DAMANDAMAN

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS
The National Center for Teacher Education
STUDENTS’ PREFERRED QUALITIES AND PEDAGOGIES OF AN

ARALING PANLIPUNAN TEACHERS
A THESIS Presented to The Faculty of Teacher and Development

Philippine Normal University Visayas Cadiz City, Negros Occidental
In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Course 2S-SOC19

(RESEARCH II)
Cristy Marie B. Damandaman

Roy B. Benedicto, Jr.
Renzi B. Dolino
Lyndon V. Libradilla
April 2024
Students’ Preferred Qualities and Pedagogies
2
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
This thesis attached hereto, titled STUDENTS’ PREFERRED QUALITIES AND

PEDAGOGIES OF AN ARALING PANLIPUNAN TEACHERS, prepared and
submitted by ROY B. BENEDICTO, JR, CRISTY MARIE B. DAMANDAMAN,
RENZI B. DOLINO, and LYNDON V. LIBRADILLA, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the course 2S-SOC 19 (Research II), is hereby recommended for Oral
Examination.
ROMMEL E. BACHOCO, MEd

Research Adviser
Approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements in 2S-SOC 19 (Research II) by the

Oral Examination Committee on March 8, 2024.
ALBERTO A. RICO, PhD

Chairman
RICHELLE A. DELMO, PhD EPHRAIM R. ESTACION, JR., PhD

Member Member
Accepted in partial fulfillment for the course 2S-SOC 19 (Research II).
MARIA FATIMA P. DOLENDO, EdD

Associate Dean, Faculty of Teacher Development
_____________ MA. WENNA B. FERNANDEZ, PhD

Date Dean for Academics and the Hub
ABSTRACT
3
This The National Center for Teacher Education

study
aims to determine the Junior High School (JHS) students' preferred qualities and
pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan teachers in Villacin National High School when
taken as a whole and categorized according to their profile variables. The participants
of the study were the two hundred fifty-nine (259) Junior High School (JHS) students
enrolled during the academic year 2023-2024. The researchers utilized the descriptive-
comparative type of quantitative research design. The data gathering procedure was
conducted by administering modified questionnaires, which have been duly validated
and established reliability. The frequency, mean, and standard deviation were used to
determine the preferred qualities and pedagogies. On the other hand, t-test for
independent means and one-way ANOVA were used to determine the significant
differences between junior high school student's preferred qualities and pedagogies and
their profile variables. Findings revealed that the respondent's preferred qualities when
taken as a whole and grouped according to their profile variables, is being a Good
Communicator. At the same time, their preferred pedagogy is Lecture-Style teaching.
Findings also revealed that there are significant differences in students' preferred
qualities and pedagogies. As such, the insights of this study may serve as a guide to
create initiatives in improving the teaching and learning process in Araling Panlipunan
subjects.
Keywords: Araling Panlipunan, Pedagogies, Qualities, Teachers
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
4
The The National Center for Teacher Education
journey of this research has been a challenging yet rewarding experience. It is with
immense gratitude that we acknowledge the support and help of those who have been
instrumental in the successful completion of this study. Their contributions, though
they may not all be listed, have left a profound impact on our work, and for that, we
are deeply thankful.
First and foremost, we would like to express our profound gratitude for the guidance of
our Almighty God, whose blessings and grace have been our beacon throughout this
research journey.
Our sincere appreciation goes to our subject professor in research, Dr. Ephraim R.
Estacion, Jr., whose expertise and guidance have been invaluable to our study. His
dedication to assisting our academic progress has been a constant source of motivation.
We are deeply grateful to Prof. Rommel E. Bachoco, our ever-supportive research

adviser, for his unwavering patience and insightful suggestions that greatly enhanced
our work. His commitment to our success has been a driving force behind our research.
Our sincere thanks to our validators, Prof. Gerly Mae M. Garde, Prof. Zarla D.
Quirao, and Prof. Meah A. Bajande, for their critical reviews and constructive
feedback. Their thorough review has significantly improved the quality of our work.
We extend our gratitude to our panelists during the colloquium and final defense, Dr.
Richelle A. Delmo, Dr. Ephraim R. Estacion, Jr., and Dr. Alberto A. Rico, for their
valuable comments and suggestions. Their insightful critiques have helped refine our
research into its final form.
Our special thanks go to our statisticians, Prof. Eliseo P. Marpa and Mr. Ruel A.
Casalla, for their assistance in analyzing and interpreting our results. Their expertise
in statistics was instrumental in the success of our study, and their guidance has been a
beacon in our journey through the complex world of data.
We are thankful to Mr. Erol Jane Bandiola, principal of Villacin National High
School, for permitting us to conduct our actual data gathering. Similarly, we appreciate
Mr. Jovel J. Oberio, principal of SPED High School, for allowing us to conduct our
reliability test in the school despite the short notice. Their support had been
instrumental for us to be able to facilitate in facilitating our fieldwork and data
collection.
5
Our The National Center for Teacher Education
deepest appreciation goes to the junior high school students of Villacin National
High School. Your participation was crucial to our study, and we are truly grateful for
your cooperation. Your willingness to share your experiences has provided us with
invaluable data for our research.
To our parents, friends, and classmates, your moral support and encouragement have
been our strength throughout this process. We are forever grateful for your unwavering
faith in us. Your belief in our abilities has been a source of motivation and resilience in
the face of challenges.
Ultimately, we would like to express our gratitude to everyone who contributed to this
research in one way or another. Your support has made this journey not only possible
but also a memorable learning experience. We are eternally grateful for your
contributions and will strive to honor them through the quality of our work.
Thank you. May God bless us all and Godspeed!
CMBD
RJBB
RBD
LVL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
6
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………… i
APPROVAL SHEET…………………………………………………………… ii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………………… iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………. vi
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………... ix
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………… xii
LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………………….. xiii
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Background of the Study……………………………………………………….. 1
Literature Review………………………………………………………………. 3
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework……………………………………….. 14
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………. 19
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………. 20
Scope and Limitations of the Study……………………………………………. 21
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………. 22
CHAPTER 2: METHODS (CHECK INDENTION AND PAGINATION)
Research Design………………………………………………………………. 24
Sampling and Participants of the Study………………………………………. 25

Research Instrument…………………………………………………………… 27
Validity of the Research Instrument…………………………………………… 28

7
Reliability of the Research Instrument………………………………………… 29
Data Gathering Procedure……………………………………………………... 30
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….. 31
Ethical Considerations………………………………………………………… 31
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results…………………………………………………………………………. 33
Discussions…………………………………………………………………….. 33
Interpretation of the Data………………………………………………………. 33
CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of the Study………………………………………………………….. 76
Summary of the Findings………………………………………………………. 77
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 78
Recommendations……………………………………………………………… 79
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….. 82
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………… 95
CURRICULUM VITAE………………………………………………………… 127

8
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
2.1 Profile of the Junior High School Students of Villacin National

High School………………………………………………………. 26
2.2 Participants from Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10…………………………... 26
2.3 Kinds of Teacher Qualities ………………………………………. 27
2.4 Kinds of Teaching Methods Used………………………………… 28
3.1 Preferred Qualities of Junior High School Students when taken as a
9
whole………………………………………………………………
The National Center for Teacher Education 35
3.2 Preferred Qualities of Junior High School Students when categorized
according to sex…………………………………………………... 37
3.3 Preferred Qualities of Junior High School Students when categorized
according to grade level…………………………………………... 41
3.4 Preferred Pedagogies of Junior High School Students when taken as a
whole……………………………………………………………… 43
3.5 Preferred Pedagogies of Junior High School Students when categorized
according to sex…………………………………………………... 45
3.6 Preferred Pedagogies of Junior High School Students when categorized
according to grade level…………………………………………... 48 3.7
3.7 T-Test Results on the Unequal Variances of the Students’
Preferred Qualities (SR, PP, CE, GC, EE) of an Araling
Panlipunan Teachers categorized according to Sex……............... 51
3.8 ANOVA Analysis of Differences in Students’ Preferred Qualities
of an Araling Panlipunan Teachers by Year Level………………… 54
3.9 Comparison between Sociable and Respectful (SR) in Grades 7,

8, 9, and 10 using the Post Hoc Tests for One Way
ANOVA……………………………………………………........... 56
3.10 Comparison between Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) in

Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 using the Post Hoc Tests for One Way
ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 58
3.11 Comparison between Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) in
ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 60
3.12 Comparison between Good Communicator (GC) in Grades 7, 8,
10
9, and 10 using the PostCenter

The National Hoc Tests for One
for Teacher Way
Education
ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 62
3.13 Comparison between Engaging and Effective (EE) in Grades 7,
ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 63
3.14 T-Test Results on the Unequal Variances of the Students’
Preferred Pedagogies (LST, DBT, EL, IBL, TET, CT, RPS) of an
Araling Panlipunan Teachers categorized according to Sex………. 66
3.15 ANOVA Analysis of Differences in Students’ Preferred
Pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan Teachers by Year
Level………………………………………………………............. 69
3.16 Comparison between Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) in Grades 7,
ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 70
3.17 Comparison between Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) in
ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 71
3.18 Comparison between Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) in Grades 7,

ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 73
3.19 Comparison between Cooperative Learning (CL) in Grades 7,
ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 74
3.20 Comparison between Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) in
ANOVA…………………………………………………………… 75
11
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Schematic Diagram illustrating the Theoretical/Conceptual

Framework of the Study……………………………………... 18
12
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX PAGE
A Research Instrument…………………………………… 95
B Letter to the Validators………………………………… 97
C Profile of the Validators……………………………….. 103
D Criteria for Validating the Research Instrument………. 104
E Letter to the Superintendent…………………………… 107
F Validity of the Data Gathering Instrument…………….. 109
G Letter for the Conduct of Reliability………………….. 110

13
112
H Reliability Results……………………………………..,
I SPSS Results………………………………………….., 113
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Background of the Study
Teachers have been a significant part of the formative years of junior high school
students. Given that Araling Panlipunan is focused on producing responsible citizens, it is
more important to ensure the quality of teaching the subject. A study articulated the
alignment between Araling Panlipunan and Social Studies (Serafico-Reyes et al., 2019)
that Araling Panlipunan in the Philippine Education curriculum is one of the pillars of the
education system of the Philippines for it aims to produce socially aware and responsible
citizens. It is considered a crucial pillar of the curriculum as it cultivates students to
become critical, reflective, productive, and responsible members of society (The New
MATATAG Araling Panlipunan Curriculum, 2023). This highlights the role of Araling
Panlipunan in shaping the understanding of societal structures and interactions among
students in the Philippines (Serafico-Reyes et al., 2019). Through Araling Panlipunan,

