 3. t-test, was used to determine the significant difference between the Profile Variables of the respondents and the contributing factors as to all major subjects.
Formula
Where: t = test for difference x1 = mean of respondents of the 1st variable x2 = mean of respondents of the 2nd variable n2 = number of respondents of the 2nd variable s1 = variance of respondents of the 1st variable s2 = variance of respondents of the 2nd variable
4. Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (Pearson r), was used to determine the significant relationship between the academic performance and the contributing factors of the respondents.
Formula
Where: r = Pearson correlation coefficient n = number of respondents x = independent variable y = dependent variable Interpretation of Pearson r
Values Interpretation
0.90 – 1.00 Very high relationship
0.70 – 0.89 High relationship
0.40 – 0.69 Marked and substantial
0.20 – 0.39 Present but Slight
0.00 – 0.19 Negligible
5. T-test, to test the significance of r.
Formula
t =
Where:
t = Computed t-value r = Coefficient of correlation n = Sample size
CHAPTER 4
Presentation, Interpretation and Analysis of Data
Findings of the study are presented, analyzed and interpreted in this chapter. This served as a basis for the researchers to formulate Summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and relate to which literature or study is proven right. Presented below are the results, analysis and interpretations of data gathered. Sub-problem No. 1. What is the Profile of the Respondents as to:
1.1 Age
Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to Age Age | Frequency | Percentage | 18 – 20 | 19 | 41.30% | 21 – 23 | 21 | 45.65% | 24 – 26 | 5 | 10.87% | 27 – 29 | 1 | 2.17% | Total | 46 | 100.00% | Age group 21 – 23 was the highest frequency with twenty-one or 45.65 percent followed by the age group 18 to 20 with nineteen or 43.30 percent followed by the age group 24 - 26 with 5 or 10.87 percent and 27 to 29 with 1 or 2.17 percent. Majority of the respondents belonged to age 21 to 23.
1.2 Monthly Family Income
Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to Monthly Family Income Income (Pesos) | Frequency | Percentage | 2,500 - 5,000 | 9 | 19.57% | 5,001 - 10,000 | 18 | 39.13% | 10,001 - 15,000 | 19 | 41.30% | Total | 46 | 100.00% |
Based on the table nineteen or 41.30 percent of the respondents have an income of 10, 001 to 15, 000 while eighteen or 39.13 of the respondents have 5,001 to 10, 000 and nine or 19.57 percent have a monthly family income of 2,500 to 5, 000.
1.3 High School Grade Point Average
Table 4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to High School GPA HS GPA | Frequency | Percentage | 75 – 79 | 8 | 17.39 | 80 – 84 | 28 | 60.87 | 85 – 89 | 7 | 15.22 | 90 – 94 | 3 | 6.52 | Total | 46 | 100% |
In terms of High School Grade Point Average (GPA) twenty-eight of the respondent or 60.87 got a Grade Point Average of 80 to 84, eight or 17.39 of the respondents got a Grade Point Average of 75 to 79, seven or 15.22 percent got 85 to 89 and three or 6.52 percent of the respondents got 90 to 94. This shows that majority of the respondents have 80 to 84 High School Grade Point Average. 1.4 Entrance College Admission Test (ECAT)
Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents
According to ECAT Score
Based on the result of the Entrance College Admission Test of the respondents, fifteen or 32.61 percent of the respondents had a score of 71 to 75, thirteen or 28.26 percent had a score of 66 to 70, ten or 21.74 percent had a score of 76 to 80, five or 10.87 of the respondents had a score of 81 to 85 and three or 6.52 had a score of 61 to 65.
Sub-problem No. 2. What is the Academic Performance of the Respondents in their major subjects?
Table 6
Summary of Descriptive Statistics of Academic Performance in
Major Subjects
Measures | CA | CDI | CLJ | CRIM | CRMLISTICS | LEA | 1. Mean | 2.22 | 2.27 | 2.34 | 2.30 | 2.24 | 2.07 | 2. Median | 2.25 | 2.25 | 2.35 | 2.33 | 2.29 | 2.13 | 3. Mode | 2.25 | 2.25 | 2.3 | 2.33 | 2.42 | 2.25 | 4. Standard Deviation | 0.34 | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.30 | 5. Minimum | 1.5 | 1.29 | 1.4 | 1.25 | 1.29 | 1.21 | 6. Maximum | 3 | 3.63 | 3.1 | 3.71 | 3.63 | 2.54 | The table discloses the Academic Performance of the students in each major subject. (CLJ) Criminal Law and Jurisprudence with the Mean of 2.34 ranked 6 followed by (CRIM) Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation with 2.30 ranked 5, 2.27 for (CDI) Criminal Detection and Investigation with a rank of 4, (CRMLISTICS) Criminalistics ranked 3 with the Mean of 2.24, (CA) Correctional Administration ranked 2 with 2.22 as Mean and lastly (LEA) Law Enforcement Administration ranked 1 with the Mean of 2.07 ranked 1.
