DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EDUCATORS’ SELF-EFFICACY,

AUTONOMY, AND PERCEIVED STRESS AMONG SPECIALIZED
AND NON-SPECIALIZED TEACHING

A Thesis
Presented to the
Department of Psychology
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements of the Degree
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

by

TRICIA CHARLEMAGNE M. VILLEGAS, CHRA

RONAMAE JOYCE E. DABU
JOANA JOY P. ARIOLA
DENNISSE SHANE P. PALABRICA
MARY ROSE N. PANLAQUI
AURA IHSABELLE S. VILLARAN

January 2025
DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY ii

APPROVAL SHEET
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our deepest thanks to all those people who have
helped us to complete this thesis.
To our research adviser, Dr. Flor Ann C. Lingat, CRS, CHRA, LPT, Ed.D.
and research instructor, Sir Arold A. Parungulo, RPm, CHRA, MAPSY, we give
our sincerest gratitude for your guidance, continuous support, and encouragement
throughout our research journey. Without your help, we wouldn’t know how we’ll
be able to finish our work.
We would also like to thank our parents and friends for their consistent
love and support for our financial needs on this thesis, which was absolutely
essential for us.
An extra special thanks to our statistician, Engr. Ronaldyn E. Dabu, MSc.
We truly appreciate your invaluable statistical knowledge and help in the analysis
of our data. Her contributions for this study were very vital in ensuring the
reliability and accuracy of the research’s finding.
Lastly, we extend our heartfelt thanks to all the participants who shared
their time and insights. Your willingness to participant in our study became an
instrument for us to finish our thesis. We are very grateful to all the principals and
school staffs for facilitating and for guiding us on the process of our data
gathering.
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY iii

ABSTRACT

Educators play a crucial part in supporting students' academic progress and

personal development. This study conducted a comparative analysis of self-
efficacy, autonomy, and perceived stress between educators teaching specialized
and non-specialized subjects. A total of 375 secondary school teachers from
Pampanga were randomly selected to participate in the study. The main objective
was to test the hypothesis that there are no significant differences in these variables
between the two groups. Data were gathered using three standardized instruments:
the 12-item Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale, the 17-item Teacher Autonomy
Scale, and the 7-item Teacher Stress Scale. Statistical analyses, conducted at a 0.05
significance level, revealed significant differences in self-efficacy (p = 0.01) and
autonomy (p = 0.0049) between specialized and non-specialized teachers. However,
no significant difference was observed in stress levels (p = 1.0). These findings
suggest that teaching specialization may play a key role in enhancing teachers’
efficacy and autonomy, underscoring the importance of aligning teaching
assignments with expertise. The study emphasizes the need for targeted professional
development and institutional support to address the unique challenges faced by
both specialized and non-specialized educators, contributing valuable insights into
educational and psychological practices, offering practical recommendations to
improve teaching conditions and outcomes.

Keywords: teacher self-efficacy, teacher autonomy, perceived stress, specialization,

non-specialization, psychology
DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1
Objective of the study 2
Literature Review 3

Theoretical Framework 22
Conceptual Framework 25

Research Questions 26
Hypotheses 26

Research Methods 27
Study Design 27
Respondents and Sampling 27
Instruments 29
Data Collection Procedure 31
Ethical Consideration 32
Data Analysis 32

Results 34
Discussion 41
Limitations 45
Conclusion 46
Recommendations 46

References 48

Appendix I: Scales 67
Appendix II: Permit from the Authors of the Scales 69
Appendix III: Permit to Conduct the Interviews/Survey 72

Appendix IV: Request for Pertinent Data 73

Appendix V: Informed Consent for Research Participants 74
Appendix VI: Respondent’s Demographics 75

Appendix VII: Certification of Statistical Analysis 77

Appendix VIII: Raw Statistical data 78
Appendix IX: Plagiarism Certification __
DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY v

Curriculum Vitae _

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Demographic Profile of Respondents 34

2 Levels of Self-Efficacy, Autonomy, and Perceived Stress 35
3 Self-Efficacy Differences between Groups 36
4 Sub-Dimensions of Self-Efficacy for Specialized (S) 36
and Non-Specialized (NS) Educators
5 Autonomy Differences between Groups 37
6 Sub-Dimensions of Autonomy for Specialized (S) 38
and Non-Specialized (NS) Educators
7 Perceived Stress Level Differences between Groups 39
8 Sub-Dimensions of Perceived Stress for Specialized (S) 40
and Non-Specialized (NS) Educators
I Tests of Normality, Shapiro-Wilk Tests 81
II Item Analysis for TSES Scores (S) 81
III Item Analysis for TSES Scores (NS) 82
IV Item Analysis for TAS Scores (S) 83
V Item Analysis for TAS Scores (NS) 84
VI Item Analysis for TSS Scores (S) 85
VII Item Analysis for TSS Scores (NS) 86
DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Conceptual Framework 25
A Normal Distribution Visualizations 87
B Bar graph with significance indicators of Self –Efficacy 88
C Bar graph with significance indicators of Autonomy 88
D Box plot of perceived stress scores 89
E Scatter Plot of SE Scores (S and NS) 90
F Bar Graph of the Item Analysis for TAS (S) 90

G Bar Graph of the Item Analysis for TAS (NS) 91

H Bar Graph Comparison of the Item Analysis for TAS (S) 91
I Scatter Plot of Autonomy Weighted Scores (S and NS) 92
J Scatter Plot of Stress Scores (S and NS) 92
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 1

INTRODUCTION

Teachers play an essential role in shaping students’ academic success and

overall development. Despite their contributions, they often face significant

challenges, particularly in education systems with centralized policies and limited

resources. One of the more pressing issues is the practice of non-specialized

teaching, where teachers are assigned to handle subjects outside their field of

expertise due to teacher shortages, scheduling conflicts, or resource constraints

(Sutcher et al., 2019b).

Specialized teaching allows educators to utilize their in-depth knowledge

and skills within their area of expertise, fostering confidence and instructional

effectiveness. Conversely, non-specialized teaching requires additional

preparation and adaptation, which can lead to increased stress, reduced autonomy,

and lower self-efficacy (Galang, 2021; Hobbs & Porsch, 2021). These challenges

are especially prevalent in the Philippines, where the Department of Education’s

standardized K-12 curriculum imposes rigid requirements, leaving teachers with

limited flexibility in lesson planning and instructional strategies (Bugwak,

2021b).

The interplay of self-efficacy, autonomy, and stress is crucial in

understanding how teaching assignments impact educators’ professional

experiences. Self-efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1977), refers to an individual’s

belief in their ability to execute tasks and achieve desired outcomes. It

significantly influences how teachers manage classroom challenges, engage

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 2

students, and adapt instructional strategies (Klassen & Tze, 2014; Trudel et al.,

2021). Teacher autonomy, which encompasses the freedom to make decisions

about lesson delivery and classroom management, is closely tied to job

satisfaction and professional growth (Çolak & Altınkurt, 2017; Fauzi & Mustadi,

2019). Stress, on the other hand, arises when external demands exceed coping

resources, negatively affecting teacher performance and well-being (Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984).

In the Philippine context, non-specialized teachers face compounded

difficulties, including pressure to meet competency standards without adequate

content expertise, heightened workload, and administrative burdens. These factors

underscore the importance of examining how specialization influences self-

efficacy, autonomy, and stress. By focusing on these relationships, this study

seeks to contribute valuable insights into the professional realities of Filipino

educators while offering evidence-based recommendations for systemic reforms

and teacher support initiatives.

Objective of the Study

This study aims to investigate and compare the self-efficacy, autonomy

and perceived stress levels of secondary educators’ teaching specialization and

non-specialization. Specifically, to test whether teaching assignment are

predictors on the self-efficacy, autonomy, and perceived stress. By examining

these differences, the research aims to provide evidence-based recommendations

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 3

for educational institutions to enhance the well-being and effectiveness of

educators and contribute valuable insights and findings to education and

psychology, potentially improving educators' well-being.

Literature Review

The field of education constantly faces the issue of educators instructing in

areas beyond their expertise. This situation requires thoroughly evaluating the

factors affecting their professional competence and overall wellness. Non-

specialized teaching refers to situations where educators are assigned to teach

subjects or courses for which they do not have the proper training, qualifications,

or certification. This often happens due to teacher shortages, scheduling

constraints, or an uneven distribution of qualified teachers (Sutcher et al., 2019b).

In many educational systems, particularly in small or resource-limited schools,

teachers are required to teach subjects outside their expertise, which leads to non-

specialized teaching (Hobbs & Porsch, 2021).

In many countries, this issue is prevalent, particularly in smaller schools,

wherein the availability of qualified teachers is limited by budget constraints and

student-teacher ratios. Schools often face the challenge of assigning teachers to

non-specialized roles due to the fluctuating demand for various subjects (Co et al.,

2021).

The issue of non-specialized teaching underscores broader challenges in

resource allocation and staffing within education systems. When there are
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 4

insufficient qualified teachers available for specific subjects, schools may rely on

teachers who are not trained in those areas. This situation calls for innovative

solutions to ensure quality education across various subjects, even when

specialized teachers are in short supply (Co et al., 2021). Ball (2023) found that

retaining qualified teachers is critical to addressing teacher shortages. She argued

that a supportive school environment is essential for retaining teachers,

particularly in schools where non-specialized teaching is prevalent. By fostering a

positive school climate and providing professional development opportunities,

schools can help reduce turnover and increase teacher satisfaction, even for

teachers in non-specialized roles.

Given these challenges, various interconnected factors in the education

field play a role in shaping an educator’s professional development and

effectiveness. One such factor is self-efficacy, which pertains to an individual’s

belief in their ability to manage and execute tasks effectively (Bandura, 1977;

Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007; Alibakhshi et al., 2020). This belief influences a

person’s capacity to coordinate thoughts, actions, and resources to address

challenges effectively (Tschannen- Moran & Hoy, 2001; Dellinger et al., 2008;

Hoang & Wyatt, 2021). In the educational context, teacher self-efficacy is critical

in determining teachers’ resilience and effectiveness. It reflects their confidence

in managing tasks and overcoming professional challenges, shaping their

instructional practices and interactions with students (Trudel et al., 2021).

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 5

Bandura’s (1977) Social Cognitive Theory explains self-efficacy as a

belief in one’s capacity to achieve specific goals through planned and purposeful

actions. This theory states that a teacher’s confidence in mastering subject matter

and adopting instructional strategies plays a key role in their motivation to teach

effectively (Shannon, 2023). Over four decades of research demonstrate that

teachers with strong self-efficacy tend to embrace challenges, set ambitious goals,

and remain dedicated despite setbacks (Brown, Myers, & Collins, 2019; Khan &

Zaheer, 2022).

Teachers with high self-efficacy are also less critical in their approach,

showing persistence and active engagement in classroom tasks. Brown et al.

(2019) found that such teachers frequently employ whole-class and small-group

instruction while maintaining a focus on student outcomes. By contrast, teachers

with lower self-efficacy often avoid challenges and demonstrate limited

persistence, which negatively impacts student engagement and classroom

dynamics.

Teacher self-efficacy originates from educators' experiences and

confidence in completing teaching-related tasks successfully (Downes et al.,

2021). It involves the ability to influence students positively through competent

and confident teaching strategies (Lemon & Garvis, 2016). Teachers with high

self-efficacy tend to focus on fostering student achievement and confidence,

whereas those with lower self-efficacy may prioritize classroom management

over instructional quality (Woodcock et al., 2022).

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 6

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (1998) described self-efficacy as a

fundamental trait of effective educators, emphasizing its role in shaping teachers'

instructional methods and their ability to adapt to various classroom challenges.

High self-efficacy is foundational to achieving better teaching outcomes,

enhancing job satisfaction, and reducing stress (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Skaalvik

& Skaalvik, 2010).

Teacher self-efficacy significantly impacts various aspects of teaching,

including engagement, autonomy, and job satisfaction. Sokmen and Kilic (2019)

highlighted self-efficacy as a predictor of teacher engagement and professional

fulfillment, noting its importance in mitigating burnout. Similarly, Nguyen et al.

(2023) found that teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to exhibit

autonomy in instructional decisions, which enhances their overall effectiveness.

Emiru and Gedifew (2024) emphasized the connection between teacher

self-efficacy and student engagement. They observed that teachers with high self-

efficacy demonstrated stronger abilities to engage students, manage classrooms,

and employ effective instructional strategies, positively influencing student

outcomes. During periods of educational reform, teacher self-efficacy plays a

critical role in maintaining instructional quality. Gordon et al. (2022) reviewed 29

studies and found that a supportive professional environment and access to

resources are essential for sustaining self-efficacy amidst systemic changes. Their

findings stress the importance of targeted interventions to maintain teachers’

confidence during significant transitions. Teacher self-efficacy also influences

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 7

inclusive educational practices. A study by Kazanopoulos et al. (2022) revealed

that special education teachers reported higher efficacy in inclusive instruction

and collaboration compared to general education teachers. Training and

professional development were shown to significantly enhance teachers' self-

efficacy in addressing the diverse needs of students, particularly those with

disabilities or learning difficulties. High self-efficacy equips teachers to handle

complex classroom situations, including those involving diverse student

populations. Research by Guo et al. (2021) found that teachers often feel less

efficacious when teaching students with disabilities. However, targeted support

and training can address these gaps, fostering a more inclusive and effective

learning environment (Yada et al., 2018; Opoku et al., 2022).

Teachers with high self-efficacy show greater job commitment, less

exhaustion, and more engagement in professional development (Burić & Macuka,

2018; Fathi et al., 2021). These educators are also more likely to employ

innovative teaching strategies and exhibit resilience in achieving goals despite

challenges (Kent & Giles, 2017). Furthermore, self-efficacy enhances

socioemotional competencies, particularly among experienced teachers, which

fosters a positive teaching environment and improves student outcomes (Romero-

García et al., 2022).

Research has consistently shown that self-efficacy and autonomy are

interrelated and have significant implications for teacher stress. Teachers with

high levels of self-efficacy tend to feel more capable in their roles, which leads
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 8

them to seek greater autonomy in their instructional decisions. This autonomy, in

turn, provides them with more control over their teaching practices and

environments, which helps to reduce stress (Nguyen et al., 2023; Choi & Mao,

2021). Teachers who believe in their ability to manage classroom challenges are

more likely to have the confidence to advocate for greater freedom in shaping

their teaching methods, which further improves their job satisfaction and reduces

stress (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014; Zhao & Qin, 2021).

Autonomy refers to the ability to make independent decisions and exert

control over one’s actions. In the teaching context, autonomy encompasses the

freedom to plan and implement instructional strategies, manage classroom

dynamics, and pursue professional growth without excessive external constraints

(Fauzi & Mustadi, 2019). As conceptualized by Deci and Ryan (1985) in their

Self-Determination Theory (SDT), autonomy is a fundamental psychological need

that fosters intrinsic motivation and enhances well-being. It plays a pivotal role in

teachers' mental health and professional satisfaction, significantly influencing

their ability to create meaningful and engaging learning experiences. Teacher

autonomy is a multifaceted construct encompassing decision-making authority,

professional competence, collaboration, and the capacity to tailor teaching to

students’ needs (Çolak & Altınkurt, 2017). It allows educators to design curricula,

develop lesson plans, and establish learning environments that prioritize student

growth and engagement. Various scholars have categorized teacher autonomy

differently: Firstly, Pearson and Hall (1993) distinguished between curriculum

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 9

autonomy and broader teaching autonomy. Second, Friedman (1999) identified

dimensions such as teaching, assessment, decision-making, professional

development, and curriculum-related autonomy. Third, Öztürk (2011) emphasized

autonomy in planning and implementing lessons, administrative involvement, and

professional growth. Lastly, Eurydice (2008) and Kara and Bozkurt (2022)

highlighted that educator must have the authority to structure classroom activities,

develop materials, and plan lessons tailored to their students’ unique needs.

Lin and Gao (2023) examined factors influencing teachers’ autonomy,

focusing on professionalism, cultural individualism, and the complexity of

teaching practices. Their study of over 118,000 teachers across 27 countries

revealed that higher autonomy allows educators to adapt course content and

choose teaching methods, reducing perceived stress. Conversely, a lack of

autonomy was linked to feelings of constraint and heightened stress levels.

Similarly, Nir et al. (2024) explored the correlation between school autonomy,

professional development, and progressive teaching practices. Findings showed

that teachers with greater autonomy and satisfaction in school-based professional

development were more likely to engage in innovative teaching methods,

including integrating technology into their instructional approaches. These

insights underscore the importance of institutional support in fostering teacher

autonomy and enhancing professional competence.

Teachers who adopt autonomy-supportive practices foster an empowering

learning environment. By giving students opportunities for choice, self-

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 10

expression, and independent learning, autonomy-supportive teachers enhance

student engagement and motivation (Liu, 2021). Reeve and Cheon (2021)

examined autonomy-supportive teaching interventions, finding that teachers who

received professional training demonstrated increased autonomy-supportive

behaviors, which positively influenced student outcomes, classroom climate, and

teacher effectiveness.

Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, Fontaine, Haerens, Delrue, & Reeve

(2019) found that classrooms led by autonomy-supportive teachers were

characterized by higher levels of student satisfaction, intrinsic interest, and

academic performance. These teachers embrace curiosity, respect student

perspectives, and offer emotional support to foster a collaborative learning

environment (Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). Studies by Ertürk (2023) and others

(Au, 2007; Stevenson & Wood, 2013; Buyruk, 2018) emphasize that teacher

autonomy significantly contributes to professional dedication. Autonomous

teachers are more likely to select and adapt curricula to suit students’ needs,

pursue continuous professional development, and create innovative instructional

strategies. This flexibility enables teachers to maintain commitment and diligence

in their roles, promoting high-quality education. Autonomy-supportive teaching

interventions have been shown to enhance both teacher and student outcomes.

Reeve and Cheon (2021) highlighted two key findings: First, Professional

development programs based on Self-Determination Theory principles effectively

increased teachers' autonomy-supportive behaviors. And second, teachers who

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 11

implemented these behaviors reported better classroom experiences, improved

instructional practices, and higher student satisfaction. These findings suggest that

promoting autonomy-supportive teaching through tailored interventions can

significantly enhance the teaching and learning process. Autonomy plays a vital

role in advancing educational outcomes, as noted by Ertürk (2023). By enabling

teachers to design student-centered curricula, adapt lesson plans, and pursue

professional growth, autonomy enhances instructional quality and fosters student

achievement. Additionally, autonomy-supportive practices promote collaboration

among educators, contributing to a positive school culture and improved

educational systems.

Teacher autonomy not only enhances job satisfaction but also acts as a

buffer against stress. Teachers who feel they have more control over their work

are more likely to experience lower levels of stress and higher levels of job

satisfaction (Jentsch et al., 2022). Autonomy-supportive teaching practices help

teachers feel more engaged in their roles, reducing the emotional strain that comes

from rigid structures or lack of control (Reeve & Cheon, 2021). Studies have

found that teachers with greater autonomy report better management of classroom

challenges and reduced burnout, leading to a more positive teaching experience

(Çolak & Altınkurt, 2017; Lin & Gao, 2023).

Stress is a natural physiological and psychological reaction to situations

that disturb an individual’s balance (American Psychological Association, 2018).

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 12

It often manifests as feelings of strain, urgency, or overwhelm, typically occurring

when individuals perceive they are unable to cope with the pressures they face.

Stress can arise from a variety of factors such as job duties, interpersonal

relationships, financial concerns, or major life changes.

Teaching is widely recognized as one of the most stressful occupations

(Johnson et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2022). Kyriacou and Sutcliffe (1977) were

among the first to introduce the concept of "teacher stress," and since then,

scholars have defined it in various ways. Teacher stress generally refers to the

negative emotions—such as frustration, anxiety, and tension—that arise from job-

related aspects perceived as threatening or demanding (Kyriacou, 2001; Chen et

al., 2022). Common stressors for teachers include heavy workloads, time

constraints, student misbehavior, insufficient resources, and conflicts with

colleagues or parents (Chen et al., 2022). Prilleltensky et al. (2016) described

teacher stress as an imbalance between risk factors (e.g., workload and external

demands) and protective factors (e.g., institutional support and coping resources).

When risk factors outweigh protective ones, teachers experience higher levels of

stress, which can negatively affect their professional performance and overall

well-being.

Chen et al. (2022), who developed the Teacher Stress Scale, emphasized

the diverse nature of teacher stress, noting its impact on educators' physical,

emotional, and psychological well-being. Their research underscores the

significant consequences of teacher stress, including its detrimental effect on

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 13

teachers' ability to manage their classrooms and engage students effectively.

Teacher stress is influenced by both personal factors and institutional or

environmental conditions. Recent studies have highlighted the role of supportive

school environments and adequate resources in reducing teacher stress. For

instance, Jentsch et al. (2022) found that supportive school policies and collegial

relationships significantly decrease teacher stress, fostering a positive work

environment and enhancing teachers' job satisfaction.

Stress can impair teachers' ability to manage classrooms effectively and

engage with students, leading to diminished job satisfaction and performance.

Latif, Zaka, and Ali (2023) found that teachers who experience higher levels of

stress often struggle with classroom management, which in turn affects their

ability to create positive student-teacher relationships and maintain effective

classroom dynamics. Increased stress can also lead to a decline in teachers'

emotional and social competencies, hindering their professional success. Their

study demonstrated that higher stress levels were negatively correlated with

teachers' self-efficacy, further exacerbating the challenges they face in their roles.

While moderate stress may serve as a motivator, chronic or extreme stress can

severely impact an individual’s physical and mental well-being. In the educational

context, perceived stress refers to teachers’ subjective evaluation of the demands

placed on them relative to their ability to cope (Mahdavi, 2016). High levels of

perceived stress have been associated with mental health challenges such as

anxiety and depression, which can negatively influence teachers’ effectiveness

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 14

and job satisfaction. Avunduk (2021) found a weak, negative correlation between

perceived stress and job performance, indicating that as stress levels increase, job

performance tends to decrease. This relationship was particularly pronounced

among female teachers, though gender differences were not statistically

significant. The study also suggested that years of experience and educational

background had little impact on the perceived stress-job performance correlation.

Byun and Jeon (2022) conducted a study of South Korean teachers’ perceived

stress, professional commitment, and work environment. Their findings indicated

that teachers with low stress levels and high satisfaction with their work

environment were more dedicated to their jobs. This suggests that reducing stress

and enhancing workplace satisfaction can positively influence teachers'

professional commitment, leading to improved educational outcomes.

Mindfulness interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing

teacher stress. Netz & Rom (2020) demonstrated that mindfulness practices,

implemented over just four weeks, significantly reduced teacher stress, especially

during interactions with students. Although the effects on teacher self-efficacy

were not conclusively proven, the study recommended that teachers, especially

those working with young students, incorporate mindfulness practices to enhance

interactions and mitigate stress. Research by Da Silva et al. (2024) showed that

teachers experiencing high levels of perceived stress report significantly lower

quality-of-life scores in areas such as mental health, emotional well-being, and

physical health. High stress levels were also associated with burnout, which
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 15

further impacts teachers’ quality of life. Their study indicated that prolonged

stress could lead to fatigue, lower vitality, and reduced functional capacity, partly

due to the effects of stress on cortisol levels. The effectiveness of stress

management interventions has been well-documented in recent years. Paudel et al.

(2022) conducted a systematic review of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and

mindfulness as strategies for reducing teacher stress. These interventions showed

promising results in alleviating stress, enhancing teachers' coping mechanisms,

and improving overall well-being. Bolton (2018) also highlighted the role of self-

efficacy in managing stress, emphasizing that improving teachers' self-efficacy

can reduce stress and lead to better job performance. Together, these studies

provide actionable insights into how schools can address teacher stress through

evidence-based interventions.

The experience of non-specialized teaching is closely connected to self-

efficacy, autonomy, and stress. Teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to

succeed in non-specialized roles because they feel confident in their ability to

manage unfamiliar content and adapt their teaching strategies effectively.

However, those with lower self-efficacy may struggle, leading to higher levels of

stress and decreased job satisfaction (Zee & Koomen, 2019; Hobbs & Törner,

2019). This is where autonomy plays a significant role. Teachers who have

greater control over their teaching methods and materials experience less stress,

even when teaching outside their area of expertise. In contrast, non-specialized

teachers often face reduced autonomy, which limits their ability to adjust their
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 16

teaching approach and increases stress levels (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014;

Pfitzner-Eden, 2016).

Research indicates that self-efficacy and autonomy both play critical roles

in reducing stress and improving job satisfaction. Teachers who are confident in

their abilities are more likely to seek and implement autonomy in their teaching

practices, which helps them better manage classroom challenges and improves

their teaching effectiveness (Nguyen et al., 2023; Reeve & Cheon, 2021).

Additionally, self-efficacy mediates the relationship between autonomy and

student engagement. Teachers with higher self-efficacy are more likely to foster

student engagement, which, in turn, reduces stress and enhances instructional

outcomes (Zee & Koomen, 2019).

However, non-specialized teachers often experience higher stress levels

due to unfamiliar content and the increased preparation time required for subjects

outside their area of expertise. This can lead to feelings of inadequacy and

overwhelm (Hobbs & Porsch, 2021). Reduced autonomy exacerbates this stress,

as teachers may feel restricted by institutional policies or standardized curriculum

requirements. The resulting stress can lead to burnout and negatively impact job

satisfaction (Chen et al., 2022; Jentsch et al., 2022).

Moreover, non-specialized teaching challenges teachers to adapt to

unfamiliar content areas, often testing their self-efficacy and ability to engage

students effectively. According to Castro, Asignado, and Recede (2023), teachers

assigned to teach subjects outside their specialization expressed varying levels of

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 17

confidence. While some showed confidence in their teaching abilities, others

exerted only moderate effort in encouraging critical thinking and assisting

students with difficulties, highlighting the struggles associated with adapting

instructional strategies.

In the context of non-specialized teaching, enhancing self-efficacy and

autonomy is crucial for minimizing stress. Professional development is a critical

factor in addressing the challenges faced by non-specialized teachers. Pineda

(2024) identified the lack of adequate professional development opportunities as a

significant barrier for teachers, particularly in implementing varied teaching

strategies and meeting content delivery requirements on time. This limitation can

further impact teachers’ self-efficacy, especially when they are expected to teach

subjects outside their expertise. This leads to improved teaching effectiveness and

better outcomes for students (Ingersoll & Collins, 2018; Timperley & Robinson,

2015). Ultimately, fostering a combination of self-efficacy and autonomy in non-

specialized teachers is key to creating a supportive teaching environment,

reducing stress, and ensuring long- term teaching success.

Several external factors can influence teachers' self-efficacy, autonomy,

and stress. These include demographic elements such as age, years of experience,

civil status, and salary, which all play crucial roles in shaping teachers'

professional experiences. Research has shown that age and years of experience

significantly affect teachers' self-efficacy, stress, and coping strategies. Older and

more experienced teachers tend to exhibit higher levels of self-efficacy due to

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 18

their accumulated knowledge and classroom experience. In contrast, novice

teachers or those with fewer years of experience may struggle with classroom

management and subject matter unfamiliarity, which can lead to increased stress

and lower self-efficacy (Klassen, Perry, & Frenzel, 2012; Klassen & Tze, 2014).

Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2015) found that teachers with more experience are better

equipped to handle teaching challenges, resulting in lower levels of stress and

higher job satisfaction.

Civil status is another demographic factor that impacts teacher stress and

self-efficacy. Teachers who are married or have dependents may experience

different levels of stress compared to those who are single. Married teachers or

those with families often face added responsibilities, which can increase stress

levels, particularly when balancing work and personal life. These external

pressures can affect their overall sense of self-efficacy and their ability to manage

stress effectively (Schleicher, 2018; McCarthy et al., 2009).

Salary and the grade level taught are also significant factors influencing

teacher satisfaction, autonomy, and stress. Research indicates that teachers in

higher-paying positions or those who teach higher-grade levels often experience

better job satisfaction and self-efficacy, as they feel more valued and equipped for

the challenges of their roles. On the other hand, teachers who are underpaid or

teach lower-grade levels may face higher stress levels due to financial pressures

and the demanding nature of early education (Toropova et al., 2020; Collie &

Martin, 2017). Teachers' autonomy is also influenced by the subject and grade
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 19

level taught, with more experienced teachers or those in higher-grade levels

having more flexibility in their teaching methods.

In the Philippine context, the challenges faced by Filipino teachers in non-

specialized teaching roles are compounded by the K-12 curriculum and the

prevalent teacher shortages in specific subject areas. The implementation of the

K-12 curriculum in the Philippines has increased the demand for specialized

teachers, which, in turn, has led to more teachers being assigned to teach subjects

outside their training and expertise. This shift has implications for teachers' self-

efficacy, autonomy, and stress levels (Galang, 2021; Usma-Wilches, 2006).

Teacher efficacy in the Philippines is closely linked to teacher autonomy.

Studies have shown that when teachers have more control over their teaching

methods, they experience higher self-efficacy, which, in turn, enhances their

instructional effectiveness. Bernardo and Ismail (2019) observed similar trends

among Filipino educators, emphasizing how subject expertise fosters higher

confidence in classroom management, instructional strategies, and student

engagement. However, the standardized nature of the K-12 curriculum and the

frequent assignment of teachers to non-specialized roles have constrained teacher

autonomy, leading to a decline in self-efficacy for many educators (Usma-

Wilches, 2006; Li et al., 2019). Filipino teachers often report feeling less

confident in their abilities when tasked with teaching subjects outside their

specialization (Santos & Amador, 2017), which can negatively affect their

performance and job satisfaction.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 20

The increased workload associated with the K-12 curriculum has also been

identified as a significant contributor to teacher stress and burnout in the

Philippines. Teachers often face high expectations, not only to deliver quality

instruction but also to handle administrative tasks and extracurricular

responsibilities. For non-specialized teachers, this challenge is compounded by

the need to prepare lessons for subjects they are not trained to teach, further

contributing to stress and burnout (Galang, 2021; Travers, 2017).

In a study by Mama and Tagadiad (2024), it was found that a supportive

school environment plays a vital role in moderating the relationship between

teacher self-efficacy and autonomy. Teachers who received adequate support

from their school administration and colleagues experienced lower stress levels,

despite being assigned to non-specialized roles. This highlights the importance of

systemic support in mitigating the stress associated with non-specialized teaching

(Mama & Tagadiad, 2024).

A supportive school environment can help alleviate the negative impacts

of non-specialized teaching by fostering a positive organizational climate. Alson

(2019) examined the impact of work-related stressors on high school teachers in

Calamba City, Laguna, highlighting how teachers often resort to thinking-based

coping mechanisms to manage stress. The study emphasized the importance of

collaboration between school leaders, policymakers, and teachers to improve

working conditions and reduce stress. Collaboration and a positive work

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 21

environment are crucial, especially for teachers handling subjects outside their

areas of expertise (Alson, 2019).

Despite the challenges posed by non-specialized teaching, Filipino

teachers often exhibit resilience and adaptability. Co et al. (2021) studied Senior

High School teachers in the Nagtipunan district of Quirino, where they were

frequently assigned to teach subjects outside their field due to teacher shortages.

Despite facing difficulties, these teachers developed new teaching strategies and

adapted to the demands of their non-specialized subjects. This adaptability was

linked to the teachers’ self-efficacy and professional development, as they gained

confidence through targeted training and mentorship programs (Co et al., 2021).

Research by Santos and Amador (2017) and Llego (2018) found that

Filipino teachers with higher self-efficacy experience greater job satisfaction and

lower levels of stress. When teachers feel capable of managing classroom

challenges, they are more likely to engage with their students effectively, which

enhances their teaching performance. However, when teachers are assigned to

teach outside their specialty, their self-efficacy may decrease, which in turn

contributes to higher levels of stress and dissatisfaction (Santos & Amador, 2017).

Several demographic factors, such as age, experience, and salary, also affect

teacher self-efficacy, stress, and coping strategies. Studies in the Philippines have

shown that younger teachers, particularly those new to the profession, face more

challenges when teaching non-specialized subjects. Older, more experienced

teachers tend to have higher self-efficacy and better coping strategies, which
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 22

enable them to manage the stress associated with non-specialized teaching more

effectively (Buot & Llego, 2017; Garcia, 2016).

The Philippine context reveals that non-specialized teaching significantly

impacts teacher self-efficacy, autonomy, and stress. Teachers assigned to non-

specialized roles often experience decreased self-efficacy and higher levels of

stress, which can affect their overall job satisfaction and performance. However, a

supportive school environment, professional development, and collaborative

school policies can help mitigate these challenges. Empowering teachers through

targeted training and fostering a positive organizational climate are crucial for

improving teacher outcomes and student learning in non-specialized teaching

roles.

Theoretical Framework

This research incorporates three foundational theories: Social Cognitive

Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and Transactional Theory of Stress. These

theories provide a comprehensive framework to analyze the interplay between

self-efficacy, autonomy, and perceived stress among educators.

As defined by Bandura (1977), self-efficacy refers to a person's belief in

their ability to execute actions required for specific outcomes. This Theory

emphasizes the critical role of self-perception in achieving success, highlighting a

reciprocal relationship between behavior, individual, and environment (Bandura,

1977, as cited in Lopez-Garrido, 2023; Marschall & Watson, 2022). In educators

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 23

teaching non-specialization, self-efficacy influences their confidence in

effectively teaching unfamiliar subjects. It integrates cognitive and social learning

to understand how educators adapt and succeed. For this study, self-efficacy is

defined as teachers' belief in their ability to perform tasks and achieve goals that

enhance student learning. Alongside autonomy and perceived stress, self-efficacy

is a personal factor affecting educators' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. These

factors interact with the environment, influencing how educators manage teaching

non-specialized subjects. Higher self-efficacy correlates with lower perceived

stress, as confident educators are better equipped to adapt and succeed in teaching

new subjects.

The Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008) explores how social

contexts and individual differences influence autonomous and controlled

motivations. It emphasizes the importance of competence, autonomy, and

relatedness for educators' well-being and effective functioning. Fulfilling these

needs fosters traits like autonomous motivation and intrinsic aspirations,

promoting psychological health and engagement. In this study, teaching

autonomy involves customizing approaches to improve student learning, while

professional development autonomy includes adapting to industry changes and

fostering growth within a supportive environment. This Theory aligns with

examining educators' motivation in setting goals, making decisions, and executing

plans when teaching non-specialized subjects.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 24

Lazarus and Folkman (1984)’s Transactional Theory of Stress explores

how people evaluate and react to stressors in their surroundings, emphasizing the

interplay between educators’ stress and coping mechanism. This theory is

particularly relevant for educators who frequently encounter stress due to the

demanding nature of teaching, especially when instructing non-specialized

subjects. The perceived stress experienced by teachers is defined by subjective

feelings of being overwhelmed, having a lack of control, and facing difficulties in

meeting the requirements of teaching in non-specialized fields.

The Social Cognitive Theory is crucial in this research; besides being

relevant, it offers a framework to understand how educators' self-efficacy,

autonomy, and perceived stress are influenced by their observations, beliefs, and

environmental factors. Self-determination theory can give valuable information as

it suggests that individuals have three psychological needs– autonomy,

competence, and relatedness. The educator's autonomy, competence, and

relatedness influence self-efficacy, autonomy, and stress levels. Transactional

Theory can help researchers understand how educators evaluate and cope with the

challenges of teaching and how this influences their overall well-being and

effectiveness in the classroom. Therefore, researchers utilized the Social

Cognitive Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and Transactional Theory of Stress

to analyze how teaching assignment influence self-efficacy, autonomy, and

perceived stress of educators.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 25

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework illustrates the hypothesized differences

between teaching assignments (specialized and non-specialized) and three key

outcomes: self-efficacy, autonomy, and perceived stress. By comparing these

dependent variables between educators’ teaching their specialization and those

teaching their non-specialization, the study seeks to identify any significant

differences, offering insights into how teaching assignment influences these key

aspects of the teaching experience.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 26

Research Questions

1. What is the self-efficacy, autonomy, and perceived stress levels among

educators?

2. Is there a significant difference in the following variables between educators

specialized and non-specialized teaching?

A. Self-efficacy

B. Autonomy

C. Perceived stress

Hypotheses

The null hypotheses will be tested at a 0.05 significance level to determine

the statistical significance of the relationships among the variables.

H01: There is no significant difference on the self-efficacy levels between

educators in their specialized teaching and educators in their non-specialized

teaching.

H02: There is no significant difference on the autonomy levels between

educators in their specialized teaching and educators in their non-specialized

teaching.

H03: There is no significant difference on the perceived stress levels

between educators in their specialized teaching and educators in their non-

specialized teaching.
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 27

METHOD

Study design

This study employed a quantitative research design to investigate the

difference between self-efficacy, autonomy, and perceived stress among

educators. A causal-comparative approach was used to collect data at a single

point in time. Quantitative research is necessary because it utilizes numerical

measurements and statistical methods to examine variables systematically

(Mohajan, 2020; Miksza et al., 2023). A causal-comparative research design was

used to investigate the differences in self-efficacy, autonomy, and perceived stress

between secondary school teachers teaching specialized and non-specialized

fields. This method allows for a detailed examination of naturally occurring

variations between two distinct groups, facilitating a better understanding of

teachers' unique challenges and stressors in different teaching contexts (Cohen et

al., 2018). Furthermore, causal-comparative research design is beneficial in

educational settings because it illuminates differences and similarities that can

inform targeted interventions and policy decisions (Johnson & Christensen,

2019).

Respondents and Sampling

The respondents for this study were secondary education teachers in

Pampanga who were assigned to teach specialized and non-specialized subjects

across various educational institutions. Initially, a stratified random sampling

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 28

method was considered to ensure representation from both specialized and non-

specialized subject groups. However, due to the availability of teachers at the time

of data collection, the method was changed to convenience sampling. This

approach allowed for the recruitment of participants based on accessibility and

willingness, ensuring practical feasibility while still obtaining a diverse range of

respondents from both groups.

Pampanga, which consists of 19 municipalities and three cities, was

divided for sampling purposes to represent various areas. To increase the

representativeness of the sample, the study aimed for participation from at least

one school in each municipality, including both public and private institutions.

Although it was initially recommended to select two schools per municipality for

broader representation, this approach was adapted according to the availability of

respondents. Each selected school was expected to provide at least three teachers

from both the specialized and non-specialized groups.

The final sample consisted of 375 educators, with 183 teachers assigned to

specialized subjects and 192 to non-specialized subjects. This division was

intended to ensure a balanced representation between the two groups. The sample

size of 375 was chosen to provide sufficient statistical power to detect significant

differences between the groups.

The following criteria were applied for participant selection: (a) secondary

school teachers currently working in Pampanga, (b) at least one semester of

teaching experience, and (c) PRC licensure was not a requirement. This ensured
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 29

that the sample was reflective of the actual working conditions within the region

while still meeting the study’s objectives regarding self-efficacy, autonomy, and

stress among secondary education teachers.

Instruments

The researchers provided respondent's demographics (See Appendix VI),

which includes the necessary information for every respondent, and then used

three validated scale tests to measure three key variables: self-efficacy, autonomy,

and perceived stress among educators who teach non-specialization (See

Appendix I).

The original OSTES/TSES (Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale), developed

by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (1998), measures teachers' beliefs in their ability to

impact student learning outcomes across three subscales: student engagement (8

items), instructional strategies (8 items), and classroom management (8 items).

This 24-item scale, divided equally among the subscales, uses a Likert scale (1 =

nothing, 9 = a great deal). It has demonstrated strong internal consistency (α >

0.80) and validity, predicting teacher behaviors and student outcomes

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Previous validation studies have

demonstrated the reliability of both the long and short forms, ensuring their

suitability for investigating teacher efficacy in diverse contexts. For this study,

researchers will utilize the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) short form with 12

items.
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 30

The Teacher Autonomy Scale (TAS), developed by Çolak (2016), is a 17-

item multidimensional measure designed to assess teachers' perception of

autonomy across various domains. The scale consists of four sub-dimensions:

teaching process autonomy (6 items), curriculum autonomy (5 items),

professional development autonomy (3 items), and professional communication

autonomy (3 items). The scale uses a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly

Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Reliability, assessed via Cronbach's Alpha, shows

strong internal consistency (α > 0.78). Validity was established through content

review, criterion validity with job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness, and

concurrent validity with other autonomy measures. Factor analysis confirms the

scale's structure. Overall, the TAS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing teacher

autonomy in professional contexts.

The TSS (Teacher Stress Scale), developed by Chen et al. (2022), is a

psychometric instrument designed to measure stress levels among teachers. It

consists of 7 items that evaluate various dimensions of stress experienced by

educators, including workload stress, interpersonal stress, and organizational

stress. The scale is divided into two primary constructs: Inadequate School-based

Support (3 items), encompassing lack of support from administrators and

colleagues and challenges in managing student behaviors; and Teaching-related

Demands (4 items), addressing stress from workload, time constraints, meeting

student needs, and concerns about teaching performance. The scale uses a five-

point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Psychometric

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 31

validation studies have demonstrated the scale's reliability, with internal

consistency coefficients ranging from 0.70 to 0.90 across different samples,

supported by factor analysis confirming its bifactorial structure (Chen et al.,

2022). Concurrent validity has been established through correlations with job

satisfaction and burnout (Chen et al., 2022).

Data Collection Procedure

Before conducting the actual data collection, the researchers secured a

permission letter signed by the group leader, the research instructor, the thesis

adviser, the department chairperson, and the college dean. This letter was

presented to the school heads and institutions to request permission to conduct the

survey (See Appendix III). At the start of the data collection phase, the

researchers reached out to school administrators via email, the school's official

Facebook page, or by visiting the school in person. Upon approval, participants

received informed consent forms, which disclosed the study's objectives, any

possible risks or benefits, and participants' rights.

Once informed consent was obtained, participants completed a

demographic profile questionnaire and the research scales used in this study. To

accommodate time constraints and unforeseen circumstances affecting some

educational institutions, the researchers also utilized Google Forms to collect data

from schools that requested and approved the online survey method. After
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 32

completing data collection, the researchers securely stored and organized the data

in preparation for analysis and interpretation.

Ethical Consideration

The researchers outlined the study's objectives and methods to the

participants, ensuring mutual understanding and informed consent. Measures were

implemented to maintain confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy throughout the

research process. Participants were fully informed of the study's purpose,

potential outcomes, and their rights before consenting to participate. All

participant information was treated with strict confidentiality and stored securely.

The researchers are committed to upholding ethical standards and accountability

in all aspects of the research.

Data Analysis

The data analysis for this study employed multiple statistical techniques to

analyze the self-efficacy, autonomy, and perceived stress among secondary school

educators, both specialized and non-specialized teaching. Python software was

used for data processing, scoring, and interpretation.

To address Research Question 1, descriptive statistics (sample mean,

standard deviation, and interpretation) was used to summarize teachers' self-

efficacy, autonomy, and stress levels.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 33

To address Research Question 2, two inferential statistical tests was

employed: A t-test to compare the (2.A) self-efficacy and (2.B) autonomy scores

of specialized and non-specialized teachers, as it evaluates differences between

the means of two independent groups and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for

(2.C) stress, given its suitability for ordinal data or when the assumptions of the t-

test (e.g., normal distribution) are not met. Normality was assessed using the

Shapiro-Wilk test to determine the appropriate statistical method for each

variable.
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 34

RESULTS

The demographic profile of respondents is summarized in Table 1. This

data provides context for understanding the findings.

Table 1
Demographic Profile of Respondents
Specialized (S) Non-Specialized Total
Characteristic
n1 = 183 (NS) n2 = 192 (%) n =
(48.80%) (51.20%) 375
Sex
Male 84 (22.40%) 56 (14.93%) 140 (37.33%)
Female 99 (26.40%) 136 (36.27%) 235 (62.67%)
Age
20–25 years 53 (14.13%) 102 (27.20%) 155 (41.33%)
26–30 years 42 (11.20%) 47 (12.53%) 89 (23.73%)
31–35 years 44 (11.73%) 38 (10.13%) 82 (21.87%)
36-40 years 23 (6.13%) 3 26 (6.93%)
(0.80%)
41-45 years 21 (5.60%) 2 23 (6.13%)
(0.53%)
Educational
Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree 123 (32.80%) 180 (47.73%) 303 (80.53%)
Master’s Degree 60 (16.00%) 12 (3.20%) 72 (19.20%)
Employment
Public 148 (39.47%) 117 (31.20%) 265 (70.67%)
Private 35 (9.33%) 75 (20.00%) 110 (29.33%)

A total of 375 secondary school teachers participated in the study, with

183 (48.80%) specialized educators and 192 (51.20%) non-specialized educators.

Most participants fell within the 20–25 age group, accounting for 14.13% of

specialized and 27.20% of non-specialized teachers. Regarding educational

attainment, the largest proportion held a bachelor's degree (32.80% of specialized

and 47.73% of non-specialized teachers). Employment data revealed that 39.47%

of specialized teachers and 31.20% of non-specialized teachers worked in public

schools, while 9.33% and 20%, respectively, were employed in private institutions

(refer to Appendix VIII for detailed statistics).

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 35

Table 2
Levels of Self-Efficacy, Autonomy, and Perceived Stress
Variable Group n Mean (x̄) Std. Deviation (σ)
Self-
Specialization 183 4.85 0.57
Efficacy
Non-Specialization 192 4.32 0.62
Autonomy Specialization 183 3.73 0.45
Non-Specialization 192 3.56 0.50
Stress Specialization 183 1.86 0.30
Non-Specialization 192 2.00 0.35

Specialized teachers reported higher levels of self-efficacy, with a mean

score of 4.85 (SD = 0.57), while non-specialized teachers scored lower (mean =

4.32, SD = 0.62). For autonomy, specialized teachers also exhibited higher levels

(mean= 3.73, SD = 0.45) compared to their non-specialized counterparts (mean =

3.56, SD = 0.50). These results suggest that familiarity with subject matter may

contribute to specialized teachers’ confidence and ability to exercise control over

their instructional practices. Stress levels remained relatively low for specialized

teachers (mean = 1.86, SD = 0.30) and moderate for non-specialized teachers

(mean = 2.00, SD = 0.35). This indicates that stress may be influenced by

systemic factors beyond teaching assignments, such as workload and

administrative demands, affecting all educators similarly.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 36

The study examined whether there was a significant difference in self-

efficacy between specialized and non-specialized educators.

Table 3
Self-Efficacy Differences between Groups
GROUP t-value Degrees of freedom P-value
Specialization
Non- 2.85 18 0.01
specialization

Table 3 illustrates the independent sample t-test between the two groups

which revealed a statistically significant difference (t (18) = 2.85, p = 0.01),

therefore rejecting the null hypothesis (H01).

Table 4
Sub-Dimensions of Self-Efficacy for Specialized (S) and Non-Specialized (NS)
Educators
Sub-Dimension Specialized (S) Non-Specialized (NS) Key Observations
Specialized

x̄ = 4.96 x̄ = 4.25 teachers exhibit

Efficacy in σ = 0.29 σ = 0.62 higher confidence in
Student
motivating students
Engagement
(Items 2,3,4,11) and involving families;
NS teachers report
lower efficacy in
engaging students.
Both groups report
moderate efficacy, but
x̄ = 4.39 x̄ = 4.35 specialized teachers
Efficacy in
σ = 0.35 σ = 0.62
Instructional show a slight
Strategies advantage due to
(Items 5,9, 10, 12) familiarity with
content and adaptive
teaching methods.
Specialized teachers
Efficacy in
Classroom feel significantly
x̄ = 5.29 x̄ = 4.36
Management σ = 0.25 σ = 0.62 more confident in
(Items 1,6,7,8)
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 37

maintaining discipline
and handling
disruptive behavior;
NS teachers report
low
efficacy.

Presented in Table 4 are the self-efficacy scores analyzed with the three

sub-dimensions of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES): classroom

management, instructional strategies, and student engagement. Specialized

teachers consistently scored higher across all sub-dimensions compared to non-

specialized teachers. In student engagement, specialized teachers scored a mean

of 4.90 (SD = 0.29), whereas non-specialized teachers reported a mean of 4.25

(SD = 0.62), suggesting a stronger ability to engage students effectively. In terms

of instructional strategies, specialized teachers achieved a mean of 4.39 (SD =

0.35), compared to 4.35 (SD = 0.62) for non-specialized teachers, reflecting

challenges faced by the latter in adapting teaching methods for unfamiliar content.

Lastly, for classroom management, specialized teachers reported a mean of 5.29

(SD = 0.25), while non-specialized teachers had a mean of 4.36 (SD = 0.62),

indicating greater confidence in maintaining classroom order. Lastly, A complete

breakdown of item- level scores is presented in Appendix VIII.

The study also examined whether there was a significant difference in

autonomy between specialized and non-specialized educators.

Table 5

GROUP t-value Degrees of freedom P-value

Autonomy Differences between Groups

Specialization 3.03 18 0.0049

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 38

Non-
specialization

Table 5 highlights the autonomy scores for specialized and non-

specialized teachers, with the specialized group scoring significantly higher. The

results of an independent samples t-test indicate a statistically significant

difference in autonomy between the two groups (t (18) = 3.03, p = 0.0049), with a

moderate to strong effect size. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected (H02).

Table 6
Sub-Dimensions of Autonomy for Specialized (S) and Non-Specialized (NS)
Educators
Sub-Dimension Specialized (S) Non-Specialized (NS) Key Observations
Specialized teachers
show greater freedom
x̄ = 2.96 x̄ = 2.51
Teaching in selecting methods
σ = 1.91 σ = 0.57 and planning; NS
Autonomy (Items
1,3,4,9,10,11) teachers rely more
on pre-designed
materials.
Specialized teachers
are better at adapting
Curriculum x̄ = 3.93 x̄ = 3.59
the curriculum to
Autonomy (Items σ = 1.51 σ = 0.42 students’ needs; NS
2,5,6,7,8) teachers struggle more
with content flexibility.
Both groups report
high autonomy in
Professional x̄ = 4.23 x̄ = 4.05 selecting professional
Development σ = 1.91 σ = 0.86 development activities,
Autonomy but specialized
(Items 12,13,14) teachers exhibit
slightly more
confidence.
Specialized teachers
feel more confident in
Communication x̄ = 4.11 x̄ = 3.61
communication with
Autonomy (Items σ = 2.28 σ = 0.45 colleagues and parents
15,16,17) compared to NS
teachers.
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 39

The Teacher Autonomy Scale (TAS) results revealed that specialized

educators scored higher across all sub-dimensions compared to non-specialized

educators, with notable differences in teaching autonomy and curriculum

autonomy as presented in Table 6. For teaching autonomy, specialized teachers

had a mean of 2.96 (SD = 1.91), compared to 2.51 (SD = 0.57) for non-

specialized teachers, indicating more flexibility in instructional decision-making.

In curriculum autonomy, specialized teachers achieved a mean of 3.93 (SD =

1.51), while non-specialized teachers reported a mean of 3.59 (SD = 0.42),

reflecting greater control over curriculum-related decisions. For professional

development autonomy, specialized teachers scored a mean of 4.23 (SD = 1.91),

compared to 4.05 (SD = 0.86) for non-specialized teachers. Similarly, in

communication autonomy, specialized teachers had a mean of 4.11 (SD = 2.28),

while non-specialized teachers reported 3.61 (SD = 0.45), suggesting more

opportunities for collaboration and professional interaction. A comprehensive

breakdown of item-level scores is presented in Appendix VIII.

Lastly, the study examined whether there was a significant difference in

perceived stress between specialized and non-specialized educators.

Table 7

GROUP U-Statistics P-value

Perceived Stress Level Differences between Groups

Specialization
Non- 39.0 1.0
specialization
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 40

The analysis revealed that stress levels were slightly lower for specialized

teachers (mean = 1.86, SD = 0.30) compared to non-specialized teachers (mean =

2.00, SD = 0.35). However, the difference was not statistically significant, as

indicated by the Mann-Whitney U test (U = 39.0, p = 1.0), leading to the

acceptance of the null hypothesis (H 03). Both groups reported moderate stress

levels, with variability observed in the interquartile range (IQR). The non-

specialization group exhibited a wider IQR, reflecting greater variability in stress,

but the overall range of scores for both groups was similar, spanning from

approximately 3.2 to 4.4.

Table 8
Sub-Dimensions of Perceived Stress for Specialized (S) and Non-Specialized (NS)
Educators
Construct/ Non-Specialized
Specialized (S) Key Observation
Factor (NS)
Stress from
Inadequate administrative support
School-Based x̄ = 2.00 x̄ = 2.16 was slightly lower for
Support σ = 0.30 σ = 0.35 specialized teachers.
(Items 1,2,3) Managing student
behavior
NS teachers reported
higher stress related to
workload and
Teaching-
addressing diverse
Related
x̄ = 2.17 x̄ = 2.36 learning needs,
Demands
σ = 0.27 σ = 0.31 reflecting the additional
(Items
effort required to
4,5,6,7)
prepare for unfamiliar
content and adapt
instruction.

