Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ISSN(print): 2643-9840, ISSN(online): 2643-9875 Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijmra/v8-i09-57, Impact Factor: 8.266 Page No. 5423-5457 IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5423 Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program Lelanie Agbayani Pico1, Samboy G. Nabor2 1Bulacao Integrated School 2University of Perpetual Help System Dalta ABSTRACT: Students with learning difficulties face persistent challenges that extend beyond academics, impacting their social and emotional development, which is critical for self-regulation, relationship building, and decision-making. While interventions often prioritize academic remediation, fewer emphasize strategies that foster socio-emotional growth. This study examined the extent of students’ learning difficulties, the strategies used by teachers and parents, and the socio-emotional skills of learners in inclusive education. It also assessed differences in socio-emotional outcomes across levels of learning difficulties and the correlations between instructional strategies and specific socio-emotional domains. A descriptive-correlational design was employed, involving 42 parents and 28 teachers from Valencia City, Bukidnon, who evaluated the learning and socio-emotional profiles of 42 students. Findings revealed that students consistently experienced difficulties across perceptual and information processing, language and auditory processing, motor abilities, social and organizational skills, attention, and written language. Teachers and parents reported frequent but uneven use of strategies, while socio-emotional skills were rated at emerging to developing levels. Comparative analysis showed domain-specific differences: perceptual and information processing was significant in selfmanagement (p = 0.012) and responsible decision-making (p = 0.007); language and auditory processing in self-awareness (p = 0.043) and relationship skills (p = 0.047); and written language in responsible decision-making (p = 0.010) and social awareness (p < 0.001). Motor abilities, social and organizational skills, and attention showed no significant effects (all p > 0.05). Correlation analysis revealed targeted associations: perceptual and information processing with responsible decision-making (r = 0.238, p = 0.029) and social awareness (r = 0.564, p < 0.001); language and auditory with self-awareness (r = 0.226, p = 0.039) and social awareness (r = 0.241, p = 0.027); motor abilities with self-awareness (r = 0.343, p = 0.001); social and organizational with responsible decision-making (r = 0.227, p = 0.038) and social awareness (r = 0.256, p = 0.019); attention with self-awareness (r = 0.342, p = 0.001); and written language with self-awareness (r = 0.327, p = 0.002) and social awareness (r = 0.252, p = 0.021). Based on these results, an intervention program was developed incorporating visual aids, structured routines, reflective writing, peer collaboration, and multisensory strategies to address domain-specific difficulties and foster socio-emotional growth in inclusive classrooms. KEYWORDS: learning difficulties, social-emotional learning, teaching strategies, parental strategies, intervention program I. INTRODUCTION Education is globally recognized as a fundamental human right and a driver of individual empowerment, social equity, and economic development. International frameworks emphasize that access to schooling must be both inclusive and high quality, addressing not only cognitive outcomes but also social and emotional development. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) specifically calls for inclusive, equitable, and quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all, ensuring that learners with disabilities and learning difficulties are not left behind (United Nations, n.d.). In the Philippines, these commitments are reflected in major legislation. The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 (Republic Act No. 10533) mandates a responsive and context-relevant K–12 curriculums that includes provisions for inclusivity (Republic Act No. 10533, 2013). More recently, the Inclusive Education Act (Republic Act No. 11650, 2022) institutionalized support systems for learners with disabilities, mandating that they be provided with services within regular schools, supported through Inclusive Learning Resource Centers (Republic Act No. 11650, 2022). Despite these frameworks, practical challenges persist. For example, as of School Year 2023–2024, only about 324,968 learners with disabilities (LWDs) were enrolled in schools, which Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5424 represents just around 20% of the estimated 1.595 million LWDs aged 2–17 nationwide (EDCOM II, 2024). This indicates a significant gap between policy intent and actual access. Capacity constraints also limit implementation. In 2024, the Senate highlighted a shortage of more than 7,000 Special Needs Education (SNED) teachers, with only 5,147 currently employed compared to an estimated need of 12,798 based on enrollment (Senate of the Philippines, 2024). Such shortages contribute to difficulties in addressing not only academic but also social-emotional needs. Furthermore, results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 showed that only 16% of Filipino 15-year-olds attained baseline proficiency in mathematics, 24% in reading, and 23% in science far below international averages (OECD, 2023a; OECD, 2023b). These findings highlight the broader learning crisis, in which students with learning difficulties are among the most vulnerable. Literature has long noted that academic struggles among students with learning disabilities often co-occur with social withdrawal, avoidance, and diminished self-confidence (Sreckovich & Schultz, 2021). In contrast, social competence is consistently associated with academic achievement and long-term personal success (Vasileiadis, 2024). Interventions such as classroom-based social skills instruction, peer-mediated supports, and culturally responsive methods have demonstrated positive effects on students’ communication, empathy, and cooperative behaviors (García-Grau et al., 2023; González et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2023; Zeng et al., 2022). Yet these interventions are often studied in urban or high-resource settings, leaving a gap in evidence about their effectiveness in rural, under-resourced, and culturally diverse contexts like many Philippine schools. Given these realities, the present study examines the social and emotional skills of students with learning difficulties in the Philippine context. It focuses on core domains of self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, social awareness, and relationship skills, while also considering how specific types of learning difficulties such as perceptual and information processing, language and auditory processing, motor abilities, social and organizational skills, attention, and written language relate to these competencies. By drawing on the perspectives of both teachers and parents, the study aims to generate insights that can inform context-sensitive interventions, strengthening both the academic and socio-emotional development of learners with difficulties Research Question This study sought to investigate the extent of learning difficulties experienced by students and to assess the strategies employed by teachers and parents in addressing these challenges. It further aimed to examine how these factors relate to the social and emotional skills of learners in inclusive education settings. The findings of this study served as the basis for formulating a proposed intervention program designed to strengthen students’ social and emotional development, thereby supporting their holistic growth and overall educational experience. Specifically, the study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. What is the level of learning difficulties experienced by the students in terms of? 1.1 perceptual and information processing; 1.2 language and auditory processing; 1.3 motor abilities; 1.4 social and organizational skills; 1.5 attention; and 1.6 written language? 2. To what extent do teachers and parents practice different strategies to handle student learning difficulties in terms of: 2.1 perceptual and information processing; 2.2 language and auditory processing; 2.3 motor abilities; 2.4 social and organizational skills; 2.5 attention; and 2.6 written language? 3. What is the level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of: 3.1 self-awareness; 3.2 self-management; 3.3 responsible decision-making; 3.4 social awareness; and 3.5 relationship skills? Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5425 4. Is there a significant difference between the students’ social and emotional skills when they are grouped according to the level of their learning difficulties? 5. Is there a significant relationship between the extent of teachers’ and parents’ use of instructional strategies addressing students’ learning difficulties and the students’ level of social and emotional skills? 6. Based on the result of the study, what intervention program may be proposed? Scope and Limitation of the Study This study was confined to examining the relationship between teachers’ use of instructional strategies and the social and emotional skills of students with learning difficulties. It specifically covers six domains of learning challenges such as perceptual and information processing, language and auditory processing, motor abilities, social and organizational skills, attention, and written language. Correspondingly, it measures students’ social-emotional competencies in terms of self-awareness, selfmanagement, responsible decision-making, social awareness, and relationship skills. The research participants include teachers and parents from selected schools, with data collected through structured survey questionnaires. The results are intended to form the basis for a proposed intervention program designed to enhance social skills in inclusive classroom settings. However, the scope of this study was limited to the specific population and location from which the respondents were selected, and therefore the findings may not be applicable to all educational contexts. Furthermore, the research focuses on correlations rather than causation, and other influential factors such as family environment, peer interactions, and extracurricular engagements are beyond the scope of this investigation. Framework The conceptual framework of this study illustrates the relationship among the key variables that guided the research process. It illustrates the logical flow from the identified inputs, through the processes of data collection and analysis, toward the intended outputs. By presenting this sequence, the framework serves as a visual guide that connects the variables of the study and clarifies how the research was designed to achieve its objectives. The Input-Process-Output (IPO) Model for this study began with the input, which included three major components. First was the level of learning difficulties experienced by the students, measured across six domains: perceptual and information processing, language and auditory processing, motor abilities, social and organizational skills, attention, and written language. Second was the extent to which teachers practiced different strategies to address these learning difficulties, also classified under the same six domains. Third was the level of students’ social and emotional skills, assessed through five core competencies: self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, social awareness, and relationship skills. The process involved a systematic research procedure, starting with the distribution of survey questionnaires to gather the required data from students and teachers. This was followed by data gathering procedures to ensure accuracy and completeness of responses. The collected data were then subjected to data analysis and interpretation, using appropriate statistical treatments to determine relationships and significant findings. Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5426 The output of this process was a Proposed Intervention Program designed to enhance the social and emotional skills of students while addressing their specific learning difficulties. This program served as a practical framework for teachers, parents, and school administrators to improve learning experiences and foster holistic student development. II. RESEARCH DESIGN This study employed a qualitative research design using a phenomenological approach. Phenomenology, as a research tradition, seeks to explore and interpret the essence of lived experiences by describing how individuals perceive and make sense of their realities. Recent scholars emphasize that phenomenology enables a deeper understanding of how personal and social contexts shape individual experiences, making it a powerful method for uncovering meaning in complex human situations (Sundler et al., 2020; Neubauer et al., 2020). This approach is particularly suited for examining the lived experiences of student-athletes as they navigate the challenges of balancing academic responsibilities with the demands of athletic training and competition. Phenomenology functions both as a methodology and as a way of seeing the world, allowing researchers to move beyond description toward interpretation of meaning (Moustakas & Sigel, 2021; Thomas & Rosser, 2022). Specifically, interpretive phenomenology highlights the contextual nature of experiences, enabling insights into the meanings student-athletes attach to their daily struggles and coping strategies. A key methodological principle of phenomenology is bracketing, which requires the researcher to set aside preconceptions and biases so that participants’ voices can emerge authentically. This ensures that the phenomenon—the realities of balancing class and court—is revealed through the perspectives of those living it. In this study, semi-structured interviews served as the primary data collection tool, as they allowed participants to share open, honest, and deeply personal accounts of their routines, challenges, and strategies. The choice of this research design is justified by its alignment with the study’s objectives: to explore, describe, and interpret the coping and navigational strategies of student-athletes, and to contribute meaningful insights that can inform academic and athletic support programs. Research Instrument The main research instruments used in this study were two sets of semi-structured questionnaires, one designed for parents and the other for teachers of students with learning difficulties. Both instruments were carefully adapted from established tools such as the Social Skills Improvement System–Rating Scales (SSIS-RS) and were contextualized to the local educational setting to ensure clarity and appropriateness. The separate sets ensured that data could be collected from both the home and school perspectives, capturing a more comprehensive understanding of students’ challenges and social-emotional development. Each questionnaire was divided into three major parts, aligned with the specific objectives of the study. For Part I, both parents and teachers rated the extent of students’ learning difficulties in six areas: perceptual and information processing, language and auditory processing, motor abilities, social and organizational skills, attention, and written language. A 4-point Likert scale (1 = Never to 4 = Always) was used, and composite means were computed to determine the overall level of difficulty. For Part 2, parents and teachers evaluated the frequency with which they employed strategies to handle the identified learning difficulties. The items paralleled the same six areas of difficulty, allowing for comparison across the two groups of respondents. This section assessed both the consistency of practice and perceived effectiveness of strategies used at home and in school. For Part 3, teachers and parents rated students’ social and emotional skills in five domains: self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, social awareness, and relationship skills. Items focused on observable behaviors such as communication, cooperation, empathy, and self-control, again using the same 4-point Likert scale. Data Gathering The process of data collection in this study was carried out in a systematic and ethical manner to ensure both the accuracy of the information and the protection of respondents. The researcher began by formally seeking permission from school officials in Valencia City, Bukidnon, to conduct the study among selected inclusive schools. Once approval was granted, purposive sampling was employed to identify qualified respondents, specifically parents and teachers who had at least one year of experience working with students formally recognized as having learning difficulties. After the list of respondents was finalized, the researcher administered two sets of structured questionnaires: one designed for parents and the other for teachers. Prior to distribution, the instrument had undergone pilot testing and validation to confirm its clarity, appropriateness, and reliability. Respondents were briefed on the objectives of the study, given clear instructions on how Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5427 to accomplish the questionnaire, and asked to provide informed consent to affirm their voluntary participation and guarantee confidentiality. The questionnaires were distributed either in printed copies delivered personally to schools and households or through secured online platforms, depending on respondents’ accessibility and preference. Respondents were allotted one to two weeks to complete the survey. During this period, the researcher maintained close coordination, offering clarifications when necessary and ensuring smooth data collection. Completed questionnaires were carefully retrieved by the researcher, checked for accuracy and completeness, and then organized for statistical processing. Throughout the entire procedure, strict adherence to ethical research principles was maintained. Respondents’ identities were kept confidential, and the data collected were used solely for academic purposes and to inform educational practices aimed at supporting students with learning difficulties. Statistical Treatment To analyze the data gathered from parents and teachers, a combination of descriptive and inferential statistics was employed. Each statistical tool was carefully chosen to address the specific objectives of the study. 1. To determine the extent of learning difficulties experienced by students in the areas of perceptual and information processing, language and auditory processing, motor abilities, attention, and written language, descriptive statistics were used. Specifically, frequency counts, percentages, means, and composite means were computed. These tools allowed the researcher to summarize how often and to what degree students experienced specific difficulties, with interpretation guided by the verbal description scale (“Never,” “Sometimes,” “Often,” “Always”). 2. To assess the strategies used by teachers and parents in handling learners’ difficulties, the same set of descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean, and composite mean) was applied. These computations highlighted the most and least frequently employed strategies and provided a basis for comparing the responses of the two groups. 3. To evaluate the social and emotional skills of learners across the five domains such as self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, social awareness, and relationship skills, descriptive statistics were also used. Mean and composite mean values were calculated to determine the degree to which students displayed each skill, supported by the same categorical interpretation scale. 4. To test for significant differences in students’ social and emotional skills when grouped according to the level of their learning difficulties, a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted. This inferential tool was appropriate as it compared the means of more than two groups, allowing the researcher to determine whether varying levels of learning difficulties resulted in significant differences in the five SEL domains. 5. To test for significant relationships between the extent of teachers’ use of instructional strategies and the students’ social and emotional skills, Pearson’s r correlation coefficient was employed. This statistical tool measured both the strength and direction of the relationship, identifying which SEL domains were associated with specific instructional strategies. III. RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the study in relation to the stated research problems. The data gathered from teachers and parents were systematically organized, analyzed, and interpreted to provide meaningful insights into the extent of the learner’s learning difficulties, the teachers’ strategies in addressing these learning difficulties, and their relationship to developing the learners’ socio-emotional skills. On the level of learning difficulties experienced by the students in terms of: 1.1 perceptual and information processing Table 1.1 presents the perceptions of both parents and teachers regarding the learning difficulties experienced by students in the area of perceptual and information processing. The overall mean rating given by parents is 3.37, while teachers gave a slightly higher rating of 3.64. Both values fall within the verbal interpretation of “Always,” based on the 4-point scale provided. This result indicates that learners consistently struggle with cognitive tasks such as recalling auditory information, processing visual details, maintaining attention, and understanding complex instructions. These types of difficulties are critical as they form the foundation of effective classroom engagement and learning. Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5428 Table 1.1 Learning difficulties experienced by the students in terms of perceptual and information processing experienced by the students Table 1.1 presents the learning difficulties of students in the area of perceptual and information processing, as evaluated by both parents and teachers. The composite mean score of 3.37 from parents and 3.64 from teachers both fall under the “Always” category, indicating that students consistently encounter challenges in processing, interpreting, and responding to sensory information in the learning environment. The slightly higher ratings from teachers suggest that such difficulties are more observable in structured classroom contexts, where students must respond to multiple instructions, manage materials, and shift attention rapidly. Among the indicators, the highest-rated item by parents (Mean = 3.79) is “My child finds it hard to remember things just heard in class,” pointing to significant auditory working memory difficulties, which hinder students' ability to retain and act on verbal instructions. Meanwhile, the highest-rated item by teachers (Mean = 3.79) is “The learner gets confused when trying to understand what he/she sees or hears,” reflecting the complexity of multi-sensory integration difficulties in classroom settings. These findings affirm that students are particularly affected by the simultaneous processing of auditory and visual inputs. As Wong et al. (2023) explained, students with perceptual processing challenges often have trouble decoding auditory and visual cues at the same time, especially in fast-paced, stimulus-rich environments such as classrooms. This sensory overload can easily result in confusion, missed instructions, and impaired task performance. In contrast, the lowest-rated item by both parents (Mean = 2.81) and teachers (Mean = 3.45) is “Finds it difficult to recognize visual patterns or shapes.” Although this still indicates frequent occurrence, it suggests that visual-spatial difficulties, while present, are less prioritized compared to broader information processing problems. This observation aligns with the findings of Rivera and Dizon (2022), who noted that while visual-spatial issues such as trouble interpreting diagrams or recognizing patterns can affect academic performance, they tend to be less disruptive than impairments in auditory processing or attentional control. The composite mean scores from both groups underscore a shared awareness of persistent perceptual difficulties, with teachers reporting slightly higher severity. This discrepancy could be attributed to the structured, multi-tasking demands of the classroom, where students must decode oral instructions, observe visual cues, and respond within time constraints. This pattern is consistent with Martinez and Santos (2024), who emphasized that information-processing deficits often lead to academic frustration and emotional strain, particularly when learners cannot keep pace with instruction or misinterpret auditory and visual input. 1.2 language and auditory processing Table 1.2 illustrates the learning difficulties experienced by students in terms of language and auditory processing, based on the perceptions of both parents and teachers. The composite mean scores 3.54 from parents and 3.51 from teachers both fall within the "Always" category. This indicates that such difficulties are frequently and consistently observed across both home and school environments, highlighting their persistent impact on students’ ability to understand spoken language, express ideas verbally, and follow oral directions. Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5429 Table 1.2 Learning difficulties experienced by the students in terms of language and auditory processing experienced by the students The highest-rated indicator among parents was “My child finds it difficult to connect words to their meanings” with a mean of 3.69, while teachers gave a similarly high rating of 3.67 to the same item. This emphasizes a shared concern regarding semantic processing difficulties, where learners struggle to attach appropriate meaning to words, leading to challenges in comprehension and expression. As Santos and Ramirez (2023) explain, deficits in language processing are strongly associated with delays in vocabulary development, poor reading comprehension, and limited expressive language skills, all of which are essential for academic success across content areas. In contrast, the lowest-rated item by parents was “My child/the learner avoids reading aloud in class” with a mean of 3.29, whereas teachers rated it slightly higher at 3.62. Although both still fall under the “Always” category, this item appears slightly less severe than other indicators. The discrepancy in ratings suggests that reading aloud often required in classroom participation is more noticeable to teachers than to parents, who may not observe such behavior at home. According to Lim and Evangelista (2022), students with working memory and auditory sequencing difficulties often exhibit anxiety or reluctance when asked to read aloud, due to fear of mispronunciation or failure to recall the structure of sentences presented verbally. The consistency of the high mean scores across both parent and teacher responses suggests that language and auditory processing challenges are not situational but systemic, affecting students in diverse contexts. These challenges likely contribute to academic frustration and reduced classroom engagement. As emphasized by De Leon and Martinez (2024), early identification and targeted intervention such as speech-language therapy, structured listening activities, and vocabulary-enrichment strategies can significantly improve a student’s ability to process and respond to language-based tasks. 1.3 motor abilities; Table 1.3 Learning difficulties experienced by the students in terms of motor abilities experienced by the students . Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5430 Table 1.3 presents the evaluation of students’ learning difficulties in terms of motor abilities, with parents giving a composite mean of 3.28 and teachers a slightly higher mean of 3.44. Both values fall under the “Always” category, indicating that students frequently encounter challenges with tasks requiring fine and gross motor coordination, such as writing, organizing materials, and completing physical activities. These motor-related struggles are significant not only for academic tasks like handwriting but also for broader classroom participation and physical education. The highest-rated item for both groups was “My child/the learner feels uncomfortable doing physical activities” (Parents: 3.62, Teachers: 3.79). This reflects concerns about physical discomfort and low motor confidence, which may manifest as avoidance of physical tasks or hesitation in group activities. According to Morales and De Jesus (2023), children with poor motor coordination often develop avoidance behaviors due to fear of embarrassment or repeated failure, which further reduces their engagement in active learning experiences and social interactions. In contrast, the lowest mean score from parents (2.93) was given to “My child/the learner struggles to copy from the board accurately,” while the lowest mean from teachers (2.95) referred to “The learner is not always aware of how close he/she is to others.” Although these still fall within the “Often” range, they suggest that difficulties with visual-motor integration and proprioceptive awareness are somewhat less frequent compared to broader issues of motor discomfort and task completion. As highlighted by Santiago and Uy (2022), however, motor difficulties often intertwine with emotional challenges—students may experience frustration and lowered self-esteem when they cannot perform tasks as effectively as their peers. The composite mean scores affirm that both parents and teachers recognize motor-related difficulties as a consistent area of concern, with teachers reporting slightly higher levels. This may reflect the increased visibility of motor challenges in structured classroom contexts where writing, physical drills, and coordinated tasks are regularly assessed. These findings are consistent with Araneta and Villanueva (2024), who pointed out that students with motor coordination difficulties such as those associated with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) are at heightened risk for academic underachievement, psychosocial challenges, and long-term disengagement if their needs are not addressed. In light of these results, interventions such as early screening, occupational therapy, adapted physical education, and fine motor skill development are recommended. Classroom accommodations like extended time for written tasks, guided motor practice, and assistive devices can also provide critical support. Collaboration between teachers, parents, and therapists remains essential to ensure that students gain confidence and competence in both academic and physical tasks. 1.4 social and organizational skills; Table 1.4 presents the evaluation of learning difficulties related to social and organizational skills, comparing the perspectives of both parents and teachers. The composite mean from parents is 3.20, verbally interpreted as “Often,” while teachers gave a significantly higher mean of 3.53, which falls under the “Always” category. This suggests that teachers observe more consistent and frequent difficulties in students’ social and organizational functioning compared to parents. The gap in perception may be attributed to the structured nature of classroom environments where such challenges become more visible, particularly during group work, transitions, and classroom routines. Table 1.4 Learning difficulties experienced by the students in terms of social and organizational skills experienced by the students Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5431 The highest-rated indicator by teachers (3.79) is “My child/the learner has trouble organizing school materials,” indicating a persistent struggle with managing school-related items and tasks. This aligns with research by Dela Peña and Santiago (2024), who emphasize that difficulties in organization are often symptomatic of underlying executive function deficits. Without intervention, these can negatively impact a student’s academic performance, especially when tasks involve planning, sequencing, or managing materials. On the other hand, the lowest-rated indicator by parents (2.88) is “My child/the learner finds it hard to work well with classmates.” This falls into the “Often” category and suggests that parents may not fully perceive or observe interpersonal struggles in the school setting. However, Reyes and Bautista (2023) emphasize that poor proprioception and spatial awareness can lead to misinterpretations of social cues, often causing students to feel isolated or misunderstood by their peers. These issues, if unaddressed, can hinder collaborative learning and peer relationships. The composite results point to consistent challenges in both social behavior and task management, with higher frequency observed in school contexts. The data affirms the close connection between motor coordination, executive function, and socialemotional development, as highlighted by Cruz and Tolentino (2022). They note that while fine motor control and organization skills can be gradually improved, deficits in social responsiveness and task planning require intentional interventions, such as social-emotional learning (SEL) programs and executive function coaching. The findings support the need for early and sustained support for students struggling with social and organizational skills. Teachers, being on the frontlines of observing these challenges, can play a crucial role in referring students for support services such as occupational therapy or behavior modeling programs. As stated by Dela Peña and Santiago (2024), structured interventions that integrate classroom routines, social cue training, and organizational strategies are essential in helping these learners thrive both academically and socially. 