It is clearly seen in the table that the students performed low in CLJ on the other hand, the students performed well in LEA.
Sub-problem No. 3. What are the Respondents Contributing Factors in terms of:
3.1 Successes
Table 7
Contributing Factors as to Success Subject | Average Weighted Mean | Interpretation | Rank | 1. Correctional Administration | 3.93 | HighlySuccessful | 2 | 2. Crime Detention and Investigation | 3.85 | Highly Successful | 4 | 3. Criminal Law and Jurisprudence | 3.20 | Successful | 6 | 4. Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation | 3.81 | Highly Successful | 5 | 5. Criminalistics | 3.88 | Highly Successful | 3 | 6. Law Enforcement Administration | 3.98 | Highly Successful | 1 | General Weighted Mean | 3.78 | Highly Successful | |
As seen on the table the Contributing Factors of the respondents according to Successes in six major subjects, the respondents are “Highly Successful” in CA, CDI, CRIM, CRIMINALISTICS and LEA subjects with the Weighted Mean ranging from 3.81-3.98 while the students are “Successful” in CLJ with the Weighted Mean of 3.20.
Generally, the General Weighted Average of success factors in all major subjects is 3.78 interpreted as “Highly Successful”.
It is clearly seen that the students are highly successful in Law Enforcement Administration which falls to rank number 1.
3.2 Difficulties
Table 8
Contributing Factors as to Difficulties Subject | Average Weighted Mean | Interpretation | Rank | 1. Correctional Administration | 3.46 | Difficult | 5 | 2. Crime Detention and Investigation | 3.57 | Highly Difficult | 3 | 3. Criminal Law and Jurisprudence | 3.90 | Highly Difficult | 1 | 4. Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation | 3.67 | Highly Difficult | 2 | 5. Criminalistics | 3.56 | Highly Difficult | 4 | 6. Law Enforcement Administration | 3.40 | Difficult | 6 | General Weighted Mean | 3.60 | Highly Difficult | |
As seen on the table the Contributing Factors of the respondents according to Difficulties in six major subjects, the respondents experience “Difficulty” in LEA and CA subjects with the Weighted Mean ranging from 3.40-3.46.
Generally, the General Weighted Average of difficulty factors in all major subjects is 3.60 interpreted as “Highly Difficult”.
It is clearly seen that the students experience high difficulty in Criminal Law and Jurisprudence which falls to rank number 1.
Sub-problem No. 4. Is there a significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents and the contributing factors as to:
4.1 Correctional Administration
Table 9
Relationship Between the Profile Variables of the Respondents and the Contributing Factors as to Correctional Administration Profile | Pearson r | Computed t | Interpretation | Age | 0.11 | 0.73 | Not Significant | Monthly Family Income | 0.13 | 0.87 | Not Significant | High School GPA | 0.05 | 0.33 | Not Significant | ECAT Score | 0.09 | 0.60 | Not Significant | CV = 2.01 α = 0.05 It is revealed in the table the computed t-value of 0.73 (Age), 0.87 (Monthly Family Income), 0.33 (High School GPA) and 0.60 (ECAT Score) are lesser to the critical t-value of 2.01 with 44 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level therefore the research hypothesis was accepted. There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the contributing factors as to Correctional Administration.
4.2 Crime Detection and Investigation
Table 10
Relationship Between the Profile Variables of the Respondents and the Contributing Factors as to
Crime Detection and Investigation Profile | Pearson r | Computed t | Interpretation | Age | 0.02 | 0.13 | Not Significant | Monthly Family Income | 0.09 | 0.60 | Not Significant | High School GPA | 0.09 | 0.60 | Not Significant | ECAT Score | 0.06 | 0.04 | Not Significant | CV = 2.01 α = 0.05 It is revealed in the table the computed t-value of 0.13 (Age), 0.60 (Monthly Family Income), 0.60 (High School GPA) and 0.04 (ECAT Score) are lesser to the critical t-value of 2.01 with 44 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level therefore the research hypothesis was accepted. There is no significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents and the contributing factors as to Crime Detection and Investigation.
4.3 Criminal Law and Jurisprudence
Table 11
Relationship Between the Profile Variables of the Respondents and the Contributing Factors as to
Criminal Law and Jurisprudence Profile | Pearson r | Computed t | Interpretation | Age | 0.06 | 0.04 | Not Significant | Family Monthly Income | 0.24 | 1.64 | Not Significant | High School GPA | 0.12 | 0.08 | Not Significant | ECAT | 0.03 | 0.02 | Not Significant | CV = 2.01 α = 0.05
It is revealed in the table the computed t-value of 0.04 (Age), 1.64 (Monthly Family Income), 0.08 (High School GPA) and 0.02 (ECAT Score) are lesser to the critical t-value of 2.01 with 44 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level therefore the research hypothesis was accepted. There is no significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents and the contributing factors as to Criminal Law and Jurisprudence.
