Factors Influencing Community Involvement

Among BSED – Social Studies Students, University of Bohol

MYRNA C. VILLAROJO
mcvillarojo66@gmail.com
ORCID ID No: 0000-0003-1729-073X

MARIA LUISA L. ARBASTO

mlaclet@universityofbohol.edu.ph
ORCID No: 0000-0001-8924-8958

JIGS S. SEÑAGAN
salaumjigs@gmail.com
ORCID ID No: 0000-0002-5866-3726

RINADEL MONICA C. PLAZA

chantiacomonica@yahoo.com
ORCID ID No: 0000-0002-4392-0291

GEMEMA M. DANO
gemema020@gmail.com
ORCID ID No: 0000-0001-7017-512X

AILEEN T. ANUNCIADO
ailyn_anunciado@yahoo.com
ORCID ID No: 0000-0002-8778-544X

FILOMENO J. MAGDUA
filmagdua12@gmail.com
ORCID ID No: 0000-0002-8310-8097

JESSA VIL C. QUIDET

Qjessavil_@yahoo.com
ORCID ID No: 0000-0001-9563-2841

BERNARD M. LUEGA
assasinbeergo@gmail.com
ORCID ID No: 0000-0002-5423-5652
 ABSTRACT

Community involvement is the engagement and participation of an individual who

renders service for community development and self-improvement. For students, this
concept is part in the basic and collegiate curriculum as service learning which links
content standards to real-life learning by self–reflection. The study focused on factors
influencing community involvement among BSED-Social Studies students of University
of Bohol during the first semester of the academic year 2018–2019, basing on Urie
Bronfrenbrenner’s Socio-ecological Theory. The study utilized quantitative method
through a researcher-made tool and was then statistically treated through simple
percentage, weighted mean, composite weighted mean, Chi-square, Analysis of
Variance and Scheffe’s Test. The study revealed that respondents were ‘Strongly
Agree’ that they were influenced through Individual Factors with a composite mean of
3.83 and Governmental Factors with a composite mean of 3.28. It was also discovered
that is no significant relationship between age of respondents and the factors
influencing community involvement while in terms of sex, the result showed a significant
relationship to the influencing factors. There was also significance degree of variance
among all influencing factors. With these results, recommendations have been
presented to all in promoting involvement through social capital in the academe and
beyond the community.

Keywords: Community Involvement, Community Engagement, Community Participation,

Partnership, Collaboration, Volunteerism, Social Studies, Philippines, Asia

INTRODUCTION

Community involvement, the participation and engagement of every member in

the community with a consensus to achieve a common goal, is a relevant concept that
can be classified by each in different perspectives (Barasa & Jelagat, 2013). It is the
people's involvement in different activities that requires the interrelationship of efforts
and culture that are often cited in a specific geographical location (Greer, 2017). Certain
problems arise in the community such as political, environmental, health and socio-
cultural problems that create effective intervention strategies (Maleki, Hosseinpour,
Rafiemanesh, Salehi, Lotfi, Naserizadeh, Yari, Koohi, Holakouie Naieni, 2014) formed
and organized by community members that lead to community participation,
volunteerism, and involvement.

Both the community and the volunteers benefit in volunteering and community
involvement. These include the benefits of personal growth, social interaction
recognition, responsibility, and advancement (Llenares and Deocaris, 2015). There are
also important determinants for potential and actual volunteers such as altruism,
frequent contact with friends, physical health and religious values which means that
there are degree of influence through human capital, religious, and social factors (Dury,
De Donder, De Witte, Buffel, Jacquet, Verte, 2014). It is also suggested that the non-
profit voluntary group shows much interest in promoting policies that would increase
educational opportunities and would foster civil engagement, religious participation and
social interaction (Forbes and Zampelli, 2014).

Such presented that there are a lot of factors that influence an individual to
volunteer and to be involved in their locality, several theories supported this concept.
One of the most reliable theories that supported this concept is Urie Bronfenbrenner’s
Socio-ecological Theory (2009) which says that human development is shaped through
the interaction between individual and his/her environment. Thus, the social human is
being greatly influenced to the smallest internal factor to the broadest external factors
that molds and nurture the behavior of the social human of how it interacts to the status
quo of his/her existence. Also, Experiential learning as advocated by David Kolb (2014)
explains the emphasis of on the direct sense of experience and in-context action as the
primary source of learning.

On the other hand, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger’s Situated Learning Theory
(1977) suggests that learning is unintentional, likely learn more in active participation
and situated within an authentic activity, context and culture. It relates that knowledge
can be attained through placing an individual in a natural environment which develops
his/her social dimension. Motivation theory by Abraham Maslow (1943) implies that
highly motivated students enjoy learning and participating much more than one who is
not motivated. Even when things turn out to be difficult, they persist and persevere that
result to a satisfactory performance as well as Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
(1977) highlights the complex behaviors such as solving problems and coping up to the
real world are the results of competent models’ exposure who shows the behavior
appropriately.

Finally, the Social Capital theoretical concept as defined by Coleman (1988)

focuses on the individual use while Bourdieu (1983) on the use of social capital by
certain social groups, Putnam (1993) focuses on the function of social capital for
communities while Lin (2001) also emphasizes the use of social capital in the business
or in the search for jobs and social status. All the main theoretical contributions, of
Bourdieu, Coleman, Putnam and Lin agree that social capital is embedded in social
relationships, but they differ as to their perspectives on the use of social capital to
community involvement.

Article II, Section 17 of the Philippine Constitution provides that the state shall
give priority to education, science, and technology, arts, culture, and sports to poster
patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development.”

Article XIV, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution states that also states every
educational institution shall establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and
integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society; shall
encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning system, as well as self-
learning, independent, and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond
to community needs; and shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster of humanity,
respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical
development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical
and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical
and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote
vocational efficiency.

Every educational institution shall provide for the establishments of appropriate

bodies through which the members of the educational community may discuss relevant
issues and communicate information and suggestion for assistant and support of the
school and for the promotion of their common interest (The Education Act of the
Philippines Annotated: Chapter 1, Sec. 7 Community Participation).

According Bronfrenbrenner (1979), Socio-ecological model explains that the

person is first seen as a growing, dynamic entity. Second, the environment exerts its
influence and third, the environment is not limited to external influences from the larger
surrounding structure namely micro, meso, exo and macrosystems. It also suggests that
community involvement is affected on multiple levels of influence – individual,
interpersonal, organizational, community and public policy. The theory therefore
highlights the various levels of interaction that influence each other in a continuous
process of change as an attempt to understand the complexity of individual functioning
(Duncan, Bowman, Naidoo, Pillay & Roos, 2007).

Mayo and Craig (1995) presented that community involvement is an essential

part of self-help and process empowerment. People who affect their lives, gain self -
esteem, knowledge and develop new skills need to be involved. In the book of Epstein
(2019), it states that family, school and community partnerships share responsibility for
students’ learning and development. This includes concepts of involvement,
engagement, participation, collaboration and other favourite terms that show that people
at home, at school and in the community work together to improve schools and increase
the success of all students. It was also mentioned that educators, parents and others in
a single school may organize a partnership program but also district leaders play
important roles in establishing a “culture of partnerships” to develop and sustain
programs that involve students’ families in productive ways. Furthermore, service
learning as mentioned in the article by Sanders (2003) provides students with
opportunities to assist individuals or agencies in addressing social and environmental
problems or community needs which these experiences include working emotionally to
physically disabled children, planting community gardens, assisting with infant care in
the hospital.

Social capital also plays an important role in community empowerment. With the
non-governmental organizations’ initiatives, it is considered as a “grass roots’ process
by which community becomes responsible’ organize and plan together; develop healthy
options; empower themselves; reduce ignorance, poverty and suffering; create
employment and economic opportunities; achieve social, economic, cultural and
environmental goals (Islam, 2016). It was considered that central government can play a
key role in shaping community involvement, through policies influenced by contrasting
ideological conceptions of citizenship and political expediency, as long as they use
methods and processes that meet evaluation criteria that are essential for effective
public participation: acceptance criteria, which concern features of a method making it
acceptable to the wider public, and process criteria, which concern features liable to
ensure that it happens in an effective manner (Marinetto, 2003 ; Rowe and Frewer,
2000).

The study of De Vito (2016) states that there are set of features found as great
influence of student’s eagerness to participate in activities and these include
communication, collaboration, active involvement in activities, interactions between
students and teachers, academic challenges and supporting classroom and family
environment. Waweru (2015) found out that the key factors that leads to community
participation are benefits, self-growth on interest, developmental need, previous
development involvements, the sense of belongingness and community service. Muro
and Namusonge (2015) investigate the governmental factors affecting community
participation in public development and the factors that shape participation. It was found
out that people participate in public development projects through financial, material and
labor contribution and it was also showed that enjoying the benefits of community
participation accrued from the projects.

Sahay (2015) concluded that women have a great role in community participation
in the environmental management. While in a study by Sulaiman, Othman, Samah,
Yero, D’Silva and Ortega (2014), it was determined that there are four factors that
influence community participation based on the socio-ecological model and these are
individual, community, organizational and governmental factors. The study concluded
that these factors do contribute a lot a positive outlook and effect in community
participation. A study also conducted by Madziuhandila and Maluka (2014) emphasized
that the prerequisite for successful governance and service delivery in the local
development is community participation. It was discussed that communities should
engaged in social mobilisation and focused their goals in ensuring socio-economic
development programmes and organized civil bodies to represent their interest in the
planning processes of local government.

Preston (2013) found out that participants’ response believing that the
participation in the school community improved the relationships from teachers to
community members as well as the study produced a data that the proximity of the
community outside the school negatively affects the social relationships of the people
involved. While the study of Ye Zhang (2010) found that residents’ preferences about
community involvement in tourism is into spontaneous participation which were
influenced by their perceived of economic benefits, knowledge about tourism, attitude
towards job and environmental sustainability. It was also found that more males
preferred spontaneous participation than females. Kyong Hee Chee (2001) studied
community involvement in context of population aging, found that the rational choice of
individual community involvement is based on expectation of personal benefits.
 Specifically, the main objective of this study is to ascertain the influencing factors
of community involvement as perceived by the BSED-Social Studies students of
University of Bohol, first semester of academic year 2018-2019. It is intended to answer
the profile of the respondents based on their age and sex, the level of agreement in
terms of influence of Individual, Interpersonal, Institutional, Societal and Governmental
Factors. The study also sought to verify if there is a significant degree of relationship
between the profile of the respondents and the factors that influence community
involvement, as well as significant degree of variance among all the factors that
influence community involvement. Recommendations are also expected in

METHODOLOGY

The researchers used descriptive survey in ascertaining the influencing factors of

community involvement as perceived by the sixty-eight BSED-Social Studies students
of University of Bohol, first semester of academic year 2018-2019. A validated
researcher-made questionnaire which proceeded to a purposive universal sampling was
used as the key instrument. It was designed for multiple-response questions asking the
personal perception of the respondents on the factors that influence them in community
involvement. The study was then statistically treated through simple percentage,
weighted mean, composite weighted mean, Chi-square, Analysis of Variance and
Scheffe’s Test.

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

Profile of the Respondents

There were 45 (66.18%) respondents who were 18-20 years old which was the
highest number of respondents; 11 (16.18%) were 21-23 years old; 8 (11.76%) were
24-26 years old and there were 4 (5.88%) respondents who were 27 years and above
which was the lowest number of respondents. In terms of sex, there were 49 (72.06%)
who were females and 19 (27.94%) who were males and 49 (72.06%).

Factors Influencing Community Involvement of the Respondents

The results are therefore gathered, tallied and computed using weighted and
composite weighted mean using the interpreted scale presented below.
 Table 1. Parameters

Parameters Weight Description Meaning Symbol

3.25-4.00 4 Strongly Agree The factor has influenced me all the time. STA
2.50-3.24 3 Moderately Agree The factor has influenced me most of the time. MDA

1.75-2.49 2 Slightly Agree The factor has influenced me some of the time. SLA

1.00-1.74 1 Disagree The factor has never influenced me at all. DSA

Table 2 presented that Individual factors yielded a composite mean of 3.38 which
describes as ‘Strongly Agree’, with item number 7 “I believe that participating in the
community programs strengthen my profile in job application forms and resumes.”
gained the highest weighted mean of 3.54 while item number 5 “I can earn money by
volunteering in the community projects.” garnered the lowest score of 2.44. This means
that individual factors has influenced the respondents all the time.

Table 2. Influencing Individual Factors to Community Involvement

Weighted
Individual Factors Meaning Rank
Mean
Strongly
1. I enjoy helping and serving others. 3.53 3
Agree
Strongly
2. I am interested in helping to improve our community. 3.46 6
Agree
Strongly
3. I like to meet new friends by joining community activities. 3.53 3
Agree
Strongly
4. I love working with other people. 3.44 7.5
Agree
Moderately
5. I can earn money by volunteering in the community projects. 2.44 10
Agree
6. I can gain new skills and experiences in the community Strongly
3.43 9
projects. Agree
7. I believe that participating in the community programs Strongly
3.54 1
strengthen my profile in job application forms and resumes. Agree
Strongly
8. I develop self-confidence by involving myself in the community. 3.44 7.5
Agree
9. I believe that participating in different community outreach Strongly
3.49 3
programs enhances my over-all personality. Agree
10. I feel a sense of purpose and fulfilment in life through
Strongly
participating and supporting different community activities and 3.53 3
Agree
programs.
Strongly
COMPOSITE MEAN 3.38
Agree
 Interpersonal factors scored a composite mean of 2.92 which means ‘Moderately
Agree’. This reflects in all items with the same ‘Moderately Agree’ scores with item
number 6 “I have a family member/relative/friend who encourages me to donate
clothing, food or cash to the homeless and hungry people.” being the highest with 3.21
weighted mean while item number 8 “I have a family member/relative/friend who
supports a charity or foundation.” got the lowest mean of 2.56. It can be concluded that
interpersonal factors have influenced the students most of the times.

Table 3. Influencing Individual Factors to Community Involvement

Weighted
Interpersonal Factors Meaning Rank
Mean
1. I have a family member/relative/friend who encourages me to join Moderately
3.00 4
community service and programs. Agree
2. I have a family member/relative/friend/ who pushes me to join activities Moderately
3.01 3
organized by the youth. Agree
Moderately
3. I have a family member/relative/friend who is an environmentalist. 2.76 9
Agree
Moderately
4. I have a family member/relative/friend who is a politician. 2.94 5
Agree
5. I have a family member/relative/friend who organizes a community Moderately
3.16 2
clean-up and tree planting activity. Agree
6. I have a family member/relative/friend who encourages me to donate Moderately
3.21 1
clothing, food or cash to the homeless and hungry people. Agree
7. I have a family member/relative/friend who is a volunteer of a non- Moderately
2.82 8
government organization. Agree
8. I have a family member/relative/friend who supports a charity or Moderately
2.56 10
foundation. Agree
Moderately
9. I have a family member/relative/friend who is a social worker. 2.90 6
Agree
10. I have a family member/relative/friend who participates in fund raising Moderately
2.87 7
activities to help people in need. Agree
Moderately
COMPOSITE MEAN 2.92
Agree

Institutional factors have garnered 3.16 composite mean which can be described
as ‘Moderately Agree’. Items 1, 3, 6 and 10 can be described as ‘Strongly Agree’ with
item number 1 “I have observed that in my school, to be involved in community activities
is part of the curriculum.” garnering the highest weighted mean of 3.43 while the rest of
the items can be described as ‘Moderately Agree’ with item number 9 “I belong in a non-
government organization that raises funds to help homeless and hungry people.”
garnering the lowest weighted mean of 2.71. This means that institutional factors have
influenced the respondents most of the time.
 Table 4. Influencing Institutional Factors to Community Involvement

Weighted
Institutional/Organizational Factors Meaning Rank
Mean
1. I have observed that in my school, to be involved in community Strongly
3.43 1
activities is part of the curriculum. Agree
2. I have observed that in my school, community involvement activities Moderately
3.07 7.5
are required by the teacher in order to pass the subject. Agree
3. I have observed that my school supports and participates in charity Strongly
3.40 2.5
works. Agree
4. I am encouraged by a non-government organization to join on its Moderately
2.82 9
community advocacies and community programs. Agree
Moderately
5. I am encouraged by our church leaders to join in their charity works. 3.07 7.5
Agree
6. I belong in a school organization that participates in community Strongly
3.40 2.5
outreach program. Agree
7. I belong in a youth organization that participates in environmental Moderately
3.24 5
protection campaign, health and sanitation program. Agree
8. I belong in a youth organization that encourages members to Moderately
3.15 6
participate in sports activities. Agree
9. I belong in a non-government organization that raises funds to help Moderately
2.71 10
homeless and hungry people. Agree
10. I have observed that the school where I belong encourages
Strongly
students to participate in charity works and to volunteer in the 3.29 4
Agree
community activities.
Moderately
COMPOSITE MEAN 3.16
Agree

Societal factors can be described as ‘‘Moderately Agree’ garnering a 3.20

weighted mean. Items 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 scored ‘Strongly Agree’ with item number 10 “I have
seen news about the community volunteers during disaster and calamity relief
operation.” having the highest mean of 3.47 while item number 6 “I have observed that
the community leaders organize a blood-letting campaign activity.” got the lowest
weighted mean of 2.87. It can be concluded that societal factors have influenced the
students most of the times.

Table 5. Influencing Societal Factors to Community Involvement

Weighted
Societal Factors Meaning Rank
Mean
1. I have observed that the residents in our community participate in Moderately
3.07 8
community programs and charity race. Agree
2. I have observed that the residents in our community practice
3.40 Strongly Agree 2
proper waste disposal.
3. I have observed that there are financially stable families in our Moderately
2.90 9
community who organize community outreach programs. Agree
4. I have observed that the community leaders organize a
3.26 Strongly Agree 5
community clean-up and tree planting activity.
 5. I have observed that the community leaders organize games and
3.37 Strongly Agree 3
sports activities that the residents can participate with.
6. I have observed that the community leaders organize a blood- Moderately
2.87 10
letting campaign activity. Agree
7. I have observed that there are seminars and symposiums on
environmental protection, health and sanitation held in our 3.35 Strongly Agree 4
barangay.
8. I have read articles in magazines and newspapers about the Moderately
3.15 7
importance and benefits of helping the community. Agree
9. I have watched a documentary video about community service Moderately
3.18 6
and engagement. Agree
10. I have seen news about the community volunteers during
3.47 Strongly Agree 1
disaster and calamity relief operation.
Moderately
COMPOSITE MEAN 3.20
Agree
Governmental factors gained a composite mean of 3.28 which means ‘Strongly
Agree’ with item number 9 “I have observed that the government encourages volunteers
to help during calamity and disaster relief operations.” garnering the highest mean of
3.47. All items are described as ‘Strongly Agree’ except item number 4 “I believe that
the government will give reward/incentives to those who volunteer and participate in any
related community activities.” with the lowest weighted mean of 2.97. This also means
that governmental factors have influenced the respondents all the time.

Table 6. Influencing Governmental Factors to Community Involvement

Weighted
Governmental Factors Meaning Rank
Mean
1. I have observed that the government encourages the people to
participate in the different community projects and programs as part 3.37 Strongly Agree 4.5
of their social responsibility.
2. I believe that there is a local ordinance that requires the people to Moderately
3.24 8
participate in community activities. Agree
3. I believe that there is a sanction/penalty imposed if the people will Moderately
3.01 9
not attend on government proposed activities. Agree
4. I believe that the government will give reward/incentives to those Moderately
2.97 10
who volunteer and participate in any related community activities. Agree
5. I have observed that the government has environmental protection
3.40 Strongly Agree 3
campaign.
6. I have observed that the government has health and sanitation
3.37 Strongly Agree 4.5
campaign.
7. I believe the government provides different civic activities for the
3.28 Strongly Agree 7
people to participate.
8. I have observed that the government encourages the people to
3.41 Strongly Agree 2
join socio-cultural activities.
9. I have observed that the government encourages volunteers to
3.47 Strongly Agree 1
help during calamity and disaster relief operations.
10. I believe that the government will give rewards and recognition to
those who will offer their skills to help and serve the people and the 3.32 Strongly Agree 6
community.
COMPOSITE MEAN 3.28 Strongly Agree
 Table 7. Summary on Level of Agreement in terms of Influence among
Respondents’ Involvement in the Community

Factors Weighted Mean Meaning Rank

Individual 3.38 Strongly Agree 1
Interpersonal 2.92 Moderately Agree 5
Institutional 3.16 Moderately Agree 4
Societal 3.20 Moderately Agree 3
Governmental 3.28 Strongly Agree 2

Over-all, individual factors got the highest composite mean with 3.38, followed by
governmental factors with 3.28 composite mean both implying that respondents
‘Strongly Agree’ to the factors and it influences them all the time while societal factors
got 3.20, institutional factors got 3.16 and interpersonal factors which got the lowest
composite mean of 2.92 are implying that the respondents ‘Moderately Agree’ to these
factors and it influences them most of the time to community involvement.

Testing the Significant Relationship Between Age and Level of Agreement of

Factors that Influence Community Involvement

Table 8. Testing the Significant Relationship Between Age and Level of

Agreement of Factors that Influence Community Involvement
N=68

Age 18-20 21-23 24-26 27 and above Total

Strongly Agree 21 6 6 1 34
Moderately Agree 19 4 1 2 26
Slightly Agree 5 1 1 1 8
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0
Total 45 11 8 4 68
2
𝑥 = 4.056
Critical Value of 𝑥 2 at 6df (0.05) = 12.590
Result: INSIGNIFICANT
Ho: Accepted

There was no significant relationship between the age and the factors that
influence community involvement while there was significant relationship between the
sex and the factors that influence community involvement. The computed x2 was 5.380
higher than the table value of 3.840 at 2df alpha level of 0.05 level of significance
hence, significant. The null hypothesis is rejected.
Testing the Significant Relationship Between Sex and Level of Agreement of
Factors that Influence Community Involvement

Table 9. Testing the Significant Relationship between Sex and Level of

Agreement of Factors that Influence Community Involvement
N=68

Sex Male Female Total

Strongly Agree 8 26 34
Moderately Agree 6 20 26
Slightly Agree 5 3 8
Disagree 0 0 0
Total 19 49 68
𝑥 2 = 5.380
Critical Value of 𝑥 2 at 2df (0.05) = 3.840
Result: SIGNIFICANT
Ho: Rejected

Significant Degree of Variance among All the Factors That Influence Community
Involvement

Table 10 presents that the obtain computed f-value of 5.2976 was higher than
the critical value of 2.580 at 4 by 45 df and 0.05 level of significance thus, the null
hypothesis is rejected. The result showed that there is significant degree of variance
among all the factors.

Table 10. ANOVA Table

F- Value
Sources of Variation Df Sum of Squares Mean Squares
Computed Critical
Between Groups 4 1.1854 0.29635 5.2976 2.580
Result:
Within Groups 45 2.5174 0.05594
Significant
Total 49 3.7028 Ho: Rejected

The result showed significant pairings between individual and interpersonal,

interpersonal and organizational, interpersonal and societal, interpersonal and
governmental factors and it also shows insignificant pairing between individual and
organizational, individual and societal, individual and governmental, organizational and
societal, organizational and governmental, societal and governmental.
 Table 11. Multiple Comparison Using Scheffe’s Test

Between Mean 1 Mean 2 D N1 N2 F' F*k-1 Interpretation

Individual VS Interpersonal 3.38 2.92 0.46 10 10 18.91312 4.819 Significant

Individual VS Organizational 3.38 3.16 0.22 10 10 4.326064 4.819 Insignificant

Individual VS Societal 3.38 3.20 0.18 10 10 2.89596 4.819 Insignificant

Individual VS Governmental 3.38 3.28 0.1 10 10 0.893815 4.819 Insignificant

Interpersonal VS Organizational 2.92 3.16 -0.24 10 10 5.148373 4.819 Significant

Interpersonal VS Societal 2.92 3.20 -0.28 10 10 7.007508 4.819 Significant

Interpersonal VS Governmental 2.92 3.28 -0.36 10 10 11.58384 4.819 Significant

Organizational VS Societal 3.16 3.20 -0.04 10 10 0.14301 4.819 Insignificant

Organizational VS Governmental 3.16 3.28 -0.12 10 10 1.287093 4.819 Insignificant

Societal VS Governmental 3.20 3.28 -0.08 10 10 0.572041 4.819 Insignificant

As to the over-all variance of the 10 groups, the result was significant. It showed
that individual factors with composite mean of 3.38 and governmental factors with
composite mean of 3.28 perceived by the respondents as ‘Strongly Agree’ to these
factors which influence them all the time to community involvement.

Interpersonal, institutional and societal factors is perceived by the respondents

as ‘Moderately Agree’ to these factors which influence them most of the time to
community involvement with composite mean of 2.92, 3.16 and 3.20 respectively.

Based on the result, interpersonal factors created the variance among the
different factors influencing community involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the researcher arrived at the following
conclusion that most of the Social Studies students were 18-20 years old that gained
66.18% of the total respondents. In terms of sex, the females outnumbered the male
respondents. Individual factors yielded a composite mean of 3.38 which describes as
Strongly Agree which means that individual factors have influenced the respondents all
the time. Interpersonal factors scored a composite mean of 2.92 which describes
‘Moderately Agree’. It can be concluded that interpersonal factors have influenced the
respondents most of the times. Institutional factors have garnered a composite mean of
3.16 which can be described as ‘Moderately Agree’. This can be defined that
institutional factors have influenced the respondents most of the time. Societal factors
scored a composite mean of 3.20 which can be described as ‘Moderately Agree’. It can
be concluded that societal factors has influenced the respondents most of the times.
Governmental factors gained a composite mean of 3.28 which means ‘Strongly Agree’.
This also means that governmental factors have influenced the respondents all the time.

There was no significant relationship between the age and the factors that
influence community involvement which implies that age doesn’t affect the respondents
influence to the community involvement. On the other hand, there was significant
relationship between the sex and the factors that influence community involvement.
Which shows that the sex of the respondents will affect the respondents influence to the
community. There was significant degree of variance among all the influencing factors
to community involvement which shows that the respondents have been influenced
variously by each identified factors. As to the over-all variance of the factors, the result
was significant. It also shows that individual factors and governmental factors perceived
by the respondents as ‘Strongly Agree’ which influence them all the time to community
involvement and interpersonal, institutional and societal factors is perceived by the
respondents as ‘Moderately Agree’ which influence them most of the time to community
involvement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Charity founders should exert more effort in encouraging their family members,
relatives, friends and community residents to support their foundation. This will
give more benefits to the charity and foundation in promoting their advocacies
and missions in line to the realization of their visions and goals.
2. Environmentalists should promote extensively in spreading environmental
awareness to all individuals as it gives a sense of essential responsibility of a
human to take care of our only planet earth.
3. Family members as well as their friends, relatives and others should encourage
themselves more to volunteer and work to non-government organizations as it
promotes healthy interpersonal relationships and strengthen bonds to all
members.
4. With the growing number of homeless and hungry, there is a need for more
humanitarian non-government organizations to give more emphasis in raising
fund to help lessen these worsening problems of basic human needs.
5. Non-government organizations should encourage more individuals to join in their
community advocacies and programs as it will give them the opportunity to
interact others and more importantly build the spirit of social responsibility.
6. School administrators and church leaders should firmly require all its constituents
to be involved and participate to their activities which give the institutions to
 function it social role and prove their worth and purpose as part of the social
structure.
7. As it helps in saving more lives, community leaders should organize and promote
more the importance of bloodletting campaigns.
8. Financially-stable families who organize community outreach programs should
motivate their neighborhood in promoting collaboration and partnership among
community groups which positively affects to harmonious living.
9. Community programs and charity race organizers should give more opportunities
to the residents to participate in their activities as it will give them self-benefits
and the opportunity to contribute material and intangible effort in building a better,
livable and peaceful community.
10. As there was significant relationship between sex and the factors influencing to
community involvement, there is a need in encouraging male individuals to be
involved in the community activities as it will give them personal improvement
and benefits, strengthen interpersonal relationships and improve their social role
as well as being a law-abiding to the society.
11. For further research, another study on influencing factors and level of community
involvement must be studied.

LITERATURE CITED

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Retrieved March 24, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2Seh7xx

Barasa, F., & Jelagat, T. (2013). Community participation in project planning,

management and implementation: building the foundation for sustainable
development. International Journal of Current Research, 5(02), 398-40. Retrieved
August 16, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2GstuTJ

Bourdieu P., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, (Forms
of Capital‘ in J. Richardsons (ed.)), Greenwood, New York 1983. Retrieved
August 5, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2XrlY1d

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2009). Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature

and Design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Retrieved July 1, 2018, from
http://bit.ly/2FH0fOA

Coleman J.S., Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of
Sociology, 1988, 94. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2L0aMHx

Greer, S. (2017). The concept of community: Readings with interpretations. Routledge.

Retrieved August 16, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2DjU2Vf
Deocaris, Custer & Llenares, Ian. (2015). Motivations for Volunteerism Among Filipino
College Students. International Journal of Education and Research. 3. 599-610.
Retrieved August 7, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2PEwbCV

DeVito, M. (2016). Factors Influencing Student Engagement. Unpublished Certificate of

Advanced Study Thesis, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT. Retrieved August
16, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2QswuVM

Dury, S., De Donder, L., De Witte, N., Buffel, T., Jacquet, W., & Verté, D. (2015). To
volunteer or not: The influence of individual characteristics, resources, and social
factors on the likelihood of volunteering by older adults. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1107-1128. Retrieved August 5, 2018, from
http://bit.ly/2ShNUSt

Epstein, J. L. (2019). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for
action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, A SAGE Company. Retrieved June 13,
2018, from http://bit.ly/2FNmTF1

Forbes, K. F., & Zampelli, E. M. (2014). Volunteerism: The influences of social,

religious, and human capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2),
227-253. Retrieved August 5, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2RkA95e

Hee Chee, K. (2006). Community mobilization in the context of population aging.

Sociological Spectrum, 26(1), 43-61. Retrieved July 6, 2018, from
https://bit.ly/2QIgXgK

Islam, M. (2016). NGOs, Social Capital and Community Empowerment in Bangladesh.

Singapore, Singapore: Springer Nature. Retrieved August 12, 2018, from
http://bit.ly/2zvwv1F

Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and

Development. Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://goo.gl/TrLWtC

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. 1-
24. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://goo.gl/GERt4w

Lin N., Social Capital. A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2001. Retrieved March 25, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2XrlY1d

Madzivhandila, T. S., & Maloka, C. M. (2014). Community Participation in Local

Government Planning Processes: A Paramount Step Towards a Successful
Service Delivery. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(16), 652. Retrieved
August 16, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2ReuXzX

Maleki, F., Hosseinpour, M., Rafiemanesh, H., Salehi, F., Lotfi, Z., Naserizadeh, M. R.,
& Holakouie Naieni, K. (2014). The review of community assessment papers to
 determine priority problems in selected populations of Iran. Journal of School of
Public Health & Institute of Public Health Research, 12(3). Retrieved August 5,
2018, from http://bit.ly/2E2Dl2F

Marinetto, M. (2003). Who wants to be an active citizen? The politics and practice of
community involvement. Sociology, 37(1), 103-120. Retrieved July 1, 2018, from
https://bit.ly/2AH4VyU

Maslow, A. H. (1943). Preface to Motivation Theory. APA Psycnet, 85-92. Retrieved

March 22, 2018, from https://goo.gl/fswUuP

Mattis, J. S., Jagers, R. J., Hatcher, C. A., Lawhon, G. D., Murphy, E. J., & Murray, Y. F.
(2000). Religiosity, volunteerism, and community involvement among African
American men: An exploratory analysis. Journal of community Psychology, 28(4),
391-406. Retrieved August 16, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2Rew3vz

Mayo, M., & Craig, G. (1995). Community empowerment: A reader in participation and
development. London: Zed Books. Retrieved July 1, 2018, from
http://bit.ly/2FKWpUI

Muro, J. E., & Namusonge, G. S. (2015). Governance Factors Affecting Community

Participation In Public Development Projects In Meru District In Arusha In
Tanzania. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 4(06).
Retrieved August 15, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2E1OLDw

Naidoo, A., Duncan, N., Roos, V., Pillay, J., & Bowman, B. (2007). Analysis, context and
action: An introduction to community psychology. Community psychology in
South Africa: Theory, context and practice, 9-23. Retrieved July 1, 2018, from
http://bit.ly/2BBkzwQ

Preston, J. P. (2013). Community Involvement in School: Social Relationships in a

Bedroom Community. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(3), 413-437. Retrieved
August 14, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2E005jB

Putnam RD. (2000). Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster. Retrieved August 5, 2018, from
http://bit.ly/2KC8x9i

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for
evaluation. Science, technology, & human values, 25(1), 3-29. Retrieved August
23, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2AFOYJu

Sahay, R. (2015). Community Participation In Environmental Management: Role Of

Women. 1-9. Retrieved June 3, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2Pdms6n
Sanders, Mavis. (2003). Community Involvement In SchoolsFrom Concept to Practice.
Education and Urban Society - EDUC URBAN SOC. 35. 161-180.
10.1177/0013124502239390. Retrieved August 4, 2018, from
http://bit.ly/2RjUwPZ

Sulaiman, A. H., Othman, J., Samah, B. A., Yero, A., D'Silva, J. L., & Ortega, A. (2014).
Determinants of community participation in community policing program in
Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 14(20), 2439-2449. Retrieved August 13,
2018, from http://bit.ly/2E1afki

Waweru, R. (2015). Factors Which Promote Community Participation in the Community

Driven Development Approach. International Journal of Humanities & Social
Science Studies, 2349, 6959. Retrieved August 14, 2018, from
http://bit.ly/2znFkur

Zhang, Y. (2010). Personal factors that influence residents’ preferences about

community involvement in tourism planning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
August 15, 2018, from http://bit.ly/2PXSDMd