The Influence of School Educators’ Teaching Competence and Adversity Quotient to the Students’ Learning Engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools

The Influence of School Educators’ Teaching Competence and Adversity Quotient to the Students’ Learning Engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools

Monleon, Zekiah A.¹; Bogabil, Marco Antonio M.¹; Carumayan, Angeline, C.¹; Francisco, Marjorie A.¹; Garsuta, Francis Daniel H.¹; Gonzalez, Marco II C.¹; Llanos, Katherine Julianne O.¹; Palma, Romejen Joy R.¹; Patan, Ela Nicah B.¹; Polistico, Prince C.¹; Toribio, Liana Esza R.¹; Krystal Joy M. Clamares, PhD²; Anna Marie O. Pelandas, MAEd²

¹Department of Education, Senior High School Students, Philippines

²Department of Education, Senior High School Teachers, Division of Davao de Oro, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804270

Received: 26 April 2024; Accepted: 08 May 2024; Published: 24 May 2024

ABSTRACT

This study dealt with the influence of school educators’ teaching competence and adversity quotient to the students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools. The primary goal of this study was to determine the level of school educators’ teaching competence, adversity quotient, and students’ learning engagement in terms of their respective indicators and what domains of teaching competence and adversity quotient substantially influenced students’ learning engagement. Also, this study utilized a quantitative-correlational design with 123 respondents among Mawab District Secondary Schools. The average weighted mean, Pearson’s r, and multiple regression analysis were the statistical tools used in this study. Along with this, the results showed a very high level of school educators’ teaching competence in terms of content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and planning, and personal growth and professional development. On the other hand, the results also showed a very high level of school educators’ adversity quotient in terms of control, ownership, reach, and endurance. Likewise, the results showed a very high level of students’ learning engagement regarding behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. In addition, there was a low correlation and a significant relationship between school educators’ teaching competence and students’ learning engagement. Furthermore, there was a moderate correlation and a significant relationship between school educators’ adversity quotient and students’ learning engagement. Hence, this led to the rejection of the null hypothesis. Learning environment, diversity of learners, and curriculum and planning as domains of teaching competence had a significant influence to students’ learning engagement. On the other hand, content knowledge and pedagogy, as well as curriculum and planning as domains of teaching competence, had no influence to students’ learning engagement. Additionally, control, ownership, and reach had a significant influence to students’ learning engagement. While endurance, as a domain of adversity quotient, did not reject the null hypothesis and had no influence on students’ learning engagement. These results would help the teachers identify their strengths and areas that need improvement, provide professional performance, and bounce back from setbacks, ultimately benefiting the students in their classes.

Keywords: STEM, Teaching Competence, Adversity Quotient, Students’ Learning Engagement, Philippines

INTRODUCTION

Teachers’ technical expertise, attitudes, values, and knowledge serve as the essential tools to successfully attend to their roles and obligations in school, which are to provide a functional, productive, realistic, and meaningful teaching and learning process daily (Febrero, 2019). Central to this, effective teaching practice is measured as teachers’ capacity to create a classroom culture conducive to learning, to challenge and engage students, and to foster students’ socioemotional skills to be successful learners (Chi, 2023).

However, in the United States of America, student engagement remains a persistent challenge (Holand, 2020). Research at Portland State University has shown that many students struggle to remain actively involved in the learning process, leading to dropout, lower academic achievement, and disinterest in education (Wu et al., 2022). These lacks of engagement are influenced by a variety of factors that are inclined toward their personal learning characteristics, the teacher, and the teaching methodology (Amerstorfer & Freiin, 2021). Therefore, it is crucial for educators to keep students motivated and engaged in learning by assessing their competencies and teaching skills to develop interventions and implement changes when students need them (Promethean, 2023).

In the Philippines, maintaining student engagement is an obstacle for educators as we move into the final stretch of one of the most challenging school years in our history, regardless of the learning context (remote, in-person, orhybrid) (Sutton, 2021). In particular, the World Bank study found that 66% of teachers observed in the Philippines had a “medium-low” use of effective teaching practices, 19% had “low” use, and only 15% had “medium-high” use of effective teaching practices; no share of teachers was observed having a “high” use of effective pedagogy (Chi, 2023). Moreover, educators with a lack of competence and ability to cope with challenges have insufficient readiness in their subjects and lack the necessary resources to keep students actively involved in their class (Zhou et al., 2019). With this, a recent study in Laguna Province found the role of teachers’ competence and adversity quotient to help address these issues and increase student engagement (Parto & Yango, 2023).