4.4 Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation
Table 12
Relationship Between the Profile Variables of the Respondents and the Contributing Factors as to
Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation Profile | Pearson r | Computed t | Interpretation | Age | 0.06 | 0.04 | Not Significant | Family Monthly Income | 0.10 | 0.67 | Not Significant | High School GPA | 0.25 | 1.71 | Not Significant | ECAT | 0.18 | 1.21 | Not Significant | CV = 2.01 α = 0.05
It is revealed in the table the computed t-value of 0.04 (Age), 0.67 (Monthly Family Income), 1.71 (High School GPA) and 1.21 (ECAT Score) are lesser to the critical t-value of 2.01 with 44 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level therefore the research hypothesis was accepted. There is no significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents and the contributing factors as to Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation.
4.5 Criminalistics
Table 13
Relationship Between the Profile Variables of the Respondents and the Contributing Factors as to
Criminalistics
Profile | Pearson r | Computed t | Interpretation | Age | 0.09 | 0.60 | Not Significant | Family Monthly Income | 0.16 | 1.08 | Not Significant | High School GPA | 0.02 | 0.13 | Not Significant | ECAT | 0.05 | 0.33 | Not Significant | CV = 2.01 α = 0.05
It is revealed in the table the computed t-value of 0.60 (Age), 1.08 (Monthly Family Income), 0.13 (High School GPA) and 0.33 (ECAT Score) are lesser to the critical t-value of 2.01 with 44 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level therefore the research hypothesis was accepted. There is no significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents and the contributing factors as to Criminalistics.
4.6 Law Enforcement Administration
Table 14
Relationship Between the Profile Variables of the Respondents and the Contributing Factors as to
Law Enforcement Administration Profile | Pearson r | Computed t | Interpretation | Age | 0.21 | 1.42 | Not Significant | Family Monthly Income | 0.22 | 1.50 | Not Significant | High School GWA | 0.04 | 0.27 | Not Significant | ECAT | 0.05 | 0.33 | Not Significant | CV = 2.01 α = 0.05
It is revealed in the table the computed t-value of 1.42 (Age), 1.50 (Monthly Family Income), 0.27 (High School GPA) and 0.33 (ECAT Score) are lesser to the critical t-value of 2.01 with 44 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level therefore the research hypothesis was accepted. There is no significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents and the contributing factors as to Law Enforcement Administration.
Sub-problem No. 5. Is there a significant relationship between the academic performance of the respondents in their major subjects and to the contributing factors in the respondents’ major subjects?
Table 15
Relationship between the Academic Performance of the Respondents’ Major Subjects and to the
Contributing Factors Major Subject | Pearson r | Computed t | Interpretation | 1. Correctional Administration | 0.56 | 4.58 | Significant | 2. Crime Detection and Investigation | 0.57 | 4.71 | Significant | 3. Criminal Law and Jurisprudence | 0.22 | 1.53 | Not Significant | 4. Criminal Sociology, Ethics & Human Relation | 0.55 | 4.47 | Significant | 5. Criminalistics | 0.53 | 4.24 | Significant | 4. Law Enforcement Administration | 0.32 | 2.29 | Significant | CV = 2.01 α = 0.05 It is reflected on the table the computed t-value of 4.58 (Correctional Administration), 4.71 (Crime Detection and Investigation), 4.47 (Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation), 4.24 (Criminalistics) and 2.29 (Law Enforcement Administration) are greater to the critical t-value of 2.01 with 44 degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level therefore the research hypothesis was rejected. There is a significant relationship between the Academic performance of the respondents in their five major subjects including Correctional Administration, Crime Detection and Investigation, Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation, Criminalistics and Law Enforcement Administration and to the Contributing Factors of the respondents. However, the computed t-value of 1.53 is lesser to the critical t-value of 2.01 with degrees of freedom at 0.05 significance level therefore there is no significant relationship between the academic performance of the respondents in Criminal Law and Jurisprudence and Contributing Factors of the respondents.
CHAPTER 5
Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter presents the Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations based on the data gathered, statistically treated and interpreted on the subject under study.
Summary of Findings The salient findings of the study are as follows:
Sub-Problem No. 1 What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1 Age
As to the Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents; those from age 21 – 23 has the highest with 21 out of 46 or 45.65%.
1.2 Monthly Family Income
On Monthly Family Income, 19 or 41.30% were having Php10,001 - 15,000 per month.
1.3 High School GPA
As according to High School GPA, 28 or 60.87% were having a Grade Point Average of 80 – 84.
1.4 ECAT Score
As to Entrance College Admission Test, 15 or 32.61% of the respondents were having an ECAT Score of 71 – 75.
Sub-Problem No. 2 What is the Academic Performance of the respondents in their major subjects?
Based on the gathered data the Academic Performance of the students in (CLJ) Criminal Law and Jurisprudence with the Mean of 2.34 ranked 6 followed by (CRIM) Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation with 2.30 ranked 5, 2.27 for (CDI) Criminal Detection and Investigation with a rank of 4, (CRMLISTICS) Criminalistics ranked 3 with the Mean of 2.24, (CA) Correctional Administration ranked 2 with 2.22 as Mean and lastly (LEA) Law Enforcement Administration ranked 1 with the Mean of 2.07 ranked 1.
The students performed low in CLJ on the other hand, the students performed well in LEA.
Sub-Problem No. 3 What are the respondents’ Contributing Factors in their major subjects as to:
3.1 Successes
For the Contributing Factors as to Successes in six major subjects, respondents garnered the highest Average Weighted Mean of 3.98 in Law Enforcement Administration, interpreted as “Highly Successful”.
3.2 Difficulties
For the Contributing Factors as to Difficulties in six major subjects, respondents garnered the highest Average Weighted Mean of 3.90 in Criminal Law and Jurisprudence, interpreted as “Highly Difficult”.
Sub-Problem No. 4 Is there a significant relationship between the profile variables of the respondents and the contributing factors in major subjects?
Table 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 shows that there is no significant relationship between the Profile Variables of the respondents in terms of Age, Monthly Family Income, High School GPA, and ECAT Score and to the Contributing Factors in terms of Successes and Difficulties in the respondents’ major subjects.
Sub-Problem No. 5 Is there a significant relationship between the academic performance of the respondents in their major subjects to the contributing factors in the respondents’ major subjects?
There is a significant relationship between the Academic performance of the respondents in their five major subjects including Correctional Administration, Crime Detection and Investigation, Criminal Sociology, Ethics and Human Relation, Criminalistics and Law Enforcement Administration and to the Contributing Factors of the respondents on the other hand, there is no significant relationship between the academic performance of the respondents in Criminal Law and Jurisprudence and Contributing Factors of the respondents.
Conclusions Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Majority of the respondents’ age ranging from 21 – 23.
2. Most of the respondents have Php10,001 - 15,000 Monthly Family Income.
3. Majority of the respondents with 60.87% had a High School GPA ranging from 80 – 84.
4. Majority of the respondents got an ECAT Score ranging from 71 – 75.
5. The data reveals that the students performed low in CLJ on the other hand, the students performed well in LEA.
6. Among the six major subjects, respondents were “Highly Successful” in Law Enforcement Administration with a highest Average Weighted Mean of 3.98.
7. Among the six major subjects, respondents experience “High Difficulty” in Criminal Law and Jurisprudence with a highest Average Weighted Mean of 3.90.
8. There is no significant relationship between the Profile Variables and the Contributing Factors in respondents’ major subjects. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. It means that whatever a student’s age, monthly family income, high school GPA, and ECAT score he/she had, it does not affect their successes and difficulties encountered in their major subjects. 9. There is a significant relationship between the Academic Performance of the respondents’ in CA, CDI, CRIM, CRMLISTICS, and LEA to the Contributing Factors of respondents.
There is no significant relationship between the Academic Performance of the respondents in CLJ to the Contributing Factors of the respondents.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. This indicate that the higher the success of the students, the higher the academic performance and the higher the difficulty of the students, the lower the academic performance.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions presented, the following recommendations are suggested: 1. The researchers and their adviser humbly recommend that future students be given appropriate exposures and experiences in Criminal Law and Jurisprudence to equip them not just theoretically and academically, but more on technically and practically to augment the gap between the classroom and the actual world of being law enforcers in its real sense. 2. It is highly recommended that said respondents’ knowledge level should be properly accompanied with actual exposures & experiences which were found out as one of their difficulties; turning their knowledge level to Actualization Level. 3. Provide additional books and references in Criminal Law and Jurisprudence aside from the internet sources. 4. Add more Educational Tour related to all major subjects.
5. Finally, the researchers recommending for exposures outside General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite Municipality such as having On-The-Job Training in Scene of the Crime Operative (SOCO) in GMA Municipality, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila, and in General Head Quarters (GHQ) in Quezon City for possible consideration arming them with Seminars and Training.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Seale, J. and Nind, M. Understanding and Promoting Access for People with Learning Difficulties: Seeing the opportunities and challenges of risk. Dasmariñas: De La Salle University Library, 2010.
Feldman, Robert S. P.O.W.E.R. Learning: Strategies for Success in College and Life. Dasmariñas: De La Salle University Library, 2014.
Shindler, John. Transformative Classroom Management: Positive Strategies to engage all students and promote a psychology of success. Dasmariñas: De La Salle University Library, 2010.
Manwong, R.K. and San Diego, G.C. Dynamics of Law Enforcement and Public Safety Administration, 1st Edition. Dasmariñas: De La Salle University Library, 2012.
Soriano, Oscar G. Police Organization and Administration with Police Planning and R.A. 6975 & R.A. 8551. Quezon City: Great Books Publishing, 2011.
Levardo, V.D. and Frondozo, R.D., MBA. Successes, Difficulties and Expectations of Industrial Engineering Batch 2015 as Future Workforce: An Assessment. GMA, Cavite: University of Perpetual Help System Library, 2014.
