Submission Deadline-30th July 2024
July 2024 Issue : Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Submission Deadline-20th July 2024
Special Issue of Education: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now

Life Satisfaction and its Impact on Student Performance

  • Felix B. Cordero
  • 1149-1199
  • Jun 11, 2024
  • Psychology

Life Satisfaction and its Impact on Student Performance

Felix B. Cordero

University of Makati

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803079S

Received: 19 April 2024; Revised: 05 May 2024; Accepted: 09 May 2024; Published: 10 June 2024

ABSTRACT

This study attempted to prove that there exists a significant correlation between overall life satisfaction as manifested in six (6) domains, namely general life occupation, physical health, social relations/support, finances, and daily activities on one hand, and student performance as manifested in two (2) elements, namely goal attainment and academic achievement on the other hand. Employing the descriptive (survey) method with the aid of a modified version of the Wisconsin Quality of Life Index (W-QLI) and using the Slovin formula with a margin of error of 0.05, the current study collected data from 344 grade 12 students enrolled for the school year 2019-2020 at the University of Makati. The modified questionnaire culled background information, then requested respondents to rate their life satisfaction, identify their life goals and their academic goals, and rate all on a seven-point scale. Next, respondents were asked their grade point average, the number of subjects passed, the number of subjects failed, and to rate their satisfaction with these parameters. To test consistency, Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used, while Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (ϱ) was used to measure the correlation among the variables. The results revealed that respondents were a little satisfied in composite, and across all domains, except for the domain of daily activities, which showed that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. In the same vein, the respondents found all domains as very important. The results likewise revealed that respondents were moderately satisfied with the attainment level of their life goals, as well as in the attainment level of their academic goals. Additionally, the goals which they set for themselves, whether life goals or academic goals, were considered by respondents as very important. Nevertheless, the results revealed that on the whole, there is no significant correlation between life satisfaction and student performance. While a relationship was found between satisfaction with physical health and student performance, the correlation is too low to be appreciated. The same is true for the correlation between the importance of occupation and student performance, and the correlation between the importance of daily activities and student performance. In both these domains, a correlation was established, but not significant enough to be conclusive. In any event, it is apparent that life satisfaction and student performance are independent, and not at all predictive, of each other. Hence, student performance may be influenced by other factors.

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction

VISION 2040, otherwise known as “AMBISYON NATIN 2040”, is three-year research conducted under the auspices of the National Economic Development Authority or NEDA. It inquired into the aspirations of Filipinos for the future, and articulated the common Filipinos concept of “life satisfaction” in this wise:

“In 2040, all Filipinos will have a stable and high level of well-being, secure in the knowledge that they have enough for their daily needs and their wants, that they can plan and prepare for their own and their children’s futures. Families are able to live together in a place of their own, and have the freedom to go where they desire, protected and enabled by an effective government that cares equally for all citizens.”

Interestingly, VISION 2040 sees life satisfaction as intrinsically related to economic prosperity. In fact, the assumptions of VISION 2040 are clear and simplistic: life satisfaction is brought about by economic prosperity; economic prosperity is brought about by equal opportunities; equal opportunities are brought about by education. The current study, on the other hand, attempts to probe into the reverse causation by examining how education, particularly student achievement is influenced by life satisfaction. If it can be demonstrated that the way students feel about their life and their studies, their satisfaction with their homes, their schools and their environment, contribute in any way to the accomplishment of their goals and the improvement of their grades, then school administrators and education policymakers would be in a better position to develop positive education, and to identify support services which may be initiated, maintained or improved in order to enhance student life satisfaction. Once these support services are in place, our students would be positive, well-adjusted, and better equipped to join the workforce, and achieve the economic prosperity that VISION 2040 so closely links to life satisfaction.

Background of the Study

Society is becoming more and more competitive, and this competitiveness is never more apparent than in the labor market. Education policymakers recognize this and have attempted to revise curricula and explore more effective means of delivering content in order to better equip graduates for the workforce.

It has been observed, however, that employers appear to be more in touch than educators with the intangibles that dictate performance. Corporations, particularly the bigger and more successful corporations, are very much aware that life satisfaction, or the way employees feel at work and about their work, impact on their performance, or the quality and quantity of the output of their work. Hence, more and more corporations are fostering a work environment where life satisfaction is premium. CareerBliss.com, a jobs website in the United States, even publishes an annual list of the fifty (50) happiest companies. Closer to home, Jobstreet.com Philippines reported that more and more Philippine employers have undertaken to measure the job satisfaction of (Jobstreet.com Philippines 2015) and have started programs to improve job satisfaction among their employees. Included in these programs are learning and development initiatives to improve competencies, regular salary reviews, competitive benchmarking, to name a few. Globe Telecom even advertises its own “Circle of Happiness” (GlobeTelecom Pressroom 2013).

It appears that Globe Telecom subscribes to a self-perpetuating circle where engaged employees lead to delighted customers, which, in turn, leads to satisfied stakeholders, which also, in turn, lead back to engaged employees. Any disgruntlement, therefore, is not attributable to just the employees, or just the customers, or just the stakeholders, but to the entire interaction among them.

Philippine educators and education policymakers have attempted to follow the path of these satisfaction-centered corporations. The University of Makati recently launched “The Search for the Happiest Pinoy: UMak Edition”. The search, however, is restricted to screening individual stories, with applicants narrating experiences about resilience and overcoming adversities. It is, thus, particular and specific, not general and inclusive. The results of the search are barely representative of the university population, and hardly serviceable for crafting enhancement initiatives, considering that no correlations are even alluded to between the experience and the applicant’s performance, either as a teacher, student or non-teaching personnel.

When all is said and done, the 2018 UMak edition of the Search for Happiest Pinoy does not challenge the long-asserted view that education is merely a by-product of curricula, together with teaching methods and learning skills, and totally unaffected by subjective factors such as how students feel about their circumstances. Accordingly, schools are turning out students whose potentials are largely untapped, not because these institutions have failed to provide the objective requirements of education, but because they have neglected to create a conducive environment for education. The recent tinkering with curricula, specifically, the introduction of Levels 11 and 12, indicate an attempt at positive education, by teaching students a better understanding of the self, through core subjects such as Personal Development and Philosophy of the Human Person, which are clearly aimed at improving life satisfaction.

  1. Appendix “A”
  2. Appendix “B”

Before curricula are tinkered with, or other so-called “holistic” approaches are adopted, however, it is imperative to first establish that there is a direct positive correlation between life satisfaction and student performance. Educators and education policymakers cannot just go along with the premise of satisfaction-centered corporations, and assume that what works in the workplace likewise works in the schools. After all, jobs and careers are end-results, for which reason they may be perceived as a deserved status, while education is a preparatory means, for which reason it is a motivation rather than a reward.

As a professor, I have witnessed students receiving, not merely free tuition, but material assistance of various kinds, from uniforms to school supplies and other needs. Yet, absenteeism is still prevalent, students still fail to submit requirements on time, and there appears to be no marked difference in their performance. Consequently, I begin to question the satisfaction-centered premise, which seems totally at odds with the generally held belief that adversity is the best incentive for success. No less than Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle Corporation, and number 3 in the Forbes 400 List has been quoted as saying, “I have had all of the disadvantages required for success”. Moreover, Dr. Paul G. Stoltz introduced the concept of an Adversity Quotient, which refers to a measure whereby a person withstands and reacts to adversity. Dr. Stoltz maintains that Adversity Quotient is the foundational determinant of success. Given this seeming counterpoint to the satisfaction-centered premise, it becomes necessary to inquire more closely into the latter.

Statement of the Problem:

The current study assessed life satisfaction in order to show the correlation between overall life satisfaction and overall student performance. Specifically, it answered the following problems:
1. What are the personal circumstances of the students-respondents in terms of the following:

  1.  Age;
  2.  Gender;
  3.  Marital status;
  4.  Source of income;
  5. Actual living arrangements;
  6. Actual living quarters;
  7. Desire for improved finances;
  8. Desired living arrangements; and
  9. Desired living quarters?

2. How do the student-respondents assess their satisfaction in life in the following areas:

  1.  General Life Satisfaction;
  2. Occupation;
  3. Health (physical health);
  4. Social Relations/support;
  5. Finances; and
  6. Daily Activities?

3. How do the student-respondents assess their goal attainment in terms of the following:

  1. Life Goals; and
  2. Academic Goals?

4. How do the student-respondents perform academically in terms of the following:

  1. Grade Point Average;
  2. Number of Subjects Passed;
  3. Number of Subjects Failed; and
  4. Number of Subjects taken as remedial

5. Are there any significant correlations between the following:

  1. Life satisfaction and life goal attainment; and
  2. Life satisfaction and academic goal achievement?

6.  Based on the findings of the study, what institutional support services and intervention programs may be proposed.

Hypothesis:

For purposes of this study, the following hypothesis will be tested at .05 level of significance.
There is a significant correlation between overall life satisfaction and overall student performance.

Significance of the Study

While life satisfaction is a laudable objective for governments and corporations where citizens and employees are concerned, the same may not be true for educational institutions in relation to their students. On the contrary, a satisfaction-centered educational environment is liable to breed a sense of entitlement among its students. In fact, a survey conducted among 20,000 Human Resources Professionals in the United States showed that the current crop of graduates, who are referred to as Millennials, frustrate these HR professionals because of their sense of entitlement, which is not at all commensurate with their experience, ability, or merit (Chicago Tribune 2014).

Under these circumstances, it becomes essential to establish a definitive positive correlation between life satisfaction and student performance before programs and interventions are adapted which promote life satisfaction. Otherwise, programs and interventions run the danger of being misdirected, resulting in a culture of entitlement among students, that produces a privileged class of students, who feel and act as if they deserve more than they actually do.

If it can be established that life satisfaction affects student performance, the study will be useful in the following manner:

1. Faculty members and staff can be more alert and responsive to student behavior and performance. The burden on faculty members will be lessened since the support services will serve as the first recourse for every upcoming problem of the students instead of the class advisers. The teachers will be able to readily help the students with problems and address their needs through the use of the support services.

2. Policy makers and DepEd officials can adopt the “positive education” approach, and craft curricula which build well-being skills in the same manner and to the same extent as academic skills. They can also generate appropriate policies to strengthen the support services. In the same manner, they can create programs to empower the teachers.

3. Students can readily discover and develop their purpose in life, and be better equipped to join the workforce, and to impact the society in which they live. They can also be easily assisted by their teachers if problems arise and if they need some assistance. They can also help other students with problems through the support services or institutional program.

4. University officials can initiate interventions, create support services, and promote a culture aimed at fostering the well-being of faculty, staff, and students. They can assist the schools in producing better students. They can provide better facilities for both students and teachers. They can initiate changes to curricula, keeping in mind the needs of students based on the findings of this study.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study:

The current study utilized a client questionnaire adopted from the Wisconsin Quality of Life Index or W-QLI (W-QLI, Becker, Diamond and Sainfort). The latter used the following nine (9) life domains: (1) general life satisfaction, (2) occupations, (3) psychological well-being, (4) physical health, (5) social relations/support, (6) economics, (7) activities of daily living, (8) symptoms, and (9) goal attainment. Since the W-QLI was conceptualized for clinical studies of psychologically challenged individuals, the psychological well-being and symptoms domains were essential to the questionnaire. The respondents of this study, however, are presumed to be normal students with no psychological problems, for which reason the psychological well-being and symptoms domains were dropped from the current questionnaire. Instead, the current study uses only seven (7) domains. The following six (6) domains were used as indicative of life satisfaction: (1) general life satisfaction, (2) occupation, (3) physical health, (4) social relations/support, (5) economics, and (6) activities of daily living. The portion of the questionnaire pertaining to a seventh domain — goal attainment — is used in the goal attainment component of student performance. Additional questions relating to academic achievement were then generated.

Three hundred forty-four (344) Grade 12 HSU students from the University of Makati served as respondents of the study. These students were chosen randomly, and most likely comprise different strands and levels.

The study is, therefore, limited by the number of respondents, and by the fact that the respondents belong to only one (1) academic institution. A further limitation has to do with the restrictions in the definition of the different life domains, such as excluding exercise as a component as well as a measure of physical health. A final limitation is the reliance on self-evaluation or self-perception, rather than on objective factors. In a high context culture like the Philippines, respondents might be hesitant to open about their personal circumstances even anonymously.

Definition of Terms:

The following terms are used repeatedly in the current research.
For ready reference, their definitions are as follows:

Academic achievement. It refers to the overall performance of the student in school. It consists of grade point average, as well as the subjects passed and failed, compared with the number of subjects taken by the student.

Academic goals. These refer to objectives or targets that the student makes in pursuit of academic achievement.

External factors. These refer to outside causes which influence results or performance.

Grade point average. It refers to the total number of grade points received by a student over a certain period, divided by the total number of credits awarded.

Goal attainment. It refers to the act of setting goals and accomplishing them. It is a volitional act and a cognitive evaluation. The volitional act consists of the setting of goals, while the cognitive evaluation consists of assessing the degree of accomplishment.

Interventions. These refer to specific actions or programs that are undertaken to address specific needs.

Life goals. These refer to objectives or targets that the student makes in pursuit of whatever he wants to achieve in his life.

Life satisfaction. This term is used interchangeably with happiness. It refers to the personal assessment made by the respondents as to whether they consider their lives satisfying. It is based on the sum total of respondents’ perception of satisfaction in the following six (6) life domains:

Daily activities, which refer to the tasks and actions that are the routine in a person’s life

Finances, which refer to the economic considerations in a person’s life, including sources and amount of income, place of residence, living arrangements, and access to basic necessities

General life satisfaction, which refer to an overall perception of contentment

Occupation, which refers to a person’s principal responsibility or duty at a particular stage of life.

Physical Health is a composite of the following: physical activity, nutrition and diet, medical self-care, and rest and sleep. including his/her access to healthcare

Relationships, which refer to a person’s interaction with the people in his/her life

Overall Student performance. It refers to the combination of goal attainment and academic achievement. It is not limited to the performance in school but extends to their performance in other aspects of their lives, depending on whether they have set goals in relation to these aspects.

Positive education. It refers to an approach to education which combines academic learning with character and well-being.

Remedial subjects – it refers to those subjects or courses which a student has failed and is taking again.

Status – it refers to a person’s state of being single, married, separated, divorced, or widowed.

Support services. These refer to assistance or benefits provided to students to enhance their life satisfaction.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

Literature on life satisfaction is great in number and diverse by nature. This chapter presents the earliest manifestation of the concept, but thereafter concentrates on its modern renderings, including the conceptualization of its composite elements. From there, the use of the concept in education, and as predictive of, or resultant to student performance, are distilled and expounded to form the background for the current study.

1. Evolution of the Concept

Life satisfaction refers to a conscious intellectual evaluation that one’s life is fulfilled. As such, it is both subjective and objective. It is subjective in the sense that it is the individual who dictates the criteria to be used for evaluation. It is, however, objective in the sense that it demands honesty in making the evaluation. It is, therefore, not a novel concept. It is, in actual fact, the more scientific term for happiness.

Curiously, the oldest story on earth, the EPIC OF GILGAMESH, which was handed down by oral tradition before being written on clay around 1800 BC, contained the following lines –

“Gilgamesh, fill your belly, Day and night make merry, let days be full of joy, dance and make music day and night.”