14
students develop an understanding of the world, learning about other people and their
values in different times, places, and conditions (Wisdom Advices, 2019).
Teacher quality is essential to get the best out of students and enable them to
graduate as academically successful and well-rounded young adults (Haileybury, 2022).
Tulivuori and Panth (2021) further stated that the quality of teachers has the greatest
impact on improving student learning outcomes. Hadi & Al-Taai, (2021), on the other
hand, defined teaching methods as the set of performances that the teacher uses to
achieve expected behavior among learners. In addition, Uchechi (2021) posited that a
teaching method is an effective way to organize learning and unite both the teacher’s and
learner’s efforts. It is important that teachers are Teachers must be creative and
professionally developed to use and combine these teaching methods. However, in the
context of teaching Araling Panlipunan in junior high school, teachers have a hard time
figuring out effective ways to teach the subject and cultivate students' interest in the
topics. One study found that students perceive Araling Panlipunan as relevant in the 21st
century (Crisolo et al., 2021). However, another study revealed that, while students
acknowledge its relevance, they lamented that it is not an enjoyable part of the curriculum
(De Loreta et al., 2019).
Also, The formative years of junior high school students have been a crucial phase
in developing lifelong skills, attitudes, and values. Despite this, the teaching of Araling
Panlipunan is very challenging for teachers. According to the study of Seludo and Murillo
(2023) the challenges in teaching Araling Panlipunan include: (1) difficulty preparing
lessons, (2) learners' diversity, and (3) teachers' poor performance. Furthermore, students
15
dismiss the subject as boring and irrelevant to their present situation (Richardson, 2022).
This is mainly because most teachers who teach this subject do not engage the students
and either write the lessons on the board or share their experiences with the class with
little relevance to the lesson being discussed.
There has been a significant amount of scholarly attention devoted to looking at
the relevance of Araling Panlipunan in the 21st century from the perspective of students
(Crisolo et al., 2021); and, the challenges faced by teachers in effectively delivering
lessons on the subject (De Loreta et al., 2019). However, there have been scarce studies
that inquire about students' preferred qualities and pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan
teachers.
By looking at student’s preferences, this study aimed to enhance teaching
strategies, increase engagement, and improve learning outcomes in Araling Panlipunan.
Furthermore, this study will provided beneficial contributions at enhancing the Araling
Panlipunan curriculum and the learning development of students in the subject since it
heeds their calls on how they wanted the subject to be taught so they can actively
participate during class discussions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Role of Araling Panlipunan in Education
Araling Panlipunan is an essential part of the curriculum. It allows students to
develop a profound understanding of their country and the world to become engaged
citizens. For example, civics education is embedded in the Araling Panlipunan curriculum
16
to The National Center for Teacher Education
achieve its prime goal to produce active and engaged citizens with profound
understanding of their roles as citizens. Under civics education, students learn about their
rights and responsibilities as citizens, the importance of voting, and the structure of their
government (Winthrop, 2020). This knowledge empowers them to actively participate in
the democratic process. Moreover, in Araling Panlipunan, students learn about the past,
present, and future of their country and the world. For example, Araling Panlipunan
delves into major historical events that have shaped our world. Students learn about the
rise and fall of civilizations, major wars, revolutions, and significant social, political, and
economic changes (Garcia-Acojido, 2021). Using these historical perspectives students
comprehend the context of current events and form informed opinions about the effects of
these perspectives in their country and the world. Students can also use this knowledge to
enhance their critical thinking skills and foster cultural awareness and understanding to
improve their performance in the subject (Manzano III, 2021).
By studying history, culture, and society, students develop a sense of national
identity. For example, students are taught to pay respect to the Philippine flag and give
utmost reverence when singing the Philippine National Anthem for they symbolize the
heroic acts of our forebears to attain our independence and national identity from colonial
powers. Additionally, Araling Panlipunan gives students the analytical tools they need to
recognize, comprehend, and address societal concerns (Presto, 2023). For example,
climate change is an alarming problem in society. Under Araling Panlipunan, students are
not just taught about the causes and effects of the problem but to push students to take
actions to solve the problem, thereby cementing the use of critical thinking skills and the
17
active The National Center for Teacher Education
engagements of students in society.
The objectives of Araling Panlipunan in junior secondary level are: (1) to educate
the learners about the concerns of their country as well as the entire world, and to
appreciate the interdependence of individuals, (2) to raise students’ knowledge of the
changing social and physical environment, its natural resources, man-made cultural
artifacts, and spiritual resources, as well as the responsible use and preservation of these
resources for growth, (3) to foster in the student a positive attitude towards citizenship,
(4) to acquire knowledge necessary for the development of a fulfilling professional life,
which includes job pride and sound judgment, and, (5) to foster in the learner a sense of
appreciation for and a desire to protect his cultural heritage (Babantunde, 2013, as cited in
Garcia, 2021).
Teacher-Student Relationships in Education
The interaction between teachers and students has been identified as a key
element that enhances student learning and academic performance (Agyekum, 2019). A
supportive learning environment must be fostered through strong teacher-student
interactions. Students are more likely to be interested in their learning and perform at
their academic potential when they perceive their teachers as having their backs and
showing them respect. Strong relationships between students and teachers enable students
to feel comfortable exploring and taking risks in their academic pursuits. In other words,
pupils who have good relationships with their teachers perform better in class (Russo
et.al, 2022).
18
Effective teaching could also be a factor in the enhanced motivation and
performance of students in class. In a study conducted by Ekmekci & Serrano (2022),
they found that students' self-efficacy in mathematics and their achievements are
positively correlated with teachers' self-efficacy in teaching mathematics and their
emphasis on conceptual understanding. The study underscores the importance of teachers'
self-efficacy in fostering a conducive learning environment that promotes students'
confidence and success in mathematics by focusing on conceptual understanding.
By examining the preferred qualities and pedagogies of junior high school
students regarding an Araling Panlipunan teachers, we can enhance teacher-student
relationships and achieve effective delivery of lessons in the subject.
Effective Teaching Qualities and Characteristics
It is essential to explore the qualities of a good teacher. A good teacher can make
a world of difference in a student's life, impacting everything from their classroom
learning to their long-term success (Gagnon, 2019).The following qualities of an effective
teacher are highlighted in study conducted by Clement and Rencewigg (2020): a) being
responsible, b) being punctual, c) effective communication skills, d) able to explain
complex concepts using simple words, e) with great subject knowledge or expertise, f)
method of teaching, g) with interacting skills, h) able to motivate students, i) kind and
empathetic, j) understands students’ state of mind, k) patient, l) with professional
demeanor, m) confident, n) with enthusiasm, o) impartial, p) approachable,

19
q) The National Center for Teacher Education
informative, r) friendly, s) optimistic and humble, t) able to provide novel information on
recent trends related to subject, u) lenient, v) has a compassionate attitude, w) with
practical knowledge of the subject, x) with class control, y) not boastful, z) able to adopt
different methods of teaching per topic, and aa) meticulous. For instance, with the
definition of “Teacher-Student Relationship”, many students have expressed that “being
friendly‟ is the right definition for the teacher-student relationship. This has proven that
students expect their teachers to be friendly in their approach and this is more relevant to
students in higher education colleges. Students want this relationship because they can
interact with their teachers. On the other hand, on Question No. 4 of their questionnaire:
“Mention One negative Quality of a teacher”, the quality of being “partial‟ is
unanimously considered the most prominent negative quality of teachers. Moreover,
aggression and arrogance are chosen as some other detrimental characteristics of
teachers. The participants have emphasized that the superior feeling of teachers is a
disconcerting trait in the classroom. Also, inefficient teaching methods are totally
detrimental to students‟ learning process.
Additionally, as emphasized in the study conducted by Hirsh and Segolsson
(2020), students highlight the teachers’ deep passion for teaching their subjects and their
equally strong dedication to student learning as the primary qualities that define a good
teacher. Regarding teaching methods, according to the same study, students emphasized
the importance of teachers' ability to vary and adapt their teaching approach to suit the
class and individual needs. They did not describe specific teaching methods as superior to
others. Additionally, students also note that the best teachers can relate to a world the
20
students are familiar with and create opportunities for alternative pathways in alignment
with the students’ interests.
Student Preferences in Teaching Styles
The teacher must consider the unique characteristics of each of his or her students
and modify the lesson plan accordingly. It is undeniable that teachers serve a variety of
crucial functions in the classroom. As posited in the article by Barberos et. al (2023),
when students are motivated, learning takes place more readily. However, motivating
students to learn requires a very challenging role on the part of the teacher. This
necessitates a variety of teaching styles or techniques to capture students' interests. Above
all, the teacher must possess adequate knowledge of the objectives and standards of the
curriculum, teaching skills, as well as interests, appreciation, and ideals.
Learners prefer graduate school teachers who are funny, casual, physically
expressive, and yet intelligent (Subia et. al., 2019). They were not interested in teachers
who teach in a repetitive and meticulous manner, repetitively or meticulously or those
who pose tough questions and present disturbing opinions. Moreover, the study by
Cabaguing (2019) emphasized that the teaching styles that facilitated better learning in
Social Sciences subjects were the following: Indirect Instruction Style and Authoritative
Teaching Styles. High-performing students learn better when they are actively involved
in the classroom, and they benefit from teachers who effectively balance control and
student involvement. These teachers are open and friendly, while also maintaining clearly
established boundaries.
21
Student-Centered Learning and Engagement
Student-centered learning refers to an educational approach or philosophy that
emphasizes meeting the individual needs of each student (Ranido, 2023). It is based on
the theory that students thrive when they can make direct connections between the
teaching material and their interests and real-life experiences.
As stated by Carrington (2023), he listed the key benefits of student-centered
learning, which include: a) Increased Engagement & Motivation, emphasizing that when
students actively participate in their own education, they are more likely to be motivated
and interested, b) Improved Critical Thinking And Problem-solving Skills, allowing
students to promote individual thought and a more inventive, independent approach to
problem-solving, c) Greater Independence, given the freedom and responsibility to direct
their own education, they can better hone crucial abilities like time management and self-
control, and lastly, d) Personalized Learning, in that every student has the freedom to
learn at their own speed and in a style that suits their particular requirements and
interests.
As the study of Searles (2022) stipulates, Araling Panlipunan classes are
occasionally thought of as dry and boring while the educator lectures and students take
notes. This certainly does not have to be the case. A student-centered classroom
environment can become a beehive of activity, quickly setting aside the stale environment
of an educator-centered Araling Panlipunan classroom. As students exercise their critical
thinking skills through student-driven inquiry and discussion, they take ownership of their
learning while increasing their intrinsic motivation to understand the world around them.
22
In the article by Hill (2021), he emphasized the method of inquiry-based learning
under a student-centered approach in Araling Panlipunan. Asking questions is
fundamental to Araling Panlipunan instruction, and in a student-centered Araling
Panlipunan classroom, students should be the ones asking many of the questions.
Students can practice close reading and critical thinking skills as they ask and answer
questions about primary and secondary sources. He further emphasizes that in student-
centered Araling Panlipunan classrooms, students continually seek answers to questions
set by teachers, develop their own questions as they read, and apply their growing inquiry
skills of observing, analyzing, seeking answers, and communicating to models of civic
spaces.
Hill (2021) further emphasizes that in Araling Panlipunan, teachers can prioritize
student voice and choice while fostering communication, collaboration, and critical
thinking skills through project-based learning. Project-based learning is a natural fit for a
student-centered classroom because it allows students to apply knowledge through
discovery, investigation, and exploration of complex questions. Allowing for flexibility
and innovation in the format of the projects — such as creating graphic novels or
recording podcasts — can also help students connect their personal experiences and
perspectives to the lesson.
Transition Phase in Junior High School
Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 represent a significant transition phase in junior high
school, marking a period of critical educational progress. During these years, high school
23
adolescents begin to experience significant changes in their physical, emotional, and
cognitive development (Burroughs et.al., 2019). In hindsight, it becomes evident that
junior high students undergo substantial transformations as they transition into the
teenage stage of their lives.
Several scholars continue to analyze the distinctive characteristics of young
adolescents regarding their physical, cognitive, social-emotional, and psychological
development (Bishop and Harrison, 2021). As noted by Brinegar and Caskey (2020)
various social and institutional factors impact the development of early adolescents,
including their physical growth. Junior high school students have an improved capacity to
think about the future, foresee their own necessities, and establish personal objectives in
terms of cognitive growth (Bishop & Harrison, 2021, as cited in Brinegar & Caskey,
2020). Social-emotional development is concerned with a person's ability to connect with
others and groups, as well as how they manage their internal feelings (Harrison et al.,
2019, as cited in Brinegar & Caskey, 2020). Social-emotional development normally
follows physical and cognitive development in early adolescence and frequently
intersects with other areas of development.
The word student engagement has been used to characterize students' active
participation in their learning assignments and activities (Lee, 2014; Lei, et.al., 2018;
Piñeiro et.al., 2019; Dong, et.al., 2020; as cited in Verner et.al., 2021). Student-teacher
interactions, class environment, and learning results are all heavily influenced by
engagement. According to the same research, engagement is positively related to a
student's previous academic accomplishments.

24
Teachers have also identified specific personality traits that have a positive impact
on both their classroom management skills as well as their commitment to students'
overall well-being. The integration of interactive teaching techniques and technology is
underscored as a crucial element in the classroom as well as the significance of genuine
learning experiences and student-centered education. It emphasizes that teachers should
possess a combination of pedagogical expertise and technological knowledge. This
innovative approach to teaching should be considered an integral aspect of teachers'
expected proficiency, effectiveness, and creative abilities (Abulon, 2014, as cited in,
Boholano, et.al., 2021).
The study of Chaw and Tang (2023) stated that students’ preference towards a
learning environment was considerably impacted by two categories of learner
characteristics: online learner characteristics and classroom learner characteristics.
According to the same study, online learner characteristics focus on traits and preferences
specific to students engaging in online learning environments. In contrast, classroom
learner characteristics pertain to traits exhibited by students in traditional face-to-face
learning environments. Analyses also revealed that learner demographics had no
significant moderating influence on learner attributes and learner preference for a
learning environment.
Previous Research on Student Preferences in Araling Panlipunan
Several studies have been conducted to determine what values and attributes
junior high school students desire in an Araling Panlipunan instructors. Students'

25
impressions of Araling Panlipunan revolve around the way students see the topic
predicated on the facts, senses, and analysis and interpretation of that information. One of
the major sources of worry for Araling Panlipunan was the view among students, parents,
and the public that Araling Panlipunan was of little importance, sometimes monotonous
and uninteresting, and unrelated to future employment (Yaw, et. al., 2022). He believes
that there is plenty of proof to suggest that the image of Araling Panlipunan as a
successful curricular component is less than desired.
Furthermore, students are less interested in studying Araling Panlipunan because
they view the topic to be simple and hence do not feel the necessity to study it and pay
serious interest in it (Yaw et.al., 2022). This demonstrates that students may have
favorable or negative attitudes regarding the study of Araling Panlipunan, and as a result,
they pay either less or greater thought to it. Teachers tend to lean primarily on text,
lectures, worksheets, and traditional assessments as learning tools (Ellis, et. al., 1992 as
cited in Yaw et. al, 2022). Nevertheless, research shows that when a diversity of teaching
strategies is used, students are more interested in the subject at hand (Chiodo, et. al.,
2006, as cited in Yaw et. al., 2022). Educators sometimes overlook the capacity to
employ a variety of tactics and approaches for education (Bekoe, et. al, 2013 as cited in
Yaw et. al, 2022). Thus, it falls upon Araling Panlipunan educators to familiarize
themselves with the most recent research in their field of specialization and apply this
knowledge to engage and educate students in their subject matter. Modifications in
curriculum design, teaching methods, and administrative policies over time may have
aided in improving students' performance in Araling Panlipunan. Even so, most learners
26
still The National Center for Teacher Education
see Araling Panlipunan classes as tedious, monotonous, and unimportant to their life,
which appears to have a constant impact on their performance. (Hwang, et.al, 2015 as
cited in Yaw, et.al, 2022)
Changing teaching strategies is an important aspect in helping students to acquire
a keen interest in Araling Panlipunan (Yaw et. al, 2022). It piques and nurtures students'
interest in the topic; hence, student-centered strategies must be used. This suggests that
student-centered tactics such as discussion, field excursions, dramatization, role play, and
so on are extremely important in ensuring that the classroom environment is engaging.
This holds that teacher-centered tactics, including lectures, are vital but should be used
sparingly. This is because utilizing it all the time fosters an atmosphere of boredom in the
classroom. Teachers should change their teaching approaches to emphasize the use of
student-centered practices. They should be crucial in determining which tactics perform
best and which lessons require such strategies (Yaw et. al, 2022).
Teacher Training and Professional Development
It is important as an educator to understand and acknowledge that each student is

a unique individual with a different perspective and experience. Thus, it is crucial to
constantly evaluate the methods of teaching and take into consideration the perspectives
of students to foster an interactive learning environment (Pradana, 2023). According to
Hysaj (2023) focusing on students' needs enables educators to put them at the center of
teaching and learning, and because these requirements are considered when developing a
curriculum, it aids the teaching and learning process. Through the obtained evaluations
27
from The National Center for Teacher Education
students, educational institutions can use this information to conduct teacher training
programs for professional development to enhance their capabilities.
In summary, the researchers have extensively reviewed existing literature to
support this study and to avoid duplication in conducting this literature review. By doing
so, the researchers have identified various themes that are significantly connected to the
study. This literature review aims to provide the readers with comprehensive information
of previous findings that are relevant to the study. Furthermore, this literature review also
gives the readers an idea as to the significance of conducting this study by filling up gaps
that are not provided by previous studies.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
This study is anchored on three theories: Student-Centered Learning Theory,
Constructivist Learning Theory, and Multiple Intelligence Theory.
Through the lens of junior high school students, this study aims to inquire about
the students' preferred qualities and pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan teacher. In this
sense, this study is grounded on the Student-Centered Learning Theory, which prioritizes
the student’s desired teaching methods and teacher's qualities that would harness their
performance and actively engage in the subject. Renton Prep University (2022) defined
Student-Centered Learning (SCL) as a teaching method that focuses on creating
connections with students’ interests and the things they learn in school. The goal is to
make the educational process more meaningful to students. The best way to do that is by
framing lessons in terms of their interests; thus, encouraging them to engage more in the
material and therefore learn better. Green and Harrington (2020) further consolidates the
28
approach by defining that Student-centered learning is a philosophy or an approach to
education that is designed to meet the needs of each student individually. On the role of
teachers in a student-centered classroom, Yussif (2020) articulated that the teacher plays
the role of encourager, facilitator, and advocate for the students.
In addition, Harrington & DeBruler (2019) highlighted the component of
student’s choice. The closely related characteristic of choice by students further
internalizes the value of learning for them. By providing options for students, relating to
the format of their learning (e.g., independent work, teacher-led instruction, Socratic
seminars, project-based learning, internships, online or digital options, etc.), and to a
degree, their desired qualities of a teacher, we tap into the intrinsic value and relevance of
learning. Furthermore, the way we assess students should also be flexible. Allowing
students to be able to choose the way they are assessed can have a significant impact on
student engagement and performance.
The teacher created an environment where students feel comfortable asking
questions and sharing their ideas. The teacher also provides feedback to the students on
their academic performance and encourages them to continue learning. When students are
able to actively participate through learning activities regarding the subject matter, they
are more likely to identify their own strengths and weaknesses. Thus, this healthy
performance would allow the teachers, or in the case of the student-learning centered
theory, a facilitator, to improve and adjust the necessary skills and strategies befitting to
the learner’s preferences.

29
This study is also grounded in the Constructivist Learning Theory of Jean Piaget.
This theory emphasizes that learners construct knowledge and meaning based on their
experience, and constructing meaning is considered learning (Hein, 1991; Kurt, 2021).
Within the context of junior high school, this theory provides a framework for
understanding students' preferences for the qualities and instructional methods of social
science teachers, as it considers students an active participant in their own learning. The
main idea of constructivism is that students learn more efficiently when they can relate
new information to what they already know or experienced (Ambrose et. al, 2010).
Therefore, this theory is used to know how the preferences of students shape the teaching
and learning process. Furthermore, by using the constructivist perspective, this study
intends to provide guidance for teachers' qualities and teaching methods that can foster an
interactive environment, support students' active learning process, and improve Araling
Panlipunan education outcomes.
This study is also anchored in Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences theory,
which suggests that individuals possess various types of intelligences, such as linguistic,
logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal,
and naturalistic intelligences (Marenus, 2024). Linguistic intelligence: involves language
proficiency, Logical-mathematical intelligence: focuses on logical reasoning and
mathematical abilities, Musical intelligence: relates to musical skills, Spatial intelligence:
involves visual and spatial perceptions, Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence: centers around
physical coordination and body movement control, Interpersonal intelligence: refers to
understanding and interacting effectively with others, Intrapersonal intelligence: involves

30
self- The National Center for Teacher Education
awareness, introspection, and understanding one's emotions, and, Naturalistic
intelligence: relates to understanding nature and natural elements (Marenus, 2024).
Students apply the learning in the classroom according to their own dominant intelligence
and learning style, which is most effective for them. Combining learning styles with
dominant intelligence enhances the students' learning processes (Yavich & Rotnitsky,
2020). Part of helping students learn is understanding that intelligence comes in many
forms, and teachers should better understand how their students learn. Hence, recognizing
the correlation between students' intelligences and their learning preferences could
provide educators with valuable knowledge in choosing teaching methods and teacher
qualities that best cater to the diverse intelligences of students.
The theoretical/conceptual framework of the study illustrates the aims of the study
which is to determine the junior high school students preferred qualities and pedagogies
in an Araling Panlipunan teachers. It also examines the significant difference in the
students' preferred qualities and pedagogies in an Araling Panlipunan teachers in
accordance with their demographics such as sex and year level, and these are displayed in
Figure 1.
31
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

STUDENTS
SEX
GRADE LEVEL
PREFERRED QUALITIES PREFERRED

OF AN ARALING PEDAGOGIES OF AN
PANLIPUNAN ARALING PANLIPUNAN
TEACHERS TEACHERS
Figure 1
32
Schematic Diagram illustrating the Theoretical/Conceptual Framework of the Study
Statement of the Problem
The researchers aimed to look at the students' perspective on their preferred
qualities and pedagogies that a Araling Panlipunan teachers should possess to improve
the teaching of Araling Panlipunan.
Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What are the students’ preferred qualities of an Araling Panlipunan teachers in terms of
being: Sociable and Respectful, Professionalism and Preparedness, Compassionate
and Empathetic, Good Communicator, Engaging and Effective, when taken as a
whole and categorized according to:
1.1. Sex
1.2. Grade Level
2. What are the students’ preferred pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan teachers in terms
of: Lecture-Style Teaching, Discussion-Based Teaching, Experiential
Learning, Inquiry-Based Learning, Technology-Enhanced Teaching,
Cooperative Learning, Role-Playing and Simulations; when taken as a whole
and categorized according to:

33
2.1. Sex
2.2. Grade Level
3. Is there a significant difference in the students’ preferred qualities of an Araling
Panlipunan teachers when they are categorized according to:
3.1. Sex
3.2. Grade Level
4. Is there a significant difference in the students’ preferred pedagogies of an Araling
Panlipunan teacher when they are categorized according to:
4.1. Sex
4.2. Grade Level
Significance of the Study
This study has the following significance and implications for numerous
stakeholders in education:
Students. Understanding what teaching methods and qualities they seek in an
Araling Panlipunan teacher is significant in ensuring that they receive quality education
and achieve the intended learning outcomes. This may also help students to be more
engaged and become active participants in the teaching and learning process.
Furthermore, this study holds significance for students in that it renders them a chance to
express their thoughts and preferences on Araling Panlipunan education.
Teachers. The findings of this study will greatly help Araling Panlipunan teachers
in gaining insights and knowledge into the specific pedagogical approaches and qualities
that deeply resonate with their students. This study will help them adapt and integrate
34
teaching methods, strategies, and approaches to cater to the needs and preferences of their
students. By adapting and integrating the preferred qualities and pedagogies of the
students, this can foster meaningful classroom interactions and more efficient knowledge
sharing. This study can also help teachers in reflecting on their teaching practices and
adjust and necessary improvements based on the students’ feedback.
Administrators. This study can be beneficial to the administrators of educational
institutions for they can gain insights from the data driven from this study that they can
use to allocate resources to their teachers and to invest in necessary facilities to meet the
preferred qualities and pedagogies of students. This may lead to improvements in the
training programs for Araling Panlipunan teachers and a change in the attitude of
teaching Araling Panlipunan.
Curriculum developers. This study may provide necessary information on the
preferences and expectations of the students on Araling Panlipunan education. With this
information, it will help the designers of the curriculum to align their objectives and
learning outcomes with the desires or preferences of the students. This study will help in
weaving an Araling Panlipunan curriculum that meets the ever-changing needs of the
students and society.
Future researchers. The findings of this study will serve as a valuable source of
information to those who will venture into doing research related to Araling Panlipunan
in the field of education. This study will provide data and foundation on the students’
preferences, suitable teaching pedagogy in the field of Araling Panlipunan, and
curriculum development needed in this area. This study will also guide future researchers
35
in The National Center for Teacher Education
examining further the significance of considering the students’ preferred teaching and
learning practices and its overall impact in the teaching and learning process.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The scope of this study includes the research locale, the time frame, the research
instrument, the grade level, and number of participants needed for this research. The data
gathered for this research was only be acquired from the vicinity of Villacin National High
School as chosen by the researchers. The estimated time-range of this study to be
concluded is before the 1st (spell out) week of March of the year 2024. To gain the desired
data appropriate for this study, the researchers utilized a questionnaire-type research
instrument suitably effective for the study’s research design.
The participants of this study were only junior high school or the grade levels
7,8,9, and 10 students of Villacin National High School. To obtain the results, the
researchers used the cluster sampling method. The study was limited only to the preferred
qualities and pedagogies of junior high school students of a Araling Panlipunan teacher.
Its limitations included those situations, events, and places outside the scope of the study.
Definition of Terms
The important terms used in this study are briefly defined conceptually and
operationally to have a clear interpretation and common understanding of these terms.
Pedagogy. It is the use of different methods and approaches by teachers to steer
students’ learning (Shah & Rajendra, 2021).

36
As used in this study, it refers to the different teaching methods and approaches
that Araling Panlipunan teachers use in the teaching and learning process.
Qualities. It refers to a distinctive characteristic, feature, or attribute that an
individual possesses (Habib, 2020).
As used in this study, it refers to the characteristics, features, or attributes that
junior high school students prefer an Araling Panlipunan teacher to possess.
Araling Panlipunan: It is a unified study under social sciences and humanities
geared to foster civic consciousness. (National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS],
1994, as cited in Crisolo et.al, 2021).
As used in this study, Araling Panlipunan refers to the subject area that is taught
in junior high schools that covers topics about humanities and social sciences and aims to
prepare students to become responsible citizens.