Presented in Table 8 is a further analysis using the Teacher Stress Scale

(TSS) which revealed that both groups experienced moderate stress levels overall,

but non-specialized teachers faced heightened challenges across both constructs.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 41

For Inadequate School-Based Support, non-specialized teachers reported higher

stress levels (mean = 2.16, SD = 0.35) compared to specialized teachers (mean =

2.00, SD = 0.30). This construct encompasses stress related to insufficient

administrative and peer support.

For Teaching-Related Demands, non-specialized teachers reported

significantly higher stress (mean = 2.36, SD = 0.31) than their specialized

counterparts (mean = 2.17, SD = 0.27). This construct includes workload-related

stress and challenges in addressing the diverse learning needs of students. Non-

specialized teachers likely experience these stressors more acutely due to the extra

time and effort required to prepare lessons for subjects outside their expertise. For

example, tailoring instruction to meet students' varied learning needs can be

particularly stressful for non-specialized teachers, as they may lack the necessary

depth of content knowledge. A comprehensive breakdown of item-level scores is

presented in Appendix VIII.

DISCUSSION

The findings revealed that specialized teachers reported significantly

higher self-efficacy than their non-specialized counterparts, a finding consistent

with Bandura's (1977) Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasizes mastery

experiences as critical to building self-efficacy. This aligns with Klassen and Tze's

(2014) meta-analysis, which found that content familiarity enhances confidence

and instructional effectiveness. Locally, Bernardo and Ismail (2019) observed

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 42

similar trends among Filipino educators, emphasizing how subject expertise

fosters higher confidence in classroom management, instructional strategies, and

student engagement.

The sub-dimensions of self-efficacy further underscore these differences.

Specialized teachers excelled in classroom management, reflecting findings by

Woodcock et al. (2022), who noted that teachers with high self-efficacy focus on

fostering student achievement and confidence. Non-specialized teachers, on the

other hand, struggled more with instructional strategies, suggesting challenges in

adapting to unfamiliar content (Wyatt, 2015).

Trudel et al. (2021) emphasized that confidence in handling classroom

challenges stems from mastery experiences, which specialized teachers are more

likely to have. Conversely, the instructional challenges faced by non-specialized

teachers could lead to lower self-efficacy, particularly when adapting teaching

methods to unfamiliar content areas. Furthermore, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy's

(2001) model of teacher efficacy highlights how self-efficacy influences teachers'

ability to overcome professional obstacles, suggesting that non-specialized

teachers might require additional support in this regard.

Higher autonomy among specialized teachers reflects their greater control

over instructional decisions, curriculum design, and professional growth. Deci and

Ryan's (2008) Self-Determination Theory supports this finding, emphasizing

autonomy as a driver of motivation and job satisfaction. Çolak and Altınkurt

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 43

(2017) similarly identified curriculum and teaching process autonomy as vital for

professional independence.

Non-specialized teachers, however, often experience reduced autonomy,

relying heavily on administrative guidance and pre-packaged materials. This

aligns with Pfitzner-Eden's (2016) findings on how institutional constraints limit

decision-making flexibility. The standardized K-12 curriculum in the Philippines

further exacerbates these limitations, as noted by Galang (2021). Despite these

challenges, targeted interventions, such as collaborative planning and mentorship

programs, could enhance autonomy for non-specialized teachers, as suggested by

Lin and Gao (2023).

The sub-dimensions of autonomy—teaching process autonomy,

curriculum autonomy, and professional development autonomy—highlight

specific areas where specialized teachers excel. These findings are consistent with

Kara and Bozkurt's (2022) emphasis on the importance of allowing teachers to

tailor classroom practices to student needs. Non-specialized teachers, in contrast,

may struggle to assert control over their teaching methods due to unfamiliar

subject matter and institutional constraints.

While no statistically significant differences were found in perceived

stress levels between the two groups, qualitative differences highlight potential

areas for further investigation. Stress among non-specialized teachers often stems

from teaching unfamiliar content and increased preparation demands (Hobbs &
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 44

Porsch, 2021). Inadequate school-based support and teaching-related demands

were identified as key stressors, consistent with findings by Chen et al. (2022).

Jentsch et al. (2022) emphasized how supportive school environments and

administrative policies can buffer stress and improve job satisfaction. Although

the shared stress levels suggest a common institutional impact, the stress sub-

dimensions, such as inadequate school-based support and teaching-related

demands, merit further investigation

Additionally, findings by Bolton (2018) and Paudel et al. (2022) suggest

that mindfulness and cognitive-behavioral strategies could mitigate stress across

both groups. These approaches, combined with institutional support, could help

teachers better manage professional demands.

The interplay between self-efficacy, autonomy, and stress underscores the

importance of systemic support in shaping educators' professional experiences.

Teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to seek autonomy, which in turn

reduces stress and enhances teaching effectiveness (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014;

Zhao & Qin, 2021). This dynamic is particularly relevant for non-specialized

teachers, who may benefit from interventions aimed at boosting confidence and

decision-making capabilities.

Moreover, the findings align with Nguyen et al.'s (2023) research, which

links professional development to improved autonomy and job satisfaction. By

fostering environments that prioritize teacher autonomy and self-efficacy, schools

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 45

can create supportive systems that mitigate stress and enhance overall

instructional quality.

The findings also emphasize the critical role of leadership and institutional

policies. Supportive school cultures that provide opportunities for collaborative

decision-making and tailored professional development can address both the

autonomy and stress challenges identified in this study. Exploring these systemic

influences further could offer valuable insights for educational reforms aimed at

improving teacher outcomes. Additionally, integrating targeted mentorship

programs could empower non-specialized teachers to adapt effectively, improving

both their self-efficacy and professional satisfaction.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations that should be considered when

interpreting the results. One key limitation is the sample size and

representativeness of the participants. The findings may not fully capture the

diversity of educators across different regions, school types, or grade levels,

limiting the generalizability of the results. The sample was selected from

secondary school teachers in Pampanga, and this geographic limitation may not

reflect the experiences of teachers in other areas, especially in regions with

differing educational structures or resources. Another limitation concerns the data

collection method. The study relied on surveys, which are subject to biases such
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 46

as social desirability and self-reporting errors. These biases may have influenced

participants' responses and, consequently, the accuracy of the data. Additionally,

the statistical techniques employed in the analysis might not have fully accounted

for all potential confounding variables, and more advanced methods could have

been used to control for such influences.

Furthermore, the study did not consider external factors such as school

policies, administrative support, and the specific subject matter being taught.

These factors can significantly influence teachers’ self-efficacy, autonomy, and

stress levels. The study's focus on teacher specialization without considering the

broader institutional context may have overlooked crucial influences. Moreover,

the study’s causal-comparative design does not allow for definitive conclusions

about causality. Since the groups of specialized and non-specialized teachers were

pre-existing and not randomly assigned, the results should be interpreted as

demonstrating associations rather than causal links between teaching

specialization and the variables under study.

Conclusion

The study's findings indicate that an educator teaching their specialization

impacts self-efficacy and autonomy. However, similar stress levels across groups

suggest that institutional challenges affect both equally. These results underscore

the need for comprehensive support measures, such as professional development

and universally applicable stress-reduction policies. By cultivating environments

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 47

that foster self-efficacy, autonomy, and stress mitigation, schools can enhance

teacher well-being and effectiveness.

Recommendations

Future research should aim to address these limitations by expanding the

sample size and including a more diverse set of participants from different

regions, school types, and grade levels. This would help ensure that the findings

are more representative and can be generalized to a wider population of educators.

Additionally, future studies could incorporate mixed-methods approaches,

combining quantitative surveys with qualitative data, such as interviews or focus

groups, to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges teachers face in

specialized and non-specialized teaching roles. This approach could also reduce

biases inherent in self-reported data.

Further research should also explore how external factors, such as school

policies, administrative support, and school culture, impact teachers' self-efficacy,

autonomy, and stress. School climate, for instance, plays a significant role in

fostering professional development and reducing stress, and future studies could

examine how different institutional contexts influence these variables.

Longitudinal studies would be valuable in tracking changes in teachers’ self-

efficacy, autonomy, and stress over time, particularly for those teaching outside

their specialization. This would provide insights into how these factors evolve and

how teachers adapt to challenges in the long term.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 48

Moreover, qualitative studies could focus on the lived experiences of non-

specialized teachers, allowing researchers to explore how they perceive and

manage stress, autonomy, and self-efficacy in their roles. These findings could

inform the development of tailored interventions, such as mentorship programs or

professional development opportunities, to support teachers in non-specialized

roles. Finally, it would be beneficial for future research to use experimental

designs to explore causal relationships, providing more evidence on the impact of

teaching specialization on teachers' professional outcomes.

REFERENCES

Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J., Haerens, L., Delrue,

J., & Reeve, J. (2019). Toward a fine-grained understanding of the

components of need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching: The merits

of a gradual approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 497–

521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293

Alibakhshi, G., Nikdel, F., & Labbafi, A. (2020). Exploring the consequences of

teachers’ self-efficacy: A case of teachers of English as a foreign

language. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language

Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00102-1

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 49

Alson, J. (2019). Stress among public school teachers. Journal of Research

Initiatives, 4(2), Article 3.

https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri/vol4/iss2/3

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018). https://dictionary.apa.org/stress

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative

metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523

Avunduk, Y. (2021). The relationship between the performance and the perceived

stress of employees. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 6(1),

102–112. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2021.6

Ball, D. M. (2023). Improving teacher retention within Archdiocese of

Washington Schools. Scholars Crossing.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5006

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral

change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A Social Cognitive

Theory. Prentice Hall.

Bernardo, A. B. I., & Ismail, R. (2019). Role of Teacher Efficacy in Teaching

Effectiveness and Student Outcomes in the Philippines. Philippine Journal

of Psychology, 52(2), 161-176.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 50

Bolton, A. (2018). Teachers’ job satisfaction, stress, self-efficacy and beliefs

about self-regulated learning (Undergraduate honors thesis, University of

Western Ontario). University of Western Ontario Electronic Thesis and

Dissertation Repository. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/psychK_uht/68

Bolton, C. (2018). Enhancing teacher efficacy to reduce stress among educators.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 233-245.

https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000192

Brown, A., Myers, J., & Collins, D. (2019). How pre-service teachers’ sense of

teaching efficacy and preparedness to teach impact performance during

student teaching. Educational Studies, 47(1), 38–58.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1651696

Bugwak, E. (2021b). Travails of Out-of-Field Teachers: A Qualitative Inquiry.

Journal of World Englishes and Educational Practices, 3(2), 36–57.

https://doi.org/10.32996/jweep.2021.3.2.4

Buot, M. M., & Llego, M. A. (2017). Teachers’ Demographic Factors and Their

Self-Efficacy in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary

Research, 5(2), 37-45.

Burić, I., & Macuka, I. (2018). Self-efficacy, emotions and work engagement

among teachers: A two wave cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 19, 1917–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9903-9

Buyruk, H. (2018). Changes in teachers’ work and professionalism in England:

Impressions from the "shop floor". Malaysian Online Journal of

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 51

Educational Sciences, 6(2), 1-20. Retrieved from

https://mojes.um.edu.my/index.php/MOJES/article/view/12441/8048

Byun, S., & Jeon, L. (2022). Early childhood teachers’ work environment,

perceived personal stress, and professional commitment in South Korea.

Child & Youth Care Forum, 52(5), 1019–1039.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s1056-022-09722-9

Castro, M. A., Asignado, R. A., & Recede, R. A. A. (2023). Out-of-field teaching:

Impact on teachers' self-efficacy and motivation. International Journal of

Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(2), 519–

533. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.02.19

Chen, J. J., Li, Z., Rodrigues, W., & Kaufman, S. (2022). Thriving beyond

resilience despite stress: A psychometric evaluation of the newly

developed Teacher Stress Scale and Teacher Thriving Scale. Frontiers in

Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862342

Chen, J., Li, Y., Rodrigues, M., & Kaufman, D. (2022). Teacher stress and its

impact on well-being and classroom management. Journal of Education,

198(3), 202-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211029976

Choi, S., & Mao, X. (2021). Teacher autonomy for improving teacher self-

efficacy in multicultural classrooms: A cross-national study of

professional development in multicultural education. International

Journal of Educational Research, 105, 101711.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101711.
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 52

Co, A. G. E., Abella, C. R. G., & De Jesus, F. S. (2021). Teaching Outside

Specialization from the Perspective of Science Teachers. OAlib, 08(08),

1–13. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107725.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education

(8th ed.). Routledge.

Çolak, İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Okul iklimi ile öğretmenlerin özerklik

davranışları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between school climate and

teacher autonomy behaviors]. Educational Administration: Theory and

Practice, 23(1), 33-71. http://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2017.002

Çolak, I., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). The role of teacher autonomy in fostering job

satisfaction and teaching innovation. International Journal of Education

Research, 85, 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.004

Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2022). Öğretmenlerin Örgütsel Güç

Mesafesi Algıları ile Özerklik Davranışları Arasındaki İlişkide Eleştirel

Düşünme Eğilimlerinin Aracı Rolü. e-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları

Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1076433

Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2017). Adaptive and maladaptive work-related

motivation among teachers: A person-centred examination and links with

well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 171-183.

Da Silva, C. C. M., Santos, A. B. D., Leoci, I. C., Leite, E. G., Antunes, E. P.,

Torres, W., De Lima Mesquita, E. D., Delfino, L. D., & Beretta, V. S.

(2024). The Association between Perceived Stress, Quality of Life, and

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 53

Level of Physical Activity in Public School Teachers. International

Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health/International

Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(1), 88.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21010088

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behavior. Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of

human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3),

182-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self-Determination Theory. In Elsevier

eBooks (pp. 486–491). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-

8.26036-4

Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring

teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 751–766.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010

Downes, P. E., Crawford, E. R., Seibert, S. E., & Campbell, E. M. (2021).

Referents or role models? The self-efficacy and job performance effects of

perceiving higher performing peers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106,

422–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000519
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 54

Ertürk, R. (2023). The effect of teacher autonomy on teachers’ professional

dedication. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies,

10(2), 494–507. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2023.10.2.1048

Eurydice. (2008). Avrupa'daki öğretmenlerin sorumluluk ve özerklik düzeyleri

[Levels of responsibility and autonomy of teachers in Europe]. Brussels:

Publication Office of the European Union.

Fathi, J., Greenier, V., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). Self-efficacy, reflection, and

burnout among Iranian EFL teachers: The mediating role of emotion

regulation. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9, 13–37.

https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.121043

Fauzi, F., & Mustadi, A. (2019). Learner Autonomy of Science using 5E Learning

Cycle. Pedagogia, 8(2), 287–299.

https://doi.org/10.21070/pedagogia.v8i2.2424

Fauzi, H., & Mustadi, A. (2019). Teacher autonomy and its implications for

student-centered learning. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 19(3),

225-239. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2019.3.004

Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its

measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164499591005

Galang, A. D. (2021). Teachers’ critical reflections on the new normal Philippine

education issues: Inputs on curriculum and instruction development.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 55

International Journal of Social Learning, 1(3), 236–249.

https://doi.org/10.47134/ijsl.v1i3.43

Garcia, C. P. (2016). The Impact of Civil Status on Teachers' Stress Levels and

Coping Mechanisms in Public Schools. Philippine Journal of Education,

95(4), 23-38.

Gordon, D., Blundell, C. N., Mills, R., & Bourke, T. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy

and reform: a systematic literature review. Australian Educational

Researcher, 50(3), 801–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00526-3

Guo, Y., Dynia, J. M., & Lai, M. H. C. (2021). Early childhood special education

teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to individual children: Links to

children’s literacy learning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54,

153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.09.002

Hoang, T., & Wyatt, M. (2021). Exploring the self-efficacy beliefs of Vietnamese

pre-service teachers of English as a foreign language. System, 96, 102422.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102422

Hobbs, L., & Porsch, R. (2021). Teaching out-of-field: challenges for teacher

education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 601–610.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1985280
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 56

Hobbs, L., & Törner, G. (2019). Teacher stress and out-of-field teaching: A global

perspective. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 349-361.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118825389

Hobbs, L., & Törner, G. (2019). Teaching out-of-field as a phenomenon and

research problem. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(1), 7-

22.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Collins, G. J. (2018). The status of teaching as a profession. In

G. D. Sadovnik & R. W. Coughlan (Eds.), Sociology of Education: A

Critical Reader (3rd ed., pp. 199-213). Routledge.

Jentsch, A., Hoferichter, F., Blömeke, S., König, J., & Kaiser, G. (2022).

Investigating teachers’ job satisfaction, stress and working environment:

The roles of self‐efficacy and school leadership. Psychology in the

Schools, 60(3), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22788

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative,

qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C.

(2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 20, 178–187.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579803
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 57

Kara, M., & Bozkurt, B. (2022). The examination of the relationship between

teacher autonomy and teacher leadership through structural equation

modeling. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research,

9(2), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1037128

Kent, A. M., & Giles, R. M. (2017). Preservice teachers’ technology self-efficacy.

SRATE Journal, 26, 9–20.

Kazanopoulos, S., Garitano, E. T., & Basogain, X. (2022). The Self-Efficacy of

special and general education teachers in implementing inclusive

education in Greek secondary Education. Education Sciences, 12(6), 383.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060383

Khan, M. A., & Zaheer, Z. (2022). Perceived Stress, Resilience and

Psychological Well-Being among University Students: The Role of

Optimism as a Mediator (Vol. 3). ASAR Council.

https://asarcouncil.com/papers/1644337877.pdf

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job

satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741-756.

Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and

teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review,

12, 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 58

Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational

Review, 53, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628

Kyriacou, C., & Sutcliffe, J. (1977). Teacher stress: A review. Educational

Review, 29, 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191770290407

Latif, A., Zaka, S., & Ali, W. (2023). Teachers Stress and its Impact on Their

Self-Efficacy: An Evidence from Okara District. Bulletin of Business and

Economics, 12(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.61506/01.00030

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York:

Springer.

Lemon, N., & Garvis, S. (2016). Pre-service teacher self-efficacy in digital

technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 387–408.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1058594

Li, R., Liu, H., Chen, Y., & Yao, M. (2019). Teacher engagement and self-

efficacy: The mediating role of continuing professional development and

moderating role of teaching experience. Current Psychology, 41(1), 328–

337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00575-5.

Lin, Q., & Gao, X. (2023). Exploring the predictors of teachers’ teaching

autonomy: A three-level international study. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 135, 104338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104338

Liu, P. (2021). Influence of Psychological Need-Based Teachers’ autonomy

support on effectiveness and engagement in English learning. Frontiers in

Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663374

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 59

Llego, M. A. (2018). The Effect of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy on Job Satisfaction

and Performance. International Journal of Educational Research and

Technology, 9(1), 1-8.

Lopez-Garrido, G. (2023). Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory of Motivation in

Psychology. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-

efficacy.html

Mahdavi, A. (2016). Relationship between Job Stress and Personality Dimensions

of Education Physical Education Teachers in the City of Pars Abad.

Business and Economics Journal, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-

6219.1000245

Mama, S. A., & Tagadiad, C. L. (2024). The mediating effect of organizational

climate on the relationship between Self-Efficacy and autonomy of work

of teachers. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social

Science, VIII(IV), 1940–1957. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.804133

Marschall, G., & Watson, S. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy as an aspect of

narrative self-schemata. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 103568.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103568

McCarthy, C. J., Lambert, R. G., O'Donnell, M., & Melendres, L. T. (2009).

Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability. Educational

Research Quarterly, 32(3), 3-28.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 60

Miksza, P., Shaw, J. T., Richerme, L. K., Hash, P. M., Hodges, D. A., & Parker,

E. C. (2023). Quantitative descriptive and correlational research. In

Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 241-C12P143).

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197639757.003.0012

Mohajan, H. (2020). Quantitative Research: a successful investigation in natural

and social sciences. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and

People, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v9i4.679

Netz, A., & Rom, L. (2020). Effects of mindfulness on teacher stress and Self-

Efficacy. SOPHIA. https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/361

Nguyen, D., Koomen, H. M., & Taris, T. W. (2023). The role of support in

teacher self-efficacy and autonomy. Educational Psychology, 43(1), 46-

61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2120406

Nguyen, L. T., Dang, V. H., & Pham, H. T. (2023). The effects of school climate

on high school teacher stress and self-efficacy in Ho Chi Minh City.

Educational Psychology, 43, 57–77.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2128054

Nir, A. E., Bogler, R., Inbar, D., Zohar, A., & Ben-David, A. (2024). Promoting

21st century pedagogy: can school autonomy and school-based

professional development processes make a difference? Education

Inquiry, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2024.2318841

Opoku, M. P., Nketsia, W., & Mohamed, A. H. (2022). The self-efficacy of

private school teachers toward the implementation of inclusive education

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 61

in Ghana: A mixed-methods study. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.985123

Öztürk, İ. H. (2011). Öğretmen özerkliği üzerine kuramsal bir inceleme [A

conceptual analysis on teacher autonomy]. Electronic Journal of Social

Sciences, 10(35), 82-99.

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/esosder/issue/6149/82567

Öztürk, N., & Şahin, G. Ö. S. (2020). Teachers’ Self-Efficacy perceptions in

terms of school principal’s instructional leadership behaviours.

International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 25–40.

https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.3

Paudel, N. R., Adhikari, B. A., Prakash, K. C., Kyrönlahti, S., Nygård, C., &

Neupane, S. (2022). Effectiveness of interventions on the stress

management of schoolteachers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 79(7), 477–485.

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2021-108019

Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching

autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-177.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155

Pfitzner-Eden, F. (2016). Teacher autonomy and its effects on job satisfaction and

self-efficacy: A cross-cultural analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education,

58, 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.004

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 62

Pfitzner-Eden, F. (2016). Why do I feel more confident? Bandura’s sources

predict preservice teachers’ latent changes in teacher self-efficacy.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 223-234.

Pineda, S. A. Y. (2024). Self-efficacy and instructional practices of public

kindergarten teachers in Davao Del Norte Division. International Journal

of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(9), 1666–1689. Retrieved from

https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V5ISSUE9/IJRPR33231.pdf

Prilleltensky, I., Neff, M., & Bessell, A. (2016). Teacher stress: What it is, why

it’s important, how it can be alleviated. Theory into Practice, 55, 104–110.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148986

Recede, R. a. A., Asignado, R. A., & Castro, M. A. (2023). Out-of-Field

Teaching: Impact on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and motivation.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary, 4(2), 519–533.

https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber..04.02.19

Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability,

benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational

Psychologist :/Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657

Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Benefits of autonomy-supportive teaching on

student outcomes and teacher effectiveness. Educational Psychologist,

56(4), 280-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1913679

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 63

Santos, M. J., & Amador, C. F. (2017). The Role of Autonomy in Enhancing

Teacher Performance in the Philippines. Philippine Educational Research

Journal, 23(1), 66-79.

Schleicher, A. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)

2018: Insights and Interpretations. OECD Publishing.

Shannon, S. (2023). Teacher Self-Efficacy in Novice Job-Embedded Practitioners.

Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/4265

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout:

A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher Self-Efficacy and Perceived

Autonomy: Relations with Teacher Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and

Emotional Exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77.

https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.pr0.114k14w0

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction:

The roles of autonomy and perceived support. Social Psychology of

Education, 17(2), 245-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9253-5

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2015). Job satisfaction, stress and coping

strategies in the teaching profession—What do teachers say? International

Education Studies, 8(3), 181-192.

Stevenson, H., & Wood, P. (2013). Markets, managerialism and teachers’ work:

The invisible hand of high stakes testing in England. The International

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 64

Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 42-61. Retrieved

from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229431117.pdf

Sokmen, Y., & Kilic, D. (2019). The relationship between primary school

teachers’ self-efficacy, autonomy, job satisfaction, teacher engagement,

and burnout: A model development study. International Journal of

Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 5(2), 709-721.

Stress in AmericaTM 2020: Stress in the Time of COVID-19, Volume One. (n.d.).

https://www.apa.org.https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/

2020/report

Sutcher, L., Darling‐Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2019b). Understanding

teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United

States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 35.

https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3696

Timperley, H., & Robinson, V. (2015). Partnership: Focusing the relationship on

the task of school improvement. School Leadership & Management, 35(1),

5-25.

Toropova, A., Myrberg, E., & Johansson, S. (2020). Teacher job satisfaction: The

importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics.

Educational Review, 72(1), 34-51.

Travers, C. (2017). Current knowledge on the nature, prevalence, sources and

potential impact of teacher stress. In T. M. McIntyre, S. E. McIntyre, & D.

J. Francis (Eds.), Educator stress: An occupational health perspective (pp.

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 65

23–54). Springer International Publishing

AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53053-6_2.

Trudel, L., Sokal, L., & Babb, J. (2021). Teacher self-efficacy and professional

training: Impacts on classroom management. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 96, 103181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103181

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an

elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-

efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 23(6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

Usma-Wilches, J. A. (2006). Teacher autonomy : a review of the research

literature. UNI ScholarWorks. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/1634/

Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Soenens, B. (2019). Seeking

Stability in Stormy Educational Times: A Need-based Perspective on

(De)motivating Teaching Grounded in Self-determination Theory. In

Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 53–80).

https://doi.org/10.1108/s0749-742320190000020004

Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., Subban, P., & Hitches, E. (2022). Teacher self-

efficacy and inclusive education practices: Rethinking teachers’

engagement with inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education,

117, 103802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103802

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 66

Wyatt, M. (2015). Using Qualitative Research Methods to Assess the Degree of

Fit between Teachers’ Reported Self-efficacy Beliefs and their Practical

Knowledge during Teacher Education. The Australian Journal of Teacher

Education, 40(40). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n1.7

Yada, A., Tolvanen, A., & Savolainen, H. (2018). Teachers’ attitudes and self-

efficacy on implementing inclusive education in Japan and Finland: A

comparative study using multi-group structural equation modelling.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 343–355.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.011

Zaheer, Z., & Khan, M. (2022). Perceived stress, resilience, and psychological

well-being among university students: The role of optimism as a mediator.

SDB Index Journal, 3, 55-67. Retrieved from

https://sdbindex.com/documents/00000184/00001-47998.pdf

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. (2019). Engaging children in the upper elementary

grades: unique contributions of Teacher Self-Efficacy, autonomy support,

and Student-Teacher relationships. Journal of Research in Childhood

Education, 34(4), 477–495.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1701589
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 67

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. (2019). The importance of teachers' self-efficacy and

autonomy support in fostering student engagement. Educational

Psychology Review, 31(4), 723-749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-

09485-0

Zhao, J., & Qin, Y. (2021). Perceived teacher autonomy support and students’

deep learning: the mediating role of Self-Efficacy and the moderating role

of perceived peer support. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652796
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 68

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Scales

Teacher’s Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES)

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 69

Teacher’s Autonomy Scale (TAS)

Teacher’s Stress Scale (TSS)

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 70

Appendix II: Permit from the Authors of the Scales

Permission to use Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) by Tschannen-

Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001)

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 71

Permission to use Teacher Autonomy Scale (TAS) by Çolak & Altınkurt (2017)
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 72

Permission to use Teacher’s Stress Scale (TSS) by Chen (2022)

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 73

Appendix III: Permit to Conduct the Interviews/Survey

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 74

Appendix IV: Request for Pertinent Data

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 75

Appendix V: Informed Consent for Research Participants

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 76

Appendix VI: Respondent’s Demographics

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 77
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 78

Appendix VII: Certification of Statistical Analysis

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 79

Appendix VIII: Raw Statistical data

Table I
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Municipalities Specialization Non- specialization Total
Angeles 9 10 19
Arayat 13 13 26
Apalit 21 21 42
Florida 6 6 12
Lubao 12 12 24
Macabebe 6 6 12
Magalang 12 13 25
Mabalacat 4 4 8
Mexico 17 17 34
Minalin 9 9 18
San Fernando 23 28 51
San Simon 14 15 29
Sasmuan 5 5 10
Sta. Ana 10 10 20
Sta. Rita 11 11 22
Sto. Tomas 12 12 24

Specialized (S) Non-Specialized Total

Characteristic
n1 = 183 (NS) n2 = 192 (%) n =
(48.80%) (51.20%) 375
Sex
Male 84 (22.40%) 56 (14.93%) 140 (37.33%)
Female 99 (26.40%) 136 (36.27%) 235 (62.67%)
Age
20–25 years 53 (14.13%) 102 (27.20%) 155 (41.33%)
26–30 years 42 (11.20%) 47 (12.53%) 89 (23.73%)
31–35 years 44 (11.73%) 38 (10.13%) 82 (21.87%)
36-40 years 23 (6.13%) 3 26 (6.93%)
(0.80%)
41-45 years 21 (5.60%) 2 23 (6.13%)
(0.53%)
Educational
Attainment
Bachelor’s Degree 123 (32.80%) 180 (47.73%) 303 (80.53%)
Master’s Degree 60 (16.00%) 12 (3.20%) 72 (19.20%)
Employment
Public 148 (39.47%) 117 (31.20%) 265 (70.67%)
Private 35 (9.33%) 75 (20.00%) 110 (29.33%)
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 80

TEACHING FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE FREQUENC PERCENTA

EXPERIENCE (S) (S) Y GE
(NS) (NS)
Below 1 year 5 1.33 0 0.00

1-5 YEARS 66 17.60 100 26.67

6-10 YEARS 84 22.40 92 24.53

11-15 YEARS 21 5.60 0 0.00

16-20 YEARS 3 0.80 0 0.00

21-25 YEARS 4 1.07 0 0.00

EMPLOYMENT FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE FREQUENC PERCENTA

STATUS (S) (S) Y GE
(NS) (NS)
CONTRACTUAL 41 10.93 69 18.40
PROBATIONAR 5 1.33 0 0.00
Y
REGULAR 137 36.53 123 32.80
DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 81
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 82

Table 1

Mea Std.
Levels of Self-Efficacy, Autonomy, and Perceived Stress

Variable Group n n Deviation

(σ)
Self-
(x̄)

Specialization 183 4.85 0.57

Efficacy
Non-
192 4.32 0.62
Specialization
Autonomy Specialization 183 3.73 0.45
Non-
192 3.56 0.50
Specialization
Stress Specialization 183 1.86 0.30
Non-
192 2.00 0.35
Specialization

Table I
Tests of Normality, Shapiro-Wilk Test
Variable Group W p-value Normality
Statistic
Self- Specialization 0.96 0.26 Normal (p > 0.05)
Efficacy
Non- 0.99 0.11 Normal (p > 0.05)
Specialization
Autonomy Specialization 0.99 0.58 Normal (p > 0.05)
Non- 0.99 0.15 Normal (p > 0.05)
Specialization
Stress Specialization 0.99 0.01 Not Normal (p ≤ 0.05)
Levels
Non- 0.99 0.00 Not Normal (p ≤ 0.05)
Specialization

Table II

Std.
Item Analysis for TSES Scores (S)

Items Mean Deviatio

n
How much can you do to control disruptive 1.8 0.06
behavior in the classroom?
1.

2. How much can you do to motivate students who 2.16 0.3

show low interest in school work?
3. How much can you do to get students to believe 2.01 0.15
they can do well in school work?
4. How much can you do to help your student value 2.41 0.55
learning?
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 83

To what extent can you craft good questions for 1.67 0.19
your students?
5.

6. How much can you do to get children to follow 2.07 0.21

classroom rules?
7. How much can you do to calm a student who is 2.15 0.29
disruptive or noisy?
8. How well can you establish a classroom 1.8 0.06
management system with each group of students?
9. How much can you use a variety of assessment 1.44 0.42
strategies?
10. To what extent can you provide an alternative 1.71 0.15
explanation for example when students are
confused?
11. How much can you assist families in helping their 1.64 0.22
children do well in school?
12. How well can you implement alternative strategies 1.45 0.41
in your classroom?

Table III

Std.
Item Analysis for TSES Scores (NS)

Items Mean Deviatio

n
13. How much can you do to control disruptive 1.93 1.93
behavior in the classroom?
14. How much can you do to motivate students who 0.07 0.07
show low interest in school work?
15. How much can you do to get students to believe 2.35 2.35
they can do well in school work?
16. How much can you do to help your student value 0.35 0.35
learning?
17. To what extent can you craft good questions for 2.15 2.15
your students?
18. How much can you do to get children to follow 0.18 0.18
classroom rules?
19. How much can you do to calm a student who is 2.64 2.64
disruptive or noisy?
20. How well can you establish a classroom 0.64 0.64
management system with each group of students?
21. How much can you use a variety of assessment 1.78 1.78
strategies?
22. To what extent can you provide an alternative 0.22 0.22
explanation for example when students are
confused?
23. How much can you assist families in helping their 2.24 2.24
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 84

children do well in school?

24. How well can you implement alternative strategies 0.24 0.24
in your classroom?

Table IV
Sub-Dimensions of Self-Efficacy for Specialized (S) and Non-Specialized (NS)
Educators
Sub-Dimension Specialized Non-Specialized Key Observations
(S) (NS)
Specialized teachers
exhibit higher
Efficacy in
confidence in
Student x̄ = 4.96 x̄ = 4.25
motivating students
Engagement σ = 0.29 σ = 0.62
and involving families;
(Items α = -0.08 α = -0.08
NS teachers report
2,3,4,11)
lower efficacy in
engaging students.
Both groups report
moderate efficacy, but
Efficacy in
specialized teachers
Instructional x̄ = 4.39 x̄ = 4.35
show a slight
Strategies σ = 0.35 σ = 0.62
advantage due to
(Items 5,9, 10, α = 0.29 α = 0.29
familiarity with
12)
content and adaptive
teaching methods.
Specialized teachers
feel significantly more
Efficacy in confident in
x̄ = 5.29 M = 4.36
Classroom maintaining discipline
σ = 0.25 SD = 0.62
Management and handling
α = -0.25 α = -0.25
(Items 1,6,7,8) disruptive behavior;
NS teachers report
low efficacy.

Table IV

Std.
Item Analysis for TAS Scores (S)

Items Mean
Deviation
I decide for myself how much time I will spend for
3.49 1.78
activities in the lessons.
1.

2. I rearrange the curriculum (in terms of subjects,

content, achievement, etc.) according to the needs 4.02 1.2
of the students.
3. I choose the teaching methods and techniques that I
2.96 1.91
will use in the lessons.
4. I decide on my own assessment and evaluation
3.18 2.29
methods that I will use in my lessons.
5. While planning the lesson, I choose the subject 3.67 1.5
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 85

according to the student's needs.

I make additions to the curriculum according to the
3.93 1.51
student's needs.
6.

7. I make reductions in the curriculum according to

4.16 0.87
the student's needs.
8. I use different resources in addition to the textbook. 2.89 1.62
9. I include current topics that are not included in the
3.79 1.48
curriculum in my lessons.
10. I assign students homework on the subjects I want. 4.22 1.93
11. I decide for myself how to reward students. 3.53 2.33
12. I determine the appropriate time for the in-service
4.23 1.91
trainings I will attend.
13. I decide on my own which topics are suitable for me
4.09 1.75
in the in-service trainings I will attend.
14. I attend the scientific meetings I want related to my
3.32 1.39
field.
15. I freely express my thoughts in the school meetings. 4.23 2.23
16. The school administration does not interfere with
4.11 2.28
my communication with my colleagues.
17. The school administration does not interfere with
3.56 1.89
my communication with my parents.

Table V
Item Analysis for TAS Scores (NS)
Mea Std.
Items
n Deviation
I decide for myself how much time I will spend for 3.3 0.45
activities in the lessons.
1.

I rearrange the curriculum (in terms of subjects, 3.69 0.79

content, achievement, etc.) according to the needs of
2.

the students.
3. I choose the teaching methods and techniques that I 2.51 -0.57
will use in the lessons.
I decide on my own assessment and evaluation 3.03 0.07
methods that I will use in my lessons.
4.

5. While planning the lesson, I choose the subject 3.03 -0.16

according to the student's needs.
6. I make additions to the curriculum according to the 3.59 0.42
student's needs.
I make reductions in the curriculum according to the 3.96 0.91
student's needs.
7.

8. I use different resources in addition to the textbook. 2.67 -0.38

9. I include current topics that are not included in the 3.62 0.44
curriculum in my lessons.
I assign students homework on the subjects I want. 4.15 1
I decide for myself how to reward students. 3.49 0.66
10.
11.
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 86

12. I determine the appropriate time for the in-service 4.05 0.86
trainings I will attend.
13. I decide on my own which topics are suitable for me in 4.09 0.85
the in-service trainings I will attend.
14. I attend the scientific meetings I want related to my 4.01 1.01
field.
15. I freely express my thoughts in the school meetings. 3.99 1.12
16. The school administration does not interfere with my 3.61 0.45
communication with my colleagues.
17. The school administration does not interfere with my 3.72 0.56
communication with my parents.

Table VII
Sub-Dimensions of Autonomy for Specialized (S) and Non-Specialized (NS)
Educators
Non-
Sub-
Specialized (S) Specialized Key Observations
Dimension
(NS)
Specialized teachers
Teaching
show greater freedom in
Autonomy
x̄ = 2.96 x̄ = 2.51 selecting methods and
(Items
σ = 1.91 σ = 0.57 planning; NS teachers
1,3,4,9,10,11
rely more on pre-
)
designed materials.
Specialized teachers are
Curriculum better at adapting the
Autonomy x̄ = 3.93 x̄ = 3.59 curriculum to students’
(Items σ = 1.51 σ = 0.42 needs; NS teachers
2,5,6,7,8) struggle more with
content flexibility.
Professional x̄ = 4.23 x̄ = 4.05 Both groups report high
Development σ = 1.91 σ = 0.86 autonomy in selecting
Autonomy professional development
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 87

activities, but specialized

(Items
teachers exhibit slightly
12,13,14)
more confidence.
Specialized teachers feel
Communicati
more confident in their
on Autonomy x̄ = 4.11 x̄ = 3.61
communication with
(Items σ = 2.28 σ = 0.45
colleagues and parents
15,16,17)
compared to NS teachers.

Table VI
Item Analysis for TSS Scores (S)
Std.
Mea
Items Deviatio Interpretation
n
n
1. I felt stressed for not having Moderate stress from
support from the administrators 2 0.3 lack of administrative
at my school support
2. I felt stressed for not having Moderate stress from
support from colleagues at my 1.57 0.26 lack of colleague
school support
3. I felt stressed for having to High stress from
manage students’ behaviors 1.94 0.27 managing student
behavior (highest)
4. I felt stressed for having too Moderate stress from
2.17 0.27
much teaching work to do teaching workload
5. I felt stressed for not having Lower stress from time
enough time to complete my 2.17 0.22 constraints (lowest)
teaching work
6. I felt stressed for not being Moderate stress from
able to meet the diverse learning 1.81 0.21 meeting diverse
needs of my students learning needs
7. I felt stressed about not doing Moderate stress from
a good job with my teaching 1.37 0.18 concerns about job
performance

Table VII
Item Analysis for TSS Scores (NS)
Std.
Mea
Items Deviatio Interpretation
n
n
1. I felt stressed for not having 2.16 0.35 Moderate stress from
support from the administrators lack of administrative
at my school support
2. I felt stressed for not having 1.67 0.31 Moderate stress from
support from colleagues at my lack of colleague
school support
3. I felt stressed for having to 2.09 0.31 Moderate stress from
manage student’s behaviors managing student
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 88

behavior
4. I felt stressed for having too 2.36 0.31 Lower stress from
much teaching work to do teaching workload
(lowest)
5. I felt stressed for not having 2.36 0.26
Moderate stress from
enough time to complete my
time constraints
teaching work
6. I felt stressed for not being 1.94 0.25 Moderate stress from
able to meet the diverse learning meeting diverse
needs of my students learning needs
7. I felt stressed about not doing 1.43 0.21 Moderate stress from
a good job with my teaching concerns about job
performance

Table X
Sub-Dimensions of Perceived Stress for Specialized (S) and Non-Specialized (NS)
Educators

Construct/ Specialized Non- Key Observation

Factor (S) Specialized
(NS)
Inadequate x̄ = 2.00 x̄ = 2.16 Stress from
School-Based σ = 0.30 σ = 0.35 administrative support
Support was slightly lower for
(Items 1,2,3) specialized teachers.
Managing student
behavior was a shared
stressor, with NS
teachers reporting
higher stress (x̄ =
2.09, σ = 0.31)
compared to S
teachers (x̄ = 1.94, σ
= 0.27)
Teaching- x̄ = 2.17 x̄ = 2.36 NS teachers reported
Related σ = 0.27 σ = 0.31 higher stress related
Demands to workload and
(Items addressing diverse
4,5,6,7) learning needs,
reflecting the
additional effort
required to prepare
for unfamiliar content
and adapt instruction..

