For: DISP VALUES SUMMER '09

Believe me, I'd tried for the nth time posting the video that I promised you. But I think there's a need to break the final output into at least 5 parts, 1 minute per part. So, just hang on there. It's been a busy period here in UP. I hope the "registration dust" will settle sometime next week.

I who?

"I" is a weird pronoun, right? When you use it to mean yourself, do you include the person you were 10 years ago? If not, does it mean the person you are right now and not the other one, if you believe you were different, 5 minutes or an hour ago? I think I should suggest instead that we may or may not be the same person we were 1 year or 2 days ago. If you lost a love one a few moments ago, would you rather say that you remain the exact same person you were awhile back? The person you are right now, if you're a father of an adorable kid, must be different from who you were at the time when you were just dreaming to be a father. When you use "I," who exactly is the person that you are referring to? The person you are right now? But then again, here, the temporal referent of “now” is gone. What we actually have appears to be a simple series of nows, but this does not solve the problem. Saying that now covers the past, present, and future, is definitely unacceptable. Well, no one would like to say “now-now-now-now” either; that’s plainly crazy.

Raw thoughts on teaching and research

1. At this point, undergraduate education students are not required to defend a research output (i.e., thesis) in order to get a bachelor’s degree in education. One may say thus that education undergraduate students are not as familiar with methodical research as other undergraduate students from other colleges after graduating from college. I think I would be stating the obvious if I will explain at length why education undergraduate students ought to be familiar with research in education when they enter the graduate school. The purpose of which is very simple: to become fully prepared when they enter the graduate school, which is basically a research school.

2. In terms of value, research in education has yet to be placed at the same level as teaching, I believe, in all teacher education institutions in the Philippines. The U.P. College of Education could make a difference on this. (Research writing need not be an individual task; it could be a group work).

3. It's hard to promote a culture of research in education if it is not an equal of teaching, when it is of lesser value than teaching during promotion period. While teaching performance is important, teachers should also treat research as its equal in terms of value. For it is always necessary, if we do not wish to remain a simple practitioner of some theorists' thoughts in education, to continue to challenge and verify the purported truth of educational theories by way of carrying out confirmatory research. It is only through research that we could test in a disciplined and scholarly fashion the soundness of theories that we often import into our system. It is through research that we could widen and deepen our knowledge of our profession. In addition, it is also equally important for us to come up with our own theories that could be more responsive to the requirements of the unique realities of the Philippine educational culture and situation. Hence, research should be equally valued in the College of Education.

4. It is simply not enough to say that teaching is more important than research in education because the majority says so. It’s no less invalid than saying that the neck of a cow could be found in its stomach simply because the majority believes so. So far, no sufficient reason was presented to fully justify the position that teaching is more important than research that is why the latter should be of prime consideration when we evaluate the merit of one’s application for promotion.

5. I do not mean to suggest that there are no good teachers. There are and they could very well get high scores in the Student Evaluation of Teachers (SET). But does it follow that if your SET score is high, you must be good at teaching? And if your score in the SET is low, does it follow that the teacher is bad at teaching. Note that the teachers’ SET is based on the students’ interpretation—not far removed from their opinion or personal standards—of the evaluation elements. Teachers too may have their own standards of good teaching which may not be identical to the students’ or SET's criteria.
6. This opinion is not being stated to suggest that research is more important than teaching. I am just trying to articulate what I believe to be a more tenable view: that research is as important as teaching. There was a time though when universities were more interested in research than in teaching those who were interested to learn from those who had advanced knowledge were invited to come and be the first students in the history of schooling.

7. We have graduate programs where students are taught not only to teach but also to conduct disciplined research. The purpose of which is to cultivate a culture of independence for it is difficult for the Filipino teachers and educators to apply theories that were built abroad, for these could turn out to be constructs that are not sensitive to the realities of our own changing environment here in the Philippines.

8. In teaching, we cannot expect to effect so many changes. What we could expect is a simple maintenance of the status quo in the sphere of pedagogical theories. For instance, teachers would have largely based their approach in teaching on Skinnerian psychology if no theorist had ever offered a “better” alternative view of the human mind and learning. To be not contended with the existing versions of truths in teaching, learning, pedagogy, curriculum, and other areas of education, we should encourage research. But this, again can't be done effectively if research is not viewed as an equal of teaching.