APPENDIX C
Survey Questionnaire
Dear Respondent,
The Bachelor of Science in Criminology students are currently conducting their thesis entitled, SUCCESSES AND DIFFICULTIES OF EARIST CAVITE CAMPUS BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CRIMINOLOGY STUDENTS IN THEIR MAJOR SUBJECTS.
Result of this survey will help in the completion of their thesis.
Your honest assessment is highly appreciated.
The Researchers
INSTRUCTION: Please tick (/) the boxes and check (√) the column with the best applicable answer.
Confidentially of your response will be highly observed. Thank you.
III. Respondents Assessment on: 3.1 SUCCESS FACTORSThis indicates the students’ honest rating in gauging the successes in line with Criminology major subjects, to wit:I am … | 2.1 CA | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3.1.1 academically equipped in pursuing the Criminology program based on the result of my General Weighted Average. | | | | | | 3.1.2 theoretically and knowledgeably able in interpreting into practice those which were taught in. | | | | | | 3.1.3 technically equipped and ready in translating those knowledge gained through seminars and trainings. | | | | | | 3.1.4 knowledgeably aware of the possible consequences in deviance to the existing rules, policies and laws. | | | | | | 3.1.5 academically, theoretically and technically equipped through the lectures and seminars. | | | | | | 3.2 DIFFICULTY FACTORSThis indicates the students’ difficulties and frustrations encountered within the scope of Criminology major subjects.I am … | 3.2.1 lacking in exposures & experiences as to actual scenarios related to cases within the subjects. | | | | | | 3.2.2 having difficulty in comprehension as a result of my poor study habits. | | | | | | 3.2.3 experiencing hardship in catching up with lectures due to lack of books, journals & references. | | | | | | 3.2.4 feeling inadequate with the lacking of school needs in terms of tuition, uniform, allowance, books, and projects. | | | | | | 3.2.5 logging behind as a result of lack of interest due to the above-mentioned factors. | | | | | |
3.1 SUCCESS FACTORSThis indicates the students’ honest rating in gauging the successes in line with Criminology major subjects, to wit:I am … | 2.2 CDI | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3.1.1 academically equipped in pursuing the Criminology program based on the result of my General Weighted Average. | | | | | | 3.1.2 theoretically and knowledgeably able in interpreting into practice those which were taught in. | | | | | | 3.1.3 technically equipped and ready in translating those knowledge gained through seminars and trainings. | | | | | | 3.1.4 knowledgeably aware of the possible consequences in deviance to the existing rules, policies and laws. | | | | | | 3.1.5 academically, theoretically and technically equipped through the lectures and seminars. | | | | | | 3.2 DIFFICULTY FACTORSThis indicates the students’ difficulties and frustrations encountered within the scope of Criminology major subjects.I am … | 3.2.1 lacking in exposures & experiences as to actual scenarios related to cases within the subjects. | | | | | | 3.2.2 having difficulty in comprehension as a result of my poor study habits. | | | | | | 3.2.3 experiencing hardship in catching up with lectures due to lack of books, journals & references. | | | | | | 3.2.4 feeling inadequate with the lacking of school needs in terms of tuition, uniform, allowance, books, and projects. | | | | | | 3.2.5 logging behind as a result of lack of interest due to the above- mentioned factors. | | | | | |
3.1 SUCCESS FACTORSThis indicates the students’ honest rating in gauging the successes in line with Criminology major subjects, to wit:I am … | 2.3 CLJ | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3.1.1 academically equipped in pursuing the Criminology program based on the result of my General Weighted Average. | | | | | | 3.1.2 theoretically and knowledgeably able in interpreting into practice those which were taught in. | | | | | | 3.1.3 technically equipped and ready in translating those knowledge gained through seminars and trainings. | | | | | | 3.1.4 knowledgeably aware of the possible consequences in deviance to the existing rules, policies and laws. | | | | | | 3.1.5 academically, theoretically and technically equipped through the lectures and seminars. | | | | | | 3.2 DIFFICULTY FACTORSThis indicates the students’ difficulties and frustrations encountered within the scope of Criminology major subjects.I am … | 3.2.1 lacking in exposures & experiences as to actual scenarios related to cases within the subjects. | | | | | | 3.2.2 having difficulty in comprehension as a result of my poor study habits. | | | | | | 3.2.3 experiencing hardship in catching up with lectures due to lack of books, journals & references. | | | | | | 3.2.4 feeling inadequate with the lacking of school needs in terms of tuition, uniform, allowance, books, and projects. | | | | | | 3.2.5 logging behind as a result of lack of interest due to the above- mentioned factors. | | | | | |
