Ramos, Keirvin Cloi Dela Cruz

STS 1 – WFU
Individual Work

I. STS? (10 points, 500 words or less): Is your perception of STS changed during the
course of this semester (Yes/No)? How and why?
Back in high school, our science curriculum was focused on providing us with the
technical skills and competencies required from a future scientist and engineer. It was not,
unfortunately, designed to explore beyond scientific principles and concepts, leaving out any
discussions related to or revolving around STS. The only subjects that came close to these
discussions were Araling Panlipunan (AP) and Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao (ESP), though both
lacked discussions on core theories, principles, and concepts surrounding STS. Most importantly,
none of the subjects offered in high school ever tackled the establishment, history, progress,
significance, and relevance of society’s relationship with science and technology, and vice versa.
And so, I entered college eager to become an engineer, but was clueless, and somehow
uninterested, about anything related to STS.
“How are science, technology, and society connected? How do their relationship impact peoples’
lives?”
These are questions I had in mind before I was introduced to STS 1. Back then, I thought they
were already ‘pretty sharp’ and complex enough to summarize the coverage and objectives of the
course, and yet I was wrong. Right after our first discussion, I realized I had a shallow curiosity.
Though not entirely foolish, my questions barely scratched the surface of what STS truly is and
the ideals it entails. Our journey through the whole course was an eye-opening escapade that
allowed me to question my previous knowledge and perception. By the end, I can see a
multifaceted portrait of a messy, complicated, but stronger-than-ever harmony between science
and technology and our today’s society.
As an engineering student, my program offers limited subjects that cover topics explored
in STS. More than just a refresher or a breather, our STS class served as a training ground for our
minds where we nurtured ourselves with ideas that go beyond the scope of my course.
STS allowed us to imagine a bigger picture, to think outside the box, to keep asking questions, to
be more open, and to make life-changing realizations. Taking STS as an elective not only loaded
our arsenal of knowledge but also allowed us to confront ourselves regarding the knowledge that
we know and the roles that we play in today’s and tomorrow’s advancements in science,
technology, and society. Beyond all the scientific, historical, and sociocultural concepts and
theories, STS opened my eyes to the key part I must play as an ordinary citizen, as an Isko, and a
future scientist of our country.
 II. Close To You (40 points, 2 pages max): Choose one topic among those listed as
options for “Individual Work” in http://bitly.ws/e67U, which is the one closest to you according
to your discipline and/or interests. Then make a review, reaction, or reflection on this topic with
the STS perspective.
As a third-world country, the Philippines chooses to adapt the Western standards so as to
reach the same level of political, economic, and other sectoral competency. Unsurprisingly,
neoliberalism now branches out through our education system. Neoliberalism in education aims
to produce, assess, brand, and trade academic and professional goods (e.g., expert labor,
curriculum, institutional rankings, etc.) made available in a global arena [1]. The K-12 program
embodies the exact ideology – adapt globally-accepted educational standards to produce quality,
flexible, and docile workers ready for the world. However, as convincing and acceptable as it
may sound, applying to and being hired by even low-paying jobs in the country already is a
demanding endeavor. Many employers still require at least a college diploma and experience,
rendering the promise of K-12 (i.e., SHS graduates can already work) moot. This in turn results
to an increased number of job mismatches and professionals migrating abroad. Many other
repercussions can be explored, but we have to drift back to the topic at hand.
I believe the plague that ills our education system up to this date stems from the long-
standing neoliberalist ideology. For decades, even before the K-12 existed, our education system
has always valued the production of qualified workers ready for the world instead of catering the
needs of the Filipino people and the country itself. Coupled with an improper and abusive
management of funds, it is without a doubt our education system has always been a failure.
Basic education in the Philippines is weak. This is the sad, unfortunate reality that can be
concluded from all national and international assessments spearheaded and/or participated by the
country for the last few decades. Based on the last 5 multinational assessments since 1999, the
Philippines either ranked near the bottom or last across all learning areas evaluated. According to
the TIMSS-R 1999 (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study Assessment Results -1999), the
Philippines ranked 3rd to the last among 38 participating countries in Science and Math
proficiency. The same disappointing results were reflected during the TIMSS Assessment in
2003 when the country placed 41st in Math competency and only 42nd in Science competency out
of 45 participating countries [2]. Despite these underwhelming results, the country continued
with the old Basic Education Curriculum (1946-2011), with few ‘minor’ changes that
unsurprisingly brought no good results, until the Aquino administration moved forward with the
K-12 [3].
The Department of Education commenced the ‘phased implementation’ of the K-12
program in SY 2012-2013. With a new system in place, a new, ‘enhanced basic education
curriculum’ (EBEC) is introduced, and several reforms were made to align the educational
system of the Philippines with that of most countries [3]. Unfortunately, despite the reformed
academic programs and the additional two years in secondary education, the K-12 system has not
yet delivered the desired results expected from it. Instead, the program only brought frustration
and anxiety to parents, teachers, and students alike. Throughout these transformations, parents
went through longer financial challenges, teachers rendered confused and forced to teach
regardless of preparedness and qualification, while students had to go through experimental and
trial runs, which negatively affected their competencies [4].
Two administrations after, it is already too late for the government, the Department of
Education, and other stakeholders involved to realize they were not ready for it. Now, the
consequence of such incompetence is broadcast around the world as the Philippines hit rock
bottom yet again in all global education assessments. In 2018, the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) ranked the Philippines last among 79 participating countries in Math
and Science literacy. Based on the study, the scores for both mathematics (353) and science
(357) proficiency of Filipino students flunked well below the average score of OECD
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) member countries [5]. The same
results were also reported by TIMSS and SEA-PLM (Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics)
Assessments the following year. TIMSS ranked the Philippines last in both Math and Science
proficiency among 58 countries, while SEA-PLM placed the country at the bottom half in math,
science, and reading literacy among 6 participating countries [6-7]. On average, the three
assessments show that more than 80% of Filipino students fall below the minimum level of
proficiency expected of their years in school [7].
With this, a greater doubt and perturbance is cast upon the quality of basic education in
the Philippines [8]. More specifically, calls to discontinue the ‘failed’ K-12 program echoed
throughout the country as parents, students, teachers, experts, and several politicians expressed
their exasperation and grief. Unfortunately, on the other hand, the government, through the
Department of Education, only saw these unsettling reports as ‘motivation’ to move forward with
a sense of urgency in addressing the quality of our basic education [4,8].
How ironic. How nostalgic. Their words sound empty now as they echo the same tone
they used to have decades ago. Like promises scattered in the wind, their statements proved to be
useless and insubstantial. For the past few decades, no matter how many education program
modifications and transformations existed, nary an improvement nor a better result was
delivered. Generations passed and sprung but our basic education still stinks. Instead of rising
above the ranks, we plummeted even further. Where have we gone wrong?
Indeed, we need to come up with an effective solution that could successfully
revolutionize our education system. But, focusing on the competency where we have always
been last, what steps should we take to improve our science and technology education? As a
start, we should accept the fact that we do not have enough budget for it, and more than enough
corruption politicians to take advantage of what little money we have. The mishandling of our
educational fund is undeniably the root cause of all our problems today. Without a proper
allocation, no matter what educational system is in place, the funding will go to waste, resulting
to a poor system planning, execution, and maintenance.
The science and technology program in K-12, for example, demands a hefty budget to
accommodate the construction of competitive learning facilities, acquisition of cutting-edge
equipment and teaching materials, and training seminars for teachers. As a result? Lower-
rankings in several multinational assessments, job mismatches, SHS students not continuing in
college, and worst, disparity between the competence of students from different regions. As can
be noticed from the different multinational assessments, science literacy is higher in richer,
highly urbanized region such as the NCR. Why? Because most of these areas boasts several
science high schools and stronger science, technology, and engineering programs compared to
other regions. Again, the blame here points only to the allocation of funds. Where there are more
funds, the better the facilities are, the more tenured the teachers are, the more competitive the
students are.
Focusing on the S&T curriculum itself, I believe it lacks the required authentic
approach that cannot only pique the interest of students in science and technology but also
nurture their social and developmental responsibilities. With its roots deeply anchored to
neoliberalism, the current curriculum lacks the nutrition required to cater the diverse needs of
students coming from different regions, traditions, social status, etc.
From an STS perspective, and based on my prior knowledge as a previous education
student, I believe introducing authentic assessments will help strengthen our science curriculum.
While K-12 offers a more modern approach to science and technology education than the old
basic education curriculum, it lacks the authentic approach to assessments that students need.
Unlike a neoliberalist assessment, an authentic approach engages the knowledge and skills of
students in real-world tasks. Authentic assessments put into test both the students’ real-life skills
and knowledge. It is directed towards practicality and non-educational setting, which is good in
triggering motivation in learning. It also facilitates students’ engagement to self-apprehension,
inducing a deeper cognitive understanding of their own progression and all factors revolving
around it [9]. Essentially, authentic approach is focused on meaningful goals, deviating from the
‘schools to jobs’ and ‘expert labor trade and exchange’ principle of neoliberalism. If an authentic
approach has any motto, it would be
It is not how smart you are, it is how you are smart. – H. Gardner
So, why choose the authentic approach? Authentic assessment is a sustainable assessment
that transforms students into lifelong learners, futuristically able to define and assess themselves
holistically, judging all angles of their own progression. This is what we want. If we desire to
deviate from the traditional approach, I believe adapting the principles of authentic approach is
more than enough help. But unless the new administration does something new, unless they drift
apart from the old, neoliberalist approach that clearly dehumanizes the learning process, I do not
think we will ever rise from the rock-bottom we are in today. So help us God.
III. How Are You? (5 points, 150 words or less): Has technology been helpful for your
wellbeing? Why?
Ever since the beginning of the pandemic, technology has become more valuable and
necessary than many people expected it to be. Meanwhile, underprivileged families like us never
would have anticipated and needed it to happen. Albeit we were aware of the fast-paced progress
of technology and the ramifications it may bring to ‘regular’ people like us, at least pre-pandemic
we could slowly adjust. Covid-19 slapped our faces not only with a deathly threat of a virus but
also with a realization of how far down we are in our society. Back then, we had dignifying
opportunities to choose from a handful of essential and non-essential options brought about by
technological advancements. At least then, we somehow managed to catch up and had plenty of
hours to work with.
Now, everything has changed. Underprivileged families like us were forced to adapt to
the ‘techy’ things we’ve only thought of as luxury. Now, technology is everywhere – education,
politics, religion, industries, and any other social affairs. It serves as the center point of every
economy, and in order to survive one must be familiar with it – a fact that’s been burdening
Filipino families like mine. So to answer the question, technology wasn’t any help at all for my
wellbeing. The reality is it only made my family and I suffer. Sure, to be fair, I know technology
saved my life and many lives. Sure, maybe someday familiarity and proficiency with technology
will do me a lot of favor. But questioning the mishaps my family had to endure, the difficulties
many poor Filipino families carried on for years, is a bit of a stretch. Because the sad truth is,
technology isn’t for us underprivileged, it is a necessity we were forced to accept. And unless the
government do something about it, for us, technology will always be a ‘luho’, not a helpful
solution to be grateful for.

IV. Beyond STS1 (5 points, 150 words or less, bonus): If STS will be offered as an
undergraduate minor or a graduate degree (diploma, MS, or PhD level), will you consider
taking it as a minor along with your undergraduate major or specialized on it after college? Yes
or No. Why?
I believe that the younger generation will also benefit from this program so I think it is
only appropriate that it is offered across all courses. However, being one of the most difficult
engineering courses there is, Metallurgical Engineering covers a wide array of technical subjects
both in the field of science and mathematics, not to mention law. With only four years of time to
educate and train undergraduate students, I do not think the department will allow students to
take any other minor programs unrelated to the course. I believe that it would benefit me, and
other students from my department as well, if we just take STS as a graduate degree, should
there be one. As a graduate course, STS should further enhance and expand our expertise and
qualification.
References:
[1] Hamilton, M. (2020). Resisting neoliberalism in education: Resources of hope. Retrieved
form: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/literacy-research-centre/2020/01/24/resisting-neoliberalism-in-
education-resources-ofhope/#:~:text=Under%20neoliberalism%20education%20systems%20
have,responsibilities%20(Olssen%2C%202009).
[2] Deveza et al., (2005). The state of Science and Technology in the Philippines. Retrieved
from: https://old-uvle.upd.edu.ph/pluginfile.php/942285/mod_resource/content/0/Deveza%
20et%20al-AGHAM%202005%20State%20of%20Science%20and%20Technology%
20Philippines.pdf
[3] K-12 Academics (2022). History of Education in the Philippines. Retrieved from:
https://www.k12academics.com/Education%20Worldwide/Education%20in%20the%20Phili
ppines/history-education-philippines
[4] De Borja, E. & Marfil, A. (2021). ‘K-12 is a failure.It is high time to junk it’. Retrieved from:
https://csspsinag.wordpress.com/2021/05/27/k-12-is-a-failure-it-is-high-time-to-junk-it/
[5] PISA 2018. PISA 2018: National Report of the Philippines. Retrieved from:
https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PISA-2018-Philippine-National-
Report.pdf
[6] Magsambol, B. (2020). PH lowest among 58 countries in math, science – global assessment.
Retrieved from: https://www.rappler.com/nation/filipino-students-lagging-behind-math-
science-timms-international-results-2019/
[7] de Vera, B. (2021). 80% of students don’t know what they should know – World Bank.
Retrieved from: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1453814/wb-80-of-ph-kids-dont-know-what-
they-should-know
[8] Corrales, N. (2020). K-12 blamed for low math, science ranks. Retrieved from:
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1371337/k-12-blamed-for-low-math-science-ranks
[9] Harada, V. & Yoshina, J. (2004). Moving from rote to inquiry: Creating learning that counts.
Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234671410_Moving_from_Rote_
to_Inquiry_Creating_Learning_That_Counts