(Dyr 2013)

This is considered the first teaching of hedonism, or happiness as the pursuit of pleasure.

To Aristotle, however, happiness is not in the pursuit of pleasure, but in the pursuit of excellence in the use of one’s powers, and is embodied in the Greek term eudaimonia (Aristotle).

Centuries later, classical utilitarianism ensured that the idea remained a significant aspect of socio-political thought by redefining the same to embrace a balance between positive and negative affect (Bentham 1776). More importantly, no less than the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE of the United States, which was promulgated in 1776, recognized the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right endowed upon men by their Creator. As a right, and unalienable at that, meaning that it is inherent in the person and cannot be given away, the State became obligated to protect it (Meyer v. State of Nebraska).

Despite such recognition of an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness as early as 1776, it is only in recent years that life satisfaction, which is modern terminology for happiness, has become a growing focus of governments, not just as a right to be protected, but as a measure of the general well-being of citizens, and the overall responsiveness of governments. The United Nations General Assembly even passed a RESOLUTION in 2012 declaring an International Day of Happiness to be celebrated worldwide every March 20 (UN RESOLUTION 66/281). Moreover, newspapers regularly report about happiness indices or better life indices, which rank countries based on their peoples’ evaluation of their respective lives. The New Economics Foundation introduced the happy planet index in 2006 (happyplanetindex.org). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) has the better life index (oecdbetterlifeindex.org). The Center for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the Center for Economic Performance, in cooperation with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Gallup Polls, and the Ernesto Illy Foundation, regularly releases the WORLD HAPPINESS REPORT, an annual survey which ranks 156 countries by the happiness levels of its citizens, and 117 countries by the happiness levels of its immigrants (worldhappiness.report).

These indices are intended as empowerment tools by obliging citizens to evaluate their lives, and identify the factors that affect their general wellbeing. In the process, it is expected that the social consciousness level will be raised, and these citizens will be more informed and engaged in policy-making. In fact, there is now a Global Happiness Council comprised of a network of academic specialists who produced the GLOBAL HAPPINESS POLICY REPORT, which publicized the best practices across governments for the promotion of happiness and well-being in the fields of health, education and employment (REPORT 2018). The said GLOBAL HAPPINESS POLICY REPORT is intended to be an annual REPORT. The education chapter of the REPORT’s first edition, which was presented at the World Government Summit held in Dubai in February, 2018, advocated for positive education as the fulcrum for producing more well-being in a culture. The said REPORT reviewed the positive education interventions in eleven (11) countries around the world and found that such interventions improved the happiness of students.

These positive education interventions included gratitude exercises, development of character strengths, promotion of constructive responses, empathy training, enhancement of coping with emotions, decision-making, and problem-solving, among others. More importantly, the REPORT’s education chapter recounted that higher standardized test scores among students in Mexico, Peru, and Bhutan can be predicted from higher connectedness, more perseverance, and more engagement among the students.

Again, in February 2019, at the World Government Summit in Dubai, the GLOBAL HAPPINESS POLICY REPORT’S second edition was presented. This time, the REPORT focused on the “How To” of implementing positive education. The REPORT recounted four (4) case histories, and distilled a Checklist and Policy Manual from these histories.

In any event, all these are indicative of the growing recognition that a country’s development and growth is more than a function of its gross domestic product (Helliwell 2008). Bhutan even coined the phrase “gross national happiness” to emphasize its rejection of gross domestic product as a measure of prosperity (ophi.org.uk/policy/national-policy/gross-national-happiness-index/). The World Government Summit held in Dubai in February 2018 was branded as the “Global Dialogue for Happiness”, and highlighted “the imperative role of governments in achieving elevated levels of happiness worldwide” (www.worldgovernmentsummit.org).

2. Philippine Concept of Life Satisfaction

While the rest of the world endeavors to dissociate life satisfaction with economic factors, to Filipinos, the two are intertwined. This is best illustrated by VISION 2040’S CONCEPTUALIZATION of life satisfaction as

“x x x the knowledge that they have enough for their daily needs and their wants, that they can plan and prepare for their own and their children’s futures. Families are able to live together in a place of their own, and have the freedom to go where they desire, protected and enabled by an effective government that cares equally for all citizens.”

Thus, Filipinos relate life satisfaction to economics – provisions, not just for needs, but for wants; a home they own; the means to travel. Instead of being happy in spite of their economic conditions, Filipinos are happy because of their economic conditions.

3. Life Satisfaction as a Business Concept

Not to be outdone by governments, corporations, such as Google and Apple, promote a culture of success and employee happiness. They call it wellbeing economics, or happiness as a business strategy, and it is based on verified studies that employee satisfaction, or the way employees feel at work and about work, as well as the balance of that work with their life, increases their productivity (Oswald 2014), contributes to company value (Brenninger 2015), and affects customer outcomes (Hoseong 2012; Naseem, et. al. 2011). Moreover, these translate to the entire organization such that in the long run, businesses with higher employee satisfaction also perform better at the stock market (Edmans 2010).

4. Life Satisfaction as a Psychology Concept

Positive psychology appropriated the concept of life satisfaction, and brought it into the realm of science, where measurable parameters were introduced (Forgeard, et. al. 2011).

As a construct of positive psychology, life satisfaction has been defined as “the degree to which a person positively evaluates the overall quality of his/her life as-a-whole” (Veenhoven 1990). It refers to the perception that the totality of one’s life is gratifying to oneself. It is, thus, a conscious process whereby a person evaluates his life based on his own internal criteria. It involves a personal action. It implies a general assessment. It emphasizes a relative opinion. It encompasses a temporary state. In this sense, it is synonymous with cognitive well-being. It is not concerned with objective markers. It is not concerned with external manifestations. Rather, it is concerned with an intangible condition, which is perceptible only to the subject, and variable from person to person, and from time to time.

Veenhoven points out further limitations of any inquiry into life satisfaction. He raises three (3) issues, to wit: validity, reliability, and comparability. He posits that the issue of validity arises on account of subjects having wrong notions, or being less than honest in their answers. On the other hand, the issue of reliability boils down to an issue of bias, whether in appraisal or in response. As to the issue of comparability, Veenhoven identifies differences in language, in biases and in response styles as possible distortions of the answer.

5. Composite Elements of Life Satisfaction

In any event, studies into life satisfaction will have to identify its composite elements, the summation of which would support the overall assessment. Since each individual’s unique circumstance and life experience are necessarily contributory to his internal criteria, it becomes imperative that certain benchmarks are used in the evaluation process. Life coaching tools divide life assessment into life areas or life domains, which refer to the different aspects of a person’s life, and the distinctive role that person plays in each respective aspect. Life satisfaction studies have followed suit.

In a ground-breaking inquiry into the quality of American life for purposes of policymaking, Campbell, et. al. (1976) reviewed several scales which, as of the time of their study, served as the assessment tools in determining quality of life. Proceeding therefrom, they generated eight adjective pairs which served as parameters for a seven-point satisfaction scale. The mean of the individual scores on the eight adjective pairs became their Index of General Affect. The latter Index was then combined with a single question measure of overall life satisfaction, and the mean of the Index of General Affect and the single question parameter became their Index of Wellbeing.

For his part, Diener (1984), in his seminal work, summarized the various studies on subjective well-being spanning two decades, setting forth the scales or benchmarks which were used in each. He concluded that there was a lack of generality in the organization of these life domains, but he nevertheless culled three (3) general components of subjective well-being, thus: life satisfaction, positive affect, which refers to a person’s propensity to experience positive emotions, and negative effect, which refers to a person’s inclination towards negative emotions. Diener cautioned, however, that the “value” which a person gives to a specific domain determines the effect that domain has on his level of satisfaction.

In 1993, Becker, Diamond and Sainfort, under the auspices of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, developed the Wisconsin Quality of Life Index, for use in research and clinical trials in relation to the reintroduction of the drug “Clozaril”, an anti-psychotic medication (Becker, et. al.). The idea was to come up with a user-friendly, self-administered instrument for initial diagnosis and subsequent monitoring of mental patients. Since then, however, the instrument has been made available to the academe, and used in various disciplines for quality-of-life studies. It has been validated through multiple testings, and in cross-cultural settings (Caron, et. al. 2006; Singh and Sabaawi 2006; Kelley-Gillespie & Farley 2007).

With the concept of life domains more or less established as parameters in evaluating life satisfaction, studies began to focus, not so much on the domains, but on external factors affecting those domains. Frijns (2010), for one, inquired into the effect of economic conditions on the determinants of life satisfaction, using respondents from Austria, Germany, Portugal and Poland. He found that individual prosperity positively affects life satisfaction in a way that aggregate regional prosperity does not. His parallel inquiry into the effect of work-related conditions on life satisfaction, however, were inconclusive.

Ngoo, et. al. (2014), on the other hand, examined the determinants of life satisfaction in Asia. They concluded that marital status, standard of living and role of government have greater influence on life satisfaction than income. Moreover, they found that the government’s delivery of services contributes to life satisfaction in low resource countries.

Life Satisfaction in Education (4 Students’ Life Satisfaction)

Eventually, life satisfaction studies became directed at students. In 1991, Heubner developed what has since been known as the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS). It is a seven (7) item questionnaire which may be used for students as young as eight (8) years old. Ten years later, Heubner developed the Multidimensional Students Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS), a forty (40) item questionnaire which measures life satisfaction using the following five (5) domains: family, friends, school, living environment, and self.

Heubner (2003) then reviewed the SLSS and a shorter version of the MSLSS. He identified the major limitations of the SLSS as follows: (a) lack of a nationally representative sample, (b) repetitive wording of the items, and (c) and the need for further research with students with cognitive impairments. On the other hand, he identified the major limitations of the shortened version of the MSLSS as follows: (a) securing a nationally representative sample, (b) assessing psychometric properties with elementary level students and students with disabilities, and (c) conducting additional prospective studies.

The MSLSS was used by Cagle (2017) in his inquiry into the effect of life satisfaction on student achievement. He found a positive correlation but cautioned that the same was too small to be statistically significant. In fact, he advanced the possibility that the institution concerned may have been a relatively high-performing place of learning to begin with.

In their study of college students, Rode, et. All (2005) used a different scale, with only four (4) micro-social life domains, to wit: 1. leisure satisfaction, 2. family satisfaction, 3. university satisfaction, and 4. housing satisfaction. They went further, however, by inquiring into the correlation between life satisfaction and student performance. They hypothesized, and later verified a direct correlation. Additionally, it was found that only two (2) domains, leisure satisfaction and family satisfaction, out of the four (4), make up one-third of the overall satisfaction.

Quinn and Duckworth (2007), in an undated study, set out and succeeded in proving, not merely a positive causality, but a reciprocal causality, between life satisfaction and academic achievement. They found that students with higher life satisfaction ended up getting higher final grades. At the same time, the final grades were predictive of the life satisfaction levels of the students. This bi-directional correlation was further explored by Esposito (2016), who conducted a longitudinal study. Using data from the same respondents one (1) year apart, she found that students’ life satisfaction at Time one was positively correlated with goal valuation and attitudes towards school, but not significantly correlated with grade point average (GPA) in Time two. On the other hand, GPA at Time one was found to be significantly correlated with life satisfaction at Time two. Frisch, et. al. (2005) went further by studying the clinical use of life satisfaction assessments, specifically the Quality-of-Life Inventory (QLI), in predicting important outcomes, and detecting intervention-related change. When used in the context of university counseling, the QLI was found to be capable of predicting cumulative grade point average.

A study by Crede, et. al. (2015) likewise proved the correlation between life satisfaction and academic achievement, with positive results. Crede’s study went further by exploring the moderating effect of the parents’ own academic achievement. It was found that the positive correlation between life satisfaction and academic achievement was limited to those whose mothers have the same or higher educational attainment than their children. On the other hand, there was no correlation at all for students with higher educational attainment than their mothers.

In the Philippine context, Matusalem, et. al. (2017) found a significant relationship between financial, social and academic stressors on the one hand and academic performance on the other hand. Apparently, however, there is no significant relationship between family stressors and academic performance.

On the other hand, Bello, et. al. (2016) found no correlation between stress and academic performance. However, they found a significant relationship between academic performance and avoidance as a coping mechanism.

Nevertheless, a study using happiness booster activities on graduating students of Dela Salle Lipa Integrated School, who were evaluated before and after, showed variance in the grade point average of the students (Casala 2014-2015). The end result was an appreciable improvement in the grade point average of students who took part in the program.

By way of counterpoint, however, Antamarian (2017) found that the correlation between life satisfaction and academic achievement is not a straightforward correlation but is dependent on the level of life satisfaction. Her study revealed that college students who registered high life satisfaction scored better than students with low to average life satisfaction.

Conceptual Framework

This study is anchored on the proposition that the overall life satisfaction of students significantly contributes to their overall performance, as shown in the following analytical model:

Research Paradigm

Figure 3 Research Paradigm

The above analytical model uses six (6) life domains, as represented by the boxes on the left, as follows: (1) satisfaction with life in general, (2) satisfaction with occupation, (3) satisfaction with health, (4) satisfaction with relationships, (5) satisfaction with finances, and (6) satisfaction with daily activities. The summation of the results in these six (6) domains will determine the overall life satisfaction level of the respondents, as represented by the left-center box. The two (2) boxes on the right represent goal attainment and academic achievement, and the summation of their results will determine the overall student performance, as represented by the right-center box. The congruence or disparity of the results of student performance as against the results of life satisfaction will determine their correlation. On the other hand, the intervention by the educational institution, as represented by the bottom box, either towards promotion of life satisfaction and/or promotion of student performance, affects both.

The life domains used in the above analytical model were adopted from the Wisconsin Quality of Life Index or W-QLI using 9 domains. The researcher modified it to suit the present study using only six domains which are: (1) general life satisfaction, (2) occupations, (3) physical health, (4) social relations/support, (5) finances, (6) activities of daily living, and (7) goal attainment. The respondents of the current study being normal students with no psychological disorders, the current study excluded the domains corresponding to psychological well-being and symptoms. Only the first six (6) domains were used as indicators of life satisfaction. The seventh domain — goal attainment — was not used as a measure of life satisfaction. Instead, it was used, in conjunction with academic achievement, as a measure of student performance. Realistically, student performance is a product of both goal attainment and academic achievement. The latter is dependent, to a certain extent, on whether the student set certain goals, i.e. to pass the test, to submit requirements on time, etc. Hence, while the questions in the first six (6) domains of the W-QLI were used to determine life satisfaction, the W-QLI questions on goal attainment were used, together with additional questions generated in this study for academic achievement, to determine student performance.

Synthesis

Life satisfaction studies, such as Veenhoven, started out wrestling with the limitations of any such study. The highly subjective nature of the evaluation, as well as conceptual challenges, necessarily restrict results, and cautions conclusions. As a result, life satisfaction studies focused on isolating composite elements, or integral parameters, which could be instrumental in any such inquiry. This resulted in the adoption of life domains as the objective rudiment. While the studies are, however, unanimous in the use of life domains, they are disparate in the nature and number of these domains. Veenhoven used four (4) domains, as follows: (1) global life satisfaction, (2) satisfaction with housing, (3) satisfaction with finances, and (4) satisfaction with social contacts. Campbell, on the other hand, used the following twelve (12) life domains: marriage, family life, friendship, general standard of living, work, neighborhood, place of residence, housing, health, self, education, and national concerns. Frijns used two (2) generalized life domains, i.e. the micro-social life domains, which refer to the immediate small-scale environment, and the macro-social life domain, which refers to national and societal concerns. However, he divided the micro-social life domains into seven (7) further areas, to wit: income, health, education, religion, social support, marital status, and work. Cagle used Heubner’s MSLSS, and hence, the following five (5) domains: family, friends, school, living environment, and self.