9. The matter on the value of teaching and research should not be reduced into a simple case of shared issue of teachers wanting to be promoted. A simple casting of vote would allow the teacher, who thinks that research is not as important (or as easy as teaching), to go for a set of criteria where the highest promotion points go to teaching. Apparently, this is not without a problem as, again, the valuation of the teacher’s teaching performance comes from the students alone. Research, as well as publication, should likewise be given equal weight in promotion as it is a proof of the teachers’ individual capacity and independent ability to generate knowledge and to contribute to the current fund of knowledge in education, especially in his/her own country.

10. I don’t see any problem if we are going to place equal premium on research and teaching. It’s a win-win situation as it encourages the teacher to be good both at teaching and research. Whereas, if we are going to put research somewhere below teaching—and note that, so far, no good reason has ever been produced to support this hierarchical setting of value—this can’t be a real case of encouraging research in education. “Encouraging” here is nothing but a mere word from someone who thinks, regardless of the amount of arguments for the research-an-equal-of-teaching thesis, that if you are a teacher in the College of Education, then your research is not as and no more important than your teaching. This is not a win-win situation. Research, here, is apparently at the losing end. A teacher who is dominated by thoughts about promotion points will most likely angle for a high SET score rather than work on research projects THAT ARE CONVERTIBLE INTO PUBLISHABLE JOURNAL ARTICLES, OF COURSE.ⁱ

11. Simply because we are teachers of the College of Education, it does not follow that teaching should be greater in value than research in education. To the question, “Where is the required justification to fully support the view that 'if you are an education teacher, you ought to place the highest premium on teaching and not on research because the latter is lesser in value?'” It's nowehere near in sight. Maybe,that cannot be justified. Teaching should be equally valued even in other colleges and research should be of the same worth as teaching regardless of the college where the faculty is teaching. All teachers, regardless of the college in which they teach, aim to train and educate their students, and such tasks could not be accomplished satisfactorily if teaching and research will not “work” as equals. Every faculty, regardless of his/her college, should place equal premium on research (or its equivalent).ⁱⁱ Every faculty should be both good teachers and researchers (whose works should get published).

ENDNOTES

i I’d like to add that a UP Diliman teacher has three functions: teaching, research, and extension. But I do not know if I could produce a sufficient reason to defend the view that extension is no less important than teaching and research.

ii The College of Music and the College of Fine Arts, and probably several other colleges, have something in place of research. In any case, these counterparts of research, I believe, are not viewed as something of lesser value than teaching. For all we know, some specialists are wont to believe that they could even be more important in value than teaching (e.g., concert performance of music teacher, art products of fine arts teachers). But then again, I shall be quite contented with the view that in education, teaching, and research should be equal in value.

VALUES AND MORAL EDUCATION: AIMS, CONTENT AND PEDAGOGY (Part 3)

Conceptions of Values and Moral Education

In a separate research that I have yet to conclude, one of my findings is that our school teachers have different conceptions of Values and Moral Education. Of the 201 respondents, 43 % believe that Values and Moral Education is critical thinking about evaluative issues, 32 % believe that its function is to transmit a ready set of non-religious values, and 17 % believed that it is a case of inculcating in the students a ready set of religious values. In sum, 49 % of the 201 respondents believe that Values and Moral Education is basically values transmission, inculcation, or indoctrination. The rest, or the remaining 8 %, thought that their notions of Values and Moral Education are not reflected in any of the given definitions.

You are probably asking now: What does this mean? Should the finding that schoolteachers have different notions of Values and Moral Education be a problem? Yes, it is a problem.

The lack of uniformity in AIMS, CONTENT, and PEDAGOGY is often raised about Values and Moral Education. It is said to have no stable, singular identity, and this is a problem that cannot be raised about Math and Science as the conduct of education in these areas of study are more or less stable and uniform in the modern schools.

As we all know, Science education has factual claims to offer and examine. Knowledge in Science, furthermore, is generated by way of inductive thinking and reasoning. In this area, a sound knowledge claim is grounded in material or observed evidence. So, when you say, for instance, to state the Law of Inertia, “A body will remain in its state unless it is acted upon by an outside force,” you are not saying this as though it is true in itself, as though it is a doctrinal truth. Galileo arrived at this general formulation after gathering first the relevant data from which he based his generalization that is the Law of Inertia. Meanwhile, in Mathematics, one cannot just claim that a mathematical proposition, say, 2+2 is 4, is true for no reason at all. There has to be a reason why such proposition is true. The truth of which is demonstrable by appeal to mathematical evidence. Now, the key word in Math and Science is REASON. The use of which is a necessary condition in order for Math and Science to exist the way they do in the context of formal education. And there simply is no quarrel about this among the teachers of Math and Science. The agreement as to the role of Math and Science education--that is to develop the critical, cognitive, inductive, and deductive reasoning abilities of students--remains the same, and there is no impending quarrel as to the meaning of such elements of formal education.

Values transmission

Such is not the status of Values and Moral Education as it comes in many forms. Allow me to discuss what I believe to be the most familiar version of Values and Moral Education. This is Values and Moral Education in the form of values transmission, indoctrination, or inculcation. These expressions suggest the kind of aims, content and pedagogy of Values and Moral Education when it is conceived as a formal education component whose purpose is to transmit selected doctrines which are, more or less, thought to be universal or trans-cultural values. The proponents and those who share this version of Values and Moral Education see no problem in transmitting values that are believed to be the requisites of living a good or righteous life. The set of values, despite the belief of many that it is universally accepted, of course, could vary from one school to another. But the endorsers of certain values are, more or less, dominated by the attitude that what they preach, if adopted, will transform a human being into a morally upright person.

Moral and evaluative reasoning in Values and Moral Education

What should Values and Moral Education be? Just like Math and Science, Values and Moral Education should place equal premium on critical thinking, rational doubting, reasoning, and logical skepticism. Specifically, because it should deal with rational thinking, Values and Moral Education should aim to cultivate the moral or evaluative reasoning abilities of the students. Only through this approach could we possibly maintain the thesis that Values and Moral Education is as meaningful as Math and Science. Only when Values and Moral Education places the same value on the use of reason, when addressing a certain problem or issue, will it count as a legitimate equal of Math and Science.

Will Values and Moral Education then be so useful in real-life situation if it is going to be chiefly concerned with the cultivation of the moral reasoning and other intellectual abilities of the students? Yes, of course. Let me give some examples where having a good deal of training and education in moral and evaluative reasoning is practically valuable.

In any country where the people are supposed to have the freedom to CHOOSE their local and national leaders, good moral and evaluative reasoning is highly important. What will happen to a country whose electorate is composed of voters who are dismally lacking in sophisticated rational VALUATION skills is not difficult to tell. We don’t have to look at other countries in order to say that it will be easy for the incompetent politicians to take those voters who are not capable of reasoned valuation for a ride. Let me give some names: Erap, Noli De Castro, Jaworski, Sotto, Jinggoy Estrada, Lapid, the Revillas, and Freddie Webb. They are a bunch of proofs that a huge number of our voting population lack the capacity to rationally evaluate and choose our national leaders. I think I don’t have to go as far as naming some more clowns that many voters chose to represent them at the House of Representatives. Please pay attention to the word “CHOOSE” because valuing is an instance of choosing. We value by choice. And again the question is, “Do our voters choose or value by rational means?”

Just imagine if all our voters are capable of making highly rational choices. Of course, I am not meaning to suggest that all those who voted for the likes of Lito Lapid and Bong Revilla are stupid valuers. But neither do I mean to say, and I will never do, that most of Lapid’s and Revilla’s supporters are highly rational valuers like you. Did you ever ask yourselves why the likes of Lapid and Revilla will never ever campaign for their candidacy in academic institutions like the University of the Philippines? Yes, because it is not easy to take rational, educated, or well-schooled valuers for a ride. Rational valuers cannot be persuaded by a simple appeal to emotion and popularity, which is what actors- and actresses-turned-politicians are usually doing during the campaign period. Rational valuers can only be persuaded by appeal to reason.

Aside from this, of course, we need a good deal of abilities to do evaluative and moral reasoning if we wish to arrive at a resolution to important value or moral issues. Some of such issues are the following: (1) Should I continue with my pregnancy even if I don’t have the means to support my child? (2) Should we re-activate the death penalty? (3) Is it right for parents to have their child baptized long before the child could make his/her own choice? (4) Should I leave the country and work for the people of other countries? (5) Is it right to legalize same sex marriage? (6) Should we allow divorce? All of these are important value issues for which rational answers are hard to come by when the valuer was schooled in the tradition of VALUES INDOCTRINATION. What the valuer needs, to be a rational solver of value issues, is a solid training in moral and evaluative reasoning.

I'll begin with the aims of Values and Moral Education in my next post.

UP DISP Values Ed. Summer '09 Class

Hi there! I'm still fixing the video. Send me some more pictures that you want me to include in our final output. See you, thanks!

"ATLAS SHRUGGED" THE MOVIE: WHO'S GOING TO BE DAGNY?

Hey! I've been hearing that Angelina Jolie will portray the character of Dagny Taggart, but I've been hoping too that it's nothing final yet. It's quite a relief thus to hear that other actresses have been recently considered for the role: Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts, and Anne Hathaway. Check it out here. Well, I just don't think that Jolie has the required character depth to play Taggart. Roberts? Nah. Hathaway? I don't think so either. Maybe, Theron. Perhaps, Jodie Foster. Well, I just can't wait to see this Randian piece in motion picture.

VALUES AND MORAL EDUCATION: AIMS, CONTENT, AND PEDAGOGY (Part 2)

Values and Moral Education: an independent subject

I must be absolutely clear now about one thing: Values and Moral Education should be an independent subject like Math and Science. It ought to be as it is a legitimate equal of Math and Science. Unfortunately, many stakeholders in education tend to regard the language of Values and Moral Education as less meaningful than the language of Science and Math. This, I believe, explains why Values and Moral Education in public school has been relegated to the lower rung of academic activities as it is no longer considered an independent subject like Math and Science. There are, of course, those who tend to believe otherwise, but rarely will we hear them laying down their arguments as to why the language of Values and Mroal Education, even if it is non-cognitive, is no less meaningful than the cognitive language of Math and Science. Part of my task, therefore, is to show why the language of Values and Moral Education is no less meaningful than the language of Math and Science.

In the past, I encountered a number of people who are quick to say that there is no more need to do this as what they expect me to say is already self-evident. But when I pressed them to proceed and give a summary of what they believe I am trying to say, their silence, to my mind, is an indication that they know very little, if not absolutely nothing, about what I wanted to say regarding the meaning of the language of Values and Moral Education.

Furthermore, some of my critics have been always quick to ask the question, Why is addressing the issue on meaning so important? It is very important because the non-argumentative or non-rational aspect of the language of Values and Moral Education is the very reason why it continues to be viewed as a lesser subject when compared to Math and Science. TAKE NOTE THAT I DID NOT SAY, ‘IRRATIONAL.’ Today, Values and Moral Education is an inferior area of academic interest, especially in public schools, because it is has no independent existence as a subject. It is an area of study that does not bear equal weight as Math and Science.

What seems to be the problem then? We ask this question. Much of the problem could be traced to our problematic conceptions of Values and Moral Education. NOTE HERE THAT ‘CONCEPTIONS’ IS INTENTIONALLY IN PLURAL AS WE HAVE VARIOUS CONCEPTIONS OF VALUES AND MORAL EDUCATION. More shall be said on this later.

VALUES AND MORAL EDUCATION: AIMS, CONTENT, AND PEDAGOGY (Part 1)

THIS IS FOR VALUES ED. TEACHERS WHO WISH TO GET A GLIMPSE OF MY THOUGHTS ABOUT VALUES EDUCATION FOR YOUNG FILIPINOS

In spite of our differences as regards the meaning of education¹, we can agree that there are certain requirements that every human being has to meet to be considered educated. This means that someone who counts as a schooled person may not readily qualify as an educated person.

We can further agree that no person is born educated. The popular view seems to be that human beings are born, whereas educated people are made. It is often thought that a person becomes educated with the assistance or direct supervision of the school, church, media, family, and so on. Meaning, no one could possibly avail of education for him-/herself without the aid that may be obtained from such institutions, which, again, are agencies other than the self of the learner. We, therefore, question the meaning of the expression “self-educated person.” For within the context of the modern education for the citizen, the learner has to tap certain resources in order to meet the requirements, whatever those are, that were set by the society so that one can belong to the league of the so-called educated.

The idea of “requirements,” that is the societal criteria, brings us to the question of educational program that could help transform the student from a simple human being to an educated person. Specifically, this leads us to the question, What sort of things must a human being have in order to count as an educated person? We know that a widely accepted answer to this question will give us an idea of the things that a given society prescribes in order to count as an educated person. Unfortunately, this question proved to be difficult as it continuously gives rise to a wide variety of educational programs that had been inspired by different world views.

Let’s now turn back to our first concerns. Am I an educated person? If yes, why yes? What criteria have I satisfied to say that I am predisposed to claim that I am an educated person?

It would be an embarrassment for us, students and teachers of education alike, to say that we are hardly educated. But what sort of criteria have we satisfied to say that we are, indeed, an educated class of humans? If we are not sure about our possible answers to this question, then, perhaps, we are not clear about our notions of education.

So far, in effect, we are also asking the question, What constitutes education? We should like to answer this question so that we could tell, if indeed, we are an educated person, if not universally, at least within the range of the accepted standards of the society in which we belong.

Having an infinite amount of learning in Solid State Physics, Advanced Algebra, and in other such-like sciences is far from enough in order to count as an educated person. A great deal of knowledge and training in all the physical and formal sciences will not suffice to say that a person is educated while he/she could be so dumb when it comes to dealing with his/her own aging parents, siblings, young children, or fellow human beings. I am using the expression “dealing” here in its moral sense as I am suggesting that aside from the learning that one could get in Science and Mathematics, in order to count as an educated person, one must also be morally educated. To put it more poignantly, expressions like Ph.d., M.A., Attorney, Dr., Judge, Justice, Chief Justice, or even Honorable, are mere titles before or after a person’s name; they are not a sure-fire sign that one is educated if any of such titles is attached to his/her name. One could still be considered maleducated despite his/her profession.

For now, you must be starting to get a grip of my drift. Science and Math education, though they had been tested to be reliable instruments in obtaining higher learning and education, they are by no means sufficient.

Values and Moral Education is a vital component of the concept of education. And it is as important as Math and Science education. From here on, I shall be talking about Values and Moral Education, its problems, and some possible solutions, as it is a necessary part of a process that is aimed at turning out educated people. But before I proceed, allow me to say that I am not suggesting that Art Education is not as important. To my mind, it is an equal of Values, Moral, Mathematics, and Science education, but it is not my place to justify the role of Art Education in the production of an educated person. Just allow me to focus on Values and Moral Education and leave the other task to the specialists in Art Education and Aesthetics.

Now, one who wishes to be considered educated cannot just turn his back on matters of values. Life would be boring—and I doubt if it is worth living--if it is nothing but proving scientific and mathematical claims. The truth is, hardly would we end a day without confronting a number of value-related issues or problems. Should I remain loyal to a friend who is betraying me? If there is such a thing as just punishment, when can I say that a punishment is just? Should I return the extra change that I received from an ill-mannered vendor? Should I also issue defamatory statements against an acquaintance who is spreading slanderous rumors about me? Can I blame a wrongdoer who claims to be a creation of his environment rather than by his own mind? Is death penalty right? How should I regard the Filipino politician and why? Is it wrong to break a promise? If not all the time, when can it be right, if it could be right, to break a promise? And why is it right? What does it take to be a good citizen? When can I say that I am not only a good citizen but also a good individual? Which is nobler, if any, the good of the citizen or the good of the individual? Whose good should we pursue first and foremost—the good of the individual or the good of the citizen? Most of these problems, aside from being important, are as perennial as the grass. It is for these and other similar problems and for the RATIONAL manner with which we should address them that Values and Moral Education should exist.

So, again, the value aspect of our education is evident in Values and Moral Education and I wish to be concerned with this area alone at this point. In sum, what I had been trying to say was that an educational program, without Values and Moral Education, is in no way sufficient.

My next blog will be on Values and Moral Education as an independent subject.

ENDNOTE

1 Education for me is the product of the human beings interaction with certain elements and forces in his/her environment. This product comes in the form of acquired valuable knowledge and skills. I share the belief that to be educated is being able to function effectively in different areas of worthwhile human activities, being able to exercise good judgment in addressing evaluative or moral issues, and being creative and imaginative in analyzing and solving problems. Knowledge and skills in education are tools that the educated could use to achieve his/her individual ends without sacrificing the interest of other human beings. It is possible that in the process of one’s utilizing his/her knowledge and skills, his/her fellow humans will benefit from such use. In any case, education for me, first and foremost, is something that one can use to live a better life. This definition, of course, is still very general but our time and space won’t allow me to get down to the finer details of my notion of education.