This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES College of Arts DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
Mabini Campus Sta. Mesa, Manila
Labeling as a consequence of Homogenous Student-Sectioning At Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School And its subsequent effects on Selected student-related variables
An Undergraduate Thesis Presented to the faculty of the Department of Sociology
In partial fulfilment of the requirements For the degree: Bachelor of Science in Sociology
Presented by: John Nicer Abletis BSS IV-I SY 2008-2009
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
APPROVAL SHEET This thesis entitled “Labeling as a consequence of Homogenous StudentSectioning at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School and its subsequent effects on selected student-related variables” prepared by John N. Abletis, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Sociology, has been examined and is recommended for acceptance and approval in the oral examination.
_______________________ Prof. Cristita Almonte-Mallari Thesis Adviser
THESIS REVIEW PANEL Approved by the panel of examiners on oral examination with a grade of ______ on February 27, 2009, 6:30 pm at the College of Arts Community Development Extension Office, 6th floor South Wing, PUP Main Building, Mabini Campus, Sta. Mesa, Manila.
_______________________ Prof. Apolonio A. Duque Member
______________________ Dr. Zenaida T. Medrano Member
_______________________ Prof. Justin V. Nicolas Member Noted by: ______________________ Dr. Emanuel C. De Guzman Chair PUP Department of Sociology ______________________ Dr. Nenita F. Buan Dean PUP College of Arts
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am truly indebt to the following persons who have helped me, in one way or another, in the completion of this study. Without them, I would be nothing. I sincerely thank my parents for financing my research activity. I also really appreciate valuable comments from my two sisters regarding my theory, the appearance and language of my questionnaire, and their tips on how I would be going to conduct the distribution of the questionnaires. I sincerely acknowledge the authorship of books, theses, journals, and news articles that were quoted in this study. They are rightfully owned by their respective authors. They were quoted to aid our understanding on the topic, thus, I disclaim ownership of them, and I am truly indebt with their contribution to my understanding of the topic. Proper referencing had been an endeavour to me. I am thanking Maam Cynthia Lopez and Maam Luzviminda Mendoza and the other staff of the DENR-SCO-ICAD for giving me time to focus for my thesis writing despite the conduct of my OJT. Special thanks are extended to the staff of the Quezon City Division Office—Office of the Superintendent for entertaining my letter requests regarding the permit to conduct this survey research. My classmates played an active role in the formulation of options and items in my questionnaire. They have been my continuous source of ideas, encouragement, and joy. Salamat din kina Pec at Joan, sa Animal Kingdom, sa Socio’s Angels, kina Em-ar, Emman, Ate Rhia, Kuya Yuen, atbp. I am thanking Dr. Gil Magbanua, principal, and Mr. Joey Mancia, asst. to the principal, of Batasan Hills National High School, for allowing me to conduct a survey at their school, although that survey later served as the pretesting ground of this study. I also thank my former teachers there who have never forgotten me despite years of my non-appearance to them. They gave me hope during my most trying times of conducting this research. I also appreciate the stories, experiences, and answers given by the respondents at Batasan regarding student sectioning. Up to this point, masasabi kong anak Batasan pa rin ako! I sincerely thank Dr. Juanita Alajar, principal, and Ms. April Cunanan, 4th year level chairman, of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School (the former Payatas High School) for allowing me to conduct the final survey for this study. Despite preliminary miscommunications, they still gave me their trust to conduct the survey regardless of their school’s long practice of non-acceptance of collegiate researchers. Sa totoo lang, hindi ko alam kung anong gagawin ko kung hindi ninyo ako pinayagang magconduct ng survey. I am also thanking the cooperation and respect given by the student-respondents of the school during the conduct of the survey. Maraming-maraming salamat po! I am cognizant with the vital role played by my professors in Sociology, Psychology, and Philosophy during my study at this university. They were the ones who created me as an aspiring-to-be Sociologist. They have contributed significantly as to how I view our social world. I sincerely thank Prof. Wilfredo San Juan and Prof. Engels Del Rosario for reviewing my thesis. The former was my professor in thesis writing; the latter was
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
the one who voluntarily supplemented our class’ knowledge on thesis writing. Sir Engels also became one of my resource persons on thesis writing. I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Armando Torres, chairperson of the PUP-Department of Psychology, for answering my inquiries regarding statistical techniques and motivation. Relevant to this is the help given by Mr. Arman Santos, a senior student of the PUP Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics and Engr. Leogario SM. Bautista, Director of the PUP Open University, for other clarifications on using the weighted mean formula on Likert-like scales.. I sincerely thank Dr. Emanuel De Guzman, chairperson of the PUPDepartment of Sociology, for answering my questions regarding ethics in research. He assured me that my research, as well as my questionnaire, is not unethical. Relevant to this is the help given by Ms. Valerie Baricua, a senior Psychology major student of UP Diliman and also a former classmate of mine, on her suggestions on how to lessen effects of unethical questions. I am also thankful that Prof. Justin Nicolas reviewed my questionnaire against any unethical items and has entertained my questions regarding thesis writing. I deeply appreciate the help given by Dr. Zenaida Medrano on arranging items on my questionnaire. She also shared with me encouragement, advice, and stories which contributed to my insights regarding this study’s importance. I am also deeply thankful that Prof. Cristita Almonte-Mallari accepted my request to become my thesis adviser. She gave me valuable information, insights, ideas, comments, and suggestions on how to conduct social research. She served as a mother to me and to our class not only during our junior year but also at the present times. Maam Mallari, salamat po! And to Whom should I give the greatest thank of all? Syempre to God, with the intercession of Mama Mary, He is the one who provided me with all of what I have now. Hindi niya ako iniwan. Totoo nga ang kasabihan... “He neither comes early nor late. He is always on time.”
“Cogito ergo sum”
Para sa lahat ng mga estudyante, naging estudyante, at magiging estudyante Para sa mga guro, at gustong maging guro Para sa mga Sosyolihista na may malalim na pagpapahalaga sa edukasyon Ang pananaliksik na ito ay para sa inyo.
Mostly educated Filipinos experienced being sectioned homogenously during their elementary and high school years. The trend of homogenous student-sectioning still exist today (although efforts have been made to weaken it) such that labels, expectations, and attributions associated and indicative to student-stratification continue to exist, constraining and aiding people to pigeonhole (typifications) students based on how much they posses what the school values (academic achievement i.e. indicative to grades, especially to what section-status they belong [higher, average, lower section]). The paper made Labeling theory by Edwin Lemert, Distance and Value by Georg Simmel, and Stratification theory by C. H. Cooley (with prestige dimension by Max Weber) interrelated such that it could explain how labeling could affect the aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, the academic and social self-concepts, and the social interactions of higher and lower section students. Thus, this research falls within the field of the Sociology of Education. The paper strays from qualitative methodologies conventionally required in Symbolic Interactionism to explicitly show that (the conception of) labels, expectations, and attributions are shared and that their possible effects shouldn’t be neglected (because a considerable proportion of the population has been consulted), unlike case studies which, the researcher thinks, are prone to such (because of small number of respondents). Despite being largely quantitative, meanings on qualitative responses (i.e. reasons, explanations) given by the respondents were explored and interpreted. This is a manifestation that this research has recognized the duality of both macro and micro processes of the labeling phenomena (Structural Symbolic Interactionism). Using the commonly used survey method, the researcher was able to get the attitudes, perceptions, and feelings of higher and lower section students regarding the labeling that they were experiencing, on a massive and collective sense. The theory was validated among randomly selected respondents from Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School (former Payatas High School) SY 0809, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City. After data gathering and analyses, the researcher found out that higher section students were secondary deviants, have positive subjective-academicself-concepts, were aspiring and (more) motivated for academic achievement, were being competitors with other students, and were being co-operators with their teachers, other teachers, and the school administration. All these findings were caused (although not strong) by the positive, high expecting labels associated to them. Lower section students, on the other hand, were primary deviants, have indeterminate subjective-academic self-concepts, were aspiring and motivated for academic achievement, and were also being competitors with other students. Negative, low expecting labels associated to them caused (although not strong) these findings. Conflicting views were reiterated at the end of the paper (i.e. Chapter 4) to leave the reader the decision of whether to track (homogenously sectioning) or to untrack (heterogeneous sectioning) students.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Title Page .................................................................................................... 1 Approval Sheet ........................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgement ...................................................................................... 3 Dedication ................................................................................................... 5 Abstract ....................................................................................................... 6 Table of Contents ...................................................................................... 7 List of Figures and Tables .......................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM A. Introduction …………….................................................................... B. Theoretical Framework .................................................................... C. Conceptual Framework ................................................................... D. Statement of the Problem ............................................................... E. Significance of the Study ................................................................. F. The Setting of the Study .................................................................. G. Scope and Limitation of the Study ................................................... H. Definition of Terms .......................................................................... CHAPTER 2 THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Part 1: Conceptual Literature ............................................................. Part 2: Research Literature A. Foreign Studies ........................................................... B. Local Studies ............................................................... Part 3: The Review of Related Literature and the Present Study ....... CHAPTER 3 THE METHODOLOGY A. Design of the Study ......................................................................... B. Nature of Data ................................................................................. C. Methods, Techniques, and Procedures in gathering Primary Data 1. Pretesting Period ...................................................................... 2. The Conduct of Survey ............................................................ D. Variables of the Study ..................................................................... E. The Questionnaire and the Operationalization of Variables ............ F. Statistical Treatment of the Quantitative Primary Data .................... G. Sampling .......................................................................................... H. The Respondents ............................................................................ CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA A. The Characteristics of the Student-Respondents ............................ B. The Sectioning Methodology Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School has ....................................................................................... C. Labels, Expectations, and Attributions associated with the
11 15 28 30 31 33 34 40
45 63 71 75
77 78 79 80 80 81 86 91 94
Student-Respondents ...................................................................... D. The attitude of higher section and lower section senior students on their aspiration for academic achievement ...................................... E. The Student-Respondents and Academic Achievement ................. F. Perceived distance the Student-Respondents have between their selves and Academic Achievement ................................................. G. The Student-Respondents on Motivation for Academic Achievement .................................................................................... H.1 The Student-Respondents and their Immediate Social Sphere of Interaction ........................................................................................ H.2 The Student-Respondents and their Non-immediate Social Sphere of Interaction (General Audience) .................................................... I. The Student-Respondents’ Social Self-Concepts ........................... J. Benefits of the present student-sectioning ...................................... CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Summary ......................................................................................... B. Conclusions ..................................................................................... C. Recommendations ........................................................................... References ................................................................................................. Appendices A. Letters and Permits ......................................................................... B. Questionnaires (Pretesting and Testing Period) .............................. C. The Sampling Frame ...................................................................... D. JCMPHS’ Mission, Vision, and History ............................................ E. Gallery of Photos ............................................................................. F. Some Salindiwa newspaper articles................................................. G. The Researcher ...............................................................................
122 131 148 151 154 161 176 177 179
183 184 188 190 194 195 196 202 207 211 214
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1 2 Conceptual framework .................................................................. Shavelson’s, Hubner’s and Stanton’s structure of the selfconcept ......................................................................................... Page 28 59
Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Weight equivalents for all rating scales ........................................ Desired, defined, and excluded Populations ................................ Distribution and retrieval of questionnaires ................................... Distribution of respondents by sex ................................................ Distribution of respondents by age ............................................... Distribution of respondents by annual family income ................... Distribution of respondents on the number of household members ....................................................................................... An inquiry if the respondents work ................................................ Socioeconomic status ................................................................... Respondents’ number of schooling years since grade 1 .............. Distribution of respondents on their 3rd yr. average ...................... An inquiry if respondents have back subjects ............................... Number of years the respondents has been higher or lower section students since first year .................................................... Distribution of respondents regarding their participation in school-wide activities since 1st yr. ................................................. Awards received during the respondents’ stay at JCMPHS ......... The respondents’ perception as to how they were sectioned ....... The respondents’ perception on the basi(e)s of being assigned to their respective sections ........................................................... Respondents’ perception on how they were sectioned in elementary .................................................................................... Expectations for Higher Section Students .................................... Expectations for Lower Section Students ..................................... Student-respondents’ attitude regarding the sections they belong The student-respondents’ main label as a consequence of being at their present sections ................................................................ An inquiry as to who labels the student-respondents ................... An inquiry as to how higher section students were labelled by the groups of people that they identified in item P2D.3 ................ An inquiry as to how lower section students were labelled by the groups of people that they identified in item P2D.3 ...................... An inquiry if the respondents were also being labelled by the attributes, adjectives, or expectations that they identified in items P2C.1 and P2C.2 .......................................................................... An inquiry as to what extent the student-respondents accept the
Page 87 91 92 95 96 98 99 100 101 103 104 105 106 109 111 117 118 120 121 126 131 133 137 140 142
28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
labeling that they have been experiencing ................................... Subjective Academic Self-concepts .............................................. Student-respondents’ attitude on their aspiration for academic achievement ................................................................................. An inquiry if the labels strengthen the respondents’ selfconfidence to aspire for academic achievement ........................... The student-respondents’ conception of distance between them and academic achievement .......................................................... An inquiry if the labels strengthen the student-respondents’ selfconfidence when doing activities at school ................................... Frequencies student-respondents have on some selected academic activities when considering their labels of being higher or lower section students .............................................................. If the student-respondents were motivated for academic achievement ................................................................................. Mapping on motivation .................................................................. Labels, expectations, attributions, and the sectioning-issue as possible effectors within the respondents’ immediate social sphere of interaction ..................................................................... If comparison were beneficial to the respondents ........................ Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of student-respondents’ section with their teachers ............................................................ PSI of the student-respondents’ section with other higher section students ........................................................................................ PSI of the student-respondents’ section with the lower section students ........................................................................................ PSI of the student-respondents’ section with the middle/average section students ............................................................................ PSI of the student-respondents’ section with other teachers ....... PSI of the student-respondents’ section with the school administration ............................................................................... The student-respondents’ self-concepts based on the pattern of social interaction that they have identified within their in-school non-immediate social sphere ........................................................ An inquiry if the respondents find homogenous studentsectioning and the labeling that they were experiencing beneficial for their personal development .....................................
144 145 148 150 152 155
156 159 160
162 164 165 168 170 172 174 175
Chapter 1 Introduction
A. Background of the Study
Batasan Hills National High School was established in 1998 to render the growing number of informal settler youth at Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City with the formal secondary education they need. The school formally opened on December 8, 1998 with Dr. Romulo B. Rocena as its first principal, together with its first nineteen teachers who were faced to manage more or less four hundred students (Duag, 2006, pp.10-11) originating from the nearby high school
institutions of Bagong Silangan and Commonwealth. As a new school, Batasan experienced scarcity both on educational/structural facilities and in the number of administrative and technical personnel (especially teachers). Since then, the school experienced an influx of students coming from nearby elementary schools every enrolment season, making its student population to rise steadily over the years, aggravating its condition on resource scarcity. The researcher arrived at Batasan as a freshman student in June, 2001. Batasan was bigger at that time compared to its state in 1998; however, what seemed to “culture shock” him was the size of the classrooms.1 To accommodate the large student population, the school administration decided to divide the usual size of classrooms into halves, with each classroom containing approximately sixty students in relation to more or less thirty chairs. Hence, making about half of the students in each section to bring rice sacks everyday so
Definitely the researcher was culture shocked because the (material) condition of his new school was different in contrast to his primary years at Payatas A. Elementary School.
they can sit on the floor until their class for the day was over. Scarcity of chairs and teacher-tables, poor classroom ventilation, and dirty comfort rooms were just some of the “striking features” of the old Batasan scenario. Reminiscing the old Batasan2 would entail the student-sectioning issue. Evident on those times was how the students were sectioned homogenously (higher sections) and heterogeneously (lower sections), and how such system of classifying students developed into stratification of students with consequences on the different levels of access and acquisition of prestige, power, and material resources (e.g. Star Sections [Section 1] at that time had complete chairs, bigger rooms, priority rights on elective TLE courses etc., conditions contrary to what their fellow students were experiencing at the lower sections, see Appendix G). Differences on material conditions were evident at that time; what has been more implied and implicit, however, was the use of labels connected to sections and, consequently, to students belonging to those sections (i.e. the labels higher section student and lower section student). Such preliminary experience motivated the researcher to pursue a study on student sectioning, even though its trend seems to be diminishing at Batasan. Asking some of his present classmates and friends reared on other schools have also shared experiences on student-sectioning comparable to those he had. Scant newspaper articles also suggest the like.
The present day Batasan would be very much different in physical condition as compared to what the researcher experienced during his secondary years (2001-2005). The material constraints that were previously discussed have mostly been gone due to recent intensive infrastructural developments done by Quezon City Mayor Feliciano Belmonte and District II Representative Annie Rosa Susano.
...Noon namang hayskul, maraming kakulangan ang hindi napunan ng aming guro dahil napupunta ang pribilehiyong matutukan ang pag-aaral sa mga higher sections lamang. Palibhasa nasa lower section ako kaya di ko pansin ang mga bagay na iyon. Pinapangarap ko rin minsang mapabilang sa mga higher sections pero ‘di kaya ng aking kakayahan kaya nanatiling kulang ang aking mga kaalaman hanggang sa ako’y makapagtapos ng hayskul. -Jeric F. Jimenez (2007, p. 14) ...It was a matter of honor for those in the premier section to maintain their standing there or for those in the lower sections to be promoted to join them, replacing those who had fallen behind. Reassignment to a lower section was a disgrace. Naturally, those in the brightest class were despised by those in the lower sections, but this was probably out of envy only... -Isagani A. Cruz (1999, p. 8)
Most educated Filipinos experienced being grouped into sections during their schooling years. Student-sectioning is a common practice of schools, whether public or private, with considerably large student population. It is mostly part of every school’s educational-organizational management strategy to effectively manage the schools limited personnel and material resources in relation to rendering student services –the allocation of resources, studentteacher ratio, student-book ratio, etc. School Administrators usually decide whether the student-sectioning strategy will be Homogenous or Heterogeneous, or a mixture of these. Homogenous Student Sectioning, or Ability Grouping, basically implies the creation of sections with students having most likely similar mental abilities and capabilities in learning. On the contrary, Heterogeneous Student Sectioning involves the creation of sections with students having, aside from diverse backgrounds, varied abilities and capabilities in learning, with different inclinations and interests.
Homogenous Student-sectioning consequentially follows the emergence of the higher section-lower section dichotomy, with the higher(est) sections
composed of students having exceptional marks3 to the lower(est) sections composed of students with the lowest grades. This arrangement would most likely produce the Higher Section Student and the Lower Section Student labels, with their accompanying attributions and expectations that are traditionally 4 attached to them. The researcher personally believes that these labels were likely to be part of the self-concepts of the students, and may have influenced their aspirations, motivations, and social interactions inside the school. It was curiosity which pushed the researcher to pursue the study. Basically, he wanted to know how true and wide scoping (number of students affected) his theoretical construct is relative to student sectioning. Reviewing related studies of Rosental and Jacobson in 1968 (as cited in Ballantine, 1997; Rosenthal, 1997), of Hoge (1979), Labuguen (1968), Doctolero (1995), and Ceñidoza (2004) further strengthen the need to pursue a study regarding student-sectioning since most of these researches were not primarily sociological (except for latter); as well as the need to update the knowledge on the topic.5 These rationales guided the researcher into believing that his study is worthy of being pursued in the light of Sociological theories and concepts and some
Schools, on different school-years would vary on how they would define “exceptional” based on students’ averages. “Traditional” since Homogenous Student Sectioning has been the traditional methodology of student-sectioning in the Philippines. Since it has become traditional, or customary, the labels, attributions and expectations produced by it do not easily cease, especially if a considerable number of schools practice such sectioning type, or are showing tendencies of it. Several local seemingly related studies were conducted from the 1960’s to the 1980’s. However, the researcher was not able to read them due to an organizational policy imposed by The National Library on accessing theses and dissertations.
borrowing of terms from other related fields (i.e. motivation and the nature of selfconcept in Psychology). The researcher personally believes that what his study has in contrast to the studies cited above is the special emphasis on the possible effects of labels, attributions, and expectations on the self-concepts, aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, and social interactions of secondary senior students banded into stratified sections.
This does not mean…that as sociologists, we need to divest ourselves of our values; indeed we could not do this even if we wanted to. The ability to conceptualize values… is one of the principal features that distinguishes humans as a species. All that is necessary is that we be prepared to accept what may be surprising and perhaps even displeasing to us if our findings do not support what we strongly believe or hold dear. -Martin Marger (2000, p.6) I have tried to be objective: I do not claim to be detached -C. Wright Mills (in Massey, 2000, p.13)
B. Theoretical Framework
Conventionally, to effectively manage the students and the schools’ resources (human resources, material resources, services), school
administrators need to group students into sections (section 1, 2, 3, etc.). How administrators section students vary depending on their schools’ organizational structure, structural constraints, and the schools’ atmosphere and culture (Ballantine, 1997, p.71). Administrators have two most common methodologies of sectioning students: (1) Homogenous sectioning and (2) heterogeneous sectioning. The former is commonly called “between-class ability grouping” or “tracking” (Slavin, 2003, p.296) because such process commonly involves the usage of tests (i.e. IQ tests, Achievement Tests etc.) and/or evaluation of former grades to determine which students should be placed in the fast track and be p. 15
given advance lessons, and which students should be placed in the slow track and be given more attention in teaching. Heterogeneous sectioning, on the other hand, involves the grouping of students possessing different levels of abilities and capabilities of learning into equally appearing statuses of sections. Homogenous student sectioning (ability grouping) has been “a common practice among schools around the world because most teachers feel it is easier to teach a group of like-ability students” (Ballantine, 1997, p.71). Students with high academic performance are grouped together so that more advanced lessons could be taught to them; this is, of course, in response to their ability to learn faster than their counterparts, and also taking into account the idea that students in the higher sections are more knowledgeable on many academic areas than their other school mates (Hallinan & Sorensen as cited in Ballantine, 1997, p.73). The practice of ability grouping is beneficial to our society when considering “the need to utilize the talents of the most gifted members” of the studentry (Ibid, p.120). The grouping of poor performing students into lower sections is basically intended to help them keep in-pace with other well-to-do students through lessons and teaching strategies which seem to be appropriate with the levels of their abilities and capacities in learning. Applying the concept of functions by Robert K. Merton, implies an idea that one of the manifest functions6 of Homogenous student sectioning is to teach
The conventional meaning of function in the structural-functionalism perspective is the consequence of an action, activity, role, practice or a part performed by a unit of a social organization that is beneficial to the maintenance and survival of the organization’s whole social system or social order. Manifest functions are those that are intended or recognized, Latent functions are unintended or unrecognized (Merton, 1957, pp. 60-69), while Dysfunctions are consequences and practices that seem to be detrimental, causing imbalance, to the social organization. The latter includes the non-obedience, non-adherence, or non-pursuance of
students according to their perceived abilities and capabilities in learning. Included also in the manifest functions are the rationales held by the school administrators in choosing the homogenous student-sectioning technique. Some latent functions and dysfunctions of the practice on selected variables have been explored in this research when considering the labeling involved in Homogenous student sectioning. Homogenous student sectioning is a possible creator of hierarchy or stratification among students based on their perceived abilities (e.g. previous performance)7 as manifested by the sections they presently belong. In this research, students’ sections at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School were categorized (stratified) into higher, average (middle) and lower sections; however, there could be no clear dividing line among those three.8 Social Stratification (or hierarchy) among students involves social classes. Ogburn and Nimkoff (as cited in Ronquillo, Peralta, Salcedo, & Zaide, 1989, p.57) defined social classes as “two or more broad groups of individuals who are ranked by members of the community into socially superior and inferior positions,” applied to schools in this research: the higher sections and the lower sections dichotomy. Adhering to such social class definition consequently involves the idea of inequality; postulating that each social class has different
cultural ideals set in by the Manifest functions (e.g. Spouse beating instead of love and caring between husband and wife –Panopio et. al., 2004, pp.14-15) In application, if schools greatly value academic achievement, then higher sections (which were homogenously grouped through evaluation of high grades and/or test scores –manifestations of academic achievement) could receive great valuation from the school. This could lead to different treatment between higher and lower section students. Exceptions would be the two opposite poles of Section 1 and the last Section. There could be no clear dividing line… since sections between the two opposite poles might have been, at some point, attributed/labeled as being higher or lower sections.
levels of access/acquisition/control on “social resources,” particularly prestige, power, and material resources (Marger, 2000). These social classes are institutionalized, “patterned” or “regularized” constructions of our society (Ronquillo et. al., 1989, p.56); thus, belonging to one of those two (or more) involves meanings and attributions that were legitimized through time.9 These belief systems (attributions and meanings) have been oversimplified into labels in the course of time.10 Contemplating on Max Weber’s idea that social prestige is also primary in studying social stratification (Panopio & Raymundo, 2004, p.11) suggests that labels associated to student sections are manifestations of the inequality on the acquisition of social prestige, and on some point, of power.11 Further, the researcher thinks that attributions and meanings connected to labels do not cease as long as the majority of the people in a social setting believes/perceives/and found materialized basis indicative to such labels, that is, social stratification itself (i.e. grouping students into section 1, 2, 3... etc.).
People construct, and are being subjected to, meanings about their social life through time. Since time is involved, it basically follows that these meanings are being passed, and maintained (and are being reconstructed although not extensively) from generation to generation through socialization, making them part of our culture. 10 An idea implicit from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stigma ¶ 7, which states that “...the fact that significant oversimplification is needed to create groups.” Oversimplified in the sense that how one labels are based on the obvious, external matter, such as “black” or “white,” or attributes that are easy to remember and to become our bases in distinguishing people. These labels seem to be part of our culture; hence one could expect that labels have associated meanings. One could also say that the concept of label here especially when connected to groups draw near with the concept of stereotype. Stereotypes are “perceptions, beliefs, and expectations a person has about members of some group…involve assumptions (usually false) that all members of a group share the same characteristics” (Bernstein & Nash, 1999, p.497). These two concepts are complementary since they are cultural constructions, hence, how one labels may rely on stereotypes; conversely, stereotypes imply their presence through labels. 11 This is the case if someone would define power as the ability and/or capability of influencing peoples’ thoughts and decisions. The conception and the recognition that someone belongs to the upper class somehow could lead others to render different treatment with him, as compared to a lower class counterpart. Conception of labels and relying on them could also constrain the way people think of others-implying the concept of typifications by Alfred Schutz (Ritzer, 2004, p.67).
Adhering to such logic between stratification and labels causes us to consider two basic theoretical claims significant to this research, (1) that Stratification, in the course of time, produces labels; and (2) that labels are manifestations of stratification. 12 Labels are structurally brought by the method of sectioning as well as by their being historically and culturally created since homogenous student sectioning has long been practiced in the Philippine education system. Also, labels are interpreted and expressed interpersonally, that is, among interactants mostly within the school environment, involving teachers, students, and the school administration; thus, there is a need to asses the impact of labels on inschool interactions.13 Charles H. Cooley ( as cited in Ronquillo et. al., 1989, p.56) offered a theory on the principal conditions that favor social stratification, which the researcher thinks would be useful; these are “(1) little communication and enlightenment, (2) a slow rate of social change, and (3) marked difference in the
In case of a mixture of the two sectioning methodologies, the researcher thinks that stratification would still exists, since the mixture method involves the creation of ability grouped individuals (the possible higher sections) who have met the quota (qualifications) excluding those who do not (the creation then of a heterogeneous lower sections), entailing the possibility that higher section students could still enjoy the benefits of being at the top of the hierarchy. Since social stratification can still be conceivably found on schools that practice the mix methodology in student sectioning, then it logically follows that the labels associated with homogenous ability grouped students—the labels higher and lower section student, together with their associated meanings and attributions—would likely exist. 13 The idea that Labels are historically and culturally brought by the larger society suggests a Structuralist orientation (Macro-oriented), while the idea that Labels could be interpreted interpersonally by the interactants suggests an interpretive, Symbolic-Interactionist orientation (Micro-oriented). The fusion of these two opposite perspectives in Sociology should not demean the Labeling theory as a conventional S-I perspective. The fusion was done in order to recognize that social constructions such as societal norms exist and affect how a person interprets those labels and that people as interactants have also the capability to re-interpret and re-establish (however, not always and constant) those labels based on their special needs during specific circumstances. This framing puts this research within the Structural Symbolic Interactionist framework. As what Sheldon Stryker (Turner, Ed., 2001, p.212) describes it “…by examining ways in which social structures impact persons and interaction and the reciprocal impact of persons and interactions on social structures…the concurrent emphases on agency and constraint defining Structural Symbolic Interactionism.”
constituent parts of the population.” These were the bases as to why this research has included the interactions of students with their classmates, friends, parents, teachers and the general audience (see definition of terms, p.42). Frank Tannembaum simplified the concept and the act of labeling as follows:
...is a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing, and evoking the very traits complained of.. (quoted in Hawkins & Tiedeman, 1975, p.44)
This means that when an attribute or an expectation has been tagged (said, verbalized) to a person, the attribute or expectation involved becomes label. The person tagging, therefore, is in the act of labeling. The Labeling Theory of Edwin Lemert (Hawkins et. al.,1975, pp.47-48; Light & Keller, 1982, p.246; Johnson, 1986, p. 302; Trojanowicz & Morash, 1992, p.69) identified the process and effects of labeling as (1) Primary deviancy, meaning that the individual being labeled would first reject the label, and would try ways and measures of conduct against the label, i.e. there is a degree of selfinsisting that he/she is not a deviant or the one being labeled so, “as long as the accused can ignore or defuse the reactions from control agents, his deviation will remain primary” (Hawkins et. al., 1975, p.47), people who are also unaware of their deviant behavior or thinks that it is “trivial” (unimportant) also falls in this type (Johnson, 1986, p.303); and (2) Secondary deviancy, wherein the label will be internalized by the person so as to become part of his/her self-concept (Money as cited in Panopio et. al., 2004, p.136). Thomas J. Sheff (as cited in Hawkins et. al., 1975) expressed the same idea that the second type involves a gradual change in role organization and also a change in self concept once p. 20
“public/official”14 labeling/reaction occurs, resulting into the adaptation of deviant roles suggested by the labels, hence implying the “self-fulfilling prophecy” (Johnson, 1986, p.304). Self-fulfilling prophecy15 is central to labeling theory since this entails the fulfilment of what is being complained of against a person, as what Frank Tannenbaum said “the person becomes the thing he is described as being” (quoted in Hawkins, et. al., 1975, p. 43). The term was first coined by Robert K. Merton in 1948 with the meaning drawn from the classic theorem Definition of the Situation by W. I. Thomas (Tauber, 1998, p. 4), describing it as “in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true” (quoted in Webb & Sherman, 1989, p. 475; Light et. al., 1982, p.418; Johnson, 1986, p.180). The process involved in the Secondary deviancy does not suggests an automatic acceptance and acquisition of the deviant role by the person involved (Hawkins et. al., 1975, p.47), this only suggests that gradually, the accused deviant will accept the label because he has no other choice of coping, as what Erving Goffman (cited by Light et. al., 1982, p. 246) wrote “one response to this fate is to embrace it.” Another response is to look for support groups similarly labeled with what he/she has (Johnson, 1986, p.303; Light, et. al., 1982, p.248) all resulting into the adoption of a deviant life style (role) –hence, the fulfilment of the prophecy.
Official or Public reactions on deviancy involves the reaction of people, especially those in authority, against the deviant behavior, meaning, the deviant behavior has been brought into the consciousness and opposition of the public, thus, the act is not hidden. Informal (unofficial) reactions come from friends and acquaintances (thus, the act is also not hidden) which may deny or normalize the rule violations (Hawkins et. al., 1975, pp. 46-47). 15 According to Brinkerhoff, White, Ortega, and Weitz (2002, p.170), one of the major contributions of Symbolic Interactionism is its recognition of Self-fulfilling prophecy as an important “social dynamic…ways that social class statuses are reinforced.”
