Homebound Instruction and Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (Lsens)

Homebound Instruction and Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (Lsens)

Mechelle J. Tubao¹ , MAT-SocStud², Nancy B. Espacio, Ed.D³

¹^,2Teacher II, General Santos City SPED Integrated School, General Santos City, South Cotabato, Philippines

³Professor IV, Sultan Kudarat State University, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400098

Received: 23 March 2025; Accepted: 26 March 2025; Published: 30 April 2025

ABSTRACT

In the past, homebound instruction was just for special needs students whose physical limitations kept them from school. This included young children, students with illnesses, and those who were physically fragile. But the program has grown to include many other situations and students. Now it can help students on school breaks, those facing suspension or expulsion, or even those waiting for a better learning environment, or those who just struggle in a traditional classroom setting. The study generally aimed to describe homebound instruction and interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs (LSENs) of General Santos City SPED Integrated School for School Year 2023-2024. Descriptive quantitative research was employed using self-made, adapted and modified survey questionnaire. The statistical tool utilized in the study were mean and Pearson-r. Based from the result of the study, the following conclusions were drawn: The teachers always considered instructional environment and educators believed that a well-structured and supportive instructional environment is critical for homebound instruction. Moreover, social-emotional climate is always practiced, and the findings signify strong consensus among the educators surveyed that these are all important practices in fostering a positive social-emotional climate in homebound instruction. The special education students sometimes manifest aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior before homebound instruction, while after homebound instruction, special education students seldom manifest aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior. Therefore, homebound instruction significantly reduced the aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior of learners with special educational needs (LSENs). Hence, it is an effective intervention in improving the interpersonal behavior of students.  Also, a supportive and conducive instructional environment may contribute to better outcomes for interpersonal behavior of special education students, potentially through enhanced engagement, motivation, and learning experiences. Hence, a nurturing climate can promote emotional well-being, interpersonal relationships, and ultimately, academic success.

Keywords: Homebound Instruction, Interpersonal Behavior, Learners with Special Educational Needs

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Filipinos have a deep regard for education. However, not all educational services for children with special needs occur in schools. Although it is always wise to try fitting your exceptional child into an inclusive environment with peers who do not have special needs, this does not always work for all students. Parents often want a choice about impacting the way their children are taught.

An alternative educational approach offered outside of traditional classrooms is homebound instruction. This program provides educational support to students, especially those with disabilities, in their homes through various methods, including home teaching and hospital instruction. Unlike homeschooling, which parents typically lead, homebound instruction involves qualified personnel from the school district (Zirkel, 2003).

Originally, homebound instruction was solely for special education students with physical limitations that prevented them from attending school. It included very young children, those with illnesses, and students with physical vulnerabilities. However, the program has since evolved to encompass various situations and student populations. It now includes students experiencing school breaks, suspensions, expulsions, those awaiting more suitable placements, or those facing challenges within the traditional classroom environment (Patterson & Petit, 2007).

Homebound instruction offers teachers a valuable chance to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their students. Witnessing the student’s home environment firsthand allows teachers to see how family dynamics and the student’s learning space directly impact their behavior and academic performance. Experiences outside the classroom add a crucial layer of information to what we learn about students in school.

 This broader view allows us to create a more comprehensive understanding of their strengths, weaknesses, and preferred learning styles.

Behavioral problem refers to a condition that manifests over an extended period and significantly hinders a child’s capability to learn in school. Several characteristics define this, such as difficulty learning that cannot be attributed to intellectual limitations, sensory issues, or health problems; challenges building and maintaining positive connections with peers and teachers; exhibiting unsuitable behaviors or expressing emotions that are not typical in normal situations; experiencing a general sense of unhappiness, depression, or persistent negative emotions.

Students with behavioral problems tend to face a multitude of academic challenges. They typically achieve lower grades, fail more courses, are held back more often, struggle to pass standardized tests, and have difficulty adapting to life after school compared to students with other disabilities (Frank et al., 1995). Furthermore, a significant barrier to their success seems to be school attendance itself. Studies estimate that 43% to 56% of students with behavioral problems drop out, nearly twice the dropout percentage for all students with educational needs (Landrum et al., 2003).

Given students’ academic and social challenges with behavioral problems, this research investigates homebound instruction and its impact on their interpersonal behavior. The goal is to use the study’s findings to develop interventions that combine behavioral modification techniques with strategies to improve interpersonal skills in these students.

Theoretical Framework

This study draws upon Skinner’s Behavioral Learning Theory (1938) and utilizes Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) as its core methodology. ABA, formerly known as Behavior Modification, is a systematic approach that applies learning theory principles to improve important social behaviors measurably. It emphasizes demonstrating that the interventions implemented are directly responsible for the observed behavioral improvements.

This research could benefit from considering Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) by Albert Bandura (1986). SCT emphasizes how people learn by watching others (observational learning), their confidence in their skills (self-efficacy), and the constant interplay between people, their surroundings, and their actions (reciprocal determinism). Importantly, SCT underlines the impact of social influences, both from outside sources, like encouragement from others, and from within ourselves, like self-motivation.

However, the passage seems to be misinterpreting Social Contract Theory. Social Contract Theory focuses on establishing societal rules and expectations, not individual behavior acquisition.

This study might also find connections with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), introduced by Icek Ajzen in 1980 as an extension of an earlier theory. TPB is particularly interested in predicting a person’s likelihood to perform a specific behavior in a certain situation. It applies to behaviors where individuals have some control over their actions.

Conceptual Framework

This research is mainly centered on B.F. Skinner’s ideas about learning from 1938. The main method used is Applied Behavior Analysis, or ABA for short. ABA is a way to use scientific principles about learning to improve important social behaviors. It is important in this study to show that the methods used caused the improvements in behavior.

This study examined two key aspects: the homebound learning environment and the interpersonal behavior of students with special needs. The researcher looked at the instructional setting and the social-emotional climate within homebound instruction. On the student side, they focused on three types of interpersonal behavior: aggression, non-assertiveness, and assertiveness. Additionally, the research determined the significant connections existed between the homebound instruction experience and the interpersonal behaviors of learners with special educational needs.

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study

Statement of the Problem

 This research examined the potential impact of homebound instruction on how learners with special educational needs interact with others. It answered the following questions:

1. What is the level of homebound instruction in terms of:

1.1 instructional environment; and,

1.2 social-emotional climate?

2. What is the level of interpersonal behavior exhibited by learners with special educational needs before and after homebound instruction in terms of:

2.1 aggressive behavior;

2.2 assertive; and

2.3 non-assertive behavior?

3. Is there any significant relationship between the level of homebound instruction and the level of interpersonal behavior exhibited by learners with special educational needs?

Hypothesis

1. There is no significant relationship between the level of homebound instruction and interpersonal behavior exhibited by learners with special educational needs.

Significance of the Study

This research on homebound instruction and how it affects learners with special educational needs and social interaction has the potential to be valuable to:

Department of Education (DepEd). On various levels, the result of the study can give them the basis for the kind of improvement in services and instruction that can produce substantial academic and behavioral gains for learners with behavioral problems.

School Administrators. The result of the study can give them information and ideas to which they can think of better strategic plans and programs, providing the special education teachers with the necessary training and workshops that can equip them to become effective and efficient teachers in handling learners with behavioral problems.

Special Education Teachers (SPETs). The result of this study may allow them to extend their efforts to assist and guide learners with difficulty in displaying interpersonal behavior in developing methods and techniques essential in honing the interpersonal and intrapersonal behavior of learners with behavioral problems.

Students with Behavioral Problems. They can greatly benefit from the result of this study to cope with school work and eventually improve their interpersonal and intrapersonal skills.

Parents/Family. This study aims to empower you, the parents and families, to be active participants in planning and decision-making processes. Your unique understanding of your child is invaluable. Your involvement is crucial to ensure your child receives the most appropriate support and any necessary adjustments for full inclusion in the classroom setting.

Researcher. The findings of this research can lead to the formulation and exploration of other scientific and behavioral modifications and interventions in aiding learners with behavioral problems to produce notable academic and behavioral gains.

Scope and Delimitation

This research investigated two key areas related to learners with special educational needs: homebound instruction and interpersonal behavior. The study examined the instructional environment and social-emotional climate within homebound learning. On the student side, it focused on three types of interpersonal behavior: aggression, non-assertiveness, and assertiveness.

Specifically, the research verified if there was a considerable connection between the level of participation in homebound instruction and the types of interpersonal behaviors exhibited by the learners with special educational needs before and after participating in homebound instruction.

The researcher utilized a 20-item self-made survey questionnaire on the level of homebound instruction in terms of instructional environment and social-emotional climate. In addition, an adapted and modified interpersonal behavior checklist was used to evaluate the learner’s level of interpersonal behavior. The checklist consists of 30-item questions classified into aggressive, non-assertive, and assertive behavior.

This study involved 15 homebound teachers who assessed the interpersonal behavior of 50 learners with special educational needs enrolled in the General Santos City Special Education Integrated School during the 2023-2024 school year. These students came from various levels, including non-graded programs, elementary, junior high, and senior high school, and received homebound instruction. The main purpose of this research is to inform the development of behavioral modification techniques and interventions for learners with special educational needs who struggle with interpersonal skills.

Definition of Terms

This study provides conceptual and operational definitions of key terms employed throughout the research to ensure clarity and facilitate reader comprehension.

Aggressive Behavior refers to behaviors that do not convey thoughts, emotions, or desires.

Assertive Behavior refers to assertive behavior. It empowers individuals to perform in their top interests, confidently articulate their feelings and needs, and advocate for themselves without unnecessary anxiety or aggression.

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) refers to characterized by the following: Failure to discover which cannot be described by intellectual, physical, and health issues; b. a lack of ability to form or keep adequate connections with classmates and instructors; c. incorrect behavior or state of mind beneath normal conditions; d. the overall mood of sadness or despair; and e. possibility of acquiring bodily indications or fears related to individual or school problems.

General Santos City Division refers to the administrative division or unit overseeing the educational system within General Santos City, Philippines. The local governing body manages and supervises schools, educational programs, and initiatives within the city’s jurisdiction.

General Santos City SPED Integrated School refers to the institution or school where special education students are enrolled and subjected to homebound instruction.

Homebound Instruction refers to a specialized educational program for students with special needs who cannot attend school in person due to various circumstances. It provides multiple educational services directly within the student’s home environment.

Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) refers to the guided details of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students with disabilities in elementary and secondary schools. IEPs guarantee appropriate instruction and extra support services tailored to each student’s unique needs (Kamens, 2004).

Instructional Environment refers to the instructional environment, behavioral, and personal aspects that the special education students experience in homebound instruction.

Interpersonal Behavior refers to the three main categories of how people express themselves in social situations: assertive, non-assertive, and aggressive.

Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) refer to those who require special education services and modification of school practices to access educational opportunities and the general education curriculum. They include those who have difficulty seeing, hearing, walking or climbing steps, remembering or concentrating, and communicating (Department of Education, 2016, p2)

Non-assertive Behavior refers to passive behavior that includes not expressing feelings, needs, and ideas.

Pretest refers to the advance or preliminary testing of the special education students before homebound instruction.

Posttest refers to the test given to students after completion of the homebound instruction to measure the program’s effectiveness.

Social Emotional Climate. The psychosocial aspects of student’s educational experience in homebound instruction influence their social and emotional development.

Special Education Student refers to the hose who have exceptional learning needs. These needs can arise from various disabilities, such as learning difficulties (e.g., dyslexia), communication problems (e.g., speech impairments), emotional and behavioral challenges, physical limitations, or developmental delays.

Review Of Related Literature and Studies

This chapter explored relevant research and literature to provide context for the current study. The researcher gained valuable insights from these sources, which informed the design and execution of this investigation.

Brief History of Homebound Instruction

Homebound Instruction, also known as home teaching, home visits, or hospital instruction (Zirkel, 2003), provides educational services directly in a student’s home environment. This option benefits children recovering from serious illnesses or injuries or those with physical limitations that prevent them from attending school (Patterson & Tullis, 2007). Homebound Instruction is often delivered by qualified specialists like special education teachers, paraprofessionals, speech therapists, and occupational therapists (Patterson & Petit, 2006). However, it is crucial to remember that parents and caregivers are also vital to the success of these programs. Homebound Instruction, originally intended for students with physical limitations preventing school attendance, has evolved to serve a broader population. Initially, this service catered to very young children or those with disabilities who were physically frail. However, it now supports a wider range of students (Council of Exceptional Children, 1997). Homebound Instruction was not always used for a wide range of students. Originally, it was mainly for children in special education or students with physical limitations (Cook et al., 2008; Journal of School Health, 2003). However, it can also be a temporary solution for older students.

One way to temporarily provide education outside a student’s regular classroom is through an Interim Alternative Education Setting (IAES) (Telzrow, 2001). This option allows students to receive educational services for up to 45 days in a different location. It is typically used for special education students who are facing serious behavioral issues, like drug or weapon possession, or who might harm themselves or others. Students requiring Interim Alternative Educational Settings (IAES) have options beyond homebound instruction.

Researchers (Bear et al., 2001) suggest alternatives like in-school programs or specialized rooms. These options allow school districts to assess students further and ensure their safety while providing education (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Examples include schools within a school, resource rooms, alternative classrooms, or mental health facilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975 has significantly improved educational opportunities for children with disabilities. Before IDEA, these children were often placed in institutions and excluded from mainstream education. The law has successfully “moved children with disabilities from institutions into classrooms”. Statistics show this progress: By 2002, 96% of students with disabilities were enrolled in regular schools, and nearly half spent most of their classroom time in general education settings. However, challenges remain. Despite IDEA’s success, some students with disabilities still miss out due to homebound instruction. This isolation from peers and a strong educational program hinders their development (Lustig, 2009).

Purpose of Homebound Instruction

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), implemented in 1975, has dramatically impacted the educational experiences of children with disabilities. The law highlights this progress by stating it has “moved children with disabilities from institutions into classrooms, from the outskirts of society to the center of class instruction” (quoted text, 14). Statistics back this up: By 2002, a vast majority (96%) of students with disabilities were receiving education in regular schools, with nearly half (48.2%) spending most of their school day (over 79%) in these classrooms.

Despite the progress made through the IDEA, concerns linger regarding homebound instruction. While the law has successfully promoted inclusion, Lustig (2009) argues that a significant number of students with disabilities continue to be isolated from their peers. Relying solely on homebound services may deprive them of the traditional classroom environment. This isolation could hinder their educational development, limit valuable social interaction, and prevent them from participating in the typical school experience, a cornerstone of American public education.

Homebound Instruction is an alternative service delivery model for students with special needs. Homebound Instruction differs from homeschooling. In homeschooling, parents take complete financial and educational responsibility for their child’s learning. Homebound Instruction, however, provides publicly funded special education services to students who meet specific needs. These services are delivered in the student’s home environment rather than in a traditional school setting (Petit, 2013).

A team of specialists determines if a student with disabilities qualifies for homebound instruction, and this decision is recorded in the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). These teams also make sure students receiving homebound services continue to access the general education curriculum (Bradley, 2007).

Statistics indicate that homebound instruction is used infrequently for students with disabilities. The Digest of Educational Statistics (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012) supports this, reporting that only a small percentage, around half of one percent, of students with disabilities aged 6-21 received homebound instruction between 1989 and 2010. Although information on specific disability groups is limited to 2008-2010, it shows that some groups use homebound instruction more often. These include students with emotional disturbances, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, deaf-blindness, multiple disabilities, and traumatic brain injuries (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). Their use of homebound services is significantly higher than average, with rates exceeding 1% of the total special education population.

Teachers and Homebound Instruction

Effective homebound instruction requires a collaborative effort from a multidisciplinary team (Patterson & Tullis, 2007). This team, ideally consisting of parents, teachers, administrators, and therapists, leverages diverse expertise to provide comprehensive support, services, and progress monitoring for the student. Cultural competence is crucial for homebound teachers. It involves recognizing, understanding, and respecting a student’s cultural background, beliefs, communication styles, and behaviors (Gay, 2000). Building bridges between the student’s home environment and school experiences fosters a stronger connection and enhances learning.

Homebound Instruction presents a unique opportunity for teachers to better understand their students. Observing the student’s home environment and family dynamics firsthand provides valuable insights into factors influencing behavior and academic performance.   This direct interaction fosters closer collaboration and stronger relationships between teachers and families, ultimately benefiting the student’s learning journey (Patterson & Tullis, 2007).

Classroom teachers are responsible for providing instructional materials and information to the homebound teacher, collaborating on grading procedures, monitoring student progress, and discussing curriculum and teaching strategies.

Homebound teachers act as a bridge between students and their regular classrooms. They collaborate with classroom teachers, using provided materials and assignments. Homebound teachers are responsible for keeping detailed records of instruction time, student progress, and completed work. They also submit timesheets and collaborate on grading with classroom teachers. Additionally, they document any disruptions to instruction caused by student absences (Virginia Department of Education Homebound Instructional Services Guidelines, July 2011).

On the other hand, students/parents/guardians play an active role by notifying the school about the need for services, obtaining a physician’s certification, providing a suitable learning environment, supervising homework, and keeping appointments. They are also expected to communicate any changes in the student’s status or missed appointments by the homebound teacher.

Additionally, they should follow the healthcare provider’s treatment plan. Thus, parental or caregiver involvement is crucial for successful homebound instruction. They should be present during instruction, at least within earshot, to support and ensure the student’s well-being. Homebound services should not be delivered if no other adult is available in the home (Patterson & Petit, 2008).

Instructional Environment

Smeets (2009) emphasizes the importance of schools creating appropriate learning environments, fostering supportive social-emotional settings, and implementing a systematic identification and intervention process for students experiencing difficulties with social interactions.

The instructional environment is a broad term that encompasses everything that shapes a student’s learning experience. It is like a symphony where all the parts combine to create a harmonious whole (Suprabha & Subramonian, 2021). In a nutshell, Oliver and Reschly (2007) highlight four key aspects of a strong learning environment:

Instructional Strategies: This refers to the teacher’s toolbox – the methods, materials, and curriculum design used to deliver lessons effectively. Behavior Management: This focuses on setting clear expectations for student conduct. It includes classroom rules, discipline procedures for handling disruptions, and positive reinforcement strategies to encourage good behavior.

Teacher-Student Relationships: This emphasizes the importance of positive interactions between teachers and students. Trust and respect fostered in these relationships can significantly improve learning outcomes. Physical Environment: This refers to the overall classroom atmosphere. A well-designed physical space can contribute to a positive learning experience. Imagine an instructional environment where the teacher uses engaging activities, the expectations are clear, and students feel comfortable asking questions. This would be an example of a well-designed instructional environment that fosters learning and growth.

To create an adequate instructional environment, Smeets (2009) emphasize to create supportive learning environment which includes the learning area to be calm, safe, and adaptable to different learning styles and needs; peer support which to promote collaboration and learning; equity and fairness that ensure equal opportunities for all students to participate and succeed; clear expectations in which the teacher should clearly communicate to the learners’ expectations and consequences for behavior; goal setting in which teachers collaborate with students to set achievable short-term goals; comfort and accessibility which strategically place students for optimal comfort and access to teacher support; discreet communication wherein there is a development  of private signal system for students to discreetly request help; provide clear and concise instructions to students; incorporate a variety of engaging strategies; differentiation  and adapting instruction and assessments to accommodate different learning styles and abilities. It can include reduced writing, shorter assessments, personalized grading, clear communication, simple questions, varied instruction, choice and control, reduced copying, workload management, and positive reinforcement.