1.5 attention Table 1.5 presents the evaluation of learning difficulties related to attention, based on the responses of both parents and teachers. The composite mean scores 3.33 for parents and 3.32 for teachers fall under the "Always" category. This indicates that attention-related challenges are consistently observed across both home and school settings. These include difficulties in maintaining focus, avoiding distractions, shifting attention between tasks, and regulating time effectively all of which are crucial for academic success and independent learning. The highest-rated indicator from both parents (Mean = 3.45) and teachers (Mean = 3.52) is: “My child/the learner finds it hard to focus during lessons.” This points to sustained attention as the most pressing concern. The findings align with Dizon and Reyes (2023), who emphasized that sustained attention is essential for absorbing new information, especially in classroom environments that demand prolonged cognitive engagement. When students struggle to stay focused, they are more likely to miss instructions, disengage from tasks, and underperform academically, common traits among learners with ADHD and executive functioning issues. Table 1.5 Learning difficulties experienced by the students in terms of attention experienced by the students Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5438 Table 2.5 illustrates how frequently teachers and parents apply strategies to address students’ attention difficulties, with overall mean scores of 2.60 for parents and 2.66 for teachers. Both scores fall under the “Often” category, suggesting that while such strategies are regularly practiced, they are not yet consistently applied across different classroom or home settings. This partial implementation may limit their effectiveness in helping students with attention-related challenges maintain focus and complete tasks efficiently. Among the strategies evaluated, parents rated “The teacher/parent/guardian gives only one question to be asked at a time to help them focus” the highest (Mean = 2.93), while teachers gave the highest rating to “The teacher/parent/guardian repeats instructions to make sure learners understand” (Mean = 3.31). These practices reflect attempts to reduce cognitive overload and increase clarity of instruction—critical components for students who have difficulty maintaining attention or processing multiple inputs at once. According to Meltzer (2010), simplifying demands by breaking them into smaller, manageable units enhances executive function and promotes sustained attention in learners with attention difficulties. On the other hand, both parents and teachers gave the lowest ratings to the use of timers or clocks to manage time and help students stay on task, with a parent mean of 2.62 and a teacher mean of 1.98. The teacher’s rating falls into the “Sometimes” category, indicating that this potentially effective strategy is underutilized. As DuPaul and Stoner (2014) have emphasized, visual time aids are essential tools for fostering self-regulation and time awareness in students with ADHD or other attentional disorders. Their limited use could suggest gaps in teacher preparedness, access to resources, or awareness of how structured time cues can support learners’ task initiation and completion. These findings imply that while efforts are being made to address attention-related difficulties, there remains a need for more consistent and deliberate implementation of structured supports particularly those involving visual time management and multisensory strategies. Strengthening teacher training in these areas can enhance the consistency and effectiveness of these interventions in both home and school contexts. 2.6 written language Table 2.6 presents the comparative evaluation of strategies used by teachers and parents to address students' difficulties in written language. The overall mean rating from parents is 2.84, and from teachers is 2.61, both falling under the verbal interpretation “Often.” This suggests that strategies supporting written expression are regularly implemented by both groups, although not with full consistency or intensity. The slightly higher rating from parents indicates they perceive themselves as more frequently engaged in supporting students’ writing needs compared to teachers. Table 2.6 The teacher and parents’ strategies in handling students’ learning difficulties in terms of written language Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5439 The highest-rated item from parents (Mean = 3.07) is shared by two indicators: “The teacher/parent/guardian uses visual guides to help learners organize writing” and “The teacher/parent/guardian lets learners share their stories through speaking and pictures.” For teachers, the highest rating (Mean = 3.10) is attributed to “The teacher/parent/guardian shows how to organize ideas in a clear order.” These findings suggest that both groups value the role of visual organization and oral expression in supporting written tasks. As highlighted by Reyes and Francisco (2023), strategies like graphic organizers and verbal storytelling offer critical scaffolds for students with written expression difficulties, especially those with dysgraphia or language-based learning disabilities. These methods help learners structure thoughts, sequence ideas, and develop coherence in writing—key components of writing proficiency. Conversely, the lowest-rated strategy from parents (Mean = 2.62) is “The teacher/parent/guardian lets learners use paper or tools that help them write within lines neatly,” while for teachers (Mean = 2.10), the lowest is “The teacher/parent/guardian gives feedback on each part of their writing step by step.” The latter even falls under the “Sometimes” category, indicating limited use. This finding is notable given that step-by-step feedback is crucial in the writing development process. The composite mean reveals a moderately high level of strategy use, suggesting that teachers and parents are actively involved in supporting written language development, but with areas needing improvement. These include the regular provision of formative feedback and the use of assistive tools to support handwriting. As Villanueva and Lopez (2024) emphasize, a comprehensive writing support framework must blend visual planning tools, consistent feedback, and motor aids to holistically address the cognitive, linguistic, and physical demands of writing. Enhanced collaboration between home and school is also essential to ensure continuity and reinforcement of strategies, ultimately fostering better writing outcomes for learners with written language difficulties. Table 2.7 Summary Table on the teacher and parents’ strategies in handling students’ learning difficulties Table 2.7 presents a summary of how teachers and parents implement strategies in managing students’ learning difficulties across six sub-variables: perceptual and information processing, language and auditory processing, motor abilities, social and organizational skills, attention, and written language. The overall composite mean for parents is 2.88, while for teachers it is 2.67, both of which fall under the “Often” category. This means that both parents and teachers frequently apply interventions to support learners with academic challenges, although not with full consistency across all areas. Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5440 Among the six domains, parents rated “perceptual and information processing” the highest, with a mean of 3.39, which is interpreted as “Always”. This suggests that parents are highly engaged in helping their children through visual aids, hands-on tools, and structured strategies that enhance cognitive processing at home. According to Garcia and De Vera (2022), perceptual and processing strategies, especially multisensory methods, are crucial in reinforcing comprehension and retention among learners with processing difficulties. In contrast, teachers gave the highest rating to “social and organizational skills”, with a mean of 2.80, still within the “Often” range. This implies that in classroom settings, teachers tend to prioritize time management coaching, behavior modeling, and structured routines. Luna and Villanueva (2024) support this finding, emphasizing that interventions targeting social-emotional learning (SEL) can significantly improve peer interactions and classroom behavior in students with executive functioning difficulties. The lowest-rated sub-variable for both groups reveals important insights. For parents, “motor abilities” received the lowest mean of 2.67, which, while still under “Often,” suggests a relatively less consistent application of motor-related strategies, such as using assistive tools for writing or supporting fine motor coordination. Similarly, teachers gave the lowest score (2.59) to “perceptual and information processing,” indicating a gap in classroom-based interventions that target how students receive and interpret information. This finding is critical, considering that strategies targeting perceptual processing such as visual schedules, graphic organizers, and tactile cues are foundational to supporting diverse learners in inclusive classrooms. Garcia and De Vera (2022) stress that such strategies are not merely supplementary but essential for enabling comprehension and engagement, particularly for students with dyslexia or sensory integration challenges. The composite mean scores reflect that although both parents and teachers demonstrate considerable effort in supporting students with learning difficulties, there is a need for greater consistency and integration of evidence-based strategies. The fact that no sub-variable reached a consistent “Always” rating from both groups reveals that interventions are often applied in isolation, rather than as part of a cohesive and collaborative support system. This observation aligns with the argument of Villamor and Santos (2024), who advocate for the adoption of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to ensure that learners receive support across various contexts, home, school, and community, using flexible and proactive teaching methods. 3. What is the level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of: 3.1 self-awareness; Table 3.1 Level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of self-awareness Table 3.1 presents the assessment of students’ social and emotional skills specifically in the area of self-awareness, as evaluated by both parents and teachers. The composite mean for parents is 2.60, while for teachers it is 2.83 both of which fall under the “Good” verbal interpretation. This suggests that students are generally able to recognize and reflect on their emotions, needs, motivations, and values, although there remains room for further development. The highest-rated indicator from the teachers’ perspective is “My child/the learner recognizes and understands his/her personal emotions” with a mean of 3.14, while for parents, the highest is “My child/the learner has an accurate view of himself/herself” (Mean = 2.86). These results underscore that learners tend to demonstrate strengths in emotional identification and self-perception, key components of self-awareness. As highlighted by Brackett et al. (2019), the ability to recognize emotions and maintain a realistic view of oneself contributes significantly to emotional regulation, responsible decision-making, and improved interpersonal relationships. Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5441 On the other hand, the lowest-rated indicator for parents is “My child/the learner can manage his/her own intentions and motivations” (Mean = 2.33), while for teachers it is “My child/the learner understands how his/her self-perception affects actions” (Mean = 2.52). Both values point to relative weaknesses in students’ capacity for deep internal reflection and motivation management. The composite means of both groups suggest that students demonstrate a moderate level of self-awareness, which aligns with the “Good” descriptor. However, the data also reveal discrepancies between internal reflection and emotional understanding. While students may be aware of their emotions and values, they are less adept at using that awareness to guide their actions and behaviors. 3.2 self-management; Table 3.2 presents the assessment of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of self-management as evaluated by both parents and teachers. The overall mean scores were 2.84 for parents and 2.71 for teachers, both interpreted as “Good.” This implies that students are generally able to exhibit self-management behaviors such as regulating emotions, managing stress, working toward goals, and maintaining focus despite distractions. According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2020), self-management is a vital core competency that supports academic achievement, personal responsibility, and emotional resilience. Table 3.2 Level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of self-management Among the indicators, the highest mean from both perspectives is recorded in the statement, “My child/the learner can regulate his/her own behavior,” with a teacher mean of 3.31 (Very Good) and a parent mean of 2.81 (Good). This suggests that both stakeholders recognize behavior regulation as a relatively well-developed area for most learners. This supports Zimmerman’s (2020) findings that self-regulation plays a crucial role in academic success and interpersonal adaptability, as it allows learners to maintain control over their actions in response to internal or external cues. In contrast, the lowest teacher-rated item is “My child/the learner tries to apply what he/she learned to real situations,” with a mean of 2.19, indicating a “Fair” level of consistency. For parents, the lowest mean (2.50) appears in the item “My child/the learner controls his/her self when he/she is angry or upset,” which still falls under the “Good” category but at the threshold. These results point to a gap in learners’ ability to generalize learning and maintain emotional control under pressure. The findings underscore the importance of reinforcing practical self-management strategies in school and at home. Instructional approaches that include mindfulness, goal-setting, reflective journaling, and experiential learning may enhance learners’ capacity to transfer what they learn into real-life contexts. 3.3 responsible decision-making; Table 3.3 Level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of self-management Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5442 Table 3.3 presents the level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of responsible decision-making, as evaluated by both parents and teachers. The overall composite mean is 2.94 for parents and 2.61 for teachers, both of which fall within the "Good" category. This indicates that students are generally consistent in applying responsible decision-making skills, including evaluating consequences, making ethical choices, and using past experiences to guide their actions. According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2020), responsible decision-making involves making respectful, safe, and constructive choices about personal and social behavior based on ethical standards and social norms. From the parents' perspective, the highest-rated indicator is “My child/the learner recognizes the benefits and risks of decisions,” with a mean of 3.33. This suggests that many students are capable of identifying potential consequences and making informed choices, which is a key component of mature decision-making. Teachers, on the other hand, gave the highest rating of 3.14 to “My child/the learner considers the consequences of his/her decisions,” reinforcing the notion that students frequently think through the results of their actions before making choices. These findings align with Zins and Elias (2021), who emphasized that forward-thinking and reflective decision-making are foundational to students’ academic and interpersonal development. In contrast, the lowest-rated item from both evaluators highlights a notable gap. Teachers assigned the lowest mean of 2.05 to two indicators: “My child/the learner follows a logical process to solve problems” and “My child/the learner stays firm on his/her decisions once they are made,” both of which fall in the “Fair” category. Similarly, parents reported a lower score of 2.67 for following a logical process. This suggests that while students may grasp ethical considerations and the importance of consequences, they may struggle with consistency and logical reasoning when it comes to solving problems or adhering to decisions. Zins and Elias (2021) emphasized that structured problem-solving is not only essential for responsible behavior but also promotes independence and confidence in decision-making. 3.4 social awareness; Table 3.4 Level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of social awareness Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5443 Table 3.4 presents the level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of social awareness based on the perspectives of both parents and teachers. The overall mean score of 3.34 from the parents' evaluation corresponds to a "Very Good" interpretation, while the teachers’ overall mean of 2.65 falls under the "Good" category. This indicates that parents perceive students to consistently demonstrate strong social awareness competencies such as empathy, respect, and perspective-taking whereas teachers observe these behaviors somewhat less frequently, though still at a commendable level. The highest-rated indicator by parents is “My child/the learner values what others think and feel” with a mean of 3.52, categorized as Very Good. This suggests that students are generally perceived to show a strong regard for others' thoughts and emotions, a key indicator of empathetic engagement. Similarly, teachers' highest rating (mean of 3.40) is for “My child/the learner evaluates the fairness of others’ actions,” reinforcing the impression that learners are generally capable of making morally aware judgments in social contexts. These findings support the view of Eisenberg, Spinrad, and Morris (2014), who argue that empathy and moral reasoning are foundational elements of social awareness and crucial for prosocial behavior and conflict resolution. Conversely, the lowest-rated indicators differ between the two groups. Parents rated “My child/the learner understands and respects others’ beliefs and values” the lowest at 3.24, although it still falls within the "Good" range. For teachers, two indicators tied for the lowest mean of 2.26–2.29: “My child recognizes different points of view” and “My child/the learner tries to see situations from other people’s perspective,” both interpreted as Fair to Good. These findings imply that while students may demonstrate general empathy and concern for fairness, deeper cognitive empathy such as appreciating different perspectives and respecting diverse values may be less consistently developed from the teachers’ point of view. This difference between parent and teacher evaluations could be attributed to contextual differences; students may display higher levels of empathy and social understanding in more familiar home environments, while struggling to apply these skills consistently in school settings with more diverse social dynamics. Zins and Elias (2007) emphasize that social awareness involves not only recognizing others' emotions but also appreciating diversity and understanding social norms across different settings. Therefore, the findings highlight the importance of reinforcing culturally responsive instruction and perspective-taking exercises in schools to foster holistic social awareness among learners. This would help bridge the gap between interpersonal understanding at home and in more complex social environments such as classrooms. 3.5 relationship skills Table 3.5 presents the level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of relationship skills, as evaluated by both parents and teachers. The overall mean for parents is 3.34, verbally interpreted as “Very Good,” while the teacher mean is slightly lower at 3.28, still classified as “Very Good.” This suggests that students consistently demonstrate strong relationship skills such as cooperation, clear communication, conflict resolution, and empathy. These findings align with the framework of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2020), which highlights relationship skills as essential for establishing and maintaining healthy and rewarding connections with diverse individuals and groups. Table 3.5 Level of students’ social and emotional skills in terms of relationship skills The highest indicator from the teachers' perspective is "My child/the learner forms and maintains good relationships with others," with a mean of 3.43 (VG). This implies that learners excel in forming positive interpersonal bonds and sustaining healthy peer connections. Similarly, the parents’ highest score, at 3.48, corresponds to "My child/the learner communicates clearly with others," highlighting that students are perceived to be effective communicators. These results reinforce Wentzel’s (2020) findings Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5444 that students who demonstrate strong relationship skills are more likely to show social competence, classroom engagement, and academic success due to their ability to foster cooperative learning environments. Conversely, the lowest teacher-rated indicator is "My child/the learner expresses negative feelings in positive ways," with a mean of 3.24, while the parents’ lowest mean is 3.17, linked to "My child/the learner accepts feedback and suggestions from others." While both are still rated as “Good,” they suggest that students may struggle slightly with processing criticism constructively and expressing difficult emotions in healthy ways. This observation is consistent with the findings of Brackett, Rivers, and Salovey (2021), who emphasized the importance of emotional intelligence in facilitating positive communication, particularly in emotionally charged situations. The composite means indicate that both parents and teachers perceive students to have well-developed relationship skills. However, the minor differences in ratings suggest that certain nuanced aspects, such as handling feedback and expressing difficult emotions, may require more structured support through direct instruction, peer modeling, and social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions. Overall, the results affirm the students’ interpersonal competencies but also highlight the need for continued nurturing of emotional expression and feedback receptivity as part of holistic SEL development. Table 3.6 Summary Table on the level of student’s social and emotional skills The summary table presented in Table 3.6 provides an overview of students' social and emotional skills as evaluated by both parents and teachers across five key sub-variables: self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, social awareness, and relationship skills. The overall mean score from the parents' evaluation is 3.05, while teachers rated it slightly lower at 2.91. Both fall within the “Good” range (2.50–3.24), suggesting that students frequently demonstrate competencies in social-emotional learning (SEL), though there remains room for further growth. Among the sub-variables, parents gave the highest ratings to both Social Awareness and Relationship Skills with a mean of 3.34, which falls under the “Very Good” category. This indicates that, from the parents' perspective, students are particularly adept at understanding others’ feelings, empathizing, maintaining positive relationships, and engaging in cooperative social behaviors. On the other hand, Self-awareness received the lowest mean score of 2.60, implying that students sometimes struggle with recognizing and understanding their own emotions, values, and thoughts. From the teachers’ perspective, Relationship Skills also ranked the highest with a mean of 3.28 (“Very Good”), followed by Self-awareness at 2.83 (“Good”). The lowest-rated domain according to teachers was Responsible Decision-Making, with a mean of 2.61, indicating that students are somewhat less consistent in applying ethical reasoning and evaluating consequences in their daily choices. The composite mean serves as an aggregated indicator of students' general social and emotional competence. The parents' composite mean of 3.05 reflects that they perceive their children as consistently displaying SEL competencies in various contexts. In contrast, the teachers’ composite mean of 2.91 while still within the “Good” range, suggests a slightly more cautious assessment, likely based on observed behavior in academic and peer-interaction settings, which can differ from home environments. These findings are supported by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2020), which posits that SEL is foundational to students' ability to succeed in school and life. CASEL defines social and emotional learning as the process through which young people acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions, achieve goals, show empathy, establish relationships, and make responsible decisions. Notably, the higher ratings in relationship and social awareness skills suggest that students are well-equipped in interpersonal domains, consistent with Wentzel’s (2020) findings that these skills enhance school engagement and reduce behavioral issues. Conversely, the relatively lower scores in self-awareness and responsible decision-making echo Zimmerman’s (2020) and Zins and Elias’ (2021) observations that more reflective skills often require explicit instruction, modeling, and practice within both school and family systems. Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5445 4. Is there a significant difference between the students’ social and emotional skills when they are grouped according to the level of their learning difficulties? Table 4.1 Significant difference between the students’ social and emotional skills when grouped according to the level of their perceptual processing learning difficulty. Table 4.1 presents a comparative analysis examining whether there are statistically significant differences in students’ social and emotional skills (SEL) when grouped according to the level of their perceptual and information processing (PIP) learning difficulties. The results reveal significant differences in two SEL domains: self-management (F = 22.55, p = 0.012) and responsible decision-making (F = 17.62, p = 0.007). These p-values fall below the 0.05 significance threshold, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis for these two domains. This indicates that students with varying levels of perceptual and information processing difficulties demonstrate significantly different capabilities in managing themselves and making responsible decisions. In contrast, self-awareness (p = 0.769), social awareness (p = 0.330), and relationship skills (p = 0.574) showed no statistically significant differences, suggesting that PIP difficulties may not be the primary influencing factor in these areas. The significance in self-management and responsible decision-making implies that cognitive challenges in perceiving, processing, and organizing information may directly hinder a student's ability to regulate behavior and make thoughtful choices. According to Uljarević et al. (2023), learners with perceptual and executive functioning issues common in conditions like ADHD and learning disorders often struggle with emotional regulation and social judgment. These deficits disrupt self-monitoring, impulse control, and goal-directed behavior, all of which are key components of self-management and decision-making. Lau-Zhu et al. (2024) further emphasized that these impairments can compromise a child’s capacity to prioritize, assess consequences, and adapt strategies, leading to inconsistent and reactive behaviors. On the other hand, the lack of significant differences in self-awareness, social awareness, and relationship skills suggests that these domains may be shaped more by environmental, relational, or emotional factors rather than by cognitive-perceptual processing alone. This aligns with findings by Molina et al. (2022), who noted that while cognitive difficulties do affect some aspects of emotional development, competencies like empathy and relationship-building are also significantly shaped by modeling, social interactions, and emotional climate at home and school. These findings highlight the critical importance of tailored SEL interventions. As supported by Jones et al. (2023) and Taylor et al. (2023), programs that strengthen executive functioning particularly in emotional regulation, planning, and impulse control are essential for learners facing perceptual and cognitive challenges. By focusing on these executive components, educators can better support students in managing their behavior and making sound decisions, thereby reducing the functional impact of their learning difficulties on daily life and academic outcomes. Table 4.2 Significant difference between the students’ social and emotional skills when grouped according to the level of their language and auditory processing learning difficulty Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5446 The results presented in Table 4.2 indicate a statistically significant difference in students’ self-awareness and relationship skills when grouped according to their level of language and auditory processing difficulties. Specifically, the F-test values of 4.30 (p = 0.043) for self-awareness and 4.15 (p = 0.047) for relationship skills suggest that the severity of language and auditory processing impairments plays a critical role in shaping students’ abilities in these two social-emotional learning (SEL) domains. These p-values are below the 0.05 threshold, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis, which implies that there is a significant variation in these SEL skills based on the students’ level of difficulty in processing language and auditory stimuli. Conversely, no significant differences were observed in self-management, responsible decision-making, and social awareness, as indicated by their respective p-values (0.794, 0.067, and 0.768), which exceed the 0.05 significance level. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted for these domains, suggesting that language and auditory processing difficulties may not directly impact students’ behavioral regulation, social perspective-taking, or moral reasoning to the same degree as they do self-awareness and relationship management. This comparative analysis of significant results emphasizes how specific cognitive-linguistic deficits can disproportionately affect students’ understanding of themselves and their ability to connect with others. As highlighted in research by the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (2022), children with Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) often struggle with interpreting tone of voice, sarcasm, and emotional inflection, skills that are foundational for building and sustaining positive peer relationships. These impairments may also lead to difficulties in identifying one’s own emotional states and how they influence behavior, aligning with the observed deficits in self-awareness. Furthermore, Frontiers in Psychology (2023) explains that children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) tend to exhibit limited emotional vocabulary, poor understanding of emotional nuance, and reduced ability to express empathy, all of which are critical components of both self-awareness and relationship skills. These impairments often become more apparent in dynamic social contexts, where interpreting verbal and non-verbal cues is essential for adaptive interaction. According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2020), self-awareness involves recognizing one’s emotions, thoughts, and values, while relationship skills pertain to communicating clearly, listening actively, cooperating, and negotiating conflict constructively. Given that both of these competencies rely heavily on effective language processing and emotional comprehension, it is not surprising that language and auditory processing difficulties significantly undermine students’ performance in these areas. Table 4.3 Significant difference between the students’ social and emotional skills when grouped according to the level of their motor abilities learning difficulty The results presented in Table 4.3 show that there is no statistically significant difference between students’ levels of social and emotional skills when grouped according to their motor abilities learning difficulties. The p-values across all five domains, self-awareness (p = 0.058), self-management (p = 0.547), responsible decision-making (p = 0.752), social awareness (p = 0.930), and relationship skills (p = 0.946) are all above the 0.05 significance threshold. Consequently, the null hypothesis is accepted in each case, suggesting that motor difficulties do not significantly affect students’ social and emotional competencies as measured in this study. The comparative analysis of these non-significant results indicates that students with motor ability challenges, such as poor coordination or limited physical control, do not necessarily exhibit lower levels of emotional regulation, decision-making, or interpersonal relationships. While previous literature has associated motor delays with social withdrawal or anxiety (Fomby & Cusick, 2023), the current data suggest that motor skill impairments may not directly influence core SEL competencies in all educational settings. It is possible that students develop compensatory skills such as heightened verbal communication, emotional insight, or peer empathy that help mitigate the social consequences of physical challenges. This finding aligns with insights from van den Bedem et al. (2021), who found that children with developmental coordination disorder often compensate for their motor limitations by using strong social strategies or verbal communication to Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5447 connect with peers. This might explain why no significant deficits in SEL domains were observed. Furthermore, environmental supports such as inclusive classrooms, adaptive physical education, and peer buddy systems may play a protective role in preventing social exclusion and fostering emotional resilience in students with motor issues. While motor difficulties may pose physical and academic challenges, they do not appear to significantly hinder the development of self-awareness, emotional regulation, or social functioning in this context. This underscores the importance of individualized and inclusive approaches in education that recognize and support varied learner strengths without presuming deficits in unrelated areas. As CASEL (2020) emphasizes, social-emotional learning is not solely dependent on physical abilities but is shaped by inclusive experiences, supportive relationships, and explicit SEL instruction. Table 4.4 Significant difference between the students’ social and emotional skills when grouped according to the level of their social and organizational learning difficulty Based on the results presented in Table 4.4, there is no statistically significant difference in students’ social and emotional learning (SEL) skills when grouped according to their level of social and organizational learning difficulties. The F-test values range from 0.047 to 1.835, and all corresponding p-values ranging from 0.217 to 0.955, are well above the 0.05 threshold of statistical significance. As such, the null hypothesis is accepted across all five SEL domains: self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, social awareness, and relationship skills. These findings suggest that students who experience difficulties in social and organizational skills do not show significant disparities in their social and emotional competencies compared to those who do not have such difficulties. The lack of significant findings in this table is noteworthy, especially when compared to other types of learning difficulties such as perceptual processing, language and auditory processing, or motor skills where strong and consistent impacts on SEL were observed. This contrast suggests that while difficulties in organizing tasks or navigating group work may pose academic challenges, they do not appear to significantly disrupt students’ emotional regulation, interpersonal understanding, or ability to make socially responsible decisions to a statistically significant degree. One possible explanation is that social and organizational difficulties may be more externally mediated and supported through scaffolding by teachers or peers, reducing their impact on internal emotional processes. In contrast, difficulties rooted in perception, language, or motor skills may directly impair neurological pathways related to emotional regulation and social cognition (Lau-Zhu et al., 2024; Molina et al., 2022). Moreover, organizational skill deficits may be more procedural in nature, affecting time management or task planning rather than interfering directly with the emotional awareness or interpersonal sensitivity required for strong SEL performance. The findings are aligned with prior literature emphasizing the varying degrees to which different learning difficulties impact SEL. For instance, Jones et al. (2023) and Taylor et al. (2023) found that SEL interventions focusing on executive functioning had greater effects on students with attention or perceptual deficits than those with purely behavioral or organizational issues. Similarly, Uljarević et al. (2023) highlight that neurological factors affecting perception and sensory integration more profoundly disrupt SEL development than environmental or learned behaviors such as disorganization. While organizational and social difficulties may impair academic performance or classroom behavior, they do not exert a statistically significant influence on students’ core social-emotional skills. This distinction is important for educators and program developers, suggesting that while all students benefit from SEL support, interventions may need to be more targeted for students with perceptual, auditory, or motor-based learning challenges. Table 4.5 Significant difference between the students’ social and emotional skills when grouped according to the level of their attention learning difficulty Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5454 relationship skills and decision-making. Students with motor ability challenges benefit from task segmentation, cooperative games that build planning and teamwork, and guided physical activities linked to reflection, which support self-management and responsible choices. Attention-related difficulties are addressed with strategies such as timers, structured routines, mindfulness practices, and goal-setting workshops. These approaches cultivate focus, persistence, and greater self-awareness. Meanwhile, written language difficulties are supported through structured writing activities, peer-editing groups, and multisensory writing strategies. These not only improve mechanics but also help learners connect emotions to expression and build relationship skills through collaboration. The intervention is designed for implementation over one academic year, integrated into weekly classroom activities and supported by parents at home. Teachers, parents, guidance counselors, and administrators act as key stakeholders, ensuring consistency and reinforcement across settings. Program monitoring is achieved through preand post-assessments using adapted social-emotional rating scales. Ultimately, the intervention aims to improve emotional regulation, self-reflection, empathy, communication, persistence, and confidence among students, thereby fostering both academic progress and socio-emotional growth within an inclusive classroom climate. This chapter includes the summary of findings, conclusion, and recommendations on the study of development of social and emotional skills among students with learning difficulties: basis for a proposed intervention program. The study explored students’ learning difficulties, the strategies employed by teachers and parents, and their socioemotional skills, including the differences and correlations among these variables. Findings showed that students consistently experienced difficulties across domains, with both parents and teachers rating them “Always,” except for written language, which teachers rated only as “Often.” Parents and teachers reported using strategies “Often,” though not consistently across all areas, with perceptual and information processing receiving the highest attention and attention-related strategies the lowest. In terms of socio-emotional skills, students demonstrated competencies “Often,” with parents rating higher in social awareness and relationship skills, while teachers gave higher ratings in relationship skills but lower in responsible decision-making. Comparative analysis revealed domain-specific links: perceptual and information processing affected self-management and decision-making, language and auditory processing influenced self-awareness and relationships, and written language impacted decision-making and social awareness, while motor abilities, social and organizational skills, and attention showed no significant effects. Correlation results further showed selective associations, with strategies for perceptual and information processing, language and auditory Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5455 processing, social and organizational skills, and written language linked to improvements in specific socio-emotional domains, while attention and motor abilities strategies had more limited effects. Overall, the results highlight that learning difficulties and strategies are domain-specific, influencing particular aspects of socio-emotional development. The study concluded that students consistently face challenges in perceptual and information processing, language and auditory processing, motor abilities, written language, and attention, showing that learning difficulties are interconnected and affect multiple areas of school performance. Both parents and teachers recognize these challenges and employ strategies, but their application is uneven, leading to gaps in support. Students demonstrate competencies in self-awareness, self-management, decision-making, social awareness, and relationships, though at varying levels, reflecting uneven socio-emotional growth. The findings further revealed that the impact of learning difficulties on socio-emotional skills is domain-specific: perceptual and information processing relate to self-management and decision-making, language and auditory processing to self-awareness and relationships, and written language to decision-making and social awareness, while other areas showed no significant effects. Correlation analysis also showed that strategies produce targeted benefits, with some, like written language strategies, influencing multiple socio-emotional skills, while others have more limited effects. Overall, the study emphasizes the need for differentiated, domain-specific interventions, where parents and teachers align strategies with the specific learning difficulties and socioemotional outcomes they most affect. Based on the conclusions, this study recommends that teachers consistently apply strategies aligned with the specific domains most affected by students’ learning difficulties, such as using structured routines and visual organizers for perceptual and information processing, and integrating reflective writing and collaborative activities to address written language challenges. Parents are encouraged to reinforce these strategies at home through activities like journaling, letter-writing, and the use of visual schedules to strengthen both academic and socio-emotional skills. Administrators should provide professional development and resources that support domain-specific interventions, including access to specialized services, and ensure the systematic integration of these practices in inclusive classrooms. Finally, further research is advised to explore why written language difficulties strongly influence multiple socio-emotional domains compared to other areas and to examine how demographic factors may shape the relationship between learning difficulties, strategies, and socio-emotional development. REFERENCES 1) Alnahdi, G. H. (2020). Social skills interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(1), 1-22. 2) Alnahdi, G. H. (2020). Social skills training for students with intellectual disabilities: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 67(2), 208–224. 3) Alquraini, T., & Rao, S. (2021). Inclusive education in Saudi Arabia: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(9), 1041–1054. [Scopus-indexed] 4) Arupam, S. (2025). The role of inclusive education in improving social skills of children with special needs. International Journal of Social Society and Research Innovation, 1(1), 26–33. 5) Batu, E. S., & Kiymaz, M. S. (2021). The effects of social skills training on the social competence of students with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 67(1), 1-12. 6) Batu, S., & Kiymaz, O. (2021). The effectiveness of social skills instruction for students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 56(1), 23–37. 7) Bruland, D., Solish, A., & Salmon, A. (2023). Social participation of students with special needs: A scoping review. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(4), 535–552. 8) Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Amirault, K. A., Biggs, E. E., Born, T. L., ... & Weir, K. (2016). Randomized evaluation of peer supports arrangements to support the inclusion of high school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 209–233. 9) Carter, E. W., Trainor, A. A., Swedeen, B., & Niu, C. (2020). Promoting social inclusion and friendships for adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 86(3), 299-318. 10) Carter, E. W., Trainor, A. A., Swedeen, B., & Niu, X. (2020). Peer support arrangements to promote inclusion and learning in secondary schools. Exceptional Children, 86(1), 62–80. 11) Chafouleas, S. M., Kilgus, S. P., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2021). Social-emotional learning and students with disabilities: A critical review. School Psychology Review, 50(2-3), 238-258. 12) Chang, Y. C., Locke, J., & Kasari, C. (2023). Peer-mediated interventions for students with autism: A systematic review of effectiveness. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(2), 101–112. Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5456 13) Cihak, D. F., & Alberto, P. A. (2020). Social skills instruction for students with autism spectrum disorder: A review of evidence-based practices. Behavioral Disorders, 45(3), 159-173. 14) Cook, B. G., Crews, D. A., Wright, S. C., & Hastings, N. (2021). Social skills interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 29(1), 3-17. 15) Dababneh, S., & Al-Zoubi, Z. (2022). Effectiveness of social stories in developing social skills among students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(1), 1-16. 16) Dillen, J., De Moor, J., & Van Hove, G. (2020). Social participation of students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive education: A systematic review. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(1), 1-17. 17) Doménech-Betoret, F., Gómez-Artiga, A., & Martínez, J. (2024). Teachers’ inclusive practices and students’ social and emotional competencies in secondary schools. Learning and Instruction, 84, 101749. 18) EDCOM II. (2024, December 4). Gatchalian calls out DepEd over delays in inclusive education implementation. https://edcom2.gov.ph/gatchalian-calls-out-deped-over-delays-in-inclusive-ed-implementation/ EDCOM 2 19) Fernandez-Villardon, A., Alvarez, P., Ugalde, L., & Tellado, I. (2020). Fostering the social development of children with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) through dialogue and interaction: A literature review. Social Sciences, 9(6), 97. 20) Ganz, J. B., Hong, E. R., & Morin, K. L. (2020). Social skills interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 100, 103607. 21) García-Grau, P., Galindo-Villardón, M. P., & del Río, P. (2023). Group social skills interventions for adolescents with disabilities: A systematic review. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(1), 45–61. 22) González, M., De La Fuente, R., & Ortega, F. (2022). Strategies for enhancing social skills in individuals with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 3, 968314. 23) Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2021). Social skills improvement system–rating scales. Pearson Assessments. 24) Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2020). Social inclusion and peer relationships in secondary school students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(2), 480-492. 25) Ilias, K., & Nor, M. R. M. (2023). Virtual reality interventions for enhancing social skills in students with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Assistive Technology, 1-15. 26) iMyrbakk, E., & von Tetzchner, S. (2020). Social competence in adolescents with intellectual disabilities: A longitudinal study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 64(2), 118-129. 27) Jacob, U. S., Edozie, I. S., & Pillay, J. (2022). Strategies for enhancing social skills of individuals with intellectual disability: A systematic review. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 3, 968314. 28) Jones, K. M., & Frederickson, N. (2021). Exploring the impact of peer support interventions on the social skills and inclusion of students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Educational Psychology, 41(4), 485-502. 29) Kasari, C., Rotheram-Fuller, E., Locke, J., & Gulsrud, A. (2023). Effects of inclusive education settings on social outcomes for students with autism. Autism, 27(2), 324–335. 30) Kasari, C., Rotheram-Fuller, E., Wong, V., & Locke, J. (2020). Randomized controlled trial of peer socialization intervention for school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(1), 193-207. 31) Koenig, K. P., & Williams, K. L. (2021). Social skills interventions for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 111, 103890. 32) Lau, E. Y. H., Cheung, H. Y., & Lam, M. C. (2022). The effectiveness of video modeling interventions on social skills of children with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(2), 652669. 33) Lindsay, S., Cagliostro, E., & Albury, N. (2020). Social media and adolescents with disabilities: A scoping review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(22), 31653178. 34) Machalicek, W., Oakes, A., & Lang, R. (2021). Technology-based social skills interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A review of current research. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(4), 229-242. 35) Maggin, D. M., Chafouleas, S. M., & Briesch, A. M. (2020). Social-emotional learning in school settings: Identifying evidence-based practices. Journal of School Psychology, 83, 1-18. 36) Mazurek, M. O., & Kanne, S. M. (2020). Social skills in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: Current status and future directions. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 67(1), 143-159. 37) Miller, A. R., & Vernon, T. W. (2022). The impact of inclusive educational practices on the social skills development of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 56(2), 85-96. Development of Social and Emotional Skills Among Students with Learning Difficulties: Basis for a Proposed Intervention Program IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 09 September 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 5457 38) Odom, S. L., Collet-Klingenberg, L., Rogers, S. J., & Hatton, D. D. (2021). Evidence-based practices for young children with autism spectrum disorder: A synthesis of the literature from 2014 to 2020. Journal of Early Intervention, 43(1), 27-55. 39) OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volumes I & II) – Philippines factsheet (PDF). https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-countrynotes_2fca04b9/philippines_dbf92b65/a0882a2d-en.pdf OECD 40) OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Philippines country note. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-resultsvolume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/philippines_a0882a2d-en.html OECD 41) Rao, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2020). Social skills interventions for children with anxiety disorders: A metaanalysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23(1), 60-78. 42) Republic Act No. 10533. (2013). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. Lawphil. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10533_2013.html Lawphil 43) Republic Act No. 11650. (2022). An Act instituting a policy of inclusion and services for learners with disabilities in support of inclusive education. Lawphil. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2022/ra_11650_2022.html Lawphil 44) Salas-Rodríguez, S., Valiente, V., & Navarro, J. (2022). Educational inequality and access to interventions in low-resource settings: Barriers for children with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(5), 634–648. 45) Senate of the Philippines. (2024, December 8). Gatchalian flags shortage of more than 7,000 SNED teachers for learners with disabilities. https://web.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2024/1208_gatchalian1.asp Senate of the Philippines 46) Sreckovich, M. A., & Schultz, T. R. (2021). The role of social skills in the academic success of students with disabilities: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 42(2), 115-126. 47) Swaim, K. F., Morgan, P. L., & Farkas, G. (2020). Social skills and academic achievement among students with disabilities: A longitudinal analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(1), 3-15. 48) Tsao, L. L., Davenport, E. C., & Doll, B. (2021). Social skills and peer victimization among students with disabilities: A metaanalysis. Journal of School Violence, 20(1), 1-18. 49) United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality education. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4 Sustainable Development Goals 50) Van der Klift, E., & Koster, M. (2020). Inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities: A review of effective practices. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2), 224-239. 51) Vasileiadis, I. (2024). The development of social competence in students with general learning difficulties in early primary grades: The necessity of psychological support programmes in schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(1), 45–58. 52) Wang, Z., Huang, J., Wang, L., & Liu, C. (2023). Social participation for students with special needs in inclusive schools: A scoping review. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(1), 1–15. 53) Weiss, M. J., & Harris, S. L. (2020). Social skills interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A review of the literature. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(1),1 183-192. 54) Yell, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2021). Special education law. Pearson. 55) Zeng, S., Ju, S., & Hall, M. (2022). Culturally responsive teaching for students with disabilities: A review. Journal of Special Education, 56(1), 35–49.