37
CHAPTER 2
METHODS
This chapter had encapsulated the way in which the study was conducted. It
includes the participants, the location where the research was conducted, the tools used
for data collection, how the validity and reliability of the data were established, and the
procedures followed for data gathering.
Research Design
The study utilized the descriptive-comparative research design to examine the
preferred qualities and pedagogies of junior high school students of an Araling
Panlipunan teacher. It was descriptive since the student's preferred qualities and
pedagogies had been described and discussed in the study. McCombes (2019) stated that
descriptive research can scientifically and accurately describe a population, situation, or
phenomenon.
It was also comparative because the significant difference among junior high
school students' preferred qualities and pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan teacher were
determined. According to Ducharme et al. (2016), descriptive-comparative research is a
type of quantitative research design that aims to compare the characteristics or behaviors
of two or more groups of subjects who have been exposed or not exposed to a certain
factor or condition in a natural situation. The researcher does not manipulate or control
any of the variables, but only observes and measures them (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber,
2010).
38
Sampling and Participants of the Study
The participants of this study were the junior high school students of Villacin
National High School. This study used cluster sampling, which according to Hassan
(2022), is a probability sampling method where the population is divided into groups,
called clusters. Then, the researchers randomly select a number of these clusters and use
all the individuals from the selected clusters as participants in the study. In this study, the
researchers used the sections as clusters. With a total of 21 junior high school sections
composed of 5 sections from grades 7, 8, and 9, and 6 sections from grade 10, the
researchers randomly picked 2 sections per grade level using the fishbowl method.
Table 2.1 shows that out of the two hundred fifty-nine (259) participants, 55.2 % of
the participants were male with a frequency of 143, and 44.8 % were female with a
frequency of 116. The table shows a predominance of males when the participants are
categorized by sex. It shows that most of the participants from grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 of
junior high school students of Villacin National High School were mainly male.
In terms of grade level, there are two hundred fifty-nine (259) participants from
the junior high school students of Villacin National High School, sixty-eight (68)
students are grade 7, sixty-nine (69) students are grade 8, sixty-seven (67) students are
grade 9, and fifty-five (55) students are grade 10. An analysis of the data by grade
level as shown in table 2.1 reveals that the grade 8 students comprised the largest
portion of the participants, accounting for 26.6% of the total population. Grade 7,
grade 9, and grade 10 followed with 26.3%, 25.9%, and 21.2%, respectively.
39
Table 2.1
Profile of the Junior High School students of Villacin National High School
Variables Categories Frequency Percentage
Sex Female 116 44.8
Male 143 55.2
Total 259 100
Grade Level Grade 7 68 26.3
Grade 8 69 26.6
Grade 9 67 25.9
Grade 10 55 21.2
Total 259 100
Table 2.2 shows that there were sixty-eight (68) participants from grade 7
composed of forty (40) students from section Eddie and twenty-eight (28) from section
Cherry, sixty-nine (69) from grade 8 composed of thirty-five (35) students from section
Shernalyn and thirty-four (34) from section Julie Mae, sixty-seven (67) from grade 9
composed of thirty-five (35) students from section Juvilyn and thirty-two (32) from
section Noel, and fifty-five (55) from grade 10 composed of twenty-nine (29) students
from section Felbz and twenty-six (26) from section Sharese.
Table 2.2
Participants from Grade 7, 8, 9, and 10
Grade Level Section Population Sample Size
7 Eddie 41 40
7 Cherry 41 28
8 Shernalyn 45 35
8 Julie Mae 48 34
9 Juvilyn 40 35
9 Noel 41 32
10 Felbz 36 29
10 Sharese 37 26
TOTAL 327 259
40
Research Instrument
To acquire the needed data, the researchers utilized a Likert Scale survey
questionnaire for the given participants as produced by random sampling. Statements
pertaining to about the qualities of an Araling Panlipunan teacher were derived from
the study of Clement and Rencewigg (2020); and, the statements of pedagogies were
based on the questionnaire of Styx (2017). The researchers modified some of the
questions to be suitable specifically for the study and the comprehension of the
respondents. The student’s preferred qualities and pedagogies for a social studies
teachers were the main terms embedded in the questionnaire. The questionnaire has 4
choices and quantified as; 4: Strongly Agree, 3: Agree, 2: Disagree, 1: Strongly
Disagree.
The survey questionnaire is composed of three (3) parts:
Part I was to gather information on the personal demographics of the participants such
as Name, Sex, and their Grade Level.
Part II of the questionnaire was used to gather information on how the participants
of Grade Levels 7-10 evaluated their preferred qualities of an Araling Panlipunan
teacher and were categorized into:
Table 2.3
Kinds of Teacher Qualities
Items Qualities
1, 5, 6 Sociable and Respectful
2, 10 Professionalism and Preparedness
3, 8 Compassionate and Empathetic
4, 9, 11, 13 Good Communicator
12, 14, 15, 7 Engaging and Effective
41
Part III of the questionnaire was used to gather information on how the participants of
Grade Levels 7-10 assessed the kinds of teaching styles used by their Araling Panlipunan
teachers and were categorized into:
Table 2.4
Kinds of Teaching Methods Used
Items Teaching Style/Pedagogy
1–3 Lecture-Style Teaching
4–6 Discussion-Based Teaching
7–9 Experiential Learning
10 – 12 Inquiry- Based Learning
13 – 15 Technology-Enhanced Teaching
16 – 18 Cooperative Learning
19 – 21 Role-Playing and Simulations
A 4-point scale was utilized by the participants in rating their understanding of the
topics listed in the questionnaire.
Validity of the Research Instrument
The data-gathering instrument was subjected to face and content validation. Face
Validity is concerned with whether a test questionnaire seems relevant on the surface and
is appropriate for what it’s supposed to measure (Bhandari, 2022). Content Validity, on
the other hand, refers to the degree to which the items on assessment tools are
representative of and relevant to the construct being measured (Nikolopoulou, 2022).
Lastly, Construct Validity measures how well a test assesses the idea it was intended to
assess (Bhandari, 2022).
To obtain face and content validity, the test questionnaire was presented to three
(3) experts in the field of education and research for their comments and suggestions.
42

They
were requested to determine whether the items included in the test questions were
appropriate to the objectives of this study. Furthermore, they used a rating scale
developed by Good and Scates to determine the instrument’s face and content validity.
The average rating of the 3 validators was computed, and the mean was interpreted using
the scale below.
Scale Interpretation
4.21 – 5.00 Very High Degree of Validity
3.41 – 4.20 High Degree of Validity
2.61 – 3.40 Moderate Degree of Validity
1.81 – 2.60 Low Degree of Validity
1.00 – 1.80 Very Low Degree of Validity
After the scores from the validators were gathered, the researchers consolidated
all the scores, which led to a validity scale of 4.47. This was considered a high score
which signified that the research tool had been extremely efficient and dependable in
precisely evaluating the variables that were studied.
Reliability of the Research Instrument
In the conduct of reliability, the data gathering instrument was pilot-tested to
twenty (20) junior high school students at SPED High School. The participants of the
pilot test were not the actual participants of this study. To determine the reliability of the
43
instrument, the standardized Cronbach’s Alpha was used. Cronbach Alpha measures the
internal consistency of a test or scale by describing the extent to which all the items in a
test measure the same concept (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). The coefficient of
correlation was interpreted using the scale below.
Scale Interpretation
±0.81-1.00 Very High
±0.61 – 0.80 High
±0.41 – 0.60 Moderate
±0.21 – 0.40 Low
±0.01 - 0.20 Very Low
±0 No Correlation
The researchers used SPSS to perform a Unidimensional Reliability analysis
on our scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.905, which was above the 0.7 cutoff. This
showed that our scale items were consistent and measured the same thing.
Data Gathering Procedure
In the conduct of the study, the researchers asked permission from the research
adviser and the principal or office-in-charge of Villacin National High School to
administer the research instrument to the participants.
After the permit was approved, the researchers reproduced copies of the
questionnaires and administered these to the 259 junior high Students of Villacin National
44
High The National Center for Teacher Education
School, and the participants were instructed to answer all the necessary questions with
honesty.
After the conduct, the answered questionnaires were gathered and the data were
tallied, tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted according to the specific problems, and set
forth in this investigation.
Data Analysis
In analyzing the data gathered, the researchers utilized the following descriptive
statistics:
For problems 1 and 2, which determined the preferred qualities and pedagogies
of junior high school students of a social studies teacher when grouped according to
their profile variables, the mean and rank were used.
For problems 3 and 4, which determined the significant difference in the
students’ preferred qualities and pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan teacher when
grouped according to profile variables, t-test for independent means was used for
comparing the two groups while Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used for
comparing three or more groups.
Ethical Considerations
Prior to the actual data gathering, the researchers explained the purpose of the
study and assured the participants that their responses would be kept confidential and
used only for the purpose of the research. The results of the study might be used to make
recommendations to curriculum designers and teachers.
This was a purely academic study, and the researchers had no financial interest in
45
the The National Center for Teacher Education
results. The researchers did not give anything to the participants in exchange for their
participation, so as not to influence the results. The participants’ names and personal
information were not shared with any third party without their consent. If the researchers
took photos or videos for documentation, the researchers asked the participants’
permission and blurred the participants’ faces to protect their privacy. The data and
information collected were confidential and were destroyed after the researchers had used
them.
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter encompasses the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered
from the participants. It also discusses the findings pertaining to the formulated problems
of the study. The data gathered were statistically treated and analyzed by the researchers.
Preferred Qualities of Junior High School Students When Taken as a Whole
Table 3.1 shows the results of the mean and rank using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) of the students’ preferred qualities of an Araling Panlipunan
teacher when taken as a whole. The qualities were classified into 6 categories: Sociable
and Respectful (SR), Professionalism and Preparedness (PP), Compassionate and
Empathetic (CE), Good Communicator (GC), and Engaging and Effective (EE).
The table shows that being a Good Communicator (GC) with a mean of 3.42 is
ranked as the highest followed by Sociable and Respectful (SR) and Engaging and
Effective (EE) shows with a means of 3.32 and 3.28 and are ranked 2nd and 3rd;
respectively; and, lastly followed by Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) and

46
Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) having closely related means of 3.25 and 3.23 and
are ranked 4th and 5th, respectively. This finding implies that junior high school students
do have varied preferences when it comes to the quality of an Araling Panlipunan
Teacher.
Thus, The result of the table informs that being a Good Communicator (GC) is the
most highly preferred quality of an Araling Panlipunan teacher by junior high school
students when taken as a whole. This aligns with Clement and Rencewigg (2020), who
found that effective teachers possess qualities like responsibility, punctuality, strong
communication skills, and the ability to explain complex concepts clearly. According to
Munawaroh, et al. (2022), Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies) is a subject that attempts
to teach students to be good citizens and to have good character, one of which is through
effective communication skills. In line with this, Marar (2021) annotates the complexity
and broadness of social science and reflects the complexities of humanity at many scales
and magnitudes. It deals with the study of wars, migration, cultures and religions, politics,
economics, social issues, inequality, and social injustice. Sword (2020), further stresses
that communication skills are most vital for interactions with students, because the act of
teaching itself requires them. In a teacher’s role, they are responsible for comprehending
and breaking down complex information, conveying this information clearly to their
students (both verbally and in written resources), presenting in a manner that sustains
their attention, and listening to and resolving their questions or problems.
While all the listed qualities are important, JHS junior high school students
prioritized good communication skills as the most preferred attribute in of their Araling
47
Panlipunan teachers. This aligns with the complex nature of Araling Panlipunan and the
teacher's crucial role in effectively conveying information and fostering student
engagement.
Table 3.1
Preferred Qualities of Junior High School When Taken as a Whole
Qualities Mean Rank
Good Communicator (GC) 3.42 1
Sociable and Respectful (SR) 3.32 2
Engaging and Effective (EE) 3.28 3
Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) 3.25 4
Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) 3.23 5
(IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE ACRONYM FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
LOOK WHERE YOU FIRST USED IT AND ADD THE ACRONYM JHS AFTER THE
WORDS.)
Junior High School Students Preferred Qualities of Araling Panlipunan Teachers

When Categorized According to Sex
teacher when categorized according to sex. In the Female category, being a Good
Communicator (GC) with an average mean of 3.50 is ranked as the highest. This is
followed by Engaging and Effective and Sociable and Respectful (SR) having closely
related means of 3.38 and 3.36 and are ranked as 2nd and 3rd, respectively. Lastly,
Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) and Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) also
48
have The National Center for Teacher Education
almost related means of 3.29 and 3.25 and are ranked 4th and 5th, respectively.
Males, on the other hand, shows that being preferred Good Communicator (GC) and
Sociable and Respectful (SR) having an as evident in their average means of 3.35 and
3.28, ranking GC 1st and SR 2nd, respectively. Congruent and closely related means can be
seen when it comes to a teacher’s quality being Compassionate and Empathetic (CE),
Engaging and Effective (EE), and Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) with an average
means of 3.21, 3.21, and 3.21 and are all ranked 4th.
[This finding suggests that female JHS junior high school students do have varied
preferences when it comes to the quality of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher and among
the classified qualities, the most highly preferred is a Good Communicator (GC).] A
study by Dhillon and Kaur (2021) highlights that women use a more polite, soothing,
emotional, and supportive tone indicating that female students may respond positively to
teachers who demonstrate these qualities such as a are good communicators.
[This finding suggests that male junior high school students do have varied
preferences when it comes to the quality of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher and among
the classified qualities, the most highly preferred is also being a Good Communicator
(GC).] This corresponded to In the same study, of Dhillon and Kaur (2021) where male
students tend to respond positively to direct, goal-oriented, and emotionally neutral
communication styles, which are characteristics associated with good communicators.
While female and male junior high school students both value good
communication skills foremost in their Araling Panlipunan teachers, their preferences
regarding other qualities differ slightly. Furthermore, These findings reflected Clement
49
and The National Center for Teacher Education
Rencewigg (2020), who emphasis on the importance of various teacher qualities,
including effective communication, in fostering positive student outcomes. This
statement aligns with research suggesting communication styles that resonate with
different genders, with females favoring supportive and emotional communication, and
males preferring direct and neutral communication.
Table 3.2
AP Teachers’ Qualities Preferred by JHS Students When Categorized According to Sex
Qualities Female Male
Rank Rank
Mean Mean
Sociable and Respectful (SR) 3.37 3 3.28 2
Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) 3.25 5 3.21 4
Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) 3.29 4 3.21 4
Good Communicator (GC) 3.50 1 3.35 1
Engaging and Effective (EE) 3.38 2 3.21 4
Araling Panlipunan Teachers’ Qualities Preferred by JHS Students When Categorized

