Thesis Final Chapter 1-5
Thesis Final Chapter 1-5
Thesis Final Chapter 1-5
________________
Bachelor’s Thesis
Presented to
Extension Classes
________________
In Parial Fulfillment
By
April 2021
APPROVAL SHEET
approval.
RUTHER D. BIANAN
Member
Criminology.
Jerry Duco, and Michael Rey Queje for teaching them on how
Norberto
DEDICATION
our study.
Norberto
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
TITLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
APPROVAL SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION
Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Related Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Research Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Research Participants . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Ethical Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Sampling Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Research Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Data Gathering Procedure . . . . . . . . . 19
4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Perceptions of Students . . . . . . . . . . 20
Significant Difference on Perceptions. . . . 38
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
APPENDICES
A Letter of Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Letter of Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
B Informed Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
C Interview Guide Questions . . . . . . . . . 50
D Interview Transcription . . . . . . . . . . 51
E Pictorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
CURRICULUM VITAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Schematic Diagram of the Study . . . . . . . 5
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
2016).
Act (Republic Act 9163). This was after the “crisis” caused
(Paul, 2010).
individuals.
2013).
education.
school.
student-participants.
College Participants’
Perceptions on
Mandatory ROTC
questions:
ROTC Program?
Hypothesis:
HO1:
There is no significant difference between the
Ho2:
said program.
program.
Definition of Terms
operationally defined:
advanced.
someone or something.
law.
Military. Controlled or supported by armed forces.
present investigation.
Related Literature
raises self-esteem.
Related Studies
Sax (1998).
It is no wonder then that in 2002 with having only 18-
2010).
Estrada, 2004).
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Research Setting
residence.
Research Participants
Sampling Design
Extension Services.
Research Instrument
Cancino, E. C. (2009).
was employed.
B. WAM = ∑(FW)
N
Where:
∑ -Summation sign
F - Frequency
N - no. of participants
t = X 1 – X2
∑d 12 +∑d 22
√( N 1 + N 2−2 )( 1
+
1
N1 N2 )
Where:
Questionnaire Checklist
Chapter 4
conducted study.
the student-participants.
“Favorable”.
participants.
Table 1
Participants.
Statement WAM AE I
1. Develop my leadership skills. 4.30 SA VF
2. Develop my self-discipline. 4.29 SA VF
3. Develop myself professionally. 4.24 SA VF
4. Improve my academic performance. 3.88 A F
5. Enhance my chance for academic
4.06 A F
promotion.
6. Connect with other students and
4.15 A F
communities.
7. Improve my self-confidence. 4.18 A F
8. I was able to perform community
4.10 A F
service better.
9. I am motivated to work on my personal
4.17 A F
achievement.
10. Improved my understanding on
4.15 A F
leadership towards community involvement.
Overall Mean 4.15 A F
Table 2
Student Participants
interpreted as “Undecided”.
Statement WAM AE I
1. Mismanagement of time 3.51 A F
2. Attending my remedial class due to 3.32 U UD
absences.
3. I have financial problem due to 3.35 U UD
knowledge.
8. Improper attendance checking 3.32 U UD
9. Inadequate training materials and 3.37 U UD
office supplies.
10. Less financial support. 4.34 U UD
Overall Mean 3.44 U D
ROTC Program.
Table 3
of the Tambulig.
Table 4
Level z-value
Computed Critical
Participants Mean SD of Sig.
Molave (N=50) 4.38 0.99
Tambulig (N=50) 0.05 0.62 1.96
4.16 0.58
Ho2: There is no significant difference between the
Summary
Findings
mean of 4.15
of 4.30.
Conclusions
1. The participants have positive perception on ROTC
Program.
sex.
Recommendations
on ROTC.
MARK E. PATALINGHUG
Program In-Charge BS Crim
JHCSC – Dumingag Campus
Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur
Dear Sir:
I, the undergraduate student of J.H. Cerilles State
College- Dumingag Campus, IS working on a study titled
“PERCEPTIONS OF COLLEGE STUDENTS ON ROTC PROGRAM”, as a
requirement leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Criminology.
In this matter, I humbly request permission from your
good office that I will be allowed to conduct our data
gathering on the selected students of JHCSC Tambulig and
ESU, Zamboanga del Sur.
Hoping and looking forward that this request will be
given a favorable and immediate response. Your approval
would be a great help to our study.
Thank You!
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) Norberto Bana
Researcher
Noted:
Approved: