adolescents

Chapter I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Social rejection happens when one individual is purposely excluded from social situations. This rejection can be performed by either an individual or group of people, and it can be active or passive in nature. Since 1990’s, when a whole slew of school shooting began to occur across the United States, there have been numerous studies, centred around social rejection. These studies have shown that this type of rejection can lead to variety of negative psychological effects on the sufferer, including aggression and withdrawal. Humans are social creatures, by nature, and rejection is always emotionally painful. Some rejection is normal in life, and just about everyone has experienced, or will experience, some sort of social exclusion during his lifetime. Repeating rejection can be malicious or otherwise; can have negative impact on a person. These rejections can be much more devastating for highly sensitive individual, or if fitting in with in a certain person or group is extremely important to the shunned person. Active social rejection can manifest itself in such form as bullying or teasing. Passive rejection, on the other hand, can be a bit harder to recognize, and it can include ignoring a certain individual and excluding him from certain activities. Although passive rejection may seem to be less cruel, it can have effects that are just as detrimental. Psychologists have over the years, tried to figure out who exactly is most likely to suffer from social rejection. Although it is not an exact science and all situations differ, they have discovered that those who are considered different from so-called normal people are more likely to be the social outcast. Shy or aggressive people are thought to be targeted more for rejection, as these personality traits tend to be slightly unusual. Today, many students suffer from bullying, teasing, or ridiculing, or passive, or giving the “silent treatment.” Which makes them feels disruptive or hang back without joining at all. Because they are shy, some have fear to join or participate with their classmates. Some studies shows that rejected children are likely to have lower self esteem, and to be at great risk for internalizing problems like depression. But some rejected students display externalizing behaviour and show aggression rather that regression. And it gives impact to their grades or achievements in school. Fear of rejection can be a serious setback for everyone. It affects how a person feels about his herself, the way they treat others, and even the way they view life. Not only does it affect individual who emotionally suffers from this way of thinking, but also the people that surrounds that person also become affected by the behaviour exhibited by that person. And also increased negative psychological effects, such as, stress, anxiety, tension, depression, hostility, feeling of helplessness, and emotionally discomfort that can affect their self confidence. Self- esteem has been directly connected to an individual's social network, the activities they participate in, and what they hear about themselves from others. Positive self-esteem has been linked to factors such as psychological health, mattering to others, and both body image and physical health. On the contrary, low self-esteem has been associated with the outcomes of depression, health problems, and antisocial behavior. Usually, adolescents of poor health will display low self-esteem. Globally, self-confidence in boys and girls will decline during adolescence, and in contrast to boys, girls' self-confidence won't shoot back up again until early adulthood. During adolescence, self-esteem is affected by age, race, ethnicity, puberty, health, body weight, body image, involvement in physical activities, gender presentation, gender identity, and awakening or discovery of sexuality. Self-confidence can vary and be observed in a variety of dimensions. Components of one's social and academic life affect self-esteem. An individual's self-confidence can vary in different environments, such as at home or in school.
Background of the Study San Pablo City National High School is well known public school in the city of San Pablo and just like the other institution whose aim is to produce learners with acquired knowledge and good quality education. This school inculcates the basic cultural values, the creational and intellectual skills, and deliver quality education by sustaining the exemplary values of personnel and providing complete learning materials. But now the school is faced with the task of improving academic achievement of every students even there’s a growth of numbers of students here in this academic year that range in 500-700 students per year level. Third year level have 593 students which are the respondents of this study. All of them were enrolled during academic year 2012- 2013.

Theoretical Framework This study is anchored on the theory of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Parental acceptance-rejection theory. According to Maslow, all humans, even introverts, needs to be able to give and receive affection to be psychologically healthy. Psychologists believed that simple contact or social interaction with others is not enough to fulfil this need. Instead people have a strong motivational drive to form and maintain caring interpersonal relationships. People need both stable relationship and satisfying interactions with the people in those relationships. If either of these two is missing, people will begin to feel lonely and unhappy. Thus rejection is significant threat. In fact, the majority of human anxieties appear to reflect concerns over social exclusion. According to Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs Maslow, (1954) and revised in 1970, cited by Burger, (2004), individuals require belongingness and love, and also esteem by Burger, (2004). In order to achieve these needs an individual would typically display socially accepted behaviour within cultural or social norms to instigate social acceptance and commence the formation of social bonds Baumeister and Bushman, (2008). In forming relationships with others, a social identity is formed and the individual is likely to ensure values of the group membership are maintained, to avoid ostracism or rejection from the group. Motivation in Education can have several affects on how students learn and their behaviour towards subject matter (Ormrod,2003) And Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs theory is the most widely discussed theory of motivation. The theory can be summarized as thus: • Human beings have wants and desires which influence their behaviour; only unsatisfied needs can influence behaviour, satisfied needs cannot. • Since needs are many, they are arrange in order of importance, from the basic to the complex. • The person advances to the next level only after the lower need is at least minimally satisfied. • The further the progress up the hierarchy, the more individuality, humanness and psychological health a person will show.
The need, listed from basic (lowest, earliest) to most complex (highest, latest) are as follows: • Psychological: food, clothing, shelter • Safety and security: home and family • Social: being in a community • Self esteem • Self actualization. Parental acceptance-rejection theory (PARTheory) is a socialization theory which attempts to predict and explain major causes, consequences and other correlates of parental acceptance-rejection globally. Academic achievement and psychological adjustment have long been of concern to educators, parents and policymakers. Researchers have explored variables which interact between parental acceptance-rejection and children’s academic performance. A burgeoning literature suggests that the quality of the relationship which children have with their parents and teachers has significant developmental consequences. Research in this area has indicated that security in the teacher-child relationship influences children’s development in the same way that parent-child attachment does. Children may look to their teachers for the same kind of security and emotional response as they do to their parent. The primary purpose is to present a comprehensive and cross-cultural picture of the relationship between children’s perception of their teachers’ and parents’ (or primary caregivers’) acceptance-rejection, children’s level of academic achievement and psychological adjustment.

Research Paradigm Independent Variable Dependent Variable

A. Respondents Profile

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Parent’s Educational Attainment

d. Parent’s Occupation

e. Family Monthly Income

f. Number of Siblings a. Math - Geometry

g. Birth Position b. Science-Chemistry

c. English B. Social Rejection d. Filipino a. Family Interaction

b. Peer Group Interaction

c. Community Interaction

d. Teacher -student Interaction

C. Self-confidence

a. Self-esteem

b. Self- worth

Research Paradigm shows the relationship between independent variables and dependent variables.

Statement of the Problem

This study wants to determine the correlations of Social Rejection and Self Confidence to the Academic Performance of third year High School Students in San Pablo City National High School.

Specifically it seeks to answers the questions as follows:

1. What is the profile of the respondents as to:

1. age;

2. gender;

3. parent’s educational attainment;

4. parent’s occupation;

5. family monthly income;

6. number of siblings

7. birth position?

2. What are the levels of social rejection of the respondents according to:

1. family interaction;

2. peer group interaction;

3. community interaction;

4. teacher-students interaction?

3. What are the levels of self confidence of the respondents as to:

1. Self-esteem;

2. self worth?