3.1 SUCCESS FACTORSThis indicates the students’ honest rating in gauging the successes in line with Criminology major subjects, to wit:I am … | 2.4 CRIM | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3.1.1 academically equipped in pursuing the Criminology program based on the result of my General Weighted Average. | | | | | | 3.1.2 theoretically and knowledgeably able in interpreting into practice those which were taught in. | | | | | | 3.1.3 technically equipped and ready in translating those knowledge gained through seminars and trainings. | | | | | | 3.1.4 knowledgeably aware of the possible consequences in deviance to the existing rules, policies and laws. | | | | | | 3.1.5 academically, theoretically and technically equipped through the lectures and seminars. | | | | | | 3.2 DIFFICULTY FACTORSThis indicates the students’ difficulties and frustrations encountered within the scope of Criminology major subjects.I am … | 3.2.1 lacking in exposures & experiences as to actual scenarios related to cases within the subjects. | | | | | | 3.2.2 having difficulty in comprehension as a result of my poor study habits. | | | | | | 3.2.3 experiencing hardship in catching up with lectures due to lack of books, journals & references. | | | | | | 3.2.4 feeling inadequate with the lacking of school needs in terms of tuition, uniform, allowance, books, and projects. | | | | | | 3.2.5 logging behind as a result of lack of interest due to the above- mentioned factors. | | | | | |
3.1 SUCCESS FACTORSThis indicates the students’ honest rating in gauging the successes in line with Criminology major subjects, to wit:I am … | 2.5CRMLISTICS | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3.1.1 academically equipped in pursuing the Criminology program based on the result of my General Weighted Average. | | | | | | 3.1.2 theoretically and knowledgeably able in interpreting into practice those which were taught in. | | | | | | 3.1.3 technically equipped and ready in translating those knowledge gained through seminars and trainings. | | | | | | 3.1.4 knowledgeably aware of the possible consequences in deviance to the existing rules, policies and laws. | | | | | | 3.1.5 academically, theoretically and technically equipped through the lectures and seminars. | | | | | | 3.2 DIFFICULTY FACTORSThis indicates the students’ difficulties and frustrations encountered within the scope of Criminology major subjects.I am … | 3.2.1 lacking in exposures & experiences as to actual scenarios related to cases within the subjects. | | | | | | 3.2.2 having difficulty in comprehension as a result of my poor study habits. | | | | | | 3.2.3 experiencing hardship in catching up with lectures due to lack of books, journals & references. | | | | | | 3.2.4 feeling inadequate with the lacking of school needs in terms of tuition, uniform, allowance, books, and projects. | | | | | | 3.2.5 logging behind as a result of lack of interest due to the above- mentioned factors. | | | | | |
3.1 SUCCESS FACTORSThis indicates the students’ honest rating in gauging the successes in line with Criminology major subjects, to wit:I am … | 2.6 LEA | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3.1.1 academically equipped in pursuing the Criminology program based on the result of my General Weighted Average. | | | | | | 3.1.2 theoretically and knowledgeably able in interpreting into practice those which were taught in. | | | | | | 3.1.3 technically equipped and ready in translating those knowledge gained through seminars and trainings. | | | | | | 3.1.4 knowledgeably aware of the possible consequences in deviance to the existing rules, policies and laws. | | | | | | 3.1.5 academically, theoretically and technically equipped through the lectures and seminars. | | | | | | 3.2 DIFFICULTY FACTORSThis indicates the students’ difficulties and frustrations encountered within the scope of Criminology major subjects.I am … | 3.2.1 lacking in exposures & experiences as to actual scenarios related to cases within the subjects. | | | | | | 3.2.2 having difficulty in comprehension as a result of my poor study habits. | | | | | | 3.2.3 experiencing hardship in catching up with lectures due to lack of books, journals & references. | | | | | | 3.2.4 feeling inadequate with the lacking of school needs in terms of tuition, uniform, allowance, books, and projects. | | | | | | 3.2.5 logging behind as a result of lack of interest due to the above-mentioned factors. | | | | | |
APPENDIX D
High School GPA
APPENDIX E
ECAT Score
APPENDIX F
Evaluation of Grades
CURRICULUM VITAE
JULIE ANN BABON PERITO Block – 123 Lot – 26 Brgy. Paliparan 3 Dasmariñas City, Cavite Leperitz@yahoo.com Contact No. 09487516737
OBJECTIVE To be able to share the aspects of learning boiled into three:
Cognitive (Knowing), Affective (Valuing) and Psychomotor (Doing) to the clienteles in favor of the company as a catalyst showcasing the talent, skill and ability as to the extent of what God has entrusted.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
College: EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite 2012 – Present Course: Bachelor of Science in Criminology
High School: Paliparan National High School 2011-2012
Elementary: Paliparan 3 Elementary School 2007-2008
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Birth date: November 20, 1994 Age: 21
Birth place: Dasmariñas City, Cavite Religion: Roman Catholic
Gender: Female Civil Status: Single
Parents – Father: Tomas P. Perito Citizenship: Filipino Mother: Margarita B. Perito
SEMINAR AND CONFERENCE ATTENTED
INVESTIGATING ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
Philippine Center for Coaching and Mentoring, Inc.