The labeling theory is closely connected to deviancy; in fact, many labels have been generated because of the occurrence of deviancy. In the labeling perspective, deviance is a term suggesting a type of behavior or action straying from the norms of a group; is defined and recognized by the group as straying from their norms; and is a label attached to an act committed by a person, meaning, deviance is the label attached to an act, and not the act itself. Society defines the meaning of “normal” via convention, which may be conscious (e.g. face-to-face discussion) or unconscious in manner (more implied and not evident but existing; has been taken for granted). 16 The word and the notion of being “normal” has been dependent on a shared definition (cultural) of it by a considerable number of people, preferably the majority (legitimation). Thus, any act or behavior by a member not considered as “normal” as defined by the majority could be labeled as “abnormal,” hence, “deviant.” Using these ideas would suggest that deviance is (1) an act labeled by a group as straying with its norms, and deviance as (2) a deviation from what society defines as “normal.” These two concepts could be contradictory to each other, especially when one considers questions such as “what is normal?” and “what if the majority of the people who defines a behavior as
right/conforming/ideal are unconsciously deviants?”17
In the last type, members just accept what they feel the majority is doing (or believing). The word convention needs a considerable number or percentage of population, preferably the majority, or else it would not be considered as a convention if there are only few people who knew the meanings, in short, convention involves the process of legitimation. This legitimation, again, involves time. 17 This is especially the case between “what ought to be,” or “ideal cultural pattern” and “what is,” or “actual cultural pattern” (Ember & Ember, 1997, p.200). The understanding of deviance could also be expounded by considering the three kinds of deviance defined by Panopio (et. al., 2004, p. 130), namely (1) Approved deviance, (2) Tolerated deviance, and (3) Unapproved
If the researcher would use the theory of labeling based on unapproved deviancies, then, the researcher argues that the term would not be appropriate in describing students who are, as the researcher assumed to, not delinquents (e.g. killer, rapist, snatcher, drug pusher etc.). To avoid confusion and maintain unity of statements, the researcher would not use the nature of deviance in Labeling theory as what most Sociology books reviewed are referring to. Neither would he categorize labels in this research as manifestations of approved or tolerated deviancies in order to minimize, if not avoid, biases on meanings, categorization, and interpretations. Labels and their associated expectations and attributions affect the selfconcepts of higher and lower section students. Secord and Backman (1974, p.414) defined self-concept as “an interlocking set of views that an individual holds about himself as a person.” It involves “thoughts, feelings, and beliefs” about one’s self, all as products of his “social and cultural environment” (Bernstein & Nash, 1999, p.495). More interesting is Brinkerhoff’s (et. al., 2002, p.56) definition, “thoughts about our personality and social roles.” In 1976, R.J. Shavelson, J.J. Hubner, and G.C. Stanton (as cited in Mante, 1996, pp. 48-60) found out that self-concept is multifaceted, and hierarchical. Figure 2 (see review of related literature, p.59) shows their structure of self-concept. Their theory about self-concept is that it is composed of four sub-areas of the general selfdeviance. Approved deviancies are recognized behaviors that move “in the direction of the ideal pattern of behavior” (e.g. scientists, saint, hero etc.) (ibid). Tolerated deviancy is a form of negative deviancy that has become widely accepted through time because of its persistent existence, it is usually treated with toleration, but it does not mean that society favors the act. Unapproved deviancies are types of behavior that violate mores and laws of a group or a society. Society, in this last type, feels that its sacredness and peacefulness, together with its tightly upheld values (mores) are threatened; hence, society reacts on those behaviors with negative sanctions.
concept namely “academic, social, emotional, and physical.” These are products of reflections, criticisms, feedbacks, self-ascription, information, and
interpretations of the self based on his interactions or relationships with his social environment18 (ibid). Each sub-area could have both objective and subjective evaluation. Academic self-concept refers to self-conceptions produced through objective (e.g. grades) and subjective (e.g. Labels and attributions) evaluation and dimensions of the self-concept in relation to his/her functioning/performance at school, these of course, are also product of the student’s interactions with the social environment. In this research, the objective evaluation on academic achievement involves the students’ third year general averages, achievements received, number of years as a student, and their participation in school-wide activities.19 Subjective evaluation for academic achievement in this research involves labels, expectations, and attributions connected to the students’ section (higher or lower section). Social self-concept refers to the self-concept derived from the different relationships engaged in by the individual within his social environment. In this research, social (space) environment was delimited into immediate (classmates, peers, their teachers, and their parents) and non-immediate social sphere20 (--the general audience, specifically other sections, other teachers, and the school administration in general). Since social self-concept seems to be very subjective
Labels, expectations, and attributions are also forms of criticisms, feedbacks, information, and ascriptions produced by/or are evident in the students’ social environment. 19 Objective evaluations here were mainly used only for the respondents’ profile (description). They were treated here as intervening variables. 20 The researcher conceptualized these social spaces based on Edward T. Hall’s Proxemics.
because there is no established way of “objectively--non varying, standard-measuring and describing” as to how relationships function in each interactant to produce their social self-concepts, the researcher made the determination of the Social self-concept as wholly dependent on the type of pattern of social interaction the respondents would determine in each in-school social relationship given (particularly those belonging to the non-immediate social sphere).21 The following are types of social self-concepts derived from each pattern of social interaction (PSI) category used in this study: competitor for the PSI competition, in conflict for the PSI conflict, different-equal roles for differentiation; co-operator for cooperation; superior-subordinate for
domination; and having least care for toleration. The discussion of labels and self-concepts are important as the former affects the latter. According to George Herbert Mead, “people act in accord with their self-concepts” (quoted in Trojanowicz et. al., 1992, p.69), this is the basis of Lemert’s idea on secondary deviancy (ibid). The discussion of labels affecting the self-concept has something to do (affects) with the conception of distance between the self and the goal/aspiration (including what to aspire). This is evident in Georg Simmel’s Theory of Distance
One could argue that social self-concept should be derived based on the students’ interaction with their peers, classmates, and parents (primary group). The researcher thinks that the idea is basically correct; however, reading Hawkins and Tiedman (1975) on their critique/interpretation of the Labeling theory implies a different view. The two were both surprised when they realized that most theorists of the Labeling theory come from the Symbolic Interactionist School, which, from Mead to Cooley’s tradition of theorizing, are expected to give much emphasis on the primary group. The reason is that there is an “untested assumption that official reactions in public settings have a greater impact on secondary deviance than do informal reactions” by the “primary group” (ibid, pp. 48 & 66). This, then, follows that interactions within the non-immediate social sphere (i.e. public) could shed light on the type of social self-concepts students are most likely to have within the school setting. The same book contends that friends and the significant others (primary groups) could normalize deviant behavior, hence, could be self-restraining from being involved in the labeling process.
and Value wherein he posited that the things people value are those things which they consider as attainable through considerable effort, those things they conceive as too near to them –too easy to obtain, or too far from them –too difficult to obtain, are of least value (Ritzer, 2003, p.53). The conception then of label by the self, could be contributory as to how an individual sets distance between him/her and the thing to be valued. To make the theory more useful to education, the researcher equated the three types of distances into neglectable (too near, i.e. academic achievement could be grabbed effortlessly), attainable (not too close yet not too far, i.e. considerable effort is exerted for academic achievement), and impossible (very far, i.e. academic achievement is impossible so that efforts for it are useless). The self’s conception of distance between him and academic achievement could be contributory to his motivation for his longterm goal (strictly determined by the researcher as academic achievement).22 Academic achievement, as operationally defined in this research, means a condition wherein a student has high grades, could have won curricular (academic) contests, has a big chance to become one of the school’s cream of the crop, has a reputation of being an academic achiever, and is being lookedupon by his/her teachers, classmates, and other students. Motivation has three basic processes: (1) the selection or recognition of a motive (or reason for a behavior, such as value, goal –in this research, academic achievement.), (2) selection of ways to achieve/satisfy/meet such motive, (in this
Although this theory seems to be individualistic, and as such could be placed in the field of Psychology, it is Sociological in the sense that the social and cultural environment has conditioned, or is conditioning the way a person considers the extent of distance (how far or near) between him and his goal. Conception of labels (and associated expectations and attributions) seems to be contributory to such.
research: studying, joining contests, following school rules, and joining good school organizations), and (3) persistence of behavior chosen until the motive/value/goal is satisfied (see review of related literature, pp. 57-58). The last process is what motivation in this research means, that is, persistence of behavior (--the degree of aspiring academic achievement, and the degree the chosen behavior is undertaken). Using this operational definition of motivation would lead us to conclude that a person (a student) is unmotivated if his/her behavior in actualizing the goal is not persistent (not sustained or long term).23 At the end, one should always note that the Labeling theory is not concerned on the origin (ontology) of deviance; it is somewhat an extension of role theory which is applied to the deviancy phenomena (Hawkins et. al., 1975). In short, the Labeling theory concerns itself with tendencies on role acceptance and deviancy perpetuation (as well as perpetuation of social stratification). Through these theories, research questions were formulated and analyzed. As evident in the presentation of these theories, they are, in this research, interconnected. Thus, one could expect that in chapter 4, analyses of data were done with reference to one, or any of these interconnected theories, depending when the need arises.
The researcher needs to join the concepts degree of aspiring academic achievement and the degree the chosen behavior is undertaken into one major concept, motivation, in order for this research not to account for Merton’s ritualism.
C. Conceptual Framework
Figure 1: The Research’s Conceptual Framework (Main words in bold letters) Interpretation and expression of Labels in the form of Main LABEL based on the status of the SECTION
Expectations and Attributions
Classmates Higher section students Lower section students Peers/Friends Parents Student’s teacher Other teachers School Administration
Higher Section Students
Middle Section Students
(Objective & Subjective)
Aspiration for academic achievement
Motivation for academic achieve achievement
Lower Section Students
(Pattern of) Social Interaction
Social Self-Concept Concept
Cultural construction of meanings through time
Homogenous Student-Sectioning produces section-statuses of higher, middle (average) and lower sections, resulting into stratification of students on the basis of “how much” they possess what the school values (i.e. academic excellence commonly expressed through high grades). Students of higher and lower sections accompany the main label of being either a higher section student or a lower section student. The term “higher section student” and “lower section student” is being interpreted and eventually expressed by the students, peers, parents and teachers and the school administration in terms of expectations and attributions.24 These interpretations (expectations and attributions) have the background Cultural construction of meanings through time to recognize the exposure of the interpreters to meanings traditionally attached to the higher and lower section student labels.25 These expectations and attributions are being received, interpreted, analyzed, evaluated, internalized, and sometimes expressed by higher section and lower section students. These labels, expectations and attributions are subjected to the acceptance (secondary deviancy) or rejection (primary deviancy) of the students, which could affect their Academic Self-Concept and Social Interaction. Positive and/or negative subjective academic self-concepts (produced by labels, expectations, and attributions) could affect the students’ aspiration and motivation for academic achievement. Labels, expectations, and attributions could also affect the respondents’ (pattern of) social interactions with their classmates, peers,
These expectations and attributes also become labels once they are tagged to an individual. These attributions and expectations have been culturally produced by the practice of homogenous student-sectioning over a long period of time. Teachers and school administrators whom the researcher informally interviewed were cognizant that they were sectioned homogenously when they were spending their elementary and high school years.
parents, their teachers, and the general audience. The pattern of social interaction engaged in by the respondents’ with these people produces their social self-concept.
D. Statement of the Problem
The present study has sought to know the effects of labels, expectations, and attributions produced by Homogenous Student-Sectioning to the higher section and lower section senior students of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School S.Y. 2008-2009 on selected student-related variables, specifically their aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, their academic and social self-concepts, and their social interactions. To answer the main problem, the researcher formulated the following specific problems. 1. What are the characteristics of the higher section and lower section students on the following: sex; age; socioeconomic status; their 3rd yr. average; number of years they spent as students since grade 1; involvement in school activities; awards received; and on how they were sectioned in elementary? 2. What type of student-sectioning technique/methodology/arrangement Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School has? 3. What are the expectations and attributions associated with higher section and lower section students? 4. Which of the two types of deviancy appeared the most with JCMPHS’ higher section and lower section senior students? What are the subjective academic self-concepts of these students? p. 30
5. What is the overall attitude of higher section and lower section students regarding their aspiration for academic achievement? 6. What is the overall perceived distance of higher section and lower section students between them and academic achievement? 7. What is the overall attitude of higher section and lower section students on their motivation for academic achievement? 8. Do labels affect higher section and lower section students within their immediate social sphere of interaction? What patterns of social interaction they have within their non-immediate social sphere of interaction? 9. What are the social self-concepts of higher section and lower section students? 10.What is the overall attitude of higher section and lower section students on the over-all benefit of Homogenous student-sectioning and the labeling that they are experiencing on their personal growth?
E. Significance of the Study
The study about student-sectioning and its possible effect on the aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, academic and social selfconcepts, and social interactions of higher and lower section students would be significant to the following area and groups of people: 1. A contribution to the field of Sociology of Education –this study was pursued as the researcher’s contribution to the field of the Sociology of Education. The study is a contribution to the literature debate of tracking or untracking students which some educational sociologists p. 31
have already given their efforts (i.e. studies, articles, journals), independently or in collaboration with educators and educational psychologists. This work is also a manifestation that Sociology has also the capacity on explaining highly regarded psychological terms of self-concepts and motivations (and not Psychology alone). 2. To the Teachers and School Administrators –although not all, most teachers and school administrators are socialized with the conception of giving high value on individual student functioning based on his/her grades. Hence, when students are grouped according to their grades (a technique suggesting the homogenous student-sectioning type), there is a tendency to prioritize and give high merit to those students who occupy the higher sections. This study sought for possible effects of labels, expectations, and attributions on their students’ aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, academic and social selfconcept, and social interactions with entities within the school. At the end, they should asses whether homogenous student-sectioning is still beneficial to all parties concerned. 3. To the Students –by reading and understanding this research, they are expected to be able to recognize their social situations and functioning as students not solely on their individual functioning but also on the functioning of different social forces (relationships, distance and value, the labeling, etc.) within their social environment.
F. The Setting of the Study
The study was conducted at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School (JCMPH), a public secondary school located at Barangay Payatas, District 2, Quezon City, Metro Manila. The school is under the supervision of the Office of the Division of City Schools -Quezon City (QC Division Office) of the Department of Education (DepEd)-National Capital Region (NCR). The school was founded on July 7, 1987 as an annex of Lagro High School (named as Payatas Annex). In April 2002, the school became independent from Lagro and was named Payatas High School. Through, QC Ordinance No. 1698 S. 2006 passed on July 17, 2006, the school’s name was changed to Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School (JCMPHS). What makes the location of the school distinct from others is that it is near the Payatas dumpsite, a controlled garbage dump site by the local government of Quezon City which receives garbage loads from other cities in Metro Manila every day, thus, one could expect that there are numerous junkshops along the way, and large, fast moving dump trucks passing all-day in front of JCMPHS. Surrounding the school is a vast area inhabited by members of the urban poor population, while in its front is the walled MWSS-La Mesa Watershed. The school is near from Payatas B. and Payatas C. Elementary Schools. At its back is a covered court, a BPSO outpost, the Villa Gracia Homes Subdivision, the Quezon City Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, and a satellite station of PNPQCPD Station 6. It is far from the Payatas Barangay Hall and far from major markets --Commonwealth Market, Manggahan, and Litex. Justice Cecilia Muñoz
Palma High School is at the “halfway” of the Manila Gravel Pit Road (one of QC’s “gate way to the east”) which from Commonwealth, Quezon City leads to Montalban, Rizal. One could reach JCMPHS with minimum fare in the pocket by riding a public jeepney with route URBAN/Montalban which terminals at Commonwealth Market and IBP-Litex Road Intersection, Brgy. Commonwealth. Like other public schools in Quezon City, JCMPHS has 5 days of classes. The school has two shifts of classes –the morning and afternoon. More or less half of each year-level sections are found on either of these two shifts. Thus, there are senior sections in the morning and in the afternoon so as with the other year levels. Despite structural and managerial changes at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School during the past twenty years of existence, the school still experience scarcity on material resources. This has been aggravated by the influx of students in every enrolment season. The research’s whole data gathering procedure was conducted from January 5 - 9, 2009, third grading of the school year 2008-2009.
G. Scope and Limitation of the Study
The study has the title Labeling as a consequence of Homogenous Student-Sectioning at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School and its subsequent effects on selected student-related variables. The research gave emphasis on labels, expectations, and attributions produced by homogenous student-sectioning. It focused not on the labels of individuals but on the labels of large groupings (i.e. higher and lower section p. 34
students) and how they possibly affect the aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, academic and social self-concept, and social interactions of students belonging to those sections. The term social interactions has been delineated into two scopes: (1) Immediate Social Sphere which includes interactions with the peers, classmates, the students’ teachers (e.g. their advisers and their subject teachers) and their parents; and (2) Non-immediate social sphere which includes the patterns of social interaction engaged in by the student-respondents with the general audience, i.e. between sections, sections and teachers, and sections and the school administration. Paradoxical to the word interactions, the sides of the parents, teachers, friends, and school administrators26 were not consulted. The phrase patterns of social interaction has been delineated into one of the following: competition, conflict, cooperation, differentiation, domination, and toleration. The study has only answered the questions posed in the statement of the problem. Although with great importance, the researcher has not given too much emphasis on factors other than labeling created by student sectioning, such as the effects of economic and psychological background of each students which could have affected his/her functioning as a student academically and socially. Intervening variables included in this study (i.e. academic profile and socioeconomic status) were only used to describe the respondents; other
Except, in some cases, inclusion of statements by some school administrators derived through informal interviews during data gathering
intervening variables were not included in this research, however their existence were recognized. This research is also not interested in deviance. The notions of primary and secondary deviancies here were only used to describe whether students accept or reject labels (and expectations and attributions) associated to being a higher or a lower section student. As long as right terminologies for the phenomenon do not exist, those would be enough for this time. The term socioeconomic status in this research was used only to describe the respondents. Indicants to it have been delimited to the following: respondents’ annual family income, number of members of their families, and if the respondents are working. The term academic profile has been delimited to the following: number of years in school, third year average, number of back subjects, number of years being at the higher or lower sections since first year, participation in school wide activities, and achievements received as a student of JCMPHS since first year. In the conduct of the study, the researcher met constraints and external factors which make his research limited in many aspects: The researcher lacks travel funds, thus, constraining him to validate his theory to other secondary schools, forcing the researcher to focus only on the case of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School which is near his home. Some information and resources were not made available for the researcher by other higher research and educational institutions because of their organizational policies which unluckily was not met by the researcher. This was exemplified by the UP main library and UP-CSSP library wherein administrators
(as represented by their guards) do not allow undergraduate students from other universities to gain access to their library resources, and the Frank Lynch Library at the PSSC wherein, at the time when the researcher was looking for related literatures, its administrators (as said by the guard) have already stopped entertaining researchers almost two years ago.27 Thus, the researcher has no sufficient knowledge if there were other studies by Filipino sociologists who might have conducted their inquiries on the topic before his own undertaking. Constraints on access to full-text foreign researches were met by the researcher since financial and geographical constraints disabled him to visit foreign libraries just to verify results of foreign research literatures that were cited in this study. The researcher also lacked the means to download softcopies in the internet if ever that they were available.28This research’s review of related literature relied heavily on citations of researches found in books, theses, journals, and articles that were reviewed. The researcher was not able to find the most feasible way of verifying the existence and accurateness of those materials, hence, have relied heavily on honesty and goodwill of the authors of books, theses, journals, and articles where they were found. Financial constraint was a factor as to why most of the researches and literatures cited in this study were only located to those institutions which have provided their library services for free (i.e. PUP lib., DepEd lib., Q.C. lib.). Several days (not continuous) were spent at The National Library because the researcher lacked travel funds. At The National Library (TNL) Filipiniana Section,
This is what the guard told the researcher when he, again, tried to visit the library on December 19, 2008. His first attempt was in December the previous year. 28 Some of them are books and are for sale via the internet.
researchers were only allowed to view theses and dissertations dated 1990 up to the present. Such organizational policy is detrimental to this research since there are a considerable number of theses dated 1960’s-1980’s which seem to be related to the present study. Financial constraint was also the reason as to why the researcher has spent only a day at the PNU library theses-dissertations section, hence, was not able to thoroughly scan all the racks for the inclusion of additional research literatures. PNU is the primary tertiary educational institution in the Philippines which has specialization on Education, since the researcher was not able to take full advantage of its rich research resources on education, the researcher has no concrete idea as to whether his topic has been already explored by someone taking master’s or doctoral degree in education. The entire study was done in the researcher’s senior year as a requirement for graduation, considering his tight schedules especially on CD, CO and OJT weeks, implies time constraint. As a consequence, the research itself would be done in less than one year period, enough to finish an undergraduate thesis, but too short to prove and test the thesis in a professional way (that is, more extensive and wide scoping). The researcher’s lack of knowledge on psychological testing constrained him to consider achievement levels and intelligence variables used by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson in their 1968 study on the Pygmalion Effect. Time constraint, financial constraint and for practicality reasons as well, caused the researcher to sample respondents only from the three highest and
three lowest senior sections. The senior sections considered in the sampling were all morning shifts. Time constraint and financial constraints also caused the researcher not to conduct reliability measures (i.e. post testing) for this research. Those constraints restrained him to validate the positions of respondents who did not answer some items in the questionnaire. Time constraint caused the researcher not to compute confidence intervals and sampling errors. The researcher, however, believes that since he used a form of random sampling, then percentages and means derived through computations would be estimates of the population parameters. The researcher is cognizant on his limited capacity in theorizing and sociologizing phenomena related to education. As a student, he is in the process of becoming a sociologist, thus, any shortcomings that could come out from the theoretical framework and the conduct of the study as a whole are being asked for forgiveness and understanding. The reader should bear in mind that the concepts and theories included in this research are more complex in reality than the way the researcher presented them here. One should understand that they should be simplified, in a sense, in order for them to be easily understood and tested. Results of this study apply only to the higher and lower section senior students of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School S.Y. 2008-2009, but could also be found relevant by students and school administrators of other schools
which have considerably large student population, and are in-practice of homogenous (or a mixture of homogenous-heterogeneous) student-sectioning.
H. Definition of Terms
All definitions included here were operationally defined except for the word Aspiration (constitutively defined). 1. Academic Achievement –condition wherein a student has high grades, could have won curricular contests, has a big chance to become one of the school’s cream of the crop, has a reputation of being an academic achiever, and is being looked upon by his/her teachers, classmates, and other students. 2. Academic Profile –has been delimited to the following: number of years in school, third year average, number of back subjects, number of years being at the higher or lower sections since first year, participation in school wide activities, and achievements received as a student of JCMPHS since first year. 3. Academic Self-Concept –refers to self-conceptions produced through evaluative (objective, e.g. grades) and descriptive (subjective, e.g. smart) dimensions of the self-concept in relation to the self’s interactions with the social environment. 4. Aspiration –according to Geddes’ and Grossets’ Universal Webster’s Dictionary (1993, p.45), the word means “a strong desire to attain something high or great.” In this study, it means the act of aspiring, or wanting, to have academic achievement. p. 40
Attitude –Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (quoted in Young & Schmid, 1966, p.351) defined it as “an enduring system of positive or negative evaluations, emotional feelings, and pro or con action tendencies with respect to a social object.”
Attributions (Expectations) –interpretation and operationalization of the main labels by the peers, classmates, significant others, and the general audience. They also become labels ones they are tagged to any individual (or group).
7. Competition – (Kompetisyon) happens if there are two or more groups competing to achieve a common goal (e.g. winning a contest, valuable resources, to get the attention or sympathy of a valuable person [or the majority of the population] etc.). Competition has rules (e.g.
sportsmanship) unlike conflict. Implied in it is to surpass one another through excellence. 8. Conflict – (Away) “rules of competition are broken... [as] opposing parties become openly antagonistic” with each other (Panopio, 2004, p.191). Physical (e.g. hitting), verbal (e.g. nagging), and mental (e.g. moral damages) abuses may be involved. 9. Cooperation – (Kooperasyon) a harmonious relationship of mutual dependence with one another for their common improvement. It implies the working hand-in-hand by different groups towards the realization of a common goal.
10. Differentiation –“creation of interests results in individuals’ or groups’ needing or wanting different things or services rather than the same thing” (Panopio, 2004, p.197). This creation of new interests has the function of avoiding conflicts between groups with common interests. 11. Distance –the being neglectable (too near), attainable (through considerable effort) and impossible (too far) of academic achievement to students due to the conception or consideration of labels that has been tagged to them. 12. General audience –other students, other teachers, and the school administration which have no personal/immediate/direct/ or sustained contact with the asked group (respondents, sections). These groups of people are within the Non-immediate social sphere of interaction. 13. HSS or HSSsbp–Higher Section students subsample population 14. Homogenous student sectioning –basically implies the creation of sections with students having most likely similar mental abilities and capabilities. How students are chosen to be part of each Homogenous section is basically done with reference to student’s previous grades and results of objective tests (scores). Between class ability grouping (or, in the simplest term, ability grouping) and tracking are synonymous to Homogenous student-sectioning. 15. Immediate social sphere of interaction –social space (environment) which respondents are more likely to have influence with and be influenced by their classmates, peers, teachers and parents.
16. Label –in this study, means the label of being either a higher or lower section student. They always accompany attributions and expectations from the peers, classmates, parents (family), teachers, and the general audience. Expectations and attributions also become labels once they are tagged to any individual. 17. LSSs or LSSsbp –Lower Section students subsample population 18. Mw –weighted mean 19. Motivation –in this study, refers to persistence of behavior—degree in aspiring for academic achievement and degree the chosen behavior is undertaken—towards the fulfilment of the goal –academic achievement. 20. Non-immediate social sphere of interaction –social space (environment) where the respondents are more likely to have no influence on people within that social space. It is where the (other students from) other sections, other teachers, and the school administration could be found. 21. P1 and P2 –Questionnaire’s Part 1 and Part 2 22. Patterns of Social Interaction (PSI) –or types of, in this research, was delimited and categorized into one of the following: competition, conflict, cooperation, accommodation, and differentiation. 23. Peers –respondents’ friends, excluding classmates. 24. Sectioning –the act or practice of grouping student into sections (section 1, 2, 3 etc.). There are two types/technique of sectioning students, (1) Homogenous Sectioning, or ability grouping of students, and (2) Heterogeneous sectioning.
25. Section-status- the being higher or lower of a certain students’ section. 26. Self-concept –according to Brinkerhoff (et. al., 2002, p.56), is a term concerning “thoughts about our personality and social roles.” 27. Social self-concept –is the self-concept derived from the different patterns of social interaction (PSI) engaged in by the individual within the non-immediate social sphere. These are the following: competitor for the pattern of social interaction competition; in conflict for conflict; different-equal roles for differentiation; co-operator for cooperation; superior-subordinate for domination; and having least care for toleration.
Chapter 2 Review of Related Literature
The Review of Related Literature consists of two major parts, the conceptual literature section and the research literature section. David Fox (cited by Sevilla, Ochave, Punsalan, Regala, & Uriarte, 1992, p. 48) defined conceptual literature as consisting of “articles or books written by authorities giving their opinions, experiences, theories, or ideas of what is good and bad, and desirable and undesirable within the problem area.” On the other hand, Research literature consists of “published reports of actual research studies done previously” pertaining to the matter (Ibid). In practice, unpublished researches are also included provided that they are reliable (e.g. researches coming from well know universities and prominent research organizations). The researcher came up with this organization of related literatures: Part 1 contains conceptual literatures which have no distinction between local and foreign sources, Part 2 contains research literature containing subparts A (foreign studies) and B (local studies), while Part 3 contains the relationship of previously presented literatures with the present study. The researcher contends that in the presentation of conceptual literature, coherence and continuity of essential points are important in order to develop a unified idea (coherent argument) on the topic presented, thus, a thematic review; this implies what H. Cooper calls as an integrative review (as cited in Creswell, 2003, p.32). This arrangement, the researcher believes, would help readers to follow how the researcher has derived his understanding of the concepts used in this research. Research literatures
need to be separated into foreign (A) and local studies (B) to present the “academic status” of the topic both in foreign and local settings.
Part 1: Conceptual Literature
Education and its schools: what ought to be. People value Education, as manifested by their large expectations in the performance of schools. These expectations manifest themselves through various visions, missions, purposes, goals, and aims by concerned authority figures (i.e. the government through DepEd, the whole public school system, the elders, existing ideologies and belief systems). According to Reeve (1996), the purposes of education are the following:
…to foster high student achievement; to develop in students the personal resources they need to meet the requirements they will face in their personal lives and society at large; to cultivate in students a love for learning; to optimize students’ development which includes progress towards autonomy or self-regulation capacity for positive interpersonal relationships, a healthy sense of self and identity; and to support the individuals’ successful adjustment in the society. (Reeve, 1996, pp.13-14)
Facts and Figures on Philippine Education (DECS, Oct. 1995, p.12) reiterated DepEd’s (DECS then) aim that “Education should realize the fullest potentials of all individuals” and that “Education should enable persons to meet their needs and satisfy their wants.” The former is a challenge to the Education system in harnessing and utilizing talents, skills, and potentialities of members of the society (especially the youth), which the department believes, is the only way of achieving common and shared national goals, while the latter refers to education as a mean in finding better employment opportunities so people could be able to sustain their lives (i.e. food, clothes, shelter), it also implies p. 46
encouragement for academic researches and undertakings which, if successful, would aid people to adapt effectively with the environmental challenges present in their daily lives. The same report also stated the need to empower the least able and ennoble the most capable.
Education…should empower the least able and ennoble the most capable. Despite the range of our individual differences in means, motives, and prospects; education should universally and equally challenged the most advanced, encourage those who lag behind, and nurse those who are lost. (DECS, 1995, p.1)
These are part of DepEd’s philosophical belief about the potentials of human beings regardless of their identity and background, that these potentialities could be actualized through education. The belief and hoping about potentialities and their actualization in all individuals is part of expectations people have in democratic settings. This is because Democracy recognizes equality, humanity, freedom, and justice. The article also implies that there are great expectations for educational institutions to apply, practice, and develop principles of democracy as they carried out their function of educating the youth. Education and schooling in the Philippines are also valued by the people, especially those at the lower class since they perceived it as a medium in improving their conditions in life (i.e. socioeconomic status). Contemplating on the first part of the same article implies a need for a reward system in educational settings to merit people who perform best. The last part of the article suggests the assistance needed by, and should be given to, least capable students (“those who lag behind and those who are lost”). Considering this implies that Homogenous student-sectioning, and the inherent
social stratification of students produced by it (through their sections), produces a system of rewards and punishments in sectioning by placing top performing students to the highest, most prestigious, section, while placing poor performing students to the lowest section. Sociologists see the functions of education-as-a-social-institution from the most conservative to the most critical points of view. Included in the conservative sides are views saying that schools should give equal opportunities to students “by balancing the various elements of the social environment” so that they could “escape the limitations of the social groups in which they were born” (Ronquillo et. al., 1989, p.143); and that schools have the function of assimilating persons from diverse backgrounds to a common curriculum resulting into the creation and maintenance of a common cultural base (Colon, 2002, p.131). Conversely, critical views made special emphasis on how reproduction of social classes takes place at school.
School culture functioned not only to confirm and privilege students from the dominant classes but also through exclusion and insult to discredit the histories, experiences, and dreams of subordinate groups. (Henry Giroux in Freire, 1985: xv)
The ideas about the creation of common cultural base and that school culture reproduces social classes are important in understanding possible reasons why Homogenous student-sectioning and the labels, expectations, and attributions associated to it perpetuate up to this date. Labels, expectations, and attributions produced by Homogenous student-sectioning became part of the cultural base imposed to students (at least unconsciously). Homogenous student-sectioning has long been practiced in the Philippines, thus, labels,
expectations, and attributions produces and perpetuated by it became legitimized through time.
Homogenous Student sectioning: a form of Social Stratification? Student sectioning is basically an adaptive mechanism performed by schools to effectively manage the great number of students over the limited number of teaching and supervising staffs. Elementary and high school student enrolees are grouped into sections with assigned rooms and advisers. The manner of sectioning, or how students are grouped into sections (e.g. section 1, 2, 3…etc), varies on methodologies, standards and principles adopted by different schools. According to Ballantine (1997, p.71) these variations are dependent on the different organizational structures, structural constraints, and the school’s atmosphere or culture. Basically, there are two generally known methodology of sectioning: (1) homogenous sectioning (producing Homogenous sections) and (2) heterogeneous sectioning (producing heterogeneous sections). It is this act of selecting and placing students into sections which call the attention of education sociologists who are sensitive to social inequality to give special attention on the matter by conducting social researches (Ibid). Heterogeneous sectioning involves the creation of sections with students having, aside from diverse backgrounds, various abilities and capabilities in learning. It is also composed of students with different inclinations and interests. Schools that strictly adhere to such principle produce no stratification of students based on sections since all sections are perceived to have students of diversified
abilities, capabilities, and interests. Thus, Heterogeneous student-sectioning produces sections of equal ranking. Homogenous sectioning basically implies the creation of sections with students having most likely similar mental abilities and capabilities in learning.