Effective instruction not only strengthens academic skills but also minimizes disruptive behavior. A key element is providing appropriately challenging instruction for each student (Wehby et al., 1995). When students are actively involved and have common opportunities to answer and demonstrate their learning, they are less likely to become disruptive (Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). Moreover, effective instructional strategies are central to preventing academic and behavioral challenges, ultimately leading to improved student achievement. Research by Espin and Yell (1994) demonstrates a correlation between strong instructional practices and a higher rate of positive student responses.

Furthermore, extremely effective instruction decreases, but does not fully remove, behavioral problems (Emmer & Stough, 2001). Good classroom management needs a comprehensive method that includes dynamic supervision of students’ engagement, employing rules and routines, arranging the learning atmosphere, performing procedures that encourage fitting behavior, using behavior-lessening strategies, gathering and using data to monitor student behavior, and altering classroom management as desired (Oliver & Rechly, 2007).

Social-Emotional Climate

According to Lovino et al. (2021), a school’s Social and Emotional Climate refers to the overall sense of well-being and emotional atmosphere that permeates the school environment. A positive social and emotional climate, often called school climate for short, prioritizes the psychological, social, and physical safety of everyone in the school community, including students and staff. This supportive environment creates the foundation for academic success, positive behavior, and respectful relationships throughout the school.

Schools and classrooms with positive social and emotional climates can significantly improve student well-being. Research suggests that specific elements within this climate can particularly benefit high school students (O’Brennan et al., 2014).

Studies show that teachers are crucial in promoting positive social interactions among students. Effective classroom management strategies emphasizing positive reinforcement and clear expectations are linked to increased caring and respectful behaviors between students (Reaves et al., 2018). Furthermore, a supportive and positive school climate extends beyond the classroom. Research suggests a connection between such a climate and a reduction in internalizing symptoms like anxiety and depression in students (Martinez et al., 2016).

The quality of student-to-student and student-teacher interactions plays a significant role. A positive social-emotional climate fosters respectful communication, collaboration, and a sense of belonging. Also, it helps students feel safe, valued, and comfortable expressing their emotions. It allows them to focus on learning without undue stress or anxiety. Moreover, it fosters students’ social skills, emotional regulation, self-awareness, and ability to manage stress. These skills are essential for success in school and life in general. Also, a healthy social-emotional climate contributes to students’ overall well-being by creating a safe and positive space where they can learn and grow. It can lead to reduced anxiety, depression, and disruptive behaviors. A positive social-emotional climate is essential for student success, even in homebound instruction. By focusing on the psychosocial aspects of learning and implementing supportive strategies, educators can cultivate a positive learning environment that fosters students’ social and emotional well-being and academic achievement.

Interpersonal Behavior and Interpersonal Theory

Interpersonal behavior refers to how we interact with others. It encompasses everything we communicate, both verbally (through words) and nonverbally (through body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice) (Reference.com, 2018). Essentially, it is how we conduct ourselves in our relationships with others. How we interact with others can be categorized into three main styles: aggressive, non-assertive, and assertive (San Diego University and Western Oregon University, 2015). To be specific, aggressive behavior prioritizes getting your way, even if it means hurting or disrespecting others. It often involves humiliation, domineering tactics, and angry outbursts that may stem from unresolved anger. Non-assertive behavior, on the other hand, allows others to take advantage of you. It can happen when you fail to speak up for yourself, either because someone intentionally disregards your rights or you hesitate to express your needs or feelings. People who behave non-assertively often dwell on situations afterward, replaying them and wishing they had acted differently. On the other hand, assertiveness is the sweet spot in communication. It allows you to express yourself clearly and directly, advocating for your needs and opinions while respecting others’ rights and feelings.

Spanning over six decades, Interpersonal Theory explores how people interact with each other. Pioneered by theorists like Horney (1945), Sullivan (1953), Leary (1957), and Horowitz & de Sales French (1979), this theory delves into the dynamics of human relationships, examining both the nature of these interactions and the potential challenges individuals may encounter within them. Gurtman (1996) identifies the concept as focusing on individuals’ ongoing difficulties in building and maintaining relationships with others. A key idea in Interpersonal Theory is the interpersonal circumplex. This model, visualized as a circular structure, organizes a wide range of interpersonal behaviors, both healthy and unhealthy (Keisler, 1996). It provides a framework for understanding different styles of relating to others.

Interpersonal problems are a hallmark of personality disorders. Experts agree that these difficulties are the most significant and defining characteristic that all personality disorders share (Hoermann et al., 2018). It makes sense, then, that issues with thinking, managing emotions, and controlling impulses (common features of personality disorders) would lead to significant problems relating to others. These negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors make it difficult for people with personality disorders to fulfill social roles and form healthy, lasting relationships.

School and Disengaged Students, Misbehavior, and Social Control

Great teachers create classrooms that spark student engagement with the curriculum and sustain that motivation over time. It fosters effective learning beyond academics, aiming to prepare students to be well-rounded citizens (Adelman & Taylor, 2006). Positive social and emotional development is crucial for achieving this broader goal. However, disruptive behavior can hinder learning and create a negative environment. It disrupts the instruction flow and can be hurtful, like bullying, and influence others to behave similarly.

Research by Fredricks et al. (2004) shows a clear link between student engagement and positive academic outcomes. Supportive teachers, peers, challenging tasks, opportunities for choice, and clear structure contribute to a more engaged classroom environment. Conversely, disengagement is often associated with behavioral problems, learning difficulties, and dropping out of school. Concerns about student engagement become more significant as students’ progress to higher grade levels. Suspensions, a common disciplinary response for misbehavior in secondary schools, may have unintended consequences. Similar to emergency procedures, the short-term benefits of punishment may be outweighed by long-term negative effects. These can include increased negativity towards school and staff, potentially leading to further behavioral problems, antisocial acts, and even mental health issues. Discipline should be to correct behavior while keeping all students engaged in learning. It means finding ways to stop misbehavior that maximizes the chances of returning students to productive lessons and positive learning environments. The growing focus on positive approaches to discipline and supporting good behavior inside and outside the classroom is a positive trend. (Center for Mental Health in Schools, 2008).

Homebound Education for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Issues

While many students experience unhappiness, behavioral issues, or learning difficulties, only a small percentage have diagnosable conditions like depression, ADHD, or learning disabilities. Students with emotional or behavioral disorders may find homebound instruction especially difficult due to the lack of the structured environment and social interaction typically provided by a school setting. These students may exhibit a wide range of behaviors, from apathy to defiance (Kerr & Nelson, 2002).

Homebound settings are increasingly used as a temporary disciplinary measure (Conroy & Stichter, 2003). Federal guidelines include using tools like functional behavioral assessments to determine appropriate interventions. While some view this as a positive development for disciplining students with disabilities (Conroy et al., 2001), it is important to consider the specific needs of each student.

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD)

More and more students with emotional and behavioral disorders are being placed in regular classrooms alongside their peers who do not have disabilities. This approach benefits both groups, promoting social interaction and a sense of belonging. However, some students with behavioral disabilities may require additional support from psychologists and psychiatrists to manage their specific challenges. (Kavale & Mosert, 2004)

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) can manifest through internalizing behaviors, which are characterized by withdrawn and inhibited emotions. Students with these behaviors may appear shy, aloof, and excessively focused on their problems, potentially leading to academic difficulties. In some cases, they may be diagnosed with depression. These students might withdraw from friends, experience constant fatigue or irritability, and struggle with feelings of sadness or hopelessness. Sleep patterns can also be disrupted, with excessive sleepiness or insomnia.

Physical symptoms like psychosomatic illnesses may develop but often do not respond to medical treatment. In extreme cases, students with internalizing behaviors may have thoughts of death or suicide (Tartakovsky, 2013). Moreover, students with EBD can also exhibit externalizing behaviors, which are characterized by outward expressions of negativity and aggression. As Heward (2012) described, these may include frequent rule-breaking, such as getting out of seats, shouting, disrupting classmates, or engaging in fights. Property damage, stealing, lying, and even criminal behavior can also be signs of externalizing EBD. It is important to note that EBD manifests over an extended period, significantly impacting a student’s academic performance, social interactions, and emotional well-being (Kerr & Nelson, 2009; Webber & Plots, 2007; Overton, 2011).

Academic Characteristics of Children with EBD

According to Giuliani (2007), children with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) typically encounter problems in the school setting. These difficulties can manifest in various ways, such as disrupting class activities, acting impulsively, or struggling with inattention and focus. They may also show disinterest in classroom rules, have trouble adapting to changes, or yell out information inappropriately. In some cases, children with EBD may exhibit aggressive behavior, including bullying or intimidation.

Additionally, frequent absences, blaming others for mistakes, and low self-esteem can be signs of EBD. Difficulty working collaboratively and engaging in self-harm are also potential indicators. It is important to note that experiencing some of these behaviors occasionally does not necessarily mean a child has EBD. A formal diagnosis from a qualified professional is necessary for confirmation.

Children with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) can exhibit various concerning behaviors, as outlined in the Educator’s Diagnostic Manual by Pierangelo and Giuliani (2007). These can involve difficulties in social interactions, such as demanding constant attention, struggling with attachment or separation anxiety, or displaying inappropriate social behaviors. Aggression, including verbal and physical hostility, is another common indicator.

Pervasive mood disorders may manifest as persistent sadness, changes in craving or sleep patterns, feelings of irrelevance, or even suicidal feelings. Physical complaints with no medical explanation and self-harming behaviors can also be signs of EBD. In severe cases, symptoms may even resemble Schizophrenia, with hallucinations, delusions, and social withdrawal. Remembering that a qualified professional should conduct a formal evaluation to diagnose EBD is important.

Educational Outcomes

Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) often struggle academically throughout their schooling. These students often struggle in school due to learning disabilities, creating a negative feedback loop. Their academic difficulties can lead to behavioral problems and vice versa. These students receive less teacher attention and miss out on learning opportunities, making it harder for them to succeed. As a result, many students with EBD drop out of high school, with weak academic skills being the biggest factor beyond age and family background.

Students with Behavioral Problems in the School

According to the World Health Organization (2004), a significant portion of children, roughly 20%, either struggle with or are at risk of developing mental, emotional, or behavioral problems. Among these groups, individuals with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) face the most trials. Students with EBD often exhibit behaviors that hinder their success in and outside of school. This can include difficulty forming healthy social relationships, struggling academically in various subjects, and displaying persistent behavioral issues like disobedience, aggression, and disrespect for authority figures.

While schools often place students with EBD in more restrictive settings compared to other disability groups, research by Stichter et al. suggests that simply placing them in inclusive classrooms is not enough to improve behavior or peer acceptance. These findings highlight the complexities of effectively supporting students with EBD and the need for additional strategies beyond physical classroom placement.

Many factors contribute to the development of behavioral problems in children, according to Symons (2008). These factors can be broadly categorized into individual, family, and school-level influences. Individual factors include a child’s reading comprehension and ability to adjust in the classroom. Family-level factors encompass parental involvement and a child’s exposure to maltreatment. School-level factors include participation in special programs, attending magnet schools, and how often a child changes schools. Importantly, the presence of a disability and experiencing early childhood and family risks further increase the chances of developing behavioral problems. Strong academic skills, positive behavior, and healthy social interactions are key ingredients for success in school for children and young people.

Students who demonstrate these competencies (academic, behavioral, and social competencies) are more likely to experience positive outcomes later in life, such as completing their education, having strong social connections, and achieving success in employment and financially (Walker & Sprague, 1999). Conversely, struggling in these areas can lead to negative consequences, such as dropping out of school, engaging in delinquent behavior, and developing antisocial patterns.

Children and young people who struggle academically and behaviorally are more at risk of failing in school, both academically and socially (Kauffman, 2001). It is especially present for students with disabilities, who often face challenges in learning and building positive relationships with peers due to their disabilities. These academic and social struggles can then lead them to drop out of school or develop problems with social adjustment later in life, potentially engaging in delinquency or even adult crime (Wagner, 1995).

While having a disability increases the risk of developing behavioral problems, the severity and type of problems can vary greatly among students with disabilities (Werner, 1999). Several factors from a student’s background and environment can worsen or lessen the likelihood of these problems (Keogh, 2000; Keogh & Weisner, 1993). These complex and interconnected factors likely influence how behavioral issues develop over time. However, there is a lack of research using preventive measures to understand how students with common disabilities can be vulnerable and resilient to these issues (Werner, 1999).

The exact relationship between a student’s disability and their external environment remains unclear. Behavioral problems can appear in children from a young age and take many forms. It can include acting out rudely, frequent meltdowns, and a greater chance of developing defiance or conduct disorders. These children might also struggle with their emotions and learning (especially reading) and may feel down or hyperactive. Hitting and kicking others are also common signs of behavioral issues.

Understanding the various factors influencing children’s development of behavioral problems is crucial. This knowledge can be used to create effective prevention and intervention programs. Research suggests a link between behavioral issues, difficulties interacting with others, and academic struggles, which can all contribute to antisocial behavior (Kazdin, 1987). Furthermore, early signs of antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence predict criminal behavior in adulthood.

Children who struggle academically are likelier to exhibit externalizing behaviors, such as aggression or hyperactivity (McEvoy & Walker, 2000). There are many potential reasons for this connection. Individual factors like language delays, low IQ, attention problems, and developmental issues can all play a role. Contextual factors, such as difficult family dynamics, negative peer interactions, and a poor school environment, can also contribute. Finally, social factors may also be at play (Hindsaw, 1992). These factors can directly or indirectly increase the risk of developing antisocial behavior.

Researchers in special education are working to better understand how individual traits and environmental factors interact to influence the development of behavioral problems in students with disabilities (Keogh, 1994). Studying these individual and contextual predictors can provide valuable information for designing preventative interventions (Coie et al., 1993). By understanding these factors, interventions can be tailored to become more effective in preventing or improving behavioral issues.

However, research has not yet fully explored how these behavioral problems develop specifically for students with common disabilities. To gain a more complete picture, researchers need to identify, from an ecological perspective, which risk and protective factors strongly influence the development of behavioral problems in these students. Additionally, more research is needed to understand the potential pathways connecting behavioral problems experienced in early childhood and adulthood.

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act defines Emotional Disturbance (ED) as having one or more of several characteristics for a long time and in a way that hurts a student’s ability to learn in school. These characteristics include difficulty learning, problems with relationships, inappropriate behavior, unhappiness or depression, and physical symptoms or fears (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments, 1997). It is important to note that students with ED are a varied group, experiencing a wide range of emotional, behavioral, social, and academic challenges (Epstein & Sumi, 2005).

Research suggests that children and adolescents with Emotional Disturbance (ED) tend to display behavioral problems that clash with their social and interpersonal environments. These problems are more often externalizing, meaning they are outwardly directed, such as aggression or hyperactivity (Lane, 2004). These externalizing behaviors likely lead to significant social difficulties and missed learning opportunities in the classroom for students with ED (Kauffman, 2001; Lane, 2004).

Studies consistently show that academic underachievement is a major issue for students with ED. Most of them experience significant academic difficulties, often performing one or more years below grade level compared to their typical-developing peers (Epstein, 2003). However, the exact percentage of students with ED who struggle academically is uncertain, with estimates ranging widely from 25% to 97% (Nelson et al., 2004). Another study by Cullinan et al. (1983) found that the prevalence of academic difficulties in specific areas like reading, math, and literacy ranged from 33% to 81% for students with ED. While the exact numbers may vary, the high prevalence of academic problems underscores the importance of investigating the academic performance of students with ED and how it might be related to their behavioral issues.

For many years, educators have been concerned about students who struggle academically and also exhibit behavioral problems. Research has consistently shown a strong link between academic failure and serious behavioral issues (Dodge & Pettit, 2003). These studies also identify many factors contributing to developing long-term antisocial behavior in various settings (Dodge & Pettit, 2003).

Students with persistent behavioral problems, including those with or at risk for Emotional Disturbance (EBD), often lack the self-regulation skills needed to succeed academically. Due to their social and behavioral challenges, they may benefit from explicit instruction in self-regulation strategies, such as goal setting. While much of the existing research focuses on goal setting related to academics or life skills (e.g., getting a job), there is a need for more research on how to set goals specifically for improving behavior (Bruhn et al., 2016).

Researchers who work with students at risk of severe behavioral problems advocate for implementing school-wide interventions (Sugai & Horner, 2002; Walker et al., 1996). To address the needs of all students and potentially reduce the number of students diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance (ED), a three-tiered model of prevention and intervention has been proposed by Walker et al. (1996). This model, also known as the three-tier model of Positive Behavior Support (PBS), suggests different levels of support depending on student needs. Tier 1, or universal intervention, focuses on building social and emotional skills for the entire student body. Tier 2, or targeted intervention, is for students exhibiting behavioral problems who have not responded to Tier 1 and are at risk for ED. Tier 3, or intensive intervention, provides individualized support for students diagnosed with ED. This three-tiered approach offers a framework for effectively using academic and social interventions to benefit the entire school system, educators, and students.

Studies have consistently shown that students with Emotional Disturbance (EBD) historically struggle to develop the academic and social skills needed for success (Patterson et al., 1989). It often leads to negative experiences in school and later in life. For instance, a 25-year review by Epstein et al. (1989) examining the academic achievement of students with EBD found they consistently performed below expectations. Similarly, another review by Trout et al. (2003) reported that 91% of students with EBD were considered “academically deficient,” with none performing at or above grade level. Further research by Kauffman et al. (1987) supported these findings, indicating that students with EBD typically function a year or more below grade level.

Adding to the challenges, students with EBD are more likely to experience negative academic consequences. Research suggests they are at higher risk of being held back a grade, receiving lower grades overall (Locke & Fuchs, 1995), and dropping out of school entirely (Locke & Fuchs; Maag & Katsiyannis, 1998; Sitlington & Neubert, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Compared to their peers with other disabilities, students with EBD are less likely to get good grades (A’s or B’s), often struggle socially, and exhibit more frequent behavioral problems (Bradley et al., 2004).

Researchers in the field of behavioral interventions advocate for implementing school-wide programs to address student needs (Sugai & Horner, 2002; Walker et al., 1996). A three-tiered model proposed by Walker et al. (1996) aims to support all students and potentially reduce the number diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance (ED). This Positive Behavior Support (PBS) model offers different levels of intervention based on student needs. Tier 1, or universal intervention, focuses on building social and emotional skills for the entire student body. Tier 2 targeted intervention targets students with ongoing behavioral issues who have not responded to Tier 1 and are at risk for ED. Tier 3, intensive intervention, provides individualized support for students diagnosed with ED. This framework allows educators to effectively utilize academic and social interventions to benefit the entire school system, including teachers, staff, and students.

Researchers have found that teachers often lack knowledge about the specific academic needs of students with Emotional Disturbance (EBD) and how to effectively address them (Epstein et al., 1989). There are several reasons why teachers might not use proven strategies. These include finding the interventions inconvenient or unsuitable (Gunter & Denny, 1996), skepticism of research or researchers (Landrum et al., 2002), difficulty applying single-subject research to real classrooms (Ruhl & Berlinghoff,1992), insufficient teacher training (George et al., 1995), and inadequate teacher preparation programs (Rosenberg et al., 2004).