May 23, 2015 PCCM Training Center 5th flr., JRDC Bldg., Gil Puyat Avenue, Pasay City
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (IT Security and Risk Management)
February 28, 2015 Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Common Crimes in Relation to Security Industry)
February 28, 2015 Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Jurisprudence)
February 28, 2015 Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY LEARN TO RIDE PROGRAM
December 19, 2013 EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite
STRENGTHENING CRIMINOLOGY THROUGH FIRST-AID TRAINING MANAGEMENT (Basic CPR and Carrying Techniques)
August 3, 2013 EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite
SKILLS
* Computer Literate * Can communicate in English, Filipino language * Fast learner * Willing to do task without being told
CHARACTER REFERENCES
* Raquel D. Alfonso MA Crim, Professor Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite 09268178011
* Edzel G. Peña Professor
Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS
General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite
09128705906
I hereby certify that the above information is correct and true.
JULIE ANN B. PERITO Applicant
MARK JOHNSTONE V. MANIBOG Block – 1 Lot – 2 Brgy. Poblacion 1 General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite Markjohnstone061994@yahoo.com Contact No. 09300217484
OBJECTIVE To be able to share the aspects of learning boiled into three:
Cognitive (Knowing), Affective (Valuing) and Psychomotor (Doing) to the clienteles in favor of the company as a catalyst showcasing the talent, skill and ability as to the extent of what God has entrusted.
High School: General Mariano Alvarez Technical High School 2011-2012
Elementary: San Gabriel II Elementary School 2007-2008
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Birth date: July 6, 1994 Age: 21
Birth place: Naval Cavite City Religion: Roman Catholic
Gender: Male Civil Status: Single
Parents – Father: Nestor Noly R. Manibog Citizenship: Filipino Mother: Lilibeth V. Manibog
SEMINAR AND CONFERENCE ATTENTED
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (IT Security and Risk Management)
February 28, 2015 Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Common Crimes in Relation to Security Industry)
February 28, 2015 Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Jurisprudence)
February 28, 2015 Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
SKILLS
* Computer Literate * Can communicate in English, Filipino language * Fast learner * Willing to do task without being told
CHARACTER REFERENCES
* Raquel D. Alfonso MA Crim, Professor Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite 09268178011
* Edzel G. Peña Professor
Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS
General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite
09128705906
* Rachel D. Frondozo MBA, CAS Professor University of Perpetual Help GMA-Campus General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite 09369602845
I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct in the best of my knowledge and belief.
MARK JOHNSTONE V. MANIBOG Student
JACQUILINE OSIO GANASE
Blk- 11 Lot 13 Kingsland Village, Pala-pala
Dasmariñas City Cavite
Jacquiganase@yahoo.com
Contact No. 09358504557
OBJECTIVE: To be able to share the aspects of learning boiled into three:
Cognitive (Knowing), Affective (Valuing) and Psychomotor (Doing) to the clienteles in favor of the company as a catalyst showcasing the talent, skill and ability as to the extent of what God has entrusted.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
College: EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite 2012 – present Course: Bachelor of Science in Criminology
High School: Congressional National High School 2010- 2011
Elementary: Vicente P. Villanueva Memorial School 2007- 2008
SEMINAR AND CONFERENCE ATTENTED
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (IT Security and Risk Management)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Common Crimes in Relation to Security Industry)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Jurisprudence)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
STRENGTHENING CRIMINOLOGY THROUGH FIRST-AID TRAINING MANAGEMENT (Basic CPR and Carrying Techniques)
EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite
August 3, 2013
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Birth date: September 03, 1994 Age: 21
Birth place: Dasmariñas City, Cavite Religion: Roman Catholic
Gender: Female Civil Status: Single
Parents – Father: Job B. Ganase Citizenship: Filipino Mother: Juanita M. Ganase
SKILLS
* Computer Literate * Can communicate in English, Tagalog, Korean Language * Fast learner * Willing to do task without being told
CHARACTER REFERENCES
* Raquel D. Alfonso MA Crim, Professor Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite 09268178011
* Edzel G. Peña Professor
Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS
General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite
09128705906
I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct.
JACQUILINE O. GANASE Applicant
JOYZA RAMON ECITO Area D Block 4 Lot 10 Brgy. Tirona General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite ecitojoyzaramon@yahoo.com Contact No. 09333035794
OBJECTIVE To be able to share the aspects of learning boiled into three:
Cognitive (Knowing), Affective (Valuing) and Psycho-motor (Doing) to the clienteles in favor of the company as a catalyst showcasing the talent, skill and ability as to the extent of what God has entrusted.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
College: EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite 2012 – Present Course: Bachelor of Science in Criminology
College: National College of Science and Technology 2009-2011
Course: Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
High School: General Mariano Alvarez Technical High School 2008-2009
Elementary: Fuencell Integrated School 2005-2006
SEMINAR AND CONFERENCE ATTENTED
FILIPINO VALUES AND TRENDS (A VALUES FORMATION PROGRAM)
National College of Science and Technology
September 21, 2010
STRENGTHENING CRIMINOLOGY THROUGH FIRST-AID TRANING MANAGEMENT (BASIC CPR AND CARRYING TECHNIQUES)
EARIST Cavite Campus
August 03, 2013
PARISH PASTORAL COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE VOTING(PPCRV) “An Accredited Citizens’ Arm of the Commission on Election
San Jose Parish Church
May 10, 2013
DOLE-Government Internship Program
Carmona District Office
June 06, 2014
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (IT Security and Risk Management)
Universidad de Manila
February 28, 2015
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Common Crimes in Relation to Security Industry)
Universidad de Manila
February 28, 2015
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Jurisprudence)
Universidad de Manila
February 28, 2015
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Birth date: August 02, 1993 Age: 22
Birth place: GMA, Cavite Religion: Roman Catholic
Gender: Female Civil Status: Single
Parents – Father: Percival A. Ecito Citizenship: Filipino Mother: Maria Corazon R. Ecito
SKILLS
* Computer Literate * Can communicate in English, Tagalog * Fast learner * Willing to do task without being told
CHARACTER REFERENCES
JACQUILINE O. GANASE
* Raquel D. Alfonso MA Crim, Professor Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite 09268178011
* Rachel D. Frondozo, MBA CAS Faculty University of Perpetual Help GMA-Campus Brgy. Pulido, General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite 09395894721
I hereby certify that the above information is correct and true.
JOYZA R. ECITO Applicant
MARIABEL BENITEZ BAUTISTA Blk. 6 LOT.36 Area J. Brgy. Lumbreras GMA, Cavite MariabelBenitez@yahoo.com Contact No. 09266091228
OBJECTIVE To be able to share the aspects of learning boiled into three:
Cognitive (Knowing), Affective (Valuing) and Psychomotor (Doing) to the clienteles in favor of the company as a catalyst showcasing the talent, skill and ability as to the extent of what God has entrusted.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
College: EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite 2012 – Present Course: Bachelor of Science in Criminology
High School: Igama Colleges Foundation Inc. 2011-2012
Elementary: Paltit Elementary School 2007- 2008
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Birth date: December, 28 1996 Age: 18
Birth place: GMA, Cavite Religion: Roman Catholic
Gender: Female Civil Status: Single
Parents – Father: Jovencio C. Bautista Citizenship: Filipino Mother: Evielyn B. Bautista
SEMINAR AND CONFERENCE ATTENTED
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (IT Security and Risk Management)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Common Crimes in Relation to Security Industry)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Jurisprudence)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
STRENGTHENING CRIMINOLOGY THROUGH FIRST-AID TRAINING MANAGEMENT (Basic CPR and Carrying Techniques)
EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite
August 3, 2013
SKILLS
* Computer Literate * Can communicate in English, Filipino language * Fast learner * Willing to do task without being told
CHARACTER REFERENCES
* Raquel D. Alfonso MA Crim, Professor Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite 09268178011
* Edzel G. Peña Professor
Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS
General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite
09128705906
I hereby certify that the above information is correct and true.
MARIABEL B. BAUTISTA Applicant
GLADYS RAMA ACOSTA Blk 119 Lot 1 Zone 7 AFP Housing Bulihan, Silang, Cavite gladz_burimazda@yahoo.com Contact No. 09089936398
OBJECTIVE To be able to share the aspects of learning boiled into three:
Cognitive (Knowing), Affective (Valuing) and Psychomotor (Doing) to the clienteles in favor of the company as a catalyst showcasing the talent, skill and ability as to the extent of what God has entrusted.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
College: EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite 2012 – Present Course: Bachelor of Science in Criminology
High School: Bulihan National High School 2006-2010
Elementary: VALE Institute of Business Education Foundation Inc. 2005 - 2006
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Birth date: April 20, 1994
Birth place: Sangley Point, Naval Base, Age: 21 Cavite City Civil Status: Single
Gender: Female Religion: Roman Catholic
Parents – Father: Arthur Ayala Acosta Mother: Teresita Rama Acosta
SEMINAR AND CONFERENCE ATTENTED
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (IT Security and Risk Management)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Common Crimes in Relation to Security Industry)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
LEGAL PROBLEMS IN SECURITY INDUSTRY (Jurisprudence)
Universidad De Manila, Ermita, Manila
February 28, 2015
STRENGTHENING CRIMINOLOGY THROUGH FIRST-AID TRAINING MANAGEMENT (Basic CPR and Carrying Techniques)
EARIST Cavite Campus, GMA, Cavite
August 3, 2013
SKILLS
* Computer Literate * Can communicate in English, Filipino language * Fast learner * Willing to do task without being told
CHARACTER REFERENCES
* Raquel D. Alfonso MA Crim, Professor Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite 09268178011
* Edzel G. Peña Professor
Eulogio ”Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology CAVITE CAMPUS
General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite
09128705906
I hereby certify that the above information is correct and true.