4. What is the mean average of the academic performance of the respondents in:

1. Math-Geometry,

2. Science- Chemistry,

3. Filipino,

4. English?

5. Is there any significant relationship between the respondent’s profile and their academic performance?

6. Is there a significant relationship between social rejection and academic performance of the respondents?

7. Is there any significant relationship between self-confidence and academic performance of the respondents

Hypothesis of the study The formulated hypotheses of the study are as follows: 1. There is no significant relationship between the respondent’s profile and their academic performance. 2. There is no significant relationship between social rejection and academic performance of the respondents.

3. There is no significant relationship between self-confidence and academic performance of the respondents.

Significance of the Study Academic performance is continuously falling as student populations are increasing. This study looks at the effect of social rejection and self-confidence in academic performance of the students.
It is hoped that the findings of this study will be useful in every: • Students/respondents. to help them how to deal with their studies in school, despite of their social interaction that can influence, and brings changes or impact to their personality, beliefs, behaviours and attitudes. • Parents. who expect not just excellent performance but also responsible men and women outside school with their children. This will help them to understand their roles in encouraging, understanding, directing and guiding their child to improve good study habits for them to obtain high or satisfactory achievements in school. The research will aware the parents how can they improve their attitude to their children? • School administration and teachers. on dealings with the student’s in assessing and measuring their performance in school. For the extent to which a student, teacher or institution has achieved their educational goal. It may be helpful for teachers to sort those factors which affecting the lack of participation on the part of students in the class room. • Researchers. this study would provide necessary information in order to answer their questions and can contribute to other researchers.

Scope and Limitation of the study This study focused at the effect of Social rejection and Self-confidence to Academic Performance of 3rd year high school students of San Pablo City National High School. Social rejection was based on family interaction, peer group interaction, community interaction and teacher-students interaction, while self-confidence was based on self-worth and self-esteem. The respondents were limited to randomly selected (100) one hundred third year high school students of San Pablo City National High School. The main source of the data and the main instrument were the survey questionnaire (validated by the expert) which provide the researcher the much needed information for the study. This study will conduct during school year 2012-2013. The researcher conducted this study to measure how does the social rejection and self confidence related to the academic performance of the students. On the other hand, what would be the perception of the respondents regarding social rejection and self confidence towards to their academic performance?

Definition of Terms The following terms are defined operationally for better understanding. • Age. refers to the length of time that the person lives. • Gender. refers to the sexual categories of the respondents either male or female. • Social Rejection. the action of rejection or the state of being rejected by others (Webster third new edition international dictionary). In this study, It refers to the emotionally pain of the respondents for being unaccepted or lack of attention, bullied, teased etc. that makes them helpless and lack of self confidence. • Family Interaction. As used in this study it refers to the interaction of the respondents to his/her family that makes him/her feel loved or needed in home with self worth and efficacy. • Peer group Interaction. use in this study as the group who share similar or equal status and interaction within the society. • Community Interaction. it refers to the socialization of the respondents with his/her community which he/she belongs or to the people who surrounds them except to their family and friends. • Teacher-student’s interaction. in this study it refers to the way of the interaction between teacher and students in class. The way teacher’s treated the student in classroom. • Self Confidence. is the strong feeling of trust and faith in own self’s ability. • Self –esteem. in this study it refers to person’s feel about themselves. • Self-worth. it refers to the feeling of having good qualities in their own self to achieved goals. • Academic Performance. in this study it refers to the mean average grade of the respondents in Mathematics, Chemistry, Filipino and English subjects. • Interaction. In this study it refers to the way how respondents communicate as they work or spend time to the society. It is a stimulus response situation with some degree of verbal or non-verbal exchange that would result in positive or negative feeling in the individuals.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES This chapter presents concepts gleaned from literature and previous studies of different researches which are essential and relevant to the study. It also compasses the research paradigm, hypothesis and defined words that will significant used to the study.
Related Literature
Age
Thyford as cited by Alibutod (2008) mentioned that Piaget shows how human cognitive development is achieved through maturational stages without though processes and patterns changing systematically as we age. The length of time during which a being or thing has existed. It is considered the length of time as one grows old or mature. People are differently because they have hereditary endowments, different socio- economic and educational backgrounds and different lifestyles, as a general rule physical aging precedes mental aging, through the reverse may be true.
Gender
The performance of every individual is not equal. There is a lot of variability and dispersion. The variability cannot be attributed to a single factor, but it is the outcome of a number of factors such as intelligence, creativity, aptitudes, interests, etc. Along with these gender of the child is also an influencing factor on the academic performance of the child. Mutchler et al. (1987) conducted an analysis over an 18 year-period and found that female accounting students outperformed their male counterparts. Tyson’s (1989) key finding was also that female students tend to receive higher grades in upper division accounting courses. A recent study conducted in Romania indicated that female and younger students have better performance than their male and older counterparts respectively (Razvan et al., 2010). Sweeny, as cited by Madrigal(2004) and Alibutod found men to be superior that women in solving problems which requires ingenuity and logic. According to Raiser-Messmer, boys performed better that girls but women are in environment that really validate and affirm them as thinkers and potential experts, They are more engaged, more motivated and in the end learn more.
Parent’s Educational Attainment Data come from the Columbia Country Longitudinal Study, which began in 1960 when all 856 third graders in a semi-rural county in New York State were interviewed along with their parents; participants were reinter viewed at ages 19, 30, and 48 (Eron et al, 1971; Huesmann et al., 2002). Parents’ educational level when the child was 8 years old significantly predicted educational and occupational success for the child 40 years later. Structural models showed that parental educational level had no direct effects on child educational level or occupational prestige at age 48 but had significant indirect effects that were independent of the other predictor variables’ effects. These indirect effects were mediated through age 19 educational aspirations and age 19 educational level. These results provide strong support for the unique predictive role of parental education on adult outcomes 40 years later and underscore the developmental importance of mediators of parent education effects such as late adolescent achievement and achievement-related aspirations.

Birth Position (Hertwig, Davis, & Sulloway, 2002;Marjoribanks, 2001;Travis & Kohli, 1995) Any family has a given set of resources, and with increasing family size, families have decreasing resources to provide for the education and development of children. Later-born children are therefore necessarily accessing a dwindling pool of resources, taking slices of an ever-shrinking pie. A second explanation may be referred to as the ‘family niche’ explanation, in which successive siblings tend to differentiate themselves from other siblings in an attempt to maximize outcomes and create a unique identity within the family (Feinberg et al., 2003; Schachter & Stone, 1985;Sulloway, 1996; Super & Harkness, 1986; Wachs, 1996). On this view, if older siblings tend to favor scholastic and educational activities, then younger siblings would be more likely to favor an alternate life course.

Social rejection Bierman states that well-liked children show social savvy and know when and how to join play groups. Children who are at risk for rejection are more likely to barge in disruptively, or hang back without joining at all. Aggressive children who are athletic or have good social skills are likely to be accepted by peers, and they may become ringleaders in the harassment of less skilled children. Minority children, children with disabilities, or children who have unusual characteristics or behaviour may face greater risks of rejection. Depending on the norms of the peer group, sometimes even minor differences among children lead to rejection or neglect. Children who are less outgoing or simply prefer solitary play are less likely to be rejected than children who are socially inhibited and show signs of insecurity or anxiety. Bierman, K. L. (2003). Karen Horney was the first theorist to discuss the phenomenon of rejection sensitivity. She suggested that it is a component of the neurotic personality, and that it is a tendency to feel deep anxiety and humiliation at the slightest rebuff. Simply being made to wait, for example, could be viewed as a rejection and met with extreme anger and hostility. More recently, Geraldine Downey and her colleagues at Columbia University refined the concept of rejection sensitivity and described it as the tendency to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to social rejection. Feldman SI (1996) Downey has demonstrated in the laboratory that, given a high level of rejection sensitivity, an ambiguous social interaction can be perceived as rejection. (According to a 2008 article in Psychiatry Research, even normal people have a tendency to see neutral faces as rejecting.) This can then lead to defensiveness and self-fulfilling prophecies that undermine social relationship. Laboratory research has found that even short-term rejection from strangers can have powerful (if temporary) effects on an individual. In several social psychology experiments, people chosen at random to receive messages of social exclusion become more aggressive, more willing to cheat, less willing to help others, and more likely to pursue short-term over long-term goals. Rejection appears to lead very rapidly to self-defeating and antisocial behaviour.
Family Interaction Parents being the most initial source of information introduce the world to their children and help them to understand and create the image of outside world by answering their questions, familiarizing them to different situations, telling different rituals and stories and thus children develop their attitude towards life and learning. Certainly if children have developed confidence, sense of self-worth and competence they will be ready to take challenges and successes. On the other hand if children do not perceive themselves competent they will develop an internal fear of failure or cost for appreciation or reward. So it is very important how they start their first fight. Sometimes parents are so curious about their child’s education and career that they keep reminding and injecting the minds of their child that education is the only solution to future miseries. Even they threaten to punish their child for poor performance. In such circumstances the child believes that education is compulsion for them and is inevitable to survive. Large number of students could not get rid of their fears and often fail to continue. School policies and goals in academic settings are also few factors that influence in development of student motivation. Lastly unnecessary external rewards can also attract students to achieve certain level of performance as suggested by Brooks et al., (1998).Boys and girls spend increasing amounts of time with peers during adolescence, but continued reliance on family members for support is more consistent.

Peer Group Interaction Peer groups are constantly evolving and many factors play a role in how peer groups function. Ideet al. (1981) conducted a meta-analysis of studies published from 1966 to 1978 which examined similarity of best friends and students lists of close friends in the academic realm. Across the ten studies reviewed, friends were similar in regards to academic achievement. An individual and his or her friend’s grades and test scores were moderately correlated. In addition, friends were similar regarding college aspirations. Landau (2002) supported this conclusion by stating that students who care about learning are more likely to associate with peers who share this interest in academics than those who have less interest in learning. Negative friendship qualities encompass disloyalty, hostility, and competition (Burk & Laursen, 2005). Positive friendships qualities encompass companionship, intimacy, warmth, closeness, and trust (Burk& Laursen, 2005).

Community Interaction Community members share a vision for the future of the school, a common sense of purpose, and a common set of values. Rovai, Wighting, and Lucking (2004) theorize that sense of community in an educational setting includes two underlying dimensions, which one can label social community and learning community. Social community represents the feelings of the community of students regarding their spirit, cohesion, trust, safety, interactivity, interdependence, and sense of belonging. Learning community consists of the feelings of community members regarding the degree to which they share group norms and values and the extent to which their educational goals and expectations are satisfied by group membership. Mitchell and Sackney (2000) define a learning community as “a group of people who take an active, reflective, collaborative, learning-oriented and growth-promoting approach towards the mysteries, problems and perplexities of teaching and learning” (p. 9). Tinto (1997) maintains that students require academic, social, and personal support from their school. This support, whatever its form, needs to be readily available and connected to other parts of the students’ total school experience.

Teachers-student Interaction Teacher preference is defined as the degree to which a teacher likes a specific student. (Chang et al, 2004; Taylor, 1989; Wentzel& Asher, 1995) Evidence suggests that teacher-student and peer social relationships are related. For example, several studies have found that low teacher preference and problematic teacher-student relationships are related to peer rejection (e.g., Chang et al., 2004; Hughes, Zhang, & Hill, 2006; Wentzel& Asher, 1995). Inclusion of teacher preference in the study of classroom peer acceptance is important due to the possible influence of low levels of teacher preference on peer rejection and vice versa. Low teacher preference may impact peer perceptions of individual children, influencing peer rejection (Hughes et al., 2006; Hymel, Wagner, & Butler, 1990; Taylor, 1989; White, Sherman, & Jones, 1996).
Self-Confidence
Self-esteem is defined by Woolfolk (2005) as an affective act and encapsulates the value or worth we attach to our self-assessments. Self-esteem is widely acknowledged as being less malleable than self-concept as it encompasses the ways that individuals feel about their strengths and weaknesses. For example, an individual may be hopelessly uncoordinated when playing sport; cognitively, that person may appraise his or her performance and form a low self-concept for sport playing capacity. However, if that person wasn't concerned about sport, viewing it as an unimportant hobby, then the self-esteem of that individual may not be affected. High self-esteem, according to Harter (1990), comes from our competence in the things we value, while low self esteem is the outcome of negative judgments, when individuals focus on their weaknesses.
Academic Performance In educational institutions, success is measured by academic performance, or how well a student meets standards set out by local government and the institution itself. As career competition grows ever fiercer in the working world, the importance of students doing well in school has caught the attention of parents, legislators and government education departments alike. Although education is not the only road to success in the working world, much effort is made to identify, evaluate, track and encourage the progress of students in schools. Parents care about their child's academic performance because they believe good academic results will provide more career choices and job security. Schools, though invested in fostering good academic habits for the same reason, are also often influenced by concerns about the school's reputation and the possibility of monetary aid from government institutions, which can hinge on the overall academic performance of the school. State and federal departments of education are charged with improving schools, and so devise methods of measuring success in order to create plans for improvement.

Related Studies
Foreign studies
Age
According to study of R.Bada.Abubakar and O.Dokubo Oguguoc entitled “Age and Gender as predictors of Academic Achievement of College Mathematics and Science Students” it was evidently revealed that age is insignificant as it relates to academic achievement ,it was responsible for 0.1% of variance in performance of Mathematics and Science students.
Gender
Vijaylaxmi and Natesan (1992) studied factors influencing academic achievement. From Coimbatore, 100 students studying in XI standard were selected for the study of which 50 were boys and 50 were girls. To assess the socio-economic status of the subjects, the socio-economic status scale developed by Vendal (1981) was used. To assess the academic achievement of the subjects, the total marks obtained by the subjects in the quarterly and half-yearly examination was taken. Findings showed that girls had a higher mean academic achievement compared to boys. On an average, girls had greater achievement motivation than boys.

Parent’s Educational Attainment Parental educational level is an important predictor of children’s educational and behavioral outcomes (Davis-Kean, 2005; Dearing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2002; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, &Klebanov, 1994; Haveman& Wolfe, 1995; Nagin& Tremblay, 2001; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, &Klebanov, 1997). The majority of research on the ways in which parental education shapes child outcomes has been conducted through cross-sectional co relational analyses or short-term longitudinal designs in which parents and children are tracked through the child’s adolescent years. Krishnan (1977) conducted a study on non-intellectual factors and their influence on academic achievement. The sample comprisedof180 students of sixth to ninth class studying in central school Tirupati and were divided into three groups depending on their parents‟ education as high middle and low. The results indicated that parents educational status had significant influence on the academic achievement of their children. Saini(1977)under took a study on academic achievement as a function of economic status and educational standard of parents. The sample consisted of 196 students from four colleges of Chandigarh. The findings revealed that educational standard of parents had significant effect on the academic achievement of arts and science students at the college level. Aggarwal (1983) conducted a study on reading ability in relation to some cognitive and non-cognitive factors. The sample constituted 200 male and female students selected randomly from the high schools of Biharin India. Datawere collected by administering reading ability test to the sample .The results of the study indicated that female students had better reading ability and higher academic achievement than male students. Singh and Srivastava (1983) investigated the impact of parents “literacy on the academic achievement on a sample of85first grade and80 fifth grade students of Punjab in India. Students “scores on an achievement test were taken as measures of academic achievement of the students. The findings indicated that parents “literacy had a positive relationship with younger students “academic achievement. Sharma (1984) conducted a study on academic achievement of school student’s vis-à-vis their parents‟ education. The sample comprised of 230 ninth class students of Punjab from whom the data for the educational level of their parents were collected and analyzed. The findings revealed that parental education was positively and significantly associated with academic achievement of their child.

Parent’s Occupation According to Yee and Eccles (1988), different disciplines engaged in by parents through their various educations have different emphases on the education of their children. It thus appears that career modelling from parents could make a noticeable impression on children’s intellectual development. For example, mothers who engage in menial jobs like hair dressing, sewing, petty trading, farming, catering among others, are more likely to have less contact hours with their children. This can affect the vocabulary and communication skills of their children. These mothers will most likely want their children to toe the line of their trade and as a result may not bother to lay much emphasis on the early intellectual development of their children. Parents’ occupation is next to parents’ education that predicts academic achievement in Mathematics. The result provide evidence that students whose parents belong to the high ranking occupational status might a better grade in Mathematics than their counterparts whose parents belong to the low ranking occupational status. This is because parents with high ranking occupational status might have enough income which can be used to provide the needed materials and support for their children in order to arouse their interest in Mathematics than their counterparts in low ranking occupation whose major obligation is to provide shelter and food for the family. The findings was supported by that of Jaffe (1985), Rain (1998), Simon (2004), Teese (2004), Sharma (2004), Dubey (1999) and Crane (1993).

Family Income Family income, it represents the level of affluence of the student, how much facility, comforts the student can acquire. It is believed that the relationship between academic performance and student family income is positive because money can buy you all the comforts that you need to concentrate on your studies but the result could not prove this relation because the coefficient value -0.048344111 and negative insignificant t-value-0.338615111 shows there is inverse relation. It means students belonging to more prosperous/affluent family do not give proper weight to studies although this value is very small but still it reflects the insignificance of affluence i.e. affluence cannot make a student serious about his studies or if a student wants to study then affluence is not a prerequisite. But still it requires more research to explain this phenomenon. (Syed Tahir Hijazi and S.M.M. Raza Naqvi)

Number of Siblings Studies show siblings play a major role in each other’s cognitive development and from an early age, young children observe and imitate their older sibling (Azmitia & Hesser,1993; Brody, 1998; Patterson, 1984). The closer the younger sibling identifies with the older sibling, the stronger the impact will be on the adolescent’s efficacy (Bandura, 1977). An adolescent’s perceived self-efficacy affects his/her growth of cognitive competencies (Bandura, 1977), academic interest and motivation, management of academic stressors (Bassiet al., 2007), and accomplished achievement (Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991). Studies show that support from a sibling is associated with positive academic achievement (Smith 1990; Smith 1993; Yeh & Lempers, 2004); however, there is a need to examine whether these findings extend to specific academic achievement. Researchers have examined how significant others (i.e. parents and teachers) influence adolescents’ academic motivations (Alfaro & Umana-Taylor, 2010; Wentzel, Battle, Russell & Looney, 2010).Little is known about the process through which older sibling relationships may influence adolescents’ academic achievement. Given the importance of sibling closeness, positive sibling warmth and support was hypothesized in this study to be positively associated with adolescents’ academic achievement.

Birth Position A large body of research has examined linkages between birth order and later psychological outcomes including mental health, intelligence, academic achievement, and personality (for reviews see Elliott, 1992; Heer, 1985; Steelman, Powell & Werum, 2002; Stewart & Stewart, 1995; Zajonc, 2001; Zajonc & Mullally, 1997). One aspect of this research has been an examination of the linkages between birth order and educational achievement. In general, this research has led to the conclusions that later birth position is associated with lower educational achievement and career outcomes. For example, Black, Devereux and Salvanes (2005) examined the effects of birth order on educational achievement, using a sample consisting of the population of Norway, and found that earlier birth position was associated with a significantly greater number of years of education. Similarly, Herrera and colleagues(Herrera,Zajonc,Wieczorkowska & Cichomski, 2003), using data from a large representative cross-sectional sample in Poland, found that first- and earlier born respondents reported a significantly greater number of years of schooling and higher levels of occupational prestige. Also, Travis and Kohli (1995) reported that earlier birth order was related to the total number of years of education, particularly for those individuals from middle-class families. The pioneer of birth order research, Alfred Adler, had theorized that each birth position has a set of personality traits. Firstborns are always seen as leaders, high-achievers, ambitious, and conforming. They attempt to please their parents via traditional ways, which are through academic performance and responsible behaviors. Middle children, on the other hand, may experience difficulty finding a position of privilege and significance in the family because they never have the opportunity to monopolize parents’ attention. Thus, they constantly fight to stay ahead of their younger siblings. In contrast, lastborns and only children are frequently viewed as the spoiled kid of the family. It is because both of these birth positions are the only focus of the family. However, unlike the only children, the later-born children, including the middle children and last-born children, are aware of the higher status of the firstborn, so they will seek alternative strategies to stand out from their siblings. In addition, a dethronement theory was proposed to explain birth order effects on personality development. Before the birth of the younger sibling, the eldest child had his or her parents’ complete attention but he or she was later dethroned by a newborn. As a consequence of dethronement, the child would struggle to regain parental attention. This led the firstborn to develop such characteristics as conscientious, conservative, independence and competence, which would later facilitate one’s academic attainment.

Social Rejection According to the study of Rafidah Kamarudin, Azizah Aris and Nor aini Ibrahim thesis entitled “Stress and Academic Performance: A study among Pre-science students in UiTM Negeri Sembilan” based on the test results from Spearman Rank correlation, there is no correlation between level of perceived stress at the beginning and middle semester with the students’ academic performance. The test results also show that there is a significant correlation between perceived level at the end of semester and the students’ academic performance at 0.05 level. The rho value is –0.206 shows that there is a weak negative correlation between level of perceived stress at the end of semester and students’ academic performance. This implies that when the level of perceived stress is higher, the academic performance will be lower. Thus, we can conclude that the even though the level of stress faced by the students at the middle towards the end of the semester was higher than the stress level at the beginning of the semester, but it did not affect the students’ overall academic performance. This was probably due to the low level of stress indicated by the mean score of 39.16 out of the total score of 70.

According to the study of Lopez, Oloizola, Ferrer and Ochoa entitled “Aggressive and Nonaggressive rejected students” as the results regarding school variables, aggressive rejected students showed more academic difficulties which could explain why they also had lower levels of academic self-esteem—and poorer relationships with teachers. These results are in line with previous studies showing that both rejected and aggressive children are less successful at school (Hatzichristou & Hopf, 1996; Wentzel &Asher, 1995) and usually have conflictual relationships with teachers (Murray & Murray, 2004).In addition, the subgroup of aggressive rejected students informed of a more negative attitude toward school, more indifference toward studies, and a higher perception of injustice in relation to the way teachers and, in general, the school context treat them.

Family Interaction Habel (1986) said that the psychological makes up of individual parents has a great influence on the behaviour, attentiveness and performance of a child in the school. Lankard (1995) points out that where parental encouragement is low, relatively few students, regardless of their intelligence or socio-economic status levels, plan to go to college. On the other hand, where parental encouragement is high even when socio-economic status and intelligence are relatively low; more students plan to go to school. They concluded that the way and manner in which the family is organised and the direction in which the family system is changing is important as this reflects on the child’s performance in school. Coltenet al. (1991) reported that conflictual family relations are likely to be perceived by girls as highly stressful, which in turn, may lead to maladjustment. Dishionet al. (1995) reported that quality of family relationships were linked with the initiation and progression of substance use, delinquent behavior and aggression and Werner et al. (2003) carried a study on family relationship quality and contact with Deviant Peers as predictors of adolescent problem behaviors. Data were obtained using questionnaire, nine items adopted from prior delinquency research (Elliott et al., 1983), six items questionnaire adopted from Moos (1976) and adolescents reports on 7 items. Results of the study indicated that adolescents who experience more harmonious family relations were less likely to associate with peers who used substance and engaged in antisocial behavior. Drotar (1997) observed that less adaptive family relationships (greater conflict and maternal psychological distress) consistently predicted problematic adjustment. He conducted study on parent and family functioning on psychological adjustment of children. The quality of relationship between children and their parents has interested many researchers over decades. Various well known theoretical orientations (Harter, 1998; Ryan et al., 1995; Sroufe and Waters, 1977) have considered the processes whereby parents’ behavior helps determine the quality of children’s school functioning and problem behavior. For example, social learning theorists (Patterson et al., 1989) posit that behaviors modeled and reinforced in the parent/child relationship will be strengthened, encoded cognitively, and later generalized to other social settings. Attachment theorists (Waters et al., 1986) posit that the quality of parents’ responsibility to children influences the development of parent/child attachment and the quality of children’s schemes and expectations about the self, others, and relationships. Robertson and Simons (1989) tested on family factors leading to adolescent’s depression on a sample of 300 adolescents (13-17 years). Family Environment Scale (Moos, 1974), Self Esteem measured by Rounbergs (1965) Scale and depression by Adolescents’ Depression Inventory (ADI), a modification of Black (Beck, 1967; Beck and Beamenderfer,1974) were administered. It stated that parental rejection lead to depressive symptom. Steinberg et al. (1989) conducted a study on “authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity and academic success among adolescents”. In this study, the overtime relation between three aspects of authoritative parenting – acceptance, psychological autonomy and behavioral control and school achievement was examined in a sample of 120, 10-16 year olds in order to test the hypothesis that authoritative parenting facilitates, rather than simply accompanies, school success. In addition, the mediating role of youngster’s psycho-social maturity was studied. Results indicated that (1) authoritative parenting facilitated adolescent’s academic success (2) each component of authoritativeness studied made an independent contribution to achievement, and (3) the positive impact of authoritative parenting on achievement was mediated at least in part through the effect of authoritativeness on the development of a healthy psychological orientation toward work. Adolescents who described their parents as treating them warmly, democratically, and firmly were more likely than their peers to develop positive attitudes towards, and belief about, their achievement and as a consequence they were more likely to do better in school. Chowdhary and Jayasmita (1997) performed a study on “Parental involvement and academic achievement of the peer accepted and peer rejected children”. A total of 30 children of grade 4th, 5th and 6th belonging to peer accepted and peer rejected group (out of total 136) were selected as samples through socio-metric nomination measures. The result indicated the existence of lower parental involvement among peer rejected children. Academic achievements of peer rejected children were found to be less than peer accepted children, due to lower parental involvement. The result of this study set the sage and established an important ground work for subsequent study that could examine the process by which parental involvement may have influence in the academic achievement of accepted and rejected children. Kang et al. (1997) carried out a study on “comparative study of parent-child relationships of high and low achievers” on a sample of 100 high achievers and 100 low achieving children studying in schools of Ludhiana city and their parents. Data were obtained by using “Parent child relationship test developed by Tiwari (1997). The test studied eight dimensions of parent child relations, viz., acceptance – rejection, dominance vs. submission, encouragement vs. discouragement, love -hate, authoritarian- democratic, reward punishment, trust-distrust, and tolerance-hostility. Results of the study indicated that parents of high achievers were more loving, trusted, shared more tolerance toward them as compared to parents of low achieveness. Parents of low achievers were found to be less accepting, less encouraging and little democratic. Similarly Choudhary and Muni (1995) reported that parental support had positive effect on their children’s academic performance. They carried out a study on “Role of parental support in children’s need satisfaction; and academic achievement”. The sample consisted of fifty children from 7th grade to 9th grade of equal number of boys and girls. “Family effectiveness need satisfactory” inventory and academic marks were used as measures in this study.

Peer Group Interaction Buhmester (1990) carried a study on intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence”, on a sample of 102 10-13 year old preadolescents and 70 13-16 year old adolescents. Data were obtained using friendship intimacy scale, adolescent interpersonal competence questionnaire (AICQ), Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item scale and 10 item self report questionnaires. Results of the study indicated that intimacy of friendship was consistently and moderately correlated with adjustment and competence among adolescents (13-16 years) but less consistently related among preadolescents (10-13 years). DeRoiseret al. (1994) carried a study on “children’s academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection” on a sample of 622second through fourth-grade children aged between 7-12 years. Data were obtained using school records, peer ratings of peer rejection and behavior, modified version of the classroom adjustment rating scale (Lorionet al., 1975). Results of the study indicated that both chronicity and proximity directly influenced later adjustment. All levels of rejection were associated with greater absenteeism from school and more chronic and proximal experiences of rejection were associated with elevated externalizing DeRoiseret al. (1994) carried a study on children academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection on a sample of 622 second through fourth-grade children aged between 7-12 years. Results of the study indicated that children who experienced peer rejection our or more times were absent from school significantly more often compared to children who never experienced rejection, higher level of absenteeism or lower achievement. There is an indirect effect of peer rejection on achievement via absenteeism. Choudhuryet al. (1997) carried a study on “academic achievement of the peer accepted and peer rejected children” on a sample of 136 children of 4th, 5th and 6th grades. Data were obtained using group socio-metric method and school records. Results of the study indicated that peer accepted children were found to be academically competent than peer rejected children. Chetanaet al. (1997) carried a study on “academic achievement of sociometrically high and low status children” on a sample of 200 school children in the age group of 10-13 years. Data were obtained using peer nomination socio-metric test (Coir et al., 1982) and school examination records. Results of the study indicated that popular group children had higher academic achievement than the rejected group as revealed in the school examination of the academic year 1993-94.g behavior problems and teacher rated internalizing behavior problems.

Community Interaction Wighting (2006), few studies have directly explored this type of relationship. Furthermore a review of the literature revealed no published studies that utilized standardized measures to compare sense of community and academic achievement among high school students.

Teacher-students Interaction In support, Hughes and colleagues (2006) found that positive teacher- student relationships predicted later peer acceptance; however, failure to include prior peer acceptance as a covariate is a limitation considering the strong concurrent relation between peer acceptance and positive teacher-student relationships (Hughes, Cavell, &Willson, 2001).Similarly, Taylor (1989) found that low teacher preference predicted subsequent peer rejection after controlling for prior peer rejection. In an analog study, White and colleagues (1996) demonstrated that derogatory teacher feedback related to low teacher preference influenced peer likeability and peer perceptions of behaviour. By influencing peer likeability and perceptions of behaviour, teachers may contribute to the social reputations of children, thereby influencing peer rejection (Hymel et al., 1990). Based on these findings, there is support for the contention that low teacher preference may be an antecedent to peer rejection.

Self confidence According to study entitled “Self-esteem and Academic Performance of the Students on Public Secondary Schools in NDHIWA District, Kenya” by The findings of the study have revealed that: i. some 58.33% of the students who performed well felt proud of their performance and always felt like showing them to others. ii. as far as age is concerned, the findings show that 64.33% of the students interviewed had attained 18 years and above. (Nelson et al, 2006). iii. more boys (50%) than girls (48.7%) aspired to obtain a first degree. On the other hand, more girls than boys aspired to leave the school at Form Four (10%) and (6.7%) respectively. iv. nearly all the students said that they felt proud of their teachers who they felt made them perform well. The findings presented herewith seem to suggest that age and gender have influence on self- esteem and in turn academic performance of the students.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter presents methods and techniques used in research to come up with a result test the acceptability of hypothesis. It includes research design, research locale and sample, research instrument, data gathering procedure and statistical treatment of data.
Research Design The researcher made of descriptive survey method in gathering and treating data for the particular study “Social Rejection and Self Confidence as Correlates of Academic Achievements among Third Year High School Students in San Pablo City National High School A.Y. 2012-2013”. The profile and the perception of the respondent is the main source of this research. The descriptive survey method as it sometimes called a normative survey method is appropriate for data based from simple observational situation and in answering from the questionnaire and thus, in the employment of such method.

Population and Sampling The respondents of the study are one hundred (100) 3rd year students in San Pablo City National High School, which is randomly selected out of 593 students. This sampling method is conducted where each member of a population has an equal opportunity to become part of the sample. As all members of the population have an equal chance of becoming a research participant, this is said to be the most efficient sampling procedure. In order to conduct this sampling strategy, the researcher defined the population first, listed down all the members of the population and then selected members to make the sample. For this procedure, the lottery sampling or the fish bowl technique was employed.

Research Instrument The main instrument used was constructed survey questionnaires which consist of two parts. The first part is the profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, Parent’s Educational Attainment, Parent’s Occupation, Family Income, Number of Siblings, Birth Position and Academic performance of the respondents in terms of their average grade in Chemistry, Geometry, Filipino and English for the second grading period. The second part is the perception of the respondents to the Social Rejection and Self Confidence as perceived by the respondents.

Data Gathering Procedure An official letter to the principal was secured asking the permission to the approved letter then permit was sent to subject teacher to conduct the study. The copies of the questionnaire were personally distributed and administered by the researcher and waited until the entire question was answered. After all the data gathered, the researcher started to tabulate and were coded, computed, analyzes and interpreted the data.

Statistical Treatment of Data The data collected were classified, tabulated and coded for the analysis using simple descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage. Frequency and Percentage were used to find out the profile of the respondents. Likewise, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to find out the significant relationship of the student’s personal profile and perception of social-rejection and self-confidence to their Academic performance at 0.05 as the level of significance.

Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter presents the findings of this study with the corresponding interpretation derived from the statistical treatment of data.

A. Profile of the Respondents

Table 1
Distribution of Respondents According to Age
|Age |Frequency |Percent |
|13 – 15 |56 |56 |
|16 – 18 |36 |36 |
|19 – 21 |8 |8 |
|Total |100 |100 |

Table 1 show that fifty six percent (56%) of the respondents is 13 -15 years old, thirty six percent (36%) of the respondents are 16 - 18 years old, and eight percent (8%) of the respondents are 19 – 21 years old. Majority of the respondents belong to thirteen to fifteen 13 - 15 years old. Table 2
Distribution of Respondents According to Gender
|Gender |Frequency |Percent |
|Male |46 |46 |
|Female |54 |54 |
|Total |100 |100 |

Table 2 shows that forty six (46) or forty six percent (46%) of the respondents are male and fifty four (54) or fifty four percent (54%) of the respondents are female. Majority of the respondents are females.

Table 3
Distribution of Respondents According to Parent’s Educational Attainment
|Educational Attainment |Father |Mother |
| |Frequency |Percent |Frequency |Percent |
|Elementary undergraduate | | | | |
| |4 |4 |2 |2 |
|Elementary graduate | | | | |
| |6 |6 |8 |8 |
|High School under graduate | | | | |
| |20 |20 |15 |15 |
|High School graduate | | | | |
| |34 |34 |38 |38 |
|College under graduate | | | | |
| |20 |20 |16 |16 |
|College graduate | | | | |
| |15 |15 |21 |21 |
| | | | | |
|Vocational |1 |1 |0 |0 |
|Total |100 |100 |100 |100 |

Table 3 shows the distribution of the respondents according to Parent’s Educational Attainment. As shown out of one hundred (100) father, four percent 4% are elementary undergraduate, six percent 6% are elementary graduate, twenty percent 20% are high school undergraduate, thirty four percent 34% are high school graduate, twenty percent 20% are college undergraduate, fifteen percent 15% are college graduate and one percent attained vocational course. While out of one hundred 100 mother, two percent 2% are elementary undergraduate, eight percent 8% are elementary graduate, fifteen percent 15% are high school under graduate, thirty eight percent 38% are high school graduate, sixteen percent 16% are college under graduate, twenty one percent are college graduate. This show’s that all parents of the respondents undergone to formal schooling.

Table 4

Distribution of Respondents according to Parent’s Occupation

|Father’s Occupation |Frequency |Percent |Mother’s Occupation |Frequency |Percent |
|Laborer |37 |37 |Housewife |69 |69 |
|Farmer |12 |12 |Vendor |15 |15 |
|Driver |31 |31 |Dress maker |1 |1 |
|Vendor |3 |2 |Teacher |4 |4 |
|Security Guard | | |Business Woman | | |
| |1 |1 | |7 |7 |
|Gov.Employee |1 |1 |Nurse |1 |1 |
|OFW |10 |10 |OFW |3 |3 |
|None |5 |5 |- |- |- |
|Total |100 |100 |Total |100 |100 |

Table 4 shows the distribution of respondents according to parent’s occupation. Majority of the respondent’s father are laborer with a frequency of thirty seven percent 37% , while thirty one percent 31% are driver, ten percent 10%are OFW, five percent 5% of them are jobless, farmer and vendor have a frequency of three 3% percent respectively, one percent 1% is security guard same as government employee. Majority of the respondent’s mother are housewife with a frequency of sixty nine percent 69%, while fifteen percent 15% are vendor, seven percent are business woman, three percent 3% are OFW, and one percent 1% is nurse same as business woman. Generally, respondents’ father are contributed to financial needs of the family while most of their mother are housewife who taking care of their child.

Table 5

Distribution of Respondents According to Family Monthly Income

|Monthly Income |Frequency |Percent |
|Php. 5,000 and below |27 |27 |
|Php. 5,001 – Php. 15,000 |32 |32 |
|Php. 15,001 – Php. 25,000 |21 |21 |
|Php. 25,001 – Php. 35,000 |15 |15 |
|Php. 35,001 and above |5 |5 |
|Total |100 |100 |

Table 5 shows the distribution of respondents according to family monthly income. As shown, out of one hundred, thirty two percent 32% have a monthly income of Php. 5,001 – Php. 15,000, twenty seven percent 27% of the respondents belong to family having a monthly income of Php. 5,000 below, twenty one percent 21% have family monthly income of Php. 15,001 – Php. 25, 000, meanwhile fifteen percent 15% of the respondents belongs to family with a monthly income of Php. 25,001 – Php. 35, 000 and five percent 5% Php. 35, 001 and above.

Table 6

Distribution of Respondents According to Number of Siblings

|Number of siblings |Frequency |Percentage |
|Only child |4 |4 |
|1 – 3 |47 |47 |
|4 – 6 |38 |38 |
|7 and above |11 |11 |
|Total |100 |100 |

Table 6 shows the distribution of respondents according to number of siblings. As shown, majority of the respondents have one to three (1-3) siblings with frequency of forty seven percent 47%. Thirty eight percent 38% of the respondents have four to six (4-6) siblings, eleven percent 11% have seven (7)siblings and above, while four percent 4% of the respondents are only child.

Table 7

Distribution of Respondents According to Birth Position

| Birth position |Frequency |Percentage |
|First born | 33 |33 |
|Middle born | 42 |42 |
|Last born | 21 |21 |
|Only child | 4 |4 |
|Total |100 |100 |

Table 7 shows the distribution of the respondents according to birth position. Forty two percent 42% of the respondents are middle born, thirty three percent 33% of the respondents are first born or the eldest, twenty one percent 21 % of the respondents are last born or youngest among their siblings and four percent are only child. Most of the respondents are belong to middle born child, according to Adams (1972) middle born child may experience difficulty finding a position of privilege and significance in family because they never have the opportunity to monopolize parent’s attention.

Table 8

Mean Perception of the Respondents to Social Rejection in terms of Family Interaction
|Indicator |Mean |Standard Deviation |Interpretation |
|1. My family helps me when I need them. |4.46 |0.9 |Always |
|2. My family is supportive with me. |4.55 |0.81 |Always |
|3. My family cheer’s me up when |3.87 |1.21 |Often |
|I’m down. | | | |
|4. My family listened and tried to understand me in |3.77 |1.00 |Often |
|all my needs and wants. | | | |
|5. I felt love every time my family corrects me |4.23 |1.02 |Always |
|because I know they cared for me. | | | |
|Overall |4.176 |0.73 |Often - Low |

Legend 4.21 – 5.0 (always) -very low 3.41 – 4.20 (often) -low
2.61 – 3.40 (sometimes) -moderately high
1.81 – 2.60 (seldom) -high
1.00– 1.80 (never) -very high

As shown in table 8, indicator number two, “My family is supportive with me” got the highest mean value of 4.55 and marked as “always”. While item number four “My family listened and tried to understand me in all my needs and wants” got the lowest mean value of 3.77 marked as often. An overall mean value of 4.176 marked as often may mean that social rejections in terms of family interaction of the respondents are low. Respondents always felt the support of their family and often understand their needs.

Table 9
Mean Perception of the Respondents to Social Rejection in terms of Peer Group Interaction

|Indicator |Mean |Standard Deviation |Interpretation |
|1. I respect the feelings of my fellow | | | |
|Classmates and friends. |4.19 |0.81 |Often |
|2. I talk to my friends regarding my | | | |
|feelings and problems. |3.91 |1.13 |Often |
|3. I accept constructive criticisms from my classmates | | | |
|and friends. |3.78 |1.12 |Often |
|4. I receive moral support from my | | | |
|classmates and friends. |4.22 |0.84 |Always |
|5. I feel comfortable with my | | | |
|Classmates and friends. |4.49 |0.79 |Always |
| | | | |
|Overall |4.118 |0.66 |Often - Low |

Legend 4.21 – 5.0 (always) -very low 3.41 – 4.20 (often) -low
2.61 – 3.40 (sometimes) -moderately high
1.81 – 2.60 (seldom) -high
1.00– 1.80 (never) -very high

As shown in table 9, indicator number 5 “I feel comfortable with my classmates and friends” got a highest mean value of 4.49 marked as “always”. Indicator number 4 “I receive moral support from my classmates and friends” got a mean value of 4.22 marked as “always”, indicator number one “I respect the feelings of my fellow classmates” got a mean value of 4.19 marked as “often”, indicator number 2 “I talk to my friends regarding my feelings and problems” got a mean value of 3.91 marked as “often”, and indicator number 3 “I accept constructive criticisms from my classmates and friends” got a lowest mean value of 3.78 marked as often. Having overall mean value of 4.118 and marked as “often”, this may mean that the social rejection of the respondents in terms of peer group interaction is low.

Table 10
Mean Perception of the Respondents to Social Rejection in terms of Community Interaction

|Indicator |Mean |Standard Deviation |Interpretation |
|1. I don’t mind when someone talks about me because I | | | |
|know myself better. |3.92 |1.06 |Often |
|2. In my own opinion I deserve to be respected by the | | | |
|society. |4.27 |0.91 |Always |
|3. I have a high degree of patient for the short comings| | | |
|of others to me. |3.63 |0.95 |Often |
|4. I feel that I am important in my | | | |
|community. |3.9 |0.96 |Often |
|5. I’m comfortable and happy in the community where I | | | |
|belong. |4.21 |0.92 |Always |
| | | | |
|Overall |3.99 |0.62 |Often - low |

Legend 4.21 – 5.0 (always) -very low 3.41 – 4.20 (often) -low
2.61 – 3.40 (sometimes) -moderately high
1.81 – 2.60 (seldom) -high
1.00– 1.80 (never) -very high

As shown in table 10, indicator number two “In my own opinion I deserve to be respected by the society” got the highest mean value 4.27 and marked as always. While indicator number 5 “I’m comfortable and happy in the community where I belong” got a mean value of 4.21 which also marked as “always”. Indicator number one “I don’t mind when someone talks about me because I know myself better” got a mean value of 3.92 marked as “Often”. Indicator number 4 “I feel that I am important in my community” got a mean value of 3.9 marked as “often” while indicator number 3 got a lowest mean value of 3.63 and marked as “often” also, this may mean that the social rejection of the respondents in terms of community interactions is low.

Table 11
Mean Perception of the Respondents to Social Rejection in terms of Teacher-student Interaction

|Indicator |Mean |Standard Deviation |Interpretation |
| | | | |
|1. My teacher treat me same as he/she treats my |3.73 |1.12 |Often |
|classmates. | | | |
|2. I am not afraid to share my ideas in my teacher and | | | |
|classmates during discussion. |4.84 |1.09 |Always |
|3. I accept and understand my teacher when he/she has a | | | |
|negative feedback about me. |4.12 |0.92 |Often |
|4. I accept the advice of my teacher. | | | |
| |4.47 |0.82 |Always |
|5. I always listen to my teacher because I know she/he | | | |
|is concerned with me. |4.45 |0.87 |Always |
| | | | |
|Overall |4.12 |0.63 |Often - Low |

Legend 4.21 – 5.0 (always) -very low 3.41 – 4.20 (often) -low
2.61 – 3.40 (sometimes) -moderately high
1.81 – 2.60 (seldom) -high
1.00– 1.80 (never) -very high

As shown in table 11, Indicator number 2, 4, 5, “I am not afraid to share my ideas in my teacher and classmates during discussion”(mean= 4.84),“ I accept the advice of my teacher”(mean= 4.47),” I always listen to my teacher because I know she/he is concerned with me”(mean=4.45) are all marked as “always” meanwhile indicator number one “My teacher treat me same as he/she treat my classmates”(mean = 3.73), and indicator number three “. I accept and understand my teacher when he/she has a negative feedback about me” are both marked as “often”. Having an overall mean value of 4.12 and marked as “often” may mean that the respondents haven’t experience high rejection to their teacher.
Table 12

Mean Perception of the Respondents to Self-confidence in terms of Self-esteem

|Indicator |Mean |Standard Deviation |Interpretation |
|1. I feel that I have numbers of good qualities. | | | |
| |4.16 |0.75 |Often |
|2. I am able to do things as well as most of the other | | | |
|people. |4.15 |0.74 |Often |
|3. I think I do well at all. | | | |
| |4.00 |0.79 |Often |
|4. I admit my mistakes openly. | | | |
| |4.23 |0.79 |Always |
|5. I always speak up for myself and put my views across.| | | |
| |4.21 |0.77 |Always |
| | | | |
|Overall |4.15 |0.58 |Often - High |

Legend 4.21 – 5.0 (always) -very high 3.41 – 4.20 (often) -high
2.61 – 3.40 (sometimes) -moderately high
1.81 – 2.60 (seldom) -low
1.00– 1.80 (never) -very low

As shown in table 12, respondents perception about their self-confidence in terms of self-esteem are high, no indicator got a mean value lower than 4.00 and the highest indicator got a mean value of 4.23 and marked as “always” is the number 4, “I admit my mistakes openly” while the indicator number 3 got a lowest mean value of 4.00 “I think I do well at all” respondents are open to admit their mistakes and have self-confidence in doing well at all. Meanwhile other indicators, one “I feel that I have numbers of good qualities” got a mean value 4.16 marked as “often”, indicator number two “I am able to do things as well as most of the other people” got a mean value of 4.15, marked as “often”, and indicator number five “I always speak up for myself and put my views across” got a mean value of 4.21 marked as “always”. With an overall mean value 4.15 and marked as “often” revealed that the level of respondents’ self confidence in terms of self-esteem is high.
Table 13

Mean Perception of the Respondents to Self-confidence in terms of Self-worth

|Indicator |Mean |Standard Deviation |Interpretation |
|1. I feel that I am able of worth at least on an equal | | | |
|plane on others. |4.2 |0.75 |Often |
|2. I feel that I have a lot of things to be proud of. | | | |
| |4.35 |0.72 |Always |
|3. I take positive attitude towards myself. | | | |
| |4.31 |0.79 |Always |
|4. I deserved love and respect. | | | |
| |4.43 |0.74 |Always |
|5. I feel valued and needed. | | | |
| |4.38 |0.79 |Always |
|6. Being me is important. | | | |
| |4.59 |0.68 |Always |
|Overall |4.38 |0.57 |Always – |
| | | |Very high |

Legend 4.21 – 5.0 (always) -very high 3.41 – 4.20 (often) -high
2.61 – 3.40 (sometimes) -moderately high
1.81 – 2.60 (seldom) -low
1.00– 1.80 (never) -very low

Table 13 shows the mean perception of the respondents to self-confidence in terms of self-worth. Indicator number one “I feel that I am able of worth at least on an equal plane on others” mean=4.2 marked as “often”. Indicator number two “I feel that I have a lot of things to be proud of” mean = 4.35 marked “always”. Indicator number three “I take positive attitude towards myself “mean =4.31 marked “always”. Indicator number four “I deserved loved and respect“ mean = 4.43 marked “always”. Indicator number five “I feel valued and needed” mean = 4.38 marked “always”. Indicator number six “Being me is important” got a mean value of 4.59 marked as “always”. Overall mean value of indicators is 4.38 and marked “always”. As shown, most of the indicator except number one are marked “always” which may mean that the self-confidence in terms of self-worth of the respondents is high. Respondents take positive attitude towards themselves. They felt that they are important and deserve to be love and respect.
Table 14

Distribution of the Respondents According to Academic Performance

|Grade Point Average |Frequency |Percentage |Interpretation |
|76 – 79.99 |28 |28 |Poor |
|80 – 83.99 |54 |54 |Satisfactory |
|84 – 87.99 |17 |17 |Very Satisfactory |
|88 and above |1 |1 |Outstanding |
|Total |100 |100 | |

Table 14 show the distribution of the respondents according to grade point average in four major subjects (Mathematics, Science, English and Filipino).As shown that fifty four or fifty four percent 54% of the respondents got the grade between eighty to eighty seven point ninety nine (80 – 87.99) remarked as satisfactory, twenty eight or twenty eight percent 28% of the respondents got the grade between seventy six to seventy nine point ninety nine (76 – 79.99) remarked as poor, seventeen or seventeen percent 17%of the respondents got the grade between eighty seven point ninety nine (84 – 87.99) remarked as very satisfactory, fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30%) of the respondents got the grade between 79-81, meanwhile only one or one percent 1% or the respondents got the grade eighty eight and above remarked as outstanding.

Table 15
Correlation between Profile of the Respondents and Academic Performance
|Variable |r-value |p-value |Remarks |
| | | | |
|Age |-0.22 |0.03* |Significant |
| | | | |
|Gender |0.18 |0.08 |Not Significant |
|Father’s Educational Attainment | | | |
| |0.16 |0.103 |Not Significant |
|Mother’s Educational Attainment | | | |
| |0.21 |0.035* |Significant |
| | | | |
|Father’s Occupation |0.12 |0.23 |Not Significant |
| | | | |
|Mother’s Occupation |0.06 |0.58 |Not Significant |
| | | | |
|Family Income |0.30 |0.002* |Significant |
| | | | |
|Number of Siblings |-0.07 |0.44 |Not Significant |
| | | | |
|Birth Position |0.001 |0.99 |Not Significant |

Legend: P < 0.05 Significant P > 0.05 Not Significant (* ) Significant As shown in the Table 15, it shows that Gender, Father’s Educational Attainment, Father’s Occupation, Mother’s Occupation, Number of Siblings and Birth Position are all insignificant and thus have no significant relationship to Academic Performance of the students. However, as presented in the table above, Age r-value = -0.22, Mother’s Educational Attainment r-value=0.21 and Family Income r-value = 0.30, have significant relationship in academic performance of the students when tested at p 0.05 Not Significant Table 16 shows the correlation between social rejection and academic performance of the respondents. It is seen that all out of four variables are marked “not significant” when tested at p 0.05 Not Significant Table 17 shows the correlation of self-confidence and academic performance of the respondents. As presented on the table above, Self-confidence in terms of self-esteem got an r-value=0.04 and p-value=0.13. While Self-confidence in terms of Self-worth got an r-value=0.67 and p-value=0.21. The two variables are marked “Not Significant when tested at p