Off-Task Behaviors of Pupils, Strategies of Teachers and Performance of Learners: Implications for Educational Intervention

This study is titled “Off-Tasks Behaviors of Pupils, Strategies of Teachers and Performance of Learners: Implications for Educational Interventions”. There were 3,348 Grades 4 to 6 pupils in all identified elementary schools situated in Districts I and II in one municipality of Negros Occidental for the School Year 2024-2025. Only 358 were utilized as sample of the study. A standardized questionnaire developed by Santillan (2017) was used to collect relevant data for this study. The questionnaire is divided into two parts: Part I gathered information on the respondents' profiles, and Part II assesses off-task behaviors among pupils. The study utilized a diverse group of Grades 4 to 6 pupils, with a significant proportion from lower-income families and a majority of females which reflects varied socio-economic backgrounds. The findings revealed that off-task behavior of the respondents remains low across all demographic profile. Motor, verbal, and passive off-task behaviors are infrequent and minimally disruptive. Pupils consistently perform at a satisfactory level which indicates a robust and consistent implementation of innovation. Increased off-task behavior significantly correlates with lower academic performance.

Off-task Behavior, Classroom Management Strategies, Academic Performance, Educational Intervention

1. Aguirre, P. M., & Legaspi, C. E. I. (2020). Predictors of academic performance of public elementary school learners. Philippine Social Science Journal, 3(2), 63–64. https://doi.org/10.52006/main.v3i2.267 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ajiboye, S., Adebayo, D., & Abubakar, S. (2020). Teachers’ Assessment of Inattentive Classroom Behavior Among Primary School Students in Ilorin City, Kwara State, Nigeria. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 7(2), 172-183. doi:https://doi.org/10.17509/ mimbar-sd.v7i2.24101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Atmojo, A. E. P. (2020). Junior high school students’ disruptive behaviour and their expectations on EFL class. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(2), 509-521 http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/809 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Beserra, V., Nussbaum, M., & Ocell, M. (2021). Active engagement versus off-task behaviors: Analyzing instructional time optimization in primary classrooms. Computers & Education, 162, Article 104085. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cooper, K., & Stewart, K. (2021). Does household income affect children's outcomes? A systematic review of the evidence. Child Indicators Research, 14(3), 981–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-020-09782-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creamer, E. G. (2022). Advancing the frameworks and integration of mixed methods research. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dao, P. (2021). Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction. System, 91, Article 102244. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Deng, X., Wu, S., & Guo, X. (2024). Digital distraction, multitasking behavior, and learning engagement among students in technology-enhanced learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 15339–15362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12555-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Department of Education. (2016). DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016: The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program school-based continuing professional development strategy for the improvement of teaching and learning. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/07/do-35-s-2016-the-learning-action-cell-as-a-k-to-12-basic-education-program-school-based-continuing-professional-development-strategy-for-the-improvement-of-teaching-and-learning/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Downey, D. B. (2001). Number of siblings and intellectual development: The resource dilution explanation. American Psychologist, 56(6–7), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.497 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Garbacz, S. A., Sheridan, S. M., Koziol, N. A., Kwon, K., & Holmes, S. R. (2020). Congruence in parent–teacher communication: Implications for the efficacy of family–school partnerships. School Psychology Review, 49(4), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1788908 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Haydon, T., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Simonsen, B., & Hawkins, R. O. (2020). Opportunities to respond as a classroom management strategy: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 41(6), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519843195 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Heyder, A., & Kessels, U. (2021). Is it cool to be disruptive? Status gains, perceived popularity, and low academic achievement among primary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 844–861. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Howard, S. J., Vasseleu, E., Batterham, M., & Neilsen-Hewett, C. (2022). Everyday executive function of children from early childhood to early primary school: Age-related changes and associations with learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 896794. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896794 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jamet, E., Gonthier, C., Cojean, S., Colliot, T., Erhel, S. (2020). Does multitasking in the classroom affect learning outcomes? A naturalistic study, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 106,2020,106264,ISSN 0747-5632, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb. 2020.106264. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kenedi, A. K., Helsa, Y., Ariani, Y., Zainil, M., & Hendri, S. (2021). Connection abilities of elementary school students in contextual problem solving. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1429(1), Article 012024. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kessels, U., Heyder, A. (2020). Not stupid, but lazy? Psychological benefits of disruptive classroom behavior from an attributional perspective. Soc Psychol Educ 23, 583–613 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09550-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854. https://doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Langer-Osuna, J. M., Gargroetzi, E., Munson, J., & Chavez, R. (2020). Exploring the role of off-task activity on students’ collaborative dynamics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 514–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Langer-Osuna, J. M., Munson, J., Gargroetzi, E., Williams, I. S., & Chavez, R. (2021). Productive disruptions: Off-task behavior as a positional resource during collaborative primary school group work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(2), 243–278. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Lerang, M., Ertesvag, S., & Havik, T. (2022). Students’ reports of off-task behavior and teachers’ instructional support. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 68(3). https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2174178 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Li, Y., Liu, H., Bai, X., Li, Q., Cai, M., & Wang, J. (2023). The Impact of Classroom Learning Behavior on Learning Outcomes: A Computer Vision Study. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1145/3599640.3599667. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Li, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2023). The dual impact of learning behaviors: Note-taking versus off-task mobile phone utilization. Computers & Education, 195, Article 104712. doi.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mason, B. A., Davis, J. L., Ayres, K. M., Davis, A. F., Mason, R., & Mathews, S. S. (2021). Self-management interventions for reducing challenging behaviors among school-age students: A systematic review. Behavior Modification, 45(6), 1047–1078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445520942580 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Moffett, L., & Morrison, F. J. (2020). Off-task behavior in kindergarten: Relations to executive function and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 938–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000397 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Moffett, L., Weiland, C., McCormick, M. P., Hsueh, J., Snow, C., & Sachs, J. (2023). Off-Task Behavior as a Measure of In-Classroom Executive Function Skills? Evidence for Construct Validity and Contributions to Gains in Prekindergartners’ Academic Achievement. Early Education and Development, 35(4), 667–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2023.2199658 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. OECD. (2022). Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools. OECD Publishing. (See the section on the index of parents' highest level of education, HISCED.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ochs, C., Gahrmann, C. & Sonderegger, A. (2024). Learning in hybrid classes: the role of off-task activities. Sci Rep 14, 1629 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50962-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). PISA 2018 results (Volume V): Effective policies, successful schools. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Phillips, M., Siebert-Evenstone, A., Kessler, A., Gašević, D., & Shaffer, D. (2021). Professional Decision Making: Reframing Teachers' Work Using Epistemic Frame Theory., 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67788-6_18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Pinquart, M., & Ebeling, M. (2020). Parental educational expectations and academic achievement in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09506-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Roslan, N., Rahim, N., & Roslan, N. (2020). Distraction in Communication During Discussion. The International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10, 444-452. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/V10-I10/7730. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Sheridan, S. M., Garbacz, S. A., & Kim, E. M. (2022). Family–school partnerships and student learning: Current perspectives and future directions. School Psychology, 37(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000505 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Simonsen, B., Freeman, J., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2021). Supporting teachers' implementation of effective classroom management practices. Beyond Behavior, 30(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295620957972 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Steed, E. A., & Kranski, T. A. (2020). Participant characteristics reported in intervention research for young children with challenging behavior: A systematic review. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 40(3), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121420918691 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Tomlinson, C. A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2021). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in education—Lead for learning. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Vongvilay, Fauziati, & Ratih. (2021). Types and Causes of Students’ Disruptive Behaviors in English Class: A Case Study at Dondaeng Secondary School, Laos. Huamnoria, 22(2). https://doi.org/DOI: 10.23917/humaniora.v22i2.13457 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Wang, Y., Zhao, N., & Wang, L. (2022). Empowering students to decrease digital distraction through self-regulated learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(4), e386. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12379 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Wangdi, T., & Namgyel, S. (2022). Classroom to Reduce Student Disruptive Behavior: An Action Research. MEXTESOL Journal, 46(1). https://doi.org/: 10.61871/mj.v46n1-16 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Yang, X., Wang, L., & Fan, X. (2023). Parental involvement and students' academic engagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09754-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Zwirtes, D., Nascimento, E., & Zannin, P. (2021). Subjective perceptions of students and teachers to environmental noise in public schools. Revista Nacional de Gerenciamento de Cidades. https://doi.org/10.17271/2318847297320213012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Hipolito, R., Rivera, A., & Alontaga, J. (2020). The Use of Movement Pathways on Off-Task Behaviors. Retrieved from DLSU RESEARCH CONGRESS: https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-congress-proceedings/2020/LLI-02.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Santillan, T. T. (2017). Innovative Classroom Management Toward Control of Pupils Off-Task. State University of Northern Negros. Unpublished Thesis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study