Selection and Allocation – schools are like gardeners; they sift, weed, sort, and cultivate their products...Standards of achievement are used to channel students into different programs on the basis of their measured abilities... (Colon, 2002, p.131)
Ballantine (1997, p.71) states that most school administrators and teachers around the world prefer ability grouping since they feel that teaching ability grouped students would be easy. Goodlad (1984, p.151) further explained that “tracking... [is] a device for endeavouring to reduce the range of differences in a class and therefore the difficulty and complexity of the teaching task.” Slavin (2003, p.298) also expressed the same idea. How students are chosen to be part of each homogenous section is basically done with reference to students’ previous grades and results of objective tests. Objective tests usually take the forms of achievement tests, ability tests, aptitude tests, and IQ tests. These tests are used as a meter stick to know what and how much students have learned during the past schooling experiences. Ballantine (1997, p.49) noted that “schools use exams at various checkpoints to track...students and to ensure that students are achieving at grade level, since schools are held accountable by the community for their activities...” hence, tests have not loose their prominence and necessity in formal education settings through time.
In a school setting with high valuation for academic excellence and achievement (most schools adhere to such valuation),29 adherence to the principle that specialization results to excellence could be noticeable (e.g. homogenous student-sectioning). Most schools would likely to focus on curricular (academic) rather than extracurricular activities (e.g. sports), hence, when sectioning students based on previous grades and/or results of exams, schools could create stratified sections: with the highest section containing students who obtained high grades and/or tests scores, and with the lowest section containing students who obtained the lowest grades and/or tests scores. The very rational adherence of schools to previous grades and test scores in sectioning and in determining the fate of students has drawn both support and criticisms. Many, especially sociologists, question the validity of IQ tests and ability tests, including its biases and composition, doubting if intelligences are really being measured by IQ tests.30
Our society is meritocratic (based on merits), since Schools are ideological tools of the society, they are also meritocratic. 30 Although psychologically speaking, intelligence is the sum total of all cognitive processes and skills of an individual (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.262), to the common people, intelligence and being intelligent is mostly connected to having a form of expertise in Science, Mathematics, English, and those subjects that require serious thinking tasks: in short, common people perceived intelligence as those connected to mental activities. More bodily activities such as talents for singing, dancing, acting and sports are valued but not considered as forms of intelligence although in Psychology they are. Thus, one would hear something like “mga bobo naman yang mga athletes na yan” and “mga BPE lang.” Human intelligence as a whole is abstract. Dr. Howard Gardner even believed that all humans possess at least seven areas of intelligence (Ibid, p.265). However, society only recognizes and gives value to the logical/mathematical intelligence; nature smart; and the verbal/linguistic intelligence. This is evident since most of the jobs available in the job market and most of what college students in the country are taking are related to these specific intelligences (e.g. Call center agents and English teachers abroad for the verbal/linguistic intelligence). One strong proof of this prioritization of certain types of intelligence is the different units assigned by the curriculum to each subject. In the 2002 BEC (Basic Education Curriculum), the Science subjects were given 2 units, English and Math have 1.5 units, Filipino with 1.2 and Makabayan (AP, TLE, MAPEH, and Values Ed) with 3.7 units. Concerning human intelligences’ abstractness, the following statements could be thought: (1) one major and institutional tool in measuring intelligence is the
Ballantine (1997) also stressed the problem identified on ranking people based on their perceived ability through tests scores:
All of the studies point to the problem of ranking or classifying people on the basis of scores that are unreliable or changeable and that are influenced by environmental circumstances. They also suggest that intelligence – as typically measured –is not a fixed, inherited attribute but a variable depending on stimulation and on cultural and environmental factors. (Ballantine, 1997, p.51)
Lumpkins, Parker, and Hall (1991, p.135) quoted Adler (1984)31 on his feelings that people “have no real reason to believe that the basic potential of a normal child who is a low achiever is less than that of a child who is relatively high achiever.” Grouping “mentally gifted” students together into higher sections would psychological benefit them since the school (through the teachers) would likely to give them advanced methods of teaching and special programs (Raywid, 1998, p.69; Ballantine, 1997, pp.73-74), all efforts adhering to the principles of psychology regarding special training for the gifted. Since these students belong to the cream of the crop, there is a tendency that they would win the favor of teachers and administrators, as a consequence, they should also have to maintain their position by performing what society (teachers and school administrators) expects them to do (roles).
Intelligence tests (IQ tests). However, the fact that no intelligence test measures the native capacity of individuals independently from their background of experiences; that IQ test score could be affected by not considering the native language of the examinee (e.g. A Filipino student taking up an IQ test written-in-English); and that no intelligence test sample all intellectual functions to an equal degree (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.52) would suggest that Intelligence tests are not firm bases in determining the future or absolute ability of individuals and that they only suggest probabilities. Further, IQ is not constant (ibid). Since IQ is not absolute, as well as tests related to it, it logically follows that results driven from those tests are only reflections of the whole (range of intelligence of a person). Scores derived from aptitude tests and achievement tests may also imply the same. 31 Proponent of “Adlerian Theory” with the basic idea that people strive to become better or more perfect that the inferior creature they perceive themselves to be (Tulio, 2000, p.137).
Is Homogenous sectioning a threat to Democracy? Ballantine (1997) presented the dilemma of separating the “gifted” into special classes:
Societies need to develop and utilize the talents of their most gifted members, but this presents dilemmas and controversies in democracies: To single out some students for special treatment or training is to give advantage to some and create an elite intelligentsia, yet if ability is considered regardless of other factors, such as family position, we are developing and utilizing needed resources… (Ballantine, 1997, p.120)
Homogenous student-sectioning could produce conditions that could be considered as discriminatory on the part of students belonging to lower sections.
The curriculum provided for boys and girls labeled as low achievers, as well as the instructional methods used by teachers, often do not measure up to those provided for students identified as high achievers. The discrepancy was never the intent of teachers who used ability grouping, but it was found to be a result of the technique (Dawnson, 1987; Slavin, 1988) (as cited in Lumpkins et. al., 1991, p.135)
Problems of identification and how students should be “grouped,” criticisms about the unreliability of tests and scores, including the word intelligence and how it should be measured (Ballantine, 1997, p.50), discriminatory practices and issues; and conflicting values between democracy and the society’s need to tap and develop skills of the gifted students are some of the issues confronting education sociologists on student sectioning issue.
Labeling inside the school Homogenous sectioning and the consequent creation of stratified sections involve the labeling phenomenon for students of both higher and lower sections. It is through homogenous student-sectioning which higher and lower section students are exposed to labels, expectations, and attributions made for them by the society (mostly communicated through expressions of teachers, parents and,
to some extent, themselves). These labels suggest roles which higher and lower section students are expected to perform. Homogenous student-sectioning also tends to legitimize (to make acceptable) the meanings conveyed by the labels produced by it (e.g. higher section students are expected to be intelligent students. The fact that students with high grades are assigned into the higher sections could be a legitimizing factor that higher section students are really intelligent). Parental expectations have great influence on students’ achievement (Horton & Hunt, 1985, p.296), so as with teacher expectations. Teachers have expectations on their students. These expectations are affected by the students’ sex, SES, race and ethnic identifier, appearance, neatness, usage of language, current achievement based on past performances (“halo effect”), seating position, and tracking (Brookover et. al. as cited in Ballantine, 1997, p. 75-76).
Teacher expectations are manifested in the teachers’ behavior toward and treatment of individual children and their grouping of the children in classroom situations. Children pick up the subtle cues; the “self-fulfilling prophecy” can cause them to believe that they have certain abilities and can influence future behaviors. Many teachers in schools with low-achieving students become discourage about the children’s ability to learn. Their expectations for student learning are reduced, creating that selffulfilling prophecy in which teachers expect less and students give less. (Ballantine, 1997, p.76)
The literature previously stated taps what sociologists and psychologists call the self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a part of the Labeling Theory wherein the labeled (expected) lives up the traits being tagged to him (i.e. with acceptance, self-concscious). As what Frank Tannenbaum (quoted in Hawkins et. al., 1975, p.44) said “the person becomes the thing he is described as being.” p. 54
People have tendencies to judge over things which, they think, conform or contradict with/against their values and norms. These judgements are easily carried out through labeling. Cangelosi (1999, p. 94) is certain that “judgemental language” tends to purport expectations by the labelers, such as a teacher saying bright to a student. “Judgemental language verbally labels behavior, achievement, or person” (ibid). The use of judgemental language has both benefits and pitfalls. Depending on the adjective used, positive labels tend to encourage the one being labeled to show the same behavior when the same circumstance (comparable to those which the labeling was first evoked) arises. Negative labels, in the most idealistic sense, should cause the individual being labeled to change his behavior for the sake of conformity. However, depending on existing power relations between the labeler and the person being labeled, the latter could take labels as his inherent traits: thus a change in self-concept, as well as a change in the individual’s role organization. At school, Congelosi
(1999, p.94) argues that teachers should avoid labeling students as “slow learner, poor reader, bright,” and “scientific minded” as these labels could be internalized by the students and be part of their self concepts. Labeling suggests “elitism” since the labeler sorts individuals based on how much they acquire what he values: “to label such students as ‘bright’ is to unwittingly label those who do not grasp the concept [or lesson] as ‘dull” (ibid). Power relations are involved since teachers are in the authority when teaching (and) inside the classrooms: thus, if labels would come from them, students, recognizing that their teachers
are authoritative figures, could be passive in accepting what their teachers say, including labels pertaining to their perceived performances and characteristics. Any one could be labelers, not only teachers. A person is in the act of labeling if he is tagging certain characteristics, judgements, and evaluations to another person, causing the latter to be conscious of his behavior and/or characteristic being complained of (Tannembaum as cited in Hawkins et. al., 1975, p.43). Labeling, as stated above, involves power relation, but the concept does not strictly apply between two persons, nor if the person tagging belongs to the significant others (e.g. parents and teachers) of the one being tagged, since a collective of people tagging could also be powerful (public). In fact, Hawkins and Tiedeman (1975, p.66) were quite surprised that majority of the proponents of the Labeling Theory are Symbolic Interactionists who have special emphasis on the role of significant others, or primary group, in developing and influencing the selfconcepts of individuals. Implicitly then, labels connected to student sections (higher and lower sections) could have possible effects on students’ aspirations and motivation for academic achievement, their self-concepts, and their social interaction with others.
Aspiration and Motivation According to some dictionaries, aspiration means “a strong desire to attain something high or great” (Geddes’ & Grossets’, 1993, p.45; Webster’s, 1966, p.30; Collins, 2004, p.43). Aspirations are examples of Psychological Motives
(e.g. the need for achievement, Zulueta & Paraso, 2004, p. 216). In this research, the term refers to the act of aspiring, or wanting, to have academic achievement. Motivation is at the center of psychology (Tulio, 2000, p.45). It refers to an internal condition or state that directs/impels behavior or activity towards a goal, satisfaction of needs, drives, and wants (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.209). Tulio (2000, p.46) described it further as an “intervening variable involved in arousing, directing, and sustaining behavior.” She further argued that motivation “does not account for a single good or bad performance,” it is also “inappropriate to attribute lapses in performance quality to ‘poor motivation’ or to explain discipline problems among students deduce to ‘wrong motivation” (Ibid, p.46). Motivation is a complex process which involves persistence of behavior, meaning, as a process, it consumes time and is not confined to short-time energizers designed to elicit desired behavior immediately (Ibid, p.47). Perhaps, what Tulio’s definition of motivation is offering is an educator’s perspective of what motivation is. Based on the researcher’s analysis of the two books (Tulio, 2000: and Zulueta et. al., 2004), the Psychological meaning of motivation offered by Zulueta significantly differs with that of Tulio. Considering that drives (physiological needs) are components of motivation in Psychology would automatically say that some motivations need not be time-consuming, as for example, the need for food, which if not sustained for a long time, would starve any individual to death. Also, based on the researcher’s analysis of these two text books, he could say that Zulueta’s concept of “psychological motives” bears the closest resemblance to
Tulio’s definition of motivation, since psychological motives32 would be timeconsuming and needs persistence of behavior. Since motivation is a process (and, again, attributed to Tulio), it involves steps or stages. Although the two books did not offer these steps or stages, through context clues (and contemplating on the matter as well), the researcher came-up with these three motivation stages: (1) identification or the recognition of the need, aspiration, or interest (either physiologically or psychologically, even socially driven), (2) choosing the course of action (behavior) to be undertaken, and (3) persistence of (chosen) behavior until the motive is satisfied. Of these three stages, what made the researcher interested is the persistence of behavior. To make this research more beneficial to educators, he set academic achievement as the goal (stage 1). He then considered the normative means in achieving the goal (i.e. studying hard, joining contests at school, following school rules, and joining good organizations at school) –stage 2. Finally, he tends to measure the degree of persistence of behavior the students have in fulfilling the goal (–the degree of aspiring academic achievement and the degree the chosen behavior is undertaken). The last assertion implies that if a student is unmotivated in pursuit for academic achievement, he would likely to show least interest in academic matters since he would find no meaning and reason for him to render efforts and actions for such. “People who are high in achievement motivation generally
Psychological motives include the need for affection, achievement, independence, status and security (Zulueta et. al, 2004, pp. 216-217) –as one could observe, some motives cited are social in nature i.e. individuals should be involved in social processes in order for them to have such.
choose challenging activities, for them ‘the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph” (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.217). Do labels, expectations, and attributions really affect how higher and lower section students aspire and are being motivated for academic achievement? This was explored in this research.
Academic and Social Self-Concept Labels, expectations, and attributions for higher and lower section students affect their self-concepts. Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) (as cited in Mante, 1996, p.48-50) found out that self concept is multifaceted and hierarchical. Figure 2 shows their structure of the self-concept. Figure 2: Shavelson’s, Hubner’s and Stanton’s Structure of the Self-concept
Figure 2 shows that “perceptions of the individual are derived from interactions with significant others, self attribution, and over-all experiential aspects of the social environment” (Mante, 1996, p.49). From the very base (L4), p. 59
information, criticisms, feedbacks, comments, and evaluations both objective and subjective given by the social environment are received by the individual. These “bunch” of information from the environment are interpreted and sorted out by the individual into different categories. Newly added information join/clash /are modified with/by other existing perceptions and evaluations (L3), resulting into a collection of information about the self on different categories, academic and non-academic, at L2. Subareas (L2) then consolidate to become the general selfconcept (L1). One of the following seven features identified by Shavelson et. al., is that self concept has both descriptive (subjective) and evaluative (objective) dimensions (Ibid). What made the model of Shavelon et. al beneficial to this research is that it gave the researcher an idea as to what aspect of self-concept that must be given special focus in discussing the possible effects of labels on students’ selfconcepts. Hence, the researcher chose academic and social self concepts as dependent variables on students’ labels based on their sections. Academic Self-concepts derived through considering grades (previously) given by teachers (previous performance), achievements on academic contests, tests scores, ordinal position of the students’ section etc. are obviously based on the evaluative dimension of Academic Self Concept. The components of
evaluative dimension that was considered in this research are the students’ sections, former grades (3rd yr. gen. ave.), involvement in school wide activities, and awards received. These components of the evaluative academic dimension were used in describing the respondents. Although they may become bases in
the generation and perpetuation of labels, they were not central in the analyses of labels as effectors on the important variables of this study; they were primarily used to profile the respondents. In the descriptive (subjective) side, the labels, expectations, and attributions made and interpreted by the people surrounding the students (respondents) became the focus of this study. Social self-concept seemed to be very subjective since there is no established way of knowing how social relationships function in each interactant. Social self-concept is the self concept derived from the different types of relationship (interaction) engaged in by the self (individual) with his peers, significant others, and the general audience. Peers are friends of the self while significant others is a group of people whom individuals tend to pattern their behavior (Panopio et. al., 2004, p.106). The latter was specified in this research as the parents and teachers of the students since they have been perceived by the society as the models for their children/students. But the social environment is not limited only to the peers and the significant others categories, hence, there is a need to include the general audience which includes –at least and in this research, is limited to –other students from other sections, other teachers, and the school administration in general who have no immediate or direct (sustained) contact with the respondents. Social Interaction is the most basic area of interest in Sociology. Sociologists are especially interested in studying the processes (rules, customs etc.) that govern human interactions, most especially if these interactions became regularized, recurrent, and patterned since it is on them which allows
sociologists to make generalizations about social life. The basic types of patterns of social interaction studied by Sociologists are conflict, competition,
differentiation, and cooperation (Panopio, 2004, p.186). Domination and toleration (both forms of accommodation) would also be helpful in analyzing how labels, expectations, and attributions affect the students’ social interactions with groups of people within the school setting. Considering the notion stated previously that the social self-concept is derived from the different relationships (i.e. patterns of interaction) engaged in by the individual with his peers, significant others, and the general audience,33 the researcher was able to derive the following social self-concepts: competitor for the pattern of interaction competition; in conflict for the pattern of interaction conflict; different-equal roles for differentiation; co-operator for cooperation; superior-subordinate for domination; and having no/least care for toleration.
In this research, only interactions with the general audience i.e. groups of people within the non-immediate social sphere were used to derive the social self-concepts of the respondents. See footnote no. 21, p.25.
Part 2 Research Literature
A. Foreign Studies
Many foreign educators, psychologists, and sociologists gave efforts in studying the effects of tracking/homogenous student-sectioning/ between-classability grouping to different student related variables. For instance, Goodlad’s (1984, pp. 151-157) research focused on possible differences on the content of the curriculum from track (section-status) to track, possible difference on instructional methods teachers used, and possible differences on the social relationships of classes. He found out that (1) High track students (higher section students) were more taught with college preparatory topics than lower track students (more taught with vocational courses); (2) High track students were given more instructions (theoretical, highly cognitive lessons) than lower track students (“application of knowledge and skills”) during class hours; (3) Teachers tend to demand “independent thinking behaviors” for high track classes than they usually do for low track classes (teachers at low track classes tend to demand “more conforming types of classroom behavior”); (4) Effective instructional practices (teachers’ clarity, organization, and enthusiasm) were given to high track classes than low track classes. “Only in the variety of material available for learning did low track students appear to have an advantage” (ibid); (5) High track students feel that “their teachers are more concerned about them and less punitive toward them than did other students” (ibid).This was primarily because teachers spent less time on them dealing with problems on student behavior and discipline than they have with low track p. 63
classes (ibid). Low track students, on the other hand, “feel that their teachers were more punitive and less concerned about them than did other students” (ibid). (6) High track students have more conducive environment for learning than low track students (disruptive, “highest levels of discord in their classes”). Goodlad also studied untracked classes (heterogeneous classes) and found out that they mostly resemble the high track classes when it comes to class performance, except, on some differences in curricular content. Goodlad further noticed that “the assignment of students to... classes regarded as low... predicts... diminished access to what... are being recognized as the more satisfactory conditions of learning” (ibid). Slavin (2003, pp.298-300) summarized some researches on tracking. Below are some statements relevant to this study.
1. “Many teachers do not like to teach such classes [lower track classes] and might subtly (or not subtly) communicate low expectations for students in them” (Weinstein, 1996). 2. “Concentrating low-achieving students in low-track classes seems to be harmful because it exposes them to too few positive roles” (Page, 1991) 3. “Perhaps, the most damaging effect of tracking is its stigmatizing effect on students who are assigned to the low tracks; the message these students get is that academic success is not within their capabilities” (Oakes & Guiton, 1995; Page, 1991)
4. .”..it often creates low-track classes that are composed predominantly of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds...while upper-track classes are more often composed of children from higher
socioeconomic levels” (Braddock & Dawkins, 1993; Cooper, 1998; Dornbusch, 1994). Ballantine (1997) asserts that tracking (homogenous student-sectioning) causes the emergence of “student cultures within each track.” This implies that students of each section status (higher, middle, and lower sections) have somewhat similar way of life (e.g. schooling experiences on treatment such as the labels, expectations, and attributions attached to them by the society). It also implies that each section status has attitudes, opinions, expectations, and beliefs for other students belonging to other section status e.g. matatalino for higher section students and mahihina ang ulo for lower section students. These “student cultures within each track” could have consequences on how students behave and perform at school; this was supported by the research of Slavin and Karweit in 1982 (as cited in Slavin, 2003, pp.299-300) when they found out that the percentage of absenteeism of some students rose to 26 percent when they entered the tracked junior high school. Slavin pointed out that “the change happened too rapidly that it could not be attributed entirely to characteristics of the students...that the school was no longer a rewarding place to be (ibid).
Students who are assigned to high-ability groups, for instance, receive strong affirmation of their academic identify; they find school rewarding, have better attendance records, cooperate better with teachers, and develop higher aspirations. The opposite occurs with students placed in low-ability tracks. They received fewer rewards from their efforts, their parents and teachers have low expectations for them, and there is little incentive to work hard. Many will cut their looses and look for
self-esteem through other avenues such as athletics or delinquency (Rosenberg, Shooler, & Shoenbach, 1989 as cited in Brinkerhoff et. al., 2002, p.318)
Slavin, however, asserts that not all kinds of between-class-ability grouping are disadvantageous, such as offering special advanced programs in mathematics and reading for talented students. Contrary to this, Oakes in 1990 (as cited in Ballantine, 1997, p.74) reported that some research even question the “pull out” of students from regular classes. Ballantine stated sympathetically the findings of a recent research:
Most damning is a recent study showing minority students’ disproportionate placement in low-ability math and science classes with the least-qualified teachers and less access to computers, science equipment, and quality textbooks (Ballantine, 1997, p.74)
He also noted that “once students are labeled and grouped, there is less chance of their moving from one category to another” (ibid). Brookover (et. al., 1996, p.116 as cited in Ballantine, 1997, p.75) reported that the practice (tracking) would result into two unfortunate consequences: “more academic failure, and heighted racial and social class animosity.” Slavin (2003, p.300) concluded that educators should know “that research does not support between-class ability grouping [...and its significance on raising academic achievement] at any grade level...that tracking should be avoided whenever possible.”
Researchers have found that although ability grouping might have slight benefits for students who are assigned to high-track classes, these benefits are balanced by losses for students who are assigned to low-track classes. (ibid, p. 298)
He further proposed that mixed-ability classes (heterogeneous sections) could be more successful and effective if special needs and differences of
students be met (e.g. within-class-ability grouping, tutoring, cooperative learning strategies, etc.). The hypothesis that heterogeneous student-sectioning is beneficial to both “better students” and “poorer students” has been tested by many educators and psychologists and have yielded favorable results, among them is J. R. Smithson (1971) who conducted an experiment with high and low performing college sophomore students who were sectioned homogenously in Physics I and II at United States Naval Academy. At the end of the experiment, he found out that (1) “better students do equally well in either homogenous or heterogeneous sections”; and (2) “poor students do better when placed in heterogeneous sections rather than homogenous sections” (ibid, ¶1). He also found out that teachers “were grading students more liberally when teaching homogenous sections of low ability” (ibid). In spite of its many disadvantages, one could ask why homogenous student-sectioning still exists today; Brinkerhoff (et. al., 2002, p.318) contends that .”..from a conflict perspective is obvious: It perpetuates the current system of inequality. From a structural-functional viewpoint, the answer is that it facilitates administration.” Many experts, however, argue that “success is dependent on small student-to-teacher ratios, high expectations by teachers, extensive oral communication in class, and experienced, effective teachers” (Gamoran, 1986, Levine & Stark, 1993 as cited in Ballantine, 1997, p.75). The preceding quote added other elements that complicate the issue of tracking students, since it
somewhat tackles the material constraints public schools have. However, the quotation only implies that the issue of tracking students, as well as the practices brought by it, is very complicated. The quote also touches an aspect significant to this research i.e. expectations. Effects of teachers’ expectations on students’ performance was first made known by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson’s Pygmalion in the Classroom in 1968. The term Pygmalion was derived from George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion (later on showed in the widescreen as My Fair Lady) (Tauber, 1998, p.2). It refers to the self-fulfilling prophecy happening when teachers’ expectations somewhat become determinant to the future academic performance of students. The article below summarizes the experiment done by Rosenthal and Jacobson in 1968.
Accordingly, all of the children in the study were administered a nonverbal tests o intelligence, which was disguised as a test that would predict intellectual “blooming.” The test was labeled as “The Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition.” There were 18 classrooms in the school, three at each of the six grade levels. Within each grade level the three classrooms were composed of children with above average ability, average ability, and below average ability, respectively. Within each of the 18 classrooms approximately 20% of the children where chosen at random to form the experimental group. Each teacher was given the names of the children from his or her class who were in the experimental condition. The teacher was told that these children had scored on the “Test of Inflected Acquisition” such that they would show surprising gains in intellectual competence during the next 8 months of school. The only difference between the experimental group and the control group children, then, was in the mind of the teacher. At the end of the school year, 8 months later, all the children were retested with the same test of intelligence. Considering the school as a whole, the children from whom the teachers has been led to expect greater intellectual gain showed a significantly greater gain than did the children of the control group. (Rosenthal, 1997, p.4)
Rosenthal (1997, p.10) noted that at the time their study was released, there were already studies showing effects of interpersonal self-fulfilling prophecies, which caused him not to be surprised with the results.
What surprise us was the finding that for those children who were not expected to gain much in IQ (because they were in the control group), the more they gained in IQ the more unfavorably they were judged by their teachers. (Rosenthal, 1997, p.10)
The experiment done by Rosenthal and Jacobson in 1968, as well as the hypothesis resulting from it (i.e. higher teacher expectations leads to higher student academic performance), yielded more than 345 experiments and studies (ibid, p.5) testing the hypothesis even to non-educational settings (e.g. courtrooms nursing homes, and business). However, the results are inconsistent (Hoge, 1979, p.6). Hoge argues that Rosenthal and Jacobson, and other researchers who followed their work, may have oversimplified the phenomenon regarding student achievement as well as the expectancy effect in general i.e. Rosenthal’s causal model and the four-factor theory, as well as an alleged serious methodological problems (ibid, pp.6-9). In his paper, Hoge discussed an alternative model which is not too deterministic. At the end, he concluded that teachers may have been affected by what he called as “irrelevant factors” (ie. sex and race) in forming expectations to students, but he contends that most of the time, teachers form their expectations based on their students’ classroom behavior (“relevant factors”) and that generally they “are good judges... of [the] potential and performance of their pupils” (ibid, p.11). He concluded his paper with these:
I think where problems arise with respect to expectations, they generally arise because of an unwillingness to change opinions or beliefs about the child. Sometimes our judgements are wrong,
and sometimes children do change, and, for these and other reasons, it is important that we be continually critical of our judgements and continually prepared to change the judgements. (Hoge, 1979, p.13)
The discussion on expectations, especially the Pygmalion effect, only proves that expectations by teachers exist, and somehow affect later academic performance by students. The literature also suggests that expectations affect attitudes of people towards others. One must contemplate that expectations do not just come from teachers, as there are various social groups which could also impose expectations to students, these includes peers, classmates, other students belonging to other sections, other teachers, the students’ families, the school administration. It is, in fact, true, the researcher believes, that teachers form their expectations to their students base on the latter’s classroom performance, but one should also recognize that stereotypes on students’ section-status exist (the being higher or lower section student), and may have also become resources on how teachers form their expectations (at least unconsciously, or has been taken for granted). These stereotypes, implied in this research as labels, expectations, and attributions are potential resources of the peers, classmates, parents (family), teachers, and the general audience in casting expectations to students. Those expectations could possibly affect the latter’s aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, self-concepts, and social interaction.
B. Local Studies
The study of Labuguen (1968) focused on the differences of stars (famous, desirable, active) and isolates (less desirable) among grade six pupils in Quirino Elementary School, Q.C. Through observation, interviews, and analyses of the students’ performance, she found out that (1) there is “positive relationship between social acceptability and intelligence” (ibid). Highly desirable students (popular i.e. kind, considerate, active and alert, friendly, cooperative, cheerful, and democratic in attitude) tend to have higher grades than less desirable ones (ibid, p.121). Highly desirable students, she continued, also “tend to be above average in intelligence class standing and in health” than less desirable ones. Labuguen also noted that (2) “the emotional and social behavior of the child is very much influenced by the group he belongs” (ibid). This was supported by her findings that “pupils belonging to the [highly desirable] group have lesser emotional and social problems than those in the isolate group” (ibid). She concluded her research by saying that in order for children to have a more adequate social relation with their peers; they “should overcome their personality limitations and gain a greater sense of adequacy” (ibid). Labugen’s study somewhat tackled left-out, isolated, and loner students. These students, she found out, have low self-esteems and negative selfconcepts as compared to active, alert, and friendly popular (star) students. The study pointed out that isolates tend to be loners because they lack high selfconfidence in joining groups and in dealing with matters in school life. She contends that peers and groups tend to play a significant role in giving students
social and emotional security, and that “social relationships and group participation are...important factors” in children’s development (ibid). The need for high self-confidence is emphasized in her research, which would only be evident if students would be more cooperative, active, and friendly. The research also implies that peers tend to function as support groups for students. How groups accept members depend on whether a particular applicant could meet their qualification measures. These qualification measures vary but as to most groups, homogeneity in members is being sought (i.e. similar in interests, hang-outs, ideas and beliefs, religion, etc.). Applying this on the idea that higher section students occupy a prestigious position in the hierarchy of students suggests that possible recruits (or applicants) should have similar characteristics with that of the members of the group (i.e. both higher section students). This could be disadvantageous to other students who belong to the out-group—which, in Labuguen’s research implies a resemblance of her term isolates (i.e. lower section students trying to get involved with the affairs of higher section students and vice versa). The preceding idea somewhat debunks the importance of purely individual effort in overcoming personality limitations since there are operating factors outside someone’s control (i.e. group rules in accepting members). It should be noted that lower section students are not also (purely) loner students since they have their own peers and classmates which could provide the social and emotional security they need (i.e. camaraderie, pakikiisa, pakikiramay etc.). Higher section students, on the other hand, somewhat resemble Labuguen’s term of socially desirable students (stars). They
were socially desired since they were expected by the society to be “considerate, active and alert, friendly, cooperative, cheerful, and democratic in attitude” (ibid). Also, Labuguen’s assertion that “the emotional and social behavior of the child is very much influenced by the group he belongs” (ibid) implies something: that groups somehow affects the behavior of students, and that each group has its own subculture. The literary alleged possibility that differences on teachers’ treatment exist depending on the track (section) that they were handling was debunked by some researches, concluding that no difference on teachers’ treatment to students exists. One of these researchers is Hernandez in 1995 who concluded that: (1) “..there is no difference between the classroom discipline of [intermediate] teachers handling the fast learner group than those in charge of the slow learners” (ibid, p.72), and that (2) .”..in order for a teacher to be good or fair, he/she must be consistent in the way he/she treats the students; does not show favoritism; attends to the people first and foremost before himself/herself; and encourages student participation” (ibid). Would the practice of favoritism among classes/sections be likely to lessen in the presence of the higher section-lower section dichotomy (Homogenous student-sectioning)? The researcher thinks that it is possible, but very difficult since teachers would likely want sections which seemly have academically competent students. Would the presence of the higher sectionlower section dichotomy encourage students to participate in school-wide activities? The latter was considered in this research, the former was not since
this research does not include the opinions and attitudes of teachers of JCMPHS regarding homogenous student-sectioning. Majority of the studies stated previously were not primarily sociological34 except for Ceñidoza (2004) who conducted a case study of five high school students of Vicente Madrigal Nat’l. H.S. regarding the labeling and stigmatization that they experienced when they were pulled out from their sections and resectioned to STAR section (STudent At Risk, --the lowest section) within the same school year. Students at the STAR section were described in the study as “problem students” –students who failed many subjects, students with serious attitude problems, students with serious problem on truancy etc. (ibid, p.10, 53). The research was primarily concerned on describing how labeling and stigmatization may have caused the perpetuation of the students’ deviant behavior. She found out that her respondents have either family or money problems (or both); that her respondents were barkadista; that her respondents’ absenteeism and class cutting rose when they became STAR section students; and that her respondents’ self-esteem became lower when the term “honor society” were brought into their consciousness (ibid, pp.53-55). Interesting to mention was how Ceñidoza linked the respondents’ family problem with their being barkadista.
Ang suliraning pampamilya ang may malaking bahagi sa problemang kinakaharap ng estudyante. Mas magulo ang pamilya mas malaki ang posibilidad na maghanap ng ibang bagay na pagbubuhusan ng panahon, walang iba kundi ang barkada, kung saan nakakatagpo ng kaibigan at nakakaramdam ng pagtanggap. (Ceñidoza, 2004, p.54)
Especially if one would consider the educational background of these researchers (majority of them are psychologists).
She concluded her research by saying that majority of her respondents were secondary deviants, and have accepted and practiced the role suggested by the label(s) imposed to them by their school system.
Sa tingin niya binuo ang ‘star section’ para mabago ang paguugali nito. Nakaramdam siya ng pagkalungkot dahil sa isa siyang ‘problem student’, alam niya na kasalanan din niya ito. Sa pagkakalipat niya lalo siyang naging grabe. Para sa kanya, total sinabihan ka na pangatawanan mo na. Bakit pa siya magbabago, eh ganon na nga yung tingin sa kanya. (Ceñidoza, 2004, p.54)
Part 3: The Review of Related Literature and the Present Study
The conceptual and research literature previously discussed provided rich resource of ideas, insights, and explanations on how labeling, expectations, and attributions could influence the dependent variables of this study; it was also in this review where these concepts and ideas were linked. These interconnections provided useful avenues on how the researcher would interpret his data in chapter 4. 1. The review presented the concept formation of important terms and variables used in this study i.e. aspiration, motivation, homogenous student-sectioning (tracking), academic and social self-concept, and pattern of social interactions. The review should somehow aid the reader to understand those terms based on their operational definitions. 2. The review presented related studies on a somewhat coherent picture of situations of students placed in the higher and lower sections. The rich body of foreign literature regarding tracking (homogenous studentp. 75
sectioning) has raised issues on democracy as well as society’s need to tap the most gifted members of the society. 3. The review, especially those cautions offered by Hoge (1979), made this research to recognize the presence of intervening variables. It reminds the researcher not to be too assertive that labels, expectations, and attributions are the only important variables (determinants) affecting the dependent variables. 4. Local studies reviewed were outdated, Homogenous student-
sectioning still exists today, this implies the need for an updated study as well as to re-evaluate the practice based on the perceptions of the students. The lack of local sociological studies on student-sectioning or its non prominence on Filipino Sociology35 also made this research valuable for such possible contribution.
As to the entire impact of the review of related literature to the researcher, it has just aroused his curiosity to look once more the Homogenous StudentSectioning phenomenon at JCMPHS and contribute as well to the on-going literature debate on tracking or untracking students. These ideas inspired the researcher to pursue a study on homogenous student-sectioning at JCMPHS using interrelated sociological theories discussed in chapter 1.
If the topic (student-sectioning) has gained too much attention by Filipino sociologists and hence could have resulted into several studies, then why is that there are no pages in local General Sociology textbooks allocated for the topic, neither citations pertaining to such exist? This condition is contrary to foreign books wherein at least 2 pages were allocated in discussing homogenous student-sectioning (tracking, between-class ability grouping).
Chapter 3 Methodology
A. Research Design
This study is basically a descriptive research since it describes the characteristics of the sample population (respondents) on the “what is” basis. The approach of the study is mostly quantitative. The quantitative design involves statistical treatment of data, and that data will be presented in numerical forms. Conversely, data obtained through interviewing some school
administrators constitute this research’s qualitative side. As a survey research, the present study accompanies the perceptions, opinions, and characteristics of the respondents (thus, descriptive) in a massive sense. The use of percentages and weighted means in summarizing and presenting the respondents’ descriptions, attitudes, and characteristics puts this research in the quantitative type. The use of survey is essential in determining the present condition of the target population at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School S.Y. 2008-2009. Although majority of the data presented are numerical in form, each datum has their qualitative equivalent word description and interpretation.
1. Rationale in using the Quantitative Approach
A considerable number of sociologists and books consulted, including previous theses at the PUP Dep. of Sociology, treated researches on Symbolic Interactionism (including the Labeling Theory) as purely qualitative. This approach is conventionally right (especially if someone would consider the
debate on ontology and epistemology of knowledge). The researcher however, decided to use the quantitative approach due to the following reasons: 1. The researcher hopes that his data could be generalizable. 2. The researcher does not what his research to be called for isolated cases only. He thinks that qualitative data, particularly case studies, are prone to such (due to small number of respondents). Sociologists and other social scientists greatly value case studies (and there is no debate about that), what the researcher contends is that social scientists are not the only ones who would likely to read this research. 3. The researcher thinks that, since most of the research consumers in the Philippines were trained in the old school, they would prefer (and some how accept the authority of) researches that are quantitative.
B. Nature of Data
Data coming from answered questionnaires are the major primary data in this research. Data obtained from unstructured interviews with some school administrators, especially those that are relevant to answering specific research problem number 2 are also primary. The researcher’s personal observations and experiences which had been supplemental in describing the setting of the study are also primary.
C. Methods, Techniques, and Procedures in gathering Primary Data
1. Pretesting Period
The questionnaire was tested for face-validity and for the level of language used (i.e. if the language used in the questionnaire is understandable by possible respondents). It has also undergone major revisions as a result of the pretesting done at Batasan Hills National High School last October 13-17, 2008,36 pretesting conducted for the development of some options, categories, and concepts at PUP W617 by BSS 4-1 students on November 16, 2008, and inclusion of suggestions through several consultations with his classmates, teachers, and adviser. After securing the permit to conduct this research from the DepEd-NCR-Quezon City Division Office (Div. Supt. Dr. Victoria Q. Fuentes) on December 10, 2008; after having an oral permission to conduct this research from the school administrators of JCMPHS (School Principal Dr. Juanita C. Alajar and 4th year level chair Ms. April Cunanan) on December 17, 2008; and after securing lists of students belonging to the three highest and three lowest senior sections (sampling frame) on January 6, 2009, the questionnaires were massproduced according to the percentage of sample determined out of the target population (50% of higher section and lower section students).
Questionnaire and permit at appendices A and B. The researcher first surveyed at Batasan Hills National High School. At first, the intention was not to pretest the questionnaire but to obtain final data for the study, but he later found out through several talks with Mr. Joey Mancia (the school’s assistant to the principal) that Batasan was not anymore practicing Homogenous Student-Sectioning. The only homogenous section, as what high schools of Bagong Silangan, Lagro, and North Fairview also have, is the Star section (section 1) if not the first three or five highest sections, and the rest of the students were sectioned heterogeneously. Realizing this dilemma, especially the possibility that the present research could be invalid in such settings, the only option left was to let the students to finish answering the questionnaires and to let the results be complementary in developing another questionnaire for a more appropriate school, thus, as what his adviser said, a pretesting unintentionally happened.
2. The Conduct of Survey
The researcher devised a set of questions laid-in on a five-pagequestionnaire to be answered by the respondents. To minimize disturbance on the respondents’ daily class routine, the questionnaires were presented to them in envelopes on January 7, 2009. This technique allowed them to bring home the questionnaires so they can thoroughly think and reflect on how and what to answer. The mail type also increases the confidentiality and the secrecy of both the respondents’ personalities and their answers. Questionnaires were retrieved one to two days after the respondents’ receipt (January 8- 9, 2009).
D. Variables of the Study
The Independent variables in this study are the labels (i.e. Higher Section Students and Lower Section Students), expectations, and attributions associated to them and the section-status to which the student-respondents belong (Higher Section and Lower Section). They are independent variables since it is on them which dependent variables would (rely) be modified, i.e. (Subjective) Academic Self-Concept, Aspiration and Motivation for Academic Achievement, Social Interaction, and Social Self-Concept. Intervening Variables included in this study, but were not given too much attention, are as follows: respondents’ Sex, Age, 3rd yr. academic profile, socioeconomic status (SES), student-sectioning type during elementary and number of years being at the higher or lower sections). During the researcher’s ocular visits in the place, as well as on several informal interviews with the principal and other faculty
members and reasons given by the respondents in justifying their answers, he had contemplated the following intervening variables which are out of scope (existing only in citations) of this research. These are the following: personality and personal disposition of students; subculture of friends (barkada); the culture of poverty; and teaching strategies and volume of works teachers give to their students. Intervening variables of the first type were only used to profile the respondents. Intervening variables of the last type were only stated here to recognize their existence which, in one way or another, could have influenced the dependent variables under study. The researcher was not able to know the extent of their effects.37 Since the researcher recognizes the existence of these intervening variables, implying their possible effects (undetermined) on the dependent variables, he has no basis to strictly claim that the labels solely affect the dependent variables, or are solely accountable on the variation of scores obtained by them (e.g. percentages, weighted means).
E. The Questionnaire and the Operationalization of Variables
Items (questions) in the questionnaire served as indicators of variables that were under study. Data obtained from answered questionnaires became significant in answering specific research problems stated in p. 20.
This is why this research falls within the descriptive type. Although the researcher has explored relationships between variables and such could be argued that what he is actually doing is an explanatory research, the fact that he did not explored the effect of intervening variables (test factors [Cole, 1976, pp.31-51]) but has only recognized their existence and their possible effects rightly puts this research into the descriptive type.
The questionnaire has undergone face validation, pretesting, and revisions. In considering the special needs of the respondents, specifically the ease of answering as well as the ease of immediately understanding the questions posed and the type of answers needed, the researcher has included options (categories) on questions (items) in the questionnaire. These options were derived from pretesting, theoretical construct, and common-knowledge. Also, all items were freely translated by the researcher into the Tagalog language so that respondents who were not proficient in understanding the English language could answer the questions efficiently. In-text instructions were also included to guide the respondents regarding the manner of answering. The questionnaire has also included an introductory letter from the researcher so that the respondents would be able to have a quick grasp as to what the research and the questionnaire were all about. Questionnaires were sent to and retrieved from the respondents, enclosed in envelopes. Specific research problem number 1’s purpose was to get the characteristics of the respondents, hence, it has generated questionnaire items P1C, P1D, P1E, P1E.2, P1E.3, P1F, P1G.1,P1G.2, P1G.2.b, P1G.3, P1G.4, and P1G.5 (Please refer to Appendix B. P1 means Part 1 of the Questionnaire) These questions were included since the researcher thinks that these were some of the intervening variables included in the study. Specific research problem number 2 was formulated to know the technique/methodology/arrangement Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School has when sectioning students. The inquiry is significant since Labels (and
associated attributions and expectations –the independent variables in this study), theoretically exist if the manner of sectioning students is either Homogenous or a mixture of Homogenous-Heterogeneous. Questions related to this were answered by some administrators interviewed, hence, were not included in the questionnaire (except for the last two related questions). These were the questions asked to the administrators: (P2 means Part 2) 1. How do you section students? 2. What is (are) the basi(e)s in sectioning students? 3. What are the reasons why the school administrators have come-up with such student-sectioning strategy? 4. Was the school administrators able to communicate (inform) the sectioning type they used on their students? 5. Based on your perception, how were you and your classmates been sectioned (P2B)? 6. What do you think are the bases as to why you were placed in your present section (P2B.2)? 7. Based on your perception, how were you sectioned in elementary (P2B.3)? Questionnaire item P2B.3 was included in order for the researcher to have a glimpse as to whether the student-respondents might have already been exposed to labeling if they were sectioned homogenously in elementary.
Specific research problem number 3 was designed to know the expectations and attributions associated to higher and lower section students. This generated questionnaire items P2C.1 and P2C.2 (Please see Appendix B). Specific research problem number 4 deals with the question of label rejection or acceptance, theoretically termed in this research as primary and secondary deviancy. These generated items P2D, P2D.3, P2D.4, P2D.5, and P2D.6. Adjoining the scores on some categories in P2C.1 and P2C.2 enabled the researcher to derive the respondents’ subjective academic self-concepts (whether positive or negative) through their attitudes on the expectations and labels associated to them. Specific research problem number 5 inquires if higher section students are more aspiring for academic achievement than students labeled as lower section students (and vice versa). This inquiry generated items P2E and P2E.2. Specific research problem number 6 is the researcher’s attempt to apply the theory of distance and value by Georg Simmel on the student-respondents’ aspiration for academic achievement. Questionnaire item P2F38 represents this inquiry. Specific research problem number 7 inquires if respondents labeled as higher section students are more motivated for academic achievement than students labeled as lower section students (and vice versa). This generated questionnaire items P2F.2, P2F.3, and P2G.
The theoretical framework only defined three distances i.e. neglectable, attainable, and impossible, however, the researcher wanted the respondents to have more options to choose from. Meanings of distances with prefix very (e.g. very neglectable) only differ to a degree of intensity with that of their root words (e.g. neglectable).
Specific research problem number 8 asks if the labels, attributes and expectations associated to the respondents’ section affect their social interactions in their A. immediate (classmates, teachers, family) and B. nonimmediate social sphere (the general audience except item P2H.B.4). Inquiry on the immediate social sphere generated questionnaire items P2H.A1, P2H.A2, P2H.A3, P2H.A3.b, P2H.A4, P2H.A4.b and P2B.4. Inquiry on non-immediate social sphere is intended to determine the most likely to occur pattern of social interaction (PSI) in in-school relationships which the respondents were mostly likely to be involved. The respondents were given the terms competition, conflict, cooperation, differentiation, domination, and toleration to describe the relationships given to them. This inquiry generated questionnaire items P2HB.1, P2HB.2, P2HB.3, P2HB.5, and P2HB.6. The researcher did not develop items relative to specific research problem number 9 since this study made the determination of social self-concepts as wholly dependent on types of patterns of social interaction (PSI) identified by the respondents at P2H.B. The following are types of social self-concepts derived from each patterns of interaction categories used in this study: competitor for the pattern of interaction competition, in conflict for conflict; different-equal roles for differentiation; co-operator for cooperation; superior-subordinate for domination; and having least care or no care at all for toleration. Specific research problem number 10 has Questionnaire item I, which is intended to determine whether the sectioning and the supposed labeling that the respondents were experiencing became beneficial on their self-development as a
whole. This item was included in order to sum-up the benefits and/or the disadvantages of the present sectioning practice. Analysis on this was referred to as the manifest functions, latent functions and dysfunctions of the present student-sectioning scheme.
F. Statistical Treatment of the Quantitative Primary Data
The researcher tallied the answers of the respondents in each item in the questionnaire. These items and their accompanying number of responses were tabulated. The number of responses (f) in each category was presented through percentages. Percentage formula:
Wherein: P –refers to Percentage f –refers to the number of respondents who has chosen a certain category. N –refers to the total number of respondents
Categories with the highest percentage of responses in each subsample population in each item (table) were highlighted for easy recognition. Items with scaling (Likert like scales), on the other hand, were computed using the Weighted Mean formula (Walpole, 1982, p.29):
?á iWi X N
Wherein: Mw –refers to the weighted mean
?á iWi –refers to the summation of all responses X i=1 (Xi) in each category multiplied by the weight (Wi) assigned on it. N –total number of responses p. 86
Majority of items in the questionnaire used six-point attitude rating scales. Results of computations using the weighted mean formula were interpreted using the table below (an arbitrary table of values). At the left of the table are the equivalent qualitative description for each weight boundaries, followed by their equivalent italized words and phrases which were used verbatim in the questionnaire. Also at the left of each row is the enumeration of items in the questionnaire where these weights and equivalents apply. Table 1: Weight Equivalents for All Rating Scales Weight 5 Weight Verbal description Boundaries 4.51-5.00 • Strongly agree (P2C.1& C.2) • Very accepted/Tanggap na tanggap (P2D; D.6) • Very often/Sobrang dalas (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2; F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3, H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C) • The respondent is very much aspiring for academic achievement/Gustong-gusto ko ng academic achievement (P2E) • Very neglectable (P2F)* • Very motivated for academic achievement/Motivated na motivated ako para sa academic achievement (P2G) • Highly positive subjective academic self-concept for higher section students in table 27B • Very negative subjective academic self-concept for lower section students in table 27B 3.51-4.50 • Agree (P2C.1& C.2) • Accepted/Tanggap (P2D; D.6) • Always/Madalas (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2; F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3, H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C) • The respondent is aspiring for academic achievement/Gusto ko ng academic achievement (P2E) • Neglectable (P2F)* • Motivated for academic achievement/ Motivated ako para sa academic achievement (P2G) p. 87
• Positive subjective academic self-concept for higher section students in table 27B • Negative subjective academic self-concept for lower section students in table 27B • Undecided/Hindi ko alam (P2C.1& C.2; D, D.6)** • Fair/Moderate/Katamtaman—not (too) frequent yet not (too) rare (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2; F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3, H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C) • Undecided/ I may be aspiring for academic achievement/ moderate/ Naghahangad siguro ako ng academic achievement (P2E) • Attainable (P2F)* • Undecided/ I may be motivated for academic achievement/moderate/Motivated siguro ako para sa academic achievement (P2G) • Indeterminate subjective academic self-concepts for higher and lower section students in table 27B • Disagree (P2C.1& C.2)** • Not accepted/Hindi ko tanggap (P2D, D.6)** • Sometimes/Minsan (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2; F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3, H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C) • I am not aspiring for academic achievement/Ayaw ko ng academic achievement (P2E) • Very Attainable (P2F)* • I am not motivated for academic achievement/ Hindi ako motivated para sa academic achievement (P2G) • Negative subjective academic self-concepts for higher section students in table 27B • Positive subjective academic self-concepts for lower section students in table 27B • Strongly disagree (P2C.1& C.2)** • Strongly unaccepted/ Hinding-hindi ko tanggap (P2D, D.6)** • Rare/Sobrang minsan (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2; F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3, H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C) • I strongly dislike academic achievement/ Ayaw na ayaw ko ng academic achievement (P2E) • Impossible (P2F)* • I am very much unmotivated for academic achievement/ Hinding-hindi ako motivated para sa academic achievement (P26) • Very negative subjective academic self-concepts for p. 88
higher section students in table 27B • Highly positive subjective academic self-concepts for lower section students in table 27B • The respondent do not care/Walang pakialam (P2D, D.6) • Never/Hindi (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2; F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3, H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C) • The respondent has no care for academic achievement/ Wala akong paki-alam sa academic achievement (P2E) • Very Impossible (P2F)* • The respondent does not care for motivation (P2G)
*categories in item P2F were actually assigned with weights one number ahead of that stated here, for
instance, in the category Very Neglectable, it was actually assigned with weight 6 rather than 5, however, for purposes of brevity and consistency, all categories in item P2F were reassigned with the weights stated here. These new weights were used in computing the item’s weighted mean. **attitudes undecided, disagree/hindi tanggap, and strongly disagree/hinding-hindi ko tanggap in items P2C.1&C.2, D, and D.6 were actually assigned with weights 1, 3, and 2. However, for purpose of consistency, they were reassigned with weights 3, 2, and 1. These new weights were also used in computing the items’ weighted mean.
This research is mostly concerned with the comparison of answers made by higher section and lower section students (i.e. comparisons of percentages and means). This leads the researcher to consider bivariate analysis in the presentation and analysis of data in Chapter 4. Bivariate analysis is commonly used when subgroups of the sample population are being compared and/or contrasted (Babbie, 2001, p.406). Aside from its descriptive purposes, bivariate analysis also tackles relationship of variables through contingency tables (ibid). Although bivariate analysis commonly involves regression and correlation formulas in determining the strength of relationship between variables, Earl Babbie, in his book The Practice of Social Research (2001, pp. 406-411), presented a very simple manner of doing bivariate analysis using percentages.39
Earl Babbie (2003, p.411) contends that inclusion of raw numbers in the table is impractical, saying “it’s redundant to present all the raw numbers for each category, because these could be reconstructed from the percentages and the bases...the presentation of both numbers and percentages often confuses a table and makes it more difficult to read.”
Bivariate analyses in this research were patterned with that used and demonstrated by Earl Babbie. There are items (tables) in this research that were not percentaged down and/or have proportion of respondents that did not answer, thus, they were computed using different Ns (number of responses). This happened because the respondents became free to choose the number of items in the questionnaire which they want to answer (i.e. they were not forced to answer all questions). Since this research has used bivariate analysis using percentages and weighted means, generalizability of N matters. Thus, in order for each item to undergo bivariate analysis, the two subsample population (higher section and lower sections students subsample population) being compared must meet the N 20% out-of-the-target-population requirement imposed by L. R. Gay in 1976 (as cited in Sevilla, 1992, p.184); this serves as the Acceptance level for N in this study. Items with N-subpopulations lower than the acceptance level will not undergo (bivariate) analysis and further interpretation (except for special considerations given to analyses on tables 39 and 41). Confidence intervals of percentages and weighted means and sampling errors were not computed in this research due to lack of time, as well as to save effort. The researcher, however, believes that, as long as the respondents were randomly sampled, he may then be able to estimate the parameters (Crow, 2006, pp. 148). Therefore, means and percentages in this research only estimate (not stating exactly) the true descriptions (parameters) of the target population.
Table 2: The Desired, Defined, and Excluded Populations Desired (Ideal) All the students of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School Defined (Sampled) Excluded Students Refers to ~50% Refers to ~50% belonging to of students of of students of other senior each section each section sections. belonging to the belonging to the three highest three lowest senior sections senior sections All 3rd, 2nd, and 1st (Alexander, ( Antoninus, year students Napoleon, and Gandhi, and Constantine) Hadrian)
Financial, man-power and time constraints restrained the researcher in giving all the students at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School the chance to become respondents for this study. His budget, energy, and time only enabled him to distribute questionnaires to ~50% of students belonging to the three highest and three lowest senior sections. Sections considered in the sampling were all morning shifts; students from other senior sections in the morning, all senior sections in the afternoon, and the junior, sophomore and freshmen students at JCMPHS constitute this study’s excluded population.40 The researcher used stratified systematic random sampling technique in getting the elements of the sample population (the respondents). This sampling procedure was chosen since the senior students’ population is divided into strata
Ideally speaking, the desired population is better for this research since the researcher’s theoretical construct claims that there could be no clear dividing line between higher section and lower section students. The dilemma is detrimental since there could be no way in claiming that the majority of the students (the whole senior student population, or the whole studentry of JCMPHS) say/feel that they are higher (or lower) section students; that the majority of the students is either motivated or unmotivated for academic achievement, etc.
(students’ sections).41 Since each stratum (students’ sections) has various sizes, Proportional Allocation (Walpole, 1979, p.237) procedure was used. Table 3: Distribution and Retrieval of Questionnaires Senior Sections Student pop.
(no. of question -naire distributed)
% of retrieval
% of retrieved questionnaire out of the target population
Required N (20% Acceptance level)
Three Highest sections 1. Alexander 69 2. Napoleon 71 3. Constantine 61 Total 201 Three Lowest sections 14. Antoninus 44 15. Gandhi 52 16. Hadrian 53 Total 149
35 36 27 98 22 26 27 75
32 36 22 90 10 15 24 49
91.43 100.0 81.48 91.84% 45.45 57.69 88.88 65.33%
46.38 50.70 36.07 44.78% 22.73 28.85 45.28 32.89%
201 x 0.2
149 x 0.2
More or less fifty percent of students at sections Alexander, Napoleon, and Constantine were given questionnaires and the chance to belong to the study’s Higher Section Students subsample population. The same percentage of students from sections Antoninus, Gandhi, and Hadrian were also given questionnaires and the chance to belong to the study’s Lower Section Students subsample population. As shown in table 3, the researcher gave questionnaires to 98 students belonging to the three highest sections. After two days of retrieval, 90 of them
According to Ross (2005, p.10), “Stratified Random Sampling does not imply any departure from probability sampling…it simply requires that the population be divided into subpopulations called strata and that probability [simple random] sampling be conducted independently within each stratum.” This sampling methodology is beneficial in lessening variability of the respondents’ characteristics and responses rather than when general, ordinary random sampling technique was used (Walpole, 1974, p.237) since each stratum would likely to yield similar responses, thus, yielding a more precise estimate of the of-interest-population parameter—percentages and weighted means in this research.
were able to return the questionnaires. These 90 students constitute this study’s Higher Section Students subsample population (HSSsbp). Also shown in table 3, the researcher has distributed questionnaires to 75 students belonging to the three lowest sections. After the same period of retrieval, only 49 of them were able to return the questionnaires. These 49 students constitute this study’s Lower Section Students subsample population (LSSsbp). L. R. Gay in 1976 (as cited by Sevilla et. al., 1992, p.184) requires that if the target population is small, at least 20% of it should be sampled to enable the researcher to generalize about the given target population. The two subsample population generally passed this requirement (Higher Section students subsample population, or HSSsbp constitute 44.78% of the 201 target population, while the Lower Section students subsample population, or LSSsbp constitute 32.89% of the 149 target population). The two subsample populations constitute this study’s sample population (90 + 49). This 20% requirement for N in each subsample population (Acceptance Level for N) also applies to all items (tables) that were not percentaged down and/or have proportion of respondents with no answer. As shown in table 3, at least 40 respondents from the HSSsbp are needed in order to generalize about the 201 higher section students target population. The table also indicates that at least, 30 respondents from the LSSsbp are needed in order to generalize about the 149 lower section students target population.
H. The Respondents
The respondents in this descriptive survey-research were senior students belonging to the three highest and the three lowest senior sections of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School S.Y. 2008-2009. These student-respondents were morning shift students and were following the DepEd BEC (Basic Education Curriculum) program.
Chapter 4 Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
A. The Characteristics of the Student-Respondents
As noted earlier, these characteristics of respondents were considered as intervening variables since they may, in one way or another, affect how dependent variables behave. It was also noted earlier that these intervening variables were taken only to profile the respondents.
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by Sex (P1C) Sex Male Female 100% Higher Section Students (HSSsbp) 31.11% 68.89% (90) Lower Section Students (LSSsbp) 40.82% 59.18% (49)
Table 4 shows that majority of the student-respondents in the Higher Section Students subsample population (HSSsbp) are females (68.89% or 62 respondents) while the rest are males (31.11%28 or respondents). This is similar to the case of the Lower Section Students subsample population (LSSsbp) wherein females (59.18% or 29 respondents) outnumbered males (40.82% or 20 respondents). The table shows that majority of the respondents in both subpopulations were female students (HSSsbp’s 68.39% and LSSsbp’s 59.18%). One might be tempted to find meanings on students’ behavior through distribution of sexes, or gender in the two subpopulations. Earl Babbie (2001, p. 407), however, cautioned that behavior could not account for gender (many
sociologists and psychologists adhere to the principle of gender preference), meaning, one could not conclude that since there were high percentage of male students in LSSsbp (40.82%) than in HSSsbp (31.11%), being a man (ex. on intelligence) depends on what section-status (higher or lower section) a male student belongs. This is similar to the case of female students who were more concentrated in HSSsbp (68.89%) than in LSSsbp (59.18%). Adherents of gender inequality would only conclude such. One might contend on the differences of cultural practices and norms wherein male and female children were brought up. This may account, however, one should also note that boundaries on differences of gender roles began to weaken since the 19th century (especially when women were allowed to vote in Europe), and that this thinning of gender role boundaries are more evident today, especially in the urban areas.
Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by Age (P1D) Age 20 and above 19 18 17 16 15 100% No answer Higher Section Students 0 0 4.60% 12.64% 43.68% 39.08% (87) 3 Lower Section Students 4.55% 2.27% 11.36% 25.0% 50.0% 6.82% (44) 5
Table 5 shows that there are 87 respondents in the HSSsbp who answered item P1D, majority (43.68% or 38 respondents) of them were 16 years old, 39% (34 respondents) of them were much younger with 15 years of age,
12.64% (11 respondents) were 17 years old, and 4.60% (4 respondents) aged 18 years old. Table 5 also shows that there are 44 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P1D, majority (50% or 22 respondents) of them were 16 years old, 25% (11 respondents) of them were 17 years old, 11.36% (5 respondents) were 18 years of age, 6.82% (3 respondents) were 15 years old, 4.55% (2 respondents) aged 20=Ÿ, and 2.27% (1 respondent) were 19 years old. n The table also suggests that (1) there were more younger students (15 years old) in HSSsbp (39.08%) than in LSSsbp (6.82%); and that (2) there were more older students in LSSsbp (25% + 11.36% + 2.27% + 4.55% = 43.18%) than in HSSsbp (12.64% + 4.60% = 17.24%). Table 5 shows that majority of respondents in both subpopulations were 16 years old. The table also shows that a significant percentage of respondents (39.08%) in the HSSsbp were younger than the majority; comparing it to 6.82% of the respondents who aged 15 years in the LSSsbp implies that higher section students tend to be younger than lower section students. This claim is affirmed when adding other percentages in the HSSsbp and LSSsbp within the 17 to ±20 age range (HSSsbp: 4.60% + 12.64% = 17.24%; LSSsbp: 4.55% + 2.27% + 11.36% + 25.0% = 43.18%). The researcher thinks that HSSsbp were younger than LSSsbp because the former may have been enrolled in elementary by their parents at a younger age than the latter. Do the latter imply that parents of respondents in the HSSsbp enrolled them early to comply with the advance mental state that they have? If parents of higher section students believe so, that
their children were mentally gifted, then, the answer is yes. Parents of the HSSsbp might have enrolled their children earlier as a response to what society is demanding for gifted members of the society –that is, to train them in advance. On the other hand, some lower section students might be older due to the following reasons: (1) late enrolment and (2) repetition of grade level.
3. Socioeconomic Status (SES)
Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Annual Family Income (P1E) Annual Family Income Higher Section Students Lower Section Students P 250,000 and over 5.56% 0 P 175,000-249,999* 1.39% 3.23% P 100,000-174,999* 29.17% 16.13% P 60,000-99,999** 38.89% 32.26% P 40,000-59,999 15.28% 22.58% Under P 40,000 9.72% 25.81% 100% (72) (31) No answer 18 18 *these income classes are actually one category in the NSO Income Class categorization (NSO,
2006, table 2). The researcher divided that particular NSO income class into two to categorize respondents who have, at least one, parents that are minimum/average wage earners into the 100k -174,999 income class. NSO’s Income classes here are up-to-date. **the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) in 2002 of NSO used this income class as the poverty line. Below the broad line above was described by APIS as below the poverty line (¶3).
Table 6 shows that there are 72 respondents in the HSSsbp who answered item P1E, majority (38.89% or 28 respondents) of them were poor, 29.17% (21 respondents) of them have families earning minimum/average wage, 15.28% (11 respondents) belong to the 40k-59,999 income class, 9.72% (7 respondents) of them wage less than P 40, 000 annually, 5.56% (4 respondents) of them belong to the highest NSO income class, and only 1.39% (1 respondent) belong to 175k-249,999 income class. Table 6 also shows that there are 31 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P1E, majority (32.26% or 10 respondents) of them belong to p. 98
NSO’s poverty line income class (60k-99,999), 25.81% (8 respondents) have annual family wage less than P 40,000, 22.58% (7 respondents) fall in the P 40k59,999 annual income class, 16.13% (5 respondents) belong to the minimum/average wage earner income class, and 3.23% (1 respondent) belong to the 175k-249,999 income class. Relying on APIS 200242, the table suggests that more respondents in the LSSsbp were below the poverty line (22.58% + 25.81% = 48.39%) than the HSSsbp (15.28% + 9.72% = 25%). Adding responses at the poverty line incomeclass to previous computations yielded another data, that more respondents in the LSSsbp (48.39% 32.26% = 80.65%) were poor than respondents in HSSsbp (25% + 38.89% = 63.89%). Despite meaningful differences on the percentages evident in the computations, table 6 basically shows that majority of the respondents in both subpopulations were poor or economically challenged. Table 7: Distribution of Respondents on the number of Household Members (P1E.2) Number of household members 6 and above 5 and below 100% No answer Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 47.73% 52.27% (88) 2 31.82% 68.18% (44) 5
Table 7 shows that 88 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P1E.2, majority (52.27% or 46 respondents) of them have five or less number of
NSO’s APIS 2002 (--the late APIS which was updated in 2003) as a point of reference specifically in identifying income classes below the poverty line is outdated. Its use was due to the researcher’s failure to find recent basis of poverty indicator (specifically income classes) in the Philippines using the internet. To cope with the discrepancy (due to being outdated), one could adjust the poverty line to 100k-174,999 income class since this income class presently includes families earning minimum wage.
household members, while 47.73% (42 respondents) reported that they have sir or more number of household members. Table 7 also shows that 44 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P1E.2, majority (68.18% or 30 respondents) of them have five or less number of household members, and 31.82% (14 respondents) have six or more number of household members. Table 7 implies that more higher section students (47.73%) have bigger family/household size than lower section students (31.82%). The table also implies that more lower section students (68.18%) have families of average size. Table 7 basically shows that respondents of both subsample population have five or less number of household members. Table 8: An inquiry if the respondents work (P1E.3) Condition Yes No 100% Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 4.44% 2.04% 95.56% 97.96% (90) (49)
Table 8 shows the distribution of respondents queried as to whether they were working or not. As the table shows, majority (95.56% or 86 respondents) in the HSSsbp were not working; only 4.44% (4 respondents) reported that they were engaged in working. Table 8 also shows that majority (97.96% or 48 respondents) in the LSSsbp were not engaged in working, unlike the 2.04% (1 respondent) who were.
Although with minute percentages, the table
implies that more
respondents in the HSSsbp (4.44%) were engaged in working than respondents in the LSSsbp (2.04%). Table 8 shows that majority of the respondents in both subsample population (95.56% in HSSsbp and 97.76% in LSSsbp) were non working students. Family size could aggravate the scarcity being experienced by poor families. With inflation despite non-increase on wage earned, large families could cut off, or lessen, expenses not important for their survival i.e. baon, fare, expenses on school projects etc. Table 9 below implies something. Table 9: Socioeconomic status Sample population HSSsbp LSSsbp Wage (n refers to wage) 99,999=d , 63.89% n n=• 00k, 36.12% 1 99,999=§ , 80.65% n n=Ð00k, 19.16% 1 Family Size 5=d, 52.27% n n=‰47.73% 6, 5=§ , 68.18% n n=Ì , 31.82% 6 If the Respondents were working No, 95.56% Yes, 4.44% No, 97.96% Yes, 2.04%
As shown in table 9, majority in the HSSsbp were poor, but the effect of average family size (5 or less members) tends to lessen the scarcity that they were experiencing. This enabled the majority of the respondents in the HSSsbp to study without working, so as with the other respondents in HSSsbp with more affluent conditions. Table 9 also shows that majority in the LSSsbp were poor, but the effect of average family size (5 or less members) tends to lessen the scarcity that they were experiencing. This enabled the majority of the respondents in the LSSsbp
to study without working, so as with the other respondents in LSSsbp with more affluent conditions. Material constraints are contributory to academic achievement of students. Well-to-do families tend to support the education of their children through providing them with more books, more time and incentives (e.g. rewards) in studying, more school supplies, hiring private tutors, adequate nourishment etc. As the preceding discussions on socioeconomic status of respondents imply, both the HSSsbp and the LSSsbp seemed materially constrained in acquiring opportunities enjoyed by other students with well-to-do families. Although the effect of scarcity tend to lessen as family size also lessens, Poverty, or more appropriately Socioeconomic Status, is a variable with implicit effect on the performance of students. The fact established by table 6, especially the idea that lower section students might have performed least because they were poorer than the higher section students, confirms what the literature is saying, that populations of poor students tend to be concentrated in the lower sections (track), this observation tends to be consistent in public schools practicing homogenous student-sectioning, as suggested by the review of related literature. Analyses on Table 6, 7, and 8 suggest that the variable Socioeconomic Status (SES) might have affected how students perform at school and how they were consequentially (but unintentionally) placed in higher or lower sections. Contemplating on those tables, especially the researcher’s ocular visits on areas surrounding the school caused him to consider culture of poverty as a
factor affecting academic performance of students (including dependent variables of this study). Marvin Harris (2001, p.201) described it as a condition wherein poor people accept their fate as poor, and are pessimistic about their future (i.e. they believe that there is no chance for social mobility). Poor Filipinos value education since they perceive it as a mean in improving their socioeconomic status. However, the researcher could not set-aside this factor since many poor educated Filipinos have failed to climb to more affluent socioeconomic positions in the Philippine society. Poor families could also be pessimistic about their future, especially when no fruits of labor are evident despite years of being industrious. At the extreme, parents might say “wag ka nang mag-aral, wala namang mangyayari sa buhay natin!” This could affect the interests, aspirations, and motivations of students for academic achievement.
4. Academic profile
Table 10: Respondents’ Number of Schooling Years since Grade 1(P1G.1) Number of Schooling years 11years and above 10 years 9 years and below 100% Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 4.44% 94.44% 1.11% (90) 12.45% 69.39% 0 (49)
Table 10 shows that majority (94.44% or 85 respondents) in the HSSsbp were studying for about 10 years since grade one, 4.44% (4 respondents) spent ±11 years, while 1.11% (1 respondent) spent 9 years.
Table 10 also shows that majority (69.39% or 34 respondents) in the LSSsbp has already spent 10 years of study, while 12.45% (6 respondents) spent ±11 years. The normal number of years senior students should spend in studying since grade one is ten years. Exceeding on it implies repetition of (a) grade level at some point while below it implies acceleration to an advance grade level. Table 10 only shows that majority of this study’s sample population spent 10 years in studying since grade 1. The table also has the intent of showing which of the subsample populations tend to contain students who have repeated at least 1 grade level. As shown in the table, majority (94.44%) of the respondents in HSSsbp spent normal number of schooling (10) years until the conduct of this research, the same can be seen in the LSSsbp (69.39%). The table also suggested that there were more lower section students (12.45%) who spent 11 or more years in studying since grade 1 than higher section students (4.44%). Table 11: Distribution of Respondents on their 3rd Yr. Average (P1G.2) Grade Range 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 65-74 100% No answer Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 0 0 1.30% 0 40.26% 0 58.44% 9.68% 0 90.32% 0 0 (77) (31) 13 18
Table 11 shows that 77 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P1G.2, majority (58.44% or 45 respondents) of them have third year general
averages ranging from 80-84, 40.26% (31 respondents) have grades ranging from 85-90, while 1.30% (1 respondent) has average within the 90-94 range. The table above suggests a high degree of concentration of HSSsbp’s averages (98.7%) within the range 80-89. The table also shows that 31 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P1G.2, majority (90.32% or 28 respondents) of them have third year general averages concentrated within the 75-79 range, while 9.68% (3 respondents) have averages within the 80-84 range. Table 11 only shows that HSSsbp’s averages were highly concentrated with the 80-89 range. LSSsbp’s averages were highly concentrated within the 7579 range. The table implies that respondents in the HSSsbp and LSSsbp were homogenously sectioned. This also suggests that the school administrators have used the students’ previous grades in deciding as to what sections students must be placed. Table 12: An inquiry if Respondents have Back Subjects (P1G.2.b) Number of Back Subjects 3 and above 2 1 0 100% Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 0 0 0 100.0% (90) 0 0 12.24% 87.76% (49)
Table 12 shows that 100% of the respondents in the HSSsbp do not have any back subjects. Table 12 also shows that majority (87.76% or 43 respondents) in the LSSsbp have no back subjects, while 12.24% (6 respondents) of them have 1. p. 105
Table 12 only shows that majority of this study’s sample population do not have any back subjects. This verified the statement given by Ms. Cunanan (4th yr. level chair) in an interview when she said that they placed all students who have back subjects at the lower sections. Table 13: Number of years the respondents has been higher or lower section students since first year (P1G.3) Years 4 3 2 1 100% Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 38.89% 18.37% 22.22% 18.37% 17.78% 22.45% 21.11% 40.82% (90) (49)
Table 13 shows that majority (38.89% or 35 respondents) in the HSSsbp spent their entire high school years (four years) being sectioned among the school’s higher sections, 22.22% (20 respondents) spent three years at the higher sections, 17.78% (16 respondents) spent two years, and 21.11% (19 respondents) spent a year. Table 13 also shows that majority (40.82% or 20 respondents) in the LSSsbp seem to be neophytes at the lower sections, spending only a year (this school year when this study was conducted) at the lower sections. Twenty two point forty five percent (11 respondents) in the LSSsbp spent two years at the lower sections, 18.37% (9 respondents) spent 3 years, and 18.37% (9 respondents) spent their entire high school life (4 years) at the lower sections. Excluding the percentages of neophytes in the counting, and adding those remaining would yield a significant information that 78.89% (38.89% + 22.22% + 17.78%) in the HSSsbp were higher section students for at least two years up to
the present; and that 59.19% (18.37% + 18.37% + 22.45%) in the LSSsbp were lower section students for at least two years up to the present. It can therefore be concluded that majority of the respondents in the HSSsbp and LSSsbp were not neophytes and have already obtained a considerable number of years (2-4 years) belonging to the higher and lower sections. This qualified and enabled43 the respondents to react, give comments, and evaluate their positions and experiences within the section-status they belong. Neophytes (those who spent a year being higher/lower section student: 21.11% in HSSsbp and 40.82% in LSSsbp) were also included in the analyses of data. Years of being higher or lower section students were included in this research in order for readers to feel some sense of reliability on opinionated and attitudinal data that would be presented later. Table 13 also has the intent of indirectly measuring the social mobility of respondents within the section-statuses i.e. higher, middle/average, and lower sections. As suggested by the table, joined percentages of higher section student-respondents who gained 2-4 years (78.89%) suggest that respondents in the HSSsbp became stock-up at the higher sections, meaning social mobility at the higher sections is weak, in other words: once a student becomes a higher section student, there is a big probability that he/she will remain to be higher section student for two to four years. Low percentage of social mobility in higher
Due to their considerable number of years of stay at a section status (higher or lower section), they could have already gained considerable number of experiences on labeling, discrimination, etc.
sections suggests that there are factors which make the percentage of retention for those students to be high. Table 13 also tells a somewhat similar story for LSSsbp, 59.19% of the respondents in the LSSsbp reported that they have been lower section students for two to four years. This suggests that social mobility in lower sections is also weak; implying a high probability of retention at the lower sections once a student is placed there. The previous analyses suggest that percentage of retention in HSSsbp (78.89%) is higher than LSSsbp (59.19%). This is because of the high percentage of neophytes in the lower sections (40.82%). The latter suggests that there are factors at the middle/average sections which cause them to become lower section students the following year. This analysis regarding the weakness of social mobility within the higher and lower sections taps what Ballantine (1997, p.74) said that “once labeled and grouped, there is less chance of their moving from one category to another.” High retention rate therefore, makes two subpopulations (higher section and lower section students) to become poles apart. This weak social mobility condition on higher and lower sections becomes favorable for the existence (and perpetuation) of social stratification among students (through their sections) since each section status (track) would likely to have different subcultures (see Ballantine on page 55). These are manifestations of C. H. Cooley’s second theorem on conditions that favor stratification i.e. “a slow rate of social change” (see theoretical construct).
Table 14: Distribution of respondents regarding their participation in school-wide activities since 1st yr. (P1G.4) Activities Higher Section Students Lower Section Students Has become contestants 21.11% 2.04% in Academic contests, especially in quiz bees. Journalist/School paper 11.11% 0 contributor/ writer Athlete 17.78% 20.41% Drama guild 7.78% 8.16% School dance troupe 8.89% 12.24% member Choir member 13.33% 6.12% Shool Artist 3.33% 0 (i.e. painter etc.) Has membership in 24.44% 2.04% school organizations. None 44.44% 65.31% 100% (90) (49) This table was not percentaged down. Table 14 shows that majority (44.44% or 44 respondents) in the HSSsbp have not participated in any school-wide activities (specified in the table) since first year, 24.44% (22 respondents) were involved/members in school-based organizations, 21.11% (19 respondents) have became contestants in academic contests, 17.78% (16 respondents) were athletes, 13.33% (12 respondents) were choir members, 11.11% (10 respondents) were journalists/contributors in the school paper, 8.89% (8 respondents) were dance troupe members, 7.78% (7 respondents) were drama guild members, and 3.33% (3 respondents) were school artists i.e. painters. Table 14 also shows that majority (64.31% or 32 respondents) in the LSSsbp were not involved in any of the school-wide activities indicated in the table (questionnaire), 20.41% (10 respondents) were athletes, 12.24% (6
respondents) were dance troupe members, 8.16% (4 respondents) were drama guild members, 6.12% (3 respondents) were choir members, while only 2.04% (1 respondent) were involved in school organizations and in academic contests. Table 14 only shows that majority of the student-respondents in both subsample populations were not involved in any of the school-wide activities indicated in the questionnaire. Although majority of the student-respondents did not participate in any of those school activities, analyzing percentages in different categories would yield the following: 1. Higher section students (24.44%) tend to be more involved in school organizations (membership) than lower section students (2.0%). 2. Higher Section students tend to have greater participation in academic contests (21.11%) than Lower section students (2.04%). 3. Higher Section students (11.11%) tend to have greater participation in journalism at school than Lower Section students (0% LSSsbp). 4. Lower Section students tend to have greater participation in sports (20.41%) than Higher Section students (17.78%). 5. Lower Section students tend to have greater participation in drama guild (8.16%) than Higher Section students (7.78%). 6. Lower Section students (12.24) tend to have greater participation (membership) in the school’s dance troupe than Higher Section students (8.89%).
7. Higher Section students (13.33%) tend to have greater participation in the school’s chorale than Lower Section students (6.12%). 8. Higher Section students (3.3%) tend to have greater participation in school artistry (i.e. painting and other visual and plastic arts) than Lower section students (0%). The same table implies that Higher Section students tend to be more academically supreme (being contestants in quiz bees, journalism, membership in school organization) than Lower section students. The table also implies that Lower Section students tend to be more supreme than higher section students when it comes to non-academic, more bodily activities at school (sports/athlete, drama guild, and dance troupe). Analyses on Table 14 suggest that the variable section-status may have influenced students on choosing which school-wide activities (academic or nonacademic) they would want to be engaged in. Table 15: Awards received during the respondents’ stay at JCMPHS (P1G.5) Awards received
An honor student Has won academic contests inside the school Has won non-academic contests inside the school Has won academic contests outside the school Has won non-academic contests outside the school
Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 33.33% 6.12% 12.22% 2.04% 4.44% 4.44% 4.44% 0 2.04% 8.16% 81.63% (49)
None 57.78% 100% (90) This table was not percentaged down.
Table 15 shows that majority (57.78% or 52 respondents) in the HSSsbp did not receive any awards stated at the table (questionnaire) during their stay at p. 111
JCMPHS, 33.33% (30 respondents) became honor students, 12.22% (11 respondents) have won academic contests inside the school, and 4.44% (4 respondents) have won non-academic contests inside the school, academic contests outside the school, and non-academic contests outside the school. The table also shows that majority (81.63% or 40 respondents) in the LSSsbp did not received any awards during their study at JCMPHS, 8.16% (4 respondents) have won non-academic contests outside the school (e.g. Sports), 6.12% (3 respondents) became honor students, and 2.04% (1 respondent) won academic contest inside and outside the school. Table 15 only shows that majority of the respondents in both subpopulations have not received any awards during their stay at JCMPHS. Table 15 implies the supremacy of higher section students (33.33%) over lower section students (6.12%) on achievement (awards) in academic contests inside the school (HSSsbp’s 12.22% than LSSsbp’s 2.04%), on non-academic contests inside the school (HSSsbp’s 4.44% than LSSsbp’s 0%), and on academic contests held outside the school (HSSsbp’s 4.44% than LSSsbp’s 2.04%). It is note taking, however, that LSSsbp’s (8.16%) dominance over
HSSsbp (4.44%) on non-academic contests held outside the school is the only category where LSSsbp acquired dominance (this is probably because lower section students tend to be more involved in more bodily activities than higher section students i.e. athletics and dance troupe, see table 14). Also, more respondents at the LSSsbp (81. 63%) do not have any awards or honors received than the HSSsbp (57.78%).
Analysis on Table 15 implies that higher section students have dominated achievement acquisition inside and (almost) outside the school. The difference between higher and lower section students on the nature (i.e. academic and non-academic) of school-wide activities that they become engaged in was explained by Brinkerhoff (et. al., 2002, p.318), saying that “students who are assigned to high-ability groups receive strong affirmation of their academic identity ... [while] students placed in low-ability tracks... may cut their looses and look for self-esteem through other avenues such as athletics...” Previous academic achievements (e.g. high grades, awards received) could cause students to believe that they have high capacities to achieve more in the future, thus, if these beliefs were sustained, it would likely to result to high academic (achievement) gains. Contemplating on this, the researcher thinks that previous academic achievements (PAA) could be good factors as to why some students could be more aspiring and motivated for academic achievement than others. Table 14 and 15 shows that higher section students tend to have more (academic) awards received (and high participation in school-wide activities) than lower section students, thus: higher section students tend to have higher PAAs. Students with high PAA, when homogenously sectioned, would likely to compete because they were faced to maintain their high PAAs (including high self-esteem produced by such, etc.), this, the researcher thinks, accounts for the low social mobility table 13 has suggested for higher section students. Looking at the other side of the coin, students who knew that they were (in a section with students who were) studying more than 10 years (table 10), that
they have low grades (table 11), that they were (in a section with students who were) repeaters of at least 1 subject (table 12), would, the researcher think, not likely to aspire and be motivated for academic achievement (this could account for table 14 wherein LSSsbp tend to be more involved in sports, and table 15 wherein LSSsbp tend to be largely dominated by HSSsbp on awards received). The researcher thinks that these factors are contributory as to why, lower section students tend to have weak social mobility within the lower sections as shown by table 13. Page in 1991 (as cited in Slavin 2003, p. 298-300) offered an insightful idea on this: “concentrating low-achieving students in low-track classes seems to be harmful because it exposes them to few positive roles.”
5. Other Intervening variables (factors)
Previous intervening variables discussed (respondents’ description) only reminds the reader that the independent variables of this study (labels, expectations, attributions, and the section-status) are not the only variables which would likely to have effect on this study’s dependent variables. The previous discussions only show that materialized conditions ([previous grades, SES etc.) are (somewhat) real (existing) and are possible effectors on the selfconcepts, aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, and social interactions (dependent variables) of higher section and lower section students. The following are other intervening variables mostly “out of scope” (existing only in citations) of this study which, the researcher thinks, have possible effects on the dependent variables. The recognition of these variables was contemplated during data gathering.
1. Personality and personal dispositions –every person is unique (since they were socialized in different social contexts within the same society) and could have their own sense of values, goals, aspirations, and motivations, similarly, every person has their own sets of dispositions which could be independent (or slightly dependent) from those (i.e. labels, expectations, attributes) conveyed by their social environment (especially in the case of primary deviants). 2. Subculture of friends (barkada) –if friends don’t value academic achievement, it implicitly follows that members of the group (friends) would also tend not to value academic achievement. Subculture of barkadas could also affect how students relate to other students (and to other people) who belong to the out-group, e.g. barkadas might warn a member “wag kang dumikit dyan, mga matatalino yan.” Similarly, it is in the subculture of friends which the researcher have accounted for the “support” members received primarily due to camaraderie, somewhat independent from the labels tagged to individual members. 3. Teaching strategies of teachers –the researcher thinks that different strategies of teaching would yield different gains in student performances. Also, the researcher thinks that differences on the volume of work loads teachers give to students should also be recognized as a variable since these could affect the time students
would spend in being involved in academic activities (e.g. doing assignments or research projects instead of playing or by standing).
B. The Sectioning Methodology Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School has
Informal, unstructured interviews with the Principal and the 4th year level chairman on December 17, 2008 and January 5, 2009 revealed that students at JCMPHS were homogenously sectioned based on their previous year general averages (they called it performance based). The administrators said that they chose Homogenous student-sectioning in order for teachers to teach students based on their ability to learn and to comprehend lessons. The effort to teach students based on their perceived ability was in response to the low performance of JCMPHS in the previous National Achievement Test. The principal said that the school ranked as one of the lowest performing public secondary school in Quezon City. Through teaching students based on their ability (Between-Class Ability Grouping, or Homogenous Student Sectioning), the school administrators believe that they could (improve learning) raise the academic performance of their students (school). The school principal said that senior students at the higher sections knew that they were homogenously sectioned and that they belong to the higher sections, this was, according to her, because of the academic contests that higher section students tend to join. She continued that students at the lower sections neither knew how they were sectioned nor the fact that they belong to the lower sections. p. 116
The data presented in Table 16 supports what the principal said. Table 16: The respondents’ perception as to how they were sectioned (P2B) Sectioning Methodology Homogenous Heterogeneous Do not know 100% Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 81.11% 13.33% 5.56% (90) 22.45% 32.65% 44.90% (49)
Table 16 shows that majority (81.11% or 73 respondents) in the HSSsbp knew and aware that they were sectioned homogenously, 13.33% (12 respondents) thought that they were sectioned heterogeneously and 5.56% (5 respondents) do not the answer. Data in table 16 also confirms that Lower section students do not know how they were sectioned. As shown in the table, majority (44.90% or 22 respondents) in the LSSsbp do not know how they were sectioned, 32.65% (16 respondents) thought that they were heterogeneously sectioned, and only 22.45% (11 respondents) were aware that they were homogenously sectioned. Homogenous student-sectioning at JCMPHS involves the evaluation of former 3rd year general averages (performance based) in sectioning students. Since the data in table 16 showed that higher section students were aware that they were homogenously sectioned, then it basically follows that they knew that their previous grades were the bases of school administrators in sectioning them. Since lower section students do not know how they were sectioned, they should have no knowledge on the basi(e)s used by administrators in assigning them to their present sections. However, the data below contradicts this.
Table 17: The respondents’ perception on the basi(e)s of being assigned to their respective sections (P2B.2) Perceived bases Higher Section Students 85.56% 7.77% Lower Section Students 81.63% 2.04% 4.08% 12.24% 4.08% 6.12% 34.69% 10.20% (49)
Based on my grades My section does not change Early/Late in enrolment 1.11% Sectioned Alphabetically 1.11% School representative on 2.22% contests I am a transferee 5.56% Because of my conditions 10% in life I do not know 3.33% 100% (90) This table was not percentaged down.
Data in Table 17 confirms the claim for higher section students. As shown in the table, majority (85.56% or 77 respondents) in the HSSsbp believed that their previous grades were the bases in student-sectioning; 10% (9 respondents) believed that they were at their present sections because (1) they were poor2.22%, (2) their families were influential-2.22%, and (3) their families were not influential at school-2.22%. The table also shows that 7.77% (7 respondents) said that their section does not change, meaning, that they were at the same section for about two or more years (these were the students who believed that they were repeatedly grouped to the same section regardless of their grades); 5.56% (5 respondents) believed that they were at the higher sections because they were transferees; 2.22% (2 respondents) believed that they were at the higher sections because they represent the school during contests (again regardless of grades); 1.11% (1 respondent) believed that he/she was at his/her present section because he/she enrolled early/late; and 1.11% (1 respondent) p. 118
believed that he/she was at his/her present section because of his/her surname (alphabetical). Contrary to the claim for lower section students, majority (81.63% or 40 respondents) in the LSSsbp believed that they were sectioned based on their grades; 34.69% (17 respondents) believed that they were at their present sections because (1) they were poor-26.53%, (2) their families were influential6.12%, and (3) their families were not influential at schoo-2.04%; 12.24% (6 respondents) believed that they were sectioned alphabetically; Others believed that they were at their present sections because they were transferees (6.12% or 3 respondents), that they enrolled early/late (4.08% or 2 respondents) and that they represent the school during contests (again regardless of grades, 4.08% or 2 respondents); only 2.04% (1 respondent) believed) that his/her section does not change. The researcher thinks that the ambiguity caused by the two percentages obtained from the LSSsbp in tables 16 (22.45% answered for Homogenous) and 17 (81.63% answered that sectioning was based on their grades) is due to the fact that, based on the principal’s statement, lower section students do not know that they were homogenously sectioned per se. This implies that LSSsbp do not know the definition of Homogenous student-sectioning (although an in-text definition in the questionnaire briefly described it).The researcher thinks that this no-knowledge of lower section students to the notion of homogenous student sectioning should be attributed to its non-usage in the every day language used inside the classrooms and at school. Only school administrators and teachers
were exposed to the principles of student-sectioning since they are part of their formal training at normal schools. Table 18: Respondent’s perception on how they were sectioned in elementary (P2B.3) Sectioning Methodology Homogenous Heterogeneous Do not know 100% Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 63.33% 22.22% 14.44% (90) 24.49% 22.45% 53.06% (49)
Table 18 shows that majority (63.33% or 57respondents) in the HSSsbp believed that they were homogenously sectioned in elementary, 22.22% (20 respondents) believed that they were sectioned heterogeneously, while 14.44% (13 respondents) do not know the answer. Contrary to the higher section students, majority (53.06% or 26 respondents) in the LSSsbp do not know how they were sectioned in elementary, 24.49% (12 respondents) believed that they were homogenously sectioned in elementary, while 22.45% (11 respondents) believed that they were sectioned heterogeneously in elementary. The researcher recognized the limitation of human memory. This could account for the percentages of respondents who do not know the answer. Also, the researcher realized that elementary students are too young to be conscious on student-sectioning issues. The table has an implicit purpose of giving the reader an idea as to when students might have (first) experienced being labeled (expected, attributed) with words stated in tables 19 and 20 (to be presented next). The theoretical construct has claimed that labels, expectations, and attributions are more evident and p. 120
experienced if students were sectioned homogenously. Contemplating on this implies that students with long[er] experience of being sectioned homogenously (being higher or lower section students) have long[er] experiences of being labeled, expected, and attributed with words stated in tables 19 and 20. Further, the researcher contends that such students are more likely to internalize those labels and become secondary deviants.
C. Labels, Expectations, and Attributions associated with the Student-Respondents
Table 19: Expectations for Higher Section Students (P2C.1)
Expectations % in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
HSSs’ attitude on expectation (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
LSSs’ attitude on expectation (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Brilliant students (high IQ) Role model students Fast learner students (advance in lessons) Students active in academic activities Student leaders Popular students School’s representative on contests Students prioritized by the school Disciplined students Responsible students Gradeconscious students Students proficient in speaking and writing Rich students Others
91.11 83.33 78.89
4.11 4.01 4.10
Agree Agree Agree
62.5 50 50
3.81 2.70 3.0
Agree Undecided Undecided
67.78 57.78 76.67 63.33 83.33 82.22 77.78 65.56
4.11 3.6 4.23 3.65 4.21 4.28 4.71 3.86
Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
55 45 60 47.5 77.5 60 57.5 60
3.09 3.06 3.0 2.89 3.39 3.25 3.30 3.90
Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Agree
43.33 1.77 Disagree 15.56 3.93 Agree 100% (90) No answer 0 respondents This table was not percentaged down.
50 2.70 27.5 3.30 (40) 9 respondents
Questionnaire items P2C.1 and P2C.2 have two intentions, first is to know how many respondents in both subpopulations believe that the words enlisted on those items were the characteristics of students who are (or are most likely to be) at the higher sections. The respondents were also asked to check those categories other people used (said) when describing (expecting) higher and lower section students. These percentages were presented at the left-most column in each subsample population column. The second intention is to know the attitude of the respondents to those expectations (attributions, descriptive words). The latter would be contributory in determining subjective academic selfconcepts and describing the type of deviancy higher and lower section students tend to be (have) when considering these expectations. Table 19 shows that majority (91.11% or 75 respondents) in the HSSsbp believed that higher section students are (expected to be) brilliant, intelligent students (matatalino, mataas ang IQ), this was further strengthened by their attitude of 4.11 (agree); 83.33% (75 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students are role model students and are disciplined students, this was strengthened by their attitude rating of 4.01 (agree) and 4.28 (agree) on those categories; 78.89% (71 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students are fast learners, this was strengthened by their 4.10 (agree) attitude rate on the category; 77.78% ( 70 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students are active in academic activities and were also grade conscious, these categories were further given 4.24 (agree) and 4.71 (strongly agree) attitude rates by the HSSsbp respondents; 67.78% (61 respondents) believed
(heard) that higher section students are student leaders (with attitude rating of 4.11: agree); 65.56% (59 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students are proficient in speaking and in writing (with attitude rating of 3.68: agree); 57.78% (52 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students are popular students (3.6: agree); 43.33% (39 respondents) heard that higher section students are rich, but they tend to disagree on it (with attitude rate of 1.77, this confirms the data in table 6); further, 15.56% (14 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students also have the following characteristics: boastful, industrious, are always present in their classes, and are close to teachers, they have collectively given all these a 3.93 (agree) attitude rate. Table 19 also shows that 40 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2C.1, majority (77.5% or 31 respondents) of them heard that higher section students are disciplined students, however, they gave no position on the matter (3.39: undecided); the rest of the categories were all given by the LSSsbp respondents the same attitude rates (values falling within the range 2.51-3.50, indicating the undecided state of the respondents), these are the following: 65% (26 respondents) heard that higher section students are active in academic activities; 60% (24 respondents) heard that higher section students are responsible students, and are the school’s representatives in contests outside the school; 57.5% (23 respondents) heard that higher section students are grade conscious; 55% (22 respondents) heard that higher section students are student leaders; 50% (20 respondents) heard that higher section students are role model students, fast learner students, and rich students (although data in table 6
debunks this belief) ; 47.5% (19 respondents) heard that higher section students are prioritized by the school; 45% (18 respondents) heard that higher section students are popular students; and 27.5% (11 respondents) heard that higher section students have also the following characteristics: obedient, kind, and industrious. However, of the LSSsbp, 62.5% (27 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students are brilliant students (3.8: agree); and 60% (24 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students are proficient in speaking and writing (3.90: agree). Consistency of attitude rates at the table is evident, showing that higher section students mostly agree with the words that were being attributed (expected) to them (except for the adjective rich). It seems that higher section students find reality on the meanings implied on those words. Since these expectations (attributions) are mostly likely to be verbalized by the people around the higher section students, they become labels (see theoretical construct). Evident is the fact that they agree and accept those labels (as well as the roles suggested by it), implying that they are secondary deviants. Majority of the LSSsbp respondents were likely to be undecided on those words (expectations) attributed to higher section students. This could be due to their non-frequent contact with each other (C. H. Cooley theorem no. 1 i.e. “little communication”). One could also imply that lower section students might have also some reservations on reacting to those words attributed to higher section students (e.g. they might be envious, or they might be doubtful on the certainty of those expectations etc.)
The table also affirms the most prestigious position (social class) higher section students have in the hierarchy of students at JCMPHS. Converging previous analyses imply that students are likely to be associated with positive and high expecting words when they are placed in the higher sections. Supporting this claim are the high percentages of LSSsbp who heard that other people (including themselves in some cases) used such words in describing students (that are likely to be placed) at the higher sections. Table 20: Expectations for Lower Section Students (P2C.2)
Expectations % in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Attitude on expectation (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Attitude on expectation (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Slow learners Easy-golucky students (lazy) No eagerness in learning/No interest in studying Bully students (magugulo, pasaway, makukulit) Irresponsible students Students who frequently cut their classes Students with back subjects Students with hidden talents and
skills; shy Members of gangs Poor students Students with low IQ
67.07 50 54.88
3.91 2.17 2.94
Agree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree
59.09 61.36 65.91
2.88 3.18 2.83
Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided Undecided
68.29 3.88 10.98 3.56 100% (82) No answer: 8 respondents Table was not percentaged down
68.18 3.00 29.55 2.77 (44) 5 respondents
Table 20 shows that 82 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2C.2, majority (78.05% or 64 respondents) of them believed (heard) that lower section students are easy go lucky students (lazy) (4.01: agree) and are bully (magugulo, pasaway, and makukulit (4.09: agree); 76.83% (63 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students have back subjects (4.13: agree); 71.95% (59 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students have hidden talents and are only shy (3.93: agree); 70.73% (58 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students are frequently cutting their classes (3.98: agree); 69.51% (57 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students are irresponsible students (3.63: agree); 68.29% (56 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students are not eager to learn (3.71: agree) and are barkadistas (3.88: agree); 67.07% (55 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students are members of gangs (3.91: agree); further, 10.98% (9 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section student also have the following characteristics: students who are not doing their assignments, students who do not know how to respect others, are boastful, and are truant students, they have collectively given all these a 3.56 (agree) attitude rate. On the other hand, 65.85% (54 p. 127
respondents) heard that lower section students were described as slow learners; and 54.88% (45 respondents) heard that lower section students have low IQs. Higher section students were uncertain on those two previous matters (3.20 and 2.94: undecided). Fifty percent (41 respondents) in the HSSsbp disagree that lower section students are poor (2.17: disagree), this particular belief contradicts the data in table 6. Table 20 also shows that 44 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2C.2, majority (86.36% or 38 respondents) of them heard that lower section students are bully, however, they tend to show their uncertainty on this belief (3.26: undecided). The respondents’ state of uncertainty (attitude values ranging from 2.51-3.50) is also evident on the following categories: 68.18% (30 respondents) heard that lower section students have back subjects (this condition of uncertainty confirms the data in table 11, showing that not all LSSsbp respondents have back subjects), and lower section students are barkadistas; 65.91% (29 respondents) heard that lower section students frequently cut their classes, and are students who have low IQs; 61.36% (27 respondents) heard that lower section students are poor; 59.09% (26 respondents) heard that lower section students are members of gangs; 56.82% (25 respondents) heard that lower section students are slow learners; 50% (22 respondents) heard that lower section students are not eager to learn; further, 29.55% (13 respondents) heard that lower section students also have the following characteristics: students who are fun to be with, are true people (hindi plastic), and are not studying hard, they have collectively given all these a 2.77
attitude rate. LSSsbp respondents (65.91% or 29 respondents) disagree (2.44) that lower section students are irresponsible students. Contrary to this, high percentage of respondents (75% or 33 respondents) agreed that lower section students are easy go lucky students (3.90: agree); they also believed (79.55% or 35 respondents) that lower section students have hidden talents and skills and are only shy (3.77: agree). Table 20 shows that LSSsbp tend to be uncertain regarding the characteristics of lower section students. It seems that those expectations (attributions) were heard by LSSsbp from other people, but that these respondents could not determine their veracity due to conflicting values (e.g. a combination of feelings that these expectations are somewhat true and
somewhat false [“half truths”], minding the phrase “it depends”) or that they don’t have just concrete knowledge on those characteristics attributed to lower section students, including themselves (one could also assert that they were not neophytes and therefore, could have observed the behavior of their fellow lower section students during their previous years of study, however, this idea could be weaken by arguing that these students, provided that they have spent considerable years at the lower sections, have normalize, have treated these traits as trivial, and could have taken for granted behaviors complained of against them, lower section students). One could also imply that these students were only protecting their reputations since categories in the item (table) imply negative images/meanings (however, one could also argue that if they want to protect their reputations, they could have just answered “strongly disagree”
instead). Undecided attitudes in table 20 somewhat suggest that those expectations exist, but were only being tolerated (taken for granted) by lower section students. The latter idea would consequentially place LSSsbp in the primary deviant type. What is interesting in table 20 is the somewhat consistent pattern of HSSsbp’s agreeing to expectations and characteristics attributed to lower section students. HSSsbp’s attitude to those expectations imply that these expectations exists, and that these expectations are (most likely) being tagged (expected) to lower section students by other people not in continuous and persistent contact with them (i.e. HSSsbp). The pattern implies that these expectations are cultural constructions (e.g. ethnocentrism), it is shared, and is conveyed through language: if it is not cultural, then higher section students shouldn’t have known such expectations and attributions for lower section students (one could argue that such expectations were just brought into the consciousness of HSSsbp respondents because they were written in the questionnaire, this could be partly true, but the researcher contends that if these expectations do no exist, then they could have just leave that particular questionnaire item blank [“no answer”]). The table also explicitly shows that higher section students have low and negative expectations for lower section students. Since labels, expectations, and attributions are indicators of prestige (see theoretical construct), then it follows that lower section students, who are most likely to be associated with low and negative expectations, occupy the least prestigious social class (positions) in the studentry.
Extending these ideas imply that students are likely to be associated with negative and low expecting words when they are placed in the lower sections.
D. Type of Deviancy by the Student-Respondents
Table 21: Student-respondents’ attitude regarding the sections they belong (P2D)
Higher Section Students
Lower Section Students
4.14 42 respondents 7 respondents
N 88 respondents No answer: 2 respondents
Table 21 shows that 88 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2D, it also shows that higher section students tend to accept the section they presently belong. Other respondents rationalized their positions by saying that they deserved to be higher section students because of their high grades and the achievements that they received; others said that they were privileged to be at the higher sections since their teachers were likely to give more focus to them than the other students; others felt that as higher section students, they were more challenged to exert their best in gaining academic rewards; others were happy that, as higher section students, they were giving honor and pride to their parents. Despite these benefits, other HSSsbp respondents felt that they were more pressured to study hard than the average and lower section students; others felt that their tight schedules were hard to cope with; some felt that they were not enjoying their ambience of competition for academic rewards; others felt that they were not disserving to be at the higher sections. The researcher thinks p. 131
that these negative feelings were brought about by high expectations of teachers, other students, parents etc. to higher section students, and that the former were finding those expectations hard to actualize and to cope with. The researcher also thinks that ambience of competition (see p. 113) tend to aggravate these feelings of discontentment. Table 21 also shows that 42 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2D, it further shows that lower section students tend to accept the section they presently belong, despite the negative and low expecting words that were associated with lower section students. Many of them gave reasons which seem fatalistic, saying that they should accept what was given (assigned) to them since they were not in the position to decide on the matter; that they were already in their present sections and that they could have nothing to do about it; others were saying that it is at the lower sections where they justly belong (they recognized that their grades were low and that their capacity [performance] only allowed them for such); others were saying that they were being downed by their teachers and other students and that they could not deny it since they were lower section students. Despite the sense of hopelessness (fatalism) felt by many lower section students, others find it challenging, and the labeling, irrational: as with a respondent who said that it was not on sectioning which determines how intelligent students are, to him, what is important is that students are learning, regardless as to what sections they belong. Other respondents value the camaraderie that they have with their fellow lower section students (does it imply that lower section students are barkadistas? HSSsbp tend to agree to such, see
table 20, the principal also said the same in an interview). The latter statement caused the researcher to think that maybe camaraderie (barkadahan) is strong among the lower section students because they most likely perceived themselves to be equals, not rivals (as what higher section students feel because of the ambience of competition at the higher sections). Table 21 only shows that higher and lower section students tend to accept the section they presently belong. Table 22: The student-respondents’ main label as a consequence of being at their present sections (P2D.2) Labels
Higher Section Student Average/ Middle Section Student Lower Section Student Has not experienced being labeled by these
% in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Frequency of labeling (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Frequency of labeling (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
100% No answer
(90) 0 respondents
(40) 9 respondents
Questionnaire item P2D.2 has the intention of verifying whether students at the higher sections were being called (labeled) as higher section students and whether students at the lower sections were being called (labeled) as lower section students. As indicated in the theoretical construct, the phrase “higher section students” and “lower section students” were considered as main labels p. 133
for students who are at the higher and lower sections. One could argue that the item shouldn’t have to be included since students at the higher/lower sections will be automatically called higher/lower section students, the researcher, however, argues that one could be too deterministic in doing so, thus excluding possibilities of variations in labeling (due to human error etc.), he further contends that that would be the case if all the students know the status of their section (as well as the statuses of other sections, i.e. what sections belong to the higher, average, or lower sections). The inquiry (P2D.2) also implicitly tests what the principal said about the lower section students during an interview: that lower section students were not aware that they were actually lower section students. The researcher thinks that an effort was made by the school administration to avoid poor performing sections from being tagged as lower sections (they could have preconceived that the term lower section implies negative connotations). One explicit evidence is that the names (world leaders) of senior sections were non indicative to their statuses (see appendix C, names of sections were not alphabetical in order). Also, the placing of rooms were non-indicative to the section-statuses (section Antoninus, a lower section, has a room neighboring higher sections Napoleon and Alexander at the fourth floor, SB building; On the other hand, section Constantine, a higher section, has a room neighboring lower sections Hadrian and Gandhi at the third floor, SB building ). Having these in mind, the researcher contends that analysis in item P2D.2 would be valuable for this research.
Table 22 shows that majority (84.44% or 76 respondents) in the HSSsbp were always (3.70) being called as higher section students, 8.89% (8 respondents) were moderately (3.22) being called as average section students, and 1.11% (1 respondent) was moderately (3.0) being called as lower section students. Five respondents (5.56%) haven’t experienced being labeled with those enlisted in the table. Table 22 also shows that 40 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2D.2, majority (77.50% or 31 respondents) of them were moderately (2.97) being called as lower section students, 7.50% (3 respondents) were moderately (3.0) being called as average section students, and 2.50% (1 respondent) were sometimes (2.0) being called as higher section students. Five respondents (12.5%) haven’t experienced being labeled with any of those enlisted in the table. The researcher thinks that straying percentages of 8.89%, 1.11%, and 5.56% in the HSSsbp and 2.5%, 7.50%, and 12.5% in the LSSsbp were results of ambiguity caused by the unusual ordering of senior sections (e.g. some higher section students might have been labeled as average or lower section students because their section is far from the other higher sections, just as in the case of section Constantine, on the other hand, some lower section students might have been labeled as average or higher section students because their section is near from the higher sections, just as in the case of section Antoninus). The data has also affirmed the researcher’s conjecture that the phrases “higher section student” and “lower section student” are labels. If they are not labels, then all respondents in the HSSsbp and LSSsbp would not experience
being called as either higher or lower section student. If these phrases are not labels, then straying percentages discussed in the previous paragraph should not have existed. The data affirmed the principal’s claim that higher section students knew that they were higher section students. This was partly due to people who frequently (3.70, always) tagged them as higher section students. The data in LSSsbp column, however, debunk the claim that lower section students were not aware that they were actually lower section students. The researcher does not imply that the principal was lying. Instead, the researcher thinks that the outcome became different from what was expected because there are other factors (i.e. labelers) which made lower section students conscious that they were actually lower section students, the action of the labelers for such was moderate (2.97). The labelers were brought into the specifics on the next table.
Table 23: An inquiry as to who labels the student-respondents (P2D.3) Groups of people
% in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Frequency of labeling (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Frequency of labeling (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Peers 88.37 3.43 Moderate Classmates 65.12 3.32 Moderate Higher Section 43.02 3.16 Moderate Students Lower Section 66.28 3.63 Always Students Parents 61.63 3.25 Moderate Respondents’ 67.44 3.40 Moderate teachers Other 53.49 3.07 Moderate teachers Guard/ 27.91 2.33 Sometimes Janitors School 26.74 2.35 Sometimes administration Others 11.63 3.60 Always 100% (86) No answer 4 respondents This table was not percentaged down
42.86 59.52 52.38 45.24 47.62 69.05 57.14 33.33 33.33
3.11 3.40 2.50 3.68 3.10 3.07 2.71 2.14 2.50
Moderate Moderate Sometimes Always Moderate Moderate Moderate Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes
28.07 2.42 (42) 7 respondents
Table 23 shows that 86 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2D.3, majority (88.37% or 76 respondents) of them identified their peers as moderately (3.43) involved in labeling them as higher section students, 67.44% (58 respondents) identified their teachers as moderately (3.40) involved in the process of labeling, 66.28% (57 respondents) identified the lower section students as always (3.63) involved in labeling them as higher section students, 65.12% (56 respondents) identified their classmates as moderately (3.32) involved in labeling themselves with such, 53.49% (46 respondents) said that other teachers were also moderately (3.07) involved in the labeling process, 43.02% (37 respondents) said that other higher section students were also moderately (3.16) involved in making them conscious (through labeling) that the p. 137
respondents were really higher section students, 27.91% (24 respondents) said that even the guards and janitors were sometimes (2.33) involved in the labeling phenomena, 26.74% (23 respondents) said that sometimes (2.35) the school administration were also labeling them with such, 11.63% (10 respondents) have identified other people (past classmates, students from other schools who are also higher section students, brothers and sisters, uncles and unties, grandfather and grand mothers) as always (3.60) involved in labeling (identifying) them as higher section students. Table 23 also shows that 42 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2D.3, majority (69.07% or 29 respondents) of them identified their teachers as moderately (3.07) labeling them as lower section students, 59.52% (25 respondents) said that their classmates were also labeling them with such (although moderately, 3.40), 57.14% (24 respondents) said that other teachers were also moderately (2.71) labeling them as lower section students, 52.38% (22 respondents) identified higher section students as sometimes (2.50) involved in labeling them, 47.65% (20 respondents) recognized their parents as moderately (3.10) involved in tagging them as lower section students, 45.24% (19 respondents) identified other lower section students as always (3.68) involved in labeling themselves, 33.33% (14 respondents) said that guards, janitors, and the school administration were sometimes (2.14 & 2.50) labeling them with such, while 28.07% (12 respondents) identified other people (unfortunately,
respondents did not mention these people) as sometimes (2.42) involved in labeling them as lower section students.
Table 23 shows that there were many people who were involved in labeling students as higher or lower section students. These labelers, in the process of labeling or tagging, were making the respondents (students) conscious about their condition. This consciousness somehow affects the role organization (set of roles) students have within themselves. Labeling causes them to reconsider the roles suggested by the label being tagged to them. Table 23 also shows that majority of those people involved in the labeling process were only moderately engaged in the activity. However, the researcher argues that these people were dispersed in the school setting, meaning, although that they were moderately involved in the process, the fact that they were dispersed (with is naturally occurring) increases the chances that students would be tagged with the same label in different situations (in association with different people) within the school setting. The latter argument caused the researcher to think that the phenomenon of labeling among higher and lower section students is sustained within the school setting. The table also shows that within each section-status (higher and lower section students) students were capable of labeling and making themselves conscious that they were higher or lower section students (see row 3 and 4).
Table 24: An inquiry as to how higher section students were labeled by the groups of people that they identified in item P2D.3 (P2D.4.a) Some Labels
% in HSSsbp
Higher Section Students
Frequency of labeling (Mw)
Star sections 66.28 Cream of the crop 47.67 Superior students 36.05 Role model 73.26 School’s Alas 43.02 Brilliant students 70.93 Chosen students 63.95 Student leaders 53.49 Others 4.65 100% (86) No answer 4 respondents This table was not percentaged down.
3.58 3.44 3.26 3.83 3.70 3.48 3.73 3.63 4.5
Always Moderate Moderate Always Always Moderate Always Always Always
Table 24 shows that 86 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2D.4.a, majority (73.26% or 63 respondents) of them said that as higher section students, they were always (3.83) being tagged by the labelers as role model students, 70.93% (61 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.48) being called as brilliant students, 66.28% (57 respondents) said that they were always (3.58) being called as star section students, 63.95% (55 respondents) said that they were always (3.73) being called as the chosen students, 53.49% (46
respondents) said that they were always (3.63) being called as student leaders, 47.67% (41 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.44) being called as the cream of the crop, 43.02% (37 respondents) said that they were always (3.70) called as the school’s alas (pambatoˆ ng school), 36.05% (31 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.26) being called as superior students, while others (4.65% or 4 respondents) said that they were always (4.5) being called as “perfectionist” and “the normal students among others.” p. 140
Table 24 showed how frequent higher section students were being tagged with high expecting words and phrases. These, again, imply the prestigious position higher section students occupy in the student hierarchy. The position (status i.e. higher section per se) is prestigious because it accompanies honor (as implied in the meaning of labels) to its bearer, as well as sets of responsibilities one must carry on to maintain his position (of dominance). These labels carry with them sets of expected behavior: they somehow dictate (remind) how one should conduct himself on a specific setting, they suggest how one should relate with other people; they also accompany meanings about one’s personality. All these affect (confirm, reject, or revise) the role organization and self-concepts individuals have within themselves. The latter statement implies that since self-concepts were affected, future actions would also be affected (would be determined by the self-concepts, see Mead in the theoretical framework).
Table 25: An inquiry as to how lower section students were labeled by the groups of people that they identified in item P2D.3 (P2D.4.b) Some Labels
% in LSSsbp
Lower Section Students
Frequency of labeling (Mw)
Subordinates 38.71 Slow learners 51.61 Bully/magugulo 58.06 Lazy students 67.74 Need to pattern 67.74 behavior with that of the higher section students bobo 48.39 Irresponsible 64.52 Others 19.35 100% (31) No answer 18 respondents This table was not percentaged down.
2.58 2.94 3.28 3.05 3.57
Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Always
2.87 3.00 2.67
Moderate Moderate Moderate
Table 25 shows that 31 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2D.4.b, majority (67.74% or 21 respondents) of them said that they were always (3.57) being “reminded” by the labelers (especially their teachers) that they should pattern their behavior with that of the higher section students and that they were moderately (3.05) being called as lazy students (mga tamad), 64.52% (20 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.00) being tagged by the labelers as irresponsible students, 58.06% (18 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.28) being called as bully students (magugulo), 51.61% (16 respondents) said that they were moderately (2.94) being called as slow learners, 48.39% (15 respondents) said that they were moderately (2.84) being called by the labelers as bobo, 38.71% (12 respondents) said that they were moderately (2.58) being called as subordinates, and 19.35% (6 respondents)
said that they were also being tagged with other labels (unfortunately, they did not mention those other labels). The words stated in table 25 and item D.4.b are low expecting words and phrases. They somehow imply the subordinate and non-prestigious status lower section students occupy in the student hierarchy. As stated in the analysis in Table 24, these labels suggest roles, patterns of behavior, Again one could argue that lower section students seem to occupy such non-prestigious position in the hierarchy because of the words indicated in the questionnaire itself. Aside from the fact that these words were derived from several pretesting before the administration of the recent questionnaire, the researcher contends that lower section student-respondents only affirmed that those labels are existing, if they are not, then categories (words) should have obtained values of 0-1.50 (from never to rare). Table 26: An inquiry if the respondents were also being labeled by the attributes, adjectives, or expectations identified by them in items P2C.1 and P2C.2 (P2D.5)
Frequency of labeling (Mw)
Higher Section Students
Frequency of labeling (Mw)
Lower Section Students
1.97 36 respondents 13 respondents
N 74 respondents No answer: 16 respondents
Table 26 shows that there were 74 respondents in the HSSsbp and 36 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2D.5.d. The higher section student-respondents said that they moderately (2.99) experienced being tagged by the labelers with the attributes (adjectives or expectations) that they have p. 143
identified in item P2C.1 (table 19).On the other hand, the lower section studentrespondents said that they sometimes (1.97) experienced being labeled with the attributes (adjectives or expectations) that they have identified in item P2C.2. The table affirms the researcher’s conjecture that expectations (words) or adjectives student-respondents have with each other are also labels (see theoretical construct). Again those expectations (table 19 & 20), now labels (table 26), imply meanings and roles student-respondents were dictated (suggested) to comply (or to reject). Table 27: An inquiry as to what extent the student-respondents accept the labeling that they have been experiencing (P2D.6)
Higher Section Students
Lower Section Students
2.66 32 respondents 17 respondents
N 81 respondents No answer: 9 respondents
Questionnaire item P2D.6’s purpose was to sum-up the respondents’ attitude with the labeling that they were experiencing. Table 27 shows that there were 81 respondents in the HSSsbp and 32 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered the item. Higher section student-respondents accepted (3.59) the labeling that they were experiencing. This implies that they were also accepting the meanings implied on those labels. This affirmed that higher section studentrespondents were secondary deviants. On the contrary, lower section studentrespondents were undecided (2.66) as to whether they would be accepting the (implicated meanings of) labels or not. This state of undecidedness implies that they were primary deviants. p. 144
Table 28: Subjective Academic Self-concepts Table 19 Attitude of Higher Section Students Labels Mw Interpretation Brilliant 4.11 Agree
students (high IQ) Role model students
Table 20 Attitude of Lower Section Students Labels Mw Interpretation Slow 3.04 Undecided
learners Easy-golucky students (lazy) No eagerness in learning/No interest in studying Bully students (magugulo, pasaway, makukulit) Irresponsible students Students who frequently cut their classes Students with back subjects Students with hidden talents and skills; shy Students with low IQ
Fast learner students (advance in lessons) Students active in academic activities Disciplined students Responsible students
Gradeconscious students Students proficient in speaking and writing
Strongly Agree Agree
2.83 27.49 9 3.05
Sá Mw N Overall Mw
33.52 8 4.19
Positive subjective academic self-concept
Indeterminate subjective academic self-concept
Table 28 shows the juxtaposed attitudes of higher and lower section student-respondents on different expectations (tables 19 and 20) or labels (table p. 145
26) associated to their being higher and lower section students. It was established in table 27 that higher section students were secondary deviants while lower section students were primary, which were basically determined through their (attitudes) acceptance or rejection of labels tagged to them. The researcher contends that the act of accepting or rejecting labels implies someone’s affirmation or exertion of his (accepted/preferred) self-concept. Brinkerhoff (et. al., 2002, p.56) defined self-concept as “thoughts about our personality and social roles.” The word “thoughts” implies someone’s constructions, attitudes, and understanding of characteristics about his “personality” (physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual) and “social roles.” “Thoughts” on characteristics applied to “social roles” imply conception of “social status.” Labels, expectations, and attributions (adjectives) which were indicators of “social status” someone occupies are also suggestive to his thoughts about his personality and social role characteristics. Therefore, the acceptance or rejection of labels, expectations, and attributions (attitude) somehow constitute one’s selfconcept. The word academic pertains to school especially classroom (curricular) activities. Therefore, to derive subjective academic self-concept based on labels, expectations, and attributions (see theoretical construct, p.24), the researcher has to select labels pertaining to classroom (curricular) activities. These labels were perceived to be the characteristics of the students belonging to the higher and lower sections, as indicated in tables 19 and 20. Table 28 shows those
selected labels that are most likely to be related to classroom (curricular) activities (e.g. student behavior and performance). Self-concepts (i.e. perceived characteristics) would vary depending on the nature (e.g. meaning) of labels tagged to an individual. For purposes of easy description, the researcher assumed that there are positive and negative selfconcepts. Positive self-concept occurs when a person accepts positive labels and expectations associated to him; negative self-concept occurs when a person accepts negative labels tagged to him. As shown in table 28, higher section students were tagged with positive, high expecting labels pertaining to their academic performance and
characteristics. They tend to accept them, implying that they were secondary deviants, thus, they have positive subjective academic self-concepts. The table also shows that lower section students were tagged with negative, low expecting labels regarding their academic characteristics and behavior. This undecidedness caused the researcher to categorize them as primary deviants. It consequentially resulted into indeterminate subjective academic self-concepts.
E. The Student-Respondents and Academic Achievement
Academic achievement in this research refers to a condition wherein a student has high grades, could have won curricular contests, has a big chance to become one of the school’s cream of the crop, has a reputation of being an academic achiever, and is being looked upon by his/her teachers, classmates, and other students. This part of the research is intended to associate the labels (as well as their implied meanings, expectations, and attributions) student-respondents have with their aspiration for academic achievement. Table 29: Student-Respondents’ attitude on their aspiration for academic achievement (P2E)
Higher Section Students
Lower Section Students
The respondent 3.91 is aspiring for academic achievement N 88 respondents No answer: 2 respondents
The respondent is aspiring for academic achievement
36 respondents 13 respondents
Table 29 shows that there are 88 respondents in the HSSsbp and 36 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2E. The higher section studentrespondents were aspiring for academic achievement, as indicated by their 3.91 attitudinal weighted mean value. Similarly, lower section student-respondents were also aspiring (3.64) for academic achievement. The weighted means confirmed the nature of deviancy engaged in by the respondents. Higher section students’ act of aspiring for academic achievement is consistent with their acceptance of the (meanings implied in the) labels p. 148
(secondary deviancy) being tagged to them. Since positive and high expecting words (labels) produce positive self-concepts, it implicitly follows that students with positive self-concepts will aspire for (a more challenging goal, that is) academic achievement. Despite the somewhat negative self-concepts that were (theoretically) produced by low expecting, negative words (labels) tagged to lower section students, respondents in the LSSsbp seemed optimistic in aspiring for academic achievement (this was implied by the 3.64 attitudinal weighted mean obtained by LSSsbp). Their attitude is consistent with their being primary deviants (and also having indeterminate subjective academic self-concepts). This implies that although they were being tagged by the labelers with low expecting, negative labels, lower section students were in the act of opposing them. Lower section students who felt that “what really matters is the learning that they acquire and not the labeling that they experience” are also primary deviants because they treated the labeling phenomena as trivial (unimportant, see theoretical framework), but then again, it also implies that those respondents were striving for their own good despite the existence (and the control) of the labels and the labelers in their lives.
Table 30: An inquiry if the labels strengthen the respondents’ selfconfidence to aspire for academic achievement (P2E.2)
Higher Section Students
Lower Section Students
2.76 38 respondents 11 respondents
N 84 respondents No answer: 6 respondents
Table 30 shows that there were 84 respondents in the HSSsbp and 38 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2E.2. The higher section student-respondents said that their self confidence were moderately (2.96) being strengthened by the labels, expectation, and attributions being tagged (associated) to them. Lower section student-respondents also said the same (2.76, moderate). The researcher thinks that higher section student-respondents were consistent in their being secondary deviants (at least they were trying to adhere to high expectations conveyed by the positive labels), and that the lower section students were consistent in their being primary deviants (at least they were trying to defy the low expectations conveyed by the negative labels by trying to do more useful behavior e.g. studying hard despite the existence of negative labels etc.) although the labels associated to them tend to be moderately strengthening their self-confidence to aspire for academic achievement. The researcher thinks that the results were not strong (moderate) because the frequency of tagging (labeling) the student-respondents have with the labels, expectations, and attributes (see tables 24, 25, & 26) associated to their sectionstatus were also not strong (moderate). The latter explanation could be p. 150
developed into a very deterministic statement i.e. if labeling is frequent, strengthening one’s self-confidence to aspire for academic achievement will also be frequent, put it in other words, strengthening one’s self-confidence to aspire for academic achievement (especially in the case of primary deviants) is dependent on how frequent the labeling will take place. Moderate results, the researcher thinks, could also be due to the operation of other factors (ex. personal dispositions, ambitions, and goals independent from what the labels suggest). This means that the labels, expectations, and attributions themselves are not the only determinants in strengthening selfconfidence to aspire for academic achievement (e.g. personal dispositions, encouragement of parents and friends without relying to labels, self-confidence gained from past achievements etc.). This state of moderateness should not weaken the idea on the effect of labels, expectations, and attributions on strengthening one’s self-confidence in aspiring for academic achievement, what matters is, they are still effectors and their effect exists (although moderately).
F. Perceived distance the Student-Respondents have between their selves and Academic Achievement
This was the researcher’s deliberate attempt to apply Georg Simmel’s theory of Distance and Value in the school setting (i.e. the labeling phenomena). The researcher thinks that meanings implied and/or communicated by positive and/or negative labels are suggestive on how student-respondents would determine their distance between themselves and academic achievement. p. 151
The researcher equated neglectable with the distance “too near” (see theoretical framework), attainable with the distance “not too near yet not too far,” and impossible with the distance “too far.” The prefix “very” in the options of item P2F only denotes a degree of difference in intensity (see footnote on p. 84) from the meanings of their root words. The word attainable implies exertion of considerable effort to get academic achievement; therefore, academic
achievement becomes a goal. Hierarchy of goals is different for every individual; therefore, academic achievement as a goal need not be the paramount goal for every individual. But the implicit meaning is that, academic achievement is still a goal, especially when someone describes his distance from it as attainable. Table 31: The student-respondents’ conception of distance between them and academic achievement (P2F)
Higher Section Students
Lower Section Students
2.57 30 respondents 19 respondents
N 82 respondents No answer: 8 respondents
Table 31 shows that there were 82 respondents in the HSSsbp and 30 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2F. Higher section students identified their distance from academic achievement as attainable (2.63). Lower section students also said the same (2.57). This implies that academic achievement for higher and lower section students was not too near (easy to obtain) yet not too far (difficult to obtain) from them (see theoretical framework). Considering the fact (established by previous discussions) that higher section student-respondents were secondary deviants p. 152
implies that labels, expectations, and attributes associated to them were suggestive to the student-respondents’ conception of distance between them and academic achievement. Thus, positive and high expecting labels such as matatalino, responsible, role model students etc. were suggesting HS student respondents’ that they were capable of attaining academic achievement. Negative labels, on the other hand, such as tamad, slow learners, bully, bobo etc. suggest lower section students (or other students who might be tagged with those) that they are incapable of attaining academic achievement, implying that academic achievement is impossible to reach and is far from them. Fortunately, the lower section-student respondents were primary deviants, thus, although labels associated to them convey negative meanings, they were trying to defy them. Previous tables (29 and 31) also imply that higher and (especially) lower section students have high self-efficacy. Myers (1999, p.50) described it as “a sense that [some]one is competent and effective, distinguished from self-esteem, one’s self worth.” The researcher thinks that high self-efficacy (belief on one’s potentialities even having low self-esteem) still is a manifestation of primary deviancy. Persistent belief on the self’s capabilities implies that the individual is not losing hope and is not totally surrendering to negative labels and expectations tagged/brought by the labelers to/for them (as exemplified by lower section student-respondents who agreed [3.77] that lower section students have hidden talents and skills and are only shy and lazy [3.90], see table 20).
G. The Student-Respondents on Motivation for Academic Achievement
It was mentioned in the theoretical framework that motivation in this research meant the persistence of behavior —the degree of aspiring for academic achievement and the degree the chosen behavior is undertaken—a student-respondent should have until academic achievement (goal) is reached. There is a need to consider these two factors (aspiration and persistence in behavior) in order for this research not to account for Robert Merton’s ritualism, thus, if a student is not aspiring for academic achievement but is studying (hard), he is a ritualist, meaning, he goes to school because it is part of his routine (or every day life), he is doing his assignments and projects just to comply with the requirements –in short, he does not see the activities at school as part of giving value to learning and knowledge and as very important preparations for a better life, the term “makagraduate lang” is indicative to such.
Ritualism is the second possible response to anomie. Here, people decide that they have little chance of attaining any significant success and so reject this as a goal. They remain, however, loosely committed to the conventional means. They simply go through the motions in a ritualistic way, with little or no commitment to the approved goal. (Chapter 2: Theories and theorizing, 2002, p.48)
The degree of aspiring for academic achievement was tackled in the previous subsection. This present subsection tackled how labels could have become contributory to the degree the chosen behavior is undertaken (if the behavior is persistent, long term, sustained). This caused the researcher to consider activities student-respondents were expected to be engaged in within the school setting.
Table 32: An inquiry if the labels strengthen the student-respondents’ self-confidence when doing activities at school (P2F.2)
Higher Section Students
Lower Section Students
3.06 34 respondents 15 respondents
N 83 respondents No answer: 7 respondents
Table 32 shows that there were 83 respondents in the HSSsbp and 34 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item F.2. Higher section studentrespondents said that the labels moderately (3.33) strengthen their selfconfidence in doing their activities at school. Lower section student-respondents also said that same (3.06). Similar to table 30, the researcher thinks that moderate strengthening of self-confidence is caused by the moderate labeling experienced by the studentrespondents (see table 23, 24, 25, & 26). Despite these, higher and lower section student-respondents were still consistent with the type of deviancy that they were engaged in. The table above only shows that labels, expectations, and attributions are existing and do have the capacity for strengthening the students’ self-confidence when performing activities at school, however, how often that strengthening takes place was described by the respondents as moderately.
Table 33: Frequencies student-respondents have on some selected academic activities when considering their labels of being higher or lower section students (P2F.3)
Selected school performance 1. I am studying hard 2. I am joining contests in my school 3. I am following the rules of my school 4.I am joining good organization s in my school
N NA: n
Higher Section Students
Mw Verbal Interpretation
N NA: n
Lower Section Students
Mw Verbal Interpretation
86 NA:4 84 NA:5 84 NA:5 82 NA:8
3.74 1.76 4.18
Always Sometimes Always
35 NA:14 32 NA:17 37 NA:12 32 NA:17
3.34 1.13 3.78
Moderate Rare Always
N refers to number of respondents, NA refers to No Answer Table 33 shows that there were 86 respondents in the HSSsbp and 35 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2F.3.1. Evident on the table is how higher section students, again, confirmed that they were secondary deviants. Since majority of the labels associated to higher section students are positive and high expecting (especially those pertaining to academic
performance), adhering to such, and making them as part of someone’s selfconcept require a somewhat consistent behavior (3.74, always) in actualizing them (including their aspiration for academic achievement, see table 29, 30, and 31). The table also affirmed that since lower section students were primary deviants and were aspiring for academic achievement (see table 29), they were also studying hard, although moderately (3.34). The two subsample populations
were not ritualistic, the research thinks, because they were both aspiring for academic achievement (table 29) and that they were engaged in studying hard (table 33) in order for them to attain academic achievement. Table 33 also shows that higher section student-respondents tended to be more engaged (1.76) in joining contests than the lower section studentrespondents (1.13). The two weighted means were small; suggesting thin both subsample populations were not that too engaged in joining contests within their school. The researcher thinks that this is because teachers or class presidents at least, are more likely to choose their most “valuable” (e.g. intelligent) student/classmate to represent their class in academic and non-academic contests within their school. It seems then that class representation in school contests is independent from the effects of labels. Table 33 also shows that higher and lower section student-respondents were always (4.18 and 3.78) following school rules. This affirms, again, that higher section students were secondary deviants (especially on the labels “role model students” and “disciplined students,” see table 19 % table 24). This also implies that lower section students were primary deviants, that is, despite the negative and low expecting words that were being tagged to them; they still follow the rules of the school (see table 20 & table 25). One could argue that following school rules is commonly ritualistic since students are likely to take-forgranted values held by the school in imposing specific school rules (e.g. peace and order, excellence etc.). Again, the argument has a point, but considering that labels suggest roles and expectations on how one should conduct on specific
settings (especially for secondary deviants) suggest that students are somehow (although not always) cognizant on these school values, however, implied in their act of “performing” their roles (e.g. students wearing ID indicating conformity in cherishing peace and order). Table 33 also shows that higher section student-respondents were more “inclined” (2.68: moderate) in joining good organizations in school than lower section student-respondents (1.63, sometimes). This again, affirms that higher section students were being secondary deviants, especially in their label “student leaders.” The researcher thinks that meanings conveyed by the labels account for the differences in frequencies of selected school activities student-respondents were engaged in. Positive, high expecting labels such as superior, role model, intelligent etc. tagged to higher section students suggest that they should be exerting much effort in attaining academic achievement than those exerted by average and lower section students (these labels also imply that higher section students should maintain their dominance over the other students). One could also account for the operation of intervening variables in the scene; especially the differences in teaching strategies (i.e. volume of work loads) teachers give to different types of learners (e.g. higher section students were prone to be given much assignments and research projects than other students, making them more focused on their lessons by spending more time in studying). Socioeconomic status could also be operant on these (e.g. poorer students might be involved in many household choirs than other well-to-do
students, thus, reducing their time to study). Subculture of friends (barkada) is another factor, because its members’ frequency of involvement in those academic activities might depend on the values and activities of their groups (e.g. barkadas might spend more time in by standing than by doing more productive activities). Table 34: If the Student-Respondents were motivated for academic achievement (P2G)
Higher Section Students
Lower Section Students
Motivated for academic achievement
Moderately motivated for academic achievement
N 83 respondents No answer: 7 respondents
34 respondents 15 respondents
Table 34 shows that there were 83 respondents in the HSSsbp and 34 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2G. The table shows that higher section students tend to be more motivated (3.76) in attaining academic achievement than lower section students (3.09). The researcher thinks that high expectations conveyed by positive labels to higher section students account for this. Lower section students, conversely, seem to be moderately motivated for academic achievement because of the low expectations conveyed by negative labels to lower section students. The researcher thinks that intervening variables i.e. teaching strategies and volume of workloads teachers give to different learners, subculture of friends [barkadas], and socioeconomic status were also operant on this, among others.