According to Grade Level
teacher when categorized according to grade level. The table shows that grade 7 students
prefer the quality of being a Good Communicator (GC) as the highest with an average
mean of 3.34. This is followed by Engaging and Effective (EE) and Sociable and
Respectful (SR) with an average mean of 3.19 and 3.16 and are ranked 2nd and 3rd,
50
respectively. Lastly, having slightly related means when it comes to the quality of
Professionalism and Preparedness (PP), and Compassionate and Effective (CE) with an
average mean of 3.13 and 3.11 and are ranked 4th and 5th, respectively.
This finding suggests that grade 7 students do have varied preferences when it
comes to the quality of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher and among the classified qualities,
the most highly preferred is a Good Communicator. According to Selby (2023), as grade
7 students navigate the transition to middle school, they face new challenges and
opportunities for personal growth. One crucial aspect of their development is the
cultivation of strong social skills and among those skills include communication. Social
skills play a vital role in their overall well-being and success, both academically and
socially, allowing students to express oneself themselves clearly, engage in meaningful
conversations, and actively listen to others.
Moreover, the table also further shows that grade 8 students preferred on the
quality of being a Good Communicator (GC) and Sociable and Respectful are ranked as
the 1st and 2nd preferences with an average means of 3.28 and 3.23, 98, respectively. On
the other hand, closely and similar related means can be seen when it comes to the quality
of Professionalism and Preparedness (PP), Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) and
Engaging and Effective (EE) with an average means of 3.18, 3.18, and 3.13 and are
ranked as 3.5th, 3.5th, and 5th, respectively.
This finding suggested that grade 8 students do have varied preferences when it
comes to the quality of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher and among the classified qualities,
the most highly preferred is also being a Good Communicator. As articulated by Pace
51
(2024), The National Center for Teacher Education
a middle school learning environment consists of students in sixth, seventh, and eighth
grades. Llego (2022), provides that Grade 8 Araling Panlipunan in the Philippines covers
a variety of topics that aim to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of
Filipino history and society. Some common themes and subjects covered in the
curriculum include physical characteristics of the world, human geography, cultural
development during prehistoric times, geography's role in the formation and development
of ancient civilizations, and contributions of ancient civilizations to global development.
[THIS TALKS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF GRADE 8 AP BOOK. THESE HAVE
NO BEARING IN YOUR RESEARCH.] In addition, Marlborough University (2019),
emphasizes that having good communication skills enables students to advocate for
themselves, while also developing the skills to effectively articulate their academic needs.
For example, a student who is confident in her ability to ask questions will often be more
successful than a peer who remains silent when she is unsure of what is being taught.
[THIS IS ABOUT A STUDENT’S COMM SKILL, NOT THE AP TEACHER’S]
Table 3.3 also shows that grade 9 students identified being a Good
Communicator (GC) when it comes to as the best quality of an Araling Panlipunan
teacher being Good Communicator (GC). Being a Good Communicator is ranked as with
the highest preference having an average mean of 3.60. Being a Good Communicator is
followed by Sociable and Respectful (SR) and Professionalism and Preparedness (PP)
that can be seen to have closely related with means of 3.52 and 3.51 and are ranked as 2nd
and 3rd, respectively. Lastly, hTe quality of being Engaging and Effective (EE) and
Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) have average means of 3.47 and 3.41 and are ranked
52
as 4th The National Center for Teacher Education
and 5th, respectively.
This finding suggested that grade 9 students do have varied preferences when it
comes to the quality of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher; and, among the classified
qualities, the most highly preferred is a Good Communicator (GC). Selby (2023)
highlights that in the context of grade 9 education, social communication skills play a
vital role in academic achievement, building relationships, and fostering a positive school
environment. During adolescence, teenagers experience significant developmental
changes and face unique challenges in social communication. Moreover, Hanifan (2022)
emphasizes that the benefits of fostering such relationships enable students to freely
discuss thoughts and ideas and create an open environment in which questions can be
asked without the risk of being judged or humiliated.
Table 3.3 also shows that grade 10 students ranked as the highest preference with
an average mean of 3.47, being a Good Communicator is when it comes to as the best
quality of an Araling Panlipunan teacher. This is followed by being Sociable and
Respectful (SR) and Engaging and Effective (EE) having means of 3.37 and 3.36 and is
ranked 2nd and 3rd, respectively. Lastly, The quality of being Compassionate and
Empathetic (CE) and Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) having average means of
3.30 and 3.09 and are ranked as 4th and lowest preference, respectively. This finding
suggests that grade 10 students do have varied preferences when it comes to the quality of
an Araling Panlipunan Teacher ; and, among the classified qualities, the most highly
53
preferred is a Good Communicator (GC). Selby (2023) notes that Grade 10 is a time of
significant social growth and exploration. Students are forming their identities, seeking
acceptance, and establishing connections with peers. [ THIS IS NOT RELATED TO
YOUR STUDY] In the article of Tprestianni (2022), he stipulated that verbal, nonverbal,
and written communication are fundamental for any educator. Not only does clear
communication enable teachers to learn about their students, how they learn, and what
challenges or motivates them most — it also empowers the teachers to dialogue with
parents and families, share information with their colleagues and administrators more
productively, and create a more inclusive environment for students from diverse
backgrounds.
Across all grade levels (7, 8, 9, and 10), the quality of being a Good
Communicator (GC) emerged as the most preferred quality among Araling Panlipunan
teachers. This finding aligned with the various studies cited, highlighting the importance
of clear communication in fostering student understanding, engagement, and overall
academic success. While students across grades shared this preference, the studies
suggested potential variations in communication styles that resonate better with different
age groups, emphasizing the need for teachers to be adaptable communicators.
Table 3.3
AP Teachers’ Qualities Preferred by JHS Students When Categorized According to Grade
Level
Qualities Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
54
Sociable and 3.16 3 3.23 2 3.52 2 3.37 2

Respectful (SR)
Professionalism and
3.13 4 3.18 3.5 3.51 3 3.09 5
Preparedness (PP)
Compassionate and
3.11 5 3.18 3.5 3.41 5 3.30 4
Empathetic (CE)
Good Communicator
3.34 1 3.28 1 3.61 1 3.47 1
(GC)
Engaging and Effective 3.20 2 3.13 5 3.47 4 3.36 3
(EE)
Araling Panlipunan Teachers’ Pedagogies Preferred by Junior High School

Students When Taken as a Whole
Table 3.4 shows the preferred pedagogies of junior high school students when
taken as a whole. With a notably higher mean score compared to other teaching methods,
Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) emerged as the most preferred pedagogy among the
students with a mean of 3.49. A preference for traditional lecture-style teaching implies
that junior high school students may value well-organized, teacher-led learning
experiences. One possible reason for this result is that students have already found
comfort in this kind of pedagogy. According to a study conducted by AL-Roomy (2023),
past experiences shape an individual's expectations and perceptions. Lecture-style
teaching is widely used by teachers, particularly in developing countries. This can be
attributed to the efficiency of LST in delivering content to a large group of students
within a limited time frame and its accessibility in resource-constrained environments
(Alagaib et al., 2019).
Moreover, other teaching methods such as Cooperative Learning (CL) and
Experiential Learning (EL) also got high mean scores of 3.37 and 3.33, and ranked as 2nd
55
and 3rd, The National Center for Teacher Education
respectively, suggesting that junior high school students valued them, albeit to a lesser
degree. These were followed by Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) with a mean score of 3.30
and ranked as 4th. Technology-enhanced Teaching (TET) and Role-playing and
Simulation (RPS) were placed in 5.5th for having the same mean score of 3.25.
Additionally, Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) emerged as the ranked 7th and the least
preferred pedagogy among students, as evidenced by its mean score of 3.18. According to
the study of Yaw et al. (2022), one possible reason for Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT)
being the least preferred pedagogy is the dominance of traditional teaching methods like
lectures. The study suggested that such dominance could lead to perceptions of
disengagement with alternative pedagogies like DBT. However, this did not necessarily
entailed disdain for or dislike for this method of instruction. Rather, it implied that
students might be more inclined to other teaching methods used in Araling
Panlipunan.
Table 3.4
AP Teachers’ Pedagogies Preferred by JHS Students When Taken as A Whole
Pedagogies Mean Rank
Lecture Style Teaching (LST) 3.49 1
Cooperative Learning (CL) 3.37 2
Experiential Learning (EL) 3.33 3
Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) 3.25 4.5
Technology Enhanced Teaching (TET) 3.25 4.5
Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) 3.30 6
Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) 3.18 7
56

Students When Categorized According to Sex
Table 3.5 shows the AP Teachers’ pedagogies preferred by junior high school
students when categorized according to sex. Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) emerged as
the most preferred pedagogy for both females and males, with mean scores of 3.56 and
3.44, respectively, ranking 1st, indicating that it is still a preferred method of Araling
Panlipunan instruction.
Female preference is closely followed by Experiential Learning (EL), with a mean
score of 3.41 and ranked as 2nd, indicating that female students placed a high value on
practical applications and hands-on experiences during their learning process. With a
mean score of 3.40, Cooperative Learning (CL) came in ranked 3rd among female
preferences, suggesting their appreciation of cooperative group activities. This is
supported by the result of the study conducted by Van Ryzin et al. (2020), which showed
that cooperative learning holds great appeal for both females and males. Additionally,
Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) is ranked 4th with a mean score of 3.35. This is
followed by Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) and Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) with
mean scores of 3.33 and 3.32 and ranked as 5th and 6th, respectively. Furthermore, with a
mean score of 3.24, Technology-Enhanced Teaching (TET) came in ranked 7th among
female preferences, indicating that though they acknowledged its advantages, it is not as
highly favored as other pedagogies.
In contrast, Cooperative Learning (CL) placed at ranked 2nd among male
preferences with a mean score of 3.34. Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) is ranked 3rd, with a
57
mean The National Center for Teacher Education
score of 3.27, indicating that males are equally inclined to engage in independent study
topic inquiry. This is followed by Experiential Learning (EL), Technology Enhanced
Teaching (TET), and Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS), with mean scores of 3.26,
3.25, and 3.17 and ranked as, 4th, 5th, and 6th, respectively. Moreover, with a mean score
of 3.07, Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) is ranked lowest among male preferences,
indicating a little lower interest in interactive and participatory learning experiences
relative to female preferences.
Though there were some general preferences shared by male and female students,
such as a preference for Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) and Collaborative Learning (CL),
there were also notable variations in which pedagogies were prioritized.
Table 3.5
AP Teachers’ Pedagogies Preferred by JHS Students When Categorized According to Sex
Pedagogies Female Male
Rank Rank Mea
n Mean
Lecture Style Teaching (LST) 3.56 1 3.44 1
Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) 3.32 6 3.07 7
Experiential Learning (EL) 3.41 2 3.26 4
Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) 3.33 5 3.27 3
Technology Enhanced Teaching (TET) 3.24 7 3.25 5
Cooperative Learning (CL) 3.40 3 3.34 2
Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) 3.35 4 3.18 6
58
Students When Categorized According to Grade Level
Table 3.6 shows the preferred pedagogies of JHS students when categorized
according to grade level. Across all grade levels, Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) emerged
as the most preferred pedagogy, highlighting its significance as a cornerstone of student
learning in Araling Panlipunan classes. With mean scores of 3.36 in grade 7, 3.40 in
grade 8, 3.68 in grade 9, and 3.55 in grade 10, LST was consistently placed at the top of
student preferences. This means that, Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) remains an effective
and reliable method for providing organized teaching and essential content to JHS
students.
Following closely after Closely following LST, Cooperative Learning (CL)
ranked prominently among the preferred pedagogies. While Cooperative Learning is
ranked second as a preferred teaching method with a mean score of 3.20 in grade 7, its
mean scores of 3.38 in grade 8, 3.47 in grade 9, and 3.45 in grade 10, place it ranked 2nd,
highlighting its importance as a preferred teaching method that encourages student
participation and collaboration. This is in line with the study of Cheng et al. (2021),
which found that collaborative learning environments lead to better performance,
indicating that students preferred cooperative learning as a method of instruction.
Furthermore, With a mean score of 3.28, Experiential Learning (EL) appeared as is the
ranked 3rd third preferred pedagogy among Grade 7 students . Following EL and CL is
the Ranked 4th Technology-Enhanced Teaching (TET), with a mean score of 3.19 came
in as the fourth teaching pedagogical preference among students . Inquiry-based learning

59
(IBL) The National Center for Teacher Education
and Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) placed as the fifth and sixth preferred teaching
pedagogy ranked 5th and 6th with mean scores of 3.13 and 3.11, respectively.
In Grade 8 and Grade 9, Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) emerged as the third
ranked 3rd preferred pedagogy, following LST and CL. With mean scores of 3.09 in
Grade 8 and 3.46 in Grade 9, IBL is an indication of students' increasing interest in
problem-solving strategies and self-directed inquiry. This result aligned with the study of
Kljajic (2019), which states that students appreciate inquiry-based learning because it
empowers them to take control of their own learning experience while also providing
opportunities for critical thinking and problem-solving. Technology-Enhanced Teaching
(TET) placed ranked 4th as fourth preferred pedagogy in among grade 8 students after the
IBL, with a mean score of 3.25, followed by ranked 5th fifth Experiential Learning (EL)
and ranked 6th sixth Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS), with mean scores of 3.24 and
3.22, respectively. Additionally, after the IBL, the ranked 4.5th preferred pedagogy of
grade 9 is Experiential Learning (EL) and Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) with the
same mean scores of 3.40. This is followed by ranked sixth Technology-Enhanced
Teaching (TET) with a mean score of 3.34.
Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) appeared as the least preferred pedagogy
among grade 7, grade 8, and grade 9 students. Despite its potential to foster cooperative
learning, communication skills, and critical thinking, DBT consistently received lower
mean results than other teaching methods across these grade levels. According to the
American Psychological Association (2020), this could be attributed to the lack of self-
esteem or self-confidence of the students, who doubt their ability to succeed, making
60
them The National Center for Teacher Education
hesitant to participate in discussions, thus placing DBT as the least preferred pedagogy.
Moreover, Experiential Learning (EL) emerged as the ranked three preferred
pedagogy in grade 10, with a mean score of 3.38, suggesting that students in grade 10
significantly preferred hands-on learning opportunities that actively involve them in what
they are learning. It is followed by Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL), Discussion-Based
Teaching (DBT), and Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS), with mean scores of 3.36,
3.30, and 3.28 and ranked as 4th, 5th, and 6th, respectively. Furthermore, Technology
Enhanced Teaching (TET) emerged as the least preferred pedagogy in grade 10, with a
mean score of 3.20. This indicates that students in grade 10 have a lower level of
preference for teaching approaches that heavily depend on digital tools and technology
integration. This result could be attributed to the varying level of exposure and familiarity
with technology among different grade levels considering that the Philippines have
limited access to technology resources and lack of training and support to integrate
technology in teaching and learning process (Mastul A.R. et al., 2023)
These findings suggest that across all grade levels, there is a common pedagogy
that junior high school students prefer among their Araling Panlipunan teachers.
However, there is still an existence of diverse preferences. Thus, it is important to
incorporate a variety of teaching methods to establish inclusive learning environments
that cater to students' individual needs and preferences.
Table 3.6
AP Teachers’ Pedagogies Preferred by JHS Students When Categorized According to Grade
Level
Pedagogies Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
61
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Lecture Style
3.36 1 3.40 1 3.68 1 3.55 1
Teaching (LST)
Discussion-Based
3.05 7 3.09 7 3.32 7 3.30 5
Teaching (DBT)
Experiential Learning
3.28 2 3.24 5 3.41 4.5 3.38 3
(EL)
Inquiry-Based
3.13 5 3.26 3 3.46 3 3.36 4
Learning (IBL)
Technology Enhanced
3.19 4 3.25 4 3.34 6 3.20 7
Teaching (TET)
Cooperative Learning
3.20 3 3.38 2 3.47 2 3.45 2
(CL)
Role-Playing and
3.11 6 3.22 6 3.41 4.5 3.29 6
Simulations (RPS)
T-Test Results on the Unequal Variances of the Students’ Preferred Qualities (SR,
PP, CE, GC, EE) of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher According to Sex
Table 3.7 shows the results of the t-test using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS), which correlates to the unequal variances in the students’
preferred qualities of an Araling Panlipunan teacher. The table implies whether there is
a significant difference in students’ preferred qualities of an Araling Panlipunan teacher
when categorized according to sex. The qualities were represented by five categories:
Sociable and Respectful (SR), Professionalism and Preparedness (PP),
Compassionate and Empathetic (CE), Good Communicator (GC), and Engaging and
Effective (EE). A t-test for equality of means was conducted to compare the means of
these categories between the two groups.
The results revealed that both female and male junior high school students
value teachers who possess and utilize effective communication skills and
62
demonstrate qualities that contribute to engagement. This aligned with the study by
Dhillon and Kaur (2021), which suggests that students generally respond positively
to teachers who demonstrate good communication skills. Furthermore, students tend
to prefer teachers who are approachable, caring, and supportive. When teachers
actively listen, provide constructive feedback, and create a positive classroom
environment, students feel more connected and engaged. These qualities, when
expressed through different communication styles and approaches, may resonate
differently with each gender. Female students may favor teachers who use a more
polite, soothing, emotional, and supportive tone, while male students may prefer
direct, goal-oriented, and emotionally neutral communication.
The table shows that there are significant differences in the Good Communicator
(GC) and Engaging and Effective (EE) categories. The p-values for these categories
were 0.005 and 0.003, respectively, which are less than the commonly used significance
level of 0.05. This implied that when classified by sex, there is a significant difference
in the qualities that students value most in an Araling Panlipunan teacher. On the other
hand, the p-values for the Sociable and Respectful (SR), Professionalism and
Preparedness (PP), and Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) categories were 0.202,
0.496, and 0.222, respectively, which are greater than 0.05.
This indicates that there is no significant difference in students’ preferences for these
qualities when categorized according to sex.
These findings aligned with the study conducted by Clement and Rencewigg
(2020), which highlighted various qualities of an effective teacher, such as being

63
responsible, punctual, having effective communication, and the ability to explain
complex concepts using simple words. Another study by National University (2022),
suggests that adaptability, empathy, active listening, and a focus on growth are among
the top qualities that students, including high school students, look for in a good
teacher. These qualities could potentially correspond to the categories used in this study
(Sociable and Respectful (SR), Professionalism and Preparedness (PP), Compassionate
and Empathetic (CE), Good Communicator (GC), and Engaging and Effective (EE).
The significant differences found in the Good Communicator and Engaging and
Effective categories indicated that male and female students may have different
preferences for these qualities in an Araling Panlipunan teacher. This could be due to a
variety of factors, including societal gender roles and individual personality traits. In
the study of Burroughs et al. (2019), it showed that teachers are one of the most
important school-based resources in determining students’ future academic success and
lifetime outcomes. However, evidence for the impact of teacher characteristics
(experience and professional knowledge) on student outcomes remained quite limited.
This showed that gender differences in the classroom have also been explored, with
research suggesting that gender roles were the patterns of behaviors, attitudes, and
expectations associated with a particular sex. These differences could potentially
influence students’ preferences for certain qualities in a teacher. The study conducted by
Hirsh and Segolsson (2020) also emphasized the importance of teachers’ ability to vary
and adapt their teaching approach to suit the class and individual needs. This aligned with
64
the The National Center for Teacher Education
findings of our study, suggesting that adaptability in teaching methods is a quality
preferred by students.
However, the lack of significant differences in the Sociable and Respectful
(SR), Professionalism and Preparedness (PP), and Compassionate and Empathetic (CE)
categories suggested that male and female students have similar preferences for these
qualities. This could indicate that certain qualities are universally valued by students,
regardless of their sex.
Table 3.7
T-Test Results on the Unequal Variances of the Students’ Preferred Qualities (SR, PP, CE,
GC, EE) of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher According to Sex
T-Test for Equality of Means

Sig.
Mean
t
Difference (2-tailed)
Sociable and Respectful (SR) .08522 1.280 .202
Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) .04102 .682 .496
Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) .08331 1.226 .222
Good Communicator (GC) .15116 2.857 .005*
Engaging and Effective (EE) .16521 2.963 .003*
Note: If p ≥ .05, reject Ho.
ANOVA Analysis of Differences in Students’ Preferred Qualities of an Araling
Panlipunan Teacher by Grade Level
To find out what qualities Araling Panlipunan teachers are most valued for by
their students when categorized by grade level, an ANOVA was used to evaluate the data,
and Table 3.8 shows the outcomes. The results indicated that teachers are most valued for
their ability to effectively explain complex concepts and engage students in discussions.
The table displays the sum of squares, degrees of freedom (df), mean square, F value, and
65
significance level for each grade level: Sociable and Respectful (SR), Professionalism
and Preparedness (PP), Compassionate and Empathetic (CE), Good Communicator (GC),
and Engaging and Effective (EE). Relevant findings were drawn from the data analysis.
The p-values (Sig.) for all the qualities were found to be less than the alpha level
of 0.05, which is the standard threshold for significance in most statistical tests. This
indicates that there is a significant difference in the students’ preferred qualities of an
Araling Panlipunan teacher across different grade levels. Specifically, the qualities of
being Sociable and Respectful (SR), Professionalism and Preparedness (PP), Good
Communicator (GC), and Engaging and Effective (EE) all had p-values of .000,
suggesting a significant difference in students’ preference for these qualities across
different grade levels. The quality of being Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) also
showed a significant difference with a p-value of .007, though this was less pronounced
compared to the others. This suggests that as students’ progress through their education,
their expectations and preferences regarding teacher qualities evolve. This finding is in
line with the study by Burroughs et al. (2019), which suggested that students’ preferences
for teacher qualities can vary significantly depending on their academic levels due to the
evolving cognitive and emotional development stages they undergo. Supporting these
findings, a study by Garcia-Acojido (2021) highlighted that teacher, as agents of learning,
should always make it a point that students feel confident and comfortable to ensure the
best possible results. This pointed to the teacher’s qualities of empathy, patience, and the
ability to build caring relationships with students.

66
According to Gagnon (2019), the qualities of a good teacher should include strong
communication and listening skills, deep knowledge and passion for their subject matter,
the ability to build caring relationships with students, excellent preparation and
organization skills, and a strong work ethic. The findings suggested that, at various grade
levels, there is variation in students' preferences for the qualities of Araling Panlipunan
teachers. Teachers can use this study as guidance in their teaching techniques since it
offered insightful information on what Araling Panlipunan teachers were chosen for by
their students.
Table 3.8
ANOVA Analysis of Differences in Students’ Preferred Qualities of an Araling Panlipunan
Teacher by Grade Level
67
Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
Sociable and Between Groups 5.117 3 255 1.706 .26 6.445 .000*
Respectful Within Groups 67.487 5
Total 72.605
Professionalism Between Groups 7.136 2.379 .21 11.239 .000*

and Within Groups 53.965 2
Preparedness 255
Total 61.100
Compassionate Between Groups 3.514 1.171 .28 4.168 .007*
and Empathetic Within Groups 71.671 255 1
Total 75.185
Good Between Groups 4.190 1.397 .17 8.083 .000*

Communicator Within Groups 44.062 255 3
Total 48.252
Engaging and Between Groups 4.916 1.639 .20 8.085 .000*

Effective Within Groups 51.851 255 3
Total 56.767 258
Comparison Between Sociable and Respectful (SR) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10
Using the Post Hoc Tests in One Way ANOVA
Table 3.9 analyzed the qualities students valued in an Araling Panlipunan teacher
in accordance with their grade levels, with a particular emphasis on the qualities of
being sociable and respectful. One-way ANOVA’s post hoc test was used to assess the
data, and the outcomes were quite insightful.
When the students’ preferences for these qualities were categorized according to
their grade level, the analysis revealed significant differences. As students go through
different levels of education, their preferences for teacher qualities changed (Burroughs
et al., 2019).
68
A The National Center for Teacher Education
significant difference was seen in the comparison between grades 7 and 9, with a mean
difference of -0.36062, suggesting that students in grade 9 value socializing more than
those in grade 7. Similarly, students in grades 8 and 9 showed a significant difference
with a mean difference of -0.29050, with grade 9 students displaying a larger tendency
towards sociability.
Interestingly, the comparison between grade 7 and grade 8 did not show any
significant difference, as indicated by a significant value of .855. The same was
observed between grade 9 and grade 10, with a significant value of .363, indicating no
significant difference. Adolescent growth phases might be the cause of these
differences. A research published by Alderman and Breuner (2019) stated that
adolescence is a crucial developmental stage that is marked by important and unique
changes in the biological, cognitive, emotional, and social domains. Students’
expectations of their teachers about respect and manners tend to change as they go up
the school levels, as does their social awareness.
In essence, the data indicated significant findings: there has been a change in the
perception of Araling Panlipunan teachers as having sociable and respectful qualities
across grade levels, except for grade 10, where no significant differences exist. This
implies that students’ preferences for teacher qualities change as they get older and
advance in their educational pursuits, underscoring the necessity for teachers to modify
their methods in response to their students’ shifting requirements and expectations.

69
Table 3.9
Comparison Between Sociable and Respectful (SR) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using the Post
Hoc Tests in One Way ANOVA
Mean
Dependent (I)Grade (J)Grade Std.
Difference Sig.
Variable Level Level Error
(I – J)
Sociable and Grade 7 Grade 8 -.07012 .08791 .855
Respectful Grade 9 -.36062* .08856 .000*
Grade 10 -.20793 .09329 .118
Grade 8 Grade 7 -.07012 .08791 .855
Grade 9 -.29050* .08824 .006*
Grade 10 -.13781 .09299 .450
Grade 9 Grade 7 .36062* .08856 .000*
Grade 8 .29050* .08824 .006*
Grade 10 .15269 .09299 .363
Grade 10 Grade 7 .20793 .09329 .118
Grade 8 .13781 .09299 .450
Grade 9 -.15269 .09361 .363
Note: If p ≥ 0.05, reject Ho.
Comparison between Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and
10 using the Post Hoc Tests in One Way ANOVA
The analysis of students’ preferred qualities in an Araling Panlipunan teacher, when
categorized according to grade level, shows significant patterns. The data, as presented
in Table 3.10, is the result of a post hoc test comparing Professionalism and
Preparedness (PP) among grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 using a one-way ANOVA.
A notable mean difference of 0.38246 between grade 7 and grade 9 students
indicated that grade 9 students exhibited a stronger inclination toward certain teacher
qualities compared to their grade 7 counterparts. Specifically, they valued

70
professionalism and preparedness more. As students advance to higher grades, their
emphasis on these qualities aligns with their cognitive development and increased
awareness of the learning process. Grade 9 students recognized the importance of well-
prepared educators in their academic journey.
Comparing grade 8 and grade 9, we observed a negative value of -0.32630. This
suggests that grade 9 students appreciated these qualities even more than their grade 8
peers. The transition from grade 8 to grade 9 is associated with an intensified preference
for these teacher traits. The most significant difference occurred between
grades 9 and 10, with a value of -0.41655. As students approach senior levels (Grade
10), their preferences tend to flatten or decrease. Students tend to become more self-
directed learners, relying less on teacher attributes and more on their own initiative
(Selby, 2023). This finding aligned with a study by Burroughs et al. (2019), where
students’ choices for teacher qualities changed as they move through different
educational levels. This change can be attributed to exposure to a variety of instructional
ideologies and cognitive growth.