In addition, a significant concern has been identified regarding the quality of teacher performance in certain regions of Mindanao, with a specific focus on the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and Region 12 (Generelao, 2022). Coinciding with this, a study carried out in Zamboanga City has observed that poor teaching practices can adversely affect students’ performance, leading to reduced participation and motivation (School Dekho, 2023). In contrast, a study in Davao City has shed light on the considerable workload placed on teachers, resulting in high levels of anxiety and stress, which, in turn, affect their level of adversity quotient (Baloran & Hernan, 2021). Consequently, the teacher workforce is at risk of experiencing significant declines in the coming years as high levels of burnout and low morale among teachers could make it even more difficult for schools to support students effectively (Kaufman & Diliberti, 2021). Furthermore, through classroom observations, the researchers pinpointed challenges related to maintaining students’ engagement that educators among Mawab District Secondary Schools encounter, highlighting the interlinked complexities associated with teaching competence and the adversity quotient experienced by teachers across the district.

Research Objectives

1.To determine the level of school educators’ teaching competence among Mawab District Secondary Schools in terms of:

1.1       content knowledge and pedagogy;

1.2       learning environment;

1.3       diversity of learners;

1.4       curriculum and planning; and

1.5       personal growth and professional development

2.To determine the level of school educators’ adversity quotient among Mawab District Secondary Schools in terms of:

2.1       control;

2.2       ownership;

2.3       reach; and

2.4       endurance

3.To determine the level of students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools in terms of:

3.1       behavioral engagement;

3.2       emotional engagement; and

3.3       cognitive engagement

4.To determine the significant relationship between the school educators’ teaching competence and students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools.

5.To determine the significant relationship between the school educators’ adversity quotient and students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools.

6.To determine which of the domains in teaching competence would influence students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools.

7.To determine which of the domains in adversity quotient would influence students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools.

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a quantitative, non-experimental research design that used descriptive correlational techniques to describe the hypothetical existence of a relationship between two defined variables and to determine the direction and degree of that relationship if one exists. When the purpose was to describe the condition of the situation as it existed at the time of the study to investigate the causes of a particular phenomenon, the descriptive correlation method was considered appropriate. A correlational research design investigated relationships between variables without the researchers controlling or manipulating any of them. A correlation reflected the strength and direction of the relationship between two or more variables (Bhandari, 2021). In correlation research, it involved collecting data in order to determine whether the degree of a relationship exists between two more quantifiable variables (Gay et al., 2006).

This survey dealt with quantitative data about the phenomenon. The quantitative aspect was an appropriate schedule for gathering the data, designed for the target respondents to answer the questions. The process of gathering the data was based on the use of questionnaires. The focus of the study was to determine the influence of school educators’ teaching competence and adversity quotient to the students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools.

Population and Sample

Simple random sampling was employed in selecting the respondents for this study. The subjects included 123 school educators from Mawab District Secondary Schools, all of whom must be part of the teaching staff at their respective institutions in order to participate. These individuals were considered ideal respondents due to their direct involvement in students’ education, aligning with the study’s focus on students’ learning engagement.

According to Kline (2005), a sample size of 100–200 respondents was considered medium. In the case of Mawab District Secondary Schools, out of a population of 179 individuals, a random sample of 123 respondents was selected. The chosen number of school educators, 123, was deemed statistically significant for representing the broader population of educators in the district. The sample size was computed using the Raosoft sample size calculator. Shown in Table 1 were the respondents of the study, which were the school educators of secondary schools among Mawab District, Davao de Oro, Philippines, for the school year 2023-2024.

Statistical Tool

The following statistical tools were utilized for the data analysis and interpretation.

Mean. This statistical tool was used to determine the level of school educators’ teaching competence and adversity quotient to the students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools.

Pearson (r). This statistical tool was used to determine the significance on the relationship between school educators’ teaching competence and adversity quotient to the students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools.

Multiple regression analysis. This statistical tool was used to determine the influence of school educators’ teaching competence and adversity quotient to the students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools.

RESULTS

Level of School Educators’ Teaching Competence  

Table 2 shows the level of school educators’ teaching competence in terms of content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and planning, and personal growth and professional development. The overall mean is 4.61, described as very high, with a standard deviation of 0.45. The very high level could be attributed to the high ratings given by the respondents in all indicators. This entails that the respondents’ responses to the level of teaching competence are very much positive in terms of content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and planning, and personal growth and professional development.

The cited overall mean score was the result obtained from the following computed mean scores from highest to lowest: 4.68 or very high for learning environment with a standard deviation of 0.41; 4.63 or very high for diversity of learners with a standard deviation of 0.44; 4.60 or very high for content knowledge and pedagogy with a standard deviation of 0.41; 4.58 or very high for curriculum and planning with a standard deviation of 0.45; and 4.55 or very high for personal growth and professional development with a standard deviation of 0.53.

Table 2. Level of School Educators’ Teaching Competence 

Level of School Educators’ Adversity Quotient

Shown in Table 3 are the mean scores for the indicators of school educators’ adversity quotient, with an overall mean of 4.33 and described as very high with a standard deviation of 0.71. The very high level could be attributed to the very high rating given by the respondents in all indicators. This indicates that the respondent’s responses to the level of adversity quotient are very much positive in terms of control, ownership, reach, and endurance.

The cited overall mean score was the result obtained from the following computed mean scores from highest to lowest: 4.42 or very high for reach with a standard deviation of 0.92; 4.41 or very high for control with a standard deviation of 0.61; 4.26 or very high for ownership with a standard deviation of 0.56; and 4.23 or very high for endurance with a standard deviation of 0.73.

Table 3. Level of School Educators’ Adversity Quotient 

Level of Students’ Learning Engagement 

Table 4 presents the mean scores of students’ learning engagement as perceived by the school educators in terms of behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. The overall mean is 4.42 with an equivalent description of very high and with a standard deviation of 0.58. This implies that the respondents’ responses to the level of students’ learning engagement are very much positive in terms of behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement.

The cited overall mean score was the result obtained from the following computed mean scores from highest to lowest: 4.45 or very high for behavioral engagement with a standard deviation of 0.56; 4.45 or very high emotional engagement with a standard deviation of 0.56; and 4.37 or very high for cognitive engagement with a standard deviation of 0.63

Table 4. Level of Students’ Learning Engagement 

Significance on the Relationship between Teaching Competence and Students’ Learning Engagement

One crucial purpose of this study is to determine whether or not school educators’ teaching competence has a significant relationship with students’ learning engagement. Pearson’s r was used to determine the correlation between the two variables. The results of the computation are shown in Table 5.

Likewise, the results revealed that teaching competence and students’ learning engagement have a significant relationship. This result is due to a p-value of <.001, which is less than the 0.05 p-value. Hence, this leads to the decision that the null hypothesis which stated that there is no significant relationship between school educators’ teaching competence and students’ learning engagement is rejected. Moreover, Pearson’s r value which is 0.440 further means that there is a low correlation between teaching competence and students’ learning engagement.

Significant Relationship between Adversity Quotient and Students’ Learning Engagement

Another crucial purpose of this study is to determine whether or not school educators’ adversity quotient has a significant relationship with students’ learning engagement. Pearson’s r was used to determine the correlation between the two variables.

Likewise, the results revealed that adversity quotient and students’ learning engagement have a significant relationship. This result is due to a p-value of <.001, which is less than the 0.05 p-value. Hence, this leads to the decision that the null hypothesis, which stated that there is no significant relationship between school educators’ adversity quotient and students’ learning engagement, is rejected. Moreover, Pearson’s r value, which is 0.614, further means that there is a moderate correlation between the adversity quotient and students’ learning engagement.

Multiple Regression Analysis on the Influence of School Educators’ Teaching Competence on Students’ Learning Engagement

Using the Multiple Regression Analysis, the data revealed that the influence of school educators’ teaching competence and students’ learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools has a f-value of 12.977 and a corresponding significance p-value of <.001, which is significant.

This means that the level of school educators’ teaching competence influences the students’ learning engagement since the probability is less than 0.05. The coefficient of determination (R²), which is 0.357, connotes that 35.7% of the variation in the level of school educators’ teaching competence influences the students’ learning engagement. The remaining 64.3% is chance variation, which suggests that other factors beyond the scope of this study may also be attributed to students’ learning engagement.

Multiple Regression Analysis of the Influence of School Educators’ Adversity Quotient and Students’ Learning Engagement 

Using the Multiple Regression Analysis, the data revealed that the influence of school educators’ adversity quotient and students’ learning engagement has f value of 18.836 and corresponding significance p-value of <.001 which was significant.

This means that the level of school educators’ adversity quotient influences the students’ learning engagement since the probability is less than 0.05. The coefficient of determination (R²) which is 0.390 indicates that 39% of the variation in the level of school educators’ adversity quotient influences the students’ learning engagement. The remaining 61% is chance variation which suggests that other factors beyond the scope of this study may also be attributed to students’ learning engagement.

DISCUSSIONS

Level of Teaching Competence

The level of process skills was reported as high, It revealed that the level of school educators’ teaching competence was reported as very high, suggesting a significant presence of different factors that are present in educators and the way they teach.

It is greatly highlighted in our study that a student’s learning engagement is highly affected by a teacher’s teaching competence, using the study of Widodo et al. (2022) as a foundation, echoing their notion that if the teachers are competent, they will impact the students’ performance and that professional competence is proven to enhance teachers’ performance. Competent teachers have the ability to communicate clearly and effectively. They can convey complex ideas in a way that is understandable to students, which enhances learning and engagement. Covered in a teacher’s competence in their field is how they create a learning environment best suited for students, Verma’s (2019) concept of how learning environment translates into student learning engagement, which suggests that when educators foster such a supportive learning culture, it ignites higher levels of motivation in learners, resulting in remarkable academic accomplishments and overall enriching learning experiences, proved reliable in the results of our study, which included a teacher’s level of competence.

Level of Adversity Quotient

It revealed that adversity quotient was described as very high. All four indicators for this variable were also described as very high, suggesting a significantly strong presence of this quality within the educators. The respondents’ level of adversity quotient of Mawab District Secondary Schools indicates positive perceptions and high capabilities in dealing with challenges related to control, ownership, reach, and endurance. This very much positive level of adversity quotient is reflective of a conducive environment for overcoming obstacles and fostering a culture of adaptability within the educational community.

The indicator reach got a mean of very high, indicating the teacher’s belief in the profound impact of both positive and negative occurrences on various life aspects. Essentially, this metric assesses how a challenging incident can influence a teacher’s life, shaping their perception of its importance. Moreover, a relatively high mean in this adversity quotient suggests robust work management within the sample, indicating educators’ resilience and effective coping mechanisms in navigating personal and professional challenges. Research underscores the significance of this dimension, highlighting how one’s perceived scope of adversity profoundly affects well-being (Jada, 2022). Jada (2022) further emphasizes that a greater perceived scope of adversity is correlated with heightened feelings of agitation, bitterness, and helplessness, often leading to a pessimistic outlook, poor decision-making, and social and professional isolation. Firmansyah et al. (2019) corroborate this, emphasizing that “reach” assesses how far a challenging event can impact a teacher’s life, influencing the perceived significance of the issue.

Level of Students’ Learning Engagement

It revealed that students’ learning engagement was described as very high. All three indicators for this variable were also described as very high. It implies that students’ learning engagement is much felt among school educators.

The respondents from Mawab District Secondary Schools demonstrated a very much positive outlook in our research. Educators’ positive responses highlight the creation of a suitable learning environment that not only encourages cognitive participation but also fosters strong behavioral and emotional connections. This affirms the overall success of engagement tactics employed in the educational setting. This notion is supported to the statement of Delfino (2019) that understanding the behavior of students in academic institutions will provide a glimpse of how the instructions and academic practices are going on in schools; as such, it could be used as a powerful tool by the teachers and academic supervisors to design an effective pedagogical technique to maximize the learning experiences of the students.

Significant Relationship between Process Skills and Cognitive Performance

The presented study revealed a significant relationship between process skills and cognitive performance among Special Science Class students in Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Sr. National High School. This implied that process skills had a significant relationship with cognitive performance among Special Science Class students, which could be seen in the data. This result was strongly matched with the study of Maranan (2019), which held that process skills are crucial components that impact students’ cognitive performance. It was also affirmed by the notion of Devore (1984), which means cognitive style and Science process skills are closely associated.

This result was related mutually to Johnston (2009) that Science process skills are important for enhancing students’ cognitive growth. Learning how to apply Science process skills to scientific investigation—which was linked to cognitive performance—was the first step toward mastering scientific notions. Furthermore, the belief of Syahidatul (2019) was beneficial to students as he studied the instructional theory for skill development. It could match the findings in which the study found that these skills gave students an intellectual foundation for scientific inquiry, which might be related to how they behaved in Science-related contexts and affected how well they thought.