Table 35 attempted to verify if respondents of both subsample population were really motivated and were not just ritualistic. Table 35: Mapping on motivation
Student Respondents Table 27 extent the studentrespondents accept the labeling that they were experiencing Table 28 Subjective Academic Self-concept Table 29 Table 31 Table 33.1 StudentConception If the Respondents’ of distance respondents attitude on between were their selves and studying aspiration for academic hard academic achievement achievement Table 34 If respondents were motivated for academic achievement
Higher Accepted Positive section (Secondary students Deviant) Lower Undecided Indeterminate section (Primary students Deviant)
Table 34 affirms that the respondents were not ritualistic. It also shows that higher section students were more motivated for academic achievement than lower section students. The variation on answers by the two subsample populations became evident in table 32. no.1. Aside from the operation of certain intervening variables cited in discussing table 29, the researcher thinks that structural constraints could also account for this variation, meaning, in the social relationships where students are involved, there are factors and circumstances which constrain or enable higher and lower section students to be motivated for academic achievement, such as when high expectations from teachers, parents, classmates, other students etc. are expressed (materialized) by differently treating higher and lower section students in different situations (e.g. in programs [one respondent said that higher section students are likely to be near the stage than other students], in the allocation of different social resources [good
opportunities are likely to be given to higher section students], and even in more face-to-face interactions [teachers could be more friendly, interested, and selfgiving to students whom they perceive as intelligent than others]). Although the latter discussion did not debunk that the higher and lower section student-respondents were motivated for academic achievement (and were consistent in their being secondary and primary deviants), the reader was also exposed to the idea that motivation is so complex that no specific variable solely determines it. This research is consistent in claiming that the meanings implied by the labels, expectations, and attributes contribute to the degree the student-respondents were motivated for academic achievement.
H. 1 The Student-Respondents and their Immediate Social Sphere of Interaction
Labels, expectations, and attributions are likely to be
communicated/expressed to students through their interactions with other people within specific social contexts; thus, there is a need to access if the labels affect some social relationships within these contexts (i.e. immediate and nonimmediate social sphere of interaction). Immediate social sphere, in this research, refers to social space most likely occupied by groups of people individuals (i.e. respondents) are most likely to have immediate influence. These are groups of people which individuals are more likely to be with in their everyday lives. Due to frequent (or sustained) contact (person-to-person), individuals could influence the way groups work, as well as be influenced by the ways groups work. In this research, groups of people p. 161
within an individual’s immediate social sphere are the friends, the families, and the teachers. Table 36: Labels, expectations, attributions, and the sectioning-issue as possible effectors within the respondents’ immediate social sphere of interaction (P2H.A.1, 2, 3, & 4) Higher Section Students
Consequence 1. If the labels affect the choice of friends 2. If the labels etc. unify the respondents’ class 3. If their teachers compare the respondents’ section with other sections that they were handling 4. If the sectioning issue affects the respondents’ family relationship.
N NA: n Frequency (Mw) Mw Verbal Interpretation
Lower Section Students
N / (%) Frequency (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
84 NA: 6 85 NA: 5 83 NA: 7
42 NA: 7
46 NA: 3
82 NA: 8
43 NA: 6
N refers to number of respondents, NA refers to No Answer Table 36 shows that there were 84 respondents in the HSSsbp and 42 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2HA.1. The first row shows that higher section students tend to be rarely (1.02) influenced by the labels and its associated attributions and expectations when choosing friends. Lower section students, conversely, were sometimes (1.81) influenced by labels in choosing friends. It seems that lower section students tend to be more sensitive on what p. 162
section-status a person belongs before considering him/her as a friend than higher section students. This implies that lower section students tend to be more affected by the labels than higher section students when choosing friends. Table 36 also shows that there were 85 respondents in the HSSsbp and 37 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2HA.2. As shown in the second row, both higher and lower section students were sometimes (2.47 & 1.86) unified solely by their labels. It seems also that there are other unifiers other than student-labels, such as sole camaraderie among classmates, cooperation against a common enemy such as (other) teachers or other students. Also, one should not neglect occasional misunderstanding within each section which could be detrimental, in some cases, to their solidarity. The researcher thinks that labels could be unifying in times of comparisons and contests between sections. This could be unifying since it enables students to know “which side of the fence they belong” and “which to focus their attention and efforts in eliminating their rivals.” Table 36 shows that 83 respondents in the HSSsbp and 46 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2HA.3. The third row shows that higher section students tend to experience frequent comparisons (3.65, always) by their teachers with the other higher/lower sections that they were handling than the lower section students (3.30, moderate). When they were asked whether comparisons were beneficial to them or not, they gave varied dispositions.
Table 37: If comparisons were beneficial to the respondents (P2HA.3.b) Attitude Favorable Fair Unfavorable 100% No answer Higher Section Students Lower Section Students 28.79% 22.58% 24.24% 45.16% 46.97% 32.26% (66) (31) 16 15
Table 37 shows that of the 83 respondents in the HSSsbp who said that they were always being compared by their teachers with the other sections (table 35, 3rd row); only 66 respondents answered item P2HA.3.b. Majority (46.97% or 31respondents) of them said that those comparisons were unfavorable to them, 28.79% (19 respondents) considered it favorable on their part, and 24.24% (16 respondents) said that the comparisons were fair. Those who took the unfavorable side mostly tackled about the pressures brought to them by comparisons (e.g. one respondent said “kasi tingin ng ibang teachers perpekto na ang nasa higher section kaya pagnagkamali lagot!, another said “hindi ko alam, minsan nga feeling ko natotorture ako mentally”), some were admitting their shortcomings which might have caused their teachers to compare them to other sections (e.g. some respondents said “minsan may nagagawa silang hindi namin kaya” and “kasi minsan may ugali rin kaming pang lower section”), while others have seen comparisons as beneficial to them (e.g. answers like “pinapahiwatig ng mga guro na itaas pa namin yung kung anong meron kami” , “sa pamamagitan ng pagkukumpara, nalalaman namin kung ano ang babaguhin,” and “kasi mas mataas tingin samin kaysa sa mga lower sections”). Table 37 also shows that of the 46 respondents who experienced comparison by their teachers to other sections (table 36, 3rd row), only 31 p. 164
respondents answered item P2HA.3.b. Majority (45.16% or 14 respondents) of them felt that the comparisons were just, 32.26% perceived those as unfavorable, and 22.58% felt that comparisons were favorable on their side. Those who take the just side saw means which they think were justifiable bases as to why they were being compared (e.g. “dahil sa grades” and “dahil mahina kaming umintindi ng mga itinuturo sa amin”), these were similar to the responses of students who saw comparisons as beneficial to them (e.g. “kasi pagnalelabel ka, mag-aaral ka talaga”), others, however, saw comparisons as manifestations in demeaning them (e.g. “kasi, kahit hindi kami ganon, ganon yung sinasabi at tingin nila,” “kasi sila daw matalino, kami makulet at magulo...bobo pa!,” “nakakababa ng loob,” and “nakakaasar din po minsan”). In compliance to section E, Chapter 3, analysis of pattern of social interaction (PSI) regarding student-respondents-their teachers relationship, table 38 was presented below. Table 38: Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of Student-Respondents’ section with their teachers (P2H.B.4)
% in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Competition 48.61 2.89 Conflict 47.22 2.32 Cooperation 80.56 3.72 Differentiation 50 3.47 Superior 34.72 Domi 3.44 nation: Subordinate 38.89 3.71 Toleration 22.22 2.75 100% (72) No answer 18 respondents This table was not percentaged down
Always Moderate Moderate Always Moderate
Analysis for LSSsbp is void. N does not meet the acceptance level.
(26) 23 respondents
Table 38 shows that there were 72 respondents in the HSSsbp who answered item P2HB.4, majority (80.56% or 58 respondents) of them selected cooperation as their PSI with their teachers which was occurring always (3.72), 50% (36 respondents) said that they have differentiation as their PSI with their teachers occurring moderately (3.47), 48.61% (35 respondents) identified competition as their PSI with their teachers occurring moderately (2.89), 47.22% (34 respondents) identified conflict as occurring sometimes (2.32), 38.89% ( 28 respondents) rightly identified that they were always (3.71) subordinate under their teachers, and 34.72% (25 respondents) believed that they were moderately (3.44) superior over their teachers. Despite the higher section students’ “unfair” description on their condition when they being compared by their teachers with the other higher/lower sections that they were handling (see table 37), table 38 shows that higher section students and their teachers were always in cooperation with each other when doing their activities at school. The researcher was not able to derive the PSI of lower section students with their teachers since the number of respondents in the LSSsbp did not meet the acceptance level. Going back to table 36, there were 82 respondents in the HSSsbp and 43 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered P2HA.4 (row 4). As shown in the table, higher and lower section students rarely (1.23 & 1.19) experienced the labels, attributes, and expectations as affecting their family relationships. The
researcher thinks that family support received by the students was somewhat independent of the labels the student have.
H.2 The Student-Respondents and their Non-immediate Social Sphere of Interaction (General Audience)
Non-immediate social sphere of interaction are composed of groups of people outside the immediate influence/contact of individuals. These groups of people are most likely to rely and/or build their inferences on typifications (e.g. labels, stereotypes) when considering (talking) certain characteristics about groups of people (e.g. student-respondents) whom they do not personally know. Some groups of people included in this research which the researcher thinks are outside the “immediate scope of interaction of the majority of the
respondents/students” are the other students, other teachers, and the school administration (collectively called general audience). The following were patterns of social interaction (PSI) that were operationally defined in this research: 1. Competition – (Kompetisyon) happens if there are two or more groups which compete to achieve a common goal (e.g. winning a contest, valuable resources, to get the attention or sympathy of a valuable person [or the majority of the population] etc.). Competition has rules (e.g. sportsmanship) unlike conflict. 2. Conflict – (Away) rules of competition are broken as opposing parties become openly antagonistic with each other. Physical (e.g. hitting),
verbal (e.g. nagging), and mental (e.g. moral damages) abuses may be involved. 3. Cooperation – (Kooperasyon) a harmonious relationship of mutual dependence with one another for their common improvement. 4. Differentiation –in order to lessen if not avoid conflict, authorities (e.g. teachers, group leaders, admin) give equally appearing (but different) “goals” to each group so they would not compete for the same thing. Specialization on certain field of endeavour (division of labor) could also be described as a form of differentiation.44 5. Domination –happens when one party sees the other party as inferior (subordinate) of them (superior). 6. Toleration –parties co-exists without care with one another since they practice the “live and the let live policy.”
According to Panopio et. al. (2004, p.197) “differentiation of social status, life-style, and prestige leads to the creation of subcultures as well as the development of social stratification.”
Table 39: Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of Student-Respondents’ section with other higher section students (P2HB.1)
% in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Competition 79.01 3.72 Conflict 48.15 1.92 Cooperation 65.43 3.70 Differentiation 50.62 3.80 Superior 44.44 Domi 3.58 nation: Subordinate 16.05 3.15 Toleration 30.86 3.16 100% (81) No answer 9 respondents This table was not percentaged down
Always Always Always Moderate Moderate
82.76 2.63 Moderate 65.52 2.21 Sometimes 75.86 2.77 Moderate 55.17 2.94 Moderate 13.79 4.25 Always 31.03 3.22 Moderate 34.48 2.70 Moderate (29) –special case – 20 respondents
Table 39 shows that 81 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2HB.1. Majority (79.01% or 64 respondents) of them said that the PSI Competition was always (3.72) occurring among higher section students, 65.43% (53 respondents) said that it was actually cooperation which was always (3.70) occurring among higher section students, 50.62% (41 respondents) said that higher section students were always (3.80) being differentiated from each other, 48.15% (39 respondents) said that sometimes (1.92) higher section students were engaged in conflict with each other, 44.44% (36 respondents) claimed that they were always (3.58) superior than other higher section students (possibly these were respondents from section Alexander), 30.86% (25 respondents) said that higher section students treat each other in moderate (3.16) toleration, and 16.05% (13 respondents) felt that they were subordinate with other higher section students (possibly these were respondents from section Constantine).
Table 39 also shows that 29 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2HB.1. Majority (82.76% or 24 respondents) of them said that competition could be moderately (2.63) found between them and higher section students, 75.86% (22 respondents) said that cooperation also could be moderately (2.77) found between them and higher section students, 65.52% (19 respondents) recognized that sometimes (2.21) there were conflicts between them and the higher section students, 55.17% (16 respondents) said that they were moderately (2.94) being differentiated from each other, 34.48% (10 respondents) said that they moderately (2.70) treat higher section students with toleration, 31.03% (9 respondents) said that they felt moderately (3.22) subordinate with the higher section students, and 13.79% (4 respondents) felt that they were always (4.25) superior to higher section students. Table 39 only shows that higher section students tend to be always competing with other higher section students, while lower section students tend to see themselves in moderate competition with higher section students.
Table 40: Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of Student-Respondents’ section with other lower section students (P2HB.2)
% in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Competition 58.82 2.93 Conflict 52.94 2.72 Cooperation 60.29 2.93 Differentiation 51.47 3.09 Superior 41.18 Domi 3.39 nation: Subordinate 14.71 3.40 Toleration 38.24 3.15 100% (68) No answer 22 respondents This table was not percentaged down
Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
77.42 2.88 64.52 2.55 67.74 2.19 54.84 2.47 9.68 3.0 29.03 2.22 51.61 2.13 (31) 18 respondents
Table 40 shows that 68 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2HB.2. Majority (60.29% or 41 respondents) of them identified cooperation as a moderately (2.93) existing PSI with lower section students, 58.82% (40 respondents) said that competition with lower section students was moderately (2.93) existing, 52.94% (36 respondents) said that conflict was moderately (2.72) existing between higher and lower section students, 51.47% (35 respondents) said that higher and lower section students were differentiated from each other, 41.18% (28 respondents) of them said that they were moderately (3.39) superior than lower section students, 38.24% (26 respondents) said that they moderately (3.15) treat lower section students with toleration, and 14.71% (10 respondents) of them felt that they were moderately (3.40) subordinated with lower section students. Table 40 also shows that 31 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2HB.2. Majority (77.42% or 24 respondents) of them said that lower section p. 171
students were moderately (2.88) in competition with each other, 67.74% (21 respondents) said that lower section students were sometimes (2.19) cooperating with one another, 64.52% (20 respondents) said that conflict could be moderately (2.55) found among lower section students, 54.84% (17 respondents) said that lower section students were sometimes (2.47) differentiated with one another, 51.61% (16 respondents) have sometimes (2.13) treated other lower section students with toleration, 29.03% (9 respondents) recognized that they were sometimes (2.22) being subordinated by other lower section students (possibly these were respondents from section Hadrian), and 9.68% (3 respondents) said that they were superior than other lower section students (possibly these were respondents from section Antoninus). Basically, the table implies a contradiction of what higher and lower section students perceived with (fellow) lower section students. Higher section students have lower section students as their co-operators, while lower section students saw themselves as moderately competing with one another. However, considering that a significant percentage of HSSsbp (58.82%) answered competition, the researcher thinks that higher section students also tend to see themselves as in competition with lower section students. Considering table 40, the researcher thinks that higher and lower section students tend to see themselves competing with one another.
Table 41: Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of Student-Respondents’ section with the middle/average section students (P2HB.3)
% in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Competition 70.59 3.35 Conflict 52.94 2.36 Cooperation 67.65 3.04 Differentiation 55.88 3.18 Superior 45.59 Domi 3.16 nation: Subordinate 13.24 3.11 Toleration 42.65 3.03 100% (68) No answer 22 respondents This table was not percentaged down
Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
62.07 2.83 Moderate 62.07 2.56 Moderate 62.07 2.83 Moderate 44.83 2.08 Sometimes 6.90 3.0 Moderate Sometimes 34.48 2.0 34.48 2.60 Moderate (29) –special case – 20 respondents
Table 41 shows that 68 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2HB.3. Majority (70.59% or 48 respondents) identified competition as moderately (3.35) existing between higher and middle/average section students, 67.65% (46 respondents) said that there was cooperation between higher and middle section students but that its frequency was only moderate (3.04), 55.88% (38 respondents) said that higher and middle section students were moderately (3.18) differentiated, 52.94% (36 respondents) said that higher section students were sometimes (2.36) having conflict with middle section students, 45.59% (31 respondents) said that higher section students were moderately (3.16) superior than middle section students, 42.65% ( 29 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.03) treating middle section students with toleration, and 13.24% (9 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.11) subordinate with the middle section students.
Table 41 also shows that 29 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item P2HB.3. Majority (62.07% or 18 respondents) of them said that lower section students were moderately (2.83 & 2.56) in competition, in conflict, and in cooperation with middle section students, 44.83% (13 respondents) said that lower and middle section students were sometimes (2.08) differentiated with one another, 34.48% (10 respondents) said that lower section students were sometimes (2.0) subordinated by middle section students, the same percentage of respondents also said that they moderately (2.60) treated middle section students with toleration, and 6.90% (2 respondents) said that they felt
moderately (3.0) superior with middle section students. Table 41 only shows that higher section students tend to have competition as their PSI with middle section students, and that lower section students tend to have competition, conflict, and cooperation as their PSI with middle section students.
Table 42: Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of Student-Respondents’ section with other teachers (P2HB.5)
% in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Competition 52.17 3.06 Conflict 44.93 2.16 Cooperation 76.81 3.43 Differentiation 57.97 3.25 Superior 30.43 Domi 3.10 nation: Subordinate 31.88 3.27 Toleration 31.88 3.01 100% (69) No answer 21 respondents This table was not percentaged down
Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Analysis for LSSsbp is void. N does not meet the acceptance level.
(24) 25 respondents
Table 42 shows that 69 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2HB.5. Majority (76.81% or 53 respondents) of them have cooperation as a moderately (3.43) existing PSI with faculty members that were not their teachers, 57.97% (40 respondents) said that higher section students and “other teachers” were moderately (3.25) differentiated from one another, 52.17% (36
respondents) said that there was moderate (3.06) competition between higher section students and “other teachers,” 44.93% (31 respondents) said that higher section students and “other teachers” were sometimes (2.16) in conflict with one another, 31.88% (22 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.27) subordinated by “other teachers,” the same percentage said that they treat other faculty members with moderate (3.01) toleration, while 30.43% (21 respondents) even believed that they were moderately (3.10) superior than other teachers. Table 42 only shows that higher section students were moderately in cooperation with faculty members that were not their teachers.
The researcher was not able to derive the PSI of lower section students with “other teachers” since the number of respondents in the LSSsbp did not meet the acceptance level. Table 43: Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of Student-Respondents’ section with the school administration (P2HB.6)
% in HSS sbp
Higher Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
% in LSS sbp
Lower Section Students
Frequen cy (Mw)
Mw Verbal Interpretation
Competition 41.27 2.58 Conflict 39.68 1.72 Cooperation 74.60 3.60 Differentiation 42.86 3.0 Superior 26.98 Domi 2.94 nation: Subordinate 30.16 3.47 Toleration 26.98 2.82 100% (63) No answer 27 respondents This table was not percentaged down
Always Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Analysis for LSSsbp is void. N does not meet the acceptance level.
(19) 30 respondents
Table 43 shows that 63 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2HB.6. Of them, majority (74.60% or 47 respondents) said that they were always (3.60) having cooperation with the school administration, 42.86% (27 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.0) differentiated with the school administration, 41.27% (26 respondents) said that they were moderately (2.58) in competition with the school administration, 39.68% (25 respondents) said that they were sometimes (1.72) in conflict with the school administration, 30.16% (19 respondents) recognized their moderate (3.47) subordination by the school administration while 26.98% (17 respondents) even claimed that they were moderately (2.94) superior than the school administrators, the same percentage
said that higher section students moderately (2.28) treat the administrators in toleration.
Table 43 only shows that higher section students were always in cooperation with the school administration. The researcher was not able to derive the PSI of lower section students with the school administration since the number of respondents in the LSSsbp did not meet the acceptance level. As said in the beginning of this part, people usually rely on typifications (stereotypes, labels, expectations, and attributions) when considering people whom they do not personally know (or have least personal contact). The conception of typifications somehow affects how a person would (see) relate to another person (who he has typified i.e. labeled, attributed, expected). These typifications need not be true in the real context; however, it is in the minds of the people relying on typifications which make those typifications to become materialized (through their actions) at least, in this research, on their social relationships (Definition of the Situation, see theoretical construct.). Prominence of typifications as well as relying on them depends on, the researcher thinks, C. H. Cooley’s theory on stratification, specifically little communication and enlightenment (e.g. higher and lower section students could have perceived those PSIs to other students, other teachers, and the school administration because they have little contact with each other, hence, entailing a big probability on little enlightenment with the true characteristics of each other [e.g. students
could perceive other students, other teachers, and school administrators as their enemies where in fact they were not]),
I. The Student-Respondents’ Social Self-Concepts
As stated in chapter 1 and 3, this research made the determination of the student-respondents’ social self-concepts as solely based on the pattern of social interaction (PSI) that they have chosen when considering some in-school social relationships in P2HB (non-immediate social sphere) items (see also footnote in p.25). Table 44: The Student-Respondents’ Self-concepts based on the patterns of social interaction identified by them within their in-school non-immediate social sphere In-school relationships Between their section and other higher section students Between their section and other lower section students Between their section and the middle/average section students Between their section and their teachers Between their section and other teachers Between their section and the school administration Higher Section Students’ social self-concept Competitor (always) Competitor Co-operator (moderate) Competitor (moderate) Lower Section Students’ social self-concepts Competitor (moderate) Competitor (moderate) Competitor In conflict Co-operator (moderate) Data insufficient Data insufficient
Co-operator (always) Co-operator (moderate) Co-operator (always)
As shown in table 44 first row, higher and lower section studentrespondents were both being competitors when considering (other) higher section students. Implied in the table is that higher section students tend to be p. 178
more competing to other higher section students than lower section students do. Competition for academic achievement was seen as their common goal. Through excellence and sustained (good) academic performance, they try to eliminate one another. Competing for academic achievements implicitly caused them to compete for the social prestige accompanied by academic achievements. Sustained good academic performance, as their way of eliminating others, also has the latent function of maintaining them at the top of the student-hierarchy (e.g. sustained studying hard consequentially results to high grades and academic gains which enabled them to be higher section students for 2 or more years, see table 13). With regards to the lower section students, aside from academic competition with higher section students, they also seem to compete for attention and prestige higher section students enjoyed from their teachers and the school administrators. Table 44 (second row) also shows that higher section students tend to view lower section students as their co-operators (although row 1 implies that lower section students tend to compete with them). The row also shows that lower section students were also competing with each other. Third row of table 44 shows that higher section students have social selfconcepts of moderately being competitor with middle section students. Lower section students, on the other hand, tend to have varying self-concepts of being moderately competitor, in-conflict, and being co-operator with/of middle section students. It seems that majority of the lower section students do not constantly
see middle section students as competing with them (unlike higher section students). The fourth, fifth, and sixth rows show that higher section students saw themselves as co-operators with their teachers, other teachers, and the school administration (e.g. in striving for excellence and in following school rules). Data insufficient for LSSsbp, hence, the researcher could not derive their social selfconcepts. Applying G. H. Mead’s idea that people act in accord with their selfconcepts, the researcher thinks that the student-respondents social self-concepts were the reasons as to why higher and lower section students tend to have varying attitudes/treatment/behaviors with themselves, their teachers, the other students, the other teachers, and the school administrators. The researcher thinks that as long as in-school relationships were not improved, true cooperation could not be achieved.
J. Benefits of the present student-sectioning
Table 45: An inquiry if the respondents find homogenous studentsectioning and the labeling that they were experiencing beneficial for their personal development (P2I)
Higher Section Students
Lower Section Students
2.22 32 respondents 17 respondents
N 76 respondents No answer: 14 respondents
Table 44 shows that there were 76 respondents in the HSSsbp and 32 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2I. Higher section studentp. 180
respondents tend to view homogenous student sectioning and the labeling as moderately (3.24) beneficial to them. Their reasons imply that through sectioning and labeling, one would be able to know his/her abilities and skills; that sectioning and labeling makes the identification of someone clear as to where he/she belongs; that it was homogenous student-sectioning and the labeling which caused him/her to study hard (responses such as “nachachallenge kami/ako na patunayan sa sarili ko na kaya ko,” “kasi nakikilala ka at napapagaya din sa mga kaklase na mag-aral ng mabuti,” “para mahasa ang isip ko saka madagdagan ang kaibigan kong matatlino,” and “dahil nagtulak sa akin na matutong lumaban para sa pangarap ko”); that it was in homogenous student sectioning and labeling which informs someone that he/she is superior (prestige indicator, responses such as “dahil masaya ako sa section ko...at hindi mababa ang tingin sa akin ng mga schoolmates ko,” and “kasi maraming opportunities na naibibigay”); The researcher thinks that the results became moderate because there were also respondents who recognized that it was not on sectioning and labeling which determines the capacities of individuals (responses such as “lahat naman pantay-pantay, walang bobo”); that homogenous student-sectioning and labeling were sometimes not beneficial and detrimental on their part (responses such as “hindi rin masyadong masaya kasi puro kompetensya na minsan nagiging sanhi ng pag-aaway,” and “kasi yung iba sinasabi na mayayabang daw kasi hindi na daw namamansin”), others did not give their reasons. Lower section students, on the other hand, viewed the present studentsectioning and the labeling that they were experiencing as sometimes (2.22)
beneficial to them. Reason such as “kasi dito natututo kung papaano makakaangat sa aking buhay,” “para pantay-pantay kami sa room,” “kasi kung nasa lower section ka, pagnalelabel ka, mag-aaral ka talaga ng mabuti tulad ng ginagawa ko ngayon,” “naisip ko na kahit anong section dapat maging pantaypantay ang pagtingin...,” “mas mabuti nang mapunta ka sa kung saan ka dapat nararapat,” “dahil dito minsan gusto kong pahalagahan ang aking pag-aaral at magsumikap ng unti,” and “maganda narin yung ganun kasi...sabi ng ibang tao, nakakahawa daw ang taong tamad kaya ayaw na po naming silang idamay pa kasi alam namin na ganun kami.” Others, however, were negative on their views, such as “doon kasi nagsisimula ang away,” “dahil ito ang dahilan kung bakit maraming mag-aaral na may low-self esteem,” and “parang nakakainsulto... ang paglelabel parehas lang naman tayong estudyante...” Many did not give their reasons. It is somewhat clear now that Homogenous student-sectioning has the manifest function of facilitating administration and learning of students. Latent function includes its enabling process to inform students which side of the fence they belong. The stratification of sections created by it seems to be a reward system among students, since students with excellent performance were likely to be placed to prestigious higher sections unlike poor performing students. This informs (through labels) what types of behavior (roles) students are expected to perform at school (to show, homogenous student-sectioning has the latent function of enabling, through high expectations, higher section students to maintain [retain], through exerting more and sustained effort, their superior
positions of being at the higher sections). Homogenous student-sectioning implicitly implies the perpetuation of negative labels, expectations, and attributions through tagging (labeling) lower section students with such. The existence of those (i.e. tagging with negative labels) is a dysfunction which could cause lower section students to have low self-esteems (to develop inferiority complex, etc. It is a dysfunction because the meanings implied and conveyed by those labels are explicitly contradictory to what education should do for low achieving students i.e. “those who lag behind...” see p. 47). As Oakes and Guiton in 1995, and Page in 1991 (as cited by Slavin, 2003, p. 298-300) put it, “most damaging effect of tracking is its stigmatizing effect on students who are assigned to low tracks [lower sections]; the message these students get is that academic success is not within their capabilities.” Other dysfunctions include feelings of envy, insecurity and animosity with other students not within someone’s fence. The review of related literature claims that it is a threat to democracy since, according to Congelosi (1999, p.94) “labeling suggests elitism” and to Ballantine (1997, p.120), through homogenous student-sectioning, “we are creating an elite intelligentsia.” To balance views and emotions, one may consider the article below.
...yet if ability is considered regardless of other factors... we are developing and utilizing needed resources…(Ballantine, 1997, p.120) [--training and utilizing the most gifted members of our society]
It is now on the part of the reader to decide whether homogenous studentsectioning is beneficial to the students and is not in-conflict with our cherished democratic principles of “equality and justice.”
Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This research is a descriptive, survey research. Its concern is on labeling as a consequence of homogenous student-sectioning and its subsequent effects on students’ aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, academic and social self-concept, and social interactions. Through interrelated theories of Labeling (Edwin Lemert), Distance and Value (Georg Simmel), and Stratification (C. H. Cooley), the researcher was able to formulate ten specific research problems. To answer specific problems, the researcher has formulated
(operationalization) more specific questions (items) laid in on a five-page questionnaire. This became the major data gathering tool for this research. The respondents were (stratified-systematic) randomly selected among senior morning shift students from the three highest and three lowest senior sections of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School SY 08-09. The data gathering period was on January 5 to 9, 2009. Responses were tabulated. Data were interpreted with reference to the theoretical framework and ideas gained from the review of related literature. It was on these analyses and interpretations were conclusions were drawn.
1. On the profile of the student-respondents: a. Majority of them were female but considerable percentages of subsample populations were male. b. Higher section students tended to be younger than lower section students. c. On socioeconomic status, majority of the student-respondents were basically poor, with annual family income ranging from Php 60,000-99,999. However, lower section students were poorer than higher section students. Majority of the student-respondents have five or less number of household members (average size), considerable percentages have six or more. Despite poverty, majority of the student-respondents were not working. d. On academic profile, majority of the respondents spent ten years of study since grade one, a small percentage of lower section student-respondents spent eleven (or more) years. Majority of higher section student-respondents have third year averages ranging from 80 to 89% while majority of lower section student-respondents have third year averages ranging from 75-79%. Majority of the student-respondents have no back subjects, while a small percentage of lower section student-respondents do have. Majority of the student respondents have spent two to four years at their respective statussection. Majority of the student-respondents have not participated in any school wide activities (indicated in this study) since first year. Data showed that higher section students tended to have dominated the academic arena while lower section students tended to have dominated the non-academic
(more bodily activities) side inside and/or outside the school. Majority of the student-respondents did not receive any awards during their study at JCMPHS. However, further analysis revealed that higher section students tended to receive achievements (awards) on academic and non academic contests held inside and outside the school than lower section students (non academic, outside the school). 2. Students at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School were homogenously sectioned. Previous grades (performance) were the basis in assigning students to higher, middle (average), and lower sections. Homogenous student-sectioning was chosen to raise the academic performance of students through teaching them based on their (perceived) ability to learn and comprehend lessons. 3. Expectations and attributions associated to higher and lower section students were presented. Data proved that these expectations are existing and are somewhat being used to describe higher and lower section students. Expectations and attributions for higher section students convey positive meanings unlike those for lower section students. This implies that higher section students occupy a prestigious position in the student-hierarchy, unlike lower section students (disadvantaged position). 4. Higher and lower section student-respondents tended to accept the section they presently belong. It was found out that respondents of both subsample population were respectively labeled based on the section-status they belong. The labelers were specified. It was clear that expectations and attributions
associated to higher and lower section students became labels through the act of tagging. Higher section students tended to be labeled by the labelers with positive, high expecting words, while lower section students tended to be labeled with (mostly) negative, low expecting words. Data were consistent that higher section students tended to accept the labels being tagged to them (hence, were secondary deviants) while lower section students tended to be indeterminate on their attitudes on the labels being tagged to them (hence, were primary deviants). Further, higher section students tended to have positive subjective academic self-concepts unlike lower section students (indeterminate subjective academic self-concepts). 5. It was found out thin both higher and lower section students were aspiring for academic achievement. Both were moderately being strengthened by their respective labels to aspire for academic achievement. 6. Both higher and lower section students answered attainable as their description of distance between them and academic achievement i.e. “not to near yet not too far.” They perceive academic achievement as attainable through rendering considerable effort for it. 7. In doing activities at school, the self-confidence of both higher and lower section students tended to be moderately strengthened by the labels tagged to them. Higher section students tended to be more studying hard than lower section students. Higher section students tended to be more motivated for academic achievement than lower section students
8. Social-sphere of interactions: a. Within the immediate social-sphere of interactions, labels do not largely affect the choice of friends of higher and lower section students. Labels sometimes function as unifiers among higher and lower section students of the same section. Higher section students tended to view their condition as "unfair" unlike lower section students (who responded "fair") when they were being compared by their teachers with other higher and/or lower sections that they were handling. Despite their feelings of unfairness when comparison happens, higher section students tended to be in-cooperation with their teachers while doing activities at school. Labels rarely affect the family relationships of higher and lower section students. b. Within the non-immediate social sphere, higher and lower section students tended to be (always, moderately) in-competition with (other) higher section students. Both higher and lower section students tended to be moderately in competition with (other) lower section students (majority in the HSSsbp, however, chose cooperation as their PSI with lower section students). Higher and lower section students tended to be moderately in-competition with middle section students, further more, lower section students also tended to be moderately cooperating and moderately in-conflict with lower section students. Higher section students tended to be in-cooperation with other teachers and the school administration. 9. Higher and lower section students tended to be competitors (as their social self-concepts) with the (other) higher, middle, and (other) lower section
students. They tended to be co-operators with their teachers, other teachers, and the school administration. 10. Higher section students tended to view homogenous student-sectioning and the labeling that they were experiencing as moderately beneficial for their personal development, lower section students, on the other hand, only felt its being beneficial sometimes.
1. Positive and negative labels, expectations, and attributions were being used (through tagging and acts of discrimination), and their effects were being perpetuated, by the students, parents, and teachers boxed in a school (education) system using homogenous student-sectioning45 (between-class ability grouping, tracking). Thus, there is a need to re-evaluate (re-access) the costs and benefits of the practice among students and teachers. Its efficacy on raising academic performance of students should also be re-evaluated. 2. There are many (foreign) adherents of untracking students. They have offered within-class ability grouping instead of tracking. The researcher thinks that it’s time to evaluate, test, and indigenize46 their claims. 3. Sociologists, Psychologists, and Educators are being called to retest/validate the theory to other public elementary and secondary schools in the country. The researcher suggests that methodological and theoretical triangulation should be used in doing so.
And those, as the theory claims, practicing mixtures of homogenous-heterogeneous studentsectioning 46 if school administrators would think of adopting it
Babbie, E. (2001). The Practice of Social Research, 9th ed., Stanford: Wadsworth Thompson Learning Inc. Ballantine, J. H. (1997). The Sociology of Education: A Systematic Analysis, 4th ed., New Jersey: Printice Hall Inc. Bernstein, D. A. & Nash, P. W. (999). Essentials of Psychology, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Brinkerhoff, D. B., White, L. K., Ortega, S. T., & Weitz, R. (2002). Essentials of Sociology, 5th ed., Belmont, California: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning Inc. Cangelosi, J. S. (1999). Classroom Management Strategies: Gaining and Maintaining Students’ Cooperation, 2nd ed., Whiteplains, New York: Longman Publishing Group. Ceñidoza, M. A. (2004). Isang Pag-aaral sa mga Nabansagang Student at Risk na mga Piling Estudyante sa Ikatlong Taon sa Vicente Madrigal National High School sa Pantok, Binangonan, Rizal, Unpublished Undergraduate’s Thesis, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila. Cole, S. (1976). The Sociological Method, 2nd ed., Chicago: Randy McNally College Publishing Company. Colon, S. M. (2002). General Sociology: A Simplified Approach, Quezon City: National Book Store Inc. Collins Student’s Dictionary. (2004). Glasgow, Great Britain: HarperCollins Publishers. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Crow, I. (2006). Inferential Statistics. In V. Jupps (Ed.), The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 147-149 Cruz, I. A. (1999, May 3). Quality Education as Key to Success, Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. 8 Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (1995, October). Philosophy of Education. Facts and Figures on Philippine Education, p.12 Doctolero, D. L. (1995). Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement in Mathematics, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Baguio Colleges Foundation, Baguio City. Duag, M. (2006). Sulong Batasan. Salindiwa: Ang Opisyal na Pahayagang Pangkampus ng Mataas na Paaralan ng Batasan Hills, June-December issue, V (2), pp. 10-11 Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1997). Anthropology, 8th ed., Singapore: PrenticeHall Inc. Freire, P. (1985). The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation, translated by Donaldo Macedo, Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey Publisher Inc. Geddes’ and Grossets’ Universal Webster’s Dictionary. (1993). New Lanark, Scotland: Tormont Publications Inc.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future, New York: Mc Graw-Hill Inc. Harris, M. (2001). Cultural Anthropology, 5th ed., Singapore: Pearson Education Asia Pte. Ltd. Hawkins, R. & Tiedeman, G. (1975). The Creation of Deviance: Interpersonal and Organizational Determinants, Ohio: Charles E. Merril Publishing Company and A. Bell and Howell Company. Hernandez, J. R. (1995). An Assessment of Classroom Discipline Style among Intermediate Teachers in public and private schools of Calamba, Laguna, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Philippine Normal University, Manila. Hoge, R. D. (1979). The Teacher Expectation Effect: An Attempt at Clarification. Retrieved, November 6, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ED183264 Horton, P. B., & Hunt, C. L. (1985). Sociology, Mandaluyong City: Mc Graw-Hill International Book Company Jimenez, J. F. (2007). Kakilala System, The Catalyst, 22 (1), p. 14 Johnson, A. L. (1986). Human Arrangements: An Introduction to Sociology, Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanich Inc. Labuguen, S. M. (1968). Problems of Stars and Isolates among grade six pupils in Quirino Elementary School, Quezon City. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Philippine Normal College, Manila. Light, D. Jr. & Keller, S. (1982). Sociology, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc. Lumpkins, B., Parker, F., & Hall, H. (January-February, 1991). Instructional Equity for Low Achievers in Elementary School Mathematics. The Journal of Education Research, 83 (3), 135. Mante, F. M. (1996). An Application of the Partial Credit Model of Item Response Theory in Validating an Academic Self-Concept Scale for 3rd Yr. and 4th Yr. High School Students, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Philippine Normal University, Manila. Marger, M. N. (1999). Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes, Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company. Massey, G. (2000). Readings for Sociology, 3rd ed., New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, pp. 60-69. Retrieved, September 2008, from http: //www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/2111/Merton/Social_Theory_ and_Social_Structure.html. Myers, D. G. (1999). Social Psychology, 6th ed., New York: Mc Graw-Hill Companies. Mills, C. W. (2000). The Sociological Imagination. In G. Massey (Ed.), Readings for Sociology (pp. 13-18), 3rd ed., New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc. National Statistics Office (2002). Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) July 2002 Preliminary Results. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2003/ap0207ptx.html National Statistics Office (2006). Table 2: Total and Average Annual Family Income and Expenditure by Income Class and Region. Retrieved January p. 191
3, 2009, from http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2006/fies0602r.htm Panopio, I. S., & Raymundo, A. A. (2004). Sociology Focus on the Philippines, 4th ed., Quezon City: KEN Inc. Raywid, M. A. (1998). Separate Classes for the gifted? The Education Digest Focus: Fighting Prejudice in Education; Public Schools and the Public Mood, Michigan: Prakken Publications Inc, p. 69 Rosenthal, R. (1997). Interpersonal Expectancy Effects: A Forty Year Perspective. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ED415460 Reeve, J. M. (1996). Motivating Others: Nurturing Inner Motivational Resources, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, A Simon and Shuster Company. Ritzer, G. (2003). Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics, New York: Mc Graw-Hill Publishing Company. Ronquillo, A. A., Peralta, A. R., Salcedo, L. L., & Zaide, C. A., Jr. (1989). General Sociology with Introduction to Anthropology, Manila: Goodwill Trading Corporation, Inc. Secord, P. F. & Backman, C. W. (1974). Social Psychology, 2nd ed., New York: Mc Graw-Hill, Inc. Sevilla, C. G., Ochave, J. A., Punsalan, T. G., Regala, B. P., & Uriarte, G. G. (1992). Research Methods, Revised ed., Quezon City: Rex Book Store Inc. Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice, 7th ed., Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Smithson, J. R. (1971). Two Experiments in Homogeneous Sectioning of Students in General Physics. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/EDO55838 Stryker, S. (2001). Traditional Symbolic Interactionism, Role Theory, and Structural Symbolic Interactionism. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 211-232), New York: Springer Science +Business Media, LLC. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://www.scrib.com Tauber, R. T. (1998). Good or Bad, What Teachers Expect from Students They Generally Get!. ERIC Digest. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov ____________ (2002). Chapter 2: Theories and theorizing. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from http://ww.scrib.com (under the name Fulcher) Trojanowicz, R. C., & Morash, M. (1992). Juvenile Delinquency: Concepts and Control, 5th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Tulio, D. B. (2000). Psychological, Anthropological, and Sociological Foundations of Education, Mandaluyong City: National Book Store. Walpole, R. E. (1974). Introduction to Statistics, 3rd ed., New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Webb, R. B. & Sherman, R. R. (1989). Schooling and Society, 2nd ed., New York: Mc Millan Publishing Company.
Webster’s Elementary Dictionary: A Merriam-Webster. (1966). Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Co., Publishers. Wikipedia. (n.d.) Pygmalion Effect. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect Wikipedia. (n.d.) Social Stigma. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social Stigma Young, P. V., & Schmid, C. F. (1966). Scientific Social Surveys and Research, 4th ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Zulueta, F. M. & Parasol, M. S. (2004). General Psychology, Mandaluyong City: National Book Store Inc.
APPENDIX A Letters and Permits
(Pretesting and Testing Period)
APPENDIX C The Sampling Frame
Senior Sections at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School SY 2008-2009 Senior Sections 1. Alexander 2. Napoleon 3. Constantine 4. Socrates 5. Copernicus 6. Marcus 7. Titus 8. Darius 9. Cyrus 10. Charlemagne 11. Plato 12. Columbus 13. Trajan 14. Antoninus 15. Gandhi 16. Hadrian Student population 69 71 61 --------------------44 52 53 ~50% (sample) 35 36 27 --------------------22 26 27
More or less fifty percent of students at sections Alexander, Napoleon, and Constantine were given questionnaires and the chance to belong to the study’s Higher Section Students subsample population. The same percentage of students from sections Antoninus, Gandhi, and Hadrian were also given questionnaires and the chance to belong to the study’s Lower Section Students subsample population. The study used the stratified systematic random sampling technique in selecting respondents who would comprise the sample population. The list of students below aided the researcher in doing this. (List updated on January 6, 2009). Section ALEXANDER Ø Boys 1. Aboganda, Elpedio 2. Burkett, Wilkins 3. Corpuz, Charjian 4. Damalerio, Zedrick 5. Diega, Uriel 6. Lozardo, Karl David 7. Martinez, Richard 8. Misolas, Augosto 9. Oavina, Jim Jhonald 10.Osabel, Aldrin 11.Pasquin, Daniel 12.Ronquillo, Michael 13.Rosales, Joven 14.Valdez, Lloyd Mark 15.Yaon, Alejandro Ø Girls 1. Abaldonado, Mary Grace 2. Aniana, Marilyn 3. Antique, Michelle 4. Bacarna, Loujesa 5. Bancolita, Marjorie 6. Barcebal, Ivan Claire 7. Batistil, Maylene 8. Bautista, Rolinda 9. Bechayda, Ma. Louanne 10. Belleza, Catherine p. 197
11. Benosa, Donna Marie 12. Besin, Maria 13. Cabuyao, Mila 14. Caiga, Ailene 15. Candelaria, Crista Abegail 16. Caoile, Jessa 17. Castel, Rose Ann 18. Condevillamar, Jowena 19. Dacanay, Glera Kassandra 20. Daquioag, Mariel 21. Esperas, Precious 22. Farparan, Angelica Rose 23. Felices, Cheska 24. Hiwatig, Wendel 25. Huele, Ana Marie 26. Liwanag, Monica 27. Luengo, Kristine Joy 28. Macina, Joanne 29. Mahilum, Lyka 30. Mandapat, Diana Lee 31. Mateo, Lazer Gloria 32. Mendoza, Jennifer 33. Montecalvo, Girlie 34. Olmedo, Aya Dimple 35. Perez, Christine Joy 36. Perico, May Angela 37. Pino, Manilyn 38. Pleños, Marfe 39. Ritual, Ailen 40. Rodaje, Marvie 41. Sacbibit, Mary Grace 42. Saguid, Elizabeth 43. Salazar, Frences 44. Santiago, Analyn 45. Santiago, Fleur Sadina 46. Sinaguinan, Merry Mia 47. Socajel, Shiella May 48. Somoza, Joy Marie 49. Sumaria, Jennifer 50. Tambong, Charlene 51. Tan, Glor Antonette 52. Unay, Armielyn 53. Undecimo, Sheila Marie 54. Valencia, Lara
Section NAPOLEON Ø Boys 1. Balosa, Erwin 2. Bautista, Arjhun 3. Cabreros, Christian Pol 4. Cabuquit, Arman 5. Cariaga, Sonny Boy 6. Cuizon, Dexter 7. Donato, Louie Jay 8. Flores, John Mico 9. Laudit, Ernesto Jr. 10.Lope, Jayson 11.Moreno, Jethro 12.Padro, Joseph 13.Pellijera, Ghamel 14.Rubino, Juniven 15.Sagum, Kevin 16.Sapno, Joel 17.Tamayo, Christian 18.Vigo, Elimar Ø Girls 1. Acuyong, Joan Marie 2. Aguilar, Jessica 3. Albino, Chris 4. Alcornoque, Jezzel 5. Andoy, Irene 6. Araña, Mary Joy 7. Atienza, Mary May 8. Ayuban, Rhea Mae 9. Bagunu, Kriselle 10.Balinguit, Angelyn 11.Bilbao, Carol 12.Bongalosa, Suzette 13.Briones, Jovelyn 14.Cabangonay, Jessica 15.Cabudbud, Alessandra 16.Cabuquin, Joan 17.Capangyarihan, Carol 18.Codiñera, Sierra 19.Costuna, Mary Chelle 20.De Serra, Glaiza 21.De la Peña, Maila 22.Ducay, Cristy 23.Empleo, Maria Rosalie p. 198
24.Flores, Koryn Cassandra 25.Galan, Sunlight 26.Glasparil, Emily 27.Gracio, Ruth 28.Gragasin, Jessa 29.Horfilla, Maria Divina 30.Leona, Janeth 31.Ligutan, Maria Divina 32.Lopez, Jessabel 33.Lorenzo, Bianca Mae 34.Mabini, Julie Ann 35.Maniquiz, Edelyn 36.Mejia, Jayra Mae 37.Montejo, Jen-jen 38.Navarra, Lea 39.Nazareno, Jovy Lane 40.Noquera, Jocelyn 41.Obregon, Honeylyn 42.Oay, Fadella Mae 43.Oren, Faith Joy 44.Oxima, Lilibeth 45.Perdigon, Razel 46.Persia, Iris 47.Robles, Mary Rose 48.Quasco, Remy 49.Salundaguit, Jennifer 50.Santos, Jessa 51.Tagbalay, Claire 52.Tiglao, Jenelyn 53.Tutu, Jazmin Estefanie Section CONSTANTINE Ø Boys 1. Amoguis, Ramil 2. Antiola, Richard 3. Aragon, Dominador 4. Areola, Leonard Bryan 5. Argus, Jerald 6. Ariola, Noriel 7. Asprec, Ricky 8. Batido, Jeremiah 9. Bautista, Ryan Christopher 10.Bongcales, Justine 11.Catugda, Philip
12.Davao, Lloyd Stephen 13.Delos Santos, Jerico 14.Go, Jericson 15.Inocencio, Ariel 16.Lasin, Mike 17.La Torre, Shervil 18.Limbaco, John Carlo 19.Marcelino, Romnick 20.Micmic, Jerico 21.Mordigo, Mark Anthony 22.Obani, Kevin Roland 23.Ocampo, Benedict Joseph 24.Ondras, Robert 25.Pagulan, Dave Mark 26.Padilla, Jorlan 27.Pelo, Emar 28.Rico, Angelito 29.Ramos, Michael 30.Rose, Richard 31.Sabedoria, Ricky 32.Sopeña, Jimz Ø Girls 1. Acebuche, Jessica 2. Acuzar, Meriam 3. Adora, Rizza 4. Adzuara, Regine 5. Arquillo, Jean 6. Baguilar, Regina Angela 7. Blaza, Mary Grace 8. Buela, Regina 9. Duzon, Heidi 10.Esmeralda, Julie Anne 11.Espinosa, Elvie 12.Ginoguin, Meraflor 13.Giray, Ma. Claudine 14.Goylan, Iren 15.Gumera, Jessa Kristine 16.Jabido, Liezl 17.Lara, Mia Ringie 18.Leoro, Kimberly 19.Lubangco, Rachelle 20.Manangan, Melanie 21.Masula, Mary Jane 22. Matias, Richel p. 199
23.Perez, Nickie Angelie 24.Robles, Juneta 25.Romero, Jilliane Rose 26.Sagmit, April Ann 27.Saludares, Abegail 28.San Juan, Melysen 29.Tamayo, Racquel Section ANTONINUS Ø Boys 1. Abliter 2. Abrio 3. Angeles 4. Arellano 5. Bo 6. Bongares 7. Cerbas 8. Cidro 9. Damasco 10.Dela Cruz 11.Dela Vega 12.Esguerra 13.Estauifa 14.Fabellar 15.Fernandes 16.Gala-Gala 17.Gaviola 18.Mad 19.Mendoza 20.Mosqueda 21.Ong 22.Paligutan 23.Prietos 24.Pugado 25.Tubice 26.Taer 27.Ynayan Ø Girls 1. Arceño 2. Benlot 3. Bonzato 4. Brillantes 5. Cervantes 6. Dautil
7. DeLos Santos J. 8. DeLos Santos H. 9. Dula 10.Garcia 11.Gardose 12.Lagsa 13.Macalma 14.Praxides 15.Rampas 16.Rivero 17.Tatel Section GANDHI Ø Boys 1. Austria, Farson 2. Corpuz, Ronjude 3. Dacullo, Romero 4. Dela Cerna, Gerry 5. Dotimas, James 6. Felicen, Leocin 7. Florites, Brian 8. Ibuna, Rodelo 9. Malangis, Joemar 10.Mancera, Jhon Paul 11.Mando, Reynante 12.Manuel, Ramon Christopher 13.Pindos, Reynaldo 14.Pinagol, Jhake 15.Ramos, Jerome 16.Rosales, Henry 17.Roxas, Jesper 18.Regacho, Billy Joe 19.Sabenorio, Marem 20.Velez, Mark Anthony Ø Girls 1. Agcaoili, Sarah Jane 2. Alidon, Ma. Luisa 3. Alvarado, Mary Joy 4. Amor, Leizl Ann 5. Bestudio, Monica 6. Bueno, Michelle 7. Chenilla, Rey-ann 8. Delaliarte, Sherlyn p. 200
9. Dormitorio, Berlyn 10.Flores, Anna 11.Galit, Geraldine 12.Ibuna, Vergenia 13.LIgan, Jennie Mae 14.Meña, Jennifer 15.Moncada, Rocilda 16.Mosqueda, Manielyn 17.Offemaria, Fluorence 18.Pajarillo, Ma. Elena 19.Piosang, Gendelyn 20.Ponelas, Ailyn 21.Radomes, Jesselyn 22.Ramuya, Rochelle 23.Rivera, Maryann 24.Sabaggala, Babylyn 25.Sabio, Rijean 26.Salibia, Jackilyn 27.Sauro, Jonnalyn 28.Sendico, Juliet 29.Taguinod, Mary Rose 30.Valenzuela, Adelfa 31.Vedrero, Paula Jean 32.Villegas, Annaliza Section HADRIAN Ø Boys 1. Adula, Jaynill 2. Aureada, Leo 3. Binay, Revin 4. Comighad, Kurt Van Dominic 5. Cervantes, Rigor 6. Dela Cruz, Joemar 7. Del Prado, Fidel 8. Esquejo, Rubarb 9. Fernandez, Joseph Jayson 10.Gacia, Jacob 11.Germones, Jayson 12.Gonzales, Frenz 13.Lopez, Jared Hope 14.Manahan, Ronnel 15.Mancho, John Christoffe 16.Margasiño, Mark Junry 17.Mancera, Jeffrey
18.Palomer, Ramos Clinton 19.Reyes, Nonilon 20.Ritual, Aison 21.Rubas, Dickson 22.Ramirez, Jake 23.Real, Bryan Jay 24.Salvador, Morris 25.Salubod, Roger 26.Salvame, Leobyneil 27.Santiago, Richard Joel 28.Siega, Jerome 29.Sol, Roman 30.Tripoli, Marlo Ø Girls 1. Albelda, Janica 2. Alvaro, Jelly 3. Baleros, Vicseah 4. Caballera, Aileen 5. Donato, Joana 6. Esperida, Gladys 7. Fernandez, Anna Liza 8. Garcia, Pauline Ann 9. Gonzales, Michelle 10.Gracio, Mary Ann 11.Molina, Zeny 12.Montaño, Mary Jane 13.Orbong, Jennifer 14.Ramos, Ihala May 15.Rogador, Ma. Irish 16.San Pedro, Jennilyn 17.Santos, Mary Diann 18.Taladro, Jenalyn 19.Torres, Reygene 20.Tuazon, Jenalyn 21.Tablizo, Raquel 22.Valcueba, Wernabeth 23.Rongcales, Jacelyn - - -Nothing follows - - -
Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School
JUSTICE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA HIGH SCHOOL Vision Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School is an educational institution developing well-rounded individuals for the establishment of a self-reliant and responsible community. Mission To provide relevant education for youth’s intellectual, psychological, spiritual, and environmental awareness through responsive approaches. Brief History The school formally opened on July 7, 1987 as an annex of Lagro High School, with Mrs. Sheridan G. Evangelista of the Social Studies Department acting as the officer-in-charge. Regular classes started with 258 students and 7 regular permanent teachers who were assigned by Ms. Gutierrez, former principal of Lagro High School, to Payatas Annex. Four classroom buildings were built at Bicol Street, Brgy. Payatas, through the concerted efforts of the barangay officials and civic spirited leaders residing in the community. In SY 1990-1991 Lagro High School-Payatas Annex became a complete high school. It was during the administration of Quezon City Mayor Ismael Mathay III when the local government funded the construction of a three-storey building for the school, hence was named after him. Another one-storey building (containing three classrooms) was constructed facing the Mathay building but was eventually stopped by the DPWH. The school infrastructures are situated in a lot area comprising more or less 15, 593 m2 strategically located at the intersection of Manila Gravel Pit Road, Molave Street, and Narra Street, Barangay Payatas, District II, Quezon City. In SY 2000-2001, during the term of Mrs. Violeta Jordan as the Master Teacher Officer-in-Charge, a four-storey building with 12 classrooms was constructed through the generosity of former Dist. II Representative Dante Liban, the Division of City Schools, and the DPWH. It was also in her term when Payatas Annex became a pilot school in simplified hydroponics. In April 2002, the annex became independent from Lagro High School. It was named Payatas High School. The independence brought improvements on school management and internal relations. On July17, 2006, QC Ordinance No. 1698 S. 2006 renamed Payatas High School with Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School in honor of the late S.C. Justice Cecilia M. Palma. This happened during the administration of QC Mayor Feliciano Belmonte. It was also in his administration when the local government once more funded a four storey, 12-classroom-building facing the scenic La Mesa Watershed.
Republic of the Philippines QUEZON CITY COUNCIL Quezon City 16 th City Council 61th regular session ORDINANCE NO. 1698, S-2006 (PO2006-119)
AN ORDINANCE RENAMING PAYATAS HIGH SCHOOL INTO
JUSTICE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA HIGH SCHOOL
Introduced by Councilors RAMON P. MEDALLA, ANTONIO E. INTON, JR. WINSTON “Winnie” CASTELO, AIKO MELENDEX-JICKAIN, VOLTAIRE GODOFREDO L LIBAN III, ERIC Z. MEDINA, ALLAN BUTCH FRANCISCO, BERNADETTE HERRERA-DY, ELIZABETH A. DELARMENTE, VICTOR V. FERRER, JR. FRANCISCO A. CALALAY, JR., ROMMEL R. ABESAMIS, JOSEPH P. JUICO, JORGE B. BANAL, FRANZ S. PUMAREN, WENCEROM BENEDICT C. LAGUMBAY, DANTE M. DE GUZMAN, JULIAN M.T. COSETENG, DIORELLA MARIA SOTTO DELEON, EDCEL B. LAGMAN, JR. ALMA MONTILLA, JANET M. MALAYA, RESITUTO BE MALANGEN, BAYANI HIPOL, XYRUS I. LANOT and JUNIE MARIE L. CASTELO. WHEREAS, streets, boulevards, parks, playgrounds, historical spots and other places are so named to signify and perpetuate the nobility of personages or significance of certain events. WHEREAS, the scholastic record of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma is worthy of emulation of young students having been the high school valedictorian of St. Scholastica’s College in 1931, Bachelor of Laws of the University of the Philippines in 1937, Passed the Bar Examination in 1937 as First Placer with the highest grade of 92.6%. Master of Laws of the University of Manila in 1947, Grantee of Scholarship of Graduate Studies from the American Association of University Women from 1953 to 1954, Master of Laws of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA in 1954; WHEREAS, Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma was conferred Honoris Causa “Doctor of Laws” by six (6) Universities, namely Centro Escolar University, March 23, 1974; Angeles University, March 1977; Ewha Women’s University, September 30, 1978; Philippine Women’s University, March 1987; University of the Philippines, April 2, 989; and “Doctor in Humane Letters” by the Ateneo de Manila University, March 31, 1979; De La Salle University, January 24, 1987; and St. Louie University, Baguio City in March 1998; WHEREAS, the Honorable Cecilia Palma was an exemplar of public service to the country and to the people, having served to a heroic degree the Republic of the Philippines for much of her life;
WHEREAS, as a staunch advocate of the rule of law, Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma showed the highest moral courage when she dissented from the majority decision of the Supreme Court in Martial Law Cases, giving life to the quote of St. Thomas Moore, “ I am the King’s Good Servant but God’s First”; WHEREAS, during the dark days of Martial Law, the revered former Supreme Court Associate Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma stood out as a gallant voice in and out of the courts who dared to challenge and criticize the Marcos regime’s disregard of constitutional principles and rampant violation of human rights; WHEREAS, after her retirement from the Supreme Court in 1978, she was active in the “Parliament of the Streets” advocating the lifting of martial law and the return of a Constitutional government and, in 1984 was elected to the Batasan Pambansa representing Quezon City under her battle-cry “ One Marcos cannot stop us all”; WHEREAS, Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma was instrumental in uniting the opposition in 1985 for the presidential elections in 1986 and in dismantling the dictatorship and military rule, culminating in the ouster of the dictator and the installation of the Honorable Corazon C. Aquino as President, her role so aptly described by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S. J. as “Justice Palma is a precursor, the John the Baptist of the Cory Aquino Administration”; WHEREAS, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma was elected President of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 and has earned the accolade of her colleagues in the Constitutional Commission for her independence, integrity and courage in the course of drafting the fundamental law of the land, now known as the 1987 Constitution; WHEREAS, as the ripe age of 86 she accepted the appointment of President Joseph E. Estrada to serve as Chairman and General Manager of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for a year, endearing herself to the hundreds who benefited from the humanitarian program of the PCSO; WHEREAS, Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma has received hundreds of awards in recognition of her unflinching fight for truth and justice and dedication of her career to God, country and fellowmen, and was accorded the well-deserved honor of being awarded “A WOMAN WHO MADE A DIFFERENCE” by the International Women’s Federation joining other world leaders in its roster like former President Corazon C. Aquino, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Irish President Mary Robinson and Washington Post Publisher, Katherine Graham; WHEREAS, the moral courage and strong legal conviction of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma has earned the respect not only of the Filipino people but the world community and thus serve as a beacon of light to all the people thirsting for truth, justice, freedom and the rule of law; WHEREAS, it is only fitting to recognize Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, for remaining firm on her conviction to the last, and she should be remembered as a model of independence, integrity, industry, and intelligence; p. 205
WHEREAS, the changing of the name Payatas High School in honor of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma is appropriate to perpetuate the memory of this great Filipino, a champion who had upheld the cause of justice and truth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN SESSION ASSEMBLED: SECTION 1. Payatas High School in Quezon City is hereby renamed to Justice CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA HIGH SCHOOL in giving tribute to a woman of honor and valor worthy of our collective respect and admiration then, now and hence. SECTION 2. The Secretary of the Sanggunian should furnish a copy of this ordinance to the Office of the President, Division of City Schools, and Department of Education for their information and appropriate action. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its approval.
HERBERT M. BAUTISTA Vice Mayor Presiding Officer
APPROVED: 26 of July 2006
EUGENIO V. JURILLA City Secretary
FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR. City Mayor
CERTIFICATION This is to certify that this Ordinance was APPROVED on Second Reading on July 17, 2006, was finally PASSED on Third/Final Reading by the City Council, under Suspended Rules on the same date.
Copied verbatim from the marble land mark in front of SB Building Prepared by John Abletis on January 17, 2009
APPENDIX E Gallery of Photos
The school’s old name from 2002–2006
It was renamed on November 23, 2006
The school was renamed after Hon. S.C. Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma by the local government of Quezon City through Q.C. Ordinance No. 1698, S. 2006.
This marble tablet as a land mark shows the city ordinance declaring Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School as the new name of Payatas High School.
The school’s main entrance gate leading to Mathay and Liban Hall.
At left is the Mathay Building constructed during the term of former QC Mayor Ismael Mathay. The unfinished building at right (also during his term) is planned to be renovated soon
At left is the Liban Building constructed through the generosity of former QC District II Rep. Atty. Dante Liban. The vicinity of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School is divided by Molave Street. The picture at the right shows the newly constructed building of the school.
At right is the new SB Building constructed under QC Mayor Feliciano Belmonte’s administration. At left is the school’s new canteen. Despite structural improvements, the school still suffers from scarcity on class rooms and on other material resources. This school year (0809), to accommodate the large influx of elementary graduates entering as freshmen, the school administration decided to divide the usual size of classrooms at Mathay Hall into halves.
Since JCMPHS is near the Payatas Dumpsite, one could notice that there are numerous garbage dump trucks passing all day in front of the school. Also, in front of the school is a wall which, behind it is the breath taking La Mesa Watershed (picture above).
Painted walls lighten the ambience of the place. These are painted by the students, various NGOs and GOs, with the participation of some local residents. These wall paintings stretch until they reach a street leading to the dumpsite. The paintings portray the life at Payatas as well as the various hopes and dreams of the local residents regarding what they want their place to be. Paintings showing cooperation and industrialization are common. These paintings allure the researcher when he first visited the place. The experience was a very humbling one. It generated meanings to reflect upon. Although he acted as a quantitative researcher, the paintings reminded him of his qualitative nature. Some of the senior student-respondents of this study.
APPENDIX F Some Salindiwa school-newspaper articles
(Salindiwa is the official Filipino school-newspaper of Batasan Hills National High School)
APPENDIX G The Researcher
I graduated at Payatas A. Elementary School in 2001. It was there where I was consistently being sectioned at Mahusay (section 1). I was known as a poet and a singer then. I entered Batasan Hills National High School when I was 12 years old. To my surprise, I was put in section Magnolia (section 23). It’s when I was a sophomore student when I was brought back to the higher sections (Avogadro, section 3). The following year, I was sectioned at Agate (section 2). At the end of that year, I was voted to be the Vice President External of the Supreme Student Council for SY 04-05. I spent my senior year at IV-Star (section 1) until I graduated in 2005. I entered college at PUP Mabini Campus as an SB Centrex Alumnus and a SYDPQC Gov. scholar. Presently, I am finishing a BS Sociology degree from the same university, hoping to have my master’s degree soon, and be able to contribute to Filipino Sociology for a just and humane society. In Sociology as well as in other related Social Sciences, my interest falls within the fields of Education, Sustainable Development, Community Development and Community Organizing, Social Theory, Social Psychology, Philippine Culture, Ethnology, and Social Anthropology.
Yet there is another excitement of discovery beckoning in his investigations. It is not the excitement of coming upon the totally unfamiliar, but rather the excitement of finding the familiar becoming transformed in its meaning. -Peter Berger (in Massey, 2000, p.10)
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.