71
Table 3.10
Comparison Between Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10
Using the Post Hoc Tests in One Way ANOVA
Mean
Difference Sig.
(I – J)
Profession Grade 7 Grade 8 -.05616 .07861 .891
alism and Grade 9 -.38246* .07919 .000*
Preparedn Grade 10 .03409 .08343 .977
ess Grade 8 Grade 7 .05616 .07861 .891
Grade 9 -.32630* .07890 .000*
Grade 10 .09025 .08316 .699
Grade 9 Grade 7 .38246* .07919 .000*
Grade 8 .32630* .07890 .000*
Grade 10 .41655* .08370 .000*
Grade 10 Grade 7 -.03409 .08343 .977
Grade 8 -.09025 .08316 .699
Grade 9 -.41655* .08370 .000*
Comparison between Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10
using the Post Hoc Tests in One Way ANOVA
The analysis of students’ preferred qualities in an Araling Panlipunan teacher,
particularly the Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) qualities, revealed significant
insights when students were categorized according to their grade level. This analysis was
based on the post hoc test results of the one-way ANOVA, as presented in Table 3.11.
A significant finding from the analysis is the mean difference between Grade 7
and Grade 9, which stands at -0.30015. This difference is statistically significant with a p
value of.006, indicating a significant shift in the preference for Compassionate and
72
Empathetic (CE) qualities between these two grade levels. For Grade 8 and Grade 10, the
p-values were greater than .05, indicating that the differences in preferences for
Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) qualities compared to the other grades were not
statistically significant. This means that the shift in preference is specifically notable
between grades 7 and 9, while the preferences of students in grades 8 and 10 did not
significantly differ from each other or from grades 7 and 9.
This finding aligns with a study by Aldrup et al. (2022), in which a similar pattern
was observed. Students' preferences for qualities in teachers changed as they went
through their educational experience. Students started to anticipate more from their
teachers than just knowledge transfer; they started to look for emotional support and
empathy. This change highlighted the importance of fostering positive teacher-student
interactions that go beyond the classroom domain.
The significant difference in Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) quality
preference between grade 7 and grade 9 can be attributed to the developmental stages of
adolescents. Younger students often look up to teachers for guidance and authority
(Burroughs et al., 2019). However, as they progress to higher grades, they start valuing
teachers who are compassionate and empathetic more. This shift highlights how students'
cognitive and emotional development is changing. It's interesting to note that the lack of
statistically significant differences across different grade levels points to a degree of
continuity in students' preferences for Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) qualities over
those years.
73
Table 3.11
Comparison Between Compassionate and Empathetic (CE) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using
the Post Hoc Tests in One Way ANOVA
Mean
Dependent (I)Grade (J)Grade Differen Std.
Sig.
Variable Level Level ce Error
(I – J)
Compassionate and Grade 7 Grade 8 -.07087 .09059 .862
Empathetic (CE) Grade 9 -.30015* .09126 .006*
Grade 10 -.18971 .09614 .201
Grade 8 Grade 7 .07087 .09059 .862
Grade 9 -.22929 .09093 .059
Grade 10 -.11884 .09583 .602

Grade 9 Grade 7 .30015* .09126 .006*
Grade 8 .22929 .09093 .059
Grade 10 .11045 .09646 .662

Grade 10 Grade 7 .18971 .09614 .201
Grade 8 .11884 .09583 .602
Grade 9 -.11045 .09646 .662
Comparison between Good Communicator (GC) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 using
Table 3.12 shows the significant difference in students’ preferred qualities of an
Araling Panlipunan teacher when categorized according to grade level. The data was
analyzed using one-way ANOVA post-hoc tests, and the results are presented in
Table 3.12. The table compares the GC quality among students in grades 7, 8, 9, and
74
10. The National Center for Teacher Education
The results showed a significant difference in the GC quality between grade 7 and grade
9 students, with grade 9 students rating this quality higher. A similar significant
difference was observed between grade 8 and grade 9, again favoring grade 9.
However, no other pairs of grade levels showed a significant difference in their ratings
for the GC quality.
These results implied that students' perceptions of teachers' qualities, particularly
the Good Communicator (GC) quality changed as they go through their educational
journey. This is particularly evident in the transition from grade 7 to grade 9 and from
grade 8 to grade 9, where the GC quality was rated significantly higher by the older
students.
This finding aligned with a study by Clement and Rencewigg (2020) identified
that students expected their teachers to be innovative, patient, professional, and
confident, along with other qualities. The grade level of students significantly
influenced their preference for the Good Communicator quality in an Araling
Panlipunan teacher. This highlighted the importance of effective communication in
teaching, especially for older students. Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to develop
and exhibit good communication skills to meet the evolving expectations of their
students.
75
Table 3.12
Comparison Between Good Communicator (GC) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using the Post
Mean Std.
Dependent (I)Grade (J)Grade Sig
Difference Erro
Variable Level Level .
(I – J) r
Good Grade 7 Grade 8 .05563 .07103 .862
Communicator Grade 9 -.26624* .07155 .001*
Grade 10 -.13449 .07538 .283
Grade 8 Grade 7 -.05563 .07103 .862
Grade 9 -.32187* .07130 .000*
Grade 10 -.19012 .07514 .058

Grade 9 Grade 7 .26624* .07155 .001*
Grade 8 .32187* .07130 .000*
Grade 10 .13175 .07564 .304

Grade 10 Grade 7 .13449 .07538 .283
Grade 8 .19012 .07514 .058
Grade 9 -.13175 .07564 .304
Comparison between Engaging and Effective (EE) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 using
Table 3.13 shows the results on student preferences for Engaging and Effective
(EE) qualities of Araling Panlipunan teachers across grades 7 to 10. A one-way ANOVA
post hoc test revealed significant differences in preferences. Grade 9 students showed a
stronger preference for EE qualities compared to grades 7 and 8 (p = .003 and p = .000,
76
respectively). Grade 10 students, however, had a lower preference for EE qualities
compared to grade 8 (p = .021).
These results aligned with Burroughs et al. (2019), suggesting that as students
mature, their expectations of teacher qualities evolved, and they appreciate more
engaging and effective teachers. This was particularly evident among grade 9 students.
Additionally, a study by Baliling (2020) found that the use of multiple intelligence
strategies by Araling Panlipunan teachers were moderately effective, which could explain
the lower preference for EE qualities among Grade 10 students. These findings
highlighted the importance of adapting to the evolving needs and preferences of students
at different educational levels.
Table 3.13
Comparison Between Engaging and Effective (EE) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using the Post
Mean
Difference Sig.
(I – J)
Engaging and Grade 7 Grade 8 .06804 .07705 .814
Effective Grade 9 -.27530* .07762 .003*
(EE) Grade 10 -.16878 .08178 .168
Grade 8 Grade 7 -.06804 .07705 .814
Grade 9 -.34334* .07734 .000*
Grade 10 -.23682* .08151 .021*
Grade 9 Grade 7 .27530* .07762 .003*
Grade 8 .34334* .07734 .000*
Grade 10 .10651 .08205 .565
Grade 10 Grade 7 .16878 .08178 .168
Grade 8 .23682* .08151 .021*
77
Grade 9 -.10651 .08205 .565

T-Test Results on the Unequal Variances of the Students’ Preferred Pedagogies
(LST, DBT, ET, IBT, TET, CT, RPS) of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher According
to Sex
Table 3.14 shows the results of the t-test using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS), which correlated to the unequal variances in the students’
preferred pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan teacher. The table shows whether there is
a significant difference in students’ preferred pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan
teacher when categorized according to sex. The pedagogies were represented by seven
categories: Lecture Style Teaching (LST), Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT),
Experiential Learning (EL), Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL), Technology Enhanced
Teaching (TET), Cooperative Learning (CL), and Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS). A
t-test for equality of means was conducted to compare the means of these categories
between the two groups.
The table shows that there are significant differences in the Lecture Style
Teaching (LST), Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT), Experiential Learning (EL), and
Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) categories. The p-values for these categories were
0.021, 0.000, 0.003, and 0.003 respectively, which are less than the commonly used
significance level of 0.05. This implies that when classified by sex, there is a significant
difference in these pedagogies that students valued most in an Araling Panlipunan
teacher. On the other hand, the p-values for the Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL),
78
Technology Enhanced Teaching (TET), and Cooperative Learning (CL) categories were
0.319, 0.824 and 0.297, respectively, which are greater than 0.05. This indicates that there
is no significant difference in students’ preferences for these pedagogies when
categorized according to sex.
The significant differences observed in Lecture Style Teaching (LST),
Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT), Experiential Learning (EL), and Role-Playing and
Simulations (RPS) among students’ preferred pedagogical approaches when compared by
sex indicated that these methods resonated more strongly with certain sex. Recent
research suggests that sex plays a role in shaping students' preferences and engagement
with teaching techniques.
For example, a study found that females tend to score higher on collaborative
learning styles [Discar and Decena, 2023]. This may explain that female students may
prefer Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) and Role-playing and Simulations (RPS) more
than their male counterparts. Furthermore, the same study suggested that females might
be more comfortable expressing themselves and participating in discussions when
working with others, fostering a sense of belonging and support. Interactive pedagogies
like DBT or RPS might encourage participation from females to a greater extent.
In contrast, Murphy et. al., (2019) found females participating less frequently than
males in traditionally teacher-centered environments. This means that male students may
prefer Lecture-Style Teaching (LST), traditionally a teacher-centered pedagogy, more
than their female counterparts. Some studies also suggested that male students enjoyed
hands on activities and skill development which might indicate that boys preferred
79
Experiential Learning (EL). For example, a study suggested that Experiential Learning
(EL) can be effective for male students who might be more inclined towards hands-on
activities and applying learned concepts (Wan, 2021).
Recent literature supported the idea that gender influenced students' preferences
regarding various pedagogical approaches. Females tend to gravitate toward discussion
based and collaborative methods, while males lean more towards traditional teaching
methods and skill development through hands-on activities. However, the lack of
significant differences in the Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL), Technology Enhanced
Teaching (TET), and Cooperative Learning (CE) categories suggested that male and
female students have similar preferences for these pedagogies. Additionally, Yaw et al.
(2022) pointed out that the prevalence of traditional teaching methods might influence
student preferences for alternative pedagogies. This underscored the importance of
educators creating opportunities for students to experience and engage with diverse
teaching styles, potentially fostering a broader appreciation for different learning
approaches. This could indicate that certain pedagogies were universally valued by
students, regardless of their sex.
Table 3.14
T-Test Results on the Unequal Variances of the Students’ Preferred Pedagogies (LST, DBT,
ET, IBT, TET, CT, RPS) of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher According to Sex
T-Test for Equality of Means

Mean t Sig. (2-
Difference tailed)
Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) .12212 2.323 .021*
Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) .25478 3.825 .000*
Experiential Learning (EL) .15451 2.974 .003*
80
Inquiry-Based Teaching (IBL) .05719 .999 .319

Technology Enhanced Teaching (TET) .-.01324 -.222 .824
Cooperative Learning (CL) .05964 1.046 .297
Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) .17575 2.952 .003*
ANOVA Analysis of Differences in Students’ Preferred Pedagogies of an Araling
Panlipunan Teacher by Grade Level
Table 3.15 shows the outcome of an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) done to find
out if there is a significant difference in the preferred pedagogies of an Araling
Panlipunan teacher by junior high school students when categorized according to grade
level. The table displays the sum of squares, degrees of freedom (df), mean square, F
value, and significance level for each grade level. The following findings were drawn
from the data analysis.
For Lecture-Style Teaching, the F value was 8.973 with a significant level of .000.
For Discussion-Based Teaching, the F value was 4.464, with a level of significance
of .004. For Inquiry-Based Learning the F value was 6.719, with a level of significance of
.000. For Cooperative Learning, the F value was 5.337, with a level of significance
of .001. For Role-Playing and Simulations, the F value was 4.696, with a level of
significance of .003. These findings indicated that there was a significant difference in
students' preferred pedagogies in the following pedagogies: Lecture-Style Teaching,
Discussion-Based Teaching, Inquiry-Based Learning, Cooperative Learning, and Role
Playing and Simulations when categorized according to students' grade level. This is in
line with the study of Burroughs et.al. (2019) which suggested that as students progress
through different grade levels, their cognitive and emotional development influences their
81
learning preferences. Younger students (e.g., Grade 7) might benefit from structured
pedagogies like LST for initial learning, while older students (e.g., Grade 10) might
prefer more interactive approaches like Discussion-Based Teaching or Experiential
Learning as their cognitive abilities and self-confidence develop. In addition, the nature
of the subject matter itself may also influence preferred pedagogies. The K-12
Curriculum is based on the framework of a spiral curriculum, wherein major topics and
skill areas are revisited with increasing complexity throughout the students' learning.
Given this, it is likely that the preferred pedagogies of students might vary according to
grade level. For example, Araling Panlipunan in junior high school might emphasize
group discussions and project-based learning to encourage critical thinking and
collaboration skills, while still incorporating teacher-directed instruction to introduce
foundational concepts (Mufalo et.al., 2021).
However, Experiential Learning had a P value of 2.316, with a level of
significance of .076, and Technology Enhanced Teaching had a P value of 1.498, with a
level of significance of .216. This indicated that in these two pedagogies, there is no
significant difference among the preferences of students when categorized according to
grade level. This might be because students cannot efficiently learn from a certain
pedagogy if they are not familiar with it, or they are not taught about its utility. For
example, students generally use educational technology in a narrow way barely use
educational technology and rarely engage with technological tools, unless it is a tool that
as integral to their learning or if they are already familiar with a particular tool and/or
82
perceive it as useful (Nueva, 2019). This could explain why there might not be a
significant difference in preference between the two pedagogies.
The findings suggest that, at various grade levels, there is variation in students'
preferences for the pedagogies of their Araling Panlipunan teachers. To provide the best
possible learning experiences, teachers can use this study as guidance in their teaching
techniques since it offers insightful information on what are the preferred pedagogies of
students in an Araling Panlipunan teacher.
Table 3.15
ANOVA Analysis of Differences in Students’ Preferred Pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan
Teacher by Grade Level
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Lecture-Style Between Groups 4.335 3 1.445 .16 8.973 .000*

Teaching (LST) Within Groups 41.068 255 1
Total 45.404
Discussion- Between Groups 3.970 1.323 .29 4.464 .004*

Based Teaching Within Groups 75.591 6
(DBT) 255
Total 79.561
Experiential Between Groups 1.232 .411 2.316 .076
Learning (EL) Within Groups 45.197 255 .177
Total 46.429
Inquiry-Based Between Groups 4.003 1.334 .19 6.719 .000*

Learning (IBL) Within Groups 50.637 255 9
Total 54.639
Technology Between Groups .993 .331 1.498 .216

Enhanced Within Groups 56.357 .221
255
Teaching (TET) Total 57.350
Cooperative Between Groups 3.105 1.035 .19 5.337 .001*
Learning (CL) Within Groups 49.448 255 4
Total 52.553
83
Role- The National Center for Teacher Education

