The beliefs of educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content THE BELIEFS OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHERS IN PHILIPPINE TEACHER-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Francis Louis Bowler September 1973 INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may hava necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at die upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106 73-30,006 BOWLER, Francis Louis, 1920- THE BELIEFS OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHERS IN PHILIPPINE TEACHER-TRAINING INSTITOTIQNS. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1973 Education, theory and practice University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. D ate....September,... 19.73................... 'ommittee Dean To Sonia TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS USED . . Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Questions to Be Answered Significance of the Problem Assumptions Type of Study Definition of Terms Delimitations Limitations of the Study Organization of the Study Summary II. SURVEY OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURE . . . . Survey of American Studies Survey of Philippine Studies Survey of American Literature Survey of Philippine Literature Summary III. NATURE OF THE STUDY ............................. General Procedures The Instrument Collection and Treatment of Data Summary IV. FINDINGS PERTAINING TO RESPONDENTS AND TO GENERAL PATTERNS OF BELIEF ............................. Patterns of Philosophical Belief Patterns in Philippine Ethical Beliefs Patterns of Educational Belief Patterns of Belief on Issues in Philippine Education Summary Chapter V. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 116 Degree of Agreement Among Philippine Educational Philosophers Patterns of Specific Beliefs Preferences According to Philosophical Schools Preferences According to Educational Viewpoints Preferences Regarding Issues in Philippine Education Differences Among Respondent Groups Background of Respondents Summary VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 161 Summary Conclusions Recommendations APPENDIX 171 BIBLIOGRAPHY 183 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Philippine Institutions of Higher Learning and Number of Respondents in the Sample.................... 82 2. Distribution of Respondents According to Stated Philosophical Positions ..... ...................... 101 3. Responses of all Respondents in Rank Order According to Scale Scores ............................ 102 4. Distribution According to Checklist Sections of Top Twenty and Bottom Twenty Responses ................ 104 5. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all Respondents on Existentialist Philosophical Beliefs in Rank Order.................................. 105 6. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all Respondents on Experimentalist Philosophical Beliefs in Rank Order ............................ 106 7. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all' Respondents on Idealist Philosophical Beliefs in Rank Order.......... 107 8. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all Respondents on Realist Philosophical Beliefs in Rank Order.............................. 108 9. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all Respondents, on Scholastic Philosophical Beliefs in Rank Order ..... ........................ 109 10. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all Respondents on Materialist Philosophical Beliefs in Rank Order.................................. 110 11. Ranking of Philosophical Schools According to Averages of Responses .................................. Ill 12. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all Respondents on Philippine Ethical Beliefs in Rank Order............................................ 112 v 13. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all Respondents on Educational Beliefs In Ran Order ........ 113 14. Percentages of "Mostly Agree" Responses of all Respondents on Issues in Philippine Education in Rank Order............................................ 114 15. Distribution into Class Intervals of Item Scores of all Respondents...................................... 117 16. Comparison of Responses on,Checklist Nos. 43-51 by Philippine Sample and American Reliability Group.................................................... 130 17. Comparison of Stated and Tested Philosophical Viewpoints of all Respondents by Means of Belief "Clusters" ........................................ 138 18. Distribution of "Clusters" of Philosophic Beliefs by Philosophic Schools ................................. 142 19. Summary of Results of Analyses of Variance of Responses in Ten Checklist Sections by Re spondents in (1) State, (2) Private Non- denominational, and (3) Private Denomi national Teacher-Training Institutions ................. 146 20. Obtained Chi Squares for each Checklist Item Based on Affiliation of Respondents to (1) State, (2) Private Non-denominational, and (3) Private Denominational Institutions ................ 147 21. Results of _t Tests on Responses in Ten Checklist Sections by Respondents in (1) Universities and (2) Colleges............................................ 154 22. Results of Analyses of Variance of Responses in Ten Checklist Sections by Respondents According to Stated Preferences for (1) Eclecticism, (2) Scholasticism, and (3) Other Philosophies ........... 155 23. Results of _t Tests on Responses in Ten Checklist Sections by (1) Administrators and (2) Faculty Teaching Philosophy of Education ..................... 156 24. Results of _t Tests on Responses in Ten Checklist Sections by (1) Male and (2) Female Educational Philosophers ............................................ 157 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS USED It has been said "that the most interesting thing about a man is his beliefs."^ For a man*s beliefs are the framework around which he builds his life. They are the creeds and the dogmas, the theories and hypotheses, the philosophies and the religions for which men live and for which they sometimes struggle even to the utter- mos t.2 These days education is undergoing a crisis— a crisis, it seems, whose roots go down to the level of basic beliefs. In spite of the advance of scientific research in the educational field, there is confusion, there is anxiety. An observation made thirty years ago by an educator seems very apropos today: "there is a current anxiety that modern education is adrift without rudder, chart, or compass."3 It is time, therefore, to look beyond the practical world of school activities and of day-to-day pragmatic decisions of school ^Frederick S. Breed, "Education and the Realistic Outlook," Philosophies of Education, Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), p. 87. 2Ibid. 3John S. Brubacher, "The Challenge to Philosophize About Edu cation," Philosophies of Education, Forty-first Yearbook of the Na tional Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1942), p. 14. 1 2 administrators to the world of beliefs on which practice relies for guidance. Every important human activity can be shown to have a basis in theory, a centralizing idea of what it is all about, what it is trying to do, and how it operates in human experi ence . 1 "What we need is not more practical remedies but, as Aristotle pointed out, some theory to guide practice."2 The Philippine educa tional system today seems to stand in need of such theory. Some years ago, a leading Filipino educator, Narciso Albarracin,3 wrote about the need for a philosophy of education in Philippine schools. It is the feeling of a sizeable number of educators that Philippine education has no coherent philosophy thus far in spite of its existence for more than three hundred years under Spanish tutelage, forty-eight years of American rule and nineteen years under the Republic. It is also the feeling of many progressive and nationalistic Filipinos that a formu lation of a Philippine philosophy of education can no longer be postponed if this gigantic enterprise of the Government is to contribute fully to the development of this nation.4 Statement of the Problem This study had for its purpose the discovery of: (1) the basic philosophic beliefs of educational philosophers in Philippine ■^Van Cleve Morris, Philosophy and the American School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), p. 7. ^John S. Brubacher, Modern Philosophies of Education (3rd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962), p. 14. ^Then Chief of the Field Supervision Division of the Bureau of Private Schools, Albarracin was appointed Director of Private Schools in 1967 and Under-Secretary of Education in 1971. ^Narciso Albarracin, "Editorial: The Need for a Philosophy of Education," PAGE Journal, III (January-June, 1965), 1. 3 teacher-training institutions; (2) the philosophical system or school most favored by them; (3) some of the basic educational principles favored by these educational philosophers; (4) their stand on pressing issues in Philippine education; (5) the degree of agreement or lack of it in regard to these matters; (6) the philosophic and educational areas where controversy exists; and (7) the patterns in Philippine educational thinking. Hypotheses In order to give meaningful direction to the study and to facilitate analysis of data, certain hypotheses were formulated on the basis of the literature in educational philosophy, of logical expecta tions, of historical and cultural considerations, and of the investi gator’s own educational experience in the Philippines. After their initial formulation, these hypotheses were modified during the early stages of the investigation but were finalized before the complete data was received and analysis of the data started. The hypotheses were as follows: 1. There is greater agreement than disagreement among educa tional philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions. 2. These same educational philosophers favor the beliefs of the classical philosophies over those of the modern philosophies. 3. The philosophic beliefs of Scholasticism rank highest in acceptance among Philippine educational philosophers. 4 4. The beliefs of Materialism are rejected by Philippine edu cational philosophers. 5. A comparatively large number of educational philosophers identify themselves as eclectic in their philosophical stance. 6. Among those who identify themselves with specific philoso phic schools, excluding Eclecticism, the largest number adheres to the school of Scholasticism. 7. The educational philosophers in Philippine teacher- training institutions favor progressive educational beliefs over tra ditional educational beliefs. 8. These same educational philosophers are against the pre sent highly-centralized structure of the Philippine educational system. 9. They are also against the use of Pilipino as the medium of instruction in all levels of instruction. 10. There is a significant difference^- in the philosophic and educational beliefs of educational philosophers in (a) state, (b) pri vate non-denominational, and (c) private denominational teacher- training institutions. 11. There is a significant difference^- in philosophic and edu cational beliefs between educational philosophers in universities and those in colleges. l-For purposes of this study the significance of difference sought was at the .05 level of confidence. 12. There is a significant difference-*- in philosophic and educational beliefs among educational philosophers in the different philosophic schools. 13. There is a significant difference-*- in philosophic and educational beliefs between administrators of teacher-training institutions and those who teach philosophy of education in those Institutions. 14. There is a significant difference^- in philosophic and educational beliefs between male and female educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions. Questions to Be Answered The questions which this study attempted to answer were as follows: 1. What philosophical school or system is most favored by educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions? 2. Do the tested beliefs of these educational philosophers coincide with the beliefs representative of the philosophic schools with which they identify themselves? 3. What are the philosophic beliefs in which there is strong agreement among Philippine educational philosophers? 4. What are the philosophic beliefs which are strongly re jected by these same educational philosophers? -*-For purposes of this study the significance of difference sought was at the .05 level of confidence. 6 5. On what educational beliefs is there agreement? 6. What educational beliefs are rejected? 7. Do the tested educational beliefs of educational philoso phers in Philippine teacher-training institutions favor the tradi tional or the progressive school of thought? 8. What ethical beliefs within Philippine culture are accepted by the educational philosophers? 9. What ethical beliefs pertaining to Philippine culture do they reject? 10. What is the stand of these educational philosophers as a group on certain critical issues in Philippine education? 11. Is there any distinct cleavage In the philosophical and educational beliefs of educational philosophers in state teacher- training institutions as compared to those in private teacher-training institutions? 12. Is there a cleavage in beliefs concerning Philippine ethical values and concerning issues in education among educational philosophers in state teacher-training institutions and those in pri vate teacher-training institutions? 13. Is there a difference between the beliefs of those in uni versities and those in colleges? 14. Is there a difference in beliefs between male educational philosophers and female educational philosophers? 15. Is there any difference in the beliefs of those who identify themselves with different philosophic systems? 7 16. Are the philosophical and educational beliefs of admin istrators different from those of educational philosophers? Significance of the Problem When the Philippines became an independent republic in 1946 many of the existing institutions, including the educational system, by sheer momentum continued along the lines upon which they had been established. . . . historically Philippine education is an imported com modity primarily intended to serve the interests of our respective conquerors and as such must perforce be alien in motivation, content, and methodology. A colonial educational system no matter how enlightened cannot by its very nature meet the changing needs of a nation with a culture of its own seeking self-fulfillment in political freedom and independence and struggling for recognition and survival in this part of our troubled world.l Philippine education therefore needs to formulate some basic philosophy of its own; and such a philosophy could be better formu lated once the areas of agreement and of disagreement in the matter of philosophical and educational principles held by Philippine educators have been determined. In arriving at a formulation of a philosophy of educa tion two ways may be availed of. First, to study the Philip pine educational system as it is and to come out with an account of the underlying philosophy consciously or uncon sciously adopted, developed and followed by educational insti tutions; and second, for educational philosophers, educators and other experts to come out with a formulation based on the apprehension of the needs of the system in relation to the as pirations of the people as enshrined in the preamble, in the ^•Albarracin, "Editorial: The Need for a Philosophy of Educa tion," p. 1. 8 general principles and in other provisions of their Constitu tion and in their time-honored traditions.1 The first method suggested by Albarracin provided the general pattern for the present study which was designed to furnish useful data for any attempt "to come out with an account of the underlying philosophy consciously or unconsciously adopted, developed and fol lowed by educational institutions." The second method, it must be noted, has been availed of time and again in the determination of Philippine educational policies, although not on the philosophical level.2 The present educational system in the Philippines came into existence with Act No. 74, the Educational Act of 1901, upon the re commendation of the American military authorities. The system was a monolithic and highly centralized one.3 This high degree of centrali zation has been preserved up to the present on the basis of the estab lished practice and of the Philippine Constitution which states that "all educational institutions shall be under the supervision of and 1Ibid. 2Cf. chap. ii, section on "Survey of Philippine Studies." ■^Francisco Araneta, "Some Problems of Philippine Education," Philippine Studies, IX (October, 1961), 621, "The American govern ment, contrary to all of its traditions of liberty, and turning its back on the system of educational freedom that existed in America at the time and at the present, designed for the Philippines a highly centralized educational system. Was this done in order to mold the little brown brother in the likeness of the big white brother as soon as possible?" Renato Constantino, The Filipinos in the Philippines (Quezon City: Malaya Books, 1966), p. 41: "The molding of men's minds is the best means of conquest. Education, therefore, serves as a weapon in wars of colonial conquest. This singular fact was well appreciated by the American military commander in the Philippines." 9 subject to regulation by the State.Thus from one central office emanate all directives binding on all Philippine schools whether public or private.^ The same curriculum is imposed on a city school and on a mountain barrio school far removed from technological so- ciety. The Under-Secretary of Education, the Honorable Narciso Al barracin, ^ has taken action toward a reasonable relaxation of this centralized control and for a sharing of the government's supervisory power with private accrediting associations.5 But whether the educa tional system retains its pattern of high centralization or shifts its stance to a less centralized one, Philippine educators will need some guidelines, especially in the attempt to make the schools more mean ingful within the context of the indigenous culture. In the ^•Philippines, Constitution, Art. XIV, sec. 5. ^The only exceptions to this central control are the few state universities and colleges created by the Philippine Legislature. ^Department of Education, Philippine Public School Curriculum, Bulletin No. 15, s. 1949 (Manila, 1949). ^Narciso Albarracin, "The Supervision of Private Schools," The Catholic Teacher, XII (April, 1966), 17-26. ^Department of Education, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (7th ed.; Manila, 1970), p. 4: "Private educational accredit ing associations or agencies are encouraged to operate. The Secretary of Education has thus approved the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges, and Universities (PAASCU) as an accrediting body for its member schools under Circular No. 10, s. 1967. In accordance with this circular and Circular No. 2, s. 1968, some fourteen (14) member schools of the said association have been granted the privilege of graduating their students without special orders." However, the Manual closes the section with the following: "The operation of pri vate educational accrediting associations, however, cannot replace the authority of the Secretary of Education over all educational institu tions of learning." 10 formulation of these guidelines, data furnished by the present study could be helpful. Assumptions In the present study, the following assumptions were made: 1. That philosophic beliefs are a guide to, and a reflection of, actual and desired practices in schools. 2. That the written answers of the respondents were an ex pression of their real philosophic and educational beliefs. 3. That the administrators and teachers of educational phi losophy in teacher-training institutions have a very strong influence on the philosophic and educational beliefs of teachers in the Philip pine educational system. 4. That subjective beliefs can be measured in an objective and statistical manner. 5. That a truly random sample gives a statistical picture which is representative of the total population or universe under study. Type of Study The investigation was conducted within the framework of a de scriptive survey concerning itself with the discovery or description, the classification, and the comparison of philosophical and educa tional beliefs of Philippine educational philosophers in teacher- training institutions. 11 Definition of Terms The following terms are defined to indicate their meanings as used in this study. Beliefs are propositions accepted as true or those situations or objects accepted as actually existent.^- Philosophic beliefs are the basic postulates about man, his cosmos, and his modes of behavior. Classical philosophies are so called because they were ori ginally formulated centuries ago and, with some variations, their fundamental postulates have been subscribed to by large numbers of people to the present time. Classical philosophies include Idealism, Realism, and Scholasticism. Each of these different philosophies is not, however, of one fixed mold. There is continuity and agreement in the basic viewpoints but there are also enough disagreements to dis tinguish the new schools of thought from their older forms. For example, the Neo-Idealism of Horne is different from the type of Idealism held by Plato and Augustine, just as the cosmology of today's Neo-Thomist does not completely resemble that of Thomas Aquinas. The classical philosophies are distinguished from the modern philosophies in their absolutistic stance regarding truth, beauty, and goodness, their "thing" or essence orientation, and their fuller deve lopment in the three branches of philosophy: ontology, epistemology, ■^Herman H. Horne, "An Idealistic Philosophy of Education," Philosophies of Education, Forty-first Yearbook of the National So ciety for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), p. 139. 12 and axiology— but especially in ontology. Idealism is a philosophic position which holds "that the uni verse is an expression of intelligence and will; that the enduring substance of the world is of the nature of mind."l Mind is "the ulti mate explainer of what happens to it, and hence the ultimate explainer of the world."2 Realism is the name given to those philosophic viewpoints which maintain that "the universe is composed of 'reals* that exist in and of themselves, independent of any relation to the mind of man."3 The real world does not depend for its existence on the activ ity of the mind as in Idealism; but the mind must focus its activity on external reality so that the mental constructs correspond with the things being known. In this attempt at correspondence of mind to reality the modern Realist depends a great deal on science. Scholasticism is a philosophical system which attempts to harmonize the content of Christianity with Aristotelian philosophy.4 Scholastic philosophy holds that God created man who is composed of body and an immortal soul; that man has an intellect capable of reasoning and a will capable of making free choices; that by nature man has duties to self, to his fellowmen, and to God; that there is a ^Morris, Philosophy and the American School, p. 139. ^John T. Wahlquist, The Philosophy of American Education (New York: Ronald Press, 1942), p. 56. q Carter V. Good, ed., Dictionary of Education (2nd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959), p. 446. 4Ibid., p. 481. 13 priority in these duties; that right reason and revelation cannot con tradict each other.^ Modern philosophies are of more recent origin. They are char acterized by viewpoints which are relativistic, non-teleologic, open- ended, and process-oriented. For the purposes of this study two phi losophic viewpoints with substantially large numbers of adherents are included in this category. These two philosophies are Experimentalism and Existentialism. Experimentalism, Ma radically empirical philosophical posi tion,’ ^ maintains that reality is the world of experience. Experience is the sufficient source of knowledge which is best gained through the procedures of scientific inquiry, and it is experience which validates tentative conclusions in the field of knowledge and of values. There are no absolute truths nor absolute standards of good. Knowledge is hypothetical, morality is social and dependent on society. Experimentalism posits a world of process, where there are no pre-established truths, where inquiry (truth-seeking) and thinking (intelligence in action) and problem-solving are emphasized.3 Existentialism is a philosophic position which emphasizes the role of the will in human existence and emphasizes the freedom and im portance of the human personality. Existentialism holds that •^William McGucken, S.J., "The Philosophy of Catholic Educa tion," Philosophies of Education, Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), pp. 253-255. ^Good, Dictionary of Education, p. 216. ^Morris, Philosophy and the American School, p. 73. 14 "existence (that Is, immediate, personal experience) precedes es sence";1 existence therefore is not identical with the metaphysical correlative of essence.2 . . . Existentialism may be generally characterized as a pro test against views of the world and policies of action in which individual human beings are regarded as the helpless playthings of historical forces or as wholly determined by the regular operation of natural processes.3 Eclecticism is a "school of philosophy that endeavors to con struct a coherent and harmonious system of thought or belief by adopt ing various beliefs from various rival schools or systems."4 Traditional educational viewpoints are those which view cer tain principles as essential to formal education. Traditional educa tional policies and practices are based on the following principles: 1. The school's primary function is to establish for the child an anchorage of reference in the accumulated knowledge and tra ditions of the race.5 2. After achieving a secure linkage to a body of truth and a historical tradition, the child develops his thinking processes and his ability to solve problems. ^ood, Dictionary of Education, p. 218. ^Sigmar von Fersen, "Existential Philosophy," in Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. by Dagobert D. Runes (Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1960), pp. 102-103. %arry Burrows Acton, "Existentialism," Encyclopaedia Britan- nica, 12th ed., VIII, 965. ^Good, Dictionary of Education, pp. 189-190. ^Morris, Philosophy and the American School, p. 337. 15 3. The school alms primarily at the intellectual development of the child.1 4. The curriculum is planned for the child. 5. There are certain subjects or disciplines which are of greater value than others in the development of the child.2 Progressive is the term used to designate those educational points of view which oppose the fixed or imposed curriculum and which favor the development of a school program deriving from the interests and felt needs of the educands. Learning should not be limited to certain fields but should be open-ended. Where the traditionalist favors the logical development of curricular content the progressivist emphasizes the psychological aspects of learning. Educational philosophers are educators primarily interested in the "establishment of coherent meanings"^ in the field of education, involved in the analysis of pedagogical ideas. In terms of the pre sent study, educational philosophers are those educators directly in volved in teacher training either as administrators immediately in charge of teacher-training departments or as instructors of educa tional philosophy in these teacher-training departments. Philippine teacher-training institutions are those colleges and universities authorized by the Department of Education or by ^Harvard Committee, General Education in a Free Society (Cam bridge: Harvard University Printing Office, 1945), pp. 64-73. ^Mortimer Smith, ed., Council for Basic Education Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 5 (January, 1973), p. 16. ^Susanne K. Langer, "On the Relations Between Philosophy and Education," Harvard Educational Review, XXIV (Spring, 1956), 139. 16 Congress to teach education courses and to grant education degrees: the Bachelor of Science in Education (B.S.E.) and the Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education (B.S.E.E.) degrees at the undergrad uate level, and the Master’s (M.A., M.Ed.) and Doctor's (Ph.D., Ed.D.) at the graduate level. Delimitations The population whose beliefs were surveyed was limited to ad ministrators and teachers of philosophy of education courses in Phil ippine teacher-training institutions. Although some administrators and philosophy of education instructors were interviewed during the pilot study, the checklist circulated by the investigator was the only source of data on actual beliefs of the population surveyed. There were no interview follow-ups during the actual data-collection phase of the study. The statements of philosophic belief in the checklist were limited to those representative of only Existentialism, Experimental ism, Idealism, Realism, Scholasticism, and Materialism. The beliefs concerning Philippine ethical values were limited to those dealing with authority, smooth interpersonal relations, reciprocity, and clan- centeredness. Also limited were the number of issues in Philippine ^As mentioned earlier in this chapter, all schools in the Philippines are under the authority of the Secretary of Education. No course, no degree may be offered without the previous written approval of the Department of Education. The only exceptions to control by the Secretary of Education are the state institutions of higher learning chartered by an act of Congress. The government of these chartered institutions is usually vested in a board of regents. 17 education Included in the checklist. In short, the survey was con cerned with a limited number of beliefs, albeit important beliefs. Interpretation of the data was somewhat limited since the main purpose of the survey was the discovery of actual philosophical and educational beliefs. Some interpretation was necessary in the abstraction of patterns of belief from the specific findings. Objec tivity in this respect was maintained by the use of statistical pro cedures and tests. Implications for education based on the findings of this study were kept to the barest minimum lest the objectivity of the study be impaired by Implications of a subjective character. Instead of the implications, a comparatively brief statement of re commendations growing out of the study has been supplied. Limitations of the Study This study attempted to discover facts about beliefs as opposed to beliefs about facts and it made use of quantitative mea surements. Thus it was objective in its methodology. However, some subjectivity was present in the factors which constituted limitations of the study. The first limitation involved the choice of content for the instrument. In spite of consultations with experts in the field and a review of related studies, the ultimate decision on the number and representativeness of the state ments included in the instrument belonged to the investigator. The representativeness of the content was limited by the practical de mands of the questionnaire technique. Sixty-five items seemed to be 18 the limit if the respondent were not to be discouraged from completing the questionnaire. The second limitation involved the interpretation of the statements by the respondents. The same term might not mean the same to an Idealist and an Existentialist. For example, the term "natural" might mean one thing to a Scholastic philosopher and another to a Mechanistic Realist. And there is a strong possibility that the Asi atic philosopher would attach a different meaning to the term "Abso lute" than would the Western Idealist. The third limitation involved the method of sampling. Where it would have been preferable to obtain the sample from a listing of all educational philosophers in all teacher-training institutions and draw the random sample from this listing, due to the impossibility of developing such a list 3 - it was decided to draw the sample from a list ing of all institutions of higher learning with teacher-training de partments according to the categories of administrative control and of geographic location. Organization of the Study The organization of this study falls logically into six parts corresponding to the six chapters. Introductory considerations neces sary for an understanding of the purposes, nature, scope, and method ology of the study are treated in Chapter I. Related Philippine and ^Developing such a list would require requesting all teacher- training institutions for the information. If it took eight months to get fifteen institutions to complete the checklists, . . . 19 American studies and literature and their relevance to the present study are described and discussed in Chapter IX. Chapter III is a de scription of the research procedures followed by the investigator and of the instrument used for gathering the data. Chapters IV and V constitute the heart of the study. The tabulation of the findings into meaningful classifications is given in Chapter IV, and Chapter V is devoted to the analysis and interpretation of the findings. The summary, conclusions, and recommendations are presented in the final chapter, Chapter VI. Summary The main purpose of this study was the investigation of the philosophical and educational beliefs of educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions. This study was considered important in view of the lack of any investigation into the actual be liefs of Philippine educators and in view of the search in Philippine educational circles for a philosophy of education suitable for the Philippine community. Various hypotheses based on educational litera ture, philosophy, Philippine culture, and on the investigator's educa tional experience in the Philippines were formulated for the purpose of giving direction to the study. The data-collection instrument and techniques used in the investigation are explained in Chapter III. CHAPTER II SURVEY OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURE A number of studies in the field of educational philosophy have been undertaken in the Philippines. These studies are mainly theoretical in nature— some normative, others analytical; but none is devoted to an objective identification of the actual philosophical beliefs of Philippine educators . - * * Similarly, although much has been written in the United States about the different schools of thought and the theoretical controver sies in the field of educational philosophy, there have been only a few investigations concerning the actual philosophical beliefs of edu cators. A review of related literature in the United States shows that it was only after World War II that studies specifically aimed at identifying philosophic beliefs on the metaphysical level were under taken. As late as 1956, Robert Downey stated: There have been only a few investigations of the actual philos ophical beliefs of educators. These investigations have been ■^•National Science Development Board, Compilation of Graduate Theses Prepared in the Philippines, 1913-1960 (Manila: NSDB Printing Press, 1962); National Science Development Board, Compilation of Grad uate Theses Prepared in the Philippines, 1961-1965 (Manila: NSDB Printing Press, 1967); National Library of the Philippines, "List of Theses and Dissertations Available In the Filipiniana Division," Manila, 1971. (Mimeographed.) 20 21 limited, for the most part, to philosophies of a social, econ omic, political or educational nature.1 These investigations, which are related to the present study, will be reviewed briefly in the following pages. Survey of American Studies Manly Harper's study of the social beliefs and attitudes of American educators.2 One of the first investigations concerning edu cational beliefs of educators in the United States was conducted by Manly Harper in 1922.