Culled from the above, the life domains common to the above studies are as follows: (1) social contacts, which include marriage, family, friendships; (2) finances, which includes income and standard of living; (3) housing, which includes the neighborhood and living environment; and (4) self, which includes health, education, work, religion, and other things which a person might consider valuable. These common life domains are likewise used in the current study, but under different formulations. The social contacts domain in the above studies is identified in the current study as social relations/support. The finances and housing domains, while separate in the above studies, are subsumed under economic domain in the current study. On the other hand, the rest of the domains in the current study, i.e. general life satisfaction, activities and occupation, health, and activities of daily living, are subsumed under the self-domain in the above studies.

Other than the use of the common life domains, the current study shares with Frisch, et. al. the use of an assessment instrument specifically designed for clinical purposes. It shares with Cagle, Rode, et. al., Quinn and Duckworth, Esposito, and Crede the hypothetical positive correlation between life satisfaction and student performance. The most drastic departure of the current research, however, is in its construal of student performance. The current study does not limit student performance to academic achievement or grade point average but extends the same to include goal attainment. After all, it is the practice of setting goals, and undertaking measures in their accomplishment that best prepares the students for jobs and careers in particular, and life in general.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

As earlier adverted to, the current study seeks to inquire into the correlation between life satisfaction and student performance. Towards this end, the present chapter discusses the procedural particulars of the study, specifically the research design, the population and sampling techniques, the research locale, the research instrument, the data-gathering procedure, and the data analysis.

Research Design

The current study employed the descriptive (survey) method using cross-sectional research design. A modified version of the Wisconsin Quality of Life Index (W-QLI) was used to gather information pertinent to the research. This questionnaire was chosen since its reliability and consistency have been proven by its use for clinical purposes. The questionnaire as it relates to the life satisfaction aspect of the survey consists of a seven-point scale, starting from (1) as “very dissatisfied” to (7) as “very satisfied”. On the other hand, the questionnaire as it relates to student performance asked respondents to identify three (3) goals, and to rate their attainment of each goal using the same scale. Questions on courses passed or failed, as well as grade point average, are straightforward.

Research Locale

The current study collected data from senior high school students enrolled for the school year 2019-2020 at the University of Makati.

Population and Sampling Techniques

The current study draws data from the University of Makati Senior High School Department, S.Y. 2019-2020, with a population of 2,466 grade 12 students. Using the Slovin formula, and with a 0.05 margin of error, a total of 344 respondents were chosen randomly. The distribution of respondents according to profile of background

information areas follows: Descriptive statistics (a) Age (b) Gender (c) Grade Completed (c) Status (d) Source of Income (e) Desire for Improved Finances (f) Actual Living Arrangements (g) Desired Living Arrangements (h) Actual Living Residence (i) Desired Residence

Research Instrument:

The current study utilized a modified version of the client questionnaire of the Wisconsin Quality of Life Index or W-QLI. Permission to use the questionnaire was not requested considering that the W-QLI had been published and widely used in different parts of the world (Becker, et.al.).

The modified questionnaire is divided into four (4) sections. The first section included the following background information: (a) date of birth, (b) educational attainment, (c) relationship status, (d) source of income, (e) actual living arrangement, (f) desired living arrangement, (g) actual place of residence, and (h) desired place of residence.

Questions from (d) to (h) are validation questions, which will test the consistency and reliability of the answers to the next section. The second section consisted of thirty-five (35) questions requesting the respondents to rate their life satisfaction on a seven-point scale from 1-very dissatisfied to 7-very satisfied for the first twenty-one (21) questions, and from 1-not at all important to 7-extremely important for numbers twenty-two (22) to thirty-six (36). The range and verbal interpretation of the seven-point scale are reflected in the following table:

Table 1: Respondents’ Assessment of the Importance of Their Respective Goals

Scale Range Verbal Interpretation
7 6.50 – 7.00 Extremely important
6 5.50 – 6.49 Very important
5 4.50 – 5.49 Somewhat important
4 3.50 – 4.49 Neither important nor unimportant
3 2.50 – 3.49 Somewhat unimportant
2 1.50 – 2.49 Not very important
1 1.00 – 1.49 Not at all important

The third section requested the respondents to identify three (3) goals, and to rate the importance of each on a seven-point scale from 1-not at all important to 7-extremely important. They were then asked to rate the degree of attainment of each goal on a seven-point scale from 1-not attained to 7-fully attained. The range and verbal interpretation of the seven-point scale are reflected in the following table:

Table 2: Respondents’ Assessment of Their Respective Goal Attainment

Scale Range Verbal Interpretation
7 6.50 – 7.00 100% fully attained
6 5.50 – 6.49 81% – 99% attained
5 4.50 – 5.49 61% – 80% attained
4 3.50 – 4.49 41% – 60% attained
3 2.50 – 3.49 21% – 40% attained
2 1.50 – 2.49 1- 20% attained
1 1.00 – 1.49 Not at all attained

The goal itself is not important. The idea is to cause the respondents to identify goals and to determine attitude towards their own goals. The fourth section requested the following information from the respondents: (a) number of subjects enrolled in last school year, (b) grade point average, (c) number of subjects passed, and (d) number of subjects failed. The current research involved multiple-item scales. Instead of just a single question addressing the respondents’ satisfaction with their lives, multiple questions were asked seeking to measure attitudes on the so-called domains of life satisfaction, for which reason Cronbach‘s alpha (α) was used to test for internal consistency.

Table 3: Reliability Test Result

Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Consistency
α ≥ 0.9 Excellent
0.9 > α ≥ 0.8 Good
0.8 > α ≥ 0.7 Acceptable
0.7 > α ≥ 0.6 Questionable
0.6 > α ≥ 0.5 Poor
0.5 > α Unacceptable

Data Gathering Procedure

A letter request addressed to the Dean of the Senior High School of the University in Makati was hand-carried by the researcher. Permission was sought to conduct the study and administer the questionnaire. The researcher waited for classes to finish and requested students who had free time to remain in the classroom to answer the questionnaire. All questionnaires were personally handed out and retrieved by the researcher.

Data Analysis

Data analysis the following statistical tools were utilized to treat the data of this study through the aid of SPSS version 20, to wit: 1. Frequency and Percentage were used to determine the profile of respondents in terms of age, sex, marital status, source of income, desire for improved finances, actual living arrangements, desired living arrangements, actual living quarters, desired living quarters, grade point average, number of subjects passed, number of subjects failed and number of subjects taken as remedial. 2. Mean, Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation were utilized to answer Problem Nos. 1 to 3 of this study. The Mean was used to describe the personal assessments of the respondents in terms of six (6) domains, namely general life satisfaction, occupation, health (physical health), social relations/support, finances, and daily activities. Likewise, the same measure was used to describe the goal attainment of respondents in terms of life goals and academic goals (choices 1 and 2). Moreover, the academic performance of respondents in terms of level of satisfaction in the grades earned was also determined using the same measure. The Standard Deviation was used to determine the dispersion of the values, or how close or far away the individual scores are to the mean score. On the other hand, the Coefficient of Variation was used to determine how high or how low the Standard Deviation was. A Coefficient of Variation which is greater than or equal to (≥) “1” denotes a high standard deviation, signifying heterogeneity in the individual scores, while a Coefficient of Variation which is lesser than (<) “1” denotes a low standard deviation, signifying homogeneity in the individual scores. 3. Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation was used to calculate the significant associations between life satisfaction & goal attainment and between life satisfaction & academic achievement. The degree of correlation coefficient was described as follows:

Table 4

Absolute Value of Correlation Coefficient Remarks on Correlation (Rho) Nature of Relationship
±0.90-1.00 Very High Correlation Very Strong Relationship
±0.70-0.89 High Correlation Marked Relationship
±0.40-0.69 Moderate Correlation Substantial Relationship
±0.20-0.39 Low Correlation Weak Relationship
Less than

±0.20

Slight Correlation Negligible Relationship

Decision Criteria

If the sig value is equal or less than (≤) .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis was rejected to denote significant correlation, otherwise accepted if the sig value is greater than (>) .05 level of significance to denote no significant correlation.

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

This Chapter presents the general profile of respondents, and the results of the study based on a quantitative analysis aimed at inquiring into the correlation between life satisfaction and student performance.

Respondents’ General Profile

The first part of the survey deals with questions relating to the demographic profile of the respondents, specifically, age, gender, grade completed, status, source of income, living companions, and living arrangements. For purposes of comparison and validation, however, questions were also asked as to desired financial position, desired living companions, and desired living arrangements. The demographic data are as follows:

Profile: Age

Table 5 presents the profile of respondents in terms of age.

Table 5: Profile of Respondents in Terms of Age

Age Grouping Frequency Percentage
17 – 18 years old 252 73.0
19 – 20 years old 88 26.0
21 years old and above 4 1.0
Total 344 100.0

The Age Profile of respondents revealed that a greater majority, that is 73%, belonged to the 17 – 18 age group, while a negligible number, 1%, were 21 years old and above.

Profile: Gender

Table 6 presents the profile of respondents in terms of gender.

Table 6: Profile of Respondents in Terms of Gender

Sex Frequency Percentage
Male 104 30.0
Female 240 70.0
Total 344 100.0

The Gender Profile showed that there were more female respondents than male respondents.

Profile: Marital Status

In terms of marital status, the statistics revealed that 100% of respondents identified as single/never married.

Profile: Source of Income

Table 7 presents the profile of respondents in terms of source of income.

Table 7: Profile of Respondents in Terms of Source of Income

Source of Income Frequency Percentage
Paid Employment 11 3.0
Social Security Disability Income 1 0.0
Supplemental Security Income 3 1.0
Money shared by your spouse/partner 2 1.0
Money from family 314 91.0
Other Source 13 4.0
Total 344 100.0

The Income Profile of respondents showed that more than the majority of them are supported by their own families, while negligible numbers of respondents have other sources of income, such as paid employment, social security disability, supplemental security and the like. Two (2) respondents, however, answered that income is shared by spouse/partner, thus indicating that while none of the respondents are married as per their marital profile, at least two (2) of them have a “partner” or “common law spouse” with whom they share income.

Profile: Actual Living Arrangements

Table 8 presents the profile of respondents in terms of actual living arrangements.

Table 8: Profile of Respondents in Terms of Actual Living Arrangements

Actual Living Arrangements Frequency Percentage
Alone 12 3.0
With roommate / friends 6 2.0
With children 1 0.0
With parents 293 85.0
With significant other/spouse 18 5.0
With other 14 4.0
Total 344 100.0

In terms of actual living arrangements, the statistics revealed that more than the majority of them lived with their respective parents. There were quite a few, however, who were recorded as living alone, or with roommates/friends, children and significant other/spouse. It must again be noted that while the marital profile showed that none of the respondents were married, it appears from their actual living arrangements that eighteen (18) of them actually live with a significant other or common law spouse.

Profile: Actual Living Quarters

Table 9 presents the profile of respondents in terms of actual living quarters.

Table 9: Profile of Respondents in Terms of Actual Living Quarters

Actual Living Quarters Frequency Percentage
Apartment/Home 317 92.0
Boarding House 7 2.0
School/College 1 0.0
Other 19 6.0
Total 344 100.0

With regard to actual living quarters, the data revealed that the majority of them were living in an apartment/home, although a few of them live in boarding house and/or school/college dormitories. A few likewise indicated other living quarters, without specifying what those living quarters were.

The data for the comparison/validation questions are as follows:

Profile: Desire for Improved Finances

Table 10 presents the profile of respondents in terms of desire for improved finances.

Table 10: Profile of Respondents in terms of Desire for Improved Finances

Desire for Improved Finances Frequency Percentage
Working by themselves 140 41.0
Additional family members working 14 4.0
Increase in salary of existing income earners 9 3.0
Not buying non-essentials 26 8.0
Budgeting 148 43.0
Winning the lottery 7 2.0
Total 344 100.0

In terms of desire for improved finances, the data showed that while 100% desire improved finances, they differed in as much as achieving such improvement. Budgeting obtained the highest frequency, followed by working by themselves. The latter number is significant considering that the Income Profile showed that the principal source of income for the greater number of respondents was support from family members. It thus appears that while 314 respondents are supported by their families as seen in the Income Profile, 144 of them as seen in the Improved Finance Profile, desire to work by themselves. Hence 45% of those being supported by family desire to improve their finances by working by themselves. In any event, the discrepancy between actual source of income as against the desire for improved finances can serve as either a source of dissatisfaction, or a source of motivation.

Profile: Desired Living Arrangements

Table 11 presents the profile of respondents in terms of desired living arrangements.

Table 11: Profile of Respondents in terms of Desired Living Arrangements

Desired Living Arrangements Frequency Percentage
Alone 58 17.0
With roommate / friends 19 6.0
With children 2 1.0
With parents 242 70.0
With significant other/spouse 16 5.0
With other 7 2.0
Total 344 100.0

The data showed that more than the majority of respondents, 242 to be exact, would like to live with their respective parents. On the other hand, the Profile on Actual Living Arrangements also showed that more than the majority, or 293 respondents, are presently living with their parents. It appears, therefore, that almost 83% of those who are already living with their parents desire to continue with this arrangement, while 17% of those already living with their parents would prefer to get out of this living arrangement. This hints at satisfaction with living arrangements for 83% of this group, and dissatisfaction for 17% of this group.

On the other hand, this Profile shows that 58 respondents desire to live alone, as against 12 respondents who are already living alone, as seen in the Profile on Actual Living Arrangements. This indicates a 20% increase in respondents who desire to live alone as against respondents who are already living alone. This hints at dissatisfaction with living arrangements inasmuch as for 20% of this group.

This Profile likewise shows that 19 respondents prefer to live with their roommates/friends, as against 6 who are in actual fact already living with their roommates/friends as indicated in the Profile on Actual Living Arrangements. This reflects a 31% increase in respondents’ desire to live with roommates/friends as against respondents who are already in this living arrangement. This also hints at dissatisfaction with living arrangements for 31% of this group.

With regard to living with their significant other/spouse, this Profile shows that 16 respondents desire this. The Profile on Actual Living Arrangements, however, shows that 18 respondents are actually living with their significant other/spouse. This means that two of these respondents’ desire to live separately from their significant other/spouse. This hints at dissatisfaction with living arrangements for these two respondents, which corresponds to 11% of this particular group.

This Profile shows that two respondents have a desire to live with their children. On the other hand, the Profile on Actual Living Arrangements shows that one respondent is already living with his/her child/children. Consequently, this hints at dissatisfaction with living arrangement inasmuch as this one respondent is concerned.

Profile: Desired Residence

Table 12 presents the profile of respondents in terms of desired living quarters.

Table 12: Profile of Respondents in terms of Desired Living Quarters

Desired Living Quarters Frequency Percentage
Apartment/House 256 74
Boarding House 7 2
School/College 8 2
Other 73 21
Total 344 100

The data indicate that a total of 256, or a greater majority of the respondents desire to live in an apartment/house. On the other hand, the profile on actual residence indicates that 317, again more than a majority, of respondents are actually living in an apartment/house. It appears, therefore, that 20% or 61 of the respondents who are actually living in an apartment/house desire to change living quarters, thus hinting at dissatisfaction in this area.

On the other hand, there are seven respondents who desire to live in a boarding house based on this Profile, and the same number who are already living in a boarding house based on the Profile on Actual Residence. It would appear, therefore, that these seven respondents are satisfied with their living quarters.

Based on this Profile, eight respondents desire to live in a school/college dorm, as against one respondent who is already living in a school/college dorm based on the Profile on Actual Residence. It is possible, therefore, that part of the attrition among those who are actually living in apartment/house based on the Profile on Actual Residence are desirous of living in a school/college dorm.

This profile likewise shows that 73 respondents would prefer other living quarters, as against 17 respondents who have other living quarters based on the Profile on Actual Residence. While this indicates a 23% increase in those who desire other living quarters from those who are already residing in other living quarters, this does not necessarily indicate a dissatisfaction among the latter group, since the increase may be from the attrition among those who are actually living in an apartment/house.

The Respondents’ Assessment of Their Life Satisfaction.

The second part of the survey deals with questions probing into the respondents’ assessment of life satisfaction in the following domains, as follows: (a) general life satisfaction, (b) occupation, (c) physical health, (d) social relations/support, (e) finances, and (f) daily activities. The questions on general life satisfaction zeroes in on the following indicators, namely housing, neighborhood, school, church, food clothing, access to transportation, and personal safety. On the other hand, the questions on the other five (5) domains are confined to aspects of each particular domain. Additionally, the respondents were asked to rate the level of importance of the different areas within the domains.

General Life Satisfaction

Table 13 presents the respondents’ own assessment of their satisfaction in the domain of their respective lives in general.

Table 13: General Life Satisfaction as Assessed by Student-Respondents

Indicators Level of Satisfaction Level of Importance
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
Housing 5.25 1.46 0.28 A Little Satisfied 6.21 1.03 0.17 Very Important
Neighborhood as a place to live in 5.12 1.57 0.31 A Little Satisfied 5.80 1.32 0.23 Somewhat Important
School 5.88 1.09 0.19 A Little Satisfied 6.36 1.02 0.16 Very Important
Church 5.91 1.34 0.23 A Little Satisfied 6.23 1.06 0.17 Very Important
Food to Eat 5.78 1.40 0.24 A Little Satisfied 6.08 1.15 0.19 Very Important
Clothing to Wear 5.57 1.40 0.25 A Little Satisfied 6.24 1.11 0.18 Very Important
Access to Transportation 4.99 1.45 0.29 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 6.21 1.03 0.17 Very Important
Personal Safety 5.28 1.22 0.23 A Little Satisfied 5.80 1.32 0.23 Somewhat Important
Composite 5.47 1.37 0.25 A Little Satisfied 6.12 1.13 0.18 Very Important

Scales: 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Very Dissatisfied; 7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant; 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important

In terms of the domain of general life satisfaction, the level of satisfaction based on the personal assessment of the respondents revealed a composite mean score of 5.47 for the different indicators, and a composite standard deviation of 1.37, which is low, considering the coefficient of variation is 0.25. This means that the respondents were “a little satisfied” in their life in general, taking into consideration their housing, the neighborhood where they live, their school, their church, the food they eat, the clothing they wear and their personal safety. Moreover, the low standard deviation shows that the data are clustered around the mean.

Among the indicators, “church” showed the highest satisfaction rating at 5.91, followed by “school” at 5.88, but both satisfaction ratings corresponded only to “a little satisfied”. The standard deviation for “school”, however, is lower at 1.09 compared to 1.34 standard deviation for “church”, with coefficient of variation of 0.19 and 0.23 respectively, thereby implying more confidence in the satisfaction rating for “school” compared to that for “church”.

The highest satisfaction rating for the church is understandable, considering that Filipinos are very religious, and have always believed,

Even before the introduction of Catholicism, that there is a Supreme or Higher Being who created and controls everything, and who guides the lives of men. This faith in the sovereignty of a Supreme or Higher Being, who bestows grace and judgment, goes a long way to explain the highest satisfaction rating for “church”, which is the organized body through which the faith is manifested. On the other hand, the higher standard deviation for church compared to school, which indicates more ambivalence in the satisfaction rating for church compared to that of school, is best explained by the more judgmental nature of church interactions when compared to the more inclusive nature of school interactions. Among the indicators, the lowest mean score was in “access to transportation”, which showed a mean score of 4.99, showing that respondents were “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”. The next lowest mean score was in “neighborhood as a place to live”, which showed a mean score of 5.12, which corresponds to “a little satisfied”. Standard deviation for “access to transportation” was at 1.45, which is the second highest standard deviation among the indicators, with the highest standard deviation being 1.57, And pertaining to “neighborhood as a place to live in”. Thus, it appears that there is more ambivalence in the respondents’ assessment of their satisfaction in these two indicators compared to the other indicators. Nonetheless, the standard deviation for both is still low, considering that the coefficient of variation is 0.29 and 0.31 respectively, which means the results are still more or less homogeneous.

On the other hand, the importance respondents ascribed to these indicators revealed a composite mean score of 6.12, corresponding to “very important”, which is higher than the composite mean score of the indicators themselves. This establishes the validity of the indicators as criteria for assessing general life satisfaction. The standard deviation is at 1.13, which is low, considering that the coefficient of variation is .018, thus further reinforcing the validity of the indicators.

Among the eight (8) indicators, “school” obtained a mean score of 6.36, corresponding to “very important”. On the other hand, “neighborhood as a place to live in” and “personal safety” similarly obtained the lowest mean scores, revealing that respondents considered the latter two (2) indicators as only “somewhat important”. Standard deviation for “school” in terms of importance level is the lowest among the indicators at 1.02, while the standard deviation for the indicators with the lowest mean scores, “neighborhood as a place to live in” and “personal safety”, is the highest among the indicators at 1.32, although this is still low since the coefficient of variation is 0.23. This shows that respondents are more certain of the importance they ascribed to “school”, as against their indifference to “neighborhood as a place to live in” and “personal safety”.

Interestingly, the indicators with the highest satisfaction ratings, “church” and “school”, are means to self-actualization, which matches the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Moreover, the importance which respondents ascribed to these indicators reflects their cognizance that these indicators are both a means and an end. They are a means in the sense that they are instrumental in achieving or appreciating the other indicators. Yet, “church” and “school” are also an end in the sense that they contribute to the enhancement of life satisfaction.

Equally interesting, but somewhat disturbing is the divergence between the level of satisfaction and the level of importance for the indicators corresponding to the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The results show that housing, food, clothing and access to transportation, which are at the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy, are “very important” to the respondents. And yet, they are only “a little satisfied” in these indicators.

The divergence is even more glaring in the housing indicator because of the profile results. Table nine shows that the majority of respondents’ actual living quarters is an “apartment/home”, while Table12 shows that the majority of their desired living quarters is also an “apartment/home”. Hence, there is no discrepancy between their actual and their desired living quarters, and yet, they are only “a little satisfied” with housing.

Consequently, it is not farfetched to infer that the satisfaction level insofar as housing is not affected by the housing or living quarters themselves, but by the surroundings, or the neighborhood wherein it is found. When you live in an area where only a wall separates the houses, and you can hear the shouts of your neighbors, it is not far-fetched that your level of satisfaction with your housing is affected. This speculation is even bolstered by the fact that, among the indicators, “neighborhood as a place to live” showed the highest standard deviation, meaning that the respondents were not as sure of the level of satisfaction they ascribed to this indicator compared to the rest.

Additionally, the indicator with the lowest satisfaction rating, “access to transportation”, is dependent on the location of the residence vis-à-vis the school, the job, the market, and other important places. Hence, the low satisfaction in “access to transportation” may be another explanation of the divergence between the level of satisfaction and the level of importance.

Occupation

Table 14 presents the respondents’ own assessment of their satisfaction in the domain of occupation, or main activity in life.

Table 14: Occupation as Assessed by Student-Respondents

Indicators Level of Satisfaction Level of Importance
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
Main Activity in Life  

5.21

 

1.26

 

0.24

A Little Satisfied  

6.29

 

0.96

 

0.15

Very Important
Control over the Main Activity  

5.14

 

1.28

 

0.25

 

A Little Satisfied

 

6.36

 

1.05

 

0.17

 

Very Important

Composite 5.18 1.27 0.25 A Little Satisfied 6.33 1.01 0.16 Very Important

Scales: 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Very Dissatisfied; 7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant; 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important

In terms of satisfaction in the domain of occupation, or the main activity in their life, two (2) indicators were used, as follows: the main activity itself, and control over the main activity. Respondents’ answers revealed a composite mean score of 5.18, corresponding to “a little satisfied”, with a low composite standard deviation of 1.27, considering coefficient of variation is 0.25. It appears, however, that the main activity itself received a higher mean score at 5.21 than the control over the main activity, which received a mean score of 5.14. Nevertheless, the scores of both the main activity and the control over the main activity fall under “a little satisfied”.

The findings likewise revealed that their occupation or main activity in life, as well as their control over the same, was considered by the respondents to be “very important”, considering the composite mean score of 6.33, with composite standard deviation of 1.01, and coefficient of variation of 0.16, indicating homogeneity of the results.

The importance of control over occupation or main activity received a mean score of 6.36, which is higher than the composite mean, while the importance of the occupation or main activity itself received a mean score of 6.29, which is lower than the composite mean. Interestingly, the standard deviation for the importance ascribed by respondents to occupation or main activity is low at 0.96, with coefficient of variation at 0.15, compared to the standard deviation for the importance of control over occupation or main activity, which is at 1.05, with coefficient of variation at 0.17. Apparently, the respondents are more confident of the importance of the occupation or main activity itself, than they are about the importance of the control they have over the occupation or main activity, given the lower dispersion of data in the former than the latter.

Respondents, being students, their occupation or main activity in life is their studies. Viewed in this light, it is curious that control over their main activity, in this case, control over their studies is considered more important by the respondents than the main activity itself. However, in terms of satisfaction level, it appears that respondents are more satisfied with their studies than they are over their control over the same. Control over their studies is dependent on several factors, such as volume of assignments, submission of reports, scheduling of exams, and such other factors. Essentially, students hardly have any control over these factors. Hence, the lower level of satisfaction over the same, even with the higher importance ascribed to it.

Health (Physical Health)

 Table 15 presents the respondents’ own assessment of their satisfaction in the domain of their physical health.

Table 15: Physical Health as Assessed by Student-Respondents

Indicators Level of Satisfaction Level of Importance
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
Health 5.27 1.42 0.27 A Little Satisfied 6.62 0.81 0.12 Very Important
Access to Medical Help 5.41 1.36 0.25 A Little Satisfied 6.58 0.79 0.12 Very Important
Composite 5.34 1.39 0.26 A Little Satisfied 6.60 0.80 0.12 Very Important

Scales: 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Very Dissatisfied; 7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant; 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important

In terms of satisfaction in the domain of their physical health, two (2) indicators were used, as follows: respondents’ own perception of the state of their physical health, and their access to medical help. Respondents’ answers revealed a composite mean score of 5.34, corresponding to “a little satisfied”, with a low standard deviation of 1.39, considering that the coefficient of variation is 0.26. This means that respondents found a small amount of satisfaction in this domain, and the level of dispersion of data as shown by the low standard deviation showed certainty as to the assessment.

Equally, the findings revealed that the domain of physical health was considered by the respondents to be “very important” as evident from the composite mean score of 6.60, with a low standard deviation of 0.80, and a coefficient of variation of 0.12. Between the two (2) indicators, the importance of the state of physical health obtained the higher mean score compared to the importance of access to medical help. Both indicators showed homogeneous results as evidenced by the low standard deviation, thereby denoting certainty as to the responses.

However, when the two indicators are studied separately, it shows that access to medical help has a higher mean score at 5.42 compared to respondents’ assessment of their physical health, which has a mean score of 5.27. This demonstrates that while both indicators fall into the category of “a little satisfied”, respondents are still more satisfied with their access to medical help than they are with their physical health.

In terms of the level of importance, the reverse is true. The importance respondents ascribed to their physical health received a higher mean score at 6.62 compared to the importance of access to medical help with a mean score of 6.58. While both indicators fall into the category of “very important”, respondents still consider the state of their physical health as more important than access to medical help.

Again, the divergence between the level of satisfaction and the level of importance is glaring for the indicators corresponding to the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When the components of physical health are considered, however, a partial explanation may be inferred. Physical health is actually dependent on nutrition and diet, rest and sleep, and exercise. Unfortunately, access to healthy foods, time for sleep and relaxation, and time and means for exercise are dependent on material resources, for which reason this domain becomes dependent on another domain, that of finances.

Social Relations/Support

 Table 16 presents the respondents’ own assessment of their satisfaction in the domain of social relations/support.

Table 16: Social Relations/Support as Assessed by Student-Respondents

Indicators Level of Satisfaction Level of Importance
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
Adequate Number of Friends 6.09 1.10 0.18 Moderately Satisfied 5.81 1.29 0.22 Somewhat Important
Getting Along with Friends 5.82 1.29 0.22 A Little Satisfied 6.10 1.20 0.2 Very Important
Family Relationships 5.66 1.28 0.23 A Little Satisfied 6.52 0.88 0.1 Very Important
People with whom they Lived 5.13 1.48 0.29 A Little Satisfied 6.16 1.04 0.17 Very Important
Getting Along with Other People 5.23 1.33 0.25 A Little Satisfied 6.18 1.00 0.16 Very Important
Composite 5.59 1.30 0.23 A Little Satisfied 6.15 1.08 0.18 Very Important

Scales: 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Very Dissatisfied; 7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant; 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important

In terms of the domain of social relations/support, five (5) indicators were used, as follows: adequate number of friends, getting along with friends, family relationships, people with whom they lived, and getting along with other people. Respondents’ answers revealed a composite mean score of 5.59, corresponding to “a little satisfied”, with a low standard deviation of 1.30, considering that the coefficient of variation is 0.23. This means that respondents found a small level of satisfaction in this domain, and the level of dispersion of data as shown by the low standard deviation showed certainty as to the assessment. Among those indicators, an adequate number of friends yielded the highest mean score at 6.09, corresponding to “moderate satisfaction”, and a standard deviation at 1.10, with coefficient of variation of 0.18, thus making the standard deviation of this indicator as the lowest in this domain.

In terms of the level of importance respondents ascribed to this domain, the findings yielded a composite mean score of 6.15, standard deviation of 1.08, and coefficient of variation of .018, signifying that this domain, as manifested in the different indicators, is mostly “very important” to the respondents. Interestingly, an adequate number of friends, which received the highest mean score in terms of satisfaction level among the indicators, received the lowest mean score in terms of level of importance, with a mean score of 5.81, corresponding to “somewhat important”. It likewise reflected the highest standard deviation at 1.29 in terms of level of importance, although this standard deviation is still low since coefficient of variation is at 0.22. This seems to indicate that although respondents are “moderately satisfied” with the number of their friends, they ascribe a lower level of importance to the same, perhaps preferring the quality of the friendship over the mere numerical representation.