Playing and Between Groups 3.090 255 1.030 4.696 .003*
Simulations Within Groups 55.928 .219
(RPS) Total 59.018 258
Comparison between Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 using
Table 3.16 shows the significant difference among different grade levels of students in
connection with Lecture Style Teaching. The asterisks in the table denote statistically
significant differences. In this case, there are significant differences between grade 7 and
grade 9, with a mean difference of .31885 and level of significance of .000, and grade 8
and grade 9, as their mean difference is .28546 and level of significance of .000. These
significant differences could be due to a variety of factors. For instance, older students
(like those in grade 9) might have developed better study habits or cognitive skills that
allow them to benefit more from Lecture-Style Teaching. This is in line with the study of
Hawthrone et. al (2021), which suggests that as students grow older and their cognitive
abilities develop, they might be better able to engage in effective study habits, leading to
improved academic performance.
Table 3.16
Comparison Between Lecture-Style Teaching (LST) on Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using the Post
Mean
Difference Sig.
(I – J)
Lecture- Grade 7 Grade 8 -.03339 .06857 .962
Style Grade 9 -.31885* .06908 .000*
Teaching Grade 10 -.18271 .07278 .061
Grade 8 Grade 7 .03339 .06857 .962
84
Grade 9 -.28546* .06883 .000*

Grade 10 -.14932 .07254 .170
Grade 9 Grade 7 .31885* .06908 .000*
Grade 8 .28546* .06883 .000*
Grade 10 .13614 .07302 .246
Grade 10 Grade 7 .18271 .07278 .061
Grade 8 .14932 .07254 .170
Grade 9 -.13614 .07302 .246
Comparison Between Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) in Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10
Using The Post Hoc Tests for One Way ANOVA
Table 3.17 shows the significant difference among different grade levels of
students in connection with Discussion-Based Teaching. The asterisks in the table denote
statistically significant differences. In this case, there is a significant difference between
grade 7 and grade 9, with a mean difference of .27436 and a level of significance of .019.
This could be due to some factors including complexity of the lessons taught at these
grade levels, the students’ cognitive development, or even the teachers’ implementation
of Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT). A study conducted by Magsucang et. al. (2020)
found that effective teaching strategies, including Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT), had
a significant impact on the academic performance of students in higher grade levels.
Table 3.17
Comparison Between Discussion-Based Teaching (DBT) in Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using the
Post Hoc Tests for One Way ANOVA
Mean
Difference Sig.
(I – J)
85
Discussion- Grade 7 Grade 8 -.03794 .09304 .977

Based Grade 9 -.27436* .09372 .019*
Teaching Grade 10 -.25401 .09874 .052
Grade 8 Grade 7 .03794 .09304 .977
Grade 9 -.23643 .09338 .057
Grade 10 -.21607 .09842 .127
Grade 9 Grade 7 .27436* .09372 .019*
Grade 8 .23643 .09338 .057
Grade 10 .02035 .09907 .997
Grade 10 Grade 7 .25401 .09874 .052
Grade 8 .21607 .09842 .127
Grade 9 -.02035 .09907 .997
Comparison Between Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) in Grades 7, 8, 9, And 10
Using the Post Hoc Tests for One Way ANOVA
Table 3.18 shows the significant difference among different grade levels of students in
connection with Inquiry-Based Learning. The asterisks in the table denote statistically
significant differences. In this case, there is a significant difference between grade 7 and
grade 9 and grade 7 and grade 10, with a mean difference of .33026 and level of
significance of .000 and a mean difference of .23012 and a level of significance of .024
respectively. Furthermore, there is also a significant difference between grade 8 and grade
9, with a mean difference of .20167 and a level of significance of .044. This is in line
with the study of Ulker and Ali (2023) which found that students in higher grades have
accumulated more prior knowledge, which can enhance their ability to generate
86
meaningful questions and engage in independent inquiry. In the same study, they have
found that the implementation of Inquiry-Based Learning can vary across different grade
levels, depending on the curriculum, teacher’s pedagogical approach, and classroom
environment. This could also explain why there is a significant difference among
different grade levels in terms of their preference of Inquiry-Based Learning.
Table 3.18
Comparison Between Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) in Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using the Post
Hoc Tests for One Way ANOVA
Mean
Difference Sig.
(I – J)
Inquiry- Grade 7 Grade 8 -.12859 .07615 .332
Based Grade 9 -.33026* .07671 .000*
Learning Grade 10 -.23012* .08081 .024*
Grade 8 Grade 7 .12859 .07615 .332
Grade 9 -.20167* .07643 .044*
Grade 10 -.10154 .08055 .589

Grade 9 Grade 7 .33026* .07671 .000*
Grade 8 .20167* .07643 .044*
Grade 10 .10014 .08108 .605

Grade 10 Grade 7 .23012* .08081 .024*
Grade 8 .10154 .08055 .589
87
Grade 9 -.10014 .08108 .605

Comparison Between Cooperative Learning (CL) in Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using
the Post Hoc Tests for One Way ANOVA
Table 3.19 shows the significant difference among different grade levels of students
in connection with Cooperative Learning. The asterisks in the table denote statistically
significant differences. In this case, there is a significant difference between grade 7
and grade 9 and grade 7 and grade 10, with a mean difference of .27656 and level of
significance of .002 and a mean difference of .25241 and a level of significance
of .009, respectively. The social dynamics within a classroom can also influence
students’ preferences for cooperative learning. As students move up in grades, their
social networks expand and become more complex, this can make cooperative learning
more appealing as it affects group members’ perceptions and behaviors,
which in turn influences their learning outcomes (Butera and Buchs, 2019).
Table 3.19
Comparison Between Cooperative Learning (CL) in Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using the Post Hoc
Tests for One Way ANOVA
Mean
Difference Sig.
(I – J)
Cooperative Grade 7 Grade 8 -.18073 .07525 .079
Learning Grade 9 -.27656* .07580 .002*
Grade 10 -.25241* .07986 .009*
Grade 8 Grade 7 .18073 .07525 .079
Grade 9 -.09583 .07553 .584
Grade 10 -.07167 .07960 .805

Grade 9 Grade 7 .27656* .07580 .002*
88
Grade 8 .09583 .07553 .584

Grade 10 .02415 .08012 .990
Grade 10 Grade 7 .25241* .07986 .009*
Grade 8 .07167 .07960 .805
Grade 9 -.02415 .08012 .990

Comparison Between Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) in Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10
Using the Post Hoc Tests for One Way ANOVA
Table 3.20 shows the significant difference among different grade levels of
students in connection with Role-Playing and Simulations. The asterisks in the table
denote statistically significant differences. In this case, there is a significant difference
between grade 7 and grade 9 with a mean difference of .29522 and a level of
significance of .002. As students’ progress through school, their cognitive abilities,
interests, and social dynamics evolve (Miller et.al., 2020). This could influence their
engagement with role-playing and simulations. For instance, older students might be
more capable of understanding complex scenarios, which could make simulations more
appealing to them.
Table 3.20
Comparison Between Role-Playing and Simulations (RPS) in Grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 Using the
Post Hoc Tests for One Way ANOVA
Mean
Difference Sig.
(I – J)
Role-Playing and Grade 7 Grade 8 -.10465 .08002 .559
Simulations Grade 9 -.29522* .08062 .002*
Grade 10 -.17210 .08493 .181
Grade 8 Grade 7 .10465 .08002 .559
89
Grade 9 -.19057 .08033 .085

Grade 10 -.06746 .08465 .856
Grade 9 Grade 7 .29522* .08465 .002*
Grade 8 .19057 .08033 .085
Grade 10 .12311 .08521 .473

Grade 10 Grade 7 .17210 .08493 .181
Grade 8 .06746 .08465 .856
Grade 9 -.12311 .08521 .473

CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter encapsulates the summary of the study, summary of the results,
conclusion, and recommendations derived from the research findings.
Summary of the Study
Araling Panlipunan, or Social Studies, plays a pivotal role in shaping the
knowledge and values of young Filipinos in junior high school. However, limited
research exists on student preferences for teacher qualities and teaching methods in this
subject area, indicating a gap in the current literature that this study aims to address.
"Teacher qualities" in this study refers to the traits and qualities that teachers have that
affect their efficacy in the classroom. "Teaching methods" refers to the methods and
techniques that educators employ to help students learn. This research aims to bridge this
gap by examining student preferences at Villacin National High School.
Through a descriptive-comparative quantitative approach, the study surveyed two
hundred fifty-nine (259) students using a Likert scale questionnaire. The questionnaire
was divided into three parts. Part I collected the personal demographics of the
participants. Part II evaluated the preferred qualities of an Araling Panlipunan teacher,
which were categorized into Sociable and Respectful, Professionalism and Preparedness,
Compassionate and Empathetic, Good Communicator, and Engaging. Part III assessed
the preferred pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan teacher, which were categorized into
Lecture-Style Teaching, Discussion-Based Teaching, Experiential Learning, Inquiry-

91
Based The National Center for Teacher Education
Learning, Technology-Enhanced Teaching, Cooperative Learning, and RolePlaying and

Simulations.
Following data collection, the researchers provided the data for analysis in
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) after encoding, coding, and tabulating
it. The findings were interpreted, analyzed, and discussed to determine the students’
preferences. The findings were categorized according to sex and year level to determine if
there were significant differences in the students’ preferences.
Summary of the Findings
The following are the findings of the study after statistical analysis and treatments
were used:
1) The most preferred quality of junior high school students in an Araling
Panlipunan teacher, when taken as a whole, is Good Communicator. When
categorized according to sex, the study found that Good Communicator is still the
most preferred quality of both male and female students in an Araling Panlipunan
teacher. Lastly, when categorized according to year level, the study found that
Good Communicator is still the most preferred quality of junior high school
students from grades 7 to 10 in an Araling Panlipunan teacher.
2) The most preferred pedagogy of junior high school students in an Araling
Panlipunan teacher, when taken as a whole, is Lecture-Style Teaching. When
categorized according to sex, the study found that Lecture-Style Teaching is still
the most preferred pedagogy of both male and female students in an Araling
Panlipunan teacher. Lastly, when categorized according to year level, the study
92
found that Lecture-Style teaching is still the most preferred quality of junior high
school students from grades 7 to 10 in an Araling Panlipunan teacher.
3) The study found that there is a significant difference in students’ preferred
qualities in an Araling Panlipunan teacher when categorized according to their
profile variables. In terms of sex, there is a significant difference in the qualities
Good Communicator and Effective and Engaging. In terms of year level, there is
a significant difference in the qualities Sociable and Respectful, Professionalism
and Preparedness, Good Communicator, and Engaging and Effective.
4) The study found that there is a significant difference in students’ preferred
pedagogies in an Araling Panlipunan teacher when categorized according to their
profile variables. In terms of sex, there is a significant difference in the
pedagogies Lecture Style Teaching, Discussion-Based Teaching, Experiential
Learning, and Role-Playing and Simulations. In terms of year level, there is a
significant difference in the pedagogies Lecture Style Teaching, Discussion-
Based Teaching, Inquiry-Based Learning, Cooperative Learning and Role-
Playing and Simulations.
Conclusion
This study aimed at identifying to identify students' preferred qualities and
pedagogies of an Araling Panlipunan teacher in Villacin National High School. The
results of this study correspond to the research of various authors from different
93
countries. Being a Good Communicator (GC) was the most preferred quality, reiterating
Sword’s (2020) statement that it is the duty of a teacher to understand and simplify
complex material, communicate it to their pupils in a clear and engaging way, hold their
attention during the presentation, and respond to any queries or issues they may have and
on the other hand, Lecture-Style Teaching was the most preferred teaching method of
JHS students of an Araling Panlipunan Teacher, aligning to the statement of Alagaib et al.
(2019) that teachers use lecture-style instruction a lot, especially in developing nations.
This is explained by Lecture-Style Teaching's effectiveness in providing material to a big
number of students in a short amount of time and its adaptability in settings with limited
resources. Nevertheless, it is essential to consider that this was only taken on one
selected campus and there is a possibility that similar research taken from other schools
may produce different findings upon a student’s preferred quality and teaching method of
an Araling Panlipunan teacher.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are the recommendations of
the study:
1) Schools should actively implement initiatives that equip Araling Panlipunan
teachers with essential communication skills, such as clear explanation, active
listening, and effective feedback delivery, providing them with the tools to build a
comfortable learning environment for JHS students.

94
Schools should take proactive steps to enhance Araling Panlipunan teachers'
ability to deliver lessons using lecture-style teaching as the primary teaching
method. Schools should ensure that teachers are properly equipped with the
necessary resources and knowledge to utilize this pedagogical approach.
By enhancing Araling Panlipunan teachers' communication skills and
proficiency in lecture-style teaching, schools can promote ongoing
improvement and raise the quality of instruction.
2) Teachers should actively engage in continuous professional development
opportunities like online courses, seminars, and workshops that focus on
improving communication skills. They should also engage in reflective practices
to evaluate their communication techniques and ask for feedback from peers or
mentors for further improvement.
Teachers should utilize technology tools, multimedia resources, and visual aids
like diagrams, PowerPoint presentations, and videos, while ensuring that visual
aids are clear, relevant, and accessible to all students. Teachers should also engage
in ongoing reflection on teaching practices to enhance lecture-style teaching and
adjust to the various needs of students, promoting continuous improvement in
classroom instruction.
3) Pre-service social science teachers should provide time to independently practice
public speaking by practicing lesson presentations, speaking aloud difficult
concepts, and making videos of themselves teaching. They should also take the
95
initiative to do independent research and self-study on effective communication
techniques for teaching AