IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Work-Related Factors as Determinants of Self-efficacy and Resilience among Selected
Filipino Child Development Workers

Katherine del Rosario
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
Nephtaly Joel Botor
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
Jewely Jean Padilla
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
Aida Escobin
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
Daisy Pelegrina
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines

25

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Abstract
This descriptive associative study focused on work-related factors as determinants of selfefficacy and resilience among 58 purposively-sampled Child Development Workers (CDWs).
It specifically aims to profile the CDWs based on various work-related variables, to determine
their psychosocial needs, resources, levels of self-efficacy and resilience, and to verify the
association and relationship of these variables in relation to self-efficacy and resilience. A
questionnaire, comprised of questions on perceived needs and resources and work-related
aspects, a modified version of Bandura’s (2006) Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, and Smith et al.’s(2008) Brief Resilience Scale, were group administered to the participants. Thereafter, results
were analyzed using descriptive and correlation statistics. Results showed that respondents
were divided almost equally between the low- and high-scoring groups in both self-efficacy
and resilience. Notably, respondents’ resilience and self-efficacy mean scores were relatively
higher than the expected average score. Correlation further revealed moderate positive
relationship between self-efficacy and resilience (r = 0.333). In terms of work-related factors,
many of those with high self-efficacy and high resilience scores reported also having: (a)supportive barangay officials, (b) cooperative day care children’s parents, (c) satisfaction withpupils, (d) job satisfaction, and (e) life satisfaction in general. As a conclusion, the majority of
the 58 selected CDWs reported satisfaction in work-related factors related to the children theycater to, and also work and life in general. In addition, CDWs who had high scores in selfefficacy and resilience reported having support, cooperation and satisfaction.
Keywords: self-efficacy, resilience, child development worker, early childhood care anddevelopment

26

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Introduction
Early childhood is a crucial stage primarily because of the rapid development in major
developmental domains: physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional, among others. It is asensitive period of limited duration in which the brain is highly plastic and greatly influenced
by experience (Knudsen, 2004). It is also believed to be at this stage that stimulation provided
to children within this period will have long lasting effects on learning and behavior.
The crucial nature of early childhood underscores the role played by significant persons
involved in child rearing. Among these are the Child Development Workers (CDWs). Morecommonly known as Day Care Workers (DCWs), CDWs play a significant role in the deliveryof early childhood care and development services. They are tasked to supervise the Day Care
Centers (DCCs) in every barangay, while being also called to assist in other community affairs,e.g., disaster response (Quismorio, 2014).
Early childhood care and development (ECCD) service providers, particularly Day Care
Workers, aptly referred to as Child Development Workers as promulgated in the Early Years
Act of 2013 (Philippine Congress, 2012), are key players in holistically addressing the needsof the Filipino child, especially the very young. It is, therefore, necessary to understand theissues relevant to their life and work as child care providers so that support and interventions
can be designed and implemented, geared towards enabling them to optimally function in ademanding working environment and empowering them to develop as individuals andprofessionals in the childcare profession. Unfortunately, there has not been extensive research
about CDWs in the Philippines. Empirical investigations on the plight of Filipino CDWs areavailable, albeit scant, including Abulon’s (2013) survey on the status of barangay Day Care
Centers in the country, Cadosales’ (2011) study on teaching needs of Day Care Workers), andReyes’ (1996) analysis of variables influencing the implementation of day care policy in one
of Philippine regions.
Day care centers in the Philippines, unlike in Western countries, have a quite different identity.
While in most countries the day care is nothing more than a venue in which working parents
can temporarily enroll their children to be supervised while away for work, in the Philippines,
the increasing number of day care centers manifests the country’s commitment to promoting
early childhood education (Abulon, 2013). There are almost 33,000 day care centers in the
country (Quismorio, 2014), under the supervision of the Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment (DSWD), which are manned by CDWs. Apart from their identity as learning
venues for very young children, the DCCs are also a platform for other social services as health,nutrition and safety. This only underscores the multiple and quintessential responsibilities
taken by the CDW.
Unfortunately, while the role of CDWs in the community is apparent and significant, there are
only a few available studies involving or pertaining them (Abulon, 2013; Cadosales, 2011;
Elarco, 2014). The present study envisioned contributing to the discussion on the issues andconcerns faced by CDWs in the country. It desired to contribute to the literature on childdevelopment profession in the Philippines by exploring dimensions of CDWs’ experiences in
the work place. On one hand, it recognized the necessity to look into factors that may promoteor hinder CDWs’ tasks as ECCD service providers. On the other hand, it found meaning inseeing how child care professionals perceive their ability to influence their working
environment, more so, how capable they are in responding to adversities in the workplace.

27

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

With these premises, the study paid attention to two pivotal constructs: self-efficacy andresilience.
Self-efficacy, which pertains to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute thecourses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1977, p. 3), is deemed as aformidable predictor of behavior (Bandura, 1997, as cited in Henson, Kogan & Vacha-Haase,2001). It has been widely researched in the field of education, more specifically as the contextspecific construct teacher self-efficacy. Defined as “the degree to which teachers believed theenvironment could be controlled” (Gibson & Dembo, 1984, p. 570), teacher self-efficacy isdeemed as “self-regulatory” and as influential to teacher behavior and performance (Gavora,
2010, p. 17). Pre-school teachers who reported high self-efficacy are found to have planningskills, be more enthusiasm in their teaching endeavors, and to be highly innovative, and creative(Kihoro1i & Bunyi, 2017).
In the context of early childhood care and development, self-efficacy has been found toassociate with variables such as child care providers’ desire to stay in the profession, especiallywhen paired with job satisfaction and supervisor support (Chen & Scannapieco, 2010) and job
satisfaction and burnout (Skaalvik, E.M. and Skaalvik, S., 2010). It has also been associatedwith children’s learning outcomes as they learn language (Guo, Piasta, Justice, & Kaderavek,
2010) and with mothers’ psychological outcomes as they balance responsibilities at work andin child rearing (Ozer, 1995). Reciprocally, self-efficacy among childcare providers is
influenced by professional experience, perception of collaboration, and children’s engagement(Guo, Justice, Sawyer, & Tompkins, 2011), as well as professional development (Muñez,
Bautista, Khiu, Keh, & Bull, 2017), among others. Likewise, self-efficacy level is mediated by
the nature of relationship between the parent and the early childhood educator (Chung, Marvin,& Churchill, 2005). In the Philippines, where CDW’s also act as learning facilitators (United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization[ UNESCO], 2007), contextualizing
teacher self-efficacy as applied in the day care situation is fitting.
Resilience is another variable gleaned as essential among professionals working with very
young children. This term has been diversely defined and used in various disciplines, but themost basic of its definitions, which was adapted in the context of this study, is that it pertains
to people’s “ability to bounce back and recover from stress…and return to previous level ofpsychologically healthy functioning” (Boyle, et al. 2014, p. 301, citing Carver, 1998, and Smithet al., 2008 and). Considering the multifold function of the CDW and the arduous nature of thechild care profession (Levy & Poertner, 2014), exploring DCWs’ resilience is substantial in
discovering their needs, concerns and professional satisfaction amidst a stressful work
environment (Hegney, Rees, Elay, Osseiran-Moisson, & Francis , 2015). In the context of childcare profession, a study by Bouillet, Ivanec and Miljević-Riđički (2014), revealed that, at the
average, child care professionals, that is, child care educators, rated themselves as having highlevels of resilience. The same authors further found that those who perceived being highly
resilient also evaluated themselves as capable of fostering resilience among children.
Resilience was found to be quantitatively associated with life satisfaction (Özbey, Büyüktanir,& Türkoglu, 2014), hope and positive behaviors (Hsing-Ming & Mi-Tao, 2008); and,qualitatively, with teachers’ agency, freedom, hope and trust (Sumsion, 2004). In turn,supportive working environment (Bouillet et al., 2014) and capacity building activities such as
training (Hraha, 2012) were found to be promoters of resilience.
By and large, it can be gathered from the brief review of empirical findings that there areinteractions between self-efficacy and resilience, and other work-related factors. The present

28

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

study, with the goal of augmenting gaps in understanding the experiences of CDWs in the
country, explored the profile of selected Filipino CDWs in terms of work-related factors
deemed as reciprocal determinants of efficacy and resilience among childcare professionals
and illustrated the nature of associations between and among self-efficacy, resilience, and thesework-related factors. Specifically, it attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the profile of the selected CDWs in terms of perceived barangay support,
perceived parental cooperation; and satisfaction about the physical workplace, thechildren they cater to, their job, and their life in general?
2. What are the psychosocial needs and resources of the CDWs?
3. What are the levels of self-efficacy, its subscales, and resilience among the selected
CDWs?
4. How do work-related variables associate with self-efficacy and resilience?
5. What is the nature of relationship between self-efficacy and its subscales, andresilience?
By answering these research questions, the study hopes to contribute to the scant literature on
day care in the Philippines and to provide insights towards the development andimplementation of initiatives to empower and build capacities of CDWs.
Methods
Research Design
The study employed descriptive associative method to depict the profile of work-related
factors, levels of perceived self-efficacy and resilience; and, the nature of associations among
the study variables.
Study Participants
Fifty-eight (58) CDWs who were participants to a capacity building program for DCWs were
purposively selected as respondents in this study.
Scope and limitations
This study was only limited to CDWs from selected areas in Southern Tagalog. It only focusedon the respondents’ perceived self-efficacy and resilience in relation to their work experiences.
Since the sample was not randomly selected, correlation coefficients were used as descriptive
statistics.
Measures
The study used a questionnaire consisting of: agreement/disagreement questions on barangay
support, parent cooperation, and satisfaction with physical environment, children, job, and life;a modified version of Bandura’s (2006) Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (alpha of .93 in thissample); and Smith, et al.’s (2008) Brief Resiliency Scale (alpha of .84 to .90, in Smith et al.,2008; alpha of .59 in this sample).
Data Gathering and Analysis Procedure
The questionnaires were group administered among the respondents in one of the capacity
building sessions they attended. Ethical implementation of the study was ensured by making
sure that informed consent was sought and the significance and use of the survey werediscussed. Participants were informed about the nature and purpose of the study and theiridentities were not revealed in any part of this report to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.

29

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

After data collection, data were analyzed using descriptive and correlation statistics.
Associations between work-related factors and the levels of self-efficacy and resilience were
described using cross-tabulations. Relationship among the summative scores on the selfefficacy and resilience scales was on the other hand explored using Spearman rank-ordercorrelation.
Results, Interpretation, and Discussion
Profile of the Study Participants across Work-Related Factors
The first research question inquired about the profile of the study participants in each of thework-related factors explored in this study, especially on areas of support, cooperation andsatisfaction. To address this research problem, a set of agreement/disagreement questions wereasked so that respondents can express assent or dissent based on their experiences. Table 1
presents the frequency of respondents’ distribution according to their agreement/disagreementon the various work-related factors.
Table 1 : Agreement or disagreement on attitude questions on work-related variables
Work-Related Variables
Supportive barangay officials
Cooperative parents
Satisfying physical working environment
Satisfying day care pupils
Satisfying job
Satisfying life, in general

Agree/Yesf (%)
39 (67.2)
37 (63.8)
31 (53.4)
46 (79.3)
55 (94.8)
57 (98.3)

Disagree/Nof (%)
19 (32.8)
21 (36.2)
27 (46.6)
12 (20.7)
3 (5.2)
1 (1.7)

As reflected in Table 1, almost all of the respondents perceived themselves as having asatisfying job and a satisfying life. A large number also shared being satisfied with the children
they cater to in the day care. These results aligned with the findings of Abulon (2013), which
revealed that despite the lack of monetary rewards, Filipino DCWs manifest high satisfaction
with their work and life as child development service providers.
Interestingly, while the majority of the respondents were on the affirmative side, they were
somewhat divided in terms of perceived support from barangay, of perceived cooperation of
day care children’s parents, and of their satisfaction with the physical workplace (i.e., physicalstructure of the DCC). This implies that the CDWs’ experiences on the supportiveness andcooperativeness of stakeholders in their community tend to be variable. Although there weremore who perceived support and cooperation, a nearly equal number of respondents perceived
otherwise. This entails that support and cooperation have to be further explored on a case-tocase basis such that conducting local researches at the barangay-level might provide additional
knowledge about the dynamics between and among ECCD stakeholders. It must be noted that
Philippine ECCD policy urges parents and local government officials to prioritize the provisionof needs among the very young both through home-based and center-based programs(Philippine Congress, 2012). Gaining insights on how stakeholders work towards achieving
ECCD goals is favorable.
Another salient point that can be gleaned from the results is the noticeable divide among the
respondents regarding their satisfaction about the physical structure of the DCCs. Studies haveshown how significant the physical environment is in learning and in the holistic development

30

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018of the child (World Health Organization, 2004; Higgins, Hall, Wall, Woolner & McCaughey,2005). Interestingly, improving the built environment also demands communication andcollaboration among stakeholders that include parents and community officials (Higgins, et al.,2005; World Health Organization, 2004). Hence, it might be an interesting direction to see in
future research how levels of support and cooperation relate to, or even predict, satisfying
physical environments in center-based programs such as day care, and, probably, how asatisfying physical environment relates to DCWs’ and day care children’s educational
outcomes. Appropriate attention and planning of the classroom are needed for the learning tomeet its goals and needs (Puteh, et.al, 2015).
Perceived Psychosocial Needs and Resources
The second research question explored the perceived needs and resources of day care workers.
In general, the study found that needs and resources pertain to any of the following dimensions:financial, material/physical, knowledge, people, and/or personal traits.
Perceived Needs. Respondents were asked to identify needs in order of priority by answering
the question: What are your needs as a Day Care Worker? Responses were content analyzed
and there were four major categories identified: physical/material, financial, knowledge andpeople. Strings of statements by the respondents were tallied per category, the frequency
distribution of which is presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Frequency distribution of respondents according to perceived topmost needs
Topmost need
f
%
28
48.28
16
27.59
9
15.52
3
5.17
2
3.45

Category of
Needs
Physical/Material
Financial
Knowledge
PeopleNo response

Physical/Material. Statements pertaining to physical/material needs appeared with the highest
frequency in all levels of priority. More than 48% of the respondents indicatedphysical/material needs as their topmost need. Needs which pertained to physical/material
needs that were identified by the respondents were learning materials, school supplies, toys,books, paintings/murals, DCC classrooms, kitchen, playground, sound system, blackboard,
comfort room, and renovation of classroom.
Financial. Some 27.59% of the respondents noted as their first priority statements, whichpertain to financial/fiscal needs. Examples of actual statements falling under this category as
written by participants are as follows: money, budget, financial assistance, and honorarium.
Knowledge. Almost 16% of the respondents identified as their first priority needs that fall under
the Knowledge category. Examples of actual statements written by participants and which fallunder this category are as follows: seminars, more knowledge, learning, how to do first aid,
and techniques how to handle children. The present study did not ask in detail what kind of
training the respondents wanted to have although behavior management and first aid
administration were specifically identified. Managing children’s learning and behavior wasamong the problems in day care development programs suggested by Elarco (2011). On theother hand, the study of Cadosales (2011), identified content delivery, specifically “teaching

31

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018the letter sound” (p. 252), as among the activities for enrichment needed by child development
workers. Child development workers seem to recognize the need for higher education, training
and expertise (Boyd, 2013) to be able to perform their roles better. Early childhood educators
are concerned in many different complex skills needed in teaching as well as looking atdifferent issues in their students’ speech, language, behavior and others.
People. A category that was least mentioned by respondents as a first priority but which cameas a second frequently mentioned need as a second and third priority, was People. Interestingly,
while only a little more than 5% of the respondents identified needs related to people as theirfirst priority, approximately 12% of them noted it as a second priority while almost 7% of themnoted it as a third priority. People-related needs mentioned by respondents were cooperationof parents and barangay officials.
Perceived Resources. Likewise, respondents were asked to identify their topmost resourcesby answering the question: What resources do you have? Content analysis of the responses
revealed four major categories: physical/material, people, financial and personal traits, aspresented in Table 3.
Table 3: Frequency distribution of respondents according to perceived topmost resources
Topmost need
f
%
15
25.86
13
22.41
8
13.79
6
10.34
16
27.59

Category of
Resources
Physical/Material
PeopleFinancial
Personal Traits
No response

Physical/Material. Statements pertaining to physical/material resources appeared with thehighest frequency as the topmost resource (26% of the respondents). Responses that pertained
to physical/material resource as identified by the respondents were recycled materials, oldmaterials, day care center, surroundings, visual arts, TV and comfort room.
People. Garnering the second highest frequency as a topmost resource identified by 22.41% of
respondents, people appeared to be a quintessential resource among CDWs. Mother, child,parents, barangay officials, barangay captain, CDW, and DSWD officials were among thepeople-related resources identified by the respondents.
Financial. With the third highest frequency as a topmost resource noted by almost 14% of the
respondents, financial resource was also mentioned. Among the responses which fell under thiscategory were personal income, parents’ contribution, and registration/entrance fee.
Personal Traits. While only noted by 10.34% respondents as a topmost resource, personal traits
were also among the notable resource worth mentioning. Among the personal traits identified
as a resource were helpful, talent in being a mother, inner strength, political will, willingness
to learn, experiences, generosity and cooperation.
Levels of Self-Efficacy, Self-Efficacy Subscales, and Resilience
The third research question in this study focused on the levels of self-efficacy and resilienceamong the respondents. Table 4 shows respondents’ frequency distribution as well as the cross-32

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

tabulation between self-efficacy and resilience levels. Low level in a variable was defined ashaving a score on or below the mean (<M) while high level was defined as having a scoreabove the mean (>M), as determined throught the samples’ distribution. Table 5, on the other
hand, presents the mean scores of the study participants in self-efficacy, self-efficacy subscales,
and resilience.
Table 4: Cross-tabulating self-efficacy levels with resiliency levels
Resilience
Level (R)
Low
High
Total

Self-Efficacy Level (SE)
Low
High
f (%)
f (%)
TOTAL
14 (24.1) 13 (22.4)
27 (46.6)
13 (22.4) 18 (31.0)
31 (53.4)
27 (46.6) 31 (53.4)
58 (100)

Frequency distribution shows that respondents were divided almost equally between the Low
and High Scoring groups in both self-efficacy and resilience. Similarly, cross-tabulation showsthat categorizing respondents to self-efficacy levels while considering resilience levels, also
divided the respondents nearly equally on four groups: High Efficacy-High Resilience (31%),
Low Efficacy-Low Resilience (24.1%), High Efficacy-Low Resilience (22.4%) and, Low
Efficacy-High Resilience (22.4%).
Table 5: Descriptive statistics on participants’ self-efficacy and resilience scores
Study variables
Self-efficacy (SE)
Efficacy to influence decision-making
Instructional efficacy
Disciplinary self efficacy
Efficacy to enlist parental involvement
Efficacy to enlist community involvement
Efficacy to create a positive school climate
Resilience

Range ofexpected scores30-150
2-10
9-45
3-15
3-15
4-20
8-40
6-30

M

SD

121.65
8.45
36.66
12.79
12.33
13.36
34.17
20.88

13.30
1.01
4.51
1.48
1.85
2.96
4.52
3.36

Viewing levels of self-efficacy and resilience using measures of central tendency, however,revealed that, at the average, respondents had a mean Self-Efficacy score of 121.65 (SD=13.30)
and a mean Resilience score of 20.88 (SD=3.36). These were relatively higher than the
expected average score in the scales, which is 90 for self-efficacy and 18 for resilience. The
same was true for all the self-efficacy subscales where respondents gained mean scores higher
than the expected average scores in the subscales. Perception of high resilience among childcare providers has already been mentioned by Bouillet, Ivanec and Miljević-Riđički (2014).
What the current finding offers as a novel insight is how the CDWs perceived their selfefficacy. Apparently, the respondents believed that they are highly self-efficacious, in general,and even in aspects of decision-making, instruction, discipline, encouraging community andparental support, and creating a positive climate in the day care. These results may gain lightwhen viewed against earlier findings associating self-efficacy and life and job satisfaction(Chen & Scannapieco, 2010). Although there was no attempt in the present study to33

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018sophisticatedly associate satisfaction and efficacy, it must be noted that the respondents
reported high satisfaction about their job and life, and this might just link with their high levelof self-efficacy and vice versa. Henceforth, an interesting direction to pursue is to further
establish the interaction between work-life satisfaction and efficacy among Filipino DCWs
using elaborate psychometric measures to establish how strong and generalizable thisassociation is.
Work-Related Factors, Self-Efficacy, and Resilience
The fourth research question problematized how the various work-related variables exploredin this study relate with self-efficacy and resilience. Since the respondents were purposively
selected, more sophisticated statistical measures of association could not be employed. Hence,descriptive cross-tabulation was used to glean interactions that may reveal points of interest in
future studies. Emphasis in the discussion was given on respondents who fell under highefficacy (31 of 58) and high resilience (31 of 58) groups.
Table 6: Cross-tabulating self-efficacy and resiliency levels with perceived support
from barangay
Perceived
Supportfrom Barangay
Unsupportive
Supportive
Total

Self-Efficacy
Level (SE)
Low
High
Total
f (%)
f (%)
9 (15.5) 10 (17.2) 19 (32.8)
18 (31.0) 21 (36.2) 39 (67.2)
27 (46.6) 31 (53.4) 58 (100)

Low
f (%)
9 (15.5)
18 (31.0)
27 (46.6)

Resilience
Level (R)
High
f (%)
10 (17.2)
21 (36.2)
31 (53.4)

Total
19 (32.8)
39 (67.2)
58 (100)

Notably, 21 of 31 or some 68% of those with high level of self-efficacy, and 21 of 31 or some
68% of those with high level of resilience perceived officials in their barangay as supportive.
Policy-wise, the Philippine government, through the Republic Act No. 6972, otherwise known
as Barangay-Level Total Development and Protection of Children Act, (Philippine Congress,
1990), stresses the involvement of the barangay, in the promotion of child care anddevelopment goals, through the establishment of the DCCs, now referred to as the childdevelopment centers. The immediate community is a source of support to the caregivers incommunity-based childcare center, which, in turn, serves as a doorway for the provision ofother social services that relate to health, nutrition, water and sanitation and the like (Munthali,
Mvula, & Silo, 2014). Hence, when the child development worker deems barangay officials as
supportive to the projects and activities of the DCC, the former becomes more confident thats/he will be able to achieve the desired outcomes for the day care, and will also be spiritedenough even when faced with challenges.
Notwithstanding the role the barangay plays in teacher self-efficacy and resilience, Reyes(1996), in an evaluation of the implementation of day care policy in the Philippines, however,suggested that looking at smaller units such as “purok” or zones, rather than the barangay, as
target areas for the creation of DCCs might make the day care program more manageable. From
this, it can be speculated that, perhaps, barangay governments’ cooperation with the day care
worker might also be challenged by confounding priorities, which can possibly be addressedby engaging a smaller group of families to own the day care program and be deeply involved
in it. This leads to the issue of parental cooperation.

34

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Table 7 : Cross-tabulating self-Efficacy and resiliency levels with perceived parental
cooperation
Perceived
Parental
Cooperation
Uncooperative
Cooperative
Total

Self-Efficacy
Level (SE)
Low
High
Total
f (%)
f (%)
11 (19.0) 10 (17.2) 21 (36.2)
16 (27.6) 21 (36.2) 37 (63.8)
27 (46.6) 31 (53.4) 58 (100)Resilience
Level (R)
Low
High
Total
f (%)
f (%)
10 (17.2) 11 (19.0) 21 (36.2)
17 (29.3) 20 (34.5) 37 (63.8)
27 (46.6) 31 (53.4) 58 (100)In this study, the majority of the respondents with high efficacy and with high resilience also
perceived that parents in the day care were cooperative (21 of 31 or appx. 67%, and 20 of 31
or appx. 65%, respectively). There was no available literature explaining this result in thecontext of CDWs’ work. However, studies on elementary school teachers noted that there ispositive relationship between teacher self-efficacy and parent support (Stipek, 2012). On theother way around, a study among preschool teachers noted that the teacher also has to strategize
to enhance parental involvement, thereby also making parents more self-efficacious (Pelletier& Brent, 2002). Most importantly, the day care worker and the day care parents have to
dialogue and level off in terms of what parental involvement means, as a study also showedthat parental involvement is perceived differently by various stakeholders (Herrell, 2011).
Table 8. Cross-tabulating self-efficacy and resiliency levels with perceived satisfaction

Satisfaction
Physical structureof the DCCs
Children being
catered to
Job as a day care
worker
Life, in general

Perceived
Satisfaction
Unsatisfied
SatisfiedUnsatisfied
SatisfiedUnsatisfied
SatisfiedUnsatisfied
SatisfiedSelf-Efficacy
Level (SE)
Low
High
f (%)
f (%)
12 (20.7)
15 (25.5)
15 (25.9)
16 (27.6)
7 (12.1)
5 (8.6)20 (34.5)
26 (44.8)
0 (0)3 (5.2)27 (46.6)
28 (48.3)
0 (0)1(1.7)
27 (46.6)30(51.7)

Resilience
Level (R)
Low
High
f (%)
f (%)
12 (20.7) 15 (25.5)
15 (25.9) 16 (27.6)4(6.9)
8(13.8)23 (39.7) 23 (39.7)
1(1.7)
2 (3.4)26(44.8)29(50.0)0 (0)1(1.7)
27 (46.6) 30(51.7)

Most importantly, many of those who fell into the group with high efficacy and high resilience
also perceived being satisfied in various aspects of their work life such as with the pupils theycater to (26 of 31, and 23 of 31, respectively), with their job (28 of 31, and 26 of 31,
respectively), and with their life in general (30 of 31, and 30 of 31, respectively). Skaalvik,
E.M. and Skaalvik, S. (2010) gleaned that job satisfaction links well with self-efficacy,
especially among teachers. Resilience has also been deemed as associated with job satisfaction
among nurses (Matos, Neushotz, Griffin, & Fitzpatrick, 2010), and happiness among preschool
teachers (Mojdegan, Moghidi, & Ahghar, 2013). In the study among preschool teachers,
Yousofi, Rezaei, and Yonesi (2014) found that self-efficacy is a correlate and predictor of job
satisfaction. Remarkably, they also found job motivation as related to efficacy. In the case of
the CDW, it may be interesting to further explore what are their motivations at work, whichmake them highly satisfied. In the present study, being with children was gleaned as satisfying.

35

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

It might be explored more comprehensively in succeeding research as a potential job motivator
associated with efficacy and resilience, especially that caring for others, i.e., the children one
caters to, is deemed as a source of well-being for teachers (Nilsson, Ejlertsson, Andersson, &Blomqvist, 2015).
Having gleaned the profile of work-related factors vis-à-vis levels of self-efficacy andresilience, it can be said that, in this particular study, highly efficacious and resilient CDWs arecharacterized as having: supportive barangay officials; cooperative day care children’s parents;
satisfaction with pupils; job satisfaction; and life satisfaction in general.
Intercorrelations among Self-Efficacy, Self-Efficacy Subscales, and Resilience
The fifth and last research question in this study desired to describe the nature and magnitudeof association between and among self-efficacy, its subscales, and resilience. After testing forassumptions, correlation was calculated using the Spearman rank-order technique. Table 9
presents the correlation coeffecients derived from this analysis.
Table 9: Correlations among self-efficacy, self-efficacy subscales, and resilience
Study Variables
DM IE
DE
PI
CI
SC Resilience
Self-efficacy (SE).592 .896 .660 .729 .678 .902
.333
Efficacy to influence decision-making.496 .219 .318 .383 .545
.119
(DM)
Instructional efficacy (IE)
.579 .624 .425 .789
.274
Disciplinary self-efficacy (DE).547 .399 .544
.201
Efficacy to enlist parental involvement.441 .580.308(PI)
Efficacy to enlist community
.474
.252
involvement (CI)
Efficacy to create a positive school.358
climate (SC)Correlation analysis revealed that self-efficacy has a positive moderate correlation withresilience (r = 0.333), such that along with the increase in the respondents’ belief that s/he isable to perform tasks as a child development worker was also an observable increase in her/his
perceived ability to bounce back from adversities, vice versa. This result supports the earlier
findings of Mojdegan, Moghidi, and Ahghar (2013), which established significant relationshipbetween self-efficacy and resilience among preschool teachers in Iran, and the results of thestudy of Kusma, Groneberg, Nienhaus, and Mache (2012), which revealed positive correlation
between self-efficacy and resilience among early childhood educators.
According to Bandura (1997, 1977), self-efficacy predicts behaviors. When understood fromthe context of CDWs who are faced with various responsibilities, having a belief that one iscapable of influencing various dimensions of work and profession (self-efficacy) may benecessary in reassuring oneself that one is capable of thinking, planning and executing
activities that would unlock difficulties and challenges (resilience). Similarly, a childdevelopment worker who perceives oneself as capable of transcending adversities (resilience)
may tend to feel more abled in influencing one’s working environment (self-efficacy).
Exploring specifically on the self-efficacy subscales provides additional information as to how
this link between resilience and self-efficacy might ensue. Among the subscales, efficacy to36

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

involve parents (r = 0.308) and efficacy to foster a positive learning climate (r = 0.358) were
the ones which resilience had positive moderate correlation with. This is consistent with theearlier result of the cross-tabulations on self-efficacy and parental involvement. As parents areperceived as more cooperative, the DCW might feel more adequate in influencing parental
involvement, hence, gain confidence in one’s ability to face adversities side by side with the
day care children’s parents. The day care children’s parents might act as social support uponwhich the day care worker can rely in challenging times, especially in concerns related to childcare and development. In conjunction with this parent-CDW relationship is also the ability of
the DCW to establish an environment nurturing enough for collaboration to take place, as wellas, conducive enough for the delivery of effective services for the day care children.
Furthermore, looking at the inter-correlations among the self-efficacy subscales, it could be
gleaned that efficacy to influence decision making had a high positive relationship with
fostering positive school climate (r = 0.545), while low to moderate positive relationship withthe rest. Hughes and Pickeral (2013) noted that positive school climate is a shared responsibility
among the different stakeholders. Hence, a DCW who finds oneself efficacious in making
decisions,that is, having sufficient share of power and responsibility within the working
environment,may also tend to feel efficacious in promoting a positive and conducive climate
in the day care environment.
Instructional self-efficacy, on the other hand, had high positive relationship with most of thesubscales, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.579 to 0.789, except with community
involvement with which the relationship was moderate positive. Disciplinary self-efficacy also
had moderate to high positive relationship with several subscales, except with influencing
decision-making (r = 0.219) and encouraging community involvement (r = 0.399), with which
it had low to moderate correlation.
In the Philippines, the day care does not only act as platform for health and psychosocial
services but also serve as a learning platform (UNESCO, 2007). This reality, perhaps, makes
instructional and disciplinary efficacy a quintessential dimension of DCWs’ general selfefficacy. The DCCs mends the gap that families’ inability to afford pre-school education
creates, which motivates the CDW to focus on teaching, among other tasks. The high degreeof association between instructional and disciplinary efficacy with the rest of self-efficacy
subscales might insinuate that CDWs’ efficacy in other dimensions strongly goes along with
their efficacy in facilitating learning and managing children’s behaviors. This insight fits wellwith the findings of Cadosales (2011), which underscores CDW’s expressed need for activities
that will train them become better in teaching, specifically in “teaching strategies, productionof instructional materials, and pedagogy” (p.247).
Finally, efficacy in encouraging parental involvement, encouraging community involvement,
and fostering positive climate all had moderate to high positive relationship with othersubscales, with coefficients ranging from 0.318 to 0.789. As constantly manifested inaforementioned discussions, the DCWs self-efficacy links with their ability to mobilize
parents, families, and the community to take part in promoting care and development of thevery young.
Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations
In conclusion, this descriptive study established that, in this particular group of selected CDWs:

37

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

1. The majority reported satisfaction with the children they cater to, their work, and theirlife in general.
2. There was no distinct consensus regarding their perceptions on barangay support,
parental involvement, and satisfaction with the physical structure of the day care.
3. The majority of highly efficacious and highly resilient CDWs also perceived having
support, cooperation, and satisfaction.
4. Self-efficacy and resilience are moderately and positively correlated.
The sparse literature about CDWs in the Philippines made it challenging for this study to situate
the analysis of its findings against the backdrop of real experiences from Filipino DCWs.
Insights from allied areas such as early childhood education, taking heed from what is known
regarding self-efficacy and resilience of preschool teachers and other childcare providers (e.g.,nurses), however, made it somewhat possible to clarify the nature of association among thestudy variables and its implication on the circumstances of CDWs. Insights from the limited
local literature on day care programs were also deemed meaningful. Hence, this study highly
recommends that considerable research attention be given to child development programs andits stakeholders in the Philippine setting. Both qualitative and quantitative empirical
explorations would be meaningful in bridging the knowledge gap. Validating the outcomes ofthis study by having a larger and randomly selected sample, alongside conducting in-depth
qualitative investigations, might also provide a more comprehensive and holistic overview on
CDWs’ efficacy and resilience and on CDWs’ lived experiences, in general.
Taking into consideration the outcomes of this study, several opportunities emerge in bothresearch and extension activities with and for CDWs. Exploring signature strengths of CDWs
might be meaningful. While there was a mention of a few personal traits as resource, there
remains to be more focus on external resources, i.e., physical/material, financial, people, which,although are equally important, might come in arbitrary forms and amount. There is a need tosolidify internal resource capabilities such as values, character and ego strength so as to dispose
the CDWs for the grueling duties demanded from them.
Capacity building, particularly in resource generation and inter-agency collaboration, may help
CDWs exhaust all potential fiscal support within the community. Integrating exercises to
explore inner strengths might also be a direction in extending support among CDWs. At theforefront of the government’s thrust to strengthen ECCD at the local level is the CDW patiently
steering the program’s rudders on a daily basis. Providing the CDWs with opportunities toenhance their efficacy and resilience by providing them with more opportunity to take part indecision making in the day care, encouraging active parental and community involvement anddesigning and implementing capacity building programs that would enhance their skills inpedagogy and child care, might just promote their confidence in their field as professionals,
and might just inspire them to continuously become better as caregivers to the Filipino child.

38

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

References
Abulon, E. L. R. (2013). Barangay day care centers: Emergence, current status andimplications to teacher education. Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education,(pp. 313–327). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1-12 March 2013.
https://worldconferences.net/proceedings/gse2013/papers_gse2013/094%20Edna%20
Luz%20R.%20Abulon.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychology Review, 84(2), 191–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman andCompany.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. C. Urdan and F. Pajares(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, pp. 307–337. Greenwich, Connecticut:
Information Age Publishing.
Bouillet, D., Ivanec, T. P., & Miljević-Riđički, R. (2014) Preschool teachers’ resilience andtheir readiness for building children's resilience. Health Education, 114(6), 435–450.
https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-11-2013-0062
Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Matthews, G. (2014). Measures of personality and social
psychological constructs. New York: Academic Press.
Boyd, M. (2013). “I love my work but…” The professionalization of early childhood
education. The Qualitative Report. 18(71), 1–20. Retrieved fromhttps://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol18/iss36/1
Cadosales, M. N. Q. (2011). Enhancement activities for the Day Care Centers andDevelopment Workers. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 247–260. Retrieved fromhttp://ejournals.ph/form/cite.php?id=7482
Carver, C.S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models and linkages. Journal of Social
Issues, 54, (2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.641998064
Chen, S. & Scannapieco, M. (2010). The influence of job satisfaction on child welfare
worker's desire to stay: An examination of the interaction effect of self-efficacy andsupportive supervision. Child and Youth Services Review, 32(4), 482–486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.014
Chung, L., Marvin, C. A., & Churchill, S. L. (2005). Teacher factors associated withpreschool teacher–child relationships: Teaching efficacy and parent–teacher
relationships. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25, 131–142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1090102050250206
Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: theoretical and research
considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17–30.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569
Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Relations among preschool
teachers' self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children's language and literacy gains.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (4), 1094–1103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.005
Guo, Y., Justice, L. M., Sawyer, B., & Tompkins, V. (2011). Exploring factors related topreschool teachers’ self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 961–968.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.008

39

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Hegney, D. G., Rees, C. S., Elay, R., Osseiran-Moisson,R., & Francis, K. (2015). The
contribution of individual psychological resilience in determining the professional
quality of life of Australian nurses. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1613.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01613
Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study ofthe teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61(3), 404–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971284 Herrell,
P. O. (2011). Parental involvement: Parent perceptions and teacher perceptions(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). East Tennessee State University, Tennessee.
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school
environments: A literature review, London: The Centre for Learning and Teaching,
School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of
Newcastle.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232607630_The_Impact_of_School_Enviro
nments_A_Literature_Review
Hraha, S. D. (2012). Utilizing the cultivating awareness and resilience in education program
to enhance social and emotional competence in preschool and elementary school
teachers: A pilot study. (Doctoral Dissertation). Adler School of Psychology,
Vancouver. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED550305
Hughes, W., & Pickeral, T. (2013). School climate and shared leadership: School climate
practice brief. National School Climate Center. New York, NY: National School
Climate Center.
https://www.schoolclimate.org/themes/schoolclimate/assets/pdf/practice/sc-briefleadership.pdf
Hsing-Ming, L., Mi-Tao, C. (2008). Potential association among occupational hope beliefs,
occupational resilience and organizational virtuous behaviors for the preschool
teachers. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 16(4), 155–198.
https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.2008.1604.05
Kihoro, M.F. & Bunyi, G.W. (2017) Levels of teacher self-efficacy among preschool teachersin Nairobi and Kiambu counties, Kenya. European Journal of Education Studies,3(2), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.290622
Kusma, B., Groneberg, D. A., Nienhaus, A., & Mache, S. (2012). Determinant of day careteachers’ job satisfaction. Central Europe Journal of Public Health, 20(3), 191–198.
https://doi.org/ 10.21101/cejph.a3700
Levy, M., & Poertner, J. (2014). Development of a Child Welfare Worker Stress Inventory.
Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 5(1), 7–15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jpoc.21134
Matos, P.S., Neushotz, L.A., Griffin, M. T., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2010). An exploratory studyof resilience and job satisfaction among psychiatric nurses working in inpatient units.
International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 19 (5), 307–312.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0349.2010.00690.x
Mojdegan, S., Moghidi, F., & Ahghar, Q. (2013). Study of the relationship between
happiness and self-efficacy with self-resilience of preschool teachers in Tehran.
Applied Science Reports, 2(1), 10–16.
http://pscipub.com/Journals/Data/JList/Applied%20Science%20Reports/2013/Volum
e%202/Issue%201/2.pdf

40

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Muñez, D., Bautista, A., Khiu, E., Keh, J. & Bull, R. (2017) Preschool teachers’ engagementin professional development: Frequency, perceived usefulness, and relationship with
self-efficacy beliefs. Psychology, Society, & Education, 2017. 9(2), 181–199.
https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v9i2.655
Munthali, A. C., Mvula, P. M., & Silo, L. (2014). Early childhood development: the role ofcommunity based childcare centres in Malawi. SpringerPlus, 3, 305.
https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-305
Nilsson, M., Ejlertsson, G., Andersson, I., & Blomqvist, K. (2015). Caring as a salutogenic
aspect in teachers' lives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 51–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.009
Özbey, S., Büyüktanir, A., & Türkoglu, D. (2014). An investigation of preservice pre-school
teachers’ resilience skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116 , 4040–
4046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.887
Ozer, E. M. (1995). The impact of childcare responsibility and self-efficacy on thepsychological health of professional working mothers . Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 19 (3), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00078.x
Pelletier, J., & Brent, J. M. (2002). Parent participation in children’ school readiness: The
effects of parental self-efficacy, cultural diversity and teacher strategies. International
Journal of Early Childhood, 34 (1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177322
Philippine Congress (2012). Early years act (EYA) of 2013 (Republic Act No. 10410),
Philippines. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/03/26/republic-act-no-10410/
Philippine Congress (1990). Barangay - level total development and protection of children act(Republic Act No. 6972,). Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.lawphil.net
Puteh M., Che Ahmad C. N., Mohamed Noh N., Adnan M., & Ibrahim M. H (2015). The
classroom physical environment and its relation to teaching and learning comfort
level. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 5(3), 237–240.
https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.460
Reyes, Jr., V. C. (1996). An implementation analysis of the Day Care Law in the National
Capital Region. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 40(1-2), 67–107.
Skaalvik, E.M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study ofrelations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The
brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972
Stipek, D. (2012). Context matters: Effects of student characteristics and perceived
administrative and parental support on teacher self-efficacy. The Elementary School
Journal, 112 (4): 590–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/664489
Sumsion, J. (2004). Early childhood teachers' constructions of their resilience and thriving: acontinuing investigation. International Journal of Early Years Education, 12(3), 275–
290. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966976042000268735
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2007). Philippines: Early
childhood care and education programmes. Education for all monitoring report 2007.
Geneva. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001472/147225e.pdf

41

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Yousofi, M., Rezaei, M. H., & Yonesi, E. M. (2014). The relationship between job
motivation and self-efficacy belief with job satisfaction in teachers of preschool
centers of Eghlid County. Journal of Applied Science and Agriculture,9(18), 10–
14. Retrieved from www.aensiweb.com/old/jasa/rjfh/December%202014/10-14.pdf.
World Health Organization (2004). The physical school environment: an essential element ofa health-promoting school. World Health Information Series on School Health.
Geneva: World Health Organization. http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42683
Corresponding author: Katherine Del Rosario
Contact email: kedelrosario@up.edu.ph42