Significant Relationship Between Teaching Competence and Students’  Learning Engagement

The study’s results unveiled a significant relationship between the school educators’ teaching competence and the students’ learning engagement. The computed r-value indicated a very much positive correlation between these two variables. This correlation suggests that as the teaching competence of school educators increases, there is a corresponding increase in students’ learning engagement. Consequently, the findings highlight the influence of educators’ teaching competence on students’ learning engagement, as evident in the provided data.

This correlation aligns to Sen’s (2019) research, which emphasizes the impactful role of class teachers on students’ learning processes. Effective student teacher interaction fosters a sense of belonging and cohesion, contributing to enhanced engagement in learning. Smith (2018) corroborates this by highlighting the importance students place on their relationships with teachers as a verified predictor of student satisfaction and engagement. Thus, the competency of teachers plays a pivotal role in shaping the effectiveness of the educational system, directly impacting student performance.

Significance on the Relationship Between Adversity Quotient and Students’ Learning Engagement

The results of the study revealed a noteworthy relationship between educators’ adversity quotient and students’ learning engagement. The moderate correlation suggests that an increase in educators’ adversity quotient corresponds to an increase in students’ learning engagement, thereby rejecting the null hypothesis and confirming a significant relationship between these two variables. This finding enhances our understanding of how school educators’ control, ownership, reach, and endurance, encapsulated in the adversity quotient, impact students’ active engagement in learning.

Educators with higher levels of resilience, adaptability, and persistence are likely to positively influence their teaching methods, fostering increased student engagement. This aligns with the comprehensive nature of student engagement, which encompasses affective factors such as attitude, personality, motivation, effort, and self-confidence (Mandernach et al., 2019). The demonstration of resilience, adaptability, and persistence by educators contributes to the creation of a positive learning environment, nurturing students’ emotional engagement and motivation to learn (Widodo et al., 2022).

Multiple Regression Analysis on the Influence of School Educators’ Teaching Competence on Students’ Learning Engagement 

The regression analysis investigating the influence of school educators’ teaching competence on students’ learning engagement indicates that three out of five domains, namely learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum, and planning, have a significant impact on students’ learning engagement. On the other hand, content knowledge and pedagogy, as well as personal growth and professional development, were found to be insignificant in influencing the learning engagement of students.

Research conducted by Grunden (2022) points out that teachers are responsible for teaching, and when they plan, they are part of a complex, nonlinear social practice of curriculum making. Curriculum planning involves creating a practical plan of action and a list of learning objectives for any subject. As cited by Huaranga, n.d., curricular planning shows a significant relationship with student learning in public educational institutions. Curriculum planning is also the initial stage of an element of management.

Multiple Regression Analysis on the Influence of School Educators’ Adversity Quotient on Students’ Learning Engagement 

The regression analysis investigating the influence of school educators’ adversity quotient on student learning engagement among Mawab District Secondary Schools reveals that three out of four domains, specifically control, ownership, and reach, significantly impact students’ learning engagement. Among these domains, control had the highest influence, followed by ownership, and lastly, reach. Conversely, the fourth domain, endurance, was found to have no significant influence on student learning engagement.

Research conducted by Kingi (2019) suggests that teachers with higher control are linked to positive student outcomes, including improved academic performance and increased participation and engagement in schools. This aligns with the notion that a teacher’s ability to influence student engagement is tied to their level of control (Banal et al., 2022). As Bredeson (2019) indicates, control affects how teachers manage behavior, prevent distractions, and enhance their resilience, fostering a more focused learning experience.

Additionally, insights from Mwivanda and Kingi’s (2019) research highlight the importance of ownership in fostering teamwork, innovation, and achieving high quality academic outcomes. Yazon’s (2019) study is corroborated to this by stating that individuals with high ownership scores tend to feel accountable for their circumstances, take responsibility, learn from experiences, and adapt strategies proactively, contributing to improved student learning engagement.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions are drawn based on the results of the study. The study concludes that the level of influence of school educators’ teaching competence was very high, as well as its indicators, namely, content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and planning, and personal growth and professional development. Furthermore, the study also concludes that the level of influence of school educators’ adversity quotient was very high, along with its indicators, namely, control ownership, reach, and endurance. Moreover, the overall level of students’ learning engagement was very high, encompassing the three domains: behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. Furthermore, the findings contradict the theoretical assumption of no significant relationship between the influence of school educators’ teaching competence and adversity quotient on students’ learning engagement.  Moreover, it was analyzed through Pearson’s r product moment correlation chart that school educators’ teaching competence has a low correlation with the students’ learning engagement, while school educators’ adversity quotient shows moderate correlation with the students’ learning engagement. Contrary to the assumption, the study concludes that school educators’ teaching competence and adversity quotient influence the students’ learning engagement.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmed, S., Madrid-Morales, D., & Tully, M. (2022). Online political engagement, cognitive skills and engagement with misinformation: evidence from Sub Saharan Africa and the United States. Online Information Review, 47(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-11-2021-0634
2. Al-Kindi, I., Al-Khanjari, Z. (2021). International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/220056/article_2 pdf
3. Alrajeh, T. S. & Shindel, B. W. (2020). Student Engagement and Math Teachers Support. Journal on Mathematics Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov
4. Al Zoubi, D., Baram, E., (2020) Affordances, challenges, and impact of open pedagogy: Examining students’ voices. Taylor & Francis Online. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01 2020.1757409
5. Amalia, L., & Saraswati, T. (2018). The impact of competences toward teachers’ performance moderated by the certification in Indonesia. KnE Social Sciences, 3, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i10.3363
6. Amerstorfer, C. M., & Von Münster-Kistner, C. F. (2021). Student Perceptions of Academic Engagement and Student-Teacher Relationships in Problem-Based Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org
7. Ampofo, S. Y., Onyango, G. A., & Ogola, M., (2019). Influence of School Heads’ Direct Supervision on Teacher Role Performance in Public Senior High Schools, Central Region, Ghana. IAFOR Journal of Education, 7(2), 9-26. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1236226.pdf
8. Avaz, T. (2021). Inclusive Education – How Does it Impact Our Children? Avaz Inc. https://www.avazapp.com/blog/inclusive-education-how-does-itimpact-our-children/
9. Baldwin, T., & Stearns, C. (2020). Curriculum Planning: Importance & Elements. Study.com. https://study.com/learn/lesson/curriculum-planningimportance-examples.html
10. Baloran, E. T., & Hernan, J. T. (2020). Crisis Self-Efficacy and Work Commitment of Education Workers among Public Schools during COVID- 19 Pandemic. Preprints.org. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202007.0599.v
11. Banal, C. L., & Cruz, R. O. (2022). Teachers’ resilience in facing workload adversities in times of pandemic: The case of the private school teachers in a developing country Indonesian Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.20473/ijss.v14i1.359
12. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Cognitive Theory. https://www.med.upenn.edu/hbhe4/part3-ch8-
13. Barkley A. (2023, August 31). Student Disengagement in Higher Education – The EvoLLLution. Science Direct Topic. https://evolllution.com/attractingstudents/retention/student-disengagement-in-higher-education
14. Basrowi &Tonich, (2022). The Effect of Adversity and Resilience on The Performance of Middle School Teachers in Palangka Raya City. https://journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/10802
15. Bha, H. and Ye, L. (2020) Journal of Social Studies Education Research – Ericbh, Department of https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1318810.pdf.
16. Bhandari, P. (2021). Correlational Research | When & How to Use. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/author/pritha/page/3/
17. Bierman, K. L. (2021). Teaching Explicit Social- Emotional Skills with Contextual Supports for     Students with Intensive Intervention Needs. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1286370
18. Binder, M. (2023) How to Create the Ideal Learning Environment. Thinkific. https://www.thinkific.com/blog/ideal-learning-environment
19. Bittmann, F. (2021). Academic track mismatch and the temporal development of well-being and competences in German secondary education. ideas.repec.org. https://ideas.repec.org/a/vid/yearbk/v19y2021i1html
20. Blumenfeld G. (2018). Engagement | National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE). https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov
21. Bogusevschi, D., Muntean, C., & Muntean, G. (2020) Teaching and learning physics using 3D virtual learning environment: A case study of combined virtual reality and virtual laboratory in secondary school. The Learning and Technology Library. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/210965/
22. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki‐Richter, , &Kerres, M. (2020b). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
23. Bordia, D. (2023). Personality Development Tips For Teachers. Teachmint Blogs. https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.teachmint.com/personalitydevelopment-tips-for-teachers/amp/