PUPILS’ PERCEPTION ON MASS PROMOTION AND ITS
INFLUENCE ON THEIR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
CENBY EPPIE G. GAYTOS
[email protected] MA. SALVACION BAONG
[email protected] LANIZEL ANTOFINA
JUDY ANN LOYOLA
ERWIN BARILLO
[email protected]
JOSE AMADO
[email protected]
November 2019
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2001) as cited by Knight
(2014), the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) puts forth
the notion that all children must receive the best education possible, leaving no child
behind. What does this mean? Basically, it means that schools need to be improved
(U.S. Department of Education, 2001). With this, teachers as well as administrators
are called with the awareness of the importance of children in grasping all of the
necessary skill and competencies required for promotion. Hence, most schools are
working extremely hard to ensure appropriate education for all students (Richardson,
(2010), so that no child will be left behind educationally.
However, with the realization that all children learn at different paces while
possibly being of the same age, Richardson (2010) stated that it then becomes a
question of what needs to be done for students who have not met the required
educational standards as mandated by the government. Thus, in some communities,
grade retention becomes an acceptable practice despite of the negative effects that
have been documented by research. This is because as stated above, the task of
meeting the requirements for promotion is difficult for some students and they often
experience educational setbacks that usually result in grade retention.
In addition to that, most teachers believe that grade retention is an effective
intervention for helping students to improve academically (Tanner & Combs, 1993)
which is contrasted by Pagani et al (2001) in Richardson (2010) who examined the
practice of grade retention and children‟s academic and behavioural adjustment. The
researchers tracked the impact of grade retention during elementary school on
academic and behaviours adjustment until age 12. It was found that children‟s
disruptive and inattentive behaviours continued and even proceeded to worsen after
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
being held back. Thus, the practice of mass promotion has been seen as a solution
for the witnessed negative effects of holding a student back (Knight,2014).
Mass Promotion is the policy of promoting students to the next grade level
despite of poor achievement at their current grade level (Encyclopedia). This was
supported by Potter, (2003), Doyle, (2004), and Jacob &Stone, (2005) as cited by
Knight, (2014) in their different studies. They believe that mass promotion may give a
sense of hope to the students especially those who are academically left behind.
Students may feel this is their second chance to prove they are capable of stronger
achievement (Potter, 2003), and the opportunity to succeed is within their grasp
(Doyle, 2004). Students‟ self-esteems may not be affected negatively if they are
promoted to the next grade because of the confidence the teachers and principal
may be instilling in the students (Jacob & Stone, 2005).
However, Knight, (2014), he himself asserted that, when being passed on to
the next grade without acquiring the mastery of academic standards, students may
take for granted that they will be given the same pass again the next year and
wonder why should they put forth the effort , thus, decreasing the academic
performance of the students.
Similar to his stand, Bowman,( 2005) in Shaw, (2011) addressed that learning
does take time, but providing additional time does not in itself ensure that learning
will occur.
In the Philippines, the DepEd Order No. 73. S. 2012(2014) defines promotion
and retention by subject and not grade level. Thus, creating confusion for teachers in
deciphering .If the actions required with retention are impossible then the teachers
are correct in interpreting the order as mass promotion.
“Students who fail in a subject are expected to erase these
deficiencies over the summer. Right at the beginning, there
is the question of how a student who failed because of
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
truancy would fit in this procedure. Absenteeism is one of
the most common causes of a child failing in an elementary
class. A student who has failed to attend most of the classes
is expected to make up all of the subjects over the summer.
Thus, it seems that the teachers are indeed correct in
interpreting the DepEd order. It is mass promotion.”
In the same perspective De Dios, (2015) commented that promoting students
despite of being left behind academically allows the children to be passed to the next
level with no accountability.
Factors affecting learning outcomes are already present so that what
happens in the future probably does not depend too much on whether a student is
retained or promoted. What matters more is what educators do in response when a
student is not meeting the expected goals (Angel De Dios, 2015). He also
commented that promoting students despite of being left behind academically allows
the children to be passed to the next level with no accountability.
These opposing views of different researchers regarding mass promotion and
its influence on the academic performance of the elementary pupils urged the
researchers to undertake the investigation.
At present, the practice of mass promotion is still being observed today
especially in the large schools in terms of population of Elementary Schools in the
Guiuan mainland.
Statement of the problem
This study aims to determine the relationship between mass promotion and
the academic performance of the elementary pupils‟ in the selected Elementary
Schools in the Guiuan mainland.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1. Mass Promotion
1.2. Academic Achievement
2. Is there a significant relationship between mass promotion and the academic
achievement among the students in the selected Public Elementary Schools?
3. What recommendations can be given to Public Elementary School Teachers
to address issues on mass promotion?
Significance of the Study
This study will determine the relationship between mass promotion and the
academic performance of the elementary pupils from the selected schools in the
mainland of Guiuan. The researchers have listed the significance of the study.
To the School Heads/Administrators. This study will give data and vital
information that will help the administration in formulating measures and guides to
improve the level of performance of the teachers.
To the Teachers. The teachers will be benefited from the study because they
can improve their level of performance teachers in.
To the Pupils. This study will encourage the students to achieve better in
class, giving emphasis on the significance of learning.
To the Future Researchers. This study can be a great help for other
researcher to be used as a guideline and additional information to the parties who will
be interested to study in the factors that affects the academic performance of the
students.
Scope and Delimitation
This study seeks to determine if there is a significant relationship between
mass promotion and the academic achievement of the elementary pupils from the
selected schools in the mainland of Guiuan.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
The respondents of the study will be the150 students who are randomly
chosen from the selected public elementary schools in the mainland of Guiuan,
specifically the Central schools and second largest schools in terms of population on
the three districts of Guiuan.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the researchers find it important to give the
conceptual and operational definition of the terms to have clear understanding of the
terms used in this study.
Academic Achievement. It refers to the level of schooling you have
successfully completed and the ability to attain success in your studies (Oxford
Dictionary, 2018). Academic achievement in this study will be the basis in evaluating
the effectiveness of mass promotion policy with regards to the pupils‟ perception.
Academic Performance. It is defined as the accomplishment of a given task
measured against pre-set known standard of accuracy, completeness, cost and
speed. (Ozga, 2013). In this study, academic performance refers as to how the
student‟s performance in class is being affected by the policy of mass promotion.
Accountability. It is the quality or state of being accountable or an obligation
or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions (Merriam-
Webster, 2017). In this study, accountability refers as to how prepared the pupils are
when send to the next grade level.
Grade Retention. It is the practice of holding back students in the same
grade for an extra year if they fail to achieve promotion requirements, either in the
form of a performance measure or in the form of minimum attendance, is used in
many developing and in some developed countries (Koppensteiner, 2011). In this
study, grade retention becomes the alternative solution for those pupils who are not
prepared to be taken into higher grade level.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Influence. Influence is the power to have an important effect on someone or
something. If someone influences someone else, they are changing a person or thing
in an indirect but important way (Vocabulary, 2017). In this study, the term is being
defined on how mass promotion affects the academic achievement of a student.
Intervention. Intervention is the alternative measures a teacher would use to
assist students who are struggling academically or behaviourally (Stone & Engel,
2007). In this study, mass promotion is being evaluated if it would make an effective
intervention for those students who are experiencing educational setbacks.
Mass Promotion. Mass promotion is the policy of promoting students to the
next grade level despite of having poor achievement at their current grade level
(Encyclopaedia, 2017).In this study, mass promotion being the independent variable
is used as an alternative to r etention.
Self-esteem. Self-esteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self,
as in how we feel about it (Mackie, D. M., 2007). Self-esteem, as used in this study
refers to the self-confidence may be affected for the students who will be promoted.
Stigmatism. It is a distinguishing mark of social disgrace (Collins, 2018).
As used in this study, it refers to the feeling a pupil may feel after being held back.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents the literature and studies by the researchers which
provided insights on the concepts of the study.
Related Literature
Mass Promotion
Against the backdrop of high failure rate, the high opportunity cost of class
repetition and the deadline given to provide basic education for all children by 2015,
most countries, including Nigeria, have opted for the mass promotion policy
(European Scientific Journal, 2015)
Mass Promotion, according to Goldman, (2007) is the practice of promoting
students to the next grade even though they have not acquired minimum
competencies expected of that grade.
In addition to that, the policy of promotion is considered as most appropriate
and cost effective alternative of grade retention. It is the simplest way to reduce
repetition of students and is beneficial for children to carry their studies with their age
fellows. Advocates of this practice affirmed it as more cost effective whereas; the
opponents believe that it affects quality of education by eliminating competition and
motivation for students and teachers as well (Iqbal, 2011).
Social Promotion
Social promotion is generally understood to be the practice of allowing
students who have failed to meet performance standards and academic
requirements to pass on to the next grade with their peers instead of completing or
satisfying the requirements. Promoting students in this way is called social promotion
because it is often carried out in the presumed interest of a student‟s social and
psychological well-being, without regard to achievement (Wiley,1999)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Educational institutions used to believe that holding a student back could harm her
self-esteem, but there is increasing evidence that social promotion may be even
more damaging to a child‟s self-esteem (Thompson, 2018).
Although many schools uses this practice to avoid students from stigmatism
after being held back making it a factor for mass promoting students.
Automatic Promotion
UIS-UNESCO (2012), stated that Automatic promotion is a policy whereby all
children are systematically promoted to the next grade except in exceptional
circumstances (e.g. extended absenteeism due to illness).
Nugent, (2013) defines automatic promotion as advancing a student who has
not sufficiently gained the academic skills and knowledge of one grade level to a
higher instruction or grade level. Moreover,
Moreover, Janvier Gasana, the Deputy Director General in charge of
Education Quality and Standard Department, added in his statement that what is
being referred to as „automatic promotion‟ was an initiative by the government that
calls on schools to give special attention and extra coaching to students who perform
poorly in the course of the year so as to minimise cases of repeating classes or
expulsion of students as a result of failing exams. (Tashoa, 2014)
Academic Achievement
Academic achievement represents performance outcomes that indicate the
extent to which a person has accomplished specific goals that were the focus of
activities in instructional environments, specifically in school, college, and university
(Steinmayr et. al, 2017).
Academic achievement is commonly measured through examinations or
continuous assessments but there is no general agreement on how it is best
evaluated or which aspects are most important- procedural knowledge such as skills
or declarative knowledge such as facts (Ward et al. 1996)
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Cruz et al, (2015) asserted that the quality of students‟ performance remains
at top priority for educator, trainers, and researchers who have long been interested
in exploring variables contributing effectively for quality of performance of learners.
Related Studies
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was enacted in 2001 by President
George H. W. Bush. This act was implemented to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind educationally.
Therefore, most schools are working extremely hard to ensure appropriate education
for all students (Richardson, 2010).
Schools nation-wide have implemented programs to assist students in
their academic endeavours in an effort to meet the benchmarks established by NCLB
(U.S. Department of Education, 2001). In addition to after-school programs, 504
plans, and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), promotion practices are also
being utilized.
Grade promotion is the initial goal of every school-age child. However,
the task of meeting the requirements for promotion is difficult for some students.
Students often experience educational setbacks that usually result in grade retention
(Richardson 2010). Tutop (2012) asserted that retention is the act where a student
repeats a grade if they fail to meet the minimum competency set by grade level
expectations. The assumption is if students know they will be retained each year
when evidence of achievement is not demonstrated, this will motivate students to be
successful (Larsen & Akmal, 2007). Marcus et al. (2006) in their new study
conducted for the Manhattan Institute found that holding back low- performing
students helps them academically. Additionally, Jacob & Lefgren (2009) made
several valid points for the support of retention. Their study noted that in some
instances retained students may be better prepared for high school courses, thus
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
enabling the student to “accumulate high school credits at a faster pace”. However,
Jacob (2009), Carifio, (2010), Stone & Angel, (2007) in their studies as cited by
Knight (2014), it shows that those students who are retained experience adverse
effects, emotionally, cognitively, and those experiences increases high school
dropout rates.
According to the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA,
1999) mass promotion is the most common name for the policy of promoting all the
students to the next grade level despite poor achievement at their current grade
level. In other words, it is the practice of passing students on to the next grade who
have failed to master part or the entire grade-level curriculum.
In a study conducted in Anambra State and Nigeria, researchers investigated
the impact of class repetition and mass promotion policies on the academic
achievements of students in Anambra State secondary schools. Most teachers,
parents and even students have the belief that is not backed by any known study in
Anambra State and Nigeria that class repetition has a remedial effect on learning.
But some educationists and policy makers argue that class repetition is economically
wasteful and emotionally stressful because the alternative policy, mass promotion,
will ease the students‟ progression rates and make it possible for more children to be
educated (Eboatu, 2014).
This debate has encouraged the researchers to conduct a research on the
schools of the Guiuan mainland specifically the large schools to see how they see
this policy and how it influence the students‟ academic performance.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored on the Theory of performance (ToP) by Donald Elger
(2000), which states that humans are capable of extraordinary accomplishments. To
perform is to take a complex series of actions that integrate skills and knowledge to
produce a value result. Factors influenced improving performance valued fall into
three categories, but in this study, we focus on the second category--Immersion in a
physical, social and intellectual environment can eliminate performance and stimulate
personal as well as professional development. Also includes, elements of social
interaction disciplinary knowledge, active learning, positive and negative emotion and
spiritual alignments.
Walberg's (1981) Theory of Educational Productivity serves as one of the
theoretical view of this study.More recently, Zins, Weissberg, Wang and Walberg,
(2004) demonstrated the importance of the domains of motivational orientations, self-
regulated learning strategies, and social/interpersonal abilities in facilitating academic
performance. Zins et al. reported, based on the large-scale implementation of a
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) program, that students who became more self-
aware and confident regarding their learning abilities, who were more motivated, who
set learning goals, and who were organized in their approach to work (self- regulated
learning) performed better in school.
Another theoretical view is the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) which started
as the Social Learning Theory (SLT) in the 1960s by Albert Bandura. It developed
into the SCT in 1986 and posits that learning occurs in a social context with a
dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior. The
unique feature of SCT is the emphasis on social influence and its emphasis on
external and internal social reinforcement. SCT considers the unique way in which
individuals acquire and maintain behavior, while also considering the social
environment in which individuals perform the behavior. The theory takes into account
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
a person's past experiences, which factor into whether behavioral action will occur.
These past experiences influences reinforcements, expectations, and expectancies,
all of which shape whether a person will engage in a specific behavior and the
reasons why a person engages in that behavior.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Conceptual Framework
Mass Academic
Promotion Achievement
Figure 1.A diagram showing the influence of Pupils’ Perception on Mass
Promotion on their Academic Achievement
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Research Hypothesis
There is no significant relationship between mass promotion and the
academic achievement of the elementary pupils.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Chapter3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the method and procedures to be employed in
conducting this study. Specifically, it makes the description of the research design,
research locale, respondents, research instruments, data collection and statistical
treatment of data.
Research Design
The researchers use the descriptive-correlation research method considering
that this investigation focuses and describes the extent of relationship between mass
promotion and the elementary pupils academic performance.
A descriptive-correlational research method is a type of research that
comprises of collecting data to determine whether and to what extent a relationship
exists between two or more quantifiable variables (Cohen& Lawrence, 2007).
The data to be gathered will be through survey questionnaire. The
researchers believe that this kind of research method is the most appropriate for this
study considering that this method will help in determining whether there is a
relationship between mass promotion and the academic performance of the
elementary pupils.
The researchers will use this survey questionnaire to gather information from
the respondents. The researchers believe that this method is the most convenient
method in collecting data in which the researchers will ask the respondents to answer
a number of questions in a form of prepared questionnaire. When the data is
collected, the researchers will generalize the findings and utilize it according to the
purpose of the study.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Locale of the Study
The study will be conducted in the selected public elementary schools in the
mainland of Guiuan, Eastern Samar specifically in the lower sections of every school.
Sulangan Central School
Cantahay Elementary School
CampoyongElementary School
Guiuan East Central
SchoolLupok School
Central
Figure 2.Showing the research locale of the study.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study are the selected 150 students who are
randomly chosen and are studying in the lower sections in the selected Public
elementary schools in the mainland of Guiuan.
Table 1. Distribution of Respondents
Name of Public Elementary Schools Numbers of Students
Guiuan East Central School 30
Sulangan Central School 30
Cantahay Elementary School 30
Campoyong Elementary School 30
Lupok Elementary School 30
Total 150
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Research Instrument
The researchers will use survey questionnaire to get the profile of the pupils
in the elementary schools in the Guiuan mainland. To collect evidences from the
respondents, the researchers will use the survey questionnaire adapted from Manley,
J. (1988) in his study entitled “A study of primary teachers’ altitudes toward grade
retention” which was reworded to fit the purpose of this study. It contains thirty (30)
items answerable by checking the box of the rating scale with the descriptors
according to their judgment.
The result of the study will be interpreted based on the following numerical
values:
Range Scale Interpretation
4.21-5.00 Strongly Agree Highly Influential
3.41-4.20 Agree Influential
2.61-3.40 Neither Agree Nor Disagree Moderately Influential
1.81-2.60 Disagree Less Influential
1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree Not Influential
Also we will get the data from the student‟s grade point average (GPA) for
their academic achievement.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers will prepare a communication letter to the head of the school
requesting permission to distribute survey questionnaires to the pupils being the
respondents of the study.
The survey questionnaires will be personally distributed by the researchers to
assure 100% retrieval.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Statistical Treatment of Data
The data that will be obtained from the survey questionnaire will be
consolidated, organized and tabulated in distribution tables. It will be analysed and
interpreted utilizing suitable statistical tools. Simple frequency counts, percentage
and rating scale will be employed to present the profile of the students in public
elementary schools in Guiuan mainland.
In determining the relationship between pupil‟s perception on mass promotion
and its influence on their academic achievement, the “Pearson‟s R Correlation
Coefficient” will be used as the most appropriate statistical tool.
The following null hypothesis will be tested at 0.5 level of significance:
1. There is no significant relationship between mass promotion and academic
achievement.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the answers to the research questions posed in this
study based on the data gathered.
Profiles of Respondents on their Perception on Mass Promotion
This section answers the first question regarding the perception of
respondents on Mass Promotion. Table shows the perception of students towards
the said policy. The indicator contains 30 items which were rated by the respondents
of different public elementary schools in the Guiuan mainland.
Specifically, Table 2 contains indicators or items on perception on Mass
Promotion with their corresponding mean score, scale, interpretation, and overall
mean as perceived by the respondents. The indicator that got the lowest mean
average with 2.27 scale of “disagree” interpreted as “less influential” is that the
pupils disagree that their smaller classmates should not be promoted. While the
indicator that got the highest mean average with 4.02 with the scale of “agree”
interpreted as “influential” is that they agree that promotions should be based on
mastery of grade level requirement.
The overall mean of the profile if the respondents‟ on mass promotion is
3.24 with the scale of “neither agree nor disagree” interpreted as “moderately
influential”.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Table 2: Perception of Pupils on Mass Promotion
Indicators/Items Mean Scale Interpretation
1. Mass promotion makes the students don‟t want to learn. 2. 65 NA/ND MI
2. Promotion should be based on mastery of grade level requirement. 4.02 A I
3. The teacher is the only one to decide in promoting students with the basis of 3.75 A I
the students‟ academic achievement.
4. Mass promotion does not have a good effect towards the students. 3.01 NA/ND MI
5. Students considered for social promotion have similarities. 3.03 NA/ND MI
6. Mass promotion damages student‟s self-confidence. 2.87 NA/ND MI
7. Students‟ parent should also decide in promoting their children. 3.06 NA/ND MI
8. Mass promotion does not prepare students for successful achievement in 2.87 NA/ND MI
the following grade.
9. Pupil‟s considered for mass promotion should be included in the decision 3.22 NA/ND MII
process.
10. Competency and proficiency testing will increase the number of pupils 3.51 A I
promoted.
11. Classroom behaviour is an important consideration in determining whether 3.94 A I
to promote pupils.
12. Mass promotion should depend upon attending school a certain number of 3.43 A
days during the school year.
13. Pupils who are smaller than their classmates should not be promoted. 2.27 D LI
14. Mass promotion gives the pupil a chance to perform better in the next 3.85 A I
grade level.
15. In making a mass promotion decision, student‟s maturation emotionally 3.3 NA/ND MI
should be considered.
16. Mass promoting pupils will help them catch up academically. 3.24 D LI
17. Mass promoting students encourages them in decreasing their academic 3.03 NA/ND MI
performance.
18. Mature pupils‟ benefit from promoting. 3.14 NA/ND MI
19. Mass promotion discourages rather than encourages learning. 2. 91 NA/ND MI
20. It is acceptable to promote students who does not have passing grades. 2. 63 NA/ND MI
21. Students who have not learned academically should be retained 2. 99 NA/ND MI
22. Mass promotion should be practiced to help the pupils to graduate in 3.33 NA/ND MI
elementary at a young age.
23. Students who are mass promoted become more confident. 3.19 NA/ND MI
24. Mass promotion creates problems for the next level because pupils are not 3.33 NA/ND MI
yet prepared.
25. Mass promotion pushes the students to work harder 3.41 A I
26. Pupils who were automatically promoted can catch up with their friends in 3.47 A I
the next grade.
27. Students should be promoted as long as they are very good in the major 3.71 A I
subjects.
28. Students should be promoted than being retained. 3.09 NA/ND MI
29. Mass promotion should be ended. 3.18 NA/ND MI
30. Mass promotion policy should be revised. 3.36 NA/ND MI
OVERALL MEAN 3.24 NA/ND MI
Legend:
Range Scale Interpretation
4.21-5.00 Strongly Agree Highly Influential
3.41-4.20 Agree Influential
2.61-3.40 Neither Agree nor Disagree Moderately influential
1.81-2.60 Disagree Less influential
1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree Not influential
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Overall Perception of the Respondents on Mass Promotion
The overall perception of the respondents on mass promotion as shown on
Table 2, the respondents share the same views towards mass promotion. On table 2,
it shows that the first indicator got an overall mean of 3.24 and categorized as
“neither agree nor disagree” and interpreted as “moderately effective”.
Table 3. Distribution of Respondents According to Mass Promotion
Scale Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree Highly Influential 3 2%
Agree Influential 24 16%
Neither Agree Nor Disagree Moderately Influential 110 73%
Disagree Less Influential 0 0%
Strongly Agree Not Influential 13 8.66%
TOTAL 150 100%
As shown in Table 3 which consisted of a scale, interpretation, frequency and
percentage to fully interpret the profile of the respondents in terms of their perception
on mass promotion. The category of “Neither Agree nor Disagree” got the highest
frequency counts of 110, the second highest frequency count is 24 with the scale of
Agree, followed by 13 counts with the scale of Strongly Agree. On the other hand, the
category of disagree got no frequency counts which gives us 150 total of frequency
counts.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Pupils' Perception on Mass Promotion
2%
0%
9%
16%
Highly Influential
Influential
Moderately Influential
Less Influential
73%
Not Influential
Figure 3. Profile of Respondents in terms of their Perception on
Mass Promotion
The above figure represents the profile of the respondents of Guiuan East
Central School, Sulangan Central School, Cantahay Elementary School, Campoyong
Elementary School and Lupok Elementary School in terms of their perception on
Mass Promotion. The above graph shows that 73% of the respondent considered
that mass promotion
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Profile of the Respondents on Pupils’ Perception on Mass Promotion
This section answered the questions regarding the profile of the
respondents in terms of their perception on mass promotion. Table 4 shows the
respondents‟ perception on mass promotion with their corresponding mean average,
scale and
interpretation.
Profile of the Respondents on Academic Performance
This section answered the questions regarding the profile of the
respondents in terms of academic achievement. Table 4 shows the respondents‟
profile in terms of their Grade Point Average (GPA) with their corresponding mean
average, scale and interpretation.
Table 4. Profile of the Respondents in Terms of Academic Performance
Mean Scale Interpretation
GPA 86.15 Proficient Very Good
As revealed on table 4, the Grade Point Average (GPA) , the total mean is
86.15% with a scale of “Proficient” interpreted as “Very good”. This means that the
pupils‟ were doing very well academically.
Range Scale Interpretation
90% and Above Advanced Outstanding
85%-89% Proficient Very Good
80%-84% Approaching Proficiency Good
75-79% Developing Fair
74% and Below Beginning Poor
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Overall Perception on Academic Achievement
As shown in table 4, the academic performance of their report card such as
their GPA got an overall mean score of 86.15 with the scale of “Proficient”
interpreted as “Very good”.
This means that the academic achievement of the pupils from Guiuan East
Central School, Sulangan Central School, Cantahay Elementary School, Campoyong
Elementary School, and Lupok Central Elementary School are very well.
Table 5. Profile of the Respondents on Academic Achievement
Scale Interpretation Frequency Percentage
Advanced Outstanding 17 11.33%
Proficient Very Good 72 48%
Approaching Proficiency Good 61 40.67
Developing Fair 0 0
Beginning Poor 0 0
TOTAL 150 100%
As shown in table 5, this was the distribution of respondents according to
their academic achievement, the highest frequency counts was on the scale of
“proficient” with a frequency of 72. The second highest was on the scale of
“approaching proficiency” with a frequency counts of 61, followed by the scale of
“advanced” with the frequency counts of 17. The lowest was on the scale
“developing” and “beginning” with no frequency counts giving the total of 150
frequency counts.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Academic Achievement
0%
0%
11% Outstanding
41% Very Good
Good
48% Fair
Poor
Figure 4. Profile of Pupils’ Academic Achievement
The figure above represents the profile of respondents in terms of
academic achievement. As observed in the above figure, they have used the
interpretation of the mean score in table 4 to completely discuss the distribution of
the respondents according to the second variable. This implied that 48% of the 150
total numbers of respondents are doing very well in their studies, 41% of them were
good and 11% are considered outstanding academically.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Relationship between Pupils’ Perception on Mass Promotion and
Academic Achievement
In order to answer the question on the relationship between variables, the
“Pearson‟s r” was employed as a statistical test to gain a much reliable and valid
result.
Table 6. Correlation between Pupils’ Perception on Mass Promotion and
Academic Achievement
Table shows the variables correlated with one another with their corresponding
coefficient, p-value, and their respective interpretation.
Variable 1 Variable 2 Correlation Interpretation p-value Interpretation
Coefficient
Pupils‟ Academic -.057 No .491 Not significant
Perception Achievement relationship
on Mass
Promotion
The relationship between Pupils‟ Perception on Mass Promotion and
Academic Achievement was shown in Table 6. The computed r value was -.057
which was negligible relationship. This resulted in a p-value of .491 which was at
0.05 level. Therefore, the research hypothesis that there is no significant relationship
between mass promotion and the academic achievement of the elementary pupils
was accepted.
Based from the data gathered in this study, it was revealed that the pupils‟
perception on mass promotion has nothing to do with their academic achievement.
This means that pupils‟ still do better in school even with the mass promotion policy.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
REFERENCES
Berlin, A. (2008). Social promotion or retention? Finding a middle ground should
start in middle schools. Education Week, 28-29.between retention
research and middle-level practice. NASSP Bulletin, 33-56.
Carifio, J. & Carey, T. (2010).Do minimum grading practices lower academic
standards and produce social promotions? Educational Horizons, 88(4),
219-230
Childhood Education, 8, 69-77. Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.6, 2016
children: Finding alternatives to in-grade retention. (Policy Brief). San
Antonio, TX
Cohen & Lawrence, (2007) Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Mental Analysis of
Findings.(Journal, American Educational Research Journal, Washington,
DC), vol. 19, No. 2, p. 237-248.
Collins Dictionary (2018). Stigma. Retrieved from
https://en.collinsdictionaries.com/definition/stigma
Cruz, R. et al, (2015). Correlates of Students‟ Academic Performance in
Intermediate Level. ((Volume 1 - Issue 2). Retrieved from;
http://advancejournals.org/Journal-of-Business-and-Management-
Studies/article/correlates-of-students-academic-performance-in-
intermediate-level/
De Dios, Angel,(2014). To Retain or Promote: Asking the Right Question. Retrieved
from: http://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2014/06/to-retain-or-
promote-asking-right.html
Eboatu, 2014
Elger. D. (2000). Engineering Fluid Mechanics. Washington State University
Education, 605-634.) http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsecleg/esea02/index.html.
Goldman, (2007) Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Mental Analysis of
Findings.(Journal, American Educational Research Journal, Washington, DC), vol.
19, No. 2, p. 237-248.
Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA). (1999).
Iqbal, (2011), Effects of Social Promotion on Students. Retrieved from
http://education.seattlepi.com/effects-social-promotions-students-
2113.html
Jacob, B. &Lefgren, L. (2009).The effect of grade retention on high school
completion.
Kinga, E. M., Orazemb, Peter F. ,. Paternoc, Elizabeth M. (1999). Promotion with
and without Learning: Effects on Student Dropout. Working Paper Series
on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms Paper No. 18. The World Bank
Iowa State University University of the Philippines – Los Banos
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
Knight,T. B,(2014)Public School Social Promotion Policies: Exploring Socially
Promoted Students‟ Experiences.(Dissertation, Liberty University)
Koppensteiner, M. F.,(2011). Automatic Grade Promotion and Student Performance:
Evidence from Brazil.(Working PaperNo. 11/52,University of Leicester, UK)
Labaree, D. F. (1982).Setting the standard: The characteristics and consequences of
alternative student promotional policies. Citizen‟s Committee on Public
Education in Philadelphia.ERIC document.
Larsen, D. E., & Akmal, T. T. (2007). Making decisions in the Dark.
Manley, J. (1988). A study of primary teachers’ altitudes toward grade retention.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
Nugent P. (April 7, 2013) Automatic Promotion. Retrieved at
https://psychologyductionary.org/automatic-promotion/ retention under
Chicago‟s ending social promotion policy.( American Journal of Education)
Ricarda Steinmayr, Anja Meißner, Anne F. Weidinger, Linda Wirthwein, (2014).
Retrieved from; http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-
9780199756810/obo-9780199756810-0108.xml
Richardson, L S, (2010). Elementary Teachers‟ Perceptions of Grade
Retention.(Dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi).
Shaw, T. C. (2011). Grade retention and social promotion among middle school
students. (Dissertation,Lindenwood University).
Stone, S., & Engel, M. (2007).Same old, same old? Students‟ experiences of grade
Tanner, C. K., & Combs, F. E. (1993).Student Retention Policy.
Tashoa, A. (2014). Automatic promotion: Misunderstood education policy? Retrieved
from; http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/110395/
Thompson, V. (2018) Effects of Social Promotion on Students. Retrieved from
http://education.seattlepi.com/effects-social-promotions-students-
2113.html
Tutop, J. H., (2012) Social Promotion Or Grade Repetition: What‟s Best For The 21st
Century Student.
U.S. Department of Education, (2001).The No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
Wiley, Richard W. (1999). Taking Responsibility for Ending Social
Promotion. A Guide For Educators And State And Local Leaders.
Wiley,(1999). Engineering Fluid Mechanics. Washington State University Education,
605-634.) http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsecleg/esea02/index.html.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229