With the broader definition of alternative educational settings, concerns have been about misusing homebound services (Etscheidt, 2006; Lustig, 2009). A study found that the most common reason students received homebound instruction was medical issues, such as serious or chronic illness (almost 70% of respondents). It aligns with estimates suggesting that 10-15% of school-aged children have chronic diseases, and some may require homebound Instruction (Journal of School Health, 2003). The study also allowed educators to specify if homebound instruction was used for disciplinary reasons (e.g., suspension, expulsion, school phobia). The data showed relatively low use of homebound instruction for behavioral problems, contradicting concerns about increased use as punishment (Etscheidt, 2006; Lustig, 2009). It suggests that homebound services are not being widely misused for disciplinary purposes.

The study confirmed a lack of training for service providers who deliver homebound instruction, as suggested by Patterson and Petit (2008). Only about a quarter of respondents said their districts provided training, and even fewer received training from teacher preparation programs or professional development opportunities. It means most service providers deliver homebound instruction without specific training in this area.

Synthesis

Homebound Instruction is a crucial service that provides academic support to students who miss regular school due to various reasons. This is originally intended for students with health issues that prevent them from attending school in person, this program now caters to a broader range of needs.

Homebound Instruction is no longer limited to medical situations. It can also benefit students facing behavioral problems, especially those who struggle with social interaction skills. This approach allows students to continue their education and stay involved with schoolwork even when they cannot be physically present. The instruction can be tailored to the student’s needs, considering their learning environment, behavior, and personal situation. Additionally, the social and emotional aspects of a student’s homebound learning experience can influence their social and emotional development.

For homebound instruction to succeed, the learning environment and the social-emotional climate need to be carefully considered. These factors significantly impact a student’s social behavior after transitioning back to a traditional classroom setting. A well-designed learning environment provides structure, clear expectations, and engaging activities, all contributing to a positive learning experience. It, in turn, can positively influence a student’s social skills and ability to interact with others. Building a positive social-emotional climate is equally important. It creates a sense of safety, belonging, and support for students and staff. It fosters respectful and trusting relationships within the school community, improving academic achievement, reducing behavioral issues, and improving student social and emotional well-being.

However, it has also been observed that students who struggle with social interaction skills are more likely to experience behavioral problems that can manifest as disruptive behavior in the classroom. Research also suggests that academic underachievement is a common consequence for students with difficulties in interpersonal behavior.

This study investigates whether the homebound instruction program offered by General Santos City SPED Integrated School effectively addresses students’ behavioral problems at school, as evidenced by their level of interpersonal behavior (aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive). If the program is effective, it could be a valuable tool for teachers and school administrators as a strategy, intervention, or program to help modify students’ behavior.

METHODOLOGY

This chapter dealt with the research design, respondents, data-gathering procedure, and statistical treatment used in the study.

Research Design

This study utilized the descriptive correlational quantitative research design to describe the level of homebound instruction, interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs, and the significant relationship between the level of homebound instruction and learners with special educational needs especially on their interpersonal behavior. Descriptive correlational design was used in research studies that aimed to provide static pictures of situations as well as establish the relationship between different variables (McBurney & White, 2009)

Location of the study

This study was conducted at General Santos City SPED Integrated School, Purok Malipayon, Barangay San Isidro, General Santos City. General Santos City SPED Integrated School was established in 1997 as a special public elementary school to address the educational needs of exceptional children. The school’s present location is in the heart of the población.

The school was converted into an integrated school, the first of its kind in Region XII, in the year 2000-2001, when it expanded its curriculum breath to the secondary level and offered educational programs and curriculum to address the educational needs of eight (8) types of exceptional children namely: gifted/talented/fast learner, visually impaired, hearing impaired, orthopedically handicapped, multiple disable and children with autism.

Source: Google Map, 2024

Figure 2. Locale of the Study

Research Respondents

The respondents were 15 homebound teachers who evaluated 50 homebound students composed of 1 non-graded (15 years old), 2 elementary (9 -11 years old), 39 junior high school (13-17 years old), and 8 senior high school (16-17 years old) learners with special educational needs under homebound instructions at General Santos City Special Education Integrated School, School Year 2023-2024.

Research Instrument

Research instruments serve as the tools that allow researchers to collect, measure, and analyze data (DeVellis, 2017). The data is obtained from subjects included in the research experiment and focused on the topic.

Part 1 of the instrument, which determined the level of homebound instruction regarding the instructional environment and social-emotional climate, is a 20-item self-made survey questionnaire. In addition, Part 2 determined learners with special educational needs’ interpersonal behavior level, which was adapted and modified interpersonal behavior checklist. The checklist consisted of 30-item questions and was classified into aggressive, non-assertive, and assertive behavior. The checklist is modified and adapted from the Department of Education Conduct Disorder Teacher Rating Scale. Five (5) experts validated this questionnaire. There were three validators specialized in special education and two guidance counselors.

To describe the level of homebound instruction in terms of instructional environment and social-emotional climate, the following scales were used:

Legend:

To describe the level of interpersonal behavior of special education students in terms of aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior, the following scales were used:

Legend:

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher asked permission from the Schools Division Superintendent to conduct the study. Likewise, a similar request letter was addressed to the school principal, special education coordinator, and the respondents’ parents to gather data for the study.  After the approval was granted, the necessary arrangement for the study was made.   A schedule was set to conduct the study. The administration of the interpersonal behavior checklist on the respondents was administered personally by the researcher likewise the retrieval of the accomplished checklist.

After which, answers were tabulated and collated ready for analysis and interpretation of data using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS is one of the most popular statistical packages that can perform highly complex data manipulation and analysis with simple instructions (Chandler, 2016).

Figure 3. Waterflow Diagram of Data Gathering Procedure

Statistical Treatment

Statistical treatment of data is essential to use the data in the right form. Raw data collection is only one aspect of any experiment; data organization is equally important to draw appropriate conclusions (Siddharth Kalla, 2009).

In this study, mean was utilized to determine the level of homebound instruction regarding the instructional environment and social-emotional climate. To determine the level of interpersonal behavior exhibited by learners with special educational needs before and after homebound instruction, the researcher used mean to describe the interpersonal behavior in terms of aggressive, non-assertive, and assertive behavior.

To determine the significant relationship between the homebound instruction level and learners with special educational needs’ interpersonal behavior, the researcher utilized Pearson-r. The hypothesis was tested at a 0.05 level of significance.

Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

This chapter shows the results and the discussion of the study conducted. The data is presented sequentially according to the order of the research problem.

 The discussion covered the following: The level of homebound instruction in terms of instructional environment and social-emotional climate; The Level of interpersonal behavior exhibited by learners with special educational needs before and after homebound instructions in terms of aggressive behavior, assertive behavior, and non-assertive behavior; and the significant relationship in the level homebound instruction and level of interpersonal behavior exhibited by learners with special educational needs.

The Level of Homebound Instruction of Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs)

In the past, homebound instruction was mostly for students who could not physically go to school, like young kids, sick students, or those with health issues. Over time, it has become an option for more situations, including school breaks, suspensions, expulsions, or students needing a different learning environment (Patterson & Petit, 2007).

The first research problem aimed to describe the level of homebound instruction in terms of instructional environment and social-emotional climate. Results are shown in succeeding tables.

Table 1 Level of Homebound Instruction in terms of Instructional    Environment

The data shows a very positive learning environment for homebound instruction. The following practices of the teachers created a positive learning environment in homebound instructions: clearly stated posted expectations (x̅=4.87); provided learning contracts, graded student performance on their growth, and asked simple questions on the learner’s knowledge (x̅=4.8); assisted the students in setting short term goals, alternated high and low-interest tasks, and provide a choice of tasks to the students (x̅=4.73); modified test items based on the learners learning level (x̅=4.67); Utilize areas of strength to encourage participation on the task given; and extended time for enrichment/remediation (x̅=4.53).

The descriptions indicated that these practices are “Always” done. The result reinforces that teachers regularly use these strategies to support a positive learning environment. Overall, the data revealed that homebound instruction teachers prioritize creating a positive learning environment for their students.

A positive relationship fosters trust and respect, which can improve learning outcomes. Also, the physical environment is an important key component in an instructional environment, which pertains to the overall atmosphere contributing to the learning experience. A well-designed instructional environment provides structure and clear expectations and fosters active learning. When students are actively engaged and have frequent opportunities to respond and demonstrate their knowledge, they are less likely to become disruptive (Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). Moreover, effective instructional strategies are central to preventing academic and behavioral challenges, ultimately leading to improved student achievement.

Moreover, effective classroom management requires a well-rounded approach. It includes actively monitoring student engagement, establishing clear rules and routines, creating a positive learning environment, implementing procedures that promote good behavior, using strategies to reduce disruptive behavior, collecting data to track student behavior, and adapting your management plan (Oliver & Rechly, 2007).

Table 2. Level of Homebound Instruction in terms of Social-emotional    Climate

On the other hand, Table 2 shows a very positive social-emotional climate for homebound instruction. The teachers almost always observed practices to promote a positive social-emotional climate in homebound instruction. Specifically, these practices are: involve the parents and discuss with them the problem and what interventions will be given and focused and utilized areas of strengths, talents, and accomplishments of the student (x̅= 5.0); provided opportunities that will help learners achieve a sense of competence, control, and relatedness, helped learners enhance their motivation for overcoming misbehavior, and explained how students could avoid the misbehavior to happen again (x̅=4.87); stated and set clear rules in positive terms and provided opportunities for the student to display responsibility and provide assistance to others (x̅=4.8); used positive reinforcement and provides reassurances and encouragement vs. correction,  strengthened social skills of the learner, and validated learner’s perspective and feeling (x̅=4.73); Utilized behavioral charts (x̅=3.67).

The descriptions indicate that these practices are “Always” done. It further reinforces that teachers regularly use these strategies to support students’ social and emotional well-being. The data suggests that homebound instruction teachers prioritize creating a positive social-emotional climate for their students.

Supportive school and classroom climates can positively impact student social, emotional, and behavioral health. Specifically, a social and emotional climate that encourages independence, supports shared decision-making and responsibilities among students and staff, maintains high expectations, and fosters supportive teacher-student relationships has been shown to reduce problem behaviors for high school students (O’Brennan et al., 2014).

Teachers play a role in encouraging prosocial behaviors, and a strong link has been found between positive classroom management and student-to-student interactions, such as caring and respectful behaviors (Reaves et al.,2018). Additionally, a positive school climate has been connected to a decrease in internalizing symptoms such as anxiety and depression (Martinez et al., 2016)

Table 3. Summary of the Level of Homebound Instruction

Table 3 shows the level of homebound instruction with a total mean of 4.72, SD .29. Instructional environment (x̅=4.73, SD=.31) and social-emotional climate (x̅=4.71, SD=.27) are always taken into consideration by educators in conducting homebound instruction. The best approach to homebound instruction involves collaboration from a team of experts. This team, typically consisting of parents, teachers, school administrators, and therapists, would combine their knowledge and skills from different areas to create a comprehensive support system for the student (Patterson & Tullis, 2007).

The result ensures that the student receives all the necessary services and their progress is effectively monitored. Teachers of homebound students should be culturally aware. The result means understanding and respecting the student’s cultural background, beliefs, communication styles, and everyday experiences (Gay, 2000). This awareness helps build bridges between the student’s home life and school environment, making academic concepts more relatable and engaging.

Effective homebound instruction requires teachers to understand the student’s complete picture. It includes their eligibility for special education, past behavior or emotional struggles, any interventions that have been tried, and any legally required services. The student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) should be central to the instruction plan. Ultimately, homebound instruction should be delivered exactly as the IEP outlines (Patterson & Tullis, 2007). Teachers of homebound students must make every effort to enhance communication since communication is critical to the development of trust between school personnel and the family (Anderson & Matthews, 2001)

On the other hand, students receiving homebound or home-based instruction are maintained on the class roll. The classroom teacher(s) will: a. provide the homebound or home-based teacher with appropriate instructional materials and information; b. be responsible for grading procedures in collaboration with the homebound or home-based teacher; c. maintain close contact with the homebound or home-based teacher to monitor the instructional progress of the student; and d. collaborate with the homebound or home-based teacher about the curriculum and appropriate instructional strategies. Furthermore, the student and parent or guardian must work cooperatively with the assigned homebound or home-based teacher and school personnel.

The Level of Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) Before and After Homebound Instructions

Interpersonal behavior is the behavior and actions that are present in human relationships. How people communicate and all that this entails is considered interpersonal behavior. Our interactions with others define our interpersonal behavior. The result encompasses all forms of communication, both verbal (spoken words) and nonverbal (body language, facial expressions) (Cherry, 2020). The second research problem aimed to describe special education students’ interpersonal behavior level before and after homebound instructions regarding aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior. Results are shown in succeeding tables.

Table 4. Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) Before Homebound Instruction in terms of Aggressive Behavior

As evaluated, learners with special educational needs “Often” deliberately annoy others ( x̅= 3.74 ), defy and refuse to comply with the rules and teacher’s request ( x̅ = 3.72 ), lie to peers and teachers ( x̅= 3. 62), intimidate others with expression ( x̅ = 3.56 ), and only considers own feelings and demands of others( x̅= 3.52 ).    “Sometimes,” they also bully and threaten classmates and others (x̅ = 3.40), initiate physical fights ( x̅= 3.20 ), and tend to abuse prohibited drugs and alcohol ( x̅ = 2.82 ). However, they only “Seldom” think or talk repeatedly of suicide ( x̅ = 2.08 ) and steal ( x̅ = 1.98 ). Aggressive behavior is the type of interpersonal behavior in which a person stands up for their rights in such a way that the rights of others are also violated. It humiliates, dominates, or puts the person down rather than simply expressing one’s own emotions or thoughts. It is also an attack on the person rather than on the person’s behavior. Furthermore, according to a study by San Diego University and Western Oregon University (2015), aggressive behavior can be a frequent consequence of pent-up anger manifesting as hostile outbursts or overreactions.

Children and adolescents with Emotional Disturbance (ED) tend to display behavioral problems that clash with their social and interpersonal environments. These problems are more often externalizing, meaning they are outwardly directed, such as aggression or hyperactivity (Lane, 2004). These externalizing behaviors likely lead to significant social difficulties and missed learning opportunities in the classroom for students with ED (Kauffman, 2001; Lane, 2004).

Table 5. Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) Before Homebound Instruction in terms of Assertive Behavior

With regards to assertive behavior, students “Often” seek affirmation from others ( x̅ = 3.66 ) and speak openly and on the point of their opinion ( x̅ = 3.58 ). “Sometimes” outgoing and friendly to the people they want to know better ( x̅ = 3.36), persistent on their feelings, needs, and ideas to get satisfaction ( x̅ = 3.34), flatter and manipulate people’s emotions ( x̅ = 3.30), make own choices ( x̅ = 3.30), asks why when to do something that does not seem reasonable and enjoyable( x̅ = 3.20), express active disagreement when he is sure with his ground ( x̅ = 3.20), express personal likes and interests spontaneously ( x̅ = 3.10), and speak up from own rights and will not let others take advantage ( x̅ = 2. 84).

Assertive behavior is interpersonal behavior in which a person stands up for their legitimate rights in such a way that the rights of others are not violated. It communicates respect for that person’s behavior. Assertive behavior is an honest, direct, and appropriate expression of one’s feelings, beliefs, and opinions (San Diego University and Western Oregon University, 2015).

Studies have consistently shown that students with Emotional Disturbance (EBD) historically struggle to develop the academic and social skills needed for success (Patterson et al., 1989). It often leads to negative experiences in school and later in life.

Table 6. Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) Before Homebound Instruction in terms of Non-Assertive Behavior

For non-assertive behavior, the students “Often” have little empathy for others and lack appropriate feelings of guilt ( x̅ = 3.50 ), avoid things or places or refuse to do things or go places ( x̅ = 3.68 ), have a lack of interest to classroom and school activities ( x̅ = 3.96) and avoid work activities that contact with others ( x̅ = 3.62 ). Moreover, the students are “Sometimes” fearful ( x̅ = 2.86 ), have difficulty in interacting with others ( x̅ = 3.16), have low self-esteem ( x̅ = 3.28 ), afraid of consequences ( x̅ = 3.30 ), are worriers ( x̅ = 3.16 ), and afraid to fail, be rejected and get embarrassed ( x̅ = 3.24 ).

Non-assertive behavior is interpersonal behavior that enables a person’s rights to be violated by another. A non-assertive person inhibits her/his honest, spontaneous reactions and typically feels hurt, anxious, and sometimes angry due to being non-assertive in a situation (San Diego University and Western Oregon University, 2015).

Hence, educators have been concerned about students who struggle academically and exhibit behavioral problems. Research has consistently shown a strong link between academic failure and serious behavioral issues (Dodge & Pettit, 2003). These studies also identify many factors contributing to developing long-term antisocial behavior in various settings (Dodge & Pettit, 2003).

Table 7. Summary of the Level of Interpersonal Behavior Exhibited by Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) Before Homebound Instruction

Table 7 shows that the students exhibited interpersonal behaviors before homebound instruction. Data revealed that students exhibited aggressive behaviors at a moderate frequency with a mean score of 3.16 (SD = 0.77), meaning “sometimes.” A mean score of 3.29 (SD = 0.57) with a verbal description of “always” established that assertive behavior is displayed by students before homebound instructions. To add, a mean score of 3.38 (SD = 0.65) with a description of “Sometimes” revealed that students exhibited non-assertive behaviors at a moderate frequency. Overall, the mean score of 3.28 (SD = 0.54) describing “Sometimes” showed that students exhibited various interpersonal behaviors before homebound instruction.

To summarize, learners with special educational needs “Sometimes” manifest aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior before homebound instructions.

Interpersonal problems are a hallmark of personality disorders. Experts agree that these difficulties are the most significant and defining characteristic that all personality disorders share (Hoermann et al., 2018). It makes sense, then, that issues with thinking, managing emotions, and controlling impulses (common features of personality disorders) would lead to significant problems relating to others. These negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors make it difficult for people with personality disorders to fulfill social roles and form healthy, lasting relationships.

According to Giuliani (2007), generally, children with EBD have problems in school. In addition, children who are at risk manifest mental, emotional, or behavioral problems (World Health Organization 2004). Individuals with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) experience the least favorable outcomes of any group of individuals with disabilities, and students with EBD often display characteristics that do not support success in or out of school. They may not be able to maintain appropriate social relationships with others, they may have academic difficulties in multiple content areas, and they may display chronic behavior problems, including noncompliance, aggression, and disrespect toward authority figures.

Table 8. Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) After Homebound Instruction in terms of Aggressive Behavior

Table 8 shows that after homebound instruction, the learners with special educational needs “Seldom” show aggressive behavior ( x̅ = 1.71 ). Specifically, they “Seldom” lies to peers and teachers ( x̅ = 2.02), deliberately annoy others ( x̅ = 2.00) bully and threaten classmates and others ( x̅ = 1.96 ), intimidate others with expression ( x̅ = 1.86 ), considers own feelings and demand of others( x̅ = 1.80 ), defies and refuse to comply with rules and teacher’s requests ( x̅ = 1.76 ),  initiates physical fights ( x̅ = 1.70 ). Moreover, after homebound instruction, they “Never” tend to use drugs or alcohol (  x̅ = 1.42), think and talk of suicide ( x̅ = 1.32 ), and steal ( x̅ = 1.22).

Researchers in the field of behavioral interventions advocate for implementing school-wide programs to address student needs (Sugai & Horner,  2002; Walker et al., 1996). A three-tiered model proposed by Walker et al. (1996) aims to support all students and potentially reduce the number diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance (ED). This Positive Behavior Support (PBS) model offers different levels of intervention based on student needs.

Moreover, effective instructional strategies are central to preventing academic and behavioral challenges, ultimately leading to improved student achievement. Research by Espin and Yell (1994) demonstrates a correlation between strong instructional practices and a higher rate of positive student responses.

Table 9. Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) After Homebound Instruction in terms of Assertive Behavior

Learners with special educational needs “Sometimes” manifest assertive behavior ( x̅ = 2. 90 ). Specifically, they are “often” outgoing and friendly to the people they want to know better ( x̅ = 3.94 ), speak openly and on the point of opinion ( x̅ = 3.74 ), and make own choices ( x̅ = 3.54 ). On the other hand, these students “sometimes” speak up for their rights ( x̅ = 3.28 ), express personal likes and interests spontaneously ( x̅ = 3.10 ), and express active disagreement when sure with their ground ( x̅ = 2. 80 ). However, they seldom ask why when asked to do something that does not seem reasonable and enjoyable ( x̅ = 2.24 ),  seek affirmation from others ( x̅ = 2.22 ),  flatter and manipulate people’s emotions ( x̅ = 2.16 ), and persistent of their feelings, needs, and ideas to get satisfaction ( x̅ = 2.00 )as shown in the table.

Research by Fredricks et al. (2004) shows a clear link between student engagement and positive academic outcomes. Supportive teachers, peers, challenging tasks, opportunities for choice, and clear structure contribute to a more engaged classroom environment.          Moreover, the growing focus on positive approaches to discipline and supporting good behavior inside and outside the classroom is a positive trend (Center for Mental Health in Schools, 2008).

Table 10. Interpersonal Behavior of Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) After Homebound Instruction in terms of Non-Assertive Behavior

Generally, learners with special educational needs “Seldom” manifest non-assertive behavior ( x̅ = 1.95 ) after homebound instruction. Specifically, have little empathy for others and lack appropriate feelings of guilt ( x̅ = 2.08 ), avoid things or places or refuse to do things or go places (  x̅ = 2.02 ), have a lack of interest in classroom and school activities ( x̅ = 2.00), avoid work activities that contact with others ( x̅ = 1.98 ), fearful ( x̅ = 1.96 ), afraid of consequences ( x̅ = 1.94 ), afraid to get embarrassed ( x̅ = 1.94 ),  are worriers ( x̅ = 1.92 ),  have low self-esteem ( x̅ = 1.92 ), have difficulty in interacting with others ( x̅ = 1.74).

Understanding the various factors influencing children’s development of behavioral problems is crucial. This knowledge can be used to create effective prevention and intervention programs. Research suggests a link between behavioral issues, difficulties interacting with others, and academic struggles, which can all contribute to antisocial behavior (Kazdin, 1987).

Table 11. Summary of the Level of Interpersonal Behavior Exhibited by Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs) After Homebound Instruction

Table 11 revealed that the students exhibited interpersonal behaviors at a low frequency after homebound instruction, with an overall mean score of 2.19 (SD = 0.46). Students “seldom” exhibited aggressive behavior, with a mean of 1.71 (SD = 0.45), as well as non-assertive behavior, with a mean score of 1.95 (SD = 0.51). Overall, students “seldom” interpersonal behavior with a mean score of 2.19 (SD = 0.46). The result shows that, overall, students exhibited interpersonal behaviors at a low frequency.

Behavioral problems can appear at any age in children, often starting early. These issues can manifest in various ways, including rudeness, frequent meltdowns, and a greater chance of developing defiance or conduct disorders (Lassi et al., 2010). Understanding the factors directly and indirectly related to the developmental trajectories of behavioral problems is important for developing prevention and intervention services. Evidence has shown that behavioral, interpersonal, and academic difficulties are likely related to antisocial behavior (Kazdin, 1987).

To summarize, after homebound instruction, learners with special educational needs “Seldom” manifest aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior.

Homebound instruction is a temporary solution for students who cannot attend school but still need educational support. It helps them stay connected to their learning so they can smoothly rejoin their regular classes when they return. This service differs from homeschooling, where parents take full responsibility for their child’s education. Homebound instruction is a special education program funded by public schools and provided to individual students in their homes, not at school (Homebound Instruction Procedure Manual, 2013; Petit, 2013).

Table 12. Significant Relationship in the Level of Homebound Instruction and Level of Interpersonal Behavior Exhibited by Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs)

A correlational analysis examined the relationship between the instructional environment, social-emotional climate, and interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs. The Pearson correlation coefficient revealed a strong negative correlation between the instructional environment and the interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs (r = -.665, p < .001), indicating that as the instructional environment’s quality decreases, the interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs tends to increase. Similarly, a significant negative correlation was found between learners with special educational needs’ social-emotional climate and interpersonal behavior (r = -.605, p < .05), suggesting that a more positive social-emotional climate is associated with lower levels of interpersonal behavior in learners with special educational needs.

These findings have several implications. Firstly, they highlight the importance of the instructional environment in influencing the interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs. A supportive and conducive instructional environment may contribute to better outcomes for the interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs, potentially through enhanced engagement, motivation, and learning experiences. Secondly, the negative correlation between the social-emotional climate and interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs underscores the significance of fostering a positive social-emotional environment within educational settings. A nurturing climate can promote emotional well-being, interpersonal relationships, and academic success.

Effective instruction not only strengthens academic skills but also minimizes disruptive behavior. A key element is providing appropriately challenging instruction for each student (Wehby et al., 1995). When students are actively involved and have common opportunities to answer and demonstrate their learning, they are less likely to become disruptive (Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). Moreover, effective instructional strategies are central to preventing academic and behavioral challenges, ultimately leading to improved student achievement. Research by Espin and Yell (1994) demonstrates a correlation between strong instructional practices and a higher rate of positive student responses.

Educational stakeholders, including educators, administrators, and policymakers, should consider these findings when designing and implementing interventions to improve student outcomes. Investing in initiatives that enhance the quality of the instructional environment and promote a positive social-emotional climate may yield benefits not only for the interpersonal behavior of special education students but also for overall student development and academic achievement.

Further research could explore the underlying mechanisms driving the observed relationships and investigate potential moderating variables that may influence the strength or direction of these associations. Longitudinal studies could also provide insights into the causal nature of these relationships over time, informing targeted interventions and strategies for optimizing the educational experience and promoting student success.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presented the summary of the study, as well as the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the findings of this research.

Summary

In the past, homebound instruction was just for special needs students whose physical limitations kept them from school. This included young children, students with illnesses, and those who were physically fragile. However, the program has grown to include many other situations and students. Now, it can help students on school breaks, those facing suspension or expulsion, those waiting for a better learning environment, or those struggling in a traditional classroom setting.

The study determined the level of homebound instruction and interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs. This study utilized the descriptive correlational research design to test the level of homebound instruction and interpersonal behavior of General Santos City Special Education Integrated School students.

The study’s respondents were 15 teachers who evaluated 50 non-graded, elementary, junior high school, and senior high school learners with special educational needs under homebound instructions at General Santos City Special Education Integrated School.

Survey questionnaires determined the level of homebound instruction and interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs. For the level of homebound instruction, a 20-item self-made questionnaire was divided into two: instructional environment and social-emotional climate. On the level of interpersonal behavior exhibited by learners with special educational needs, an adapted and modified survey questionnaire contained an interpersonal behavior checklist. The checklist consisted of 30-item questions adapted from the Department of Education Conduct Disorder Teacher Rating Scale.

The study used means to describe the level of homebound instruction and interpersonal behavior exhibited by learners with special educational needs before and after homebound instruction. The study also used Pearson r to examine the relationship between the instructional environment, social-emotional climate, and interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs.

Based on the collected and analyzed data, the following are the results of the study:

Findings showed that the level of homebound instruction in terms of instructional environment was high, with a total mean of 4.73. The instructional environment was always considered in homebound instruction. The social-emotional climate was always manifested in homebound instruction, with a mean of 4.17.

Before homebound instruction, learners with special educational needs manifested aggressive behavior with a mean of 3.16, assertive behavior with a 3.29 mean, and non-assertive behavior with a mean of 3.38. The learners with special educational needs sometimes manifested aggressive, forceful, and non-assertive behavior.

While, after homebound instructions, learners with special educational needs obtained the means of 1.71 for aggressive behavior, 2.90 for assertive behavior, and 1.95 for non-assertive behavior. Students seldom manifested these behaviors.

Moreover, on the significant relationship between the level of homebound instruction to the interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs, the Pearson correlation coefficient revealed a strong negative correlation between the instructional environment and the interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs. The quality of the instructional environment decreases, interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs tends to increase. Similarly, a significant negative correlation was found between learners with special educational needs’ social-emotional climate and interpersonal behavior. A more positive social-emotional climate is associated with lower levels of interpersonal behavior in learners with special educational needs.

Conclusions

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

The teachers always considered the instructional environment in homebound instruction. Educators believe a well-structured and supportive instructional environment is critical for homebound instruction.

Also, the social-emotional climate was always practiced in homebound instruction. The findings signified strong consensus among the educators surveyed that these were all important practices in fostering a positive social-emotional climate in homebound instruction.

The learners with special educational needs sometimes manifested aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior before homebound instruction. Hence, learners with special educational needs seldom manifested aggressive, assertive, and non-assertive behavior after homebound instruction.

Furthermore, a supportive and conducive instructional environment may contribute to better outcomes for the interpersonal behavior of learners with special educational needs, potentially through enhanced engagement, motivation, and learning experiences. A nurturing climate can promote emotional well-being, interpersonal relationships, and academic success.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are derived:

1. Teachers may patiently and closely monitor whether their students are showing aggressive behavior and take action to correct them.
2. Non-assertive students may be exposed to extracurricular and curricular activities to help improve their self-confidence.
3. Homebound instruction can be regularly implemented in schools since it significantly reduces negative behavior.
4. The DepEd and the school can conduct training and seminar-workshop for teachers and parents about homebound instruction.
5. The school may establish and clearly define homebound instruction policies.
6. The researcher may conduct further studies and social experiments on homebound instruction.

REFERENCES

1. Adelman & Taylor (2006). Mental health in schools: moving in new directions American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health. (2000). Home, hospital, and other non-school-based instruction for children and adolescents who are medically unable to attend school. Pediatrics, 106(5), 1154-1155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.106.5.1154
2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC
3. Anderson, J.A., & Matthews, B. (2001). We care for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities and their families. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 34-39
4. Bakes, C. (1994). Motivating students. The Technology Teacher, 54, 9–12.
5. Baker, C., Squires, J., & Whiteley, K. C. (1999). Home visiting: A Vermont approach to working with young children and their families. Waterbury: Vermont Agency of Human Services.
6. Bear, G. G., Quinn, M. M., & Burkholder, S. (2001). Interim alternative educational settings for children with disabilities. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
7. Bradley, R. (2007). Key issues in discipline. In Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 Training Curriculum (module 19). Retrieved from the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities website: http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/partb-module19/
8. British Columbia Department of Education. (1995). Special education services: A manual of policies, procedures and guidelines. Victoria, BC: Author.
9. Center for the Prevention and Study of Violence. (1992). A Developmental and Clinical Model for the Prevention of Conduct Disorder. Developmental Psychology.4(4). pp. 509-527.
10. Cherry,K. (2020, February 11). Interpersonal communication. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-maintain-interpersonal-relationships-5204856
11. Coleman & Vaughn (2000). Research in reading interventions for students with         emotional and behavioral disorders Conduct disorder teacher rating scale (2013). USAID, BEE, Leonard Cheshire Disability Philippine Foundation Incorporated
12. Conroy, Stichter, & Fox (2001). A descriptive analysis of positive behavioral intervention research with young children with challenging behavior
13. Cook, R., Sparks, S., Rosetti, L., & Osselaer, C. (2008). The art and practice of home visiting: Early intervention for children with special needs and their families. Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.
14. Council for Exceptional Children. (1997) Individuals with disabilities education act amendments 1997.
15. Council of Exceptional Children. (IDEA ‘97)- Full Regulation Discussion.  (1997). Subpart E-Procedural safeguards least restrictive environment. http://www.cec.sped.org/law/…s/searchregs/300.551.php
16. Daly-Rooney, R., & Denny, G. (1991). Survey of homebound programs offered by public schools for chronically ill or disabled children in Arizona. Tucson: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EC300587)
17. Dunbar, C. (2004). Best Practices in Classroom Management. Michigan State Retrievedfrom:  https://www.msu.edu/~dunbarc/dunbar3.pdf.
18. Eleadership online series, (2015). University of San Diego. https://www.sandiego.edu/student-leadership/documents
19. Etscheidt, S. (2006). Seeking and an interim alternative education placement for dangerous or disruptive students with disabilities: Four burdens for the school district to meet
20. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Phyllis, & Paris. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research,  v74 n1 p59-109 Spr 2004
21. Gay, G. (2000). Cultural responsive teaching. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
22. Giuliani, George A. (2007). Classroom management for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: a step-by-step guide for educators 1st Edition
23. Gurtman, M.B. (1996). Interpersonal problems and the psychopathy context: the construct validity of the inventory of interpersonal problems. Psychological Assessment. 8(3) 241-253
24. Heward, W. (2012). Exceptional Children. NY: Prentice Hall.Hoermann, Zupanick, & Dombeck (2018). The Most Significant, Defining Featured of Personality Disorders: Interpersonal Difficulties. net 2018
25. Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. Oxford, England: Norton & Co.
26. Horowitz, L. M., & de Sales French, R. (1979). Interpersonal problems of People who describe themselves as lonely. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 762-764.
27. Journal of School Health. (2003). Students with chronic illness: Guidance for families, schools, and students. Journal of School Health, 73(4), 131-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2003.tb03588.x
28. Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200602
29. Katsiyannis, A., & Smith, C. R. (2003). Disciplining students with disabilities: Legal trends and the issue of interim alternative education settings. Behavioral Disorders, 28(4), 410-418.
30. Kauffman, J. M. (2001). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hal
31. Kauffman, J. (2010). Managing classroom behavior. New York: Routledge
32. Kauffman, J. (2011). Handbook of special education. New York: Routledge.
33. Kavale, K. &Mosert, M. (2004). Defining emotional or behavioral disorders: The Quest for Affirmation. Sage Publications. http://www.sagepub.com/gargiulo4emedia/study/chapters/handbook /hand    book 8.1.pdf)
34. Kiesler, D. J. (1996). From communications to interpersonal theory: A personal Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 267-282.
35. Keilty, B. (2008). Early intervention home-visiting principles in practice: A reflective approach. Young Exceptional Children, 11(2), 29-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096250607311933
36. Keogh, Weisner, (1993). Learning disabilities research and practice, V8 n’ p3- 10-win 1993
37. Kerr, M. & Nelson, M. (2009). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom. California: Pearson.
38. Kerr, M.K. & Nelson, C. M. (2002). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39. Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research:  Personality, psychopathology and psychotherapy.  New York:
40. Klass, C. S. (2003). The home visitor’s guidebook: Promoting optimal parent & child development (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
41. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald
42. Lustig, B. C. (2009). Homebound instruction: The legal segregation of students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3373920).
43. McBurney, D. & White, T. (2009). Research methods. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
44. McDonnell, J., Hardman, M., & McDonnell, A. (2003). An introduction to persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
45. Martin, E. J., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2002). Establishing a home-school connection: Strengthening the partnership between families and schools. Preventing School Failure, 46(2), 62-65
46. Martinez, A., Mcmahon, S., Coker, C., & Keys, C. (2016). Teacher behavioral practices: Relations to student risk behaviors, learning barriers, and school climate. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 817-830.
47. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
48. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002a). Digest of educational statistics. Tables 52–54, 1995–2002. http://nces.edu.gov/programs/digest/ d01/dt053.asp
49. O’Brennan, L., Bradshaw, M., & Furlong, C. (2014). Influence of classroom and school climate on teacher perceptions of student problem behavior. School Mental Health, 6, 125-136
50. Oliver, M. & Reschly, J. (2007). Effective classroom management: teacher preparation and professional development. Washington: Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543769.pdf 
51. Overton, T. (2011). Assessing learners with special needs. California: Pearson.
52. Patterson, P. P., & Petit, C. (2006). Helping to make homebound instruction successful. The Exceptional Parent, 36(9), 44-46. Petit and Patterson 52
53. Patterson, P. P., & Petit, C. (2008). Teaching homebound children. National Association of Elementary School Principals, 87(3). naesp.org
54. Patterson, P. P., & Tullis, L. (2007). Guidelines for providing homebound instruction to students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 51(2), 29-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.2.29-33
55. Petit, C. C. (2013). The usage of homebound instruction: Training, preparation, and perceptions of service providers. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3567874).
56. Pierangelo, R.& Giuliani, G. (2007). The educator’s diagnostic manual of disabilities and disorders. California: Jossey Bass.
57. com. (2018) Social sciences and psychology https://www.reference.com/world-view/interpersonal-behavior-2ba49a1075089453.
58. Reaves, S., Mcmahon, S., Duffy, S., & Ruiz, L. (2018). The test of time: A meta-analytic review of the relation between school climate and problem
59. Special Education & Rehabilitative Services. (2007). Archived: A 25-year history of the IDEA. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html
60. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014
61. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). Conceptions of modern psychiatry. New York, NY, US: W Norton & Co.
62. Suprabha, K., and Subramonian, G. (2021). Blended learning instructional strategy interventions for higher secondary school students: a focus on social skills. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 17(4), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.17.4.17669
63. Symons, Dr. & Frank J. (2008). Predictors of behavioral problems for students with high-incidence disabilities
64. Tartakovsky, M. (2013). Depression & your child: a guide for parents & caregivers. Psych Central.
65. Telzrow, C. F. (2001). Interim alternative educational settings school district implementation of IDEA 1997 requirements. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(1), 72-98
66. S. Department of Education (2013). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. http://idea.ed.gov
67. Virginia Department of Education Homebound Instructions Services Guidelines, (2011). Sussex County Public Schools Homebound   Instruction Handbook
68. Walker & Sprague (1999). The path to school failure, delinquency, and violence: causal factors and some potential solutions
69. Webber, J. & Plots, C. (2007). Emotional and behavioral disorders. California: Pearson.
70. Werner, E.E. (1999). Risk and protective factors in the lives of children with high-incidence disabilities.
71. Wilson, M. I. (1973). Children with crippling and health disabilities. In L. Dunn (Ed.), Exceptional children in the schools, 2nd ed. (pp. 467–530). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
72. Yell, M. (1998). The legal basis of inclusion. Educational Leadership, 56(2), 70–73.
73. Zirkel, P. (2003). Homeschoolers? Rights to special education. Principal, 82(4), 12-14.