Page 1 of 17

Students' Goal Orientation Preference in Learning Philippine History

Acop, Janvarica B., Besario, Earl John A., Ensalada, Ronald Ray T.,
Montermoso, Daegie M., Ondo, Harryl Jay L.
Cebu Normal University

Abstract
The potential of Philippine History to raise civic competence to students is
not maximized as a result of the traditional teaching styles of social studies teachers
in schools. One factor to consider in achieving this academic endeavor is the
students’ perceptions and goals in learning the subject. This research aimed to
determine which type of Goal-Orientation is more preferred by most students in
learning Philippine History. It also sought to find out how performance and
mastery-type approaches of Goal Orientation is observed in learning Philippine
History. This study utilized descriptive qualitative type of research using interval
scale survey questionnaire forms through applying purposive sample design in
which 100 undergraduate students who took Philippine History among the three
colleges (Teacher Education, Arts and Sciences, and Nursing) of Cebu Normal
University are purposively sought out and sampled. Through averaging the collated
answers of the respondents, the results implied that the respondents are mastery-
goal oriented in learning Philippine History where they desire to learn new skills
and knowledge and seek to improve themselves intrinsically. The researchers
recommend further studies that would focus on the teachers or on the external
factors affecting the motivation in Philippine History or any subject matter of Social
Science.
Keywords: Goal-orientation, Performance Goals, Mastery Goals,
Philippine History, Students’ Motivation

Rationale
Knowing the impressions left by past generations tell us that valuable
lessons can be learned from history. The transition of the Filipino society from the
early phases of technological development up to its preparation towards
globalization definitely reflects the character of the local inhabitants as well as
culture that has been developed after a long period of time. Philippine History, in
its broadest meaning, generally presents the known past. The recording and analysis
of experiences of society comprise the totality of people’s history (Halili, 2013).
From the struggle of dauntless Filipinos regaining lost rights and freedom during
the Spanish era up to the present circumstance the Philippine History withstand, is
a lengthy learning to comprehend. Nevertheless, most History teachers do not adopt
appropriate methods in teaching the subject. There is a need to understand teachers’
 Page 2 of 17

conceptions of history and their pedagogy to effectively transform the teaching of

history in the Philippines. History is one of the most effective tool to strengthen a
nation (Fritzgerald, 1983). History prepares the individuals to become responsible
and active thinkers of a democratic society. However, in the Philippines, the
potential of history to raise thinking individuals who are committed to their identity
and the nation is not maximized as a result of various problems in schools,
particularly the teaching of social studies (Agaoicoli & Oshihara, 2014). Owing to
this, students are likely to describe Philippine History as a boring and dull subject.
The teaching of History can be a challenging experience due to the abstract
nature of the subject. It lies in the fact that events in the past cannot be reproduced
and reexamined for authenticity, and motives for which actions that were taken are
not open to physical examination and scrutiny. (Taylor & Young, 2003). It is for
this reason that the teaching of Philippine History requires more ingenuity from
teachers as these subjects demand well prepared conscientious teachers of sound
knowledge. Teachers of Philippine History need to possess a sound professional
training in the theory and art of teaching and assessing the learning outcomes of
students (Ghansah, 2009) so as to equip students with the “intellectual toolkit that
will allow them to make connections with the past and make informed decisions
about their lives in the present and in the future” (Taylor & Young, 2003). Studies
have shown that most History teachers are tied to using the traditional mode of
delivery, with little or no innovation. This is where goal orientation comprises. If
Philippine History teachers cannot enhance the way of teaching they present to
students then the students themselves must involve to personal goals in the subject.
They will able to apply one of the two types of the goal-orientation theory. The
Mastery goals that focus on students’ attention on achievement based on
intrapersonal standards of learning, and the Performance goals focus on
achievement based normative or comparative standards of performing. These two
goals are proven and tested as good approaches to keep students learning on
Philippine History.
This study aims to determine which type of Goal-Orientation is more
preferred by most students in learning Philippine History.

Theoretical Framework
Motivation is a key element for academic and professional success because
without it little learning or performance takes place (McCollum, 2007).
 Page 3 of 17

Motivation is “an internal state that arouses, directs, and maintains

behavior” (Woolfolk-Hoy & Hoy, 2006). Without motivation, very little learning
or performance occurs in the learning field.
Although plenty of motivational theories talk about the role of learning
motivation in examining student’s belief on success, goal orientation theory focuses
on the reasons why students need to engage thoroughly in their learning
(Anderman, 2015). Goal orientation theory is a social cognitive theory of
achievement motivation that originated in the early 20th century. Students’
achievement goal orientations are often conceived to be dependent on the
interaction of contextual and individual factors (Urdan et. al, 1997)
Goal orientation theory talks about two types of goals in terms of
lengthiness: core goals or commonly known as long term goals and proximal goals
or short-term goals. These core goals help learners direct towards achievement and
success, and mostly the driving force of an individual while proximal goals are
more concretize and which can be accomplished in a short duration of time (Hurst,
2015)
Early goal theorists also emphasized the difference of the two types of goal
orientations: mastery, which is a desire to develop additional knowledge or mastery
of new skills from an individuals’ consisting cognitive structure, and performance,
which is a desire to demonstrate high ability and make a good impression to the
academe primarily through scores. (Hurst, 2015)
Theories and research on achievement goal orientation towards motivation
have been very prolific (Elliott & Dweck, 2005). This points out the advantages of
having students adopt a mastery goal orientation toward their learning. Mastery
goals focus on students' attention on achievement based on intrapersonal standards
of learning while performance goals focus on achievement based on normative or
comparative standards of performing. When students adopt mastery-oriented goals,
they engage in more effective learning strategies and seek better improvements
such as; learning from their mistakes, changing strategies that don't work, and
seeking help when necessary. Learners also tend to become more intrinsically
motivated, the gold standard of motivation.
Performance goals lead to a focus on the outcome rather than the process of
learning, such as achieving success by any means, avoiding the appearance of
incompetence, and being more susceptible to extrinsic sources of motivation
(Elliott & Dweck, 2005; Harackiewicz et al., 2002).
Secondly both performance and mastery goals are furthermore subdivided
into two categories, respectively; approach and avoid goals.
 Page 4 of 17

Mastery approach-goal focuses on the mastering of certain academic tasks

while mastery-avoid goals focuses on avoidance of misunderstandings in the task.
Hence, same goes with the performance-approach which focuses on having more
competence and confidence towards other learners and not merely on the task itself
which in contrasts performance-avoid goals focuses on the avoidance of appearing
dull or ignorant to other students, (Anderman, 2015). Hence, it is to assumingly say
that approach goals offer positivity while on the other hand avoid goals offer a sense
of fear and rejection.
Thirdly, students' goals can be conceptualized at differing organizational
levels, personal goals and classroom goals.
Personal refers to student’s individual, personally held goals; the types of
mastery and performance goals described above are examples of personal goals.
While, classroom goal structures refer to students' beliefs about the goals that are
emphasized by their teachers in their classrooms. Most researchers distinguish
between a classroom mastery goal structure and a classroom performance
classroom goal structure; however, most do not make the approach/avoid
distinction with classroom goal structures.
When students perceive a classroom mastery goal structure, they believe
that instruction in the class is characterized by emphases on improvement, learning
new material to a level of mastery, and self-comparisons; when students perceive a
performance goal structure, they believe that the class is characterized by
competition, an emphasis on grades and relative ability, and outperforming others.
(Anderman, 2015).
Motivation researchers who study goal orientations acknowledge that both
students' individual characteristics and contextual influences also have to do with
the types of goals that students adopt in various learning environments. Studies
indicate that the environments in which students learn influence students' goal
orientations in important ways (Middleton, 2008).
The case with the self-efficacy and task value factors in Mastery-Goals, the
correlation coefficients between the subject-specific mastery-goal orientation
factors and the mastery-goal factor in general school learning were more
convincing than those between the subject-specific mastery-goal orientations.
(Bong, 2004)
Two types of goal orientations are often examined under achievement goal
theory: mastery goals and performance goals. Although these two goal systems are
conceptually and empirically distinct (Pintrich, 2000), both can be better
understood via their relations with more general motivation constructs, including:
 Page 5 of 17