^ About 3,000 educators representing every state were tested in a study whose two-fold purpose was: (1) to study in American educators the status of certain fun damental social beliefs and attitudes as included in the trait conservatism-liberalism-radicalism, and (2) to develop a conveniently practical scale for further use in the mea surement and study of this trait in relation to some of the more urgent aspects of our unsolved problems.4 Harper developed his own instrument, which was composed of seventy-one statements representative of the conservative and "non conservative (more liberal or radical)" points of view and which was answered on an agreement-disagreement scale. Harper found that there were, at the most, only very minor differences among the educators ■^Robert James Downey, "An Identification of the Philosophical Beliefs of Educators in the Field of Health Education" (unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1956), p. 13. ^Manly H. Harper, Social Beliefs and Attitudes of American Educators (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927). ^The study itself was published only in 1927. ^Harper, Social Beliefs and Attitudes, p. 2. 22 tested on the factors of sex, age, religious denomination affiliation and political party affiliation.-*- However, . . . as a rule the greater the stability, the greater the in dependence, the greater the consistency, the greater the sci entific attitude in thinking on the fundamental conceptions and issues of the test, . . . the higher was found to be the position in non-conservatism.2 Harper also found that educators in general were relatively conserva tive in their social attitudes as compared to a selected group of graduate students. Harper’s study is similar to the present study with respect to (1) general method and (2) concern about the beliefs of educators. However, the two studies differ in (1) the types of educators sampled, (2) the nature of the content measured, and (3) the fundamental pur poses of the studies. The present study, though interested in certain social attitudes of Philippine educators, is primarily interested in their basic philosophical beliefs. Claud E. Arnett’s study of the social beliefs and attitudes of American school board members. Arnett’s study, described by both Wegener and Downey,3 made use of a slightly modified version of "The Harper Social Belief and Attitude Test" to investigate the social beliefs and attitudes of American school board members regarding some - * -Ibid., pp. 47-49. 2Ibid., p. 75. ^Frank Corliss Wegener, "The Philosophical Beliefs of Leaders in American Education" (unpublished doctor’s dissertation, University of Southern California, 1946), pp. 31-32; Downey, "An Identification of the Philosophical Beliefs of Educators in the Field of Health Edu cation," pp. 14-15. 23 of the important social, economic, international, and educational issues in American life. Arnett received replies from 1,076 of these persons and found them to be conservative, especially toward religion, politics, and economics.1 The similarities and differences between Harper’s study and the pres ent study apply equally in the case of Arnett's study. Francis Peterson's study of the philosophies of education cur rent in the preparation of teachers in the United States.^ Peterson's study, concluded in 1933, had two major purposes: (1) to develop a method, including some form of instrument, of discovering the views upon certain crucial educational issues held by the teaching personnel in institutions for the professional preparation of teachers, and (2) with the method and instrument thus developed, to make an intensive study of the theoretical positions held by the staffs of a number of teacher-training institutions in America,3 Peterson's study was limited to four teachers colleges, twelve normal schools, and nine liberal arts colleges in the East and Midwest. With the exception of two teachers colleges, all members of the staff were requested to mark the materials which consisted of (1) Harper's social belief and attitude test, and (2) a 79-item checklist of edu cational beliefs. Among Peterson's twenty-five conclusions, the four major ones were: ^Downey, "An Identification of the Philosophical Beliefs of Educators in the Field of Health Education," p. 15. ^Francis E. Peterson, Philosophies of Education Current in the Preparation of Teachers in the United States (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1933). ^Ibid., p. 2. 24 (1) To a significant degree, teachers are not aware of the more subtle implications and assumptions which underlie the positions for which they declare themselves on the various issues. (2) The members of each of the teaching staffs differ widely among themselves with reference to their general point of view on educational problems. (3) Teacher opinion is in considerable degree 'sloganized* in the case of educational trends and it is evident that, in many instances, teachers have little more than a verbal acquaintance with the movements which have been exten sively advocated. (4) Many teachers lack a unified point of view. That is, they have not formulated a well-ordered, thought-out philosophic outlook in terms of which to judge problems and issues.^ Regarding two of Peterson's findings, namely, that teachers were not aware of the implications underlying their declared positions and that teachers had little more than a verbal acquaintance with the movements they advocated, it is interesting to note that twenty years later another investigator, using different techniques, drew conclu sions similar to those of Peterson.2 Peterson’s study and the present one are similar in the fol lowing areas: (1) general methodology, (2) utilization of similar belief checklists, (3) concern with educators in charge of teacher training. The differences are found in (1) content, (2) size of popu lation surveyed, and (3) purpose. The present study goes beyond mere 1Ibid., p. 122. ^W. A. Oliver, "Teachers' Educational Beliefs Versus Their Classroom Practices," Journal of Educational Research, XLVII (Septem ber, 1953), 47-55. 25 educational principles into the metaphysical level of philosophic thought and is a nationwide survey. Frederick Bair’s study of the social understandings of the superintendent of schools.^ Bair in 1934 addressed himself to . . . a consideration of the Superintendent of Schools as an agent in relating education, by way of cause and control, to change— more particularly, education in the form of increas ing study of live social problems in all levels of the public school.^ In this nationwide study Bair used the Harper social attitudes test but supplemented this instrument with a form of his own to elicit factual data and opinions on social and educational problems. The form developed by Bair combined open-ended questions, checklist items, ranking items, and biographical data. Two of Bair’s important find ings were: The Superintendent of Schools is very definitely of the opinion that the public schools should treat with reason able thoroughness vital contemporary social issues, and that they are not now doing so. Among the chief reasons why the schools are not dealing adequately with live issues, in the opinion of the superinten dents, are the general lack of understanding of the importance of doing so, the lack of easy and established ways and means for the teacher, as against the wealth and ease of method and materials applied to embalmed issues, the lack of preparation and capacity of the teacher for such work, and the lack of phi losophy and courage on the part of the administrator to grapple with education as a living and a creative force.3 Bair’s study is similar to the present study in (1) general methodology and (2) its nationwide scope; but it differs in (1) the ^-Frederick Haigh Bair, The Social Understandings of the Super intendent of Schools (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934). 2Ibid., p. 3. 3Ibid., p. 15. 26 educational population sampled, (2) the content, and (3) the format of the second form used by Bair. Merle Scott Ward’s study of the philosophies of administration current in the deanship of the liberal arts college. 1 - In 1934 Ward concluded a study which had for one of its purposes ... to discover the opinions, controlling ideas and philos ophies held by deans in their relation to four major areas of service, namely, (1) purpose of the college, (2) curriculum, (3) improvement of instruction, and (4) student welfare.2 To gather his data, Ward used three instruments: (1) a his torical questionnaire, (2) a 74-item multiple-choice checklist of statements covering the four areas of service in higher education, and (3) CottrellTs "Test on Controversial Issues." A total of 330 deans representing colleges in all states participated in the study. Ward discovered that the deans generally agreed in that (1) the purpose of the liberal arts college needs to be clarified and adapted to the present needs of students, (2) a national educational college entrance policy would prove unwise and harmful, and (3) personality and teaching O ability are the prime requisites of a college instructor. Ward's study is similar to the present study in (1) the use of objective techniques to measure subjective judgments, (2) concern for beliefs of educators, and (3) the nationwide scope of the survey. The two studies differ in (1) the group of educators surveyed, (2) the level of philosophical principles, and (3) the purpose. 1-Merle Scott Ward, Philosophies of Administration Current in the Deanship of the Liberal Arts College (New York: Bureau of Publi cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934). 2lbid., p. 4. 3ibid., p. 87. 27 Frank Wegener’s study of the philosophical beliefs of leaders In American education.^ In 1946 Wegener conducted a study whose main purposes were: (1) to discover the metaphysical beliefs of leaders in Ameri can education; (2) to determine some of the basic educational principles favored by these same educators; (3) to discover the consensus of belief in regard to these matters and to fur ther interpret them in terms of broad patterns if possible; (4) to ascertain the metaphysical and educational principles which might be favored by the proponents of specific schools of thought in philosophy and education; . . .2 Wegener constructed his own data—collection instrument, a fifty-item checklist of statements of beliefs which respondents an swered on a five—point scale. Three thousand names were chosen from the directory Leaders in Education, from which Wegener chose every sixth name "beginning with the a’s and extending through the z's."3 Approximately one-third of the educators circulated responded. Wegener found that educators of all schools of thought were in majority agreement upon forty per cent of the principles presented to them, that the majority of educators were dominantly disposed toward the Idealistic point of view, and that, along with principles of Es- sentlallsm, the majority seemed favorably disposed toward a pragmatic and progressive education.4 The present study has much in common with Wegener’s study. Both were nationwide in scope; both were concerned with metaphysical ■^Wegener, "The Philosophical Beliefs of Leaders in American Education," 2Ibid., pp. 1-2. 3Ibid., p. 21. 4Ibid., pp. 371-377. 28 beliefs of educators; both used the same kind of instrument and the same methodology in the collection of data; both used objective tech niques in measuring subjective data; both were interested in searching out commonalities. The two studies differ in (1) educational popula tion sampled, (2) the extension of ethical concepts to possible cul tural bias, and (3) time— there being a gap of twenty-six years be tween the two studies. Wegener's study provided the writer of the present study with insights on the content of the investigation, and some of the items in Wegener's checklist were utilized by the writer in developing his own checklist of beliefs. W. A. Oliver's study of the relationship between teachers' be liefs and practices. I n 1953 Oliver published the results of his study "to determine to what extent the classroom situation reflected the concepts embodied in statements of educational beliefs."2 A fifty-item checklist of educational beliefs was developed by Oliver to determine the extent to which teachers accepted the concepts em bodied in the following four principles of learning: (1) good teach ing recognizes and provides for individual differences among children; (2) human growth and development is a continuous process; (3) real learning is based upon experiencing; and (4) learning proceeds best when related to the interests and experiences of the learner. The checklist was administered to 119 teachers. The next phase of the study was concerned with the evaluation of the classroom practices of ^Oliver, "Teachers' Educational Beliefs Versus Their Class room Practices." 2M . ) . P - .53. 29 the same 119 teachers as reflected in the learning situations in their classrooms. The evaluative device was divided into the four main di visions representing the four principles of learning on which the study was based. Under each of these appeared a number of subheads descriptive of types of educational practices one would expect to find in a classroom implementing the stated principles.^ Oliver concluded that there was little relationship between the professed educational beliefs of these teachers and their class room practices. Oliver blamed this poor correlation on the failure to provide teachers with basic understandings and techniques consis tent with the accepted principles of learning. The present study is similar to Oliver’s in (1) the use of a checklist of beliefs and (2) the categorization of these beliefs. The two studies differ in that (1) Oliver proceeds beyond identifica tion of beliefs to correlation of beliefs with classroom practices; (2) the present study delves into metaphysical beliefs whereas Oli ver's study limits itself to four principles of learning; and (3) Oliver’s population was limited to elementary and secondary teachers in a limited area. Robert Downey’s study of the philosophical beliefs of educa tors in the field of health education.^ In 1956 Downey addressed him self to the problem of discovering "the basic beliefs of the personnel 1Ibid. ^Downey, "An Identification of the Philosophical Beliefs of Educators in the Field of Health Education." 30 responsible for teacher education in health education in such a way as to identify these beliefs and to indicate the positions and di rections professional preparation in health education may be taking. " • * • Downey’s instrument for data collection was patterned after that ap pended to Lodge's Philosophy of Education.^ The Lodge test was a 36- item scale designed to ascertain the educational philosophy of the individual, and it was originally developed by the faculty of George Peabody College.^ From fifty-four respondents representing forty-six institu tions offering a degree with a major in health education data was col lected. From the analysis of the data Downey drew this major conclu sion: There is no one philosophical pattern that represents the beliefs of educators in health education. Rather a general eclectic pattern seems to prevail with some rather strong tendencies toward Pragmatism.4 The similarities between Downey's study and the present one are found in (1) the attempt to identify philosophical beliefs of edu cators (2) in the teacher-training field (3) by means of similar me thodology (4) in a nationwide survey. The two studies differ in 1Ibid., p. 2. ^Rupert C. Lodge, Philosophy of Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), pp. 337-341. ■^E. N. Enlow, "Identify Your Educational Philosophy," Peabody Journal of Education, XVII (July, 1939), 19-23. ^Downey, "An Identification of the Philosophical Beliefs of Educators in the Field of Health Education," p. 142. 31 (1) the format of the instrument and (2) the area of specialization among teacher educators. Fred Kerlinger’s study to measure basic educational atti tudes .^ In 1958 Kerlinger published the results of his study based on the hypothesis that educational thought was characterized by the di chotomy of restrictive-traditional attitudes and permissive-progressive attitudes. Ten statements were developed for each of the following areas under both the restrictive-traditional and permissive-progressive attitude categories: (1) teaching— subject matter— curriculum, (2) in terpersonal relations, (3) normative or social issues connected with education. This instrument was administered to a group of university professors and a group of laymen. Kerlinger found that progressivism and traditionalism in edu- o cation are "real" entities. Kerlinger concluded that these two enti ties are also probably real in the practical world influencing the behavior of both educators and laymen. . . . they are the action dispositions of philosophies of edu cation. The educational decisions we make, what we teach, what we learn, and how we interact with other persons on edu cational matters are, of course, influenced by our educational attitudes and values.3 Similarities between the present study and Kerlinger’s are found in (1) concern with underlying educational beliefs, (2) use of a beliefs instrument, and (3) the development of a pattern to discover ■'•Fred N. Kerlinger, "Progressivism and Traditionalism: Basic Educational Attitudes," School Review, LXVI (March, 1958), 80-92. ^lbid., p. 90. 3jbid., pp. 90-91. 32 the categories of main beliefs held by the respondents. The differ ences are in (1) the content of the instrument, (2) the greater number of categories in the present study, and (3) the population sampled. Gowin, Newsome, and Chandler’s study of logical consistency of ideas about education in 1961. - * - What eventually became known as the GNC scale was developed by Gowin, Newsome, and Chandler at the Univer sity of Georgia as one aspect of an experimental teacher preparation program. The GNC instrument was developed because "logical consis tency of ideas about education has positive value."2 Furthermore, While there are instruments to appraise critical thinking, and numerous tests of teacher attitude such as the MTAI and the Kerlinger Scale, there are no available instruments to appraise the logical consistency of an individual's ideas about education.3 The GNC scale is a Q-sort instrument consisting of fifty statements representing the rationalistic school of thought in philosophy and fifty statements representing the empiricist school of thought. The reason for this dichotomous structure of the instrument was thus stated by the investigators: Although there are numerous gradations between extreme philo sophical positions, philosophy can be classified in terms of rationalism and empiricism.^ The statements were an adaptation of the metaphysical to the level of the practical. Two statements by way of examples are given below, the 1-D. B. Gowin, G. L. Newsome, and K. A. Chandler, "A Scale to Study Logical Consistency of Ideas About Education,” Journal of Psy chology , LI (April, 1961), 443-455. 2Ibid., p. 443. 3Ibid. ^Ibid., p. 445. 33 first illustrating the empiricistic view and the second the rational istic view: If standards and values are to function effectively in the learner's life, then they must be created by the learner him self out of his own experiences, including critical evalua tions of the experiences of others. A teacher of physics may teach that physical laws are unchang ing and certain in their essential nature, although some slight error of measurement may make their particular expression in the classroom crude and imperfect.^ A reliability coefficient of +.86 was determined by test- retest correlation of the GNC scale on a group of eighteen teachers. The present study is similar to that of Gowin, Newsome, and Chandler in (1) concern about educators' beliefs and (2) the use of philosophical beliefs in education as items of the instrument. The differences are found in (1) the purpose, (2) the scaling and weight ing procedures for measurement, and (3) the size of the teacher group tested. Studies by Drewry and Weaver with the modified GNC scale.2 The GNC scale was modified by Drewry to reveal the degree to which one holds to either the rationalistic or empiricistic philosophies. This same instrument was used by Weaver to determine whether there were significant differences in the educational views of doctoral students in educational administration. ^Xbid., p. 449; cf. George L. Newsome, Jr., and D. B. Gowin, "Problems of Construct Validity and the GNC Scale," Educational Theory, XVIII (Fall, 1968), 338-353. ^Andrew M. Weaver, "The Philosophic Orientation of Doctoral Students in Educational Administration" (unpublished doctor's dis sertation, University of Tennessee, 1960). 34 The conservative philosophy test of David Ryans^ and the ex periment alls tic philosophy test of Curran, Gordon, and Doyle.2 Ryans in 1961, as part of the Teacher Characteristics Study, developed a twenty-item forced-choice instrument to yield an estimate of conserva tive educational viewpoints. According to Curran and his confreres, Ryans’ test- ... is not really a measure of a philosophy of education but rather of a psychological dimension of attitude toward pupils and those aspects of teacher behavior which relate to inter personal relationships, teacher's organization (poised- excitable, disorganized-systematic, etc.) and mode of presenta tion (dull-stimulating, stereotyped-original).3 Curran, Gordon, and Doyle used forty items from the GNC scale and added items from the tests of Kerlinger, Oliver, Ryans, and Sayers.^ in addition, a set of epistemological items was included from the work of a faculty committee at the University of Florida. The resulting scale was administered several times to graduate and undergraduate University of Florida classes in order to select items with significant discriminatory power. As a result of the final item analysis, twenty-five items were selected for a short test which would measure a subject’s predisposition to express a philosophy of ^David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Washington, D.C. American Council on Education, 1960), pp. 152-153. ^R. L. Curran, I. J. Gordon, and J. F. Doyle, "A Short Test of One's Educational Philosophy," Educational and Psychological Measure ment, XXVI (Summer, 1966), 383-393. 3lbid., p. 384. “ ^Sayers had developed a test of consistent agreement with the educational philosophy of experimentality but had not at that time published the results of his study. 35 education that could be termed experimentailstic.1 Of interest is the analysis of the tests administered to the students: graduate students were more experimental in their educational views than undergraduate students. Bob Brown's Experimentalism Scale.2 This was a composite of three parts: (1) the Personal Beliefs Questionnaire, consisting of 122 statements of basic philosophies concerning the relation of know ledge and action; (2) the Teacher Practices Questionnaire, consisting of 150 statements describing teacher practices concerned with the re lation of subject matter and method; and (3) the Teacher Practices Observation Record, consisting of sixty-two items of teacher practices which were either positive or negative with respect to Dewey's philos ophy of experimentalism. The scores from the three tests were com pared within the same theoretical framework. In 1968 Neil Thomas developed an instrument to determine the philosophical and educational beliefs of teachers.3 The instrument consisted of fifteen items to survey philosophical beliefs and seven teen items to survey educational beliefs. Under each of the items •^Curran et al.. "A Short Test of One's Educational Philosophy," p. 387. ^Mervin Curtis Hamrick, "A Critical Incident Approach to Iden tification of the Philosophical Position of Classroom Teachers" (un published doctor's dissertation, University of Florida, 1969), pp. 12-15. %eil Eugene Thomas, "An Instrument to Determine Whether Certain Fundamental Philosophical and Educational Beliefs Are Held by Selected Public School Teachers in the Areas of Elementary Education, Secondary Education, and Guidance" (unpublished doctor's dissertation, North Texas State University, 1968). 36 were four statements representative of the philosophies of Realism, Idealism, Pragmatism, and Existentialism, from which the respondents chose one with which they agreed most and one with which they dis agreed most. The instrument was administered three times to each of three separate groups at North Texas State University. The instrument developed by Thomas is similar in its general multiple-choice format to the instruments of Lodge (three choices) and of Downey (four choices). In this respect it differs from the beliefs checklist used in the present study. The philosophical statements used by Thomas were similar to those used by the writer and some of statements were incorporated in the beliefs checklist developed for the present study. The preceding studies of Drewry, Weaver, Ryans, Curran et al., Sayers, Brown, and Thomas have one strong similarity to the present study in the attempt to identify philosophic beliefs of educators by means of objective measurements; but, where the present study uses an instrument merely as a means to discover the philosophic patterns among Philippine educators, the other studies concentrate on the instrument itself and its refinement. It must be noted that the studies of Brown and Oliver added a new dimension in the development of instruments for determining teachers’ educational philosophies. Both investigators attempted to correlate teachers * beliefs with their classroom practices. But the format of the instrument remained basically the same; namely, (1) a statement of beliefs (2) to be checked for agreement or disagreement 37 (3) on a dichotomous to a five-point scale, or (4) a multiple-choice type of checklist. Another approach in the identification of one’s philosophy has been developed. This is the critical incident approach. A person’s philosophical viewpoint is discovered by having the person respond to statements of particular situations in concrete educational contexts representing actual applications of certain internalized philosophical beliefs. Eugene Smith and Ralph Tyler’s test for social sensitivity of students. - * - In their book, Appraising and Recording Student Progress, Smith and Tyler included a test to measure the social sensitivity of students in social studies class by posing a series of problems. Each problem was followed by: (1) a democratic solution, (2) an undemo cratic solution, and (3) a solution which was untenable in terms of the first two. Students were asked to read the problem, check the solution they favored, and then check any of the reasons given which they felt supported the solution they had selected. Smith and Tyler reasoned that items to which people respond should be stated in terns of certain problems and issues rather than as abstractions without particular contexts. The critical incident technique grew out of studies In the Aviation Psychology Program of the Army Air Force in World War II. This technique has been adequately described by Flanagan and by •*-Eugene R. Smith and Ralph W. Tyler, Appraising and Recording Student Progress (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942), pp. 157-224. 38 Mayhew»l the latter adapting the technique specifically to educational evaluation. The Hamrick study for the identification of the philosophical position of classroom teachers.2 in 1969 Hamrick published the re sults of his study which had for its purpose ... to develop and try out an instrument which will provide information indicative of the nature of the theoretical frame work from which a teacher makes decisions, and ultimately acts, with respect to the purpose of formal education, the nature of the curriculum, the function of teaching, and the role of the school in society.3 Hamrick’s Instrument utilized the critical incident approach and was composed of ten incidents descriptive of situations in which problems related to educational goals, subject matter, curriculum, and the like must be considered by the person involved in the situa tion.^ Five incidents were taken from a compilation of case studies by Hodgkinson,^ two incidents were paraphrased from situations de scribed by Brackenbury,^ two from a collection of critical incidents Ijohn C. Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Technique," Psycho logical Bulletin, LI (July, 1954), 327-358; Lewis B. Mayhew, "The Critical Incident Technique in Educational Evaluation," Journal of Educational Research, XLIX (April, 1956), 591-598. 2Hamrick, "A Critical Incident Approach to Identification of the Philosophical Position of Classroom Teachers." ^Ibid., pp. 4-5. ^ibid., p. 6. ^Harold i. Hodgkinson, Educational Decisions; A Casebook (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963). ^Robert L. Brackenbury, Getting Down to Cases: A Problems Approach to Educational Philosophizing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1959). 39 edited by Corsinl and Howard,-*- and one from a curriculum supervisor in Florida.^ Five response items were developed for each incident; one each for the theories of progressivism, essentialism, perennialism, and existentialism, and one which reflected no educational theory.3 The instrument was administered to 100 inservice teachers in classes at Florida Atlantic University and 100 inservice teachers in classes at the University of South Florida. Hamrick discovered that teachers in the older age bracket (35-63 years old) selected more perennialist items than those in the younger age bracket; that females chose more progressive items than males; that teachers with ten or more years of teaching experience selected more perennialist items than those with less than ten years of teaching experience; that those holding education degrees selected more existentialist items than those holding other than education degrees.4 Obviously the present study differs from Hamrick's in the type and format of the instrument, although both studies are similar in their concern for, and identification of, the philosophical beliefs of teachers. The Case Method. Very similar to, and practically a "first cousin" of, the critical incident technique is the case method. ■*-R. J. Corsini and D. D. Howard, Critical Incidents in Teach ing (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964). ^Hamrick, "A Critical Incident Approach to Identification of the Philosophical Position of Classroom Teachers," p. 74. 3Ibid., p. 75. *Ibid., pp. 130-131. 40 Harvard University has done much to develop the case method to a high level of proficiency. Harvard University's Graduate School of Educa tion has used the case method to help the student "move dynamically between the general and the concrete, the theory and the practice."^- An example of this approach in the field of educational philosophy is the work of Brackenbury, Getting Down to Cases; A Problems Approach to Educational Philosophizing. Analysis of literature. Other studies have been conducted based on an analysis of the literature or of the philosophical con cepts involved in education. Wegener mentions Norman Woelfel's 1933 study, Molders of the American Mind, published by the Columbia Univer sity Press, and Merle Curti's study on The Social Ideas of American Educators, published by Charles Scribner's Sons in 1935.2 Woelfel analyzed the social views of seventeen selected leaders in American education and Curti presented the social views of educational leaders in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Edward Oliver's study of the philosophic confrontations in education.^ in 1969 Edward Oliver conducted a study in the manner of Woelfel's analysis and Curti's summary of social views of educators. The purpose of the study was ^•Cyril G. Sargent and Eugene L. Belisle, Educational Adminis tration; Cases and Concepts (Boston: Houghton and Mifflin Company, 1955), vii. ^Wegener, "The Philosophical Beliefs of Leaders in American Education," pp. 37-40. ^Edward Peter Oliver, "Philosophic Confrontations in Educa tion" (unpublished doctor's dissertation, George Washington Univer sity, 1969). 41 . . . to explore through the literature the Influence and the impact of the philosophic positions of Perennialism, Essen- tialism, Experimentalism, and Existentialism, and to illustrate the interaction of these philosophic positions in American education today, and therefore the need for philosophic con frontation.! Among his ten conclusions, Oliver stated that a person's edu cational philosophy is arrived at through his views on deity, nature, man, and himself; that educational methods, skills, and techniques are often obsolete because of the incredible changes taking place; and, therefore, that the product of our educational system is often obsolete.2 Relationship between educational philosophy and practice. Im plicit in many of the preceding studies is the assumption that educa tional practice is logically derived from a philosophic commitment. However, this kind of relationship has been questioned by some educa tional philosophers. In 1953 W. A. Oliver's study produced experi mental data to show poor relationship between educational theory and practice.^ in 1967 Lauderdale rejected the concept of "educational implication" in the relationship obtaining between theory and prac tice. ^ Lauderdale's contention was that philosophic systems play the role of guide in educational practice but not the role of logical ^Ibid., p. 9. ^Ibid.t p. 273. ^W. Oliver, "Teachers' Educational Beliefs Versus Their Class room Practices." ^William Burt Lauderdale, "The Relationship Between Philo sophic Systems and Educational Practice" (unpublished doctor's dis sertation, Michigan State University, 1967). 42 necessitators. The connection between philosophic systems and educa tional practice, according to Lauderdale, can best be defined as . . . the process which (1) judges the relevancy of ques tions pertaining to educational practices by the utiliza tion of the defining characteristics of philosophic systems, (2) seeks reasonable answers to these relevant questions, and (3) allows these answers to serve as a basis for establishing educational practices.^ The present study avoided taking a definite stand on any theory of connectionism between philosophy and educational practice. But it assumed the presence of such a connection. For indeed such a connection is posited whether within the framework of the theory of logical inference exemplified in the works of Broudy, Morris, Butler, and Lodge;^ or within the context of Burnett's theory of "situational implication";^ or within the framework of Lauderdale's theory. Phi losophy, so far as this writer is concerned, does exert an influence ilbid., pp. 108-109. ^H. S. Broudy, "How Philosophical Can Philosophy of Education Be?" Journal of Philosophy, LXI (October 27, 1966), 612-622; Morris, Philosophy and the American School; J. Donald Butler, Four Philoso phies and Their Practice in Education and Religion (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951); Lodge, Philosophy of Education. A last note on the theory of logical inference or "educational implication": the direction of Influence is usually taken to be from theory to practice. However, Conklin, who accepts the notion of edu cational implication, holds that the movement need not be only from philosophy to educational practice but also the other way— from prac tice to philosophic theory. Conklin further holds that there is aesthetic relevance in addition to causal and correlational relevance between philosophy and educational practice. Kenneth Robert Conklin, "The Properties of Relevance Between Philosophy and Education," Edu cational Theory, XX (Fall, 1970), 356-364. ^Lauderdale, "The Relationship Between Philosophic Systems and Educational Practice," pp. 18-31. 43 on educational practice either (1) by means of logical inference at the most or (2) at the very minimum as a guide when the relevance of the educational practice to one's philosophy is perceived. A philosophical idea is like a stone dropped into water; its influence goes out in rings, over the whole do main if it is strong, or else until it becomes negligible. Survey of Philippine Studies The Monroe Survey Commission.^ The first comprehensive study of the Philippine educational system was made in 1925 by the Board of Educational Survey, more commonly known as the Monroe Survey Commis sion.^ Paul Monroe was chairman of the Commission whose members ob served classroom work in all educational levels, administered achieve ment tests to 32,000 pupils from Grade I through First Year of college, and examined 223,710 examination records. Some of the findings on the scholastic achievement of Filipino school children were as follows: (1) from Grade VI on, Filipino children could spell as well as Amer ican children; (2) Filipino children had as much arithmetical skill as American children, surpassed them from Grades III to VI, and equalled them in Grade VII; (3) Filipino high-school seniors knew less about the scientific world than American pupils in Grade VII. ■^-Langer, "On the Relations Between Philosophy and Education," p. 141. 2 Board of Educational Survey, A Survey of the Educational System of the Philippine Islands (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1925). ^Some of the other members of the Commission were: Carter Alexander, in charge of finance and administration; George S. Counts, in charge of high schools; and Harold Rugg, in charge of testing. 44 The Monroe Survey Commission recommended that the Bureau of Education be modified in order to humanize some of its functions and the large number of written reports required of teachers and adminis trators. Also criticized as being too mechanical in nature was the supervisory work of the Bureau which had degenerated into mere check ing up on compliance with the numerous regulations and on the making of reports. The inevitable result of this situation is that supervision has not only degenerated into inspection, but inspection has degenerated into espionage.1 Nevertheless, the highly centralized administration of the Philippine schools under the Bureau of Education was praised by the Commission n and deemed desirable for the Philippines. Joint Committee on Education.3 After the Monroe Survey Com mission had submitted its report, the Senate and the House of Repre sentatives of the Philippines created a Joint Committee on Education, which conducted its own study of the school system by personal visi tation, conferences, and public hearings. Some of the recommendations made by the Committee were: (1) that the community be allowed to participate in educational matters; (2) that there be more profes sional leadership in the Bureau of Education; (3) that an advisory committee be created to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of •1-Board of Educational Survey, A Survey of the Educational System of the Philippine Islands, p. 63. 2Ibid. ^Joint Legislative Committee, Report on Education, Camilo Osias, chairman (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1926). 45 the present centralized administration; (4) that more rural high schools be established and the academic high schools be freed from college domination; (5) that the secondary curriculum be reevaluated so as to eliminate verbalistic learning; (6) that the University of the Philippines coordinate its offerings with the private colleges and universities; (7) that private schools be given ample freedom in mat ters of administration and curriculum. The Prosser Study.Charles Prosser in 1930 undertook a sur vey of vocational education in the Philippines. He recommended that the four-year course in provincial trade schools be reorganized to require only two years of attendance; and he believed that the Philip pines should inaugurate an intensive system of vocational education in lieu of the academic high schools so as to increase the earning capacity of the population. The Quezon Educational Survey Committee.^ A compromise in the academic-versus-vocational battle was proposed by the Quezon Educa tional Survey Committee in 1935. The Committee, composed in the main ^•C. A. Prosser, A General Report on Vocational Education in the Philippine Islands (Manila: Bureau of Education, 1930). This is the same Charles A. Prosser whose influence was felt quite strongly in the Life Adjustment Education movement of the 1940’s in the United States. In 1929 Prosser stated: "When the schools have been inte grated with life so that learners utilize in school experiences they get outside of school and apply outside of school what they learn in school, the two will be integrated. An organic connection having once been established between organized education and this changing civili zation, the two will act together." First Commission on Life Adjust ment Education for Youth, Vitalizing Secondary Education, Bulletin 1951, No. 3 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 28. ^Quezon Educational. Commission, Quezon Educational Survey Re port, Jorge C. Bocobo, chairman (Manila: U.P. Press, 1936). 46 of educators from the Bureau of Education, the state university, and private institutions of higher learning, recommended a three-year general high school with a curriculum consisting of forty per cent vocational and sixty per cent academic subjects. Those going on to college would take two years of college preparatory courses after general high school course.* The Committee also urged the reorganiza tion of the Bureau of Education, which in its opinion was top heavy and too complicated. The Bureau should be simplified in order to re duce routine work, promote efficiency, and produce better results. The Committee urged the continuance of English as the medium of in struction but encouraged experimentation on the use of the vernacular in school. Furthermore, Tagalog^ should be included as a required subject in the high school and college. The following year the National Assembly, through Commonwealth Act No. 180, made even stricter the authority of the Secretary of Public Instruction over private schools and placed all private educa tion under the newly established office of Director of Private Educa tion. ^Thirty years later the same recommendation for a three-year basic secondary school followed by a two-year collegiate secondary or vocational secondary course was made by another government educational survey commission headed by Vicente Sinco, then president of the Uni versity of the Philippines. In 1970 the same recommendation was again made by the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education in its report, Education for National Development; New Patterns, New Directions (Manila, 1970), p. 78. ^Later the term "Tagalog1 1 was dropped in favor of "National Language," which in turn was changed by order of the Secretary of Edu cation in 1959 to "Pilipino." 47 The Educational Act of 1940. Manuel L. Quezon, President of the Philippine Commonwealth, created the Joint Educational Survey Committee in 1939 to survey the educational system and "to formulate plans and measures to enable the government to maintain a school sys tem in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution."^ The members of the Committee were from the President’s Cabinet, the National As sembly, and the Bureau of Education. The findings of the Joint Edu cational Survey Committee were never released for publication but were made the basis of Commonwealth Act No. 586, more commonly known as the Educational Act of 1940, which made extensive revisions in elementary education. As a result of the Educational Act of 1940, formal grade-school education was shortened from seven to six years in the public schools and in most of the private schools, and the use of double sessions on the elementary-school level was authorized. However, private schools intent on maintaining high academic standards kept the seventh grade and the majority of private schools kept operating on the single session schedule. Joint Congressional Committee on Education. Two years after the Philippines had gained political independence, Congress created the Joint Congressional Committee on Education in 1948 to survey and make recommendations on the war-ravaged educational system. Acting on the report of the Committee, Congress passed Republic Act No. 896, 1-Florencio P. Fresnoza and Canuto P. Casim, Essentials of the Philippine Educational System (rev.; Manila: Abiva Publishing House, Inc., 1964), p. 502. 48 known as the Elementary Education Act of 1953. One of the provisions ordered the reestablishment of Grade VII, but this provision was never implemented for lack of funds.The method used by the Joint Congres sional Committee on Education is all too commonly found in educational studies or surveys conducted by the Philippine Congress; namely, to visit various schools, "observe classes, hold hearings, and conduct group and Individual interviews to determine the educational needs of the country. The UNESCO Consultative Educational Mission to the Philippines in 1949 visited numerous public and private schools, observed classes, and conferred with educators and teachers.^ The Mission listed some of the chief problems in Philippine education as: (1) the use of a foreign language as the primary medium of instruction, while pupils were also learning the National Language which was unfamiliar to all but the Tagalog-speaking pupils; (2) overcrowded classrooms, half-day sessions and the elimination of Grade VII; and (3) the poor prepara tion of teachers. Because the last-named problem was considered very important and because most teachers were graduated from private insti tutions of learning, the Mission recommended that the Department of Education should strengthen and enforce minimum requirements in private ^Herman C, Gregorio, School Administration and Supervision (rev.; Quezon City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Company, 1961), p. 452. ^Fresnoza and Caslm, Essentials of the Philippine Educational System, p. 504. ^UNESCO Educational Mission, Report of the Mission to the Philippines (Paris: UNESCO, 1950). 49 teacher-training institutions.-*- Regarding the language problem, a vigorous research program was recommended.2 The Magsaysay Committee on General Education.^ This Committee, under the chairmanship of Francisco Dalupan, began its study in 1954 and completed its report in 1957. The purpose of the study was "to determine the role of general education in Philippine schools and col leges and to suggest measures for its improvement."4 The study was philosophical in its definition of the aims and objectives of general education in Philippine schools. Tests were administered to attempt to discover the scholastic achievement of students in Philippine high schools and a questionnaire was circulated to discover the status of graduates from the public general high schools.5 Among the recommendations of the Committee were the following: (1) general education in the Philippines must be developed within the Philippine setting; (2) the high school should be reorganized and lengthened to conform to the 3-2 plan; (3) effective reading skills -*Tbid., p. 53. In 1968, ninety-two per cent of the college and university population was enrolled in private institutions of learning (Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education, Education for National Development: New Patterns, New Directions, p. 45). ^Three years later UNESCO published a report urging the use of the vernacular when children begin their education and "extended to as late a stage in education as possible." UNESCO, The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education (Paris: UNESCO, 1953), pp. 45-75. ^Magsaysay Committee on General Education, Toward General Edu cation in the Philippines (Manila: University of the East Press, 1960). 4Ibid.. p. 305. Ibid., pp. 332-333. 50 in English should be developed; (4) teachers need better preparation.1 The Magsaysay Committee was concerned with philosophical underpinnings in its study of general education. Nevertheless, unlike the present study, no attempt was made to discover the actual philosophical beliefs of Philippine educators. Bernardino's study of the Philippine community school.2 The first comprehensive study of Philippine community schools, which was a fast-growing, post-World War XI phenomenon, was completed by Vitaliano Bernardino in 1957. The study analyzes the essential characteristics of the Philippine community school, its aims and procedures, and eval uates its principles and practices. Some of the essential elements of the Philippine community school are: (1) concern with the education of every child, youth, and adult within one broad integrated program, (2) which eventuates in the improvement of the community, (3) in an educational setting which goes beyond the school into the entire com munity, (4) with a curriculum which maximizes use of human and material community resources, (5) centered around life needs, problems, and activities, and (6) operating within the framework of cooperative 3 group process. • IIbid. , pp. 305-323. ^Vitaliano Bernardino, The Philippine Community School (Quezon City: Phoenix Press, Inc., 1958). This publication is based largely on Bernardino's doctoral dissertation (University of the Philippines, 1957). At that time Bernardino was Superintendent of Public Schools in Bulacan. Shortly after, he was appointed Assistant Director of the Bureau of Public Schools. ^Bernardino, The Philippine Community School, pp. 29-30. 51 In his study, Bernardino gathered his data from his own expe riences and those of his colleagues in the community school movement, from articles and books, and from unpublished theses on various aspects of the community school. Study of the philosophic presuppositions of the community school movement in the Philippines.^ In 1963 Liesch published his study of the philosophic assumptions of Philippine community school theorists. Liesch contended that the community school theory . . . is not solely a collection of policy directives but also a concomitant body of statements about the nature of reality, the method of thought and the nature of knowledge. The com munity school theory is a 'closed system' both in the formula tion and in the interdependence of the meaning value of its statements.^ The study of Liesch centered on the literature which emanated from the proponents and organizers of the community school in the Philippines. From these sources, he extracted the underlying meta physical, epistemological, and axiological bases for the community school concepts. In short, Liesch's task was "explicating presupposi tions"— even when the community school theorists themselves were not completely aware of certain presuppositions,^ The present study is similar to that of Liesch in the concern over philosophical beliefs in education; but the two studies differ in the methodology and the scope of the investigation. ^•James Richard Liesch, "Philosophic Presuppositions of the Community School Movement of the Philippines" (unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1963). 2lbid., p. lh. 3Ibid., p. 231. 52 Study of the language problems in Philippine schools. - * - In 1968 Esperanza Castaneda published the results of her study, the purposes of which were: (1) to trace the events which had bearing on the language situ ation in the Philippines; (2) to determine the political and societal developments which gave rise to and accompanied the growth of the language problem; and (3) to analyze the opinions of present-day educators concerning the language problem.2 Castaneda distributed questionnaires to Philippine educational administrators and supervisors, one thousand of whom responded. The great majority of these educators chose English as the most effective medium of instruction and ranked extreme regionalism and the lack of a representative national language as the reasons for the Philippines not solving her language problems. Although the present study and that of Castaneda touch on one common educational issue, namely, that of the language problem, both differ in the over-all content. Both studies, however, are similar in the survey methodology and the nationwide sampling of educators. Study of secondary-school teacher education in Philippine Catholic schools.3 in 1968 Macaria de los Reyes began her study of teacher education in fifty-four Catholic colleges and universities in ■^Esperanza A. G. Castaneda, "Survey of Philippine Educators* Views Concerning the Language Problem of the Philippines" (unpublished doctor’s dissertation, United States International University, 1968). 2Ibid., pp. 2-3. ^Macaria L. de los Reyes, "A Study of Secondary School Teacher Education in Selected Catholic Institutions in the Philippines" (un published doctor’s dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1969). 53 the Philippines. The purposes of her study were: (1) to investigate the secondary school teacher education programs in selected Catholic institutions in the Philip pines; and (2) to examine the findings in order to see how these programs reflect the country’s Catholic educational system's philosophy, aims and objectives, administration and organization, and preparation of future high school teachers.1 Based on her findings, de los Reyes recommended: That teacher education in the context of Catholic edu cation should be reevaluated and redesigned in order to insure the integration of religious instruction with the other aca demic subjects. That the teacher education should also be reevaluated on the basis of the objectives of education set forth by the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) in conjunction with the five fundamental objectives stipulated for both public and private schools by Department Order No. 1, series 1957.2 There were seven other recommendations but only the above two were concerned with educational philosophy. Rather than seek out philosophical principles of schools and teachers, de los Reyes sought out the school's evaluation of its attempt to implement the five gen eral objectives proposed for schools by the Department of Education and the five general objectives proposed by the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines for its member schools.3 The de los Reyes study differs from the present one in (1) gen eral content and purpose, (2) treatment and level of philosophic data, and (3) population surveyed. Both are similar in their reliance on the questionnaire technique for collecting the data. lib id., p. 5. 2ffjjd., p. 87. 3Only two questionnaire items dealt with educational philosophy. 54 Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education.^ Pur suant to Executive Order No. 202, s. 1969, the Commission, composed of seven members drawn from government and private sectors, was appointed with the following tasks assigned to it: (1) To analyze the performance of the educational system and its relevance to development goals. Emphasis should be placed on the system's capacity to meet human re sources development goals, including manpower require ments of national development. It shall also ascertain means for Improving the efficiency of the system within the limits of available resources; (2) To recommend specific ways of improving the system with particular emphasis on developing policies and mecha nisms for channeling resources, according to priorities for the purposes of achieving Improvement in the system generally and meeting qualitative needs particularly; and (3) To identify critical areas in Philippine education for more detailed research and study.^ The Commission completed its work in December of 1970. Among the recommendations made by the Commission were the following: That the first three years in all secondary schools provide a core program which shall be a firm basis for the subsequent academic and vocational/technical courses. That a number of different streams or sets of courses including an academic set and a vocational/technical set be provided in the fourth and fifth years of the system.3 Also recommended by the Commission was the formation of a National Board of Education whose main function was the formulation of educa tional policies and long-range educational plans and whose endorsement was required for any bill on education to be approved by the chief ^Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education, Edu cation for National Development: New Patterns, New Directions. ^Ibid., iii-vi. ^Ibid., p. 78. 55 executive. On the touchy language problem the Commission made the following recommendations: That Pilipino be the main language of instruction at the elementary level with provision for the use of vernacular languages in the first two grades. That Pilipino and English be the languages of instruc tion at the secondary and higher levels.^ Regarding the second recommendation, the Commission believed "that bilingualism in Pilipino and English is both a fact of Philippine na tional life today, as well as a desirable condition in the contempo rary world.112 The Commission pinpointed four "principal negative factors" in Philippine education. Two of these factors are philosophic in nature: (1) the present objectives prescribed for Philippine education are unachievable, and (2) instead of preparing the student "for a worth while place in society," the educational system "primarily prepares the student for the next higher year of schooling. The Presidential Commission survey and the present study are similar in (1) scope, (2) interest in the philosophical basis of edu cation, and (3) the use of random samples. They differ in the norma tive nature of the Presidential Commission and in the attempt of the present study to delve deeper into philosophic beliefs in Philippine education. J-Ibid., p. 119. ^Ibid,, pp. 8-9. ^Ibid., p. 16. 56 Survey of American Literature In preparation for the present study, and especially in the formulation of items for the beliefs checklist, the writer made use of several works in educational philosophy. Four Philosophies and Their Practice in Education and Religion by J. Donald Butler.^ The author explains the philosophies of Natu ralism, Idealism, Realism, and Pragmatism, and describes their char acteristic practices in the fields of education and religion. Butler maintains that philosophic assumptions are so basic and general as to be capable of practical application in every area of experience and endeavor. Butler has succeeded in giving lucid explanations of the metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology of each philosophical school, and, in the chapters applying the philosophic principles to education, has proposed a convincing proof of the philosophy-to-practice movement theory in education. Van Cleve Morris in Philosophy and the American School deals at great length with the philosophies of Idealism, Realism, Neo- Thomism, Experimentalism, Existentialism, and, in a limited manner, with the Analytic Movement.^ After considering the basic philosophic questions, Morris describes and analyzes the principal schools of philosophic thought and shows how their philosophies affect solutions to educational problems. Morris classifies his treatment as the -1-Butler, Four Philosophies and Their Practice in Education and Religion. ^Morris, Philosophy and the American School. 57 "philosophy-to-policy-to-practice" approach.^- The rationale for using this approach is stated by Morris himself: Every important human activity can be shown to have a basis in theory, a centralizing idea of what it is all about, what it is trying to do, and how it operates in human experience.2 A recent article of Van Cleve Morris, in which he discusses the "meta physics of e d u c a t i o n , was also a good source of material for the study. Building a Philosophy of Education by Harry S. Broudy.^ Broudy discusses the main problems in education and presents a variety of solutions drawn from different philosophies. He does, however, suggest his own solution for each problem and defends the solution which is in accord with his own philosophical stance— and this is "a form of Classical Realism.Broudy’s work can therefore be termed a partisan exposition. Modern Philosophies of Education by John S. Brubacher. Brubacher utilizes the problems-to-solutions approach. The main issues in educational philosophy, such as those concerning knowledge, the nature of man, the educative process, and moral education, are ^Ibid., vii. 2Ibid., p. 7. ^Van Cleve Morris, "is There a Metaphysics of Education?" Educational Theory, XX (Fall, 1970), 337-344. ^Harry S. Broudy, Building a Philosophy of Education (2nd ed.; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961). ^Ibid., viii. 6john S. Brubacher, Modern Philosophies of Education. 58 discussed and different philosophical solutions are proposed. Much synthesizing Is evident in Brubacher’s discussion of the solutions to educational problems. For example, in dealing with the generic traits of existence, Brubacher does not go into specific schools but gives the synthesized major viewpoints: Two major types of educational philosophy seem to be emerging. The one stresses a dynamic nature bounded by time and rich in novelty and varied individualities. . . . The other educational philosophy gives full recognition to this dynamic world of nature but thinks that the stable factors in it are not just instruments of the culture but are primordial traits of reality themselves stemming in the last analysis, for many, from a supernatural source.1 Brubacher urges that "we must press toward greater agreement or consensus among warring educational philosophies; consensus is in dispensable to any sort of social cohesion."2 The present study did take Brubacher's appeal to heart in seeking commonalities in the philosophical and educational beliefs of Philippine educators. Wynne's Theories of Education.3 Twelve theories which have made their Impact on the field of education form the main topics of Wynne's book. Each theory has been presented from the viewpoints of their originators in an effort to be objective. The philosophical assumptions of each theory are explained together with the historical and social factors which help in the cultural evaluation of the theory. Lastly, the practical implications of each theory in educational pol icies and practices are described and discussed. Wynne's work 1Ibid.', p. 42. 2Ibid., p. 349. ^John P. Wynne, Theories of Education (New York: Harper and Row, 1963). 59 recommends itself on two counts: (1) its attempt at objectivity, and (2) its interdisciplinary presentation. The Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I.3 , This oft-read and oft-quoted yearbook of the NSSE presents the five important world-fraraes of Aristotelianism, Thomism, Idealism, Realism, and Instrumentalism. The leading expo nents of the different philosophies wrote the expositions with emphasis on the educational implications of their philosophies. Because of the influence of these educational philosophers in the field, the writer used their articles as sources for some of the items in his checklist. The Fifty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1.2 Four of the five philosophies presented in the Forty-first Yearbook of the Society are again expounded in this volume. However, other philosophies have been included, such as those of Existentialism, Logical Empiricism, and Marxism. This yearbook "seeks to acquaint teachers not only with more points of view but also with new authors."3 The Forty-first Yearbook’s contributors were philosophers of education. The Fifty-fourth Yearbook invited men from general philosophy, thus providing fresh insights in the problems of educational philosophy. ^-National Society for the Study of Education, Philosophies of Education, Forty-first Yearbook of the Society, Part I (Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1942). ^National Society for the Study of Education, Modern Philoso phies and Education, Fifty-fourth Yearbook of the Society, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955). 3Ibid., p. 1. 60 The Phi Delta Kappan issue for September, 1972, contains four excellent articles written by Robert Ebel, Theodore Brameld, Joseph Junell, and T. Robert Bassett,1 on their philosophic viewpoints con cerning formal education. Ebel proposes a strong case for the cognitive-competence ideal of Realism; Brameld reiterates his plan for Reconstructionism; Junell proposes a kind of Idealistic teacher- modeling theory; and Bassett, arguing against prescriptive education, proposes Dewey-like an education that will produce, though indirectly, "self-fulfilled persons thinking for themselves."2 Another Phi Delta Kappan issue of interest is that of March, 1973 (LVI, 433-512), which Is devoted to viewpoints, mainly of a philosophical nature, on alternative schools. Other important authors. Also consulted in connection with the present study were books by such authorities as Mortimer Adler, Jacques Barzun, Arthur Bestor, Theodore Brameld, John Dewey, William Frankena, Robert Hutchins, George Kneller, William McGucken, Jacques Maritain, Philip Phenix, John Redden and Francis Ryan, Alfred North Whitehead, and John Wild. The works of these authors are cited in the bibliography. ^-Robert L. Ebel, "What Are Schools For?" Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (September, 1972), 3-7; Theodore Brameld, "Education as Self- Fulfilling Prophecy," Ibid., 58-61; Joseph Junell, "The Limits of Social Education," Ibid., 12-15; T. Robert Bassett, "It’s the Side Effects of Education That Count," Ibid., 16-17. ^Bassett, "It's the Side Effects of Education That Count," p. 17. 61 Survey of Philippine Literature When this study was initiated in 1971 there was no book-length treatise by a Filipino author on a Filipino philosophy, much less a Filipino philosophy of education. Although formal higher education in the Philippines was started decades before the founding of Harvard College,1 it was guided until only recently by foreign principles and foreign textbooks. When the American regime instituted a new educa tional system to replace that which had been imposed by Spain, the pattern was that of the American public school. American teachers and American textbooks were imported and foisted on the native population. The result was the "schizophrenic1 1 Filipino personality. The Western- oriented school system taught a set of values in school different from that at home.^ Another result of this Western orientation in the scho lastic scene was the scarcity of truly Filipino textbooks. It is a sad commentary on our educational system that we are using textbooks that depict mostly American life and culture.^ The crucial problems in high school and college textbooks lie in the dearth of Filipino authors and basic materials for textbook content.^ -*-The University of Santo Tomas has been in uninterrupted exis tence since 1611, and the forerunner of the present University of San Carlos was founded in 1595. 2Alfredo R. Roces, "Filipino Values’ and Our Educational Sys tem," Philippine Journal of Education, XLIX (September, 1970), 140. ^Constantino, The Filipinos in the Philippines, p. 61. ^Antonio Isidro, Trends and Issues in Philippine Education (Quezon City: Phoenix Press, Inc., 1968), p. 176. 62 That portion of Philippine literature, therefore, which was consulted in preparation for this study consisted of articles and sections of books. The Philippine Educational System by Isidro.'*" In the second chapter of his book, Isidro explains the philosophy of education that should prevail in the Philippine educational system. This philosophy is based on the Philippine Constitution and on various policy pro nouncements of the National Board of Education. The author does not delve into the basic philosophic principles underlying these policies. Isidro is more philosophical in two later books, Principles of Educa- cation Applied to the Philippines and Trends and Issues in Philippine 2 Education. Of interest is his thesis that educational aims should be consonant with our national purpose. Isidro maintains "that today our supreme national purpose should be economic development"^— a pur pose reiterated by the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education in 1970.^ Essentials of the Philippine Educational System by Fresnoza and Casim.^ In Chapters VII and VIII of their book the authors deal 1 Antonio Isidro, The Philippine Educational System (3rd ed.; Manila: Bookman, Inc., 1949). o Antonio Isidro, Principles of Education Applied to the Phil ippines (Manila: Phoenix Press, Inc., 1962); Isidro, Trends and Issues in Philippine Education. 3 Isidro, Trends and Issues in Philippine Education, p. 11. ^Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education, Edu cation for National Development: New Patterns, New Directions, p. 62. 5Fresnoza and Casim, Essentials of the Philippine Educational 63 with the sources of the educational philosophy governing the Philip pine educational system and the aims of education as promulgated by the Constitution, the Legislature, the National Board of Education, and the Department of Education. What constitutes both an advantage and at the same time a weakness of the book is the attempt by the authors to give an "unbiased presentation ... of the nature of a 'documentary film.'"^ Documentation is therefore plentiful and inter pretation is very minimal. Four Readings on Philippine Values edited by Frank Lynch.* Four papers, based on studies done by three social scientists (Lynch, Hollnsteiner, and Carroll) and a psychologist (Bulatao) of the Insti tute of Philippine Culture, furnish insights into Philippine culture. These studies are part of the current effort to seek "tested truths regarding Philippine value orientations."3 The Philippine Association for Graduate Education Journal issue for January-June, 1965.^ This issue is valuable for students of Philippine educational philosophic viewpoints because the whole issue is devoted to position papers on the various prevailing educa tional philosophies in the Philippines. The contributors, all recog nized authorities in Philippine education, include: Francisco ^Ibid., preface. ^Frank Lynch, ed., Four Readings on Philippine Values (2nd ed.; Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1964). O Ibid., foreword. ^Philippine Association for Graduate Education, PAGE Journal, Vol. Ill, No. 1 (January-June, 1965). 64 Araneta, Teodoro Evangelista, Antonio Isidro, Alfredo Panizo, Norberto de Ramos, Juan Santos, and Tomas Tadena. The Philippines by Onofre Corpuz.^ This little volume, writ ten by a professor who became dean in a state university then Under secretary of Education then Secretary of Education, is valuable for the interpretative insights in the historical movements and in the evolution of various institutions, including the educational system, of the Philippines. Alfredo Roces, in "Filipino Values and Our Educational Sys- o tem," analyzes the problems brought about as a wrongly-oriented school system is imposed on Filipino children. After explaining the basic social values of "hiya (self-esteem), utang-na-loob (reciproc ity) , pakikisama (togetherness) and bayanihan (community working to gether),"^ Roces discusses the harm done by the school in teaching a different set of values. His solution is that . . . the educational system should be Filipinized, so that teachers and students understand their own culture and their own values, using Filipino textbooks.4 Jaime Bulatao, noted Filipino psychologist, proposes basically the same thesis in "The Conflict of Values in Home and School."-’ He ■^Onofre D. Corpuz, The Philippines (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965). ^Roces, "Filipino Values and Our Educational System," pp. 140-142; 185-187. 3Ibid., p. 142. 4Ibid. 5 Jaime Bulatao, S.J., "The Conflict of Values in Home and School," Guidance and Personnel Journal, I (November, 1965), 50-53. 65 claims that such a conflict gives rise to a split-level kind of life and describes the split-level Filipino thus: . . . at one level he professes allegiance to ideas, atti tudes and ways of behaving which are mainly borrowed from the Christian West, at another level he holds convictions which are more properly his 'own' ways of living and believ ing which were handed down from his ancestors, which do not always find their way into an explicit philosophical system, but nevertheless now and then flow into action.^ Another student of Filipino culture has stated: The problem for the Filipino individual is to be 'aware1 that two inconsistent norms of morality are allowed to coexist in his personality and life . . .2 Symposium on the Filipino PersonalityThis interesting volume is a compilation of selected papers presented during the Na tional Convention of the Psychological Association of the Philippines in 1964 and represents the collective effort of various disciplines. The Fillpinization of the educational system brings up the very controversial issue of the medium of instruction. Abdul Adjawi's article,^ based on a limited survey of the attitudes of teachers in a non-Tagalog region, shows only five per cent of the respondents favor ing Pilipino as the medium of instruction. Many nationalists, how ever, strongly favor the use of Pilipino. Renato Constantino, a ^Jaime Bulatao, S.J., Split-Level Christianity (Manila: U.S.T. Press, 1966), p. 2. 2vitaliano R. Gorospe, S.J., Christian Renewal of Filipino Values (Manila: U.S.T. Press, 1966), p. 22. ^Psychological Association of the Philippines, Symposium on the Filipino Personality (Makati, Rizal: MDB Printing, 1966). ^Abdul K. Adjawi, "Pilipino as Medium of Instruction," Philippine Journal of Education, XLIX (August, 1970), 75-77. 66 Tagalog-speaking proponent of Filipinism, writes: A foreign language is an impediment to instruction. . . . Experience has shown that children who are taught in their native tongue learn more easily and better than those taught in English. Records of the Bureau of Public Schools will support this.l In the 1968 study of Castaneda, mentioned earlier in this chapter, the great majority of the 1,000 Philippine educators surveyed chose English as the most effective medium of instruction and recommended its retention in all levels of instruction. The use of the vernacular, which is now required in the first two grades of elementary school, is an offshoot of the community school movement which was discussed earlier. This movement was one of the first philosophically-based attempts to Filipinize the schools. Another offshoot of the movement was the development of the barrio high school. The philosophy behind the barrio high school movement, whose beginnings are due to an experimental project of Pedro Orata in 1964, is ably expounded by Isidro in "The Barrio High S c h o o l s ."2 The ferment of change and of new philosophies in the Philip pine educational system has brought into focus the problem of cen tralization. It will be recalled that the first national educational survey conducted in the Philippines recommended a highly-centralized system of education.3 Within the past two decades many educators have •^Constantino, The Filipinos in the Philippines, p. 59. ^Antonio Isidro, "The Barrio High Schools," Philippine Journal of Education, XLIX (December, 1970), 330-331; 376-377. 3The Monroe Survey Commission, 1925. 67 advocated decentralization. Vitaliano Bernardino, an influential figure in Philippine education and a member of the two most recent government bodies created to study the educational system,strongly advocates decentralization so that schools of different types and in different regions can more easily adapt to the needs of their partic ular clientele.^ Summary The review of the literature reveals the existence of several investigations in the United States similar in nature to that of the present study. Before World War II American studies were centered around the social, political, economic, and educational beliefs of educators. It was only from the 1940’s that actual philosophical be liefs of educators became the focus of studies such as that of Wegener. Later the investigative-effort shifted to a narrower area, namely, that of developing a valid and reliable instrument for mea suring philosophic beliefs of teachers. In these latter experiments four general types of instruments were developed. The first utilized the statement of beliefs approach. This was exemplified in the study of Thomas. The second type of instrument, exemplified in the GNC scale of Gowin, Newsome, and Chandler, concentrated on the logical ^These were: (1) the Government Reorganization Commission on Education, Science and Technology, and (2) the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education. ^Vitaliano Bernardino, "Proposed Reforms in Philippine Educa tion," PhjU;i££jhie__Jour^^ XLIX (February, 1971), 458-459; 502-503. 68 consistency of beliefs. The third type was concerned with the corre lation between beliefs and practices. The instruments developed by Brown and Oliver were of this third type. The last kind of instrument utilized the critical incident approach. Hamrick’s instrument exem plifies this last. The present study is similar to Wegener's in that the main purpose was to discover on a national scale the actual philosophic and educational beliefs of educators. However, in its development of an instrument properly validated and tested for reliability, the present study approximates the later investigations. The most signi ficant difference between the present study and the American studies is obviously that of geographic location. Other differences in pur pose and content were pointed out in the description of the individual studies reviewed. In the review of Philippine literature the following observa tions may be stated: (1) studies done on a national scale and using empirical methods focused generally on scholastic achievement, teacher preparation, and finance; (2) no empirical study was conducted on actual philosophic beliefs of educators; (3) studies concerning basic philosophical principles, such as those conducted by Bernardino and Liesch, were analytical in nature; (4) there was too much reliance on the opinions of educational experts in the formulation of policies in the Philippine educational system; and (5) most, if not all, govern ment studies have followed the pattern of "visit schools, observe classes, hold hearings, and conduct group and individual interviews." 69 In view of the preceding observations, the present study can be of value in discovering, through objective methods, the underlying philo sophic beliefs of educational philosophers involved directly In the training of teachers. The general literature reviewed— the books and articles on the philosophical issues in education— contributed to a better under standing of the controversies and led to a deeper insight of the special cultural issues affecting, and affected by, Philippine educa tion. This review of related studies and literature in both the United States and the Philippines was designed to provide adequate orientation to the nature of this study. The following chapter de scribes the procedures followed in the investigation. CHAPTER III NATURE OF THE STUDY In the first chapter the objectives of the present study were delineated. In the second chapter the review of related literature provided some orientation to the nature of the study. In the present chapter a description of the procedures followed in the study is given. The study was a descriptive study concerned with discovering or describing the philosophic and educational beliefs of Philippine educational philosophers in teacher-training institutions.^- Insofar as this involved the gathering and classifying of beliefs within this group of educational philosophers, it was a descriptive survey.2 General Procedures An attempt to discover the philosophic and educational beliefs of Philippine educational philosophers meant resolving several prob lems. The first concerned the method of "discovery." How were these beliefs to be known? Educators could be asked to state their beliefs, which would have required the equivalent of position papers from each -^-Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates, Methods of Research (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), p. 259. 2Ibid., p. 549. 70 71 respondent— a time-consuming task which the respondents would not have relished. Another difficulty in using this approach would have been the almost impossible task of transforming the written essays into propositlonal statements comparable from one respondent to the other and capable of being categorized and tallied. A questionnaire seemed a more appropriate technique for the purposes of (1) identical coverage of specific areas of belief, (2) categorization, (3) ease of tally, and (4) statistical comparison. And for the same reasons the checklist type of questionnaire seemed more advantageous than the open-ended type. It also seemed obvious that the checklist format would require considerably less time and effort on the part of the respondents and would thus more likely elicit prompt response. The second problem revolved around the choice of items for the checklist. This naturally also involved the problem of validity. It was decided that the items should cover the three major areas of philosophy; namely, metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology. In the area of axiology there were problems specific to the Philippines due to cultural differences and to differences in value systems. There fore, items relative to the Philippine value system were included in the axiology section of the checklist. Because the number of items had to be kept within reasonable bounds, it was decided that the items be limited to those representative of the following major phi losophies: (1) Existentialism, (2) Experimentalism, (3) Idealism, (4) Realism, and (5) Scholasticism. These are the philosophic 72 schools with relatively large numbers of adherents. It might be argued that Scholasticism is a form of Realism and should not be a separate category. However, because Catholic higher education forms a very large and influential segment of Philippine education'*' and Scholasticism has traditionally been taught in Catholic schools, it was considered best to keep it a separate philosophic category. Fur- o thermore, Scholasticism has also been known as "Catholicism,and in a country where eighty per cent of the population is Catholic, the philosophy, of Scholasticism would have to be considered important. From American sources mentioned in the preceding chapter were gleaned propositional statements of belief relative to (1) the three major areas of general philosophy, (2) the five philosophical schools, and (3) basic educational principles representative of either the traditional or the progressive school of thought. A few ontological items representing Materialism— which is not here considered a sys tem— were added for the purpose of discovering any tendency toward or away from a Materialistic viewpoint of the cosmos and of man. Philip pine sources furnished propositional statements of belief concerning (1) Philippine values, and (2) educational issues specific to the Philippine school system. ■^In 1971 Philippine teacher-training institutions were dis tributed as follows: 13, state; 48, private non-denominational; 15, private denominational (non-Catholic); 173, Catholic. ^John S. Brubacher, "Introduction: Purpose and Scope of the Yearbook," Philosophies of Education, Forty-first Yearbook of the Na tional Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1942), p. 5. 73 From approximately 200 statements of belief collected, 100 were chosen and submitted to graduate students and several faculty members of the University of Southern California's School of Educa tion for comments. The items were judged on the criteria of clarity and exclusivity. Clarity meant the absence of ambiguity and the presence of terminology and syntax such as to be understood by a reader with some background in educational philosophy. Stated be- haviorally, the reader must have had, at the least, four undergraduate courses in philosophy and/or one graduate course in philosophy of education. Exclusivity meant that the statement was much more repre sentative of a particular school of philosophy than of the others. Exclusivity of belief was a thorny criterion, for, as one philosopher has stated, . . . different philosophical points of view, "schools,1 ' or positions are not mutually exclusive in all respects. On the contrary, all, of necessity, share some common presup positions, and each finds itself in considerable agreement with one or more of its presumptive rivals.! The criterion of exclusivity also contributed to the development of several compound and/or complex propositions due to the inclusion of qualifying phrases and clauses. Items which were considered ambiguous or unclear by the graduate students or faculty were either omitted or modified. ■^Theodore M. Greene, "A Liberal Christian Idealist Philosophy of Education," Modern Philosophies ana Education, Fifty-fourth Year book of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 93. 74 The resulting checklist, consisting of seventy-five items, was again submitted for analysis and comments to graduate students in education and to faculty members of the University of Southern Cali fornia. Action on the recommendations made by this group further re duced the checklist to seventy-one items. This was the checklist administered in the Philippines in August of 1971 to administrators and faculty members of selected state and private institutions of higher learning.^ As a result, further revisions were made in content and format. In view of the items having been selected from authorities in educational philosophy and from previous studies where similar items had already been validated, and due to further selection and modifi cation based on comments of faculty and graduate students who re viewed the items, and, finally as a result of the pilot study done in the Philippines, internal validity could be assumed for the checklist. Nevertheless, the investigator subjected the checklist to a more formal validation process. To ensure the valid classification of (1) philosophic statements of belief into Existentialism, Experimen- talism, Idealism, Realism, Scholasticism, and Materialism, and (2) the statements of basic educational belief into the traditional or pro gressive schools, that section of the checklist mentioned above was submitted to a panel of judges or experts in the field of educational -*-Two institutions were from the Luzon area, one from the area of the Visayas, and one from the Mindanao area. ^For example, some of the Existentialist items were similar to those of Thomas whose instrument had been validated by a panel of judges from the Southwest Philosophy of Education Society. 75 philosophy. Eight of the judges were from the United States— all members of the Far Western Philosophy of Education Society; three of the judges were from the Philippines. Those from the United States were: Dr. Robert L. Brackenbury, University of Southern California; Dr. Leonard A. Fels, California State University at Long Beach; Dr. Gerald E. McDonald, California State Department of Education; Dr. Robert E. McLaren, California State University at Fullerton; Dr. William F. O'Neill, University of Southern California; Rev. Thomas A. Reed, S.J., University of San Francisco; Dr. T. Frank Saunders, University of Arizona, and Dr. Lawrence G. Thomas, Stanford University. The Philippine judges were: Bro. Raymond F. Bronowicz, F.S.C., De La Salle College; Dr. Aida C. Caluag, Ateneo de Manila University; and Dr. Jose Ma. Singson, De La Salle College. All the statements of belief in general philosophy and in basic education principles were sent to each judge separately with the following set of instructions for the general philosophy items: Kindly identify the philosophical school or view point represented by each of the following statements. If, in your opinion, a statement of belief represents Existen tialism please print I S beside the statement; if Experimen- talism, print EXP; if Idealism, print if Realism, print R; if Scholasticism, print JS; and if the statement represents Materialism, print M. The instructions for the statements of educational belief were: Kindly identify the following statements of belief as representative of either the traditional school of thought, in which case please print _T beside the statement, or the progressive school of thought, in which case please print jP beside the statement. The judges were in unanimous agreement on the vast majority of the 76 items. Only those items were retained in the checklist where at least nine of the eleven judges concurred.'*' The final form of the revised checklist contained sixty-five items, which took approximately thirty to forty-five minutes to complete. A third problem was that of reliability. Guilford’s non technical description of reliability is here quite apropos: By a perfectly reliable measurement we mean one that is completely accurate or free from error. The same ’yard stick’ applied to the same individual or object in the same way should yield the same value from moment to moment, pro vided that the thing measured has itself not changed in the meantime.2 Statistical measures of reliability connected with test scores "also apply fairly well to human judgments of various kinds.Thus mea surements yielded in the administration of the present study's check list of philosophic and educational beliefs were capable of being treated for reliability. For the purposes of statistical treatment, responses to the individual items were structured on a scale of "Mostly Agree," "Undecided," "Mostly Disagree," and "Meaning Not Clear"; with "Undecided" and "Meaning Not Clear" responses corre sponding to the zero (0) point on the scale, "Mostly Agree" corre sponding to plus one (+1), and "Mostly Disagree" corresponding to 1-Two statements were classified as common to Realism and Scholasticism; and one statement as common to Idealism and Scholasti cism. Six months after he had categorized the checklist statements, one of the judges was again asked to classify the statements. On an item-by-item comparison of the two sets a perfect correlation of +1.0 was discovered. ^J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Edu cation (4th ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), p. 438. 3Ibid., p. 466. 77 minus one (-1). It was assumed that the interval between the "Unde cided" or "Meaning Not Clear" point on the scale and the "Mostly Agree" point on the scale was equal to the interval between the "Unde cided" or "Meaning Not Clear" and "Mostly Disagree" points on the scale.'*' The checklists were administered to twenty-five individuals on a test-retest basis with an interval of one week between adminis trations. The interval was kept short intentionally in order to avoid contamination from the variable of learning, especially for those graduate students enrolled in the course on Advanced Philosophy of Education at the University of Southern California. The partici pants in the reliability study consisted of: six faculty members of the University of Southern California, one professional in the field of educational research, seventeen graduate students pursuing doctoral studies in education, and one college senior majoring in philosophy. The Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation^ was computed for the scores of the two administrations. The coefficient of corre lation was +.94, which is significant at the .001 level of confi- 3 dence. ■*\J. P. Guilford, Psychometric Methods (2nd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1954), p. 459. ^Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Educa tion, pp. 95-98. 3Quinn McNemar, Psychological Statistics (2nd ed.; New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1955), p. 146. 78 An internal-consistency estimate of reliability, such as the Kuder-Richardson method,^ was not computed because the checklist would then have had to be broken up into sections: Existentialism, Experimentalism, etc.; traditional, progressive; Philippine values; and Philippine educational issues. Thus broken into separate sub tests or sections, the number of items for each would have been very small. The fourth problem in the attempt to discover the philosophic and educational beliefs of Philippine educational philosophers was the selection of respondents. Who among the Philippine educational philosophers in teacher-training institutions should respond? Ideally, it would be good if the total population were circulated. However, a random sample might suffice if it "is fairly representa tive of the population."2 The essential consideration is that the sampling be truly random. The best definition of random sampling is that it is a selection of cases from the.population in such a manner that every individual in the population has an equal chance of being chosen. In addition, the selection of any one in dividual is in no way tied to the selection of any other.3 Furthermore, when "sub-groups of the population are considered with respect to any variable that is suspected of correlating appreciably with the variable being studied,"4 stratification has been introduced in the sampling. A stratified random sample was selected for this ^Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, pp. 453-464. 2Ibid., p. 139. 3Ibid. 4Ibid., p. 141. 79 study In the following manner. A list of all institutions of higher learning with teacher-training departments in the Philippines was drawn up according to the following categories: (1) universities and colleges; (2) under state control, under private denominational con trol, and under private non-denominational control; and (3) where possible, in proportion to their distribution in the four major geo graphic areas of Greater Manila, Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Through use of a table of random numbers, a five per cent random sample of teacher-training institutions was picked within the restraints of the categories mentioned. It might be argued that a five per cent sample may seem inadequate. It actually Is not small even when compared to other studies with large numbers of respondents. Take the example of one particular survey, which is fairly repre sentative of many studies done through questionnaire, where N = 1,000. This seems a very large sample until one considers that it represents a thirty-three per cent return from respondents in a sixteen per cent sample of the population surveyed. The 1,000 returns therefore con stituted a little more than five per cent of the total population under study. Furthermore— and this is of great Import— the 1,000 responses, constituting as they did only one-third of the sample, could very well be a biased sample. Thus it seemed more valid to limit the size of the sample and attempt to get a return of 100 per cent. ^Ibid., pp. 139-140. 80 In the 1971 listing of Philippine institutions of higher learning with teacher-training departments,^ there were seven state universities. Five per cent of the seven universities is .35, but since there is no such thing as a .35 university, one of the state universities was chosen at random. This was the University of Eastern Philippines, University Town, Northern Samar. Of the five state col leges, West Visayas State College (formerly Iloilo Normal School) was picked.^ From the twenty-two private non-denominational universities on the list, the two chosen were: University of Pangasinan, Dagupan City (representing Greater Manila and Luzon); and University of Minda nao, Davao City (representing the Visayas and Mindanao). There were twenty-six private non-denominational colleges with teacher-training departments. From among these were chosen: Baliuag Colleges, Baliuag, Bulacan (representing Greater Manila and Luzon); and Philip pine Women's College of Iloilo, Jaro, Iloilo City (representing the Visayas and Mindanao). From the thirteen private denominational universities, the University of Santo Tomas, Manila, was picked. From the 160 private denominational colleges with teacher-training departments, the fol lowing were chosen: (1) representing Greater Manila, St. Theresa's ■^The master list of institutions of higher learning was com piled in 1971 from lists furnished by the Department of Education, the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU), the Association of Christian Schools and Colleges (ACSC), and the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP). ^The fifteen other state colleges listed were either technical or agricultural schools. 81 College of Quezon City; (2) representing Luzon, Divine Word College of Legazpi City, Divine Word College of San Jose, Mindoro Occidental, and Sacred Heart College of Lucena City; (3) representing the Visayas, Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos of Cebu City and La Salle College of Bacolod City; and (4) representing Mindanao, Ateneo de Zamboanga, Zamboanga City, and Assumption College, Davao City. The following members of those institutions in the sample were asked to complete the checklist: (1) in the universities, all faculty members who taught philosophy of education courses at the graduate level, and the administrator immediately in charge of the education department at the graduate level (Dean of the School or College of Education or Dean of the Graduate School); (2) in the col leges, all faculty members who taught philosophy of education courses at the undergraduate level, and the administrator immediately in charge of the education department at the undergraduate level (Chair man of the Education Department or Dean of the School of Education or Dean of College). Table 1 on the following page lists the institutions of higher learning which comprised the sample, together with the number of re spondents from each institution. The final problem was that of circulating the checklists and ensuring their completion. Prior to any actual circulating of schools it was necessary to obtain the approval of the Secretary of Education. This was done in a formal communication to the Secretary of Education, the Honorable Juan A. Manuel, in August of 1971. Arrangements were 82 TABLE 1 PHILIPPINE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING AND NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IN THE SAMPLE Institution and Location Adminis tration Faculty State University University of Eastern Philippines, University Town, Northern Samar State College West Visayas State College, Iloilo City Private Non-denominational Universities University of Pangasinan, Dagupan City Unive. .iity of Mindanao, Davao City Private Non-denominational Colleges Baliuag Colleges, Baliuag, Bulacan Philippine Women’s College, Jaro, Iloilo City Private Denominational University University of Santo Tomas, Manila Private Denominational Colleges St. Theresa’s College, Quezon City Divine Word College, Legazpi City Divine Word College, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro Sacred Heart College, Lucena City Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, Cebu City La Salle College, Bacolod City Ateneo de Zamboanga, Zamboanga City Assumption College, Davao City 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 Total 15 40 83 then made with the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) for its research division to undertake the task of sending the checklists to the schools selected and to follow up until receipt of all completed checklists.-*- After the final revision, based on the pilot study done in the Philippines, the checklist was sent to the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines for printing and distribution. An attempt to elicit responses during the last two months of the 1971-72 scholastic year, which ended on the first week of April, failed. The data—collection process by means of the checklist had to be reinitiated at the start of the 1972-73 school year in July. The slow movement of mail to outlying provinces and towns plus the disas trous floods of August contributed to the poor rate of initial returns. Further delay in data collection was caused by the loss in the mails of two packages of completed checklists, necessitating a second re quest for cooperation from the same respondents. It was not until April of 1973 that all returns were received and the data-reduction process could be initiated. The Instrument The forms mailed to respondents consisted of the following: (1) a covering letter, (2) the explanation and directions for marking -*-Until she left to take up administrative duties at St. Joseph's College, Sister Marie Therese Dural, C.F.I.C., was In charge of collecting the data. She was succeeded by Mrs. Daisy Nufable. The writer is much indebted to these two for their invaluable help. 84 the items, (3) the checklist itself, (4) a personal data sheet, and (5) definitions of Eclecticism, Existentialism, Experimentalism, Idealism, Realism, and Scholasticism. The definitions were included as a ready reference for the respondents in classifying their own philosophical position. The personal data sheet and the page of de finitions were placed last so that respondents would have completed answering the beliefs checklist before stating their philosophical po sition. A copy of the complete form is found in the Appendix. In order to solicit candid reactions to each statement, it was emphasized— in the covering letter, in the instruction page, and in the personal data sheet— that individual data would be treated in strict confidence. The primary object of the study was "the inter pretation of the total response and not of individual beliefs."-*- Di rections for marking responses were kept simple. Respondents were asked, after each statement, to encircle one of the symbols represent ing, and printed under, its corresponding meaning: JL for "Mostly Agree," _2 for "Undecided," 3_ for "Mostly Disagree," and Q i for "Meaning Not Clear." The order of the numerical symbols— 1, 2, 3, 0— was in tended to remove any semblance of a preference for a "Mostly Agree" answer as having a greater weight or score. In case a respondent wished to change his answer, he was instructed to cross off the pre viously marked response and encircle the response he wanted to make. Respondents were reminded that there was no "right" nor "wrong" re sponse and that the only good answer was their frank reaction to each ■^Covering letter. Cf. Appendix. 85 one of the statements of belief. The instrument itself was entitled Checklist of Philosophic and Educational Beliefs of Philippine Educators. It was composed of sixty-five statements of belief taken or adapted from books, studies, and articles dealing with philosophy, education, and Philippine values. Philosophical Beliefs Metaphysics. The primary conflicts in educational theory to day are those concerning educational objectives and aims; and in a prolonged discussion opposing views may eventually reduce themselves to metaphysical bases. Nearly all arguments to settle fundamental conflicts in educational practice, if continued long and penetratlngly enough, will be found to have an important source in the fact that the parties to the argument differ in their metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysics deals with speculation as to first principles. Just as the builder must go deep to establish a solid base on which to erect the modern skyscraper, so too the educator must go down to fundamentals to found a base for the structure of education. The bottom point this latter enter prise is the nature of reality.^ Sixteen itema of the checklist dealt with these basic metaphysical be liefs, where the investigator's main concern was to discover the view points of Philippine educational philosophers regarding the nature of reality in general, and, in particular, the nature of man and the question of God's existence and relationship to the cosmos and man. The statements are listed under the particular philosophical view point they represent. •^Brubacher, "Introduction: Purpose and Scope of the Year book," p. 24. 86 Exis tentlalism (4)^ Reality is that which individual selves believe it to be and it has its meaning only within the individual sub jective self. (9) Ultimate Reality is the self, standing naked before the cosmos of alternatives and trying to plot his way through it. (12) There is no universal, absolute description of human na ture; there is only the unique and subjective nature of each authentic self. Experimentalism (3) What we call Reality is merely human reaction to experi ence. Thus the so-called 'traits' of Reality are actu ally and only 'traits of human experience.' Idealism (2) Ultimate Reality is of the nature of mind. (6) Mind is more than a product of materialistic factors; mind has a spiritual nature. (13) Man is a participant in the Absolute Mind. (30) Man's ultimate goal is reunification with the Ideal, the Absolute. Realism (1) Ours is an ordered universe governed by certain laws which can be discovered by man through science. Scholasticism (7) God created our universe. (11) The cosmos and man are by their nature ordained to a de finite end or purpose established by God. (10) God created man for a purpose, which purpose is man's happiness realized perfectly only in God. ^The number within the parentheses corresponds to the number of that item in the checklist. 87 (15) Man is an essential unity of a physical body and a spir itual, immortal soul. Materialism^ (5) Everything in the universe is eventually reducible to physical energy. (8) Matter alone is real and existent in our universe. (14) Man is essentially a material and biological organism without supernatural or spiritual attributes. Epistemology. This area of philosophy with its concern for how and what one can know about reality stands at the very base of the entire educative process. The study was therefore concerned with the beliefs of Philippine educational philosophers relative to knowledge and truth. Fourteen of the checklist items were devoted to this area. The statements representing each of the five philosophical viewpoints were: Existentialism (24) Truth is personal and subjective rather than general and objective. (21) Real understanding derives from the unique self's appro priation of the various subjective meanings of that which is under consideration. (22) The act of choosing is the act of self-realization; and since knowing constitutes self-realization, the purpose of knowing is to fulfill self. Experimentalism (18) Experience, tested in the social situation, is the only way to know— but without certainty in an absolute sense. ^•It was only in the area of metaphysics that statements of be lief representing the viewpoint of Materialism were included. 88 (23) Truth has no objective standard in nature; truth is re lative to time, place, and subject. (28) To manage the world is the problem facing mankind; knowledge and truth, are but the instrumentalities for carrying on this work. Idealism (16) True knowledge is the correspondence of the finite mind of man with the Absolute Mind. Realism (17) Knowledge is objective and comes about through exact scientific observations and practices. (19) Truth Is the correspondence of our ideas to things as they really are objectively. (26) The real and only test of truth is rigid examination In the light of scientifically established facts about the laws of universal nature. (20) Man has the Intellectual power of abstracting universal concepts from real, particular objects in his experi ence . (27) Besides scientific or synthetic truth there are also truths which are self-evident. Scholasticism (20) Man has the intellectual power of abstracting universal concepts from real, particular objects in his experi ence. 1 (27) Besides scientific or synthetic truth there are also truths which are self-evident.^ (25) Some truths are obtainable by man only through Divine Revelation. (29) Science and Revelation do not, and cannot, contradict each other. ^These two statements, nos. 20 and 27, are common to Realism and Scholasticism. 89 Axiology. Brubacher has stated that "few problems stand so persistently at the educator's elbows as do those involving questions of value.The school is, in a very real sense, a value enterprise and "the moral factor appears whenever the school, or the individual teacher or supervisor, is for certain things and against other things.it appears in the behaviors that are approved or disap proved; it appears in the textbooks, the novels, the dramas that are chosen for study; it appears in what the students are taught to cher ish and desire and what they are taught to reject and avoid. Deci sions relative to axiology inhere in practically everything the school does. This study, which limited itself to the ethical aspect of axi ology, attempted to discover the ethical principles to which Philip pine educational philosophers subscribe. The first portion, consist ing of twelve items, dealt with general ethics; the second portion with Philippine ethical values. Existentialism (33) There are no universal essential moral traits; man chooses what he is and will be in the ethical and moral sense. (36) 'Right' and 'wrong' are completely personal matters and each self must choose his own unique standards. (39) Values are not imposed on us by God, nature, or so ciety; in choosing we make our own values out of nothing. Experimentalism (41) There is no universal moral order; for morality is de rived from the spcial experience of man in the course ■hirubacher, Modern Philosophies of Education, p. 97. ^Morris, Philosophy and the American School, p. 288. 90 of history; and morality has no source outside the con text of temporal human experience. (35) ’Right' and ’wrong1 are relative terms— relative to the time, place, and social setting— and such terms have meaning only as society gives them meaning. (32) An act is good not because of some absolute standard but because the consequences that flow from the act are good for society. Idealism (40) Man must seek knowledge of the Ideal or Absolute and conduct his life in accord with this Pattern. (34) Man must rely upon a higher moral order which transcends human experience and which will eternally serve as a guide toward the good life for all men everywhere.^ Realism (37) Morality is strictly natural; it is the operation of natural laws in the social context of men; it has its source in nature and the moral man is the man who con ducts his life in accord with these laws. (42) To live a wholesome life man must rely upon an ever- increasing knowledge of the natural laws as they are operative in the social setting. Scholasticism (34) Man must rely upon a higher moral order which transcends human experience and which will eternally serve as a guide toward the good life for all men everywhere.^ (31) The good act is that which conforms to the command of God and to the rational nature of man. (38) There is a hierarchy of values so that, if there be con flict between man’s duties to God and to his neighbor, the superior right takes precedence over the inferior. Philippine Ethical Values. This section, which is related to axiology, dealt with beliefs concerning: (1) authority and law, ^This statement is common to Idealism and Scholasticism. 91 (2) "smooth interpersonal relations,"-^ (3) utang-na-loob or reciproc ity, and (4) bayanihan or clan-centeredness. The statements were: Authority and Law (43) One can do no wrong in obeying the command of a person in authority. (44) A law must be applied equally to all citizens. (45) The application of a law must be flexible, depending on whom it is applied. (49) Persons in authority must be respected and obeyed at all times. Smooth interpersonal relations (46) To shame a person in public is at least as serious a wrong as inflicting physical harm on that person. (48) If what one has to say will offend the listener then it is not wrong to lie. (50) It is important for one to be careful what the neighbors are thinking regarding oneself. U tang-na-loob (47) Repayment of a favor received is as binding as the fulfillment of a legal contract. Bayanihan (51) The interest of the individual must be sacrificed for the good of the family. Educational Beliefs Just as the ethical principles or beliefs of a person— tradi tionally referred to as conscience— serve as a guide or norm in Iprank Lynch, S.J., "Social Acceptance," in Four Readings on Philippine Values (2nd ed.; Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1964), p. 8. 92 actions within the realm of morality, so too in educational practice a person is guided by the educational principles held by that person. In order to discover some of these basic educational principles held by educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institu tions, the investigator included in the checklist four statements of belief representative of the traditional point of view and three statements of belief representing the progressive viewpoint. Traditional (52) The fundamental purpose of the school is a systematic preparation of children for their ultimate places in society. (53) The primary principles of education are absolute and universal rather than relative and variable. (57) Education must be cognizant of the spiritual and the supernatural order as well as the natural order. (58) Before a person can develop his thinking processes and his ability to solve problems, he must be provided a secure linkage to a body of truth and to a historical tradition. Progressive (54) Educational content and method must be continually re fashioned for a particular society in a particular place at a particular time. (55) The basic motivational factors in education are the felt needs and interests of the students.1 (56) Ours is basically a dynamic universe and education must constantly change to meet the particular needs of the time. ^Interestingly, a leading educational researcher has stated: "Thus far there is no conclusive evidence to support the intuitive no tion that motivation enhances learning." Bernard Weiner, "Motiva tion," in Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. by Robert L. Ebel (4th ed.; London: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1969), p. 885. Issues in Philippine Education The statements in this section were designed to discover the beliefs of Philippine educational philosophers concerning: (1) the matter and manner of state control over Philippine educational insti tutions, (2) Pilipino as the medium of instruction, (3) religious in struction in public schools, and (4) primacy of emphasis on general or vocational education. Also included was a presently relevant statement on the nature of democracy. Centralized state control (59) All educational institutions should be subject to re gulation by the State and under the supervision of the State. (60) The present highly-centralized structure in education with the Secretary of Education wielding all power as the arm of the State should be maintained. (61) More flexibility in curriculum planning should be al lowed each school whether public or private. Medium of instruction (62) Pilipino should be the medium of instruction at all levels in all Philippine schools. Religious instruction (63) Religion should be taught in the public schools on a voluntary basis. General versus vocational education (64) Our public elementary and secondary sdhools should be concerned primarily with general education and only secondarily with vocational education. Democracy (65) Democracy is not an end in itself but is only a means of achieving the maximum general welfare for the people. 94 Therefore, if it does not achieve the general welfare of the people it may be replaced by another form of govern ment. Personal Data At the end of the checklist a personal data sheet was pro vided. In it the respondent was asked to supply the following infor mation: (1) respondent’s name; (2) educational institution where he or she was employed; (3) position in that institution; (4) academic degrees, including the major field in each, and the institutions granting the degrees; (5) citizenship; and (6) philosophical position. For easier classification of philosophical positions the following were listed: Eclecticism, Existentialism, Experimentalism, Idealism, Realism, Scholasticism, and Other (in which case the respondent was requested to write it down). As a help in identifying one's philo sophical position according to a uniform norm, definitions of Eclec ticism, Existentialism, Experimentalism, Idealism, Realism, and Scho lasticism as used by the investigator were attached. The identifies- tion of the respondent's philosophical position was intentionally placed last so no bias in answering the items might result from a previous identification of one's philosophic position. The personal data requested from each respondent was essential in the formulation of adequate classification in the tabulation, treatment, and analysis of the checklist responses. The variable of age had originally been included but had to be dropped when it was discovered that female respondents objected, and, during preliminary 95 administrations of the checklist, some female respondents did not fill out the "age" item. Collection and Treatment of Data Checklist returns. To minimize the possibility of a biased sample, a firm attempt to obtain a 100 per cent rate of returns on the checklist was decided upon. This required several— and in some cases, numerous— mailings of follow-up letters with new sets of the checklist to some of the colleges and universities until all institu tions had responded. In the matter of returns, besides the help fur nished by the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines, the investigator received help from personal friends connected with some of the institutions. These friends followed up the distribution, completion, and return of the checklists in those institutions. In a very few instances some respondents overlooked some items. Their checklists were machine-copied and the originals were mailed back with a request for the completion of the unanswered items. Toward the middle of the school year, one of the private colleges in Mindanao wrote that it no longer offered education courses. A replacement was chosen at random from among the Mindanao private colleges. By the end of the 1972-73 school year the hoped-for 100 per cent rate of re turns on the basis of institutions sampled was achieved. Tabulation of the returns. The initial tabulation of the re turns required 4,015 separate entries as a basis of the findings. All the checklist items were distributed according to the 96 classifications mentioned in the description of the instrument; namely, (1) philosophical beliefs— which were further subdivided into (a) metaphysical, (b) epistemological, and (c) axiological beliefs, (2) Philippine ethical values, (3) basic educational beliefs, and (4) issues in Philippine education. Respondents were classified ac cording to the following categories: (1) university and college levels; (2) state institutions, private non-denominational institu tions, and private denominational institutions; (3) philosophic posi tions held by respondents; (4) administrators and faculty; (5) male and female respondents. These classifications were codified for purposes of ready reference and analysis of data. The process of tabulation of returns included the tallying of each checklist and classification according to code designations. In order to discover the over-all pattern and the patterns In the various categories, all responses were counted, tabulated, summarized, and converted into scale scores (+1, 0, -1) and percentages. These were then ranked on the basis of total score, of agreement, and of dis agreement. For the purpose of comparative analysis, total scores and individual item scores for each of the classifications were computed. These scores were compared by means of appropriate statistical tests to determine whether there were significant differences between groups and where (i.e., regarding what specific items) these differences obtained. The resulting data was then converted into tables and analyzed for interpretation of the findings. The data collected, the treatment 97 and analysis thereof, and the results are described in the following chapters. Summary Preliminary research revealed the need for an investigation of actual philosophical and educational beliefs in the Philippine educational system. Because of the influence of educational philoso phers in teacher-training institutions in the formation of the educa tional philosophies of teachers, this group of educational philoso phers was chosen as the target population. To discover and measure the actual beliefs of this group an instrument was developed— a check list of sixty-five statements of philosophic and educational beliefs and of issues specific to Philippine education. The steps in the de velopment of the checklist were as follows: (1) collection of repre sentative statements from various philosophical and educational sources; (2) two separate reviews of the items by educators and grad uate students in education; (3) administration in selected Philippine schools as part of a pilot study; (4) revision after each of the reviews and the pilot study; (5) formal validation by a panel of Phil ippine and American judges; (6) final revision of the checklist; and (7) testing for the reliability coefficient of correlation, which was +.94. The checklists were mailed to those universities and colleges with teacher training institutions which had been chosen on the basis of a five per cent stratified random sample. Care was taken that all 98 institutions returned checklists completed by faculty teaching educa tional philosophy and by administrators in charge of teacher-training departments. Due to prolonged floods and returns lost in the mail, it was at the end of the 1972-73 school year that the hoped-for 100 per cent rate of returns was achieved. The data was transferred from the checklists to the proper data-reduction forms and eventually to cards for statistical treat ment. Appropriate statistical tests were employed to generate over all and group patterns of philosophical and educational beliefs and to discover the existence of any significant difference among the various groups of respondents. The results were then analyzed and interpreted. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS PERTAINING TO RESPONDENTS AND TO GENERAL PATTERNS OF BELIEF As stated in the first chapter the present study proposed to discover the philosophical and educational beliefs of administrators and those members of the faculty teaching philosophy of education courses in Philippine teacher-training institutions. A five per cent sample of these institutions was randomly selected according to the following categories: (1) universities and colleges; (2) under state control, private non-denominational control, and private denomina tional control; (3) where applicable, according to the number of such schools in the geographic areas of Greater Manila, Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao. Fifteen institutions of higher learning were chosen. These included: 1 state university, 2 private non-denominational uni versities, 1 private denominational university; 1 state college, 2 private non-denominational colleges, and 8 private denominational colleges. Administrators. The administrators who responded from each of the institutions in the sample were those Immediately in charge of the education departments. Of the 4 administrators on the university level, 3 were deans of colleges of education, and 1 was the dean of the graduate school. Of the 11 administrators on the college level, 99 100 6 were deans of colleges, 4 were deans of schools or colleges of edu cation, and 1 was the dean of academic affairs. Personal data of respondents. There were 55 respondents of whom 36 were male and 19 were female. On the university level, 10 respondents held doctor's degrees and 8 master's. On the college level, 3 had doctor's degrees, 29 held master's degrees, and 5 held bachelor's degrees. On the basis of highest academic degree earned, the distribution of respondents percentage-wise was as follows: doctor's degree 24 per cent master's degree 67 per cent bachelor’s degree 9 per cent Holding degrees from educational institutions outside the Philippines were 55 per cent of the respondents in the state institutions, 8 per cent of the respondents in the private non-denominational institu tions, and 20 per cent of the respondents in the private denomina tional institutions. Only 1 respondent had a major in philosophy of education. The majors of the other respondents were as follows: philosophy, 15; education, 13; administration, 9; english, 6; guidance and counseling, 5; psychology, 2; curriculum, 2; anthropology, 1; and social science, 1. Fifty-one, or 93 per cent, of the respondents were Filipino citizens. Patterns of Philosophical Belief Stated philosophical positions. In the personal data sheet, each respondent was asked to identify his philosophical position. The respondent was asked to check one of the following: Eclecticism, 101 Existentialism, Experimentalism, Idealism, Realism, Scholasticism, or Other (in which case, the respondent was asked to identify this "other" philosophical position). Only two respondents checked this last category. Both identified their positions as that of Christian Existentialism. These two were included in the category of Existen tialism. Table 2 gives the distribution of respondents according to their stated philosophical positions. Eclecticism had the largest number of adherents among the state and private non-denominational institutions, while among private denominational institutions Scho lasticism had the largest number. TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO STATED PHILOSOPHICAL POSITIONS Philosophical Position State Private Non-; Denomin. Private Denomin ational Total Exis tentialism 0 1 2 3 Experimentalism 2 0 0 2 Idealism 1 1 2 4 Realism 1 1 2 4 Scholasticism 1 1 20 22 Eclecticism 4 8 8 20 Total 9 12 34 55 In Table 3, on the next page, the checklist items have been arranged in rank order beginning from the item with the highest score down to the item registering the lowest scale score. Taking the top twenty items and the bottom twenty items from the ranked distribution 102 TABLE 3 RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS IN RANK ORDER ACCORDING TO SCALE SCORES Rank Item Number Statement Summary Scale Score 1 (20) Abstraction of universal concepts. +54 2.5 ( 6) Spiritual nature of mind. +53 2.5 ( 7) God creator of universe. +53 4 (10) God's purpose for man. +51 5.5 (54) Education continually refashioned. +50 5.5 (61) Curricular flexibility for each school. +50 7 (27) Self-evident truths. +49 8.25 (15) Man a unity of body and soul. +48 8.25 (25) Existence of divine revelation. +48 8.25 (31) Conformity to God's command and man's nature. +48 8.25 (56) Educational changes to meet particular needs. +48 12 (38) Hierarchy of values in morality. +47 13.33 (34) Moral order transcends human experience. +45 13.33 (55) Student needs, interests basic motivation. +45 13.33 (57) Spiritual order in education. +45 16 (11) Cosmos and man ordered to purpose by God. +44 17 (63) Religion in public schools. +43 18.33 ( 1) Ordered universe discoverable by science. +41 18.33 (40) Knowledge of Absolute as pattern for life. +41 18.33 (46) To shame person same as physical harm. +41 21 (29) No contradiction between science and revelation. +39 22 (44) Equal application of law to all. +37 23 (58) Priority of body of truth and tradition. +34 24.5 (19) Truth as correspondence of ideas to reality. +33 24.5 (30) Man's goal as reunification with Absolute. +33 26 (42) Knowledge of natural law for good life. +31 27.5 (22) Self-fulfillment as purpose of knowing. +27 27.5 (28) Instrumentality of knowledge and truth. +27 29 (65) Democracy as means therefore replaceable. +25 30 (52) Systematic preparation for society. +24 31 (53) Education principles absolute, universal. +20 32.5 (16) Knowledge as correspondence to Absolute Mind. +18 32.5 (21) Understanding based on subjective meaning. +18 34.5 (17) Knowledge objective by scientific observations. +13 34.5 (37) Morality strictly natural. +13 36 (13) Man participant in Absolute Mind. +12 37 (51) Individual interest sacrificed for family. +10 38.5 (59) Schools subject to state regulation. + 7 38.5 (64) Priority of general education over vocational. + 7 40 (35) Morality relative and social. - 3 103 TABLE 3— Continued Rank Item Number Statement Summary Scale Score 41 ( 2) Reality ultimately of mind. - 7 42 (45) Flexibility in application of law. -11 43.5 (18) Knowledge only through experience. -12 43.5 (50) Concern about neighbor's opinion. -12 45 ( 3) Reality merely traits of human experience. -15 46 (23) Truth relative to time, place, subject. -17 47.5 ( 9) Ultimate reality as choosing self. -18 47.5 (33) Morality dependent on man's choice. -18 49.5 ( 4) Reality as what individuals believe. -19 49.5 (12) Subjective nature of each authentic self. -19 51 (26) Universal nature as test of truth. -21 52.5 (32) Social consequences determine morality. -23 52.5 (47) Repayment of favor binding. -23 54 (41) Experience as source of morality. -31 55 (49) Authority obeyed at all times. -33 56.5 ( 5) Everything reducible to physical energy. -34 56.5 (24) Truth as personal and subjective. -34 58 (60) Highly-centralized structure in education. -35 59 (62) Pilipino as medium of instruction. -36 60 (48) Lie and not offend listener. -39 61 ( 8) Matter alone is real and existent. -41 62 (39) Values made in choosing. -43 63 (43) No wrong in obeying authority. -44 64 (36) Morality completely personal. -46 65 (14) Man merely material, biological organism. -52 of all Items In Table 3, a concept of the general distribution of responses can be obtained. These responses are tabulated In Table 4, on the next page. The distribution of scores In the sections dealing with philosophical beliefs and with issues in Philippine education seems normal. But the responses in the section dealing with Philip pine ethical values form a negatively skewed pattern, while responses in the section concerned with educational beliefs form a positively skewed pattern. 104 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO CHECKLIST SECTIONS OF TOP TWENTY AND BOTTOM TWENTY RESPONSES Items Section Percentage of Total Percentage of Top 20 Items Percentage of Bottom 20 Items 1-42 Philosophical Beliefs 64% 65% 70% 43-51 Philippine Ethical Values 14% 5% 20% 52-58 Educational Beliefs 11% 20% 0% 59-65 Issues in Philippine Education 11% 10% 10% Total 100% 100% 100% For a better appreciation of the over-all responses, these have been tabulated according to the various sections of the check list. The first section dealt with philosophical beliefs. In order to have a more meaningful tabulation this section has been further broken down to beliefs representative of: (1) Existentialism, (2) Ex perimentalism, (3) Idealism, (4) Realism, (5) Scholasticism, and (6) Materialism. Total responses have been transformed into percent ages and ranked in descending order from the item with the highest percentage of "Mostly Agree" responses to the item with the lowest percentage of "Mostly Agree" responses. The three items (nos. 20, 27, and 34) common to two schools of philosophy have been treated within the framework of each of the philosophies they represent. Existentialism. The tabulation of responses on Existentialist philosophical beliefs is in Table 5. The highest percentage of "Mostly Agree" responses is 67 per cent and the lowest is 6 per cent. 105 The average "Mostly Agree" response on Existentialist beliefs is 29 per cent, placing Existentialism fifth in the ranking of the six philosophies. TABLE 5 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON EXISTENTIALIST PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS IN RANK ORDER Item Rank Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 (22) Self-fulfillment as purpose of knowing. 67% 13% 18% 2% 100% 2 (21) Understanding based on subjective meaning. 62% 7% 29% 2% 100% 3 ( 4) Reality as what individuals believe. 29% 7% 64% 0% 100% 4 (12) Subjective-nature of each authentic self. 27% 9% 62% 2% 100% 5 (33) Morality dependent on man's choice. 25% 11% 58% 6% 100% 6 ( 9) Ultimate reality as choosing self. 22% 18% 55% 5% 100% 7 (24) Truth as personal and subjective. 16% 6% 78% 0% 100% 8 (39) Values made in choosing. 9% 4% 87% 0% 100% 9 (36) Morality completely personal. 6% 5% 89% 0% 100% Total 263 80 540 17 900 Average 29% 9% 60% 2% 100% Experimentalism. The total responses on Experimentalist philosophical beliefs are tabulated in Table 6. The highest percent age of "Mostly Agree" responses is 69 per cent and the lowest is 18 per cent. The average "Mostly Agree" response on Experimentalist 106 beliefs is 36 per cent, placing Experimentalism fourth in the ranking of the six philosophies. TABLE 6 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON EXPERIMENTALIST PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS IN RANK ORDER Item Rank Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 (28) Instrumentality of knowledge and truth. 69% 11% 20% 0% 100% 2 (35) Morality relative and social. 45% 4% 51% 0% 100% 3.5 (18) Knowledge only through experience. 33% 11% 54% 2% 100% 3.5 (23) Truth relative to time, place, subject. 33% 4% 63% 0% 100% 5 ( 3) Reality merely traits of human experience. 31% 9% 58% 2% 100% 6 (32) Social consequences determine morality. 24% 11% 65% 0% 100% 7 (41) Experience as source of morality. 18% 6% 74% 2% 100% Total 253 56 385 6 700 Average 36% 8% 55% 1% 100% Idealism. The tabulation of responses on Idealist philoso phical beliefs is in Table 7. The average "Mostly Agree" response on Idealist beliefs is 69 per cent, with 98 per cent as the highest and 38 per cent as the lowest. The average "Mostly Agree" response on Idealist beliefs places Idealism third in the ranking of the six philosophies. 107 TABLE 7 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON IDEALIST PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS IN RANK ORDER Item Rank Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 C 6) Spiritual nature of mind. 98% 0% 2% 0% 100% 2 (34)* Moral order transcends human experience. 87% 7% 6% 0% 100% 3 (40) Knowledge of Absolute as pattern for life. 80% 11% 5% 4% 100% 4 (30) Man’s goal as reunifi cation with Absolute. 74% 5% 15% 6% 100% 5 (16) Knowledge as correspon dence to Absolute Mind. 56% 15% 24% 5% 100% 6 (13) Man participant in Absolute Mind. 49% 15% 27% 9% 100% 7 ( 2) Reality ultimately of mind. 38% 11% 51% 0% 100% Total 482 64 130 24 700 Average 69% 9% 19% 3% 100% *Item no. 34 is common to both Idealism and Scholasticism. Realism. The responses on Realist philosophical beliefs are tabulated in Table 8. The highest percentage of "Mostly Agree" re sponses is 98 per cent and the lowest is 24 per cent. The average "Mostly Agree" response on Realist beliefs is 70 per cent, placing Realism second in the ranking of the six philosophies. It is inter esting to note that the two items with the highest percentages of "Mostly Agree" responses are statements of belief held in common by the philosophies of Realism and Scholasticism. 108 TABLE 8 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON REALIST PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS IN RANK ORDER Item Rank Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 (20)* Abstraction of universal concepts. 98% 2% 0% 0% 100% 2 (27)* Self-evident truths. 92% 4% 4% 0% 100% 3 ( 1) Ordered universe dis coverable by science. 87% 0% 13% 0% 100% 4 (19) Truth as correspondence of ideas to reality. 74% 9% 15% 2% 100% 5 (42) Knowledge of natural law for good life. 72% 11% 17% 0% 100% 6 (17) Knowledge objective by scientific observations. 60% 4% 36% 0% 100% 7 (37) Morality strictly natural. 56% 9% 33% 2% 100% 8 (26) Universal nature as test of truth. 24% 13% 61% 2% 100% Total 563 52 179 6 800 Average 70% 7% 22% 1% 100% Item nos. 20 and 27 are common to both Realism and Scholasticism. ScholasticIsm. The responses on Scholastic philosophical be liefs are tabulated in Table 9. The highest percentage of "Mostly Agree" responses is 98 per cent and the lowest is 78 per cent. The average "Mostly Agree" response on Scholastic beliefs is 90 per cent, which places Scholasticism first in the ranking of the six philoso phies . 109 TABLE 9 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS IN RANK ORDER Rank Item Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 (20)a Abstraction of uni versal concepts. 98% 2% 0% 0% 100% 2 ( 7) God created universe. 96% 4% 0% 0% 100% 3 (10) God's purpose for man. 94% 4% 2% 0% 100% 4.33 (27)a Self-evident truths. 92% 4% 4% 0% 100% 4.33 (31) Conformity to God's law and man's nature. 92% 4% 4% 0% 100% 4.33 (25) Existence of divine revelation. 92% 4% 4% 0% 100% 7 (15) Man a unity of body and soul. 89% 9% 2% 0% 100% 8.5 (38) Hierarchy of values in morality. 87% 7% 2% 4% 100% 8.5 (34)b Moral order transcends human experience. 87% 7% 6% 0% 100% 10 (11) Cosmos and man ordered to purpose by God. 85% 9% 6% 0% 100% 11 (29) No contradiction between science and revelation. 78% 13% 7% 2% 100% Total 988 69 37 6 1100 Average 90% 6% 3% 1% 100% aItem nos. 20 and 27 are common to both Realism and Scholasticism. bItem no. 34 is common to both Idealism and Scholasticism. Materialism. Only three statements of belief representative of Materialism and limited only to metaphysics were included in the checklist. The responses to these statements are tabulated in Table 10. The highest percentage of "Mostly Agree" responses is 110 15 per cent and the lowest is 0. The average "Mostly Agree" response on Materialism is 7 per cent, placing Materialism last in the ranking of the six philosophies. TABLE 10 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS IN RANK ORDER Item Rank Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 ( 5) Everything reducible to physical energy. 15% 7% 76% 2% 100% 2 ( 8) Matter alone real and existent. 7% 11% 82% 0% 100% 3 (14) Man merely material biological organism. 0% 6% 94% 0% 100% To tal 22 24 252 2 300 Average 7% 8% 84% 1% 100% Summary of patterns of philosophical belief. The average per centages of all responses according to the six philosophical schools have been tabulated for the purpose of comparison. The different schools were ranked according to the average of "Mostly Agree" re sponses from the highest to the lowest in Table 11. A glance at the comparative averages shows that the respondents favored heavily the beliefs of the classical philosophies; namely, Scholasticism, Realism, and Idealism in that order. On the other hand, the beliefs of the modern philosophies of Experimentalism and Existentialism were re jected in general. In the present study, Materialism was not formally Ill considered a "philosophical school," but it was included in the tabu lation for the purpose of comparison. It is quite apparent that the respondents overwhelmingly rejected the Materialistic beliefs. TABLE 11 RANKING OF PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOLS ACCORDING TO AVERAGES OF RESPONSES Rank Philosophical School Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Range in Scores* 1 Scholasticism 90% 6% 3% 1% 20 2 Realism 70% 7% 22% 1% 74 3 Idealism 69% 9% 19% 3% 60 4 Experimentalism 36% 8% 55% 1% 51 5 Existentialism 29% 9% 60% 2% 61 6 Materialism 7% 8% 84% 1% 15 & "The range is the distance given by highest score minus lowest score. Patterns in Philippine Ethical Beliefs Nine statements were included in this section of the checklist and they were distributed as follows: 4 statements pertaining to be liefs on authority, 3 pertaining to beliefs on smooth interpersonal relations, 1 pertaining to utang-na-loob or reciprocity, and 1 per taining to bayanihan or clan-centeredness. In the breakdown of all checklist items, these nine items were all classified under "Philip pine Ethical Beliefs" or "Philippine Ethical Values." The responses •^Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, p. 69. 112 to these items are tabulated in Table 12. It might be of interest to note that the item with the highest percentage of "Mostly Agree" re sponses, 82 per cent, and the item with the lowest percentage, 6 per cent, both pertain to beliefs on authority. TABLE 12 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON PHILIPPINE ETHICAL BELIEFS IN RANK ORDER Rank Item Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 (44) Equal application of law to all. 82% 4% 14% 0% 100% 2 (46) To shame person same as physical harm. 80% 15% 5% 0% 100% 3 (51) Individual interest sacrificed for family. 49% 18% 31% 2% 100% 4 (45) Flexibility in ap plication of law. 37% 7% 56% 0% 100% 5 (50) Concern about neighbor’s opinion. 35% 9% 56% 0% 100% 6 (47) Repayment of favor binding. 24% 11% 65% 0% 100% 7 (49) Authority obeyed at all times. 18% 4% 78% 0% 100% 8 (48) Lie and not offend listener. 11% 7% 82% 0% 100% 9 (43) No wrong in obey ing authority. 6% 9% 85% 0% 100% Patterns of Educational Belief Of the seven statements on educational beliefs, three repre sented the progressive school of thought and four represented the traditional viewpoint. The percentages of "Mostly Agree" responses for each of the seven items is tabulated according to rank order in 113 Table 13. The highest percentage Is 94 per cent and the lowest is 63 per cent. The items which ranked first, second, and third on the basis of "Mostly Agree" responses are the three favoring the progres sive school of educational thought. TABLE 13 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS IN RANK ORDER Rank Item Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 (54) Education continually refashioned. 94% 2% 4% 0% 100% 2 (56) Educational changes to meet particular needs. 93% 2% 5% 0% 100% 3 (55) Student needs, inter ests basic motivation. 87% 7% 6% 0% 100% 4 (57) Spiritual order in education. 85% 11% 4% 0% 100% 5 (58) Priority of body of truth and tradition. 69% 22% 7% 2% 100% 6 (52) Systematic prepara tion for society. 67% 9% 24% 0% 100% 7 (53) Education principles absolute, universal. 65% 6% 29% 0% 100% Patterns of Belief on Issues in Philippine Education Included in this section were six statements concerning cur rent, pressing issues in Philippine education and one statement con cerning the nature of democracy. This last item is especially of interest in view of the declaration of martial law by the President of the Philippines in September of 1972 and the dissolution of Congress 114 in January of 1973. The tabulation of responses by percentages is in Table 14. The highest percentage of "Mostly Agree" responses is 93 per cent and the lowest is 11 per cent. TABLE 14 PERCENTAGES OF "MOSTLY AGREE" RESPONSES OF ALL RESPONDENTS ON ISSUES IN PHILIPPINE EDUCATION IN RANK ORDER Rank Item Number Statement Summary Agree Unde cided Dis agree Not Clear Total 1 (61) Curricular flexibility for each school. 93% 5% 2% 0% 100% 2 (63) Religion in public schools. 85% 6% 7% 2% 100% 3 (65) Democracy as means therefore replaceable. 67% 11% 22% 0% 100% 4.5 (59) Schools subject to state regulation. 51% 11% 38% 0% 100% 4.5 (64) Priority of general edu cation over vocational. 51% 9% 38% 2% 100% 6 (60) Highly-centralized structure in education. 13% 11% 76% 0% 100% 7 (62) Pilipino as medium of instruction. 11% 13% 76% 0% 100% Summary For the purpose of more efficient treatment, after all the data had been collected, the results were tabulated into tables of a general or over-all nature and tables according to limited, but more meaningful, classifications of respondents and checklist items. Rank ing of responses according to scale scores and according to percent ages was utilized. Tabulating by scale scores was done in preparation for later treatment of data through statistical tests. Tabulating 115 responses according to percentages was a prelude to the more meaning ful distribution of beliefs into categories of high or low acceptance and of high or low rejection so patterns of belief could be delineated with more clarity. The following chapter describes a more detailed analyses of the data and discusses the interpretations drawn from these analyses. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION The present chapter is devoted to the analysis and interpreta tion of the data tabulated and classified in Chapter IV. The organi zation of the present chapter has been influenced by the pattern of questions proposed at the beginning of the study and by the hypotheses formulated as a guide in the investigative process. Degree of Agreement Among Philippine Educational Philosophers It was hypothesized that educational philosophers in Philip pine teacher-training institutions are in greater agreement than dis agreement on philosophical and educational beliefs. Although there is a multiplicity of languages and a strong spirit of regionalism, both of which have a divisive effect on Philippine social and political life, nevertheless the basic cultural and religious underpinnings have produced a certain homogeneity of beliefs among Filipinos. This homo geneity manifests itself in the pattern of responses to the checklist items. The hypothesis concerning agreement in beliefs is interpreted as follows: (1) if the range of scores (highest score minus lowest score) computed for each of the sixty-five items is divided into four equal class intervals, and (2) the first (or lowest) class Interval 116 117 represented agreement In rejection of beliefs, and the fourth (or highest) class interval represented agreement in acceptance of be liefs, (3) the total number of item scores included in these first and fourth class intervals would be greater than the total number of scores in the second and third (or middle) class intervals. The highest score, registered on item no. 20, was +54 and the lowest score was -52, registered on item no. 14. The first class in terval therefore includes the scores from -52 to -26; the second class interval, the scores from -25 to +1; the third class interval, the scores from +2 to +28; and the fourth class interval, the scores from +29 to +55. The division into class intervals is represented thus: -52.5 -25.5 +1.5 +28.5 +55.5 I -------1 -------1 --------1 -------1 1st 2nd 3rd 4th class interval class interval class interval class interval All checklist items, with their scores, have been tabulated in Table 3 on pages 102-103. The breakdown of these item scores accord ing to class intervals is presented in Table 15. TABLE 15 DISTRIBUTION INTO CLASS INTERVALS OF ITEM SCORES OF ALL RESPONDENTS Class Interval Number of Items Fourth (+29) — (+55)................................ 26 Third ( +2) — (+28) . . .......... 13 Second (-25) — ( +1) . .............. 14 First (-52) — (-26)...................................12 Total 65 118 The respondents were agreed on the acceptance of 26 beliefs and on the rejection of 12 beliefs, for a total of 38 beliefs, as compared to a total of 27 beliefs on which there was no agreement. It can therefore be stated that there was more agreement thaii dis agreement in the tested sample of Philippine educational philosophers. Patterns of Specific Beliefs What are the specific beliefs on which there is agreement among Philippine educational philosophers? The answer to this ques tion provides a basis for discovering the patterns of belief among those who influence the philosophical viewpoints of teachers in the Philippine educational system. These patterns are more clearly de fined by following the divisions in the checklist, namely: (1) me taphysical beliefs, (2) epistemological beliefs, (3) axiological be liefs, (4) Philippine ethical beliefs, (5) educational beliefs, and (6) issues in Philippine education. Percentages rather than scale scores were utilized in deter mining where there was agreement and the degree of that agreement. This was done so that (1) the different answer categories— "Mostly Agree," "Undecided," etc.— can be kept separate, yet (2) on a compa rable basis (3) for greater ease in discovering the degree of agree ment. The different levels of agreement were determined in the fol lowing manner: 1. Very strong agreement. Where ninety per cent or more of the respondents checked "Mostly Agree" for a particular statement of 119 belief, this was interpreted to mean that there was very strong agreement among them on the acceptance of that particular belief. Similarly, where ninety per cent or more of the respondents checked "Mostly Disagree" for a particular statement of belief, this was in terpreted to mean that there was very strong agreement among them on the rejection of that particular belief. As interpreted above, very strong agreement on a particular belief is, for all practical purposes, a consensus. When ninety persons or more out of one hundred agree on something, this practically constitutes a consensus. 2. Strong agreement. Agreement in response by eighty to eighty-nine per cent of the respondents was interpreted to mean strong agreement. 3. Some agreement. This meant that seventy to seventy-nine per cent of the respondents agreed in their response to a particular item. 4. Tendency to agree. Where agreement in response to a par ticular item was discovered among sixty to sixty-nine per cent of the respondents, this was interpreted to mean that there was a tendency to agree among the respondents. The various classifications discussed above are summarized thus: Very strong agreement (practical consensus) 90% - 100% Strong agreement 80% - 89% Some agreement 70% - 79% Tendency to agree 60% - 69% 120 Metaphysical Beliefs Agreement among the respondents was discovered for the follow ing beliefs: Very strong agreement (practical consensus) in acceptance (6)1 Mind is more than a product of materialistic factors; mind has a spiritual nature. (98 per cent)^ (7) God created our universe. (96 per cent) (10) God created man for a purpose, which purpose is man's happiness realized perfectly only in God, (94 per cent) Very strong agreement (practical consensus) in rejection (14) Man is essentially a material and biological organism without supernatural or spiritual attributes. (94 per cent) Strong agreement in acceptance (15) Man is an essential unity of a physical body and a spir itual, immortal soul. (89 per cent) (1) Ours is an ordered universe governed by certain laws which can be discovered by man through science. (87 per cent) (11) The cosmos and man are by their nature ordained to a de finite end or purpose established by God. (85 per cent) Strong agreement in rejection (8) Matter alone is real and existent in our universe. (82 per cent) Some agreement in acceptance (30) Man's ultimate goal is reunification with the Ideal, the Absolute. (74 per cent) •'■These numbers correspond to the item numbers in the checklist. ^These are the percentages of "Mostly Agree" responses in case of acceptance and of "Mostly Disagree" responses in case of rejection. 121 Some agreement In rejection (5) Everything in the universe is eventually reducible to physical energy, (76 per cent) Tendency to agree in rejection (4) Reality is that which individual selves believe it to be and it has its meaning only within the individual subjective self. (64 per cent) (12) There is no universal, absolute description of human nature; there is only the unique and subjective nature of each authentic self. (62 per cent) Metaphysical pattern. Educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions were agreed in rejecting all Materialist beliefs regarding the nature of reality in general and the nature of man in particular. The findings thus confirm the fourth hypothesis; that the beliefs of Materialism are rejected by Philippine educational philosophers. Agreement in rejection is also found for two of the three Existentialist beliefs, and on the third Existentialist belief the ratio of rejection to acceptance was almost three to one. For the lone metaphysical belief from Experimentalism the ratio of rejec tion to acceptance was two to one. There was agreement in the acceptance of the lone Realist me taphysical belief, two of the four Idealist beliefs, and all four Scholastic beliefs. In summary, Philippine educational philosophers were in agree ment on the following pattern of metaphysical beliefs: God created the cosmos and man for a definite purpose, which for man is his happiness realized perfectly in God, the Absolute. Man is an essential unity of a physical body and a spiritual, immortal 122 soul, endowed with a spiritual mind which enables him to discover the laws governing our ordered universe. Reality Is objective, not merely subjective, and is composed of more than mere matter. Man is more than just a material, biological organism; man has supernatural and spiritual attributes, with a nature capable of universal description. Epistemological Beliefs The respondents were agreed upon the following epistemological beliefs: Very strong agreement (practical consensus ) in acceptance (20) Man has the intellectual power of abstracting universal concepts from real, particular objects in his experience. (98 per cent) (27) Besides scientific or synthetic truth there are also truths which are self-evident. (92 per cent) (25) Some truths are obtainable by man only through Divine Revelation. (91 per cent) Some agreement in acceptance (29) Science and Revelation do not, and cannot, contradict each other. (78 per cent) (19) Truth is the correspondence of our ideas to things as they really are objectively. (74 per cent) Some agreement in rejection (24) Truth is personal and subjective rather than general and objective. (78 per cent) Tendency to agree in acceptance (28) To manage the world is the problem facing mankind; knowledge and truth are but the instrumentalities for carrying on this work. (69 per cent) 123 (22) The act of choosing is the act of self-realization; and since knowing constitutes self-realization, the purpose of knowing is to fulfill self. (67 per cent) (21) Real understanding derives from the unique self's appropriation of the various subjective meanings of that which is under consideration. (62 per cent) (17) Knowledge is objective and comes about through exact scientific observations and practices. (60 per cent) Tendency to agree in rejection (23) Truth has no objective standard in nature; truth is relative to time, place, and subject. (63 per cent) (26) The real and only test of truth is rigid examination in the light of scientifically established facts about the laws of universal nature. (61 per cent) Epistemological pattern. Philippine educational philosophers were agreed on all four Scholastic epistemological beliefs and on three out of the five Realist beliefs. They agreed on the rejection of the Existentialist Interpretation of truth as personal and sub jective, although they tended to accept some of the subjectivity of Existentialism. There was a tendency to reject the Experimentalist theory on the relativity of truth but a tendency to accept the instrumental theory of knowledge. The pattern of epistemological beliefs that emerged from the analysis of the responses was: Truth is objective, not subjective nor relative, and its norm is the correspondence of ideas to objective reality. Universal ideas are abstracted by the mind from real, particular objects. Truth can be synthetic or scientific (but not'exclusively), self-evident, or revealed, depending on the source. Moreover, there cannot be a 124 contradiction between synthetic or scientific truth and divinely re vealed truth. Real knowledge comes from grasping the various subjective meanings of that which is under consideration, and the purposes of knowledge are; (1) to fulfill self, and (2) to be the instrumentality for managing the world. It seems hard to reconcile the tendency to accept the Existen tialist emphasis oh subjectivity necessary for real understanding with the rejection of truth as personal and subjective. However, re conciliation could be effected on the basis of objective truth being more meaningful to the individual when internalized or perceived as relevant. Axiological Beliefs Agreement in the field of ethics was registered by the respon dents on the following beliefs: Very strong agreement (practical consensus) in acceptance (31) The good act is that which conforms to the command of God and to the rational nature of man. (91 per cent) Strong agreement in acceptance (34) Man must rely upon a higher moral order which transcends human experience and which will eternally serve as a guide toward the good life for all men everywhere. (87 per cent) (38) There is a hierarchy of values so that, if there be conflict between man’s duties to God and to his neigh bor, the superior right takes precedence over the in ferior. (87 per cent) 125 (40) Man must seek knowledge of the Ideal or Absolute and conduct his life in accord with this Pattern. (80 per cent) Strong agreement in rejection (36) "Right" and "wrong" are completely personal matters and each self must choose his own unique standards. (89 per cent) (39) Values are not imposed on us by God, nature, or so ciety; in choosing we make our values out of nothing. (87 per cent) Some agreement in acceptance (42) To live a wholesome life man must rely upon an ever- increasing knowledge of the natural laws as they are operative in the social setting. (72 per cent) Some agreement in rejection (41) There is no universal moral order; for morality is de rived from the social experience of man in the course of history; and morality has no source outside the context of temporal human experience. (74 per cent) Tendency to agree in rejection (32) An act is good not because of some absolute standard but because the consequences that flow from the act are good for society. (65 per cent) Axiological pattern. Three Scholastic statements of ethical belief were included in the checklist; strong or very strong agreement was registered by the respondents on all these beliefs. There was also strong agreement in accepting the two Idealist beliefs. Some agreement was registered for one of the two Realist beliefs. There was strong agreement in the rejection of two out of three Existen tialist ethical beliefs, and the respondents either rejected or tended to reject two of the three Experimentalist ethical beliefs. The pattern of tested ethical beliefs of educational philoso phers in Philippine teacher- training institutions is as follows: 126 The norm for morality In human behavior Is conformity to God's command and to human reason. This norm or order, which transcends mere human experience, Is objective and universal— not subjective, depending on personal choice, nor relative, depending on societal consequences. This norm, which includes a hierarchy of values govern ing the resolution of conflicting rights, can be discovered by man through knowledge of the Absolute and of the natural law. Fidelity to this norm of morality is the key to the good life for man every where . Philippine Ethical Beliefs In the area of value beliefs considered important in Philip pine life, agreement among the respondents was more of a negative nature. Strong agreement in acceptance (44) A law must be applied equally to all citizens. (82 per cent) (46) To shame a person in public is at least as serious a wrong as inflicting physical harm on that person. (80 per cent) Strong agreement in rejection (43) One can do no wrong in obeying the command of a person in authority. (85 per cent) (48) If what one has to say will offend the listener then it Is not wrong to lie. (82 per cent) Some agreement in rej ection (49) Persons in authority must be respected and obeyed at all times. (78 per cent) 127 Tendency to agree In rejection (47) Repayment of a favor received is as binding as the fulfillment of a legal contract. (65 per cent) Pattern of Philippine ethical beliefs. The authority value is reportedly strong in Philippine life and an eminent Philippine social researcher has submitted as a value belief of the Manila Fili pino that "authority figures must be respected and obeyed, though only within limits."^ In the checklist the belief was presented in a stronger formulation to determine the extent of the authority value. The respondents were agreed in rejecting the complete and unquestion ing following of authority. Philippine educational philosophers were agreed on the following ethical stand: Persons in authority need not be obeyed at all times nor is one exonerated from blame by using obedience to authority as the ex cusing cause. Attitudes toward observance of law is definitely a problem in ethics. This problem has been aggravated in the Philippines by the clash of traditional kinship-oriented ethical norms and the new con cept of "the rule of law as the method by which social order is e\ maintained." The presence of this "conflict of conscience," even among the educated, seems borne out by an analysis of the responses. For the respondents were strongly agreed on the principle that a law 'kjaime Bulatao, S.J., "The Manileno’s Mainsprings," in Four Readings on Philippine Values, ed. by Frank Lynch (2nd ed.; Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1964), p. 64. ^Corpuz, The Philippines, p. 91. 128 must be applied equally to all citizens. Yet there is no clear re jection of the belief, expressed in checklist item no. 45, that "the application of a law must be flexible, depending on whom it is ap plied." Another Philippine value, smoothness of interpersonal rela tions, "considered relatively more important by Filipinos than by Americans,"-*- means ... a sensitivity to what other people feel at any given moment, and a willingness and ability to change tack (if not direction) to catch the lightest favoring breeze.2 Philippine educational philosophers were in strong agreement in ac cepting an ethical belief concerned with this value; namely, that to shame a person in public is at least as serious a wrong as inflicting physical harm on that person. At the same time these same philoso phers were in strong agreement in rejecting the belief that if what one has to say will offend the listener then it is not wrong to lie. Utang-na-loob or reciprocity generates obligations and is therefore an ethical value. Every Filipino is expected to possess utang-na-loob; "that is, he should be aware of his obligations to those from whom he receives favors and should repay them in an ac ceptable manner.An attempt was made through the checklist to de termine the strength of this obligation. An analysis of the responses -*-Lynch, "Social Acceptance," p. 8. 2Ibid. ^Mary R. Hollnsteiner,. "Reciprocity in the Lowland Philip pines," in Four Readings cm Philippine Values, ed. by Frank Lynch (2nd ed.; Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1964), p. 29. 129 showed that an obligation on the contractual level was rejected by sixty-five per cent of the respondents and accepted by only twenty- four per cent. In short, the obligation arising from utang-na-loob is not equivalent to a contractual obligation. Hiya, another Philippine value, is included among the "strong positive attitudes"^ discovered by Bulatao in his study; namely, that "one must be careful about what the neighbors are thinking regarding oneself." It was discovered that fifty-six per cent of the respon dents rejected this belief and only thirty-five per cent accepted it. This belief can therefore be considered a controversial one among Philippine educational philosophers although the number of respondents rejecting it almost brings it up to the "tendency to agree in rejec tion" level. On bayanihan or clan-centeredness, although more respondents accepted the checklist statement than rejected it (forty-nine per cent against thirty-one per cent), nevertheless the belief that "the inter est of the individual must be sacrificed for the good of the family,"^ remains a controversial one. It might be of interest to compare the responses on Philippine values of the American educators included in the reliability study with the responses of the Philippine educational p h i l o s o p h e r s This ^Bulatao, "The Manileno’s Mainsprings," p. 51. '^Ibid., p. 73. ^Ibid., p. 57. ^The responses on the first administration of the test-retest reliability study were utilized for the comparison of the American reliability group beliefs with those of the Philippine sample. 130 comparison is given in Table 16. TABLE 16 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES ON CHECKLIST NOS. 43-51 BY PHILIPPINE SAMPLE AND AMERICAN RELIABILITY GROUP Mos tly Agree Mostly Disagree Item Number Statement Summary Philippine Sample American Group Philippine Sample American Group (43) No wrong in obeying authority. 6% 0% 85% 100% (44) Equal application of law to all. 82% 40% 14% 28% (45) Flexibility in ap plication of law. 37% 52% 56% 28% (46) To shame person same as physical harm 80% 72% 5% 16% (47) Repayment of favor binding. 24% 20% 65% 60% (48) Lie and not offend listener. 11% 20% 82% 44% (49) Authority obeyed at all times. 18% 0% 78% 92% (50) Concern about neigh bor’s opinion. 35% 20% 56% 64% (51) Individual interest sac rificed for family. 49% 24% 31% 48% Concerning attitudes toward authority (item nos. 43 and 49), the two groups manifested similar enough patterns with the Filipipos leaning slightly more toward authoritarianism. Concerning the appli cation of law (item nos. 44 and 45), there is a significant difference between the two groups. Surprisingly, the Philippine group manifested greater egalitarianism than the American group. Equal application of 131 law was endorsed by 82 per cent of the Philippine respondents as com pared to 40 per cent of the American group, whereas 56 per cent of the Filipinos rejected flexibility in applying the law as compared to only 28 per cent of the Americans, Although this seems to contradict the cultural expectations, it must be noted that Philippine educational philosophers were overwhelmingly absolutistic in their philosophical viewpoints and adhered strongly to Scholastic principles which hinge on the core ideas of God, nature, reason, and order. The absolutistic philosophy of the Philippine educational philosophers might also ex plain why, although the Filipino respondents were agreed on the wrong ness of shaming a person in public, these same respondents strongly rejected the telling of a lie in order not to offend the listener whereas less than half of the American group rejected this belief. The Philippine stand makes sense in view of the Scholastic ethical theory that a lie is wrong no matter what the circumstances.^- On the importance of what others think concerning oneself, the Filipino respondents differed from the Americans who registered some agreement in rejecting this belief. Concerning the obligation to repay a favor, an analysis of the responses showed no significant dif ference between the Filipino and the American respondents although there is supposedly a bias in the Philippine culture toward such an •Vtt would be interesting to test the beliefs expressed by the Philippine respondents against their actual behavior. Beliefs are consciously formalized propositions on the intellectual level and they might not really affect behavior which is influenced by the informal, unwritten norms of the culture. 132 obligation. A significant difference was registered between the two groups concerning the belief that the individual's interest must be sacrificed for the good of the family, with the Philippine group favoring the belief by a two-to-one ratio. A caution must be expressed here. The preceding comparisons between the American reliability group and the Philippine sample are interesting, but they cannot provide valid conclusions because the American group was not a representative sample of educational philoso phers in American teacher-training institutions. Educational Beliefs Agreement concerning basic educational principles was regis tered by the respondents on the following: Very strong agreement (practical consensus) in acceptance (54) Educational content and method must be continually re fashioned for a particular society in a particular place at a particular time. (94 per cent) (56) Ours is basically a dynamic universe and education must constantly change to meet the particular needs of the time. (93 per cent) Strong agreement in acceptance (55) The basic motivational factors in education are the felt needs and interests of the students. (87 per cent) (57) Education must be cognizant of the spiritual and the supernatural order as well as the natural order. (85 per cent) Tendency to agree in acceptance (58) Before a person can develop his thinking processes and his ability to solve problems, he must be provided a 133 secure linkage to a body of truth and to a historical tradition. (69 per cent) (52) The fundamental purpose of the school is a systematic preparation of children for their ultimate places in society. (67 per cent) (53) The primary principles of education are absolute and uni versal rather than relative and variable. (65 per cent) Pattern of educational beliefs. Although Philippine educa tional philosophers accepted all the educational principles in the checklist, they were overwhelmingly in favor of the progressive be liefs. The only traditional belief on which strong agreement was re gistered concerned cognizance of the spiritual element in the educa tive process. This may be interpreted as another indication of the influence of the religious background of the respondents. Based on the checklist responses, the educational beliefs pat tern of Philippine educational philosophers is: Education, utilizing the motivational factors of student in terests and felt needs, must be constantly refashioned to meet the particular needs of a particular society in a particular place at a particular time, always taking into account the spiritual as well as the natural order. Issues in Philippine Education The educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions manifested agreement in their stands on the following issues in Philippine education: 134 Very strong agreement (practical consensus) in acceptance (61) More flexibility in curriculum planning should be al lowed each school whether public or private. (93 per cent) Strong agreement in acceptance (63) Religion should be taught in the public schools on a voluntary basis. (85 per cent) Some agreement in rejection (60) The present highly-centralized structure in education with the Secretary of Education wielding all power as the arm of the State should be maintained. (76 per cent) (62) Pilipino should be the medium of instruction on all levels in all Philippine schools. (76 per cent) Tendency to agree in acceptance (65) Democracy Is not an end in itself but is only a means of achieving the maximum general welfare for the people. Therefore, if it does not achieve the general welfare of the people it may be replaced by another form of government. (67 per cent) Pattern of beliefs concerning issues in Philippine education. Practical consensus was registered by the respondents on the belief that all public and private schools be allowed more curricular free dom. Some agreement was manifested in rejecting the maintenance of the present highly-centralized structure of the Philippine educational system. However, the respondents, although not achieving a level of agreement, favored retention of the present Constitutional provision that "all educational institutions should be subject to regulation by the State and under the supervision of the State.Some agreement ■^Checklist item no. 59. Cf. Philippines, Constitution, Art. XIV, sec. 5. 135 was discovered for opposing the use of Pilipino as the medium of in struction at all levels in all Philippine schools. Interestingly enough, this opposition to the use of Pilipino at all levels in all schools was strong among the educational philosophers in the state institutions of higher learning, where not a single respondent regis tered approval. The respondents were in strong agreement for optional religious instruction in the public schools. Fifty-one per cent of the respondents favored the belief that Philippine public elementary and secondary schools should be concerned primarily with general edu cation and only secondarily with vocational education. Although re presenting a majority of the respondents, the percentage of "Mostly Agree" responses did not achieve a level of agreement. Concerning some of the important issues in Philippine educa tion, a summary of the viewpoints on which Philippine educational philosophers are in agreement is as follows: The highly-centralized structure in Philippine education should be changed so all schools, public and private, be allowed more curricular freedom. Pilipino should not be the medium of instruction at all levels of education; and optional religious instruction should be provided in the public schools. A last item, which was included in this section of the check list by virtue of its becoming an issue in the present Philippine scene, concerns the nature of democracy. The respondents tended to agree in-accepting the belief that: 136 Democracy Is only a means to "promote the general welfare" of the people so that If It does achieve this end It may be replaced by another form of government. Preferences According to Philosophical Schools The second hypothesis formulated for the study was that Phil ippine educational philosophers favor the beliefs of the classical philosophies over those of the modern philosophies. A perusal of Tables 5 through 11 shows that the respondents were heavily in favor of beliefs representing (1) Scholasticism, with an average of ninety per cent of the respondents accepting Scholastic beliefs as contrasted to-only three per cent rejecting them, (2) Real ism, with an average seventy per cent registering acceptance of Real ist beliefs, and (3) Idealism, with an average sixty-nine per cent accepting its beliefs. Existentialism and Experimentalism, the modern philosophies included in the study, had acceptance averages of thirty- six per cent and twenty-nine per cent respectively. Very clearly then Philippine educational philosophers favor the beliefs of the classical philosophies over those of the modern philosophies. Based on the preceding analysis, the third hypothesis is also confirmed: The philosophic beliefs of Scholasticism rank highest in acceptance among Philippine educational philosophers. This can be explained by two related factors. First of all, the great majority of i This is explicitly mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitu tion of the Philippines as one of the aims for which the government has been established. 137 the Filipino people are Catholics. As such they adhere to Catholic theology and to Scholastic philosophical beliefs which are intimately related to that theology. The second factor is the relatively large number of Catholic teacher-training institutions, in which the pre valent practice is to teach Scholasticism exclusively. As of 1971 the combined total of all (1) state, (2) private non-denominational, and (3) private non-Catholic denominational teacher-training institu tions was seventy-six as compared to 173 Catholic teacher-training institutions, including the largest education school in the Philip pines, the University of Santo Tomas.^ Stated philosophical schools. What are the philosophical schools or systems to which Philippine educational philosophers pro fess adherence? A tally of the stated preferences of each respondent, tabulated in Table 17, shows that twenty-two of the fifty-five re spondents identified themselves as Scholastics. The second largest group, twenty in number, was composed of those who identified them selves as Eclectics. Thus the fifth and sixth hypotheses are con firmed. A comparatively large number of educational philosophers identify themselves as eclectic in their philosophical stance. Among those who identify themselves with specific philosophic schools, ■^An estimate of the size and of the influence in education of the University of Santo Tomas might be gathered from the following consideration. In the compilation by the National Science Development Board of graduate theses prepared in the Philippines for the years 1961 through 1965, thirty-seven doctoral dissertations were listed as approved in the field of education; thirty of these were for the Uni versity of Santo Tomas. National Science Development Board, Compi- lation of Graduate Theses Prepared in the Philippines, 1961-1965, pp. 159-165.---------------------------------- -------------- 138 excluding Eclecticism, the largest number adheres to the school of Scholas ticlsm. TABLE 17 COMPARISON OF STATED AND TESTED PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINTS OF ALL RESPONDENTS BY MEANS OF BELIEF "CLUSTERS" Stated Test e d Be lief Belief Realism (8 Items) Idealism (7 Items) Scholast. (11 Items) Experimt. (7 Items) Existent. (9 items) 1 Eclecticism 88% 86% 82% - - 2 Scholasticism - — 82% - - 3 Scholasticism - - 100% - - 4 Scholasticism - - 100% - - 5 Scholasticism - - 100% - - 6 Experimentalism 88% - - - - 7 Exis tentialism - - 91% - - 8 Scholas ticlsm - - 82% - - 9 Eclecticism - 100% 100% - - 10 Eclecticism - - - - - 11 Eclecticism - 86% — - - 12 Eclecticism - 86% 100% - - 13 Eclecticism 88% 100% 91% - - 14 Scholasticism - 100% 100% 86% 100% 15 S cholas tic ism - - 100% - - 16 Experimentalism 100% 86% 100% - - 17 Scholasticism 88% - 100% - - 18 Scholas ticlsm - - 91% - - 19 Eclecticism - 86% 91% - - 20 Eclecticism 88% 100% 100% - - 21 Eclecticism - 86% 100% - - 22 Idealism - 100% 91% - - 23 Realism 100% 86% 91% - - 24 Eclecticism - - 91% - - 25 Idealism - - 100% - - 26 Eclecticism 88% 100% 100% - - 27 Idealism 100% - 82% - - 28 Eclecticism - 100% 91% 86% - 29 Realism 88% - 100% - - 30 Exis tentialism - - 82% - - 31 Eclecticism - - 91% - — 32 Scholasticism - - 100% - - 33 Exis tentialism — - 100% - - 139 TABLE 17— Continued Stated Test ed Belief Belief Realism Idealism Scholast. Experimt. Existent. (8 items) (7 items) (11 items) (7 items) (9 items) 34 Eclecticism 91% 35 Scholasticlsm - - 100% — - 36 Realism 100% - 100% — - 37 Scholasticism - 100% 100% - - 38 Eclecticism 100% 100% 100% - - 39 Eclecticism - 100% - - - 40 Eclecticism - 100% 91% - — 41 Scholasticism 86% 100% - - 42 Scholasticlsm 88% - 100% - - 43 Scholasticism - - 100% - - 44 Scholasticism - 86% 100% - - 45 Eclecticism — - 91% - - 46 Scholasticism 88% - 91% - - 47 Idealism - 100% 100% - - 48 Scholasticism — 100% 100% - - 49 Scholasticism — - 100% — - 50 Eclecticism - - - - - 51 Scholasticism - - 100% - - 52 Scholas ticlsm 88% - 100% - - 53 Eclecticism 88% - 91% — - 54 Realism - 86% 91% - - 55 Scholasticism “ The Investigator had previously thought that with the rise of nationalism Philippine educational philosophers might show independence of thought by not identifying themselves with any specific Western philosophical school and instead refer to themselves as philosophically eclectic. But with the largest group explicitly stating adherence to Scholasticism, this seems not to be the case. However, when the totals are broken down into categories of institutions, it is seen that iden tification with Scholasticism is very strong among those in the private religious institutions and is weak among those from state and private 140 non-denominational institutions where over fifty per cent of respon dents identified themselves with Eclecticism. A further question concerning adherence to specific philoso phical schools was posited in the first chapter. Do the tested be liefs of these educational philosophers coincide with the beliefs re presentative of the philosophic schools with which they identify themselves? In the attempt to answer this question, the investigator made use of "clustering." In this study the term "clustering" means that a respondent agrees with eighty per cent or more of the beliefs representing a particular philosophical school. For example, there were eleven items representative of Scholasticism in the checklist; if a respondent answered "Mostly Agree" to at least nine of these items then that respondent had a "cluster" (nine-eleventh or eighty- two per cent) in Scholasticism. Each one of the completed checklists was reviewed for such "clusters" within the framework of Existential ism, Experimentalism, Idealism, Realism, and Scholasticism. The re sults are presented in Table 17. It must be noted that the listing of the respondents did not follow any pre-arranged order. It had been assumed that if a respondent identified himself as an Existentialist, his responses for the checklist beliefs repre senting Existentialism should form a "cluster." In such a case it could be stated that the respondent's tested beliefs coincided with his stated beliefs, even if "clusters" were also registered for other philosophical schools. Table 17 shows that: (1) none of the three Existentialist respondents had a "cluster" in Existentialism, (2) none of the two 141 Experimentalist respondents had a "cluster" in Experimentalism, (3) two of the four Idealists had an Idealist "cluster," (4) three of the four Realists had a Realist "cluster," and (5) twenty-one of the twenty-two Scholastic respondents had a "cluster" in Scholasticism. The twenty respondents who identified themselves as Eclectics had no representative set of beliefs against which their responses could be compared and they were therefore not Included in the analysis. Thus only thirty-five respondents had their stated beliefs compared to their tested beliefs. Twenty-six of these respondents, or seventy- four per cent of the group, registered "clusters" in their stated philosophical systems. The percentage is high enough to warrant the conclusion that the tested beliefs of Philippine educational philoso phers coincide with the beliefs representative of the philosophic schools with which they identify themselves. If exception is to be made, it is with regard to those whose stated preference was for Existentialism and Experimentalism yet registered no "clusters" in their philosophies. Table 18 shows the overwhelming predominance of "clusters" in the classical philosophies of Idealism, Realism, and Scholasticism. There were eighty-eight "clusters" in the classical philosophies as contrasted with only three in the modern philosophies. This again confirms the second hypothesis that Philippine educational philoso phers favor the beliefs of the classical over those of the modern philosophies. Comparison by means of "clusters" has also confirmed the third hypothesis that the philosophic beliefs of Scholasticism 142 rank highest In acceptance among Philippine educational philosophers. Only six out of the fifty-five respondents had no "clusters" in Scho lasticism. TABLE 18 DISTRIBUTION OF "CLUSTERS" OF PHILOSOPHIC BELIEFS BY PHILOSOPHIC SCHOOLS Philosophic School Number of Clusters Percentage of Respondents Exis tentialism 1 2% Experimentalism 2 4% Idealism 23 44% Realism 16 30% Scholasticism 49 84% Total 91 It is Interesting to note that twenty-three respondents, or forty-four per cent of the sample, had "clusters" in Idealism, which were distributed as follows: Experimentalist, 1; Idealists, 2; Real ists, 2; Scholastics, 5; and Eclectics, 13. Thus it can be stated that the largest number of Philippine educational philosophers who accept Idealistic beliefs is found among the Eclectics. Preferences According to Educational Viewpoints The seventh hypothesis formulated at the beginning of the study was: The educational philosophers in Philippine teacher- training institutions favor progressive educational beliefs over tra ditional educational beliefs. On the basis of the ranked data in 143 Table 3 and in Table 13 this hypothesis is accepted. The average scale score for the progressive educational beliefs is +48 as compared to the average of +31 for the traditional beliefs. However, it must be noted that, although the respondents favored the progressive be liefs, they did not reject the traditional beliefs. In fact, one of the traditional beliefs, that of recognizing the spiritual order in education, was in the category of "strong agreement in acceptance." A practical application of this last belief is treated in the follow ing section on issues in Philippine education. Preferences Regarding Issues in Philippine Education As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, strong agreement in acceptance was registered for the principle that cognizance be taken of the spiritual order in education. The same strong agreement was registered by the respondents in acceptance of the belief that reli gion should be taught in the public schools on a voluntary basis.^ Concerning this belief, which is included in the Constitution,^ there was no significant difference in the responses of those in state institutions, those in private non-denominational institutions, and those in private religious institutions. ^-The percentage of "Mostly Agree" responses for both item no. 57 and item no. 63 is the same; namely, eighty-five per cent. ^Philippines, Constitution, Art. XIV, sec. 5. "Optional re ligious instruction shall be maintained in the public schools as now authorized by law." 144 The eighth hypothesis was that the respondents oppose the present highly-centralized structure of education. Seventy-six per cent of the respondents expressed explicit rejection while only thirteen per cent answered "Mostly Agree" on this item. This means that there was some agreement in its rejection. The hypothesis is therefore accepted: Philippine educational philosophers are opposed to the present highly-centralized structure of the Philippine educa tional system. With the same percentage of rejection (seventy-six per cent), these same educational philosophers are also against the use of Pilipino as the medium of instruction on all levels of instruc tion. This last was the ninth hypothesis, which is accepted. Ranking first in degree of acceptance among issues in Philip pine education is the belief that more flexibility in curriculum plan ning should be allowed each school whether public or private. Very strong agreement or practical consensus on the acceptance of this be lief was registered by the respondents. Of the seven respondents who accepted high centralization only one rejected this statement on cur ricular flexibility for each school. Differences Among Respondent Groups As stated in the third chapter, stratification was introduced in the sampling to ensure a more representative sample.. The variables of geographic area, affiliation with state or private institutions, the level of instruction, and the kind of work (administration or teaching) were considered in choosing the sample. This section deals 145 with the effect these variables had on the main variable being inves tigated; namely, the beliefs of educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions. State versus private denominational versus private non- denominational institutions. It was hypothesized that there is a sig nificant difference in philosophic and educational beliefs of educa tional philosophers in (1) state, (2) private non-denominational, and (3) private denominational teacher-training institutions. An appro priate method for determining whether there are any significant dif ferences among the three sets of respondents is the analysis of variance, a method amply described in books on statistics.^ Because the checklist items taken together are not homogeneous in nature but rather form groups of beliefs, each group or section dealing with a different philosophic school or with a different sub ject matter, the checklist responses were tested for differences on the basis of these sections. The results of the analysis of variance performed on each of the sections are found on the following page in Table 19. These results show that on all the sections the hull hypo thesis is accepted and the research hypothesis rejected. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the philosophic and educational beliefs of educational philosophers in (1) state, (2) private non- denominational, and (3) private denominational teacher-training insti tutions . Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, pp. 268-303. 146 TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF RESPONSES IN TEN CHECKLIST SECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS IN (1) STATE, (2) PRIVATE NON-DENOMINATIONAL, AND (3) PRIVATE DENOMINATIONAL TEACHER-TRAINING INSTITUTIONS Checklist Section F Value df = 2, 52 Significance of Difference Exis tentialism 2.94 Not significant Experimentalism 1.37 Not significant Idealism 0.15 Not significant Realism 0.59 Not significant Scholasticism 1.24 Not significant Materialism 0.19 Not significant Philippine Ethical Values 1.17 Not significant Traditional Education 0.13 Not significant Progressive Education 0.84 Not significant Issues in Philippine Education 1.03 Not significant Since the variable of affiliation with state, private non- denominational, and private denominational institutions was considered important, a further test for significance of difference was conducted on an item-by-item basis. A test that lends itself very well for this purpose is the chi square in a contingency table.^ The results are tabulated in Table 20. Significant differences at the .05 or higher levels of confi dence were discovered for responses among the three groups being com pared in the following sections: metaphysics, 5; epistemology, 2; axiology, 1; Philippine ethical beliefs, 1; educational beliefs, 1; and issues in Philippine education, 2. 1Ibid., pp. 227-251. 147 TABLE 20 OBTAINED CHI SQUARES FOR EACH CHECKLIST ITEM BASED ON AFFILIATION OF RESPONDENTS TO (1) STATE, (2) PRIVATE NON-DENOMINATIONAL, AND (3) PRIVATE DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Item Number Chi Square df “ 4 Significance of Difference 1 2.80 Not significant 2 20.03 Significant at .001 level 3 15.55 Significant at .01 level 4 13.81 Significant at .01 level 5 16.31 Significant at .01 level 6 5.21 Not significant 7 3.29 Not significant 8 4.36 Not significant 9 12.92 Significant at .05 level 10 6.12 Not significant 11 2.53 Not significant 12 5.15 Not significant 13 3.48 Not significant 14 4.95 Not significant 15 3.34 Not significant 16 2.92 Not significant 17 1.39 Not significant 18 1.17 Not significant 19 11.13 Significant at .05 level 20 3.29 Not significant 21 6.40 Not significant 22 5.05 Not significant 23 2.61 Not significant 24 5.86 Not significant 25 6.79 Not significant 26 8.93 Not significant 27 6.78 Not significant 28 9.09 Not significant 29 17.04 Significant at .01 level 30 5.79 Not significant 31 2.34 Not significant 32 2.30 Not significant 33 2.56 Not significant 34 2.31 Not significant 35 13.86 Significant at .01 level 36 5.61 Not significant 37 3.85 Not significant 38 3.41 Not significant 148 TABLE 20— Continued Item Number Chi Square df = 4 Significance of Difference 39 6.05 Not significant 40 2.15 Not significant 41 2.19 Not significant 42 3.10 Not significant 43 2.09 Not significant 44 3.47 Not significant 45 7.67 Not significant 46 1.77 Not significant 47 4.68 Not significant 48 13.77 Significant at .01 level 49 7.09 Not significant 50 8.06 Not significant 51 8.46 Not significant 52 6.49 Not significant 53 9.55 Significant at .05 level 54 2.12 Not significant 55 7.66 Not significant 56 1.36 Not significant 57 3.79 Not significant 58 3.77 Not significant 59 14.74 Significant at .01 level 60 5.07 Not significant 61 6.67 Not significant 62 11.35 Significant at .05 level 63 6.07 Not significant 64 1.48 . Not significant 65 7.03 Not significant A significant difference among the three groups of educational philosophers was noted in thirty-one per cent of the metaphysical items. On the Idealist belief that ultimate reality is of the nature of mind, 77 per cent of the state school respondents agreed compared to only 24 per cent of the private denominational school respondents. On the Experimentalist belief that reality is merely human reaction to experience only 12 per cent of the denominational school respondents 149 agreed compared to 62 per cent and 55 per cent of the private non- denominational and state school respondents. On the Existentialist belief that reality is what individual selves believe it to be, only 15 per cent of the private denominational school respondents agreed compared to 69 per cent of the private non-denominational school re spondents. On another Existentialist belief that ultimate reality is the choosing self, practically the same ratio was maintained of a high percentage (54 per cent) for private non-denominational school respon dents and a low percentage for state (22 per cent) and private denom inational school respondents (9 per cent). On the Materialist belief that everything in the universe is reducible to physical energy, again the percentage for private non-denominational school respondents was relatively high (46 per cent) compared to those of the state (11 per cent) and the private denominational schools (3 per cent). On all the above-discussed metaphysical beliefs relatively few respondents from the private denominational schools registered ap proval. Similarly, the state school respondents had low percentages of approval— with the exception of the Idealist belief that reality was of the nature of mind. However, from the private non-denomina tional schools the percentage of respondents registering approval ranged from forty to sixty per cent. A possible interpretation of the preceding is as follows: (1) private denominational school respon dents, being mainly Scholastics, hold strictly to the metaphysical principles of Scholasticism to the exclusion of other metaphysical be liefs; (2) state school respondents adhere strongly to Idealist 150 principles in metaphysics to the exclusion of other metaphysical be liefs; (3) private non-denominational respondents do not adhere to any philosophical school in their metaphysical beliefs. There seems to be a consistency in the metaphysical beliefs of respondents in state and private denominational institutions where a lack of consistency is manifested in the responses of private non-denominational school re spondents. A good example of the lack of consistency among the re spondents in private non-denominational institutions is the manner in which they answered item no. 5— "Everything in the universe is even tually reducible to physical energy" (46 per cent approval)— and item no. 8— "Matter alone is real and existent in our universe" (8 per cent approval). Doubt may be cast on the adequacy of their knowledge in philosophy of education since, of the thirteen respondents from pri vate non-denominational institutions, only two had majored in philos ophy— one in general philosophy, the other in philosophy of education. A significant difference among the three groups of respondents was discovered in two items (14 per cent) pertaining to epistemology. On the Realist belief of truth as correspondence of ideas to reality, both state and private denominational school respondents registered a high percentage of approval (77 per cent and 81 per cent respectively) whereas private non-denominational school respondents registered an average 54 per cent approval. On the Scholastic belief that there can be no contradiction between science and revelation, a high percentage of private denominational school respondents agreed (94 per cent) compared to 62 per cent of private non-denominational school 151 respondents and a relatively low 44 per cent of state school respon dents . From the above analysis, the religious and Scholastic leanings of private denominational school respondents are evident. On the other hand, educational philosophers in state institutions are not agreed on either acceptance or rejection of the science-revelation epistemological harmony. For them the belief remains a controversial one. A significant difference among the three groups of respon dents was discovered in one item pertaining to axiology. This was the Experimentalist belief that morality is relative and dependent on the social setting. The distribution of those who accepted this be lief is as follows: 55 per cent, state; 62 per cent, private non- denominational; 39 per cent, private denominational. Again the Scho lastic influence among private denominational respondents is shown. A significant difference was discovered for one item in the Philippine ethical beliefs section; namely, that it is not wrong to lie in order not to offend the listener. The respondents from the private religious schools registered a low six per cent rate of ap proval, which again can be attributed to the influence of Scholasti cism and its absolutistic morality. In the educational beliefs section a significant difference among the three groups of respondents was discovered on the belief that the primary principles of education are absolute and universal. The private religious school respondents registered a high percentage 152 (76 per cent) as contrasted to a low rate of approval (33 per cent) among state school respondents. On two items pertaining to issues in Philippine education a significant difference among the three groups was registered. Both state and private non-denominational respondents registered a seventy- seven per cent rate of acceptance against thirty-three per cent by the private denominational school respondents on the belief that all educational institutions should be subject to regulation and super vision by the government. The opposition of most respondents in pri vate religious institutions was expected. But acceptance by a large majority of the respondents in private non-denominational institutions seems strange, unless a conjecture is made that only under government regulation and supervision can faculty members in these institutions be protected against "exploitation" by the private school "owners."'*' A significant difference was also registered on the responses to the statement that Pilipino be the medium of instruction on all levels of formal education. Whereas no respondent from either the state or the private non-denominational institutions favored this belief, eighteen per cent of the private denominational school respondents accepted the belief. This may seem surprising since state schools, as the bastions of nationalism in the Philippines, are expected to promote the national language over the language of "colonialism"; whereas private religious institutions have been accused of diluting ■^Most private non-denominational schools are stock corpora tions and declare dividends at the end of the fiscal year. 153 nationalist tradition and sentiments by "foreign subversion."-*- Difference between respondents on the university level and on the college level. The eleventh hypothesis was: There is no signifi cant difference in philosophic and educational beliefs between edu cational philosophers in universities and those in colleges. To de termine the difference between the scores of the two groups of respon dents the statistical test known as Student's t^ was used. Student's _t is a useful statistic because it applies regardless of the size of the sample. The results of the t^ tests on the two sets of scores are tabu lated in Table 21. The results show that there was a significant difference at the .05 level only in the set of beliefs representative of Realism. There was no significant difference in the nine other sections of the checklist, although the relatively large Jt ratios for the scores on items pertaining to Idealism almost reached the level of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted except for the section of Realist beliefs. It can therefore be stated that in gen eral there is no significant difference in philosophic and educational beliefs between educational philosophers in universities and those in colleges. Difference among respondents according to philosophic schools. The twelfth hypothesis was: There is a significant difference in -^Constantino, The Filipinos in the Philippines, pp. 59-63. 2Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, p. 182. 154 TABLE 21 RESULTS OF £ TESTS ON RESPONSES IN TEN CHECKLIST SECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS IN (1) UNIVERSITIES AND (2) COLLEGES Checklist Section t ratio df - 53 Significance of Difference Existentialism .7625 Not significant Experimentalism .1832 Not significant Idealism 2.0062 Not significant Realism 2.0079 Significant at .05 level Scholasticism 1.7768 Not significant Materialism .8016 Not significant Philippine Ethical Values .2323 Not significant Traditional Education .4454 Not significant Progressive Education 1.4197 Not significant Issues in Philippine Education .5701 Not significant philosophic and educational beliefs among educational philosophers in the different philosophic schools. The analysis of variance was used in determining the significance of the difference on the scores of (1) those who identified themselves as Scholastics, (2) those who identified themselves as Eclectics, and (3) those identified with all other philosophic schools. The numbers of those who stated prefer ences for other philosophic categories were so small that they were all classified as ’'Other." The resulting F values from the analyses of variance among the three sets of scores in the ten different check list sections are tabulated in Table 22 on the next page. The only significant difference was registered on the comparison of scores for Experimentalist beliefs. The F values on the other sections were re latively small, well below any level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted except for the section pertaining to 155 TABLE 22 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF RESPONSES IN TEN CHECKLIST SECTIONS BY RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO STATED PREFERENCES FOR (1) ECLECTICISM, (2) SCHOLASTICISM, AND (3) OTHER PHILOSOPHIES F Value Significance of Checklist Section df - 2, 52 Difference Existentialism 2.25 Not significant Experimentalism 6.52 Significant at .01 level Idealism 1.25 Not significant Realism 1.78 Not significant Scholasticism 2.27 Not significant Materialism 0.03 Not significant Philippine Ethical Values 0.76 Not significant Traditional Education 1.49 Not significant Progressive Education 1.27 Not significant Issues in Philippine Education 1.29 Not significant Experimentalist beliefs; and it can be stated that in general there is no significant difference in philosophic and educational beliefs among educational philosophers In the different philosophic schools. Difference between administrators and faculty. The thirteenth hypothesis was: There is a significant difference in philosophic and educational beliefs between administrators of teacher-training insti tutions and those who teach philosophy of education in those institu tions. The obtained ^ ratios for the scores of the two groups on the different checklist sections are listed in Table 23. The J: ratios are all well below the required level for significance of difference. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the tested beliefs of administrators and those who teach philosophy of education in Philippine teacher-training institutions. 156 TABLE 23 RESULTS OF _t TESTS ON RESPONSES IN TEN CHECKLIST SECTIONS BY (1) ADMINISTRATORS AND (2) FACULTY TEACHING PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION Checklist Section t ratio df - 53 Significance of Difference Existentialism 1.29 Not significant Experimentalism .93 Not significant Idealism .80 Not significant Realism .38 Not significant Scholasticism .63 Not significant Materialism 1.29 Not significant Philippine Ethical Values .34 Not significant Traditional Education 1.72 Not significant Progressive Education 1.50 Not significant Issues in Philippine Education .53 Not significant Difference between male and female respondents. The last hypothesis formulated at the beginning of this study was: There is a significant difference in philosophic and educational beliefs between male and female educational philosophers in Philippine teacher- training institutions. The jt test was utilized to ascertain whether differences between the scores of male and female respondents on the ten checklist sections were significant. The resulting _t ratios are listed in Table 24. It was discovered that a significant difference did exist between these two groups of respondents in three sections which Included items pertaining to: (1) Philippine ethical values, where the female respondents registered a higher degree of acceptance than the male respondents; (2) progressive education, where the female respondents registered a lower degree of acceptance; and (3) issues 157 In Philippine education, where the female respondents registered a higher degree of acceptance. TABLE 24 RESULTS OF _t TESTS ON RESPONSES IN TEN CHECKLIST SECTIONS BY (1) MALE AND (2) FEMALE EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHERS Checklist Section t ratio df = 53 Significance of Difference Existentialism .53 Not significant Experimentalism .58 Not significant Idealism .33 Not significant Realism 1.66 Not significant Scholasticism .32 Not significant Materialism ,78 Not significant Philippine Ethical Values 2.16 Significant at .05 level Traditional Education .42 Not significant Progressive Education 2.23 Significant at .05 level Issues in Philippine Education 2,18 Significant at .05 level Comparison of variables. Various variables were tested for their effect on the beliefs of Philippine educational philosophers. Comparisons were made on the scores of respondents on ten homogeneous groupings of the checklist items on the effect of the following variables: (1) affiliation— (a) state, (b) private non-denominational and (c) private denominational institutions; (2) level of instruc tion— (a) university and (b) college; (3) philosophic preference— (a) Eclecticism, (b) Scholasticism, and (c) other philosophies; (4) type of work— (a) administration and (b) teaching; and (5) sex— (a) male and (b) female. The results of the comparisons, summarized in Tables 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24, show that the variable of sex 158 accounted for the largest number of significant differences. It must be remembered, however, that the variable of sex accounted for signi ficant differences in only thirty per cent of the checklist sections. It can therefore be stated that only in a very few sections of the checklist were there significant differences among the respondents on the basis of the variables tested. Background of Respondents ' From the summary of the personal data of the respondents pre sented In the fourth chapter, it appears that many of the educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions lacked ade quate formal preparation in educational philosophy. Among the forty faculty respondents who taught philosophy of education only one had a major in philosophy of education. The others had majors in the fol lowing fields: philosophy, 12; education, 8; administration, 7; English, 5; guidance and counseling, 2; student personnel, 1; curri culum, 1; psychology, 1; social science, 1; and economics, 1. This lack of background preparation seems confirmed by the statistical tests to determine significance of differences among respondents iden tified with different philosophical schools, as shown in Table 22 on page 155, since a significant difference was registered only for re sponses on Experimentalist beliefs. This lack of preparation is again confirmed in the summary of "clusters,” in Table 17, where more than half of the respondents had two or more "clusters." It does not seem logical for a philosopher to agree with all the checklist beliefs in 159 Scholasticism and at the same time also agree with all the Realist be liefs or all the Existentialist beliefs— a not uncommon pattern found in Table 17. Summary Chapter V was concerned with the analysis and interpretation of the research data tabulated in the preceding chapter. This process of analysis and interpretation was undertaken on the basis of the fol lowing considerations: (1) degree of agreement among respondents, (2) patterns of belief, (3) preferences according to philosophic schools, (4) preferences according to educational viewpoints, (5) pre ferences regarding issues in Philippine education, (6) differences among respondents according to different variables, and (7) background of respondents. Various appropriate statistical procedures were utilized in the treatment of the data in order to achieve meaningful results from which conclusions were drawn. Some of the more important conclusions were: 1. There was more agreement than disagreement among the re spondents . 2. Through use of a scale for levels of acceptance and re jection, patterns of philosophic and educational beliefs were dis covered . 3. The beliefs of the classical philosophies in general and of Scholasticism in particular were favored by the respondents. 160 A. Progressive educational beliefs were favored by the re spondents over traditional beliefs. 5. The respondents were agreed in rejecting (a) the con tinuance of the present highly-centralized educational system and (b) the use of Pilipino as the medium of instruction on all levels of formal education; but the respondents agreed in wanting optional re ligious instruction in the public schools. 6. Only in a few sections of the checklist was there any significant difference among respondents on the basis of (a) affilia tion, (b) level of instruction, (c) preferred philosophy, (d) type of work, and (e) sex, which accounted for the largest number of signifi cant differences. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This final chapter gives a summary of the study, the conclu sions drawn from the analysis and interpretation of the data col lected, and the recommendations which are the outgrowth of the study. Summary The fundamental purpose of this study was to discover the basic philosophical and educational beliefs of educational philoso phers in Philippine teacher-training institutions. This undertaking was considered important because basic philosophic beliefs are a guide to actual and desired practice in education and because the discovery of these basic beliefs among those who influence teachers' philoso phies could furnish data useful in the formulation of a Philippine philosophy of education. A review of related American and Philippine studies and lit erature revealed that, although studies of a similar nature had been conducted in the United States, no nationwide study on actual beliefs among educators had been undertaken in the Philippines. The study was a descriptive survey involving the collection and classification of the beliefs of Philippine educational philoso phers. The questionnaire technique was deemed appropriate for the 161 162 gathering of the data and a checklist was developed for that purpose. The checklist, entitled Checklist of Philosophic and Educational Beliefs of Philippine Educators, was composed of sixty-five statements of belief in philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology), Philippine values, educational principles, and issues in Philippine education. Two hundred statements of belief were collected from various philosophical, educational and sociological sources, from which 100 statements were selected. This preliminary checklist was circulated twice among faculty members and graduate students in the School of Education of the University of Southern California for re view and comments, revised after each administration, and finally tested in four Philippine schools. The philosophical and educational beliefs sections of the modified checklist were presented for further validation to a panel of judges composed of eleven educational phi losophers, eight from American universities and three from Philippine institutions of higher learning. Retained in the checklist were those items on which at least nine of the eleven judges concurred in the classification according to philosophic system and educational school of thought. On a test-retest reliability study the coefficient of correlation was +.94. Scoring was based on a three-point scale. The final form of the checklist was administered by mail in the Philippines to a sample representing educational philosophers in teacher-training institutions. The sample was a random selection of educational philosophers in five per cent of Philippine teacher- training institutions. Stratification was introduced in the sample 163 by taking into consideration the variables of (1) affiliation to state, private non-denominational, and private denominational insti tutions, (2) geographic area, and (3) level of instruction. Extreme care was taken that all fifteen institutions comprising the sample returned completed checklists, a process that required numerous repeated mailings and most of the 1972-73 scholastic year to accom plish. By the beginning of April, 1973, the data collection was completed and the process of data-reduction and tabulation was ini tiated. The data was classified according to various categories; and responses were converted to scale scores and percentages within these categories for statistical treatment. By means of appropriate sta tistical procedures, over-all and group patterns were discovered and comparisons among groups were performed. The analysis of the research data was directed toward discovering: (1) the degree of agreement among the respondents, for which purpose comparison by means of class intervals was utilized; (2) the patterns of belief, which depended on the levels of agreement by respondents on each item; (3) the pre ferences of respondents according to philosophic school, for which the technique of "clustering’1 proved useful; (4) the preferences of respondents according to educational viewpoints, for which ranking based on percentages of "Mostly Agree" responses was utilized; (5) preferences regarding stands on issues in Philippine education, for which ranking based on scale scores was utilized; (6) differences among respondents according to various variables (affiliation, level 164 of instruction, philosophic preference, type of work, and sex), for which the techniques of analysis of variance, J: test, and Chi square were used; and (7) background information on the respondents. Conclusions The conclusions derived from the research are presented in two sections. The first section deals with the conclusions arrived at by testing the various hypotheses formulated at the inception of the study. These conclusions are stated briefly as the acceptance or rejection of the different research hypotheses. The second section deals with the conclusions derived from the analysis of patterns of belief. Conclusions Related to Hypotheses Hypotheses^- 1. There is greater agreement than disagreement among educa tional philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions. Accepted. 2. These same educational'philosophers favor the beliefs of the classical philosophies over those of the modern philosophies. Accepted. 3. The philosophic beliefs of Scholasticism rank highest in acceptance among Philippine educational philosophers. Accepted. •*"The hypotheses are listed in the same order in which they were first stated in Chapter I, pages 3-5. 165 4. The beliefs of Materialism are rejected by Philippine edu cational philosophers. Accepted. 5. A comparatively large number of educational philosophers identify themselves as eclectic in their philosophical stance. Accepted. 6. Among those who identify themselves with specific philo sophic schools, excluding Eclecticism, the largest number adheres to the school of Scholasticism. Accepted. 7. The educational philosophers in Philippine teacher- training institutions favor progressive educational beliefs over tra ditional educational beliefs. Accepted. 8. These same educational philosophers are against the present highly-centralized structure of the Philippine educational system. Accepted. 9. They are also against the use of Pilipino as the medium of instruction in all levels of instruction. Accepted. 10. There is a significant difference in the philosophic and educational beliefs of educational philosophers in (a) state, (b) private non-denominational, and (c) private denominational teacher-training institutions. Rejected. 11. There is a significant difference in philosophic and edu cational beliefs between educational philosophers in universities and those in colleges. Rejected, except for the section pertaining to Realist beliefs where the research hypothesis is accepted. 166 12. There is a significant difference in philosophic and edu cational beliefs among educational philosophers in the different phil osophic schools. Rejected, except for the section pertaining to Experimentalist beliefs where the research hypothesis is accepted. 13. There is a significant difference in philosophic and edu cational beliefs between administrators of teacher-training institu tions and those who teach philosophy of education in those institu tions . Rejected. 14. There is a significant difference in philosophic and edu cational beliefs between male and female educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions. Rejected, except for the sections pertaining to Philippine ethical values, progressive educa tion, and issues in Philippine education. Conclusions Pertaining to Patterns of Belief Conclusions pertaining to patterns of philosophical beliefs Educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training insti tutions are agreed on the following philosophical beliefs: Metaphysics. God created the cosmos and man for a definite purpose, which for man is his happiness realized perfectly in God, the Absolute. Man is an essential unity of a physical body and a spiritual, immortal soul, endowed with a spiritual mind which enables him to discover the laws governing our ordered universe. Reality is objective, not merely subjective, and is composed of more than mere matter. Man is more than just a material, biological organism; man 167 has supernatural and spiritual attributes, with a nature capable of universal description, Epistemology. Truth is objective, not subjective nor re lative, and its norm is the correspondence of ideas to objective reality. Universal ideas are abstracted by the mind from real, par ticular objects. Truth can be synthetic or scientific (but not exclusively), self-evident, or revealed, depending on the source. Moreover, there cannot be a contradiction between synthetic or sci entific truth and divinely revealed truth. Real knowledge comes from grasping the various subjective meanings of that which is under con sideration, and the purposes of knowledge are: (1) to fulfill self and (2) to be the instrumentality for managing the world. Axiology. The norm for morality in human behavior is con formity to God's command and to human reason. This norm or order, which transcends mere human experience, is objective and universal— not subjective, depending on personal choice, nor relative, depending on societal consequences. This norm, which includes a hierarchy of values governing the resolution of conflicting rights, can be dis covered by man through knowledge of the Absolute and of the natural law. Fidelity to this norm of morality is the key to the good life for man everywhere. Conclusions pertaining to patterns of Philippine ethical beliefs Educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training insti tutions are agreed on the following beliefs concerning Philippine values: 168 A law must be applied equally to all citizens, but persons in authority need not be obeyed at all times nor is one exonerated from blame by using obedience to authority as the excusing cause. To shame a person in public is at least as serious a wrong as inflicting physical harm on that person, yet it is wrong to lie if what one has to say will offend the listener. Finally, the obligation arising from utang-na-loob or reciprocity is not equivalent to a contractual obligation. Conclusions pertaining to patterns of educational beliefs Educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training insti tutions are agreed on the following educational beliefs: Education, utilizing the motivational factors of student in terests and felt needs, must be constantly refashioned to meet the particular needs of a particular society in a particular place at a particular time, always taking into account the spiritual as well as the natural orderi Conclusions pertaining to patterns of belief concerning issues in Philip pine education Educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training insti tutions are agreed on the following beliefs regarding certain issues in Philippine education: The highly-centralized structure in Philippine education should be changed so all schools, public and private, be allowed more curricular freedom. Pilipino should not be the medium of instruction at all levels of formal education; and optional religious instruction 169 should be provided in the public schools. Conclusion pertaining to the nature of democracy Educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training insti tutions tend to agree in accepting the belief that democracy is only a means to promote the general welfare of the people so that if it does not achieve this end it may be replaced by another form of government. Recommendations The following recommendations are based on the findings in this s tudy: 1. Philippine educational philosophers should become more aware of the interdependent relationship between philosophic princi ples and the theories and practices of education. 2. Philippine educational philosophers and educators should be well informed concerning the diverse schools of thought in regard to philosophic principles. 3. Formal academic preparation should be required of those who teach philosophy of education in Philippine teacher-training institutions. 4. Additional research using a larger base of Philippine educators than used in this study should be undertaken to discover the basic philosophic and educational beliefs in the Philippine edu cational system. 170 5. Philippine educators should be made aware that there is greater agreement than disagreement among Philippine educational philosophers on basic philosophic and educational beliefs. 6. An attempt should be made by Philippine educators to formulate a basic* general philosophy of Philippine education based on those philosophic and educational principles on which agreement has been discovered. APPENDIX Request for Endorsement by Secretary of Education,.Republic of the Philippines. Letter of Transmittal and Questionnaire Sent to Administrators and Teachers of Philosophy of Education in Selected Phil ippine Teacher-Training Institutions. Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines P. 0. Box 1214 Manila August 19, 1971 The Honorable Juan L. Manuel Secretary of Education Republic of the Philippines Arroceros Street Manila Honorable and dear Dr, Manuel: I am in the process of writing my doctoral disserta tion and I would appreciate very much your help in this matter. With the cooperation of the Catholic Educational As sociation of the Philippines, I am conducting a nationwide study to discover the basic philosophical and educational beliefs of Philippine educators. On the assumption that vital decisions of policy and practice will depend to some extent on fundamental philoso phical beliefs, this study is being conducted to provide a statistical picture of areas of agreement, of disagreement, and of indecision on fundamental Issues in educational phi losophy. It is hoped that this study will provide important clues in determining the patterns of educational thought in the Philippines. Your endorsement of this study will be greatly appre ciated. Respectfully Francis L. Bowler Encl.: Checklist. ENDORSED: JUAN L, MANUEL Secretary of Education Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines P. 0. Box 1214 Manila, Philippines Dear Fellow Educator: A nationwide study is being conducted under the direction of the University of Southern California with the approval of the De partment of Education of the Republic of the Philippines to discover the basic philosophical and educational beliefs of Philippine edu cators. On the assumption that vital decisions of policy and practice depend to some extent on fundamental philosophical beliefs, this study has been initiated to provide a statistical picture of areas of agreement, of disagreement, and of indecision on the fundamental issues in educational philosophy. It is hoped that this study will provide important clues in determining the patterns of educational thought in the Philippines. To accomplish this the cooperation of deans and professors of educational philosophy in selected schools of education is being sought. It is imperative for the successful completion of this study that you complete the enclosed checklist and return it via the self- addressed envelope as soon as possible. Your cooperation is of the utmost importance and will be greatly appreciated. The data in your completed checklist will be treated confi dentially . Rest assured that individual philosophical and educa tional beliefs will not be publicized. The primary objective of this study is the interpretation of the total response and not of indi vidual beliefs. Sincerely yours, Francis L. Bowler School of Education University of Southern California Encl.: Checklist. ivT\ THE PHILOSOPHIC AND EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATORS A. EXPLANATION THESE DATA WILL BE TREATED CONFIDENTIALLY. RESPONDENTS CAN REST ASSURED THAT INDIVIDUAL PHILOSOPHIC AND EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS WILL NOT BE PUBLICIZED. THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THIS STUDY IS THE IN TERPRETATION OF THE TOTAL RESPONSE AND NOT OF INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS. The following statements have been selected as representing nu merous points of view in philosophy and education. Although precautions have been taken to remove ambiguity, there may be problems of interpretation. It is suggested that you take the statements at their usual face value. B. DIRECTIONS FOR MARKING The following scale should be used for indicating your response to each statement of belief. Mostly Mostly Meaning Agree Undecided Disagree Not Clear _I-----------------1 -----------------1 -----------------f- Please encircle one response in accord with the above scale on each of the statements. Sample: 0 2 3 0 In case you wish to change an answer, merely cross off the pre viously marked response and encircle the response you want to make. Sample: 0 © 3 0 Note that zero (0) means you do not find the meaning clear, while figure 2 means you are undecided upon your belief on the issue. There is no "right" nor "wrong" response. The only good answer is your honest reaction to each statement. 175 n Mostly Agree Undecided Mostly Disagree Meaning Wot Clear 1. Ours is an ordered universe governed by certain laws which can be discovered by man through science. 1 2 3 0 2. Ultimate reality is of the nature of mind. 1 2 3 0 3. What we call Reality is merely human reaction to experience. Thus the so-called "traits" of Reality are actually and only "traits of human experience." 1 2 3 0 4. Reality is that which individual selves believe it to be and it has its meaning only within the individual subjective self. 1 2 3 0 5. Everything in the universe is eventually re ducible to physical energy. 1 2 3 0 6. Mind is more than a product of materialistic factors; mind has a spiritual nature. 1 2 3 0 7. God created our universe. 1 2 3 0 8. Matter alone is real and existent in our universe. 1 2 3 0 9. Ultimate Reality is the self, standing naked before the cosmos of alternatives and trying to plot his way through it. 1 2 3 0 10. God created man for a purpose, which purpose is man's happiness realized perfectly only in God. 1 2 3 0 11. The cosmos and man are by their nature ordained to a definite end or purpose established by God. 1 2 3 0 12. There is no universal, absolute description of human nature; there is only the unique and sub- j ective nature of each authentic self. 1 2 3 0 13. Man is a participant in the Absolute Mind. 1 2 3 0 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 176 TJ a ) •a a t a ) M : a) : bo a ) ; P tH iH a ) C J H bt-H O -w a ) a ) 4J P t o P TJ C O C O c d 4 - 1 1 o « p O *H a ) o ; S < » s « S B Man Is essentially a material and biological organism without supernatural or spiritual attributes. 1 2 3 0 Man is an essential unity of a physical body and a spiritual, immortal soul. 1 2 3 0 True knowledge is the correspondence of the finite mind of man with the Absolute Mind. 1 2 3 0 Knowledge is objective and comes about through exact scientific observations and practices. 1 2 3 0 Experience, tested in the social situation, is the only way to know— but without certainty in an absolute sense. 1 2 3 0 Truth is the correspondence of our ideas to things as they really are objectively. 1 2 3 0 Man has the intellectual power of abstracting universal concepts from real, particular objects in his experience. 1 2 3 0 Real understanding derives from the unique self's appropriation of the various subjective meanings of that which is under consideration. 1 2 3 0 The act of choosing is the act of self-realiza- tion; and since knowing constitutes self- realization, the purpose of knowing is to fulfill self. 1 2 3 0 Truth has no objective standard in nature; truth is relative to time, place, and subject. 1 2 3 0 Truth is personal and subjective rather than general and objective. 1 2 3 0 Some truths are obtainable by man only through 0 Divine Revelation. 1 2 3 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 177" ! ! > - > a ) •H a ) 0 ) V 4 n ) t n > a > a h iH Q ) U r-t W •H O 4J a ) a ) +J n j c to u T3 m u i n > +J o t n c O vH a ) o S < p £ O Sd is The real and only test of truth Is rigid exami nation in the light of scientifically esta blished facts about the laws of universal nature. 1 2 3 0 Besides scientific or synthetic truth, there are also truths which are self-evident. 1 2 3 0 To manage the world is the problem facing man kind; knowledge and truth are but the instru mentalities for carrying on this work. 1 2 3 0 Science and Revelation do not, and cannot, contradict each other. 1 2 3 0 Man's ultimate goal is reunification with the Ideal, the Absolute. 1 2 3 0 The good act is that which conforms to the command of God and to the rational nature of man. 1 2 3 0 An act is good not because of some absolute standard but because the consequences that flow from the act are good for society. 1 2 3 0 There are no universal essential moral traits; man chooses what he is and will be in the ethical and moral sense. 1 2 3 0 Man must rely upon a higher moral order which transcends human experience and which will eternally serve as a guide toward the good life for all men everywhere. 1 2 3 0 "Right" and "wrong" are relative terms— relative to the time, place, and social set ting— and such terms have meaning only as society gives them meaning. 1 2 3 0 "Right" and "wrong" are completely personal matters and each self must choose his own unique standards. 1 2 3 0 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Morality is strictly natural; it is the opera tion of natural laws in the social context of men; it has its source in nature and the moral man is the man who conducts his life in accord with these laws. There is a hierarchy of values so that, if there be conflict between man’s duties to God and to his neighbor, the superior right takes pre cedence over the inferior. Values are not imposed on us by God, nature, or society; in choosing we make our values out of nothing. Man must seek knowledge of the Ideal or Absolute and conduct his life in accord with this Pattern. There is no universal moral order; for morality is derived from the social experience of man in the course of history; and morality has no source outside the context of temporal human experience. To live a wholesome life man must rely upon an ever-increasing knowledge of the natural laws as they are operative in the social setting. One can do no wrong in obeying the command of a person in authority. A law must be applied equally to all citizens. The application of a law must be flexible, depending on whom it is applied. To shame a person in public is at least as serious a wrong as inflicting physical harm on that person. Repayment of a favor received is as binding as the fulfillment of a legal contract. TD 0 1 a t TD a t u > —t < u a rH 60 4J a ) 0 ) 4 - 1 a j m m TD ( 0 C O o 00 G o *H S < S « 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 to G •H G t d c u a o o 0 0 Not Clear 179 1 r - i I D T3 o T) •H O a > a > rH M u t f 00 0 ) CrH •H U 48. If what one has to say will offend the listener then it is not wrong to lie. 4 - > a ) c o u O M SC 1 a t T) a 2 +j n j c o c o O vH S P> 3 f S H } 4J a > o SB 0 49. Persons in authority must be respected and obeyed at all times. 1 2 3 0 50. It is important for one to be careful what the neighbors are thinking regarding oneself. 1 2 3 0 51. The interest of the individual must be sacri ficed for the good of the family. 1 2 3 0 52. The fundamental purpose of the school is a sys tematic preparation of children for their ultimate places in society. 1 2 3 0 53. The primary principles of education are absolute and universal rather than relative and variable. 1 2 3 0 54. Educational content and method must be contin ually refashioned for a particular society in a particular place at a particular time. 1 2 3 0 55. The basic motivational factors in education are the felt needs and interests of the students. 1 2 3 0 56. Ours is basically a dynamic universe and educa tion must constantly change to meet the particular needs of the time. 1 2 3 0 57. Education must be cognizant of the spiritual and the supernatural order as well as the natural order. 1 2 3 0 58. Before a person can develop his thinking pro cesses and his ability to solve problems, he must be provided a secure linkage to a body of truth and to a historical tradition. 1 2 3 0 59. All educational institutions should be subject to regulation by the State and under the i supervision of the State. 1 2 3 0 180 ! 60. The present highly centralized structure in education with the Secretary of Educa tion wielding all power as the arm of the State should be maintained. 61. More flexibility in curriculum planning should be allowed each school whether public or private. 62. Pilipino should be the medium of instruc tion at all levels in all Philippine schools. 63. Religion should be taught in the public schools on a voluntary basis. 64. Our public elementary and secondary schools should be concerned primarily with general education and only secondarily with voca tional education. 65. Democracy is not an end in itself but is only a means of achieving the maximum general welfare of the people. Therefore, if it does not achieve the general welfare of the people it may be replaced by another form of government. TJ u a > <u td T3 a ) W> 0 1 •H G rH iH 0 > a rH W • r l O U <U a ) ■M td G c n > - i M3 m t o td 4 - > o 60 a O -H a ) o S <3 to SO a ts 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 181 PERSONAL DATA (Confidential) Name (please print) Position Educational Institution Location Citizenship: ( ) Filipino ( ) Other: Degrees Major Fields Institutions What philosophical position do you hold? (check one) Existentialism ( ) Realism ( ) Experimentalism ( ) Scholasticism ( ) Idealism ( ) Eclecticism ( ) Other ( ) What? ____________ (cf. Definitions on next page.) 182 DEFINITIONS Existentialism: a position which holds that the major philosophic problem is the problem of human existence in the sense that "existence (that is, immediate, personal experience) precedes essence"; the inadequacy of reason results in the anguish of aloneness for all men as they face the problems of life; the insistence on man's inner life and on freedom to foster one's authentic self by facing choices, making decisions, and ac cepting responsibility for them. Experimentallsm: a radically empirical philosophical position which holds that experience is the sufficient source of ideals, values, and methods of knowing; that reality is this world of man's experience; that knowledge is hypothetical; that the verifiable procedures of scientific inquiry are our greatest resource for controlling experience; that values and morality are empirical and social rather than absolute and inscrutable. Idealism: broadly, any system of thought or practical view emphasiz ing mind or spiritual reality as a preeminent principle of ex planation; the conclusion that the universe is an expression of Intelligence and will, that the enduring substance of the world is of the nature of mind, that the material is explained by the mental, in contrast with all those systems of thought that center in nature, such as naturalism, or in man, such as humanism. Realism: modern versions of the Platonic and Aristotelian doctrines which assert (a) that the cosmos consists of real, substantial entities existing in themselves and ordered to one another by real, extramental relations; (b) that these entities can be known, at least in part, as they really are; (c) that there are intelligible structures of human nature and human groups which when grasped can provide valid principles for the guid ance of individual and social action. Scholasticism: the philosophical and theological synthesis, dominant during the Middle Ages and with adaptations widely held today, which was common to the leading men of learning of Western Europe; this synthesis is based on a dualistic and realistic metaphysics in which God and man, act and potency, and effi cient and final cause are distinct. Eclecticism: a school of philosophy that endeavors to construct a co herent and harmonious system of thought or belief by adopting selected beliefs from various rival schools or systems. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adler, Mortimer J. and Mayer, Milton. The Revolution in Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Agorrilla, Amado L. Adult Education in the Philippines. Quezon City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Company, 1952. Bair, Frederick Haigh. The Social Understandings of the Superinten dent of Schools. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934. Barzun, Jacques. Teacher in America. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1954. Bayles, Ernest E. Pragmatism in Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Bello, Walden F. and de Guzman, Alfonso. Modernization: Its Impact in the Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1968. Bernardino, Vitaliano. The Philippine Community School. Quezon City: Phoenix Press, Inc., 1958. Bestor, Arthur. Educational Wastelands. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1953. Board of Educational Survey. A Survey of the Educational System of the Philippine Islands. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1925. Brackenbury, Robert L. Getting Down to Cases: A Problems Approach to Educational Philosophizing. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1959. Broudy, Harry S. Building a Philosophy of Education. 2nd ed. Engle wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. Brubacher, John S. Modern Philosophies of Education. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962. ________ and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. New York: Harper and Row, 1958. 183 Bulatao, Jaime, S.J. "The Manileno’s Mainsprings." in Four Readings on Philippine Values. Edited by Frank Lynch. 2nd ed. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1964. ________. Split-level Christianity. Manila: U.S.T. Press, 1966. Butler, J. Donald. Four Philosophies and Their Practice in Education and Religion. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. Carroll, John J., S.J. "Filipino Entrepreneurship in Manufacturing." in Four Readings on Philippine Values. Edited by Frank Lynch. 2nd ed. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. 1964. Constantino, Renato. The Filipinos in the Philippines. Manila: Malaya Press, 1966. Corpuz, Onofre D. The Philippines. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Corsini, R. J. and Howard, D. D. Critical Incidents in Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. de la Costa, Horacio, S.J. The Background of Nationalism. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1965. Department of Education. Philippine Public School Curriculum. Bul letin No. 15, s. 1949. Manila, 1949. ________. Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. 7th ed. Manila, 1970. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan Company, 1916. ________. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, 1965. Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy. New York: Pocket Books, Inc., 1964. First Commission on Life Adjustment Education for Youth. Vitalizing Secondary Education. Bulletin 1951, No. 3. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1951. Frankena, William K. Three Historical Philosophies of Education. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1965. Fresnoza, Florencio P. and Casim, Canuto P. Essentials of the Philip pine Educational System. Rev. Manila: Abiva Publishing House, Inc., 1964. Gardner, John. Self-renewal: The Individual and the Innovative So- ciety. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Good, Carter V., ed. Dictionary of Education. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959. ________ and Scates, Douglas E. Methods of Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1964. ________ and Teller, James D. A History of Western Education. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan Company, 1969. Gorospe, Vitaliano R., S.J. Christian Renewal of Filipino Values. Manila: U.S.T. Press, 1966. Gregorio, Herman C. School Administration and Supervision. Rev. Quezon City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Company, 1961. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965. ________. Psychometric Methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1954. Hallett, Paul H. What is a Catholic? New York: Macmillan Company, 1955. Harper, Manly H. Social Beliefs and Attitudes of American Educators. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927. Harvard Committee. General Education in a Free Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Printing Office, 1945. Highet, Gilbert. The Art of Teaching. New York: Vintage Books, 1957. Hodgkinson, Harold L. Educational Decisions: A Casebook. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Hollnsteiner, Mary R. "Reciprocity in the Lowland Philippines," in Four Readings on Philippine Values. Edited by Frank Lynch. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 1964. Hunt, Chester L., et al. Sociology in the Philippine Setting. Rev. Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, 1963. Hutchins, Robert M. The Higher Learning in America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. 186 ~ j ________ . The Gonflict In Education in a Democratic Society. New York: Harper and Row, 1953. Isidro, Antonio. The Philippine Educational System. 3rd ed. Manila: Bookman, Inc., 1949. ________ . Principles of Education Applied to the Philippines. Manila: Phoenix Press, Inc., 1962. ________ . Trends and Issues in Philippine Education. Quezon City: Phoenix Press, Inc., 1968. Joint Legislative Committee. Report on Education. Camilo Osias, chairman. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1926. Kneller, George. Existentialism and Education. New York: Philoso phical Library, Inc., 1958. ________ . Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Le Roy, James A. Philippine Life in Town and Country. Manila: Limited Editions, 1968. Lodge, Rupert C. Philosophy of Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. Lynch, Frank, S.J. "Social Acceptance." in Four Readings on Philip pine Values. Edited by Frank Lynch. 2nd ed. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1964. McGucken, William, S.J. The Catholic Way in Education. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1934. McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1955. Magsaysay Committee on General Education. Toward General Education in the Philippines. Manila: University of the East Press, 1960. Marltain, Jacques. Education at the Crossroads. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1943. ________ . Existence and the Existent. Translated by Lewis Galantiere and Gerald B. Phelan. New York: Vintage Books, 1966. Montemayor, Jeremias U. Philippine Socio-economic Problems. Quezon City: Bustamante Press, Inc., 1969. 187 Morris, Van Cleve. Philosophy and the American School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. ________. Existentialism in Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. National Science Development Board. Compilation of Graduate Theses Prepared in the Philippines, 1913-1960. Manila: NSDB Print ing Press, 1962. ________. Compilation of Graduate Theses Prepared in the Philippines, 1961-1965. Manila: NSDB Printing Press, 1967. National Society for the Study of Education. Philosophies of Educa tion. Forty-first Yearbook of the Society, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942. Modern Philosophies and Education. Fifty-fourth Yearbook of the Society, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Park, Joe. The Philosophy of Education: Selected Readings. New York: Macmillan Company, 1958. Peterson, Francis E. Philosophies of Education Current in the Prepa ration of Teachers in the United States. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1933. Phenix, Philip H. Philosophy of Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1958. Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education. Education for National Development: New Patterns, New Directions. Manila, 1970. Prosser, C. A. A General Report on Vocational Education in the Phil ippine Islands. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1930. Psychological Association of the Philippines. Symposium on the Fil ipino Personality. Makati, Rizal: MDB Printing, 1966. Quezon Educational Commission. Quezon Educational Survey Report. Jorge C. Bocobo, chairman. Manila: University of the Philip pines Press, 1936. Redden, John D. and Ryan, Francis A. A Catholic Philosophy of Educa tion. Rev. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1959. Runes, Dagobert D., ed. Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1968. Ryans, David G. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960. Sargent, Cyril G. and Belisle, Eugene L. Educational Administration: Cases and Concepts. Boston: Houghton and Mifflin Company, 1955. Smith, Eugene R. and Tyler, Ralph W. Appraising and Recording Student Progress. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942. Titus, Harold H. Living Issues in Philosophy. 5th ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1970. Trueblood, David Elton. General Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. UNESCO. The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education. Paris: UNESCO, 1953. UNESCO Educational Mission. Report of the Mission to the Philippines. Paris: UNESCO, 1950. Wahlquist, John T. The Philosophy of American Education. New York: Ronald Press, 1942. Ward, Merle Scott. Philosophies of Administration Current in the Deanship of Liberal Arts College. New York: Bureau of Publi cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1934. Whitehead, Alfred North. The Aims of Education and Other Essays. New York: Macmillan Company, 1953. Wild, John. Introduction to Realistic Philosophy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948. Wynne, John P. Theories of Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Zaide, Gregorio F. The Government of Our Republic, Manila: Modern Book Company, 1970. Articles Acton, Harry Burrows. "Existentialism." Encyclopedia Britannica. 12th ed., VIII, 965. Adjawi, Abdul K. "Pilipino as Medium of Instruction." Philippine Journal of Education, XLIX (August, 1970), 75-77. Albarracin, Narciso. "Editorial: The Need for a Philosophy of Edu cation." PAGE Journal (semi-annual publication of the Phil ippine Association for Graduate Education), III (January-June, 1965), 1. ________ . "The Supervision of Private Schools." The Catholic Teacher (quarterly publication of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines), XII (April, 1966), 17-26. Araneta, Francisco, S.J. "Some Problems on Philippine Education." Philippine Studies, IX (October, 1961), 619-628. ________ . "What Are Schools For?" PAGE Journal, III (January-June, 1965), 3-14. Bassett, T. Robert. "It's the Side Effects of Education That Count." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (September, 1972), 16-17. Bernardino, Vitaliano. "Proposed Reforms in Philippine Education." Philippine Journal of Education, XLIX (February, 1971), 458-459; 502-503. Brameld, Theodore. "Education as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (September, 1972), 8-11; 58-61. ________ . "Philosophy, Education and the Human Sciences," Harvard Educational Review, XXVI (Spring, 1956), 137-138. Breed, Frederick S. "Education and the Realistic Outlook." Philoso phies of Education. Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1942. Broudy, Harry S. "Educational Alternatives— Why Not? Why Not." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (March, 1973), 438-440. "How Philosophical Can Philosophy of Education Be?" Journal of Philosophy, LII (October, 1966), 612-622. Brubacher, John S. "Introduction: Purpose and Scope of the Year book." Philosophies of Education. Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942. ________. "The Challenge to Philosophize About Education." Philoso phies of Education. Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1942. Bulatao, Jaime, S.J, "The Conflict of Values in Home and School." Guidance and Personnel Journal, I (November, 1965), 50-53. Corpuz, Onofre D. "Challenges Ahead for Private Education." Silliman Journal, XIII (Third Quarter, 1966), 469-474. Curran, R. L.; Gordon, I. J.; and Doyle, J. F. "A Short Test of One’s Educational Philosophy." Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXVI (Summer, 1966), 383-393. Diaz, Jesus, O.P. "The Goals of University Education." Silliman Journal, XIII (Third Quarter, 1966), 475-484. Ebel, Robert L. "What Are Schools For?" Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (September, 1972), 3-7. Enlow, E. N. "Identify Your Educational Philosophy." Peabody Journal of Education. XVII (July, 1939), 19-23. Ennis, Robert H. "Can Philosophy of Education Be Relevant?" Educa tional Theory, XX (Fall, 1970), 337-344. Evangelista, Teodoro. "Education: The Perfection of Human Powers." PAGE Journal, III (January-June, 1965), 15-19. Flanagan, John C. "The Critical Incident Technique in Educational Evaluation." Psychological Bulletin. LI (July, 1954), 327- 358. Geiger, George R. "An Experimentalist Approach to Education." Modern Philosophies and Education. Fifty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Gowin, D. B. "Philosophy of Education." Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 4th ed. Edited by Robert L. Ebel. London: Collier-Macmillan Limited, 1969. j Newsome, G. L.; and Chandler, K. A. "A Scale to Study Logical Consistency of Ideas About Education." Journal of Psychology, LI (April, 1961), 443-455. Greene, Theodore M, "A Liberal Christian Idealist Philosophy of Edu cation." Modern Philosophies and Education. Fifty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Horne, Herman H. "An Idealistic Philosophy of Education." Philoso phies of Education. Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1942. Isidro, Antonio. "Philosophy of Philippine Education: An Interpreta tion." PAGE Journal, III (January-June, 1965), 20-33. ________. "The Barrio High Schools." Philippine Journal of Educa tion, XLIX (December, 1970), 330-331; 376-377. Junell, Joseph. "The Limits of Social Education." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (September, 1972), 12-15. Kerlinger, Fred N. "Progressivism and Traditionalism: Basic Educa tional Attitudes." School Review, LXVI (March, 1958), 80-92. Langer, Susanne K. "On the Relations Between Philosophy and Educa tion." Harvard Educational Review, XXVI (Spring, 1956), 139-141. McGucken, William, S.J. "The Philosophy of Catholic Education." Phi losophies of Education. Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1942. Maritain, Jacques. "Thomist Views on Education." Modern Philosophies and Education. Fifty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Mayhew, Lewis B. "The Critical Incident Technique in Educational Evaluation." Journal of Educational Research, XLIX (April, 1956), 591-598. Morris, Van Cleve. "Is There a Metaphysics of Education?" Educa tional Theory, XX (Fall, 1970), 337-344. Newsome, George L., Jr., and Gowin, D. B. "Problems of Construct Validity and the GNC Scale." Educational Theory, XVIII (Fall, 1968), 338-353. 192 Oliver, W. A. "Teachers’ Educational Beliefs Versus Their Classroom Practices." Journal of Educational Research, XLVII (September, 1953) , 47-55. Panizo, Alfredo, O.P. "The Catholic Philosophy of Education." PAGE Journal, III (January-June, 1965), 34-41. Ramos, Norberto de. "The Philosophy of Private Education." PAGE Journal, III (January-June, 1965), 72-75. Robinson, Donald W. "Editorial: Alternative Schools— Do They Promise System Reform?" Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (March, 1973), 443. Roces, Alfredo R. "Filipino Values and Our Educational System." Philippine Journal of Education, XLIX (September, 1970), 140-142; 185-187. Santos, Juan F. "Basic Philosophy of Christian Higher Education with Respect to the Educational Functions of Our Christian Colleges and Universities." PAGE Journal, III (January-June, 1965), 42-53. Smith, Mortimer. "CBE Views the Alternatives." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (March, 1973), 441-443. , ed. "The More Things Change ..." Council for Basic Edu cation Bulletin, XVII (January, 1973), 17. Tadena, Tomas P. "Philosophy of Teacher Education in the Philip pines." PAGE Journal, III (January-June, 1965), 54-59. Unpublished Material Castaneda, Esperanza A. G. "Survey of the Philippine Educators’ Views Concerning the Language Problem of the Philippines." Un published doctor’s dissertation, United States International University, 1968. de los Reyes, Macaria L. "A Study of Secondary School Teacher Educa tion in Selected Catholic Institutions in the Philippines." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1969. Downey, Robert James. "An Identification of the Philosophical Beliefs of Educators in the Field of Health Education." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1956. 193 Hamrick, Mervin Curtis. "A Critical Incident Approach to Identifica tion of the Philosophical Position of Classroom Teachers." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Florida, 1969. Lauderdale, William Burt. "The Relationship Between Philosophic Systems and Educational Practice." Unpublished doctor’s dis sertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Liesch, James Richard. "Philosophic Presuppositions of the Community School Movement in the Philippines." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1963, National Library of the Philippines. "List of Theses and Disserta tions Available in the Filipiniana Division." Mimeographed, Manila, 1970. Oliver, Edward Peter. "Philosophic Confrontations in Education." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, George Washington Univer sity, 1969. Thomas, Neil Eugene. "An Instrument to Determine Whether Fundamental Philosophical and Educational Beliefs Are Held by Selected Public School Teachers in the Areas of Elementary Education, Secondary Education, and Guidance." Unpublished doctor's dis sertation, North Texas State University, 1968. Weaver, Andrew. "The Philosophic Orientation of Doctoral Students in Educational Administration." Unpublished doctor's disserta tion, University of Tennessee, 1960. Wegener, Frank Corliss. "The Philosophical Beliefs of Leaders in American Education." Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Uni versity of Southern California, 1946.

Asset Metadata

Creator Bowler, Francis Louis (author)

Core Title The beliefs of educational philosophers in Philippine teacher-training institutions

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, general,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Brackenbury, Robert L. (committee chair), Chen, Theodore H. (committee member), Wilbur, Leslie (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-811824

Unique identifier UC11364497

Identifier 7330006.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-811824 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7330006

Dmrecord 811824

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bowler, Francis Louis

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses