Beyond Scores: A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Teachers Instructional Efficacy, Support Systems, and Grade 6 Learner Proficiency in SOCCSKSARGEN

Abstract

This concurrent mixed-methods study examined the relationship and influence of teachers’ instructional efficacy and support systems on the proficiency levels of Grade 6 learners in core subjects across four school divisions in the SOCCSKSARGEN region of the Philippines, while simultaneously exploring the good instructional practices teachers employ and the challenges they face. In Phase 1 (quantitative), 303 Grades 4–6 teachers responded to validated Likert-scale instruments, and Grade 6 proficiency data were extracted from the 2024 National Achievement Test (NAT). In Phase 2 (qualitative), 16 purposively selected teachers participated in key informant interviews (KII) analyzed through thematic analysis. Quantitative results revealed high instructional efficacy (M?=?4.58) and high support system levels (M?=?4.45), contrasted with moderately proficient learner outcomes (M?=?45.52). Regression analyses identified teachers’ personality as a significant predictor of Filipino proficiency (R²?=?0.411), and teaching methods with the use of learning resources as significant predictors of Science proficiency (R²?=?0.581). Instructional supervision significantly predicted both Filipino and Science proficiency. Qualitative findings provided explanatory depth, revealing two major pedagogical themes—learner-centered pedagogy and instructional innovation—alongside challenges in resource access and psychosocial support. Mixed-methods integration demonstrated that teacher-reported good practices in differentiated instruction, active learning, and technology integration converge with quantitatively significant predictors, producing a coherent and actionable explanatory model. The study proposes a modified instructional support framework emphasizing subject-specific supervision, personality-informed teacher development, and resource-enabled pedagogical innovation.

Introduction

This study examines Grade 6 learner proficiency in the Philippines, where national test results (NAT 2024) show all subjects scoring below the 75% proficiency benchmark, indicating persistent learning gaps.

The research investigates how teacher instructional efficacy and support systems influence learner achievement using a concurrent mixed-methods design (quantitative + qualitative).

Key quantitative findings:

• Teachers showed high instructional efficacy and strong perceived support systems.
• Despite this, learners remained only moderately proficient (mean ~45.52%).
• Significant predictors of performance:
  • Teaching methods, ICT use, teacher personality, learning resources, and assessment practices were linked to Science performance.
  • Teacher personality strongly predicted Filipino performance.
  • Instructional supervision was a key support factor influencing both Filipino and Science.
• Classroom management showed a negative relationship with Filipino performance.

Key qualitative findings:

Teachers emphasized:

• Learner-centered teaching (differentiation, active learning, inclusion)
• Instructional innovation (use of technology, real-world applications)
• Major challenges: limited digital access, large class sizes, workload, and weak psychosocial support.

Integrated insights:

• There is a paradox between high teacher self-rated efficacy and low student performance, suggesting systemic issues rather than teacher incompetence.
• Teaching practices align with improved outcomes, especially in Science and Filipino, but are constrained by resource and structural limitations.
• Psychosocial and institutional support gaps weaken overall effectiveness.

Conclusion

This mixed-methods study produces four integrative conclusions. First, the high efficacy–low proficiency paradox confirms that teachers\' self-perceptions of instructional capacity are necessary but insufficient conditions for learner achievement. Systemic enablement—through adequate resources, responsive supervision, and psychosocial infrastructure—is equally necessary. Second, subject-specific teacher behaviors matter: teachers’ personality is the most powerful predictor in a subject grounded in relational, communicative practice (Filipino), while pedagogical diversity and resource innovation drive outcomes in an inquiry-based domain (Science). Third, instructional supervision exercises a measurable positive influence on performance, but its subject specificity (significant for Filipino and Science only) calls for a redesign from generic observation-and-feedback cycles toward disciplinary-sensitive coaching models. Fourth, teachers’ good practices in differentiated instruction, active learning, and technology integration represent the realized instructional capital of the SOCCSKSARGEN teaching workforce—but realizing this capital at scale requires addressing the structural constraints that teachers themselves identify as limiting. Based on these conclusions, the study proposes a Modified Instructional Support Framework with four integrated components: (1) Subject-Differentiated Professional Development, tailored to the pedagogical demands of each core subject rather than generic cross-curricular training; (2) Personality-Informed Teacher Development, integrating affective and interpersonal competencies into pre-service and in-service programs; (3) Context-Responsive Supervisory Redesign, shifting from compliance-based observation to coaching-centered, subject-specific instructional leadership; and (4) Structural Resource Enablement, prioritizing equitable access to digital tools, instructional materials, and psychosocial support services across all schools regardless of location or financial capacity. Future research should employ longitudinal or experimental designs to establish causal direction in the efficacy-proficiency relationship, extend the inquiry to other regional contexts for comparative analysis, and integrate learner-level perspectives to triangulate teacher-reported good practices with actual learning experiences.

References

[1] Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. [2] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [3] Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [4] Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. [5] Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. [6] Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (9th ed.). Pearson. [7] Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. [8] NAT. (2024). National Achievement Test 2024 results. Bureau of Education Assessment, Department of Education. [9] Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. [10] Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Noel B. Wamar, Meilrose B. Peralta, Ramlah A. Duge. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.