Family relations, which received the highest mean score in terms of level of importance, only ranked third in terms of level of satisfaction with a mean score of 5.66. When viewed with the profile of actual living arrangements as shown in Table 8, which signifies that the majority of respondents lived with their parents, it can be inferred that the low level of satisfaction relates to the quality of the relationship with their parents. This inference is bolstered by the level of satisfaction ascribed to the people with whom the respondents lived, which shows the lowest mean score at 5.13, and hence, the lowest level of satisfaction among the indicators of social relations/support.

Standard deviation for the level of importance of family relations is at 0.88, with coefficient of variation of 0.10, indicating consistency in responses. Standard deviation for level of satisfaction in family relations is at 1.28, with coefficient of variation of 0.23, also indicating consistency in responses. Nonetheless, the respondents appear more certain of the importance of family relations than they are in ascribing the level of importance to this indicator. This could all be because family is of most extreme significance to Filipinos. For them, family gets to be a source of quality and motivation to be courageous through challenges in life. (AmBisyon Natin 2040)

Finances

Table 17 presents the respondents’ own assessment of their satisfaction in the domain of finances.

Table 17: Finances as Assessed by Student-Respondents

Indicators Level of Satisfaction Level of Importance
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
Amount of Money 5.01 1.59 0.32 A Little Satisfied 6.40 0.99 0.15 Very Important
Control over Money 5.14 1.59 0.31 A Little Satisfied 6.44 0.96 0.15 Very Important
Composite 5.08 1.59 0.31 A Little Satisfied 6.42 0.98 0.15 Very Important

Scales: 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Very Dissatisfied; 7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant; 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important

In terms of the domain of finances, two (2) indicators were used, as follows: the amount of money, and control over money. With regard to the level of satisfaction over finances, respondents’ answers revealed a composite mean score of 5.08, corresponding to “a little satisfied”, with a low standard deviation of 1.59, since coefficient of variation is 0.39, meaning respondents found a small level of satisfaction in this domain, and the level of dispersion of data as shown by the low standard deviation exposed no ambivalence as to the assessment. Between the two indicators, satisfaction over control over money received a higher mean score at 5.14 compared to the level of satisfaction over the amount of money, which received a mean score of 5.01. Both indicators showed homogenous results as evident from the low standard deviation of both, thereby denoting certainty as to the responses.

In a corollary finding, the data revealed that the amount of money they have was considered by the respondents to be “very important” as evident from the composite mean score of 6.42, with a low standard deviation of 0.99, since coefficient of variation is 0.15. Between the two indicators, the importance of control over money obtained the higher mean score at 6.44, compared to the importance of the amount of money with a mean score of 6.40. Both indicators showed homogenous results as evident from the low standard deviation of both, thereby denoting certainty as to the responses.

The profile of respondents in terms of source of income as found in Table seven reveals that the finances of the majority of respondents come from their family. This probably explains why the majority of respondents are more satisfied with their control over money than with the amount of money they have. It is also probably the reason they consider control over money as more important than the amount of money. Since their money comes from their family, the amount of money is not dependent upon them. Hence, their satisfaction over the amount of money is less than their satisfaction in controlling the money. In the same manner, the importance of controlling the disposition of the money is greater than the importance of the amount. This is bolstered by respondents’ profile in terms of improved finances as found in Table 10, which reveals that more respondents prefer to improve their finances by budgeting or by working themselves. It is instructive that in both these means of improving finances, respondents’ control is better manifested. The data also revealed that the amount of money they have was considered by the respondents to be “very important” as evident from the safety needs found in the second lower level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Daily Activities

Table 18 presents the respondents’ own assessment of their satisfaction in the domain of daily activities.

Table 18: Daily Activities as Assessed by Student-Respondents

Indicators Level of Satisfaction Level of Importance
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
Comfortable when Alone  

4.07

 

0.75

 

0.18

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied  

6.06

 

1.23

 

0.2

Very Important
Way to spend Time 5.23 1.38 0.26 A Little Satisfied 6.23 1.07 0.17 Very Important
Control over the Way to spend Time  

5.25

 

1.53

 

0.29

A Little Satisfied  

6.40

 

1.02

 

0.16

Very Important
 

Composite

 

4.85

 

1.22

 

0.25

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied  

6.23

 

1.11

 

0.18

Very Important

Scales: 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Very Dissatisfied; 7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant; 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important

In terms of the domain of daily activities, three (3) indicators were used, as follows: comfort in aloneness, the way respondents spend their time, and their control over the way they spend their time.

Respondents’ answers revealed a composite mean score of 4.85, corresponding to “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, with a low standard deviation of 1.22, considering that coefficient of variation is 0.25. This means that respondents were indifferent to this domain, and the level of dispersion of data, as shown by the low standard deviation exposed no ambivalence as to the assessment. Interestingly, comfort in being alone received the lowest mean score at 4.07, but it also registered standard deviation of 0.75, which is the lowest standard deviation registered by all indicators for all domains, with coefficient of variation being 0.18. Thus, while fewer respondents appear to find comfort in being alone, and are even indifferent to such state, there is more certitude in their responses than in all other responses in all the other domains. This confidence or certitude in the responses of those who find comfort in being alone is remarkable since very recent research has proven that time alone is beneficial to overall well-being or life satisfaction (Rodriguez, et. al. 2020; Weinstein, et. al. 2021), particularly among emerging adults (Dixon 2020), to which respondents belong.

On the other hand, the findings revealed that the domain of daily activities was considered by the respondents to be “very important” as evident from the composite mean score of 6.23, with composite standard deviation of 1.11, and composite coefficient of variation at 0.18. Among the three (3) indicators, however, the importance of control over the way to spend time obtained the highest mean score at 6.40, while comfort in being alone received the lowest mean score at 6.06. Conversely, the importance of control obtained the lowest standard deviation at 1.02, with coefficient of variation of 0.16, while comfort in being alone obtained the highest standard deviation at 1.23, with coefficient of variation of 0.20.

Hence, it appears that while respondents believe that comfort in being alone is “very important”, the confidence in this assessment of its importance is very much less than the confidence in their assessment of their satisfaction. In short, they are more sure that they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with being alone, and less sure that it is important to find comfort in being alone.

Overall Life Satisfaction

 Table 19 presents the summary of the composite mean scores, standard deviations and coefficient of variation of respondent’s assessment of their satisfaction with the six (6) domains in their lives.

Table 19: Summary of Composite Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on the Assessment of Student-Respondents in the

General Satisfaction of Life

 

Variables

Composite
Level of Satisfaction Level of Importance
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
General Life Satisfaction 5.47 1.37 0.25 A Little Satisfied 6.12 1.13 0.18 Very Important
Occupation 5.18 1.27 0.25 A Little Satisfied 6.33 1.01 0.16 Very Important
Physical Health 5.34 1.39 0.26 A Little Satisfied 6.60 0.80 0.12 Very Important
Social Relations/Support 5.59 1.30 0.23 A Little Satisfied 6.15 1.08 0.18 Very Important
Finances 5.08 1.59 0.31 A Little Satisfied 6.42 0.98 0.15 Very Important
 

Daily Activities

 

4.85

 

1.22

 

0.25

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied  

6.23

 

1.11

 

0.18

Very Important
Grand Mean 5.25 1.36 0.26 A Little Satisfied 6.31 1.02 0.16 Very Important

Scales: 7=VerySatisfied;6=ModeratelySatisfied;5=ALittleSatisfied;4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Very Dissatisfied; 7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant; 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important

In terms of the overall findings on respondents’ life satisfaction, the data yielded grand mean scores of 5.25 and 6.31 respectively for level of satisfaction and level of importance, indicating that respondents found that overall they were only a little satisfied, even as they considered the different domains to be very important to overall life satisfaction. Moreover, the grand standard deviation for the level of satisfaction is at 1.36, which is low, considering that the coefficient of variation is 0.26. On the other hand, the grand standard deviation for the level of importance is lower at 1.02, with coefficient of variation of 0.16.

Of all the variables, social relations/support obtained the highest composite mean score at 5.59, showing that while respondents were only a little satisfied in this domain, it is still the domain where they had the most satisfaction. It is also the domain which registered the lowest standard deviation, considering that the coefficient of variation is 0.23, thereby equally showing that there is more confidence in this result than in all others, given that there is more homogeneity in the responses in this domain than in all other domains. On the other hand, daily activities obtained the lowest mean score at 4.85, corresponding to “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, thus showing that respondents were quite indifferent to this domain.

Insofar as level of importance, the domain of physical health manifested the highest composite mean score at 6.60, with standard deviation of 0.80, which is the lowest among the domains, considering that coefficient of variation is 0.12. On the other hand, the domains of general life satisfaction appear to be the least important to respondents since it garnered the lowest composite mean score of 6.12, with low standard deviation at 1.13, considering that coefficient of variation is at 0.18.

Following from above, it appears that respondents find that they are a little satisfied in their overall lives. The unanimously low standard deviation for all domains, as well as for all indicators within the domains, as shown by coefficients of variation which are all below “0”, indicates a unanimous homogeneity in the responses, thus proving certainty in the data.

Moreover, the domains used as criteria to determine life satisfaction proved to be very important to the respondents, thereby validating the use of these domains as determinants of life satisfaction. Again, unanimously low standard deviation in terms of level of importance for all domains, as well as level of importance for all indicators within the domains, as shown by coefficient of variation which are all below “0”, indicates a unanimous homogeneity in the responses, thus proving the reliability of the results.

The domains used in assessing life satisfaction are representative of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, for which reason they are valid determinants of life satisfaction. Interestingly, the results showed that satisfaction corresponds to a little satisfied across all domains, excepting only the domain of daily activities, which corresponds to “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, which is a lower level of satisfaction in the scale. In any event, respondents’ essential needs are somehow being met at a minimal level, hence, the minimal level of satisfaction. Moreover, considering that these needs as represented in the different domains are necessarily circumscribed by the availability of resources, satisfaction of these needs and in these domains become dependent on one domain – that of finances. With regard to the domain of finances, however, respondents are clearly more satisfied with their control over finances than the amount of their finances. Thus, while finance corresponds to the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy, control is actually a function of self-actualization, and corresponds to the highest level in the hierarchy.

1. The students-respondents’ Assessment of their goal attainment

The third part of the survey deals with questions probing into the respondents’ assessment of their attainment of life goals and academic goals. Respondents were asked to identify three (3) life goals, as well as three (3) academic goals, which they have set for themselves. The goals themselves were not crucial to the study. What is crucial is the fact that these are goals which respondents set for themselves, and which they desire to attain. They were then asked to rate the following: (a) the level of importance of the goals, (b) the level of attainment of the goals, and (c) the level of satisfaction they got from attaining the goals.

Life Goals

The life goals which respondents set for themselves fall into six (6) general categories, as follows: (a) to have a job, own a house and become financially stable, (b) less sadness, more happiness, and to travel and have own family, (c) to become professional, happy with family, (d) to help the family financially, (e) to make parents proud, and (f) to serve God.

Table 20 presents the respondents’ assessment of their life goals.

Table 20: Assessment of the Life Goals Attainment of Student-Respondents

Life Goals N Level of Importance Level of Attainment Level of Satisfaction
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
 

To serve God

 

7

 

6.57

 

1.13

 

0.17

Very Important  

3.29

 

1.11

 

0.34

 

21%-40%

Attained

 

7.00

 

0.00

 

0

Very Satisfied
To make parents proud  

9

 

7.00

 

0.00

 

0

Extremely Important  

4.22

 

1.09

 

0.26

41%-60%

Attained

 

6.78

 

0.67

 

0.1

Moderatel y Satisfied
To become professional/ha ppily with family  

46

 

6.80

 

0.54

 

0.08

Very Important  

4.35

 

1.29

 

0.3

41%-60%

Attained

 

6.93

 

0.25

 

0.04

Moderatel y Satisfied
Less sadness, more happiness, to travel and have own family  

81

 

6.73

 

0.82

 

0.12

 

Very Important

 

3.98

 

1.34

 

0.34

 

21%-40%

Attained

 

6.67

 

0.89

 

0.13

 

Moderatel y Satisfied

To have a job/own a house and become financially stable  

156

 

6.79

 

0.61

 

0.09

 

Very Important

 

4.28

 

1.23

 

0.29

 

41%-60%

Attained

 

6.61

 

0.88

 

0.13

 

Moderatel y Satisfied

To help the family financially 45 6.82 0.39 0.06 Very Important 4.53 1.20 0.26 41%-60%

Attained

6.71 0.69 0.1 Moderatel y Satisfied
 

Composite

 

6.79

 

0.58

 

0.09

Very Important  

4.11

 

1.21

 

0.29

41%-60%

Attained

 

6.78

 

0.56

 

0.08

Moderate ly Satisfied

Scales:7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important/ 7=Fully Attained; 6=81% to 99% Attained; 5=61% to 80% Attained; 4=41% to 60% Attained; 3=21% to 40%Attained; 2=1% to 20% Attained; 1=Not at All Attained / 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=NeitherSatisfiednorDissatisfied;3=ALittleDissatisfied;2=ModeratelyDissatisfied;1=NotSatisfied

The importance of the life goals respondents set for themselves garnered a composite mean score of 6.79, thereby indicating that they considered the goals they set as very important. Composite standard deviation was at 0.58, while composite coefficient of variation was at 0.09, thereby indicating closely clustered responses despite the divergence of the goals themselves.

On the other hand, respondents assessed the level of attainment of their life goals at between 41% to 60% attained, with this range garnering a composite mean score of 4.11, composite standard deviation of 1.21, and coefficient of variation of 0.29, thereby indicating homogeneity of responses.

In terms of level of satisfaction in the attainment of the life goals, the data showed that respondents were moderately satisfied, considering the composite mean score of 6.78, standard deviation at 0.56, and coefficient of variation of 0.08, again indicating consistency in the responses.

Interestingly, 156 out of the 344 respondents, or forty-five percent (45%), chose “having a job, owning a house, and becoming financially stable” as one of their life goals. It was considered by respondents as very important, with a mean score of 6.79, standard deviation of 0.61, and coefficient of variation of 0.09. Also, respondents perceived that their level of attainment for this goal is at 41% to 60%. This percentile range garnered a mean score of 4.28, standard deviation of 1.23, and coefficient of variation of 0.29. Moreover, respondents find themselves moderately satisfied with their level of attainment for this goal, considering the mean score of 6.61, standard deviation of 0.88, and coefficient of variation of 0.13.

The life goals which appeared least in the responses are to serve God and to make parents proud, with only seven and nine respondents respectively who included these among their life goals. Nevertheless, all nine respondents, who included “making parents proud” among their life goals, unanimously believed that this goal was very important. Standard deviation was 0.00, thereby indicating that while there was only a negligible two percent (2%) who included this in their life goals, those who did were more certain of its importance than those who included other life goals. The life goals which appeared least in the responses are to serve God and to make parents proud which doesn’t really mean that the rest of the respondents neglect other duties as Filipino especially in serving God because according to the research of AmBisyon2040 most Filipino believe and have faith in God, which mean God is always in their heart and mind but source of income which will help them supply their daily needs is very important and in the end, it will give them time serving God, if fulfilled.

Academic Goals

The academic goals which respondents set for themselves also fall into six (6) general categories, to wit: (a) to finish senior high school, (b) to have a high grade, (c) to pass all the subjects, (d) to continue college degree, (e) to be Dean’s lister, and (f) to graduate on time.

Table 21 presents the respondents’ assessment of their academic goals.

Table 21: Assessment of the Academic Goal Attainment of Student-Respondents

Academic Goals N Level of Importance Level of Attainment Level of Satisfaction
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
To finish Senior High School  

140

 

6.68

 

.89

 

0.13

Very Important  

3.68

 

1.49

 

0.40

21%-40%

Attained

 

6.59

 

1.06

 

0.16

Moderately Satisfied
To have a high grade 20 6.95 .51 0.07 Very Important 3.70 1.42 0.38 21%-40%

Attained

6.95 .22 0.03 Moderately Satisfied
To pass all the subjects  

78

 

6.68

 

.95

 

0.14

Very Important  

3.54

 

1.45

 

0.41

21%-40%

Attained

 

6.78

 

.68

 

0.1

Moderately Satisfied
To  continue College Degree  

74

 

6.85

 

.57

 

0.08

Very Important  

3.82

 

1.47

 

0.38

21%-40%

Attained

 

6.73

 

.76

 

0.11

Moderately Satisfied
To be Dean’s Lister  

26

 

6.77

 

.71

 

0.10

Very Important  

4.12

 

1.56

 

0.38

41%-60%

Attained

 

6.77

 

.51

 

0.08

Moderately Satisfied
To  graduate on time  

6

 

7.00

 

.00

 

0.00

Extremely Important  

2.67

 

2.07

 

0.78

1%-20%

Attained

 

7.00

 

.00

 

0

Very Satisfied
Composite  

6.82

 

.60

 

0.09

Very Important  

3.59

 

1.57

 

0.44

21%-40%

Attained

 

6.80

 

.54

 

0.08

Moderately Satisfied

Scales: 7=Extremely Important; 6=Very Important; 5=Somewhat Important; 4=Neither Important nor Unimportant 3=Somewhat Unimportant; 2=Not Very Important; 1=Not at All Important/ 7=Fully Attained; 6=81% to 99% Attained; 5=61% to 80% Attained; 4=41% to 60% Attained; 3=21% to 40%Attained; 2=1% to 20% Attained; 1=Not at All Attained / 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Not Satisfied

The importance of the academic goals respondents set for themselves garnered a composite mean score of 6.82, thereby indicating that they considered the goals they set as very important.

Composite standard deviation was at 0.60, while composite coefficient of variation was at 0.09, thereby indicating closely clustered responses despite the divergence of the goals themselves.

On the other hand, respondents assessed the level of attainment of their academic goals at between 21% to 40% attained, with this range garnering a composite mean score of 3.59, composite standard deviation of 1.57, and coefficient of variation of 0.44, thereby indicating homogeneity of responses.

In terms of level of satisfaction in the attainment of the academic goals, the data showed that respondents were moderately satisfied, considering the composite mean score of 6.80, standard deviation at 0.54, and coefficient of variation of 0.08, again indicating consistency in the responses.

Surprisingly, only 140 out of the 344 respondents, or 40%, chose to finish senior high school as one of their academic goals. This is probably a recognition of the fact that finishing senior high school is dependent on financial constraints, which is not merely limited to the cost and expense of finishing senior high school. It must be pointed out that for lower income families, a family member of workforce age, who is not employed, constitutes a burden on the meager family resources, and does not contribute to the family’s income when he or she is already of age to do so.

Nevertheless, respondents considered this academic goal as very important, with a mean score of 6.68, standard deviation of 0.89, and coefficient of variation of 0.13. Also, respondents perceived that their level of attainment for this goal is at 21% to 40%. This percentile range garnered a mean score of 3.68, standard deviation of 1.49, and coefficient of variation of 0.40. Moreover, respondents find themselves moderately satisfied with their level of attainment for this goal, considering the mean score of 6.59, standard deviation of 1.06, and coefficient of variation of 0.16.

The academic goal which appeared least in the responses is to graduate on time, with only six respondents who included this among their academic goals. The reason for these seemingly negligible numbers could be the time qualification in the goal. While “graduating” as an academic goal may be desirable and practicable, graduating “on time” as an academic goal maybe less desirable for being more pressing. In any event, this goal received the highest level of importance, with a mean score of 7.0, corresponding to extremely important, and standard deviation and coefficient of variation at 0.00, thereby indicating that while only 1.7 percent of respondents included this in their academic goals, those who did, not merely accorded it a higher level of importance, but were very certain of their response than those who included other academic goals.

Most Filipino believe that finishing studies will give them a better future. AmBisyon2040. The fact that finishing senior high school is dependent on financial constraints for lower income families, a family member of workforce age, who is not employed, constitutes a burden on the meager family resources, and does not contribute to the family’s income when he or she is already of age to do so. Nevertheless, respondents considered this academic goal as very important, which means that their aim is to graduate also but they do not know when and how.

Moreover, those who included graduating on time among their academic goals gave this goal the highest level of satisfaction, with a mean score of 7.0, corresponding to very satisfied, despite the lowest accomplishment level at 1% to 20%. Considering, however, that standard deviation is also at 0.00, there is no doubt as to the validity of this assessment.

Overall Goal Attainment

Table 22 summarizes student performance based on respondents’ own perception of the level of

attainment of the life goals and the academic goals which they have set for themselves.

Table 22: Assessment of Combined Life and Academic Goal Attainment of Student-Respondents

Goals Level of Importance Level of Attainment Level of Satisfaction
Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret Mean SD CV Interpret
Composite of Life Goals  

6.79

 

0.58

 

0.09

Very Importan t  

4.11

 

1.21

 

0.29

41%-60%

Attained

 

6.78

 

0.56

 

0.08

Moderately Satisfied
Composite of Academic Goals  

6.82

 

.60

 

0.09

Very Importan t  

3.59

 

1.57

 

0.44

21%-40%

Attained

 

6.80

 

.54

 

0.08

Moderately Satisfied

 It appears from the above composite scores that the mean, as well as the corresponding standard deviation and coefficient of variation, of the life goals and the academic goals which respondents set for themselves are very close to each other insofar as level of importance. The mean for life goals is 6.72, compared to 6.82, which is the mean for academic goals, both scores falling into the “very important” interpretation.   Standard deviation for life goals is at 0.58, compared to 0.60 for academic goals. Coefficient of variation is equal for both life goals and academic goals, which is at 0.09.

The divergence comes from the level of attainment. While the mean for life goals is 4.11, corresponding to 41-60% attained, the mean for academic goals is 3.59, corresponding to 21-40% attained. Interestingly, the data dispersion is higher for academic goals attainment than for life goals attainment. Standard deviation for the latter is at 1.21, while that for academic goals attainment is at 3.59. Coefficient of variation is 0.29 and 0.44 respectively for life goals attainment and academic goals attainment.

In terms of level of satisfaction, very close scores, with the mean for life goals being 6.78, while that for academic goals is 6.80, indicating moderate satisfaction in the level of attainment for both. Standard deviation for satisfaction over life goals attainment is at 0.56, while that for satisfaction over academic goals attainment is at 0.54. Coefficient of variation is both at 0.08. Thus, the results for both life goals and academic goals are, not merely low, but very close to each other, indicating a high level of certainty in the responses.

Overall, therefore, respondents consider both their life goals and academic goals as very important.  More notably, they are moderately satisfied with their level of attainment of these life goals and academic goals.

It is not amiss to point out, however, that the goals which respondents set for themselves, whether they be life goals or academic goals, are principally abstract goals, rather than measurable ones. In fact, among all the goals, only that of graduating on time, and being a Dean’s Lister are measurable. The rest are not easily concretized, for which reason the level of satisfaction is more subjective, and hence, less susceptible to a higher level of attainment.

2.                The student-respondents’ academic performance

The third part of the survey deals with questions on how respondents performed academically in terms of the following: (a) grade point average; (b) number of subjects passed; (c) number of subjects failed;(d)number of subjects taken as remedial; and (e)level of satisfaction in their academic performance.

Number of Subjects Enrolled

Table 23 presents the academic performance of respondents in terms of number of subjects enrolled in the previous school year.

Table 23: Academic Performance of Respondents in terms of Number of Enrolled Subjects

Number or Enrolled Subjects Frequency Percentage
5 subjects 2 1.0
6 subjects 1 0.0
7 subjects 12 3.0
8 subjects 169 49.0
9 subjects 152 44.0
10 subjects 1 0.0
11 subjects 7 2.0
Total 344 100.0

Of 344 respondents, 169 were enrolled in eight subjects the previous school year, while 152 were enrolled in nine subjects, together making up 93% of the total number of respondents. Of the remaining 7% of respondents, 12 were enrolled in seven subjects, seven were enrolled in 11 subjects, two were enrolled in fivesubjects, and one each was enrolled in six and 10subjects.

Number of SubjectsPassed

Table 24 presents the academic performance of respondents in terms of the number of subjects passed the previous school year.

Table 24

Academic Performance of Respondents in terms of Number of Subjects Passed

Number of Subjects Passed Frequency Percentage
8 subjects 334 97.0
7 subjects 6 2.0
5 subjects 2 1.0
4-3 subjects 2 0.0
Total 344 100.0

Of the 344 respondents, there were 334, or 97%, who passed with a total of eight subjects the previous school year. There were negligible numbers who admitted to passing seven subjects and below. Considering that 93% of respondents were enrolled in eight to nine subjects according to Table 23, it would appear from the higher percentage of those who passed eight subjects that those who enrolled more subjects passed at least eight of those subjects.

Number of Subjects Failed

Table 25: Academic Performance of Respondents in terms of Number of Subjects Failed

Number of Subjects Failed Frequency Percentage
None 330 96.0
1 subject 6 2.0
2 subjects 3 1.0
3 subjects 3 1.0
4 subjects 2 1.0
Total 344 100.0

Of the 344 respondents, there were 330, or 96%, who did not fail any subjects the previous school year. There were negligible numbers that admitted to having failed between one to four subjects. Again, considering that 93% of respondents were enrolled in eight to nine subjects according to Table 23, it would appear from the higher percentage of those who did not fail any subject that most of those who enrolled more subjects likewise passed all of the subjects enrolled.

Number of Subjects Taken as Remedial

Table 26 presents the academic performance of respondents in terms of the number of subjects taken as remedial in the school year when the questionnaire was administered.

Table 26: Academic Performance of Respondents in terms of Number of Subjects Taken as Remedial

Number of Subjects Taken as Remedial Frequency Percentage
None 336 98.0
1 subject 5 1.0
2 subjects 1 0.0
6 subjects 2 1.0
Total 344 100.0

Of the 344 student-respondents, there were 336, or 98%, who were not taking remedial subjects in the school year when the questionnaire was administered. There were negligible numbers, who admitted to taking between one to six remedial subjects during the said school year. Considering the higher number of students who were not taking remedial subjects in the school year when the questionnaire was administered, compared to the number of students who did not fail any subject during the previous school year, it would appear that not all students who failed subjects in the previous year took remedial classes in the school year when the questionnaire was administered.

Grade Point Average

Table 27 presents the academic performance of respondents in terms of grade point average.

Table 27 Academic Performance of Respondents in terms of Grade Point Average

Grade Point Average Frequency Percentage
75 – 78 (Fair) 1 0.0
79 – 84 (Good) 9 3.0
85 – 87 (Very Good) 226 66.0
91 – 96 (Superior) 103 30.0
97 – 100 (Excellent) 5 1.0
Total 344 100.0

Thus, it appears that 226 out of 344 respondents, or 65.7%, obtained grades of 85 – 87, which corresponds to “very good” on the scale. Next in plurality, 103 respondents, or 29.9%, obtained grades of 91 – 96, which corresponds to “superior” on the scale. Among the minority, nine respondents, or 2.6%, obtained grades ranging from 79 to 84, which corresponds to good on the scale, while only one respondent, or 0.29%, obtained a grade ranging from 75 to 78, which corresponds to fair, the lowest on the scale. On the other hand, five respondents, or 1.45%, obtained grades ranging from 97 to 100, which corresponds to excellent on the scale.

It appears, therefore, that while 14 respondents failed some of their subjects, their failing grades did not result in a failing grade point average, considering that all 344 respondents reported passing grade point average. Good employment could not be achieved without Education and employment is in the 2nd lowest level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Filipinos believe that having a good grade will give them the opportunity of having good employment in the future. That’s how important grades are in education and education to many Filipinos as stated in AmBisyon2040 by many Filipinos. This is probably the reason why most students aim for superior and excellent grades to have a better future and to really attain good physical health.

Level of Satisfaction in the Grades Earned

Table 28 presents the level of satisfaction of the respondents in the grades they earned.

Table 28 Level of Satisfaction of Respondents in the Grades Earned

Grades Earned Mean SD CoV Interpret
High Passed 6.6337 .90326 0.14 Moderately Satisfied
Passed 6.6773 1.02332 0.15 Moderately Satisfied
Low Passed 3.6628 2.36895 0.65 A Little Dissatisfied
Failed 1.4593 .95897 0.66 Not Satisfied
Composite 4.6083 1.31363 0.29 Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Scale: 7=Very Satisfied; 6=Moderately Satisfied; 5=A Little Satisfied; 4=Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied; 3=A Little Dissatisfied; 2=Moderately Dissatisfied; 1=Not SatisfiedFailed- did not pass the subject; Low Pass – pass the subject but with low grades; Pass – not low but not high; High Pass – high grades but not dean’s lister

In terms of the level of satisfaction in the grades earned, respondents admitted to being moderately satisfied with “PASSED”, which reflected the highest mean score of 6.67. Standard deviation was at 1.0, while coefficient variation was at 0.15, indicating a low level of data dispersion. Following very closely, respondents also showed moderate satisfaction with HIGH PASSED, which had a mean score of 6.63, standard deviation of 0.09, and coefficient of variation of 0.14, likewise indicating low level data dispersion. Obviously, respondents revealed little satisfaction with LOW PASSED, and total dissatisfaction with FAILED. Standard deviation for LOW PASSED is at a high of 2.35, but coefficient variation is still at a low of 0.65, indicating low level data dispersion. Standard deviation for FAILED is at a low of 0.96, with coefficient of variation also at a low of 0.66, indicating low level data dispersion.

Overall, however, the level of satisfaction in grades earned yielded a composite mean score of 4.60, corresponding to a neutral level of satisfaction. Standard deviation is at 1.31, while coefficient of variation is at 0.29, indicating homogenous results. This neutral level of satisfaction clearly indicates that respondents generally desire higher grades than what they actually got, thereby hinting at greater motivation in the future. This also indicates that the University of Makati is considered as having a good standard and students have a good academic performance.

Significant Correlations Between Life Satisfaction and Academic Achievement

Using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, represented by the Greek letter ϱ (rho), the bi-directional relationships between the following were established: (a) life satisfaction and life goal attainment; (b) life satisfaction and academic goal attainment; and (c) life satisfaction and academic achievement.

Life Satisfaction and Life Goal Attainment

Table 29 presents the correlations between life satisfaction and the attainment of life goals.

Table 29 Correlations Between Life Satisfaction and Life Goal Attainment

Life Satisfaction Level of Life Goals
ϱ sig Interpretation
General Life Satisfaction Satisfaction .025 .643 Not Significant
Importance .028 .601 Not Significant
Occupation Satisfaction -.061 .260 Not Significant
Importance .036 .507 Not Significant
Physical Health Satisfaction -.031 .572 Not Significant
Importance -.003 .960 Not Significant
Social Relations/Support Satisfaction -.075 .168 Not Significant
Importance .062 .255 Not Significant
Finances Satisfaction .004 .940 Not Significant
Importance .024 .656 Not Significant
Daily Activities Satisfaction -.005 .926 Not Significant
Importance .006 .911 Not Significant

Using Pearson’s ϱ, the correlations between life satisfaction and the attainment of life goals revealed no significant results at 5% level of significance. It further showed that sig values across all variables are greater than (>) 5% thus negating the hypothesis. The findings indicated that the life goals which the respondents set for themselves were not fully associated with their life satisfaction or vice versa, hence, the degrees of correlations exhibited negligible positive/negative values.

As previously pointed out, the life goals that respondents setfor themselves are principally abstract goals, rather than measurable goals. As a consequence, the attainment of the same is less susceptible of being concretized, and more susceptible of being subjective.Suchbeingthecase,theattainmentoftheseabstractgoals does not bring out the fulfillment that measurable goalsdo.

Life Satisfaction and Academic Goal Attainment

Table 30 presents the correlations between life satisfaction and academic goal attainment.

Table 30 Correlations Between Life Satisfaction and Academic Goal Attainment

Life Satisfaction Level of Academic Goals
r sig Interpretation
General Life Satisfaction Satisfaction -003 .951 Not Significant
Importance .006 .918 Not Significant
Occupation Satisfaction -.006 .908 Not Significant
Importance .021 .702 Not Significant
Physical Health Satisfaction .014 .793 Not Significant
Importance -.041 .449 Not Significant
Social Relations/Support Satisfaction .020 .717 Not Significant
Importance .021 .693 Not Significant
Finances Satisfaction .095 .079 Not Significant
Importance .005 .922 Not Significant
Daily Activities Satisfaction -.006 .909 Not Significant
Importance .058 .280 Not Significant

Using Pearson’s ϱ, the correlations between life satisfaction and academic goal attainment revealed no significant results at 5% level of significance. It further showed that sig values across all variables are greater than (>) 5% thus negating the hypothesis. The findings indicated that the academic goals which respondents set for themselves were not fully associated with their life satisfaction or vice versa, hence, the degrees of correlations exhibited negligible positive/negative values.

Life Satisfaction and Academic Achievement

Table 31 presents the correlations between life satisfaction and academic achievement.

Table 31 Correlations Between Life Satisfaction and Academic Achievement

Life Satisfaction Level of Academic Achievement
r sig Interpretation
General Life Satisfaction Satisfaction -.009 .870 Not Significant
Importance -.068 .209 Not Significant
Occupation Satisfaction -.056 .299 Not Significant
Importance .138* .010 Significant
Physical Health Satisfaction .134* .013 Significant
Importance .090 .095 Not Significant
Social Relations/Support Satisfaction -.003 .949 Not Significant
Importance -.005 .927 Not Significant
Finances Satisfaction -.009 .872 Not Significant
Importance .032 .550 Not Significant
Daily Activities Satisfaction -.039 .471 Not Significant
Importance .187* .000 Significant

*Significant at .05 level of significance

Using Pearson’s ϱ, the correlations between life satisfaction and academic achievement revealed interesting results. It showed no correlation between academic achievement and satisfaction in five out of the six domains. Apparently, general life satisfaction, satisfaction with occupation, satisfaction with social relations/support, satisfaction with finances, and satisfaction with daily activities are not predictive of academic achievement. It likewise showed no correlation between academic achievement and the level of importance of four out of the six domains. In like manner, the level of importance ascribed by respondents to general life satisfaction, physical health, social relations/support, and finances are not predictive of academic achievement. The sig values across these five domains are also greater than (>) 5%.

With regard to one domain, however, that of satisfaction with physical health, the data showed significant results with ϱ being equal to .134, while sig is equal to .013. While the degree of correlation is low, thus indicating that other factors contribute more strongly to the academic achievement of respondents, it cannot be denied that a correlation exists. Apparently, the respondents’ satisfaction with their physical health somehow impacts on their academic achievement even if such impact is modest.

Likewise, in as much as the level of importance ascribed by respondents to two domains, those of importance of occupation and importance of daily activities, the data showed significant results. For importance of occupation, ϱ is equal to .138, while sig is equal to .010. For importance of daily activities, ϱ is equal to .187, while sig is equal to .000. Again, the degree of correlation is low, for which reason it can be concluded that other factors contribute more strongly to academic achievement. Nevertheless, the existence of a correlation, no matter how limited, indicates that the level or degree of importance respondents ascribe to their current occupation and the importance they ascribe to their daily activities influence, in one way or another, their academic achievement.

It is possible, however, that the level of life satisfaction may affect the correlation. The study of Antamarian (2017) precisely points to this. The results of the current study, therefore, are in line with the results of Antamarian’s study.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The current study intended to investigate the correlation of life satisfaction with student performance in an attempt to determine how one impacts the other. In this chapter, the results of the current study will be discussed in the context of previous research, conclusions will be drawn, and recommendations will be tendered.

Summary

 This study attempted to prove that there exists a significant correlation between overall life satisfaction as manifested in six (6) domains, namely general life occupation, physical health, social relations/support, finances and daily activities on one hand, and student performance as manifested in two (2) elements, namely goal attainment and academic achievement on the other hand.

Employing the descriptive (survey) method with the aid of a modified version of the Wisconsin Quality of Life Index (W-QLI) and using the Slovin formula with a margin of error of 0.05, the current studycollecteddatafrom344grade12studentsenrolledfortheschool year 2019-2020 at the University ofMakati.

The modified questionnaire culled background information, then requested respondents to rate their life satisfaction, identify their life goals and their academic goals, and rate all on a seven-point scale. Next, respondents were asked their grade point average, the number of subjects passed, the number of subjects failed, and to rate their satisfaction with these parameters.

Summary of Findings

To test for consistency, Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used, while Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (ϱ) was used to measure the correlation among the variables.

The results revealed that respondents were a little satisfied in composite, and across all domains, except for the domain of daily activities, which showed that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. In the same vein, the respondents found all domains as very important.

The results likewise revealed that respondents were moderately satisfied with the attainment level of their life goals, as well as in the attainment level of their academic goals. Additionally, the goals which they set for themselves, whether life goals or academic goals, were considered by respondents as very important.

Nevertheless, the results revealed that on the whole, there is no significant correlation between life satisfaction and student performance. While a relationship was found between satisfaction with physical health and student performance, the correlation is too low to be appreciable. The same is true for the correlation between the importance of occupation and student performance, and the correlation between the importance of daily activities and student performance. In both these domains, a correlation was established, but not significant enough to beconclusive.

In any event, it is apparent that life satisfaction and student performance are independent, and not at all predictive, of each other. Hence, student performance may be influenced by other factors.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study reveal that respondents considered all six (6) domains of life satisfaction as very important, in the same manner that they consider their life and academic goals as very important. Consequently, it may not be deduced that the “value.” or important respondents ascribed to the domains of life satisfaction and/or the elements of student performance affect the correlation between these variables.

It is possible, however, that the level of life satisfaction may affect the correlation. In the current study, respondents registered their life satisfaction as a little satisfied, which translates as average life satisfaction in Antamarian’s study, thus aligning with the results of the same.

Nevertheless, a correlation was found to exist between satisfaction with physical health and academic achievement. Consequently, inasmuch as the domain of physical health, the level of satisfaction may not necessarily affect the correlation.

RECOMMENDATION

The fact that there appears to be no correlation between life satisfaction and student performance has the following practical implications.

1. For faculty members and staff, academic reinforcements, such as study groups and creative approaches which recognize individual learning modalities should be cultivated. If life satisfaction has no relation to student performance, then it has to be assumed that improvement of the latter would be dependent on the learning process, which should then be enhanced. In the same manner, if the level of life satisfaction impacts on student performance, then students with low to average levels of life satisfaction should be given all the support they need to perform well or better academically.

2. For University officials, additional learning aids and materials should be made available to students, and academic support services should be developed. If life satisfaction has no relation to student performance, and the improvement of the latter is dependent on the learning process, then it is incumbent upon the University to ensure that interventions on the learning process are available to students. This is equally true if the level of life satisfaction impacts on student performance since students with low to average levels of life satisfaction would need such academic support.

Additionally, given the perceived correlation between physical health and academic achievement no matter how minimal, it would be beneficial if the University adopts a system of determining the physical health of students at the start of each school year and monitoring the same throughout the school year.

3. For policymakers and DepEd officials, commissioning more comprehensive studies into the factors that affect student performance should be a top priority. Continuing with the “positive education” approach will not be productive if there is no positive correlation between life satisfaction and student performance as the current study suggests.

4. For future researchers, adopt and modify the current study by using cross-sectional and longitudinal methods. The current study showed a low correlation between satisfaction with health and academic achievement. Hence, future research should focus on this domain. The current study likewise showed that the importance of occupation and daily activities manifested a low correlation with academic achievement. Again, future research should explore how the value students ascribe to a domain of life satisfaction can affect student performance independently of their satisfaction with the domain itself.

In any event, the absence of a significant correlation as shown in the current research should give pause to programs advocating and advancing the life satisfaction agenda. Absent a definitive significant correlation, such programs could only create a culture of entitlement, which is not conducive to a productive society.

RESEARCH OUTPUT

 The study revealed that among the six (6) domains used, there is only one (1) domain, that of physical health, where a correlation with academic achievement was found to exist. While this correlation was low, the fact that it exists at all cannot be ignored. Hence, the following program is hereby recommended involving intervention and institutional support services.

Domain Objectives/ Strategy Stakeholders Success Indicators
Objectives: Individuals involved
The institutional services will be ableto assist every student achieve physical health well-being to produce learners who are better equipped to performacademically ●             Students Analyzed Design Develop Implement Evaluate
●             Adviser
●             Subject teacher
●             Guidance personnel
● School administrator s
Health Strategy: Institution involved
1.      Analysis Issuance of policy guidelines on the activity plan
a.   Who -Target audience ● City Government
b.  What -Goals ●  DepEd –Departmentof Education
c. When – Time–frame
d. Where–Physical plan Organization involved Issuance of procedural guidelines based on the design
e. Why–objectives ●   SSG –Supreme StudentCouncil
f.  How –requirements ●   HSU Department organization
2.      Design
a. Decide who will assist thetarget audience Creation of a monitoring system
b. Develop the strategy
c.  Evaluating results Budget Source
3.      Develop ● City Government
a. Create a proposal ● GPTA – General Parents and Teacher Association Existence of coordinated learning activities across disciplines
b. Developthe course
c. Conduct atest run
4.      Implement
a.Training Decrease in absences due to health issues
b. Prepare the learners
c. Prepare the environment
5.      Evaluate
a.  One-to-one evaluation Higher grade point average for the students
b. Smallgroup evaluation
c. Fieldtrial

Physical health is a composite of the following: physical activity, nutrition and diet, medical self-care, and rest and sleep. Among these components, students are, perhaps, most deprived of rest and sleep. Based on the faculty’s observation, a considerable number of students in Higher School ng Umak suffer from fatigue and lack of rest. This is, perhaps, due to teachers who are unmindful that their subject is not the only subject the students are taking, and their assignments are not the only assignments the students have to contend with. They give activities that overlap the other subjects, there by affecting the physical health of the students. If teachers can collaborate and coordinate with each other, students’ tasks will be lessened, thereby enhancing the performance of these tasks.

RECOMMENDATION PROCEDURE

Step 1. Analysis

The 1ststep is to analyze and determine who are the primary target audience and the course of action that needs to be taken. The goal is to help the target audience, not only in learning but also to ensure their optimal physical health. We may take into consideration the condition of the medical facilities, as well as the activity plan of the subject teachers, especially in Physical Education. In analysis, we may consider answering the following questions.

1. Who is the target audience and who will monitor the activities?

The primary target audience are the students who are enrolled. They are accepted as fit to study because of the medical requirements submitted to the school clinic, but it doesn’t mean that along the way as they do the different tasks assigned by different subject teachers, they are still in good physical health condition. According to the result of the study, students aim to have excellent grades, and because of that, they do everything they can to achieve their goal and forget about their physical health condition, which deteriorate due to lack of rest and sleep, just to do the given task by different subject teachers which is the actual performance task to be graded before midterm and final examination week. These tasks, according to most students, pressurize them so much that affects their physical health due to lack of rest and sleep. The reason for this is they do everything to accomplish the task for them to have a high grade for each subject and to become a dean’s lister. The person involved in the monitoring of the activity will be the guidance personnel, medical doctors and the school administrators.

2. What is the Goal?

The goal is to assist all students who are now having a physical health condition because of lack of rest and sleep due to different physical activities before and during midterm and final examination week. There must be proper training for each student, subject teachers and different school organization leaders about physical health to be facilitated by the medical doctors. Also, collaboration among subject teachers in making criteria for each activity to avoid overlapping of activity that pressured every student.

3. When will it happen?

Training for physical health should be done while students are still in good physical health conditions. The best time for the students and subject teachers to start the seminars and training, is one week before the class starts or a month after the enrollment ends and it should be one week seminar and training. Teachers’ collaboration must be done during the in-service training which is a week before the class start, so that they will have a criterion for their activity that will suit each subject, and come up with just one time presentation for each grade and section with different subjects and not for each subject only.

4. Where will it happen?

Medical doctors training for students and teachers could be done online via google met or zoom, the same with teachers in-service training and online teachers’ collaboration.

5. Why are you going to do this?

These institutional services will be done to be able to assist every student achieve physical health well-being and to produce learners who are better equipped to perform academically.

6. How are you going to achieve this?

This will be achieved through the help of the guidance personnel who will make a survey questionnaire together with the registered psychologist and medical doctors, using online google forms. They shall make a survey question using online google survey form for the incoming grade 12 students regarding students’ physical health and their experience during their grade 11 class performance activities, to determine the physical health condition of the incoming grade 12students.

Step 2. Design

The school administrators, together with the guidance personnel, registered psychology and medical doctors who will assist the target audience, must develop a strategy that will help the target audience, which is the incoming and outgoing grade 12 students. They must come up with a survey using online google forms that will measure the physical health needs of every incoming and outgoing grade 12 student. The survey must be done before the end of the school year, with the help of every class adviser. After developing the strategy, they have to ensure its implementation, and evaluate the results.

Certainly, here’s the corrected text with proper spacing:

For the guidance personnel, they can develop a survey form to know the physical health condition of the students and other information that will help them easily track the physical health record of the students. This form will be filled up by the incoming grade 12 as well as the outgoing grade 12 students, with the help of the medical laboratory and submit the form online. The filled-up form together with a photocopy of the supporting documents will be forwarded online to the guidance office for evaluation. The evaluation committee must be the medical doctors, guidance personnel, psychologist, and the school administrators. The guidance office will also give the adviser a copy of the online result and the recommendation needed for them to follow up the action taken by whosoever the person is involved in the process. All the forms and documents will be evaluated by the evaluating committee during students’ vacation to prepare every teacher and students for the incoming seminar that will be held a week before the class starts or a month after the enrollment ends. The medical doctors and the guidance personnel will facilitate the physical health seminar a week before the class starts or a month after the enrollment ends. This will all be done online.

All the outgoing grade 12 must also fill up the form just like before they enroll for grade 12, to help the evaluators know if the intervention is successful. If the intervention is successful, then they must continue and polish it to be more helpful to every individual, especially to all students. If the intervention has a discrepancy, the guidance personnel, medical doctors, and school administrators must evaluate it again and revise the procedure from where it needs to be polished and revised.

For every subject teacher, they should also know the learning goals of the other teachers of different subjects. This can be done through collaboration to lessen the preparation time and conserve the effort of each student in all their subjects, and ensure they have sufficient rest and sleep. The student should know the plan for every subject or the criterion from each subject presentation for them to adjust the rubrics or criteria and see where it will fit into the required performance task that will be given by every subject teacher, thus lessening the students’ activity preparation. If possible, and that is the goal, the students will prepare a physical performance task that is aligned with the criteria given by all the subject teachers which will be presented in just one presentation, but that presentation will be for all the subjects they have. In this manner, only one presentation will be made, but the same will cut across the different disciplines. This means that all the subject teachers must come up with one criteria or rubric that fits them all. These criteria will be given to the students ahead of time for their preparation for the actual performance. They will make a schedule of performance that will be agreed upon by everyone so that the presentation will be done in just one designated time and place. It will be better if they use a big auditorium like the grand theater in the University of Makati or in the OVAL track field so that all the subject teachers will see the performance of all their subject classes during the presentation. This will be a great event for the whole class and the University as well.

During the actual performance, all the subject teachers will be present to grade their students’ performance. It will be a big help for the teacher if they will highlight the criteria they need during the actual performance. They will enjoy watching while grading the performance at the same time they will not exhaust the students just like the old passion way, which is the student will perform several times for different subjects that make time so exhausted and feel deprived of sleep due to so many preparations and presentations that they must make.

For the PE teachers, they could design their physical activities to align to the strand taken by the students to avoid the same activity of those whose strand falls under physical education. They may think and develop a different activity that makes them enjoy and not be exhausted, the same thing with the other teachers who are handling those whose strands fall under the physical education strand. They must know the learning ability and capacity of those who took the physical education strand to adjust their expectation and the grading criteria to help lessen the stress and fatigue of their students. The same with the above procedure given above, all the subject teachers handling them will also collaborate with the other teachers to make their criteria and make a schedule.

The main goal is to help the students and develop a learning strategy or materials that will benefit the learners and the teacher. During the in-service training for teachers, they should apply collaboration with the other subject teacher to develop an activity that will come up with the one for all performance, which means one activity that will be presented by the students in just one presentation, but the output is for all the subjects. There will be allotted time for all the activities of every subject. They will be given 2- or 3-days presentation day.

For the medical doctors or practitioners, they have to assist the students by filling up the form through the use of all the laboratory results that were given to them, if possible, they would accept a soft copy of these documents and will be forwarded to them online. If Students need to be brought to the clinic due to illness or fatigue or physical health needs, there must also be available doctors or physicians that will assist the students. The physical condition of the facilities must also be available or there must be a place for them to stay and be assisted by medical doctors or practitioners. The capacity of the clinic must be appropriate to the numbers of students that need their assistance. Due to the small capacity of clinic, some students were not able to experience proper medications, or they just suffer from maltreatment due to lack of space and physicians, if they are not feeling well, they just choose to go home and rest even though it’s too dangerous for them to leave the campus in that situation.

Step 3. Development

If teachers and doctors only cooperate, they must produce or create a proposal for their higher-ups for some improvements in the facilities for the clinic and additional doctors if possible. They may also include seminars on medical self-care to address minor ailments or injuries that seek emergency care as necessary. And for teachers, they may create a plan of schedule and procedures as well for their activity to better facilitate the given tasks and for students to experience a better rest and sleep because they are not bombarded with lots of physical performance task given by all the subject teachers.

RECOMMENDATION PROCEDURE

Step 4. Implementation

There must be proper training for those who will assist the students. Medical doctors must also prepare the learners for seminars and other medical self-care that will make them ready for emergency needs. They can do online seminars and online actual performance using Google Meet and Zoom to better facilitate them all, and if face to face they can use the oval and or the HPSB basketball and volleyball court in top floor for actual performance of the training to see if they can really perform an actual performance whenever physical health needs arise. They should also prepare the environment and other facilities for proper implementation of the given tasks. Teachers must also have proper training for the implementation of the agreed collaboration process and procedures. They must know how to implement and the process to better facilitate the proposed tasks. Again, the goal is to assist students in their physical health well-being and to help them experience satisfied physical health. This could be done if teachers are aware of their collaboration procedures and techniques on how to do it.

Step 5. Evaluation

1. One – to – one evaluation

An evaluation must be carried out to be sure that the plan of action will be implemented properly. Make

sure that everything is clear when it comes to training and goals of this training and no one must be left behind. Medical doctor to student or student to student or medical doctor to teacher and teacher to student evaluation must be done so that they may really assist and know if they learn and understand the purpose and procedure of the goal. They should know the usefulness of what they were doing and what they were going to do in the real situation.

2. Small group evaluation

Form a small group which consists of representatives from different departments and different organizations. These representatives will be the one assigned to model what they have learned in the group evaluation. Students who attended the seminars about medical self-care should be asked if they were able to learn something and will be able to do it when done in an actual or real-life situation. There must be questions in Google Forms to be answered by all the representatives, to determine if they really understand and learn something from their activities.

3. Field trial

Once the evaluation is done, they may proceed to a field trial in which every teacher and student will be put to a place of the same conditions to the actual situations or environments. They will be tested if they will be able to perform well if a real situation arises. They should also observe if there is something that needs to be polished or improved to better reach their goal. Try to examine if activity was done successfully or needs improvements. If it needs more improvement, they need to repeat the procedure from the steps that need improvements.

Again, the goal is to assist in improving the physical health of students with the aim of enhancing their academic achievement.

REFERENCE

  1. Ambisyon natin 2040 http://2040.neda.gov.ph/the-vision/
  2. Antamarian, S. The Importance of Very High Life Satisfaction for Students’ Academic Success. Cogent Education, Volume 4, 2017, Issue 1. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.201 7.1307622
  3. Aristotle. 350 B.C.E. Nicomachean Ethics (W.D. Ross, Trans.) Book 1. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html.
  4. Becker, Marion A., et. al. Quality of Life Assessment Manual. Retrieved from http://wqli.fmhi.usf.edu/_docs/wqli-instruments/QualityOfLifeA sses smentManual.pdf
  5. Bello, Doreen Leigh and Gumarao, Mylene. 2016. Stress, Coping Strategies and Academic Performance of Dentistry Students.Retrieved from http:// www.aup.edu.ph/alumni/wp-content/uploads/RJ3.pdf
  6. Bentham, J. 1776. A Fragment on Government. Chapter 1. Retrieved from http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/bentham/government.htm.
  7. Brenninger, Han-Jurgen Franz. Employee Satisfaction and its Impact on Company Value. Retrieved from https://www.smbs.at/wp-content/ uploads /2017/06/298-50961- Brenninger_Hans-Jurgen.Franz_hb11004.pdf
  8. Cagle, John B. 2017. A Study of the Life Satisfaction of Students and Its Effect on Their Academic Achievement. Retrieved from https://www.cn.edu/ libraries/tiny_mce/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Dissertations/Dissertations2017/John B Cagle.pdf
  9. Campbell, Angus, et. al. 1976.  The Quality of American Life. Retrieved from  https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/QualityAm Life.pdf
  10. Child Outcomes Research Consortium. https://www.corc.uk.net/outcome-experience- measures/multidimensional-students-life-satisfaction-scale- mslss/
  11. Casala, Galileo R. Happiness Project: Coping Mechanism to Student’s Academic Success and School Satisfaction. Dela Salle Lipa Integrated School Research Journal, Vol. 1, Issue No. 2, SY 2014-2015, 29-47. Retrieved from http://www.dlsl.edu.ph/pdf/research_journal/is_researchjourn al_20 142015.pdf
  12. Crede, M. and Kuncel, N. R. 2012. Study Habits, Skills and Attitudes. Retrieved  from http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012 /03/ YAN_Project4_article_Sp_2011.pdf .
  13. Dixon, L. The Impact of Spending Time Alone on Emerging Adults’ Mental Well-Being. Brigham Young University, Volume 1, Issue 2, Summer 2020. Retrieved from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=familyperspectives
  14. Edmans, Alex. Does the Stock Market Fully Value Intangibles? Employee Satisfaction and Equity Prices. Journal of Financial Economics 101(3), 621-640, September 2011. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=985735
  15. Diener, Ed. Subjective Well Being. Psychological Bulletin 1984, Vol.  95, No. 3, 542-575. Retrieved from http://internal.psychology. illinois.edu/ ~edi ener/Documents/Di ener_1984.pdf#page=5&zoom=auto,-72,323
  16. Dyr, Peter. The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Teachings of Siduri and How Siduri’s Ancient Advice Can Help Guide Us to a Happier Life  2013. Retrieved from https://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/The-Epic-of-Gilgamesh-the-Teachings-of-Siduri-and-How-Siduri-s- Ancient-Advice-can-Help-Guide-us-to-a-Happier- Life/pdf?dl&preview
  17. Esposito, Emily E. 2016. The Relationship Between Adolescents’ Life Satisfaction and Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Analysis. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer= &httpsredir=1&article=7695&context=etd
  18. Fidler, P. 2002. The Relationship Between Teacher Instructional Techniques and Characteristics and Student Achievement in Reduced Size Classes. Los Angeles Unified School District Program  Evaluation and Research Branch Planning, Assessment and Research Division Publication No. 120. Retrieved from http://www.classsizematters.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/11/CSR-TCH-2002.pdf.
  19. Frijns, Michiel. 2010. Determinants of Life Satisfaction. MBA Thesis, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www .academia.edu/1183520/DETERMINANTS_OF_LIF ESATISFACTION
  20. Frisch, M. B., et. al. Predictive and Treatment Validity of Life Satisfaction and the Quality of Life Inventory. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/15695744 .
  21. Forgeard, et. al. Doing the Right Thing: Measuring Well Being for Public Policy. International Journal of Wellbeing Vol. 1, No. 1.   (2011).                        Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49615198_Doing_theRight_Thing_Measuring_Well-Being_for_Public_Policy
  22. Ganyaupfu, E. M. Teaching Methods and Students’ Academic Performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, ISSN (Online): 2319 7722, ISSN (Print): 2319 –7714, www.ijhssi.org Volume 2 Issue 9ǁSeptember. 2013 PP. 29-35. Retrieved from http://w ww.ijhssi.org/ papers/v2%289%29/Version-2/E0292029035.pdf.
  23. Griffin, R., et. al. 2012. Do Learning And Study Skills Affect Academic Performance? – An Empirical Investigation. Contemporary Issues In Education Research, Second Quarter 2012, Volume 5,   Number 2. Retrieved from http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/CIER/article/view/ 6928 /70 03.
  24. Global Happiness Policy Report 2018 https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/api/publications/doc ument?id=304a8bc4-e97c-6578-b2f8-ff0000a7ddb6
  25. Haas, M., 2002. The Influence of Teaching Methods on Student Achievement on Virginia’s End of Course Standards of Learning Test for Algebra I. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/ available/ etd- 10062002-202857/unrestricted/HAASDISSERTATION.PDF. www.happyplanetindex.org
  26. Helliwell, John F. Life Satisfaction and Quality of Development. NBER Working Paper No. 14507 Issued in November 2008. Retrieved from http:// www.nber.org/papers/w14507
  27. Heubner, E. Scott. 1991. Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. Retrieved from http://www.midss.org/sites/default/files/student_life.pdf
  28. Heubner, E. Scott, et. al. 2003. Psychometric Properties of Two Brief measures of Children’s Life Satisfaction: The Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS) and the Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS). Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wp- content/ uploads /2013/05/Child_Trends-2003_03_12_PD_PDConfHSVP.pdf
  29. Hoseong, Jeon. The Relationship Between Employee Satisfaction and Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing Vol. 26 Issue 5 2012.  Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108 /08876041211245236?src=recsys&journalCode=jsm
  30. Insee.fr. Definition-Coefficient of Variation. Published 13/10/2016 Definition – Coefficient of variation / CV / CV | Insee
  31. Jim Frost. Coefficient of Variation in Statistic – Statistics by Jim. Coefficient of Variation in Statistics – Statistics By Jim
  32. Metusalem, Marilene S. and Badua, Chem V. 2017. Stressors and Academic Performance of Bachelor of Science in Education (BSE) Students. Retrieved from https://ufj.ifsu.edu.ph/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/Stressors-and-Academic-Performance-of-Bachelor-of-Science-in-Education- Students.pdf
  33. Naseem, Afshan, et. al. Impact of Employee Satisfaction on Success   of Organization. International Journal on MultiDisciplinary Science and Engineering Vol. 2 No. 5 August 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ijmse.org/Volume2/Issue5/paper8.pdf  www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org www.ophi. org.uk/policy/national-policy/gross-national- happiness-index/
  34. Ngoo, Y.T., Tey, N.P. & Tan, E.C. Soc Indic Res (2015) 124: 141. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205 -014-0772-x
  35. Oswald, Andrew J., et. al., Happiness and Productivity. Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/eproto/wor kingp apers /happinessproductivity.pdf
  36. Quinn, Patrick D. and Duckworth, Angela L. Happiness and Academic Achievement: Evidence for Reciprocal Causality. Retrieved from http:// c.ym cdn.com/sites/www.co-case.org/resource/resmgr/imported/WP_Happiness%20and% 20Academic%20Achievement.pdf
  37. Rode, Joseph C., et. al. Life Satisfaction and Student Performance. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2005, Vol. 4, No. 4, 421-433. Retrieved   from http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~phanira/WebResearchMethods/li fesat&studentperf-aomle.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/ghc- 2018/GlobalHappinessPolicyReport2018.pdf
  38. Seligman, M. Doing the Right Thing: Measuring Well Being for Public Policy. International Journal of Wellbeing Vol. 1, No. 1. (2011)  Retrieved from http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of- happiness/martin-seligman-positive-psychology/.
  39. UN Resolution 66/281
  40. Veenhoven, Ruut. The Study of Life Satisfaction. Retrieved from http://www2.eur.nl/fsw/research/veenhoven/Pub1990s/96d- full.pdf.
  41. Weinstein, N., et. al. What Time Alone Offers. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.714 518/full World Governm ent Summit Dubai, www.worldgovernmentsummit.org  

Article Statistics

Track views and downloads to measure the impact and reach of your article.

1

PDF Downloads

[views]

Metrics

PlumX

Altmetrics

Paper Submission Deadline

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.