Figure A
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 89

Normal Distribution Visualizations

Figure B
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 90

Bar graph with significance indicators of Self -Efficacy

Figure C
Bar graph with significance indicators of Autonomy

Figure D
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 91

Box plot of perceived stress scores

Figure E
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 92

Scatter Plot of SE Scores (S and NS)

Figure F
Bar Graph of the Item Analysis for TAS (S)

Figure G
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 93

Bar Graph of the Item Analysis for TAS (NS)

Figure H
Bar Graph Comparison of the Item Analysis for TAS (S)

Figure I
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 94

Scatter Plot of Autonomy Weighted Scores (S and NS)

Figure F
Scatter Plot of Stress Scores (S and NS)

Appendix IX: Plagiarism Certification

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 95

CURRICULUM VITAE
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 96

TRICIA CHARLEMAGNE M. VILLEGAS, CHRA

BS Psychology Student

CONTACT
 0939-574-9295
 triciamvillegas@gmail.com
 727 Isaiah St., Don Ramon Village,
Brgy. San Agustin, City of San Fernando,
Pampanga (2000)

PERSONAL DATA
Date of Birth: October 15, 2002
Place of Birth: Angeles City
Age: 22 Years Old
Sex: Female
Marital Status: Single
Nationality: Filipino
Languages Spoken: Filipino, English, Kapampangan

EDUCATION

Tertiary
 Bachelor of Science in Psychology 2021 – Present
 Don Honorio Ventura State University (DHVSU) – Bacolor, Pampanga

Secondary
 Senior High School 2019 – 2020
 Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS)
 St. Scholastica’s Academy – City of San Fernando, Pampanga
 Junior High School 2015 – 2019
 St. Scholastica’s Academy – City of San Fernando, Pampanga

Primary
 Elementary 2007 – 2012
 Jesus is Lord Christian School – City of San Fernando, Pampanga

WORK EXPERIENCE
 Work Immersion – Guidance Associate’s Assistant (September – November
2024)
 St. Scholastica’s Academy – City of San Fernando, Pampanga

 Student-Catechist (2018 – 2019)

 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 97

 St. Scholastica’s Academy – City of San Fernando, Pampanga

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
 President’s Lister
o DHVSU Lubao Campus, Psychology Department – 2021 - 2022
 Rank 18 President’s Lister
o DHVSU Lubao Campus - 2022
 Top 1 Year Level and Department President’s Lister
o o DHVSU Lubao Campus, Psychology Department - 2022
 NSTP Best Group Community Plan
o DHVSU Lubao Campus
 Dean’s Lister
o DHVSU Lubao Campus, Psychology Department – 2022 - 2023
 Dean’s Lister
o DHVSU, CSSP, Psychology Department
 Certified Human Resource Associate (Batch 50) - August 2024
 Advocate in the National Women’s Month 2023 Advocacy
 DHVSU Lubao Campus - 2023
 CBCP Reaction Paper Writing Contest (Category A)
 Independent - 2020

SKILLS
 Writing Skills
 Leadership Skills
 Organization and time management skills
 Public Speaking
 Attentive to details
 Knowledge of research and ethics
 Openness to Experience
 Flexibility in work and tasks
 Basic computer literary skills (MS Word, PowerPoint, Excel and Publisher)
 Photo and Video Editing
 Creative pursuits

SEMINARS
 Weaponizing the Law with Leila De Lima - St. Scholastica’s Academy
o November 8, 2024 - Participant

CURRICULUM VITAE
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 98

DABU, RONAMAE JOYCE E.

BS Psychology Student

CONTACT
 0951-348-9660
 ronamaejoyce@gmail.com
 Purok 8 San Isidro Lubao, Pampanga

PERSONAL DATA
Date of birth: January 23, 2004
Place of Birth: JBL San Fernando
Age: 22 Years Old
Sex: Female
Marital Status: Married
Nationality: Filipino
Language Spoken: Filipino, English, Kapampangan,

EDUCATION
Tertiary
 Bachelor of Science in Psychology 2021 – present
 Don Honorio Ventura State University (DHVSU) – Bacolor
Pampanga

Secondary
 Lubao National High School – San Nicholas Lubao Pampanga 2014-2021
 Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS)

Primary
 Elementary
 San Antonio Elementary School – Guagua Pampanga 2009-2014

WORK EXPERINCE
 Work Immersion – School Journalist, July 2021
 Lubao National High School
 On the job training – Guidance Counselor Staff – August to November 2024
 Sta. Cruz Academy of Lubao Inc.- Lubao Pampanga

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
 With Honors
o Junior Highschool - Senior Highschool
 Supreme Student Government – 2015- 2017
 Youth Environment School- Organization Officer- 2015- 2018
 Filipino Extemporaneous Speech Competition 3rd Placer- 2018
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 99

 President’s Lister
o 1st year, 1 Semester
 Director’s Lister
o 2nd year Academic year 2022-2023
 Dean’s Lister
o 3rd year, 1st Semester Academic year 2023-2024

SKILLS
 Empathy
 Listening skills
 Communication skills
 Research skills
 Interpersonal skills
 Technological proficiency

CURRICULUM VITAE
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 100

JOANA JOY P. ARIOLA

BS Psychology Student

CONTACT
 0931-7852- 423
 joanajoyariola@gmail.com
 81 Purok 4, Lauc Pao,
Lubao, Pampanga

PERSONAL DATA
Date of Birth: November 01, 2002
Place of Birth: Lubao, Pampanga
Age: 22 Years Old
Sex: Female
Marital Status: Single
Nationality: Filipino
Language Spoken: Filipino, English, Kapampangan

EDUCATION
Tertiary
 Bachelor of Science in Psychology 2021 - Present
 Don Honorio Ventura State University (DHVSU) - Bacolor, Pampanga

Secondary
 Senior High School 2019 - 2021
 General Academic Strand (GAS)
 Sta. Cruz High Integrated School - Sta. Cruz, Lubao, Pampanga
 Junior High School 2015- 2019
 Sta. Cruz High Integrated School - Sta. Cruz, Lubao, Pampanga

Primary
 Elementary 2009-2015
 Lauc Pao Elementary School - Lubao, Pampanga

WORK EXPERIENCE
 Kapit Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of
Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS)
o September 2024 – December 2024

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
 With High Honor
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 101

 Senior High School, Grade 12, Academic Year 2020 - 2021

 With Honor
 Senior High School, Grade 11, Academic Year 2019 - 2020
 With Honor
 Junior High School, Grade 7 - 10, Academic Year 2015 – 2019

SKILLS
 Good Listener
 Interpersonal Skills
 Analytical and Critical Thinking
 Efficient and Organized
 Basic Understanding of Psychological Concepts

SEMINARS
 Don Honorio Ventura State University
o "Aspiration to Achievement: Maximizing Your Potential”
November 15, 2024 - Participant

CURRICULUM VITAE
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 102

DENNISSE SHANE P. PALABRICA

BS Psychology Student

CONTACT
 0946-655-5201
 pdennisseshane@gmail.com
 143 F. Lusong St. Prk. 1 Brgy. Saguing,
Dinalupihan, Bataan

PERSONAL DATA
Date of Birth: April 2, 2002
Place of Birth: Dinalupihan, Bataan
Age: 22 Years Old
Sex: Female
Marital Status: Single
Nationality: Filipino
Language Spoken: Filipino & English

EDUCATION

Tertiary
 Bachelor of Science in Psychology 2021 – Present
 Don Honorio Ventura State University (DHVSU) - Bacolor, Pampanga

Secondary
 Senior High School 2017 - 2019
 Humanities and Social Sciences
 Eastwoods College of Science and Technology-Dinalupihan, Bataan

 Junior High School 2013- 2017

 Luacan National High School - Luacan, Dinalupihan Bataan

WORK EXPERIENCE
 Work Immersion- HRS Office Assistant - September 2019
o Dinalupihan, Bataan

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
 With Honor
 Senior High School, Grade 11, Academic Year 2017 - 2018
 With Honor
 Senior High School, Grade 12, Academic Year 2018 - 2019
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 103

SKILLS
 Computer Literacy
 Communication
 Adaptability
 Active Listening
 Problem Solving
 Flexibility
 Time Management

SEMINARS
 Don Honorio Ventura State University (DHVSU) - Program in Pampanga
o Degenderized Seminar Serye: From Aspiration to Achievement: Maximizing
Your Potential - November 14, 2024

CURRICULUM VITAE
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 104

MARY ROSE N. PANLAQUI

BS Psychology Student

CONTACT
 0981-219-5148
 maryrosepanlaqui1@gmail.com
 Centro B, Santo Tomas,
Lubao, Pampanga

PERSONAL DATA
Date of Birth: November 26, 2003
Place of Birth: D.P.M.M.H., Guagua, Pampanga
Age: 21
Sex: Female
Marital Status: Single
Nationality: Filipino
Language Spoken: Filipino, English, Kapampangan

EDUCATION

Tertiary
 Bachelor of Science in Psychology 2021- Present
 Don Honorio Ventura State University (DHVSU) - Bacolor, Pampanga

Secondary
 Senior High School 2019 - 2021
 Humanities and Social Sciences Strand (HUMSS)
 Lubao National High School (LNHS) - Lubao, Pampanga
 Luakan National High School (LNHS) - Dinalupihan, Bataan
 Junior High School 2015 - 2019
 Lubao National High School - Lubao, Pampanga

Primary
 Elementary 2008 - 2015
 Lubao Elementary School - Lubao, Pampanga

WORK EXPERIENCE
 DSWD KALAHI-CIDSS CFW Program - Office of Auxiliary Services -
August-November 2024
 Don Honorio Ventura State University (DHVSU) - Bacolor, Pampanga

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 105

 Director’s Lister
 2nd year, 1st and 2nd Semester, Academic Year 2022 - 2023
 Director’s Lister
 1st year, 1st and 2nd Semester, Academic Year 2021 - 2022
 Graduated with Honors
 Senior High School, Grade 12, Academic Year 2020 - 2021

SKILLS
 Interpersonal Skills
 Teamwork and Collaboration
 Time Management Skills
 Adaptability/Resilience Skills
 Communication Skills
 Critical Thinking
 Initiative
 Editing Skills

SEMINAR
 Don Honorio Ventura State University (DHVSU)
o Aspiration to Achievement: Maximizing Your Potential
o November 15, 2024 – Participant

CURRICULUM VITAE
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 106

AURA IHSABELLE S. VILLARAN

BS Psychology Student

CONTACT
 0962-696-2495
 ihsabellevillaran@gmail.com
 Iglesia Ni Cristo Compound Baruya
(San Rafael), Lubao, Pampanga

PERSONAL DATA
Date of Birth: September 25, 2002
Place of Birth: Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila
Age: 22
Sex: Female
Marital Status: Single
Nationality: Filipino
Language Spoken: Filipino, English

EDUCATION

Tertiary
 Bachelor of Science in Psychology 2021 - Present
 Don Honorio Ventura State Universary (DHVSU) -
Bacolor, Pampanga

Secondary
 Senior High School 2019 - 2021
 General Academic Strand (GAS)
 Diosdado Macapagal Memorial High School - Floridablanca, Pampanga

 Junior High School 2018 - 2019

 Diosdado Macapagal Memorial High School - Floridablanca,
Pampanga

Primary
 Elementary 2014 -2015
 San Isidro Elementary School - Sta. Rita - Pampanga

WORK EXPERIENCE
 DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY 107

 Work Immersion - Guidance Associate’s Assistant - September 2024

 Mary the Queen College - Sta. Rita, Pampanga

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS

 Dean’s Lister
 3rd Year, First Semester, Academic Year 2023 -2024
 2nd Year, Second Semester, Academic Year 2022 - 2023
 1st Year, First Semester, Academic Year 2021 - 2022

 With High Honors

 Senior High School, Grade 12, Academic Year 2019 - 2020

 With Honors
 Senior High School, Grade 11, Academic Year 2018 - 2019
 Junior High School, Grade 10, Academic Year 2017 - 2018

SKILLS
 Assessment and Evaluation
 Interpersonal Skills
 Problem-Solving
 Strong Communication
 Observation Skills

SEMINARS
 "Lipunang Patas sa Bagong Pilipinas: Kakayahan ng Kababaihan,
Patunayan!"
 Webinar Serye 4.0: Self Care: Building a Balance Life, Body, and Mind
 Unlocking Success: A Degenderized Webinar Serye on Stress Management
and Effective Study Habits
 Genderless Life Skills for Honorians’ Holistic Development