(a) intrinsic motivation(i.e., engaging in learning activities for their own sake), (b)
beliefs about one’s ability to accomplish a specific task (or self-adequacy), and (c)
sense of personal control (Gilman, 2006)
For example, students who pursue mastery goals are usually interested in
understanding the material for its own sake rather pursuing external rewards such
as grades or parent/teacher approval. Students who pursue mastery goals also
believe that they can adequately address challenges that are inherent within a given
activity. Thus, students focus on developing greater competence and improvement
on already developed skills (Shim & Ryan, 2005). Finally, students who pursue
mastery goals view goal attainment as dependent on dispositional tendencies such
as effort and persistence, rather than external circumstances such as luck or
happenstance (Gutman, 2006).
Particularly, such students pursue goals that are extrinsic or secondary to
the task itself, may avoid activities where their efforts may not meet the challenges
inherent within the activity, and often report a higher external locus of control than
students who pursue mastery goals (Wolters, 2006).
Extant research finds that mastery goals, in comparison to performance
goals, are associated with higher levels of adaptive cognitive and achievement
functioning, including higher levels of task involvement (Elliot, 2000), higher
levels of persistence (Wolters, 2004), and more positive perceptions of academic
ability.
Results indicated that when students’ endorsement of mastery goals were
high, students displayed adaptive academic profiles.
High task mastery orientation is assumed to lead to intrinsically
motivated behaviors, regardless of perceived competence, because the individuals
do not judge their success on their ability to demonstrate superiority. High task
mastery leads to high intrinsic motivation. (Young, 2005)
Goal theory researchers generally agree that mastery goals are more
productive than performance goals and approach goals are more productive than
avoidance goals. (Brophy, 2005)
Goal orientation affects the capacity of individuals to withstand obstacles
and adjust to change. (Wang and Takeuchi, 2007). Not to mention that is Philippine
History is a subject susceptible to change through the course of time and
furthermore, which can also greatly influence the nationalistic behavior of the
learners.
 Page 6 of 17

Conceptual Framework

Students’ Goal Orientation

Preference in Learning
Philippine History

Goal Orientation
Theory

In terms of:
Mastery Learning Performance
Goals Environment Goals
Student’s Beliefs

Undergraduate College Students

Who Took Philippine History
(Purposive Sampling)

Students’ Motivation
(
in Philippine History
 Page 7 of 17

Statement of the Problem

This study sought to determine which type Goal-Orientation is more
preferred by students learning Philippine History.
Further, this research was designed to answer the following questions:
1. How is mastery type of Goal Orientation observed in learning Philippine
History?
2. How is performance-approach type of Goal Orientation observed in learning
Philippine History?
3. Which among the three (3) colleges have the highest outlook in learning
Philippine History?
4. What other personal factors affect the students’ learning in Philippine History?

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study would be of great importance to the following
persons:
Teachers. This study would be mainly important to teachers since they are playing
an essential role as catalysts and implementers of the learning. Should they bridge
their students to civic competence, teachers must be acquainted enough on guiding
their students towards meaningful goals of learning by deeply considering the goal
orientation theory.
Trainers. This study would help the trainers to become responsive to the scenario
and think more comprehensive approaches, methods and strategies for the
educational development. Training is necessary but not sufficient for successful
change. The trainers would be helped by letting them realize the essence and
importance of teaching Philippine History inside the classroom.
Educational Institutions. This study would help the educational institutions make
sensible and responsible decisions that would propel development by letting them
realize of the scenario and challenges that are experienced inside the classroom in
the teaching of Philippine History.
Students. This study would greatly help the students as the main benefactor of the
educational system. The curriculum, policies or any modifications or adjustments
that the teachers and schools will be making to answer this concern would all be
for the students’ welfare. If this problem is given immediate and proper action, the
improvement of the learning experience of the student will follow.
 Page 8 of 17

Definition of Terms
Philippine History – refers to the general course which is designed is to trace the
origin and history of the Philippines and the Filipino. It trails the evolution of the
present Philippine society as they changed from antiquity to contemporary,
discussing along the contributing factors to such changes.
Goal Orientation Theory– is a social-cognitive theory of achievement motivation
which aims to examine the causes of students’ engagement in their academic
undertakings.
Mastery Goal - focuses on the objective of learning to master the task according
to one’s set standards or self-improvement. It also includes the development new
skills, honing or enhancement of competence; endeavor to achieve challenges and
seeking for knowledge and insight.
Performance Goal – centered on the exhibition competence or ability and how it
will be judged on comparison to others. Attempt to exceed performance standards,
outshining others, trying to be the best in a group or even the evasion of negative
judgments are common manifestations of performance goals.
Motivation – is an internal state or condition that activates, boosts and directs goal-
oriented behavior; it also affects the needs and desires the intensity and course of
behavior.
Learning Environment - refers to the physical framework and setting in education
in facilitating learning. It also describes the culture of a school or class—its
management, ethos and characteristics, including the individuals’ interaction and
treatment with one another.
Students’ beliefs – are the students’ viewpoint about their own academic potential
and corresponding feelings of satisfaction that shall correspond with their actions
in the classroom and beyond.
Students’ Performance – is technically the off-shoot of education. It refers to how
well a student meets or achieves the educational goals standards set out by local
government and the institution itself.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Earning the interest of students in the subject Philippine History has long
been a tough challenge for most Araling Panlipunan or Social Studies teachers. This
is because most history teachers are stereotyped as dry and boring (Tew, 2014) and
 Page 9 of 17

still perceive history classes as a process of acquiring a large amount of unnecessary

information (Koren, 2001). Some of them only teach just because it is their duty
(Koren, 2001). In World History, not only the chronological events are discussed
but also the plethora of exact and particular names of people, places, numbers and
especially dates. This has prompt history teachers to apply rote memorization,
recalling of what has been discussed, and knowledge checks through identification
tests (Cutler, 2014). Because of this, teachers tried to prevent giving knowledge-
type questions. But according to Ongsotto (2003), this is already too late because
students have already been used to memorization, which results to their lesser
response to analytical and evaluative questions than knowledge-type ones. This is
one of the reason why memorization is still predominantly used in teaching
Philippine History in Cebu City.
To address this, students must involve themselves to personal goals in the
subject. This is where goal orientation comes in. If teachers cannot improve their
teaching, some students have done efforts for themselves to make their learning of
the subject meaningful. Of course, not all students find boredom in Philippine
History. There are those who are interested in history in the first place, while there
are also those who are not really interested but can excel in history because of some
extrinsic motivation or reinforcement (Anderman, 2015). The two mentioned kinds
of Philippine History students show the two major classes of goals: the mastery and
the performance goals (McCollum & Kajs, 2007). To explain what each class
represent, Murphy and Alexander (2000) first described mastery goal orientation
as “a desire to develop competence and increase knowledge and understanding
through effortful learning.” Students who have mastery goals aim for self-
improvement and are intrinsically motivated to learn (Vuiller & Cook, 2015). In
their research on pro-social Learning for increased youth Involvement and
academic achievement, Vuller and Cook (2015) cited the characteristics of learners
with mastery versus performance goals published by Western Oregon University.
The research shows that learners apt with mastery goals are more likely to be
interested to learn because of its interest in the subject. This learner has intrinsically
motivated to learn the subject because it is inherently their interest (Ryan & Deci,
2000). On the other hand, learners disposed with performance goals are more likely
to be extrinsically motivated, which means they are motivated to learn the subject
because there are payoffs (i.e., gold stars, praise, grade threats, rewards) waiting.
Henceforth, they are likely to cheat for the sake of good grades (Covington &
Mueller, 2001).
These two goals are proven as good techniques to keep students learning on
Philippine History. Whether which goal is better is up to the teacher. But for B.F.
Skinner, motivation must be defined in behavioral terms, not as some internal drive
or desire (Shuell, 2013). In his book About Behaviorism, he asserted that intrinsic
 Page 10 of 17

motivations on students are not observable and that observable behavior and what
increases it should be the focus. For instance, if Philippine History teachers want to
motivate students to learn about the Gobernadorcillo, Pueblo and the rest of the
hierarchy of Philippine politics during the Spanish regime, they simply have to
define students’ specific behaviors and then provide reinforcers, positive or
negative, regarding the behaviors (Hannum, 2010). In addition, comparing the
class’s standing with the other class will also help them learn more, as the
performance goal states.
On the contrary, Bruner stressed disagreement regarding the use of extrinsic
motivators in Philippine History class. A student’s intrinsic motivation may not be
observable, but it can be awakened (Hannum, 2010). Teachers can activate
students’ intrinsic motivation by engaging them to speak about what they study and
how they go about studying. He would emphasize building lessons around students'
natural curiosity to guarantee high levels of intrinsic motivation (Shuell, 2013).
Because mastery goal is simply about intrinsic motivation, teachers can divert to
the Constructivist theory, which concentrates on a learner's ability to mentally
construct meaning and create their own learning in their own intellectual, social,
emotional and physical environment (Forrester & Jantzie, 1999).
According to Dewey and Vygotsky, one of the theory’s major proponents,
it also pertains to the students’ ability to construct knowledge in their own minds
through a process of discovery and problem-solving. Thus, it does not merely feed
students’ with a lot of information while lured by extrinsic motivations such as
grade threats, as what the Behaviourist theory supports (Benabou, 2003). Rather, it
continually stimulates students’ minds by letting them discover a lesson on History
by their own. In that way, the goal of teaching, which is to produce the most
learning in the least teaching, is met (Papert, 1993). In addition, it is essential to
consider that the learning environment of the students shapes learning and
behavior. Albert Bandura, in his observational learning theory, explained that
students develop and learn new skills from the things she finds around her
(Forrester & Jantzie, 1999). Because Philippine and other histories are perceived to
be more factual, bookish and instructional, Tapscott (1998) cited the eight shifts
from a constructivist approach that can help teaching history to be as interactive as
performing arts: from linear to hypermedia; from instruction to construction and
discovery; from teacher-centered to learner-centered education; from absorbing
material to learning how to navigate and how to learn; from school to lifelong
learning; from one-size-fits-all to customized learning; from learning as torture as
learning as fun; and from the teacher as transmitter to the teacher as facilitator.
Integrating goal orientation theory with other theories, like constructivist, can
improve teachers’ way of engaging students to learn Philippine History (Daligdig,
2014).
 Page 11 of 17

Research Methodology
This study utilized descriptive qualitative type of research. It aimed to
determine the relationship between the students’ goal orientation and their learning
behavior in Philippine History. Relationships between and among factors and
aspects of the Goal Orientation Theory, particularly on mastery type and
performance-approach type of goals were sought and interpreted. Through a
purposive sample design, the respondents of this research were purposively
determined and sampled. They are the one-hundred undergraduate students of Cebu
Normal University from all three (3) colleges (College of Teacher Education
(CTE), College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) and College of Nursing (CN)) who
took Philippine History during the first semester of A.Y. 2015 – 2016. The course
is a part of the Core Courses for General Education and serves as a mandatory
course among all students in the said university in accordance to CHEd
Memorandum No. 20, series of 2013. The course is taken either on the second or
third year of the student. The data gathering period for this study was from January
to February 2016 at the Cebu Normal University in Osmeña Blvd, Cebu City. The
university has an estimated population of around 5000 students.
The proponents of this study used an interval scale survey questionnaire to
know the manifested goal orientation on Philippine History among the
undergraduate students. The questionnaire was based from the student scales of
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Styles or more commonly known as PALS (Midgley,
1998). The student scale specifically evaluates student outlook on goals set by
teacher, goals set in the classroom, parents or home life, and personal
achievement. The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert-style response.
1 2 3 4 5
Not True Somewhat True Very True

Statistical Treatment of the Data

The responses made by 100 correspondents of Cebu Normal University who
have finished taking the course Philippine history were recorded, analyzed and
presented so as to give additional information to the data. The researchers utilized
various methods so as to present, analyze, and present the data gathered from the
respondents such as: utilize frequency count, Cronbach Alpha, standard deviation
and weighted mean. Frequency count is the method by which the number of
respondents’ answer based on the subject given is used to determine the problem.
Also the researchers used weighted mean to present the level of response so as to
gather data for determining the problem.
 Page 12 of 17

𝑓
𝑊𝑥 = ∑
𝑁
Wx – Weighted Mean
Ʃ – Summation
F – Frequency
N – Number of respondents

Results and Discussion

Before interpreting the data of the respondents, the researchers first
validated the credibility of the questionnaire. Using statistical tools in Microsoft
Excel. The results are as follows:

Mean is… 57.3787879

SD is… 15.0461564
Alpha is… 0.84067754
# of items is… 20

Based on the results, the Likert scale survey questionnaire garnered a mean
of 57.3787879. This means that a student has an average total rating of 57 points
for the whole survey.
The survey also garnered a reliability index of 0.84067754, which is
equivalent to high reliability index. A survey questionnaire with a high reliability
index is a well-constructed survey form. The rating scale is just and corresponds to
the survey questions. This also means that the survey questions are polished to
measure the affective domain of the takers, as what surveys are made.

Also, the results show the survey acquired a standard deviation (SD) of
approximately 15.0461564. Finding the SD tells the researcher how spread out the
responses are. The equivalent SD shows that the responses are scattered far & wide
from the mean. This means that the responses are not concentrated around the mean.
On the other hand, the Cronbach Alpha is used as a measure of internal consistency
or reliability of a Likert scale. The closer Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0, the
greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale. In this manner, the survey
gathered an alpha of 0.943548038, which means that it has high consistency and
reliability.
Mastery over Performance

After sorting the survey items whether they are manifestations of mastery-
type or performance approach type of goal orientation, using a simple measurement
of mean, the results revealed that items of mastery-type of goal orientation are more
 Page 13 of 17

favored by students tallying an average of 3.7029 compared to performance-

approach items which only garnered a 2.1462 average.

Mastery Performance
Item No. Average Item No. Average
1 3.6308 3 2.5692
2 3.8308 5 2.4063
4 4.0156 7 2.2923
6 3.9077 8 2.3906
9 3.9231 10 1.8308
13 3.4 11 1.8769
14 3.3077 12 2.2188
16 3.8438 15 1.9077
18 3.5077 17 1.8308
19 3.6615 20 2.1385
3.7029 2.1462

Figure 1. Tally of averages per item in mastery and performance categories

Most Commonly Observed Manifestations of Mastery-Goal
Among the 10 questions involving mastery type of goal orientation in the
questionnaire, items 4 (4.016), 6 (3.9077), and 9 (3.9231), are the most rated items.
4 - One of my goals in my Philippine History class is to learn as much as I
can.
6 - It’s important to me that I enrich my knowledge in Philippine History.
9 - One of my goals in Philippine History class is to remember the lessons
even after finishing the course.
The results of the survey showed that the respondents’ main goal in learning
Philippine History is the acquisition of knowledge on the subject.
Most Commonly Observed Manifestations of Performance- Approach Goal
On the other hand, the 10 questions implicating performance-approach type
of goal orientation in the questionnaire, items 3 (2.5692), 5 (2.4063), and 8 (2.3906)
had the top means.
3 - I want to do better than other students in my Philippine History class.
5 - One of my goals is to show others that class work is easy for me in
Philippine History Class.
8 - I feel really good if I am the only one who could answer the teacher’s
questions in the class.
 Page 14 of 17

The researchers then were able to conclude that the respondents’

performance in fulfilling their academic endeavors for the subject are influenced
by their sense of pride and achievement compared to their fellow learners.
College of Nursing Had the Most Positive Attitude in Learning Philippine
History
Among the three colleges (CTE, CAS, and CN) studied for this research,
the respondents from the College of Nursing exhibited the highest enthusiasm in
learning Philippine History with an average of 3.0032 points followed by the
College of Arts and Sciences with 2.9675 and the College of Teacher Education
garnering a 2.8285 average. As a whole, the respondents of this survey posted an
average of 2.925 in their goal perception in learning Philippine History.

CTE CAS CN Over-All Average

Average 2.8285 2.9675 3.0032 2.925
Difference From the
0.0965 -0.042 -0.078
Over-all Average
Average Difference -0.008

Figure 2. Tally of averages and differences per college

Comparing the results among the three colleges, the researchers found out
that the average outlook in learning the subject matter as a whole college are -0.008
point close to each other. Thus they are able to deduce that the undergraduate
students of Cebu Normal University have comparable reception in learning
Philippine History amidst the differences in the curriculum of the three colleges.

Other Personal Factors Affecting the Students’ Perception in Learning

Philippine History
The second part of the survey is a questionnaire asking students what other
factors affect their perception in learning Philippine History. The most common
answer was to review and enrich their background knowledge in Philippine History
that they gained during their basic education. And also, they acquire enthusiasm
and motivation in learning from their circle of friends and other spheres of
influence.

Conclusion
The results of the studies showed that most students are mastery goal-
oriented in learning Philippine History, implying that Philippine History teachers
 Page 15 of 17

should be factual, accurate, comprehensive and particular in inculcating specific

facts and information about Philippine History to students. This implication points
out to giving focus to the enrichment of students’ knowledge in Philippine History,
which item number 4 (the highest in average) indicates. And that the learners are
more concerned of their individual development rather than being compared to the
rest of the group. Moreover, the results also tell that Philippine History is naturally
an interesting subject.

Recommendations
Basing from all the results gathered in the survey, the researchers would
recommend that future studies would involve 1) studies about the authentic
strategies in the teaching of Philippine history in the context of the K-12 education
program, 2) external factors affecting the students’ performance in learning
Philippine history, and 3) live experiences of Philippine history teachers.
The first recommendation is imperative. Because the results show that they
are willing to learn Philippine History, be it more on facts, students still need
motivations to learn. Performance-based and real-life tasks with authentic
assessment can sustain active atmosphere despite objectivity brought by acquisition
of facts. Also, considering the external factors affecting students’ performance and
teachers’ live experiences can help endure students’ willingness to learn facts
carried by any knowledge-type means of teaching.
Automatically, these recommendations tell teachers whether students can
apply what they have learned in authentic situations.
References

Anderman, E. (2015). Terminology and Major Research Methods And

Measurement Tools Used To Test Goal Theory. Goal Orientation Theory.
Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-
theory/

Benabou, R. (2003). Incentives and Prosocial Behavior. Retrieved from

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/AER%202006.pdf

Brophy, J. (2005). Goal Theorists Should Move on From Performance Goals.

Educational Psychologists. Retrieved from
http://www.unco.edu/cebs/psychology/kevinpugh/motivation_project/resources/br
ophy05.pdf
 Page 16 of 17

Commission on Higher Education Order No. 20. (2013). General Education

Curriculum: Holistic Understandings, Intellectual and Civic Competencies.
Retrieved from http://www.ched.gov.ph/index.php/issuances/cmo/by-year/2013-
cmo/

Covington, M. & Mueller, K. (2001). Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation: An

Approach/Avoidance Reformulation. Educational Psychology Review. Retrieved
from
http://www.unco.edu/cebs/psychology/kevinpugh/motivation_project/resources/c
ovington_mueller01.pdf

Daligdig, R. (2014). Integrative Teaching Strategies (PowerPoint Presentation).

Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/bsemathematics2014/integrative-
teaching

Elliot, A. & McGregor, H. (2001). Achievement Goal Framework. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2001_ElliotMcGregor.p
df

Forrester, D & Jantzie, N. (1999). Learning Theories. Retrieved from

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/%7Egnjantzi/learning_theories.htm

Hsieh, P.; Yoon, C.; Liu, M. & Schallert, D. (2013). Middle School Students’ Goal-
Orientation and Self-Efficacy. Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy and Achievement.
Retrieved from http://alienrescue.edb.utexas.edu/researchpapers/GOSE_Final.pdf

Koren, S. (2013). Boring History, Boring Pupils: The Role of History Teachers.
Retrieved from http://cdrsee.org/pdf/teaching_boring_history.pdf

McCollum, D. & Kajs, L. (2007). Applying Goal Orientation Theory in an

Exploration of
Student Motivations in the Domain of Educational Leadership. Retrieve from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ792868.pdf

Muís, K., Winne, P. & Edwards, O. (2009). Modern psychometrics for assessing
achievement goal orientation: A Rasch analysis. British Journal Of Educational
Psychology. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000709908X383472/abstract
 Page 17 of 17

Murphy, K. & Alexander, P. (2000). A Motivated Exploration of Motivation

Terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Retrieved from
http://anitacrawley.net/Articles/Murphy.pdf

Papert, S. (1993). Rethinking School In The Age Of The Computer. The Children's
Machine. Retrieved from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/papert.html

Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions
and
New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_IntExt
Defs.pdf

Skinner, B. (1974). About Behaviorism. Retrieved from

http://www.amazon.com/About-Behaviorism-B-F-Skinner-
ebook/dp/B005FGZ93C

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation.

Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Up-Digital-Rise-
Generation/dp/0071347984

Tew, D. (2014). Pedagogy of Teaching History: Comparing the Chronologic and

Thematic Approaches. Honors Senior Theses. Western Oregon University Digital
Commons. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=honor
s_theses

Vuillier, L. & Cook, C. (2015). Gamification of Prosocial Learning for Increased

Youth Inclusion and Academic Achievement. Horizon2020 Framework
Programme. Retrieved from http://prosociallearn.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/D2.1-User%20requirements-Final%20version.pdf

Western Oregon University Official Website. Characteristics of Students with

Mastery versus Performance Goals. Western Oregon University Digital Commons.
Retrieved from
http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/100/mastery_vs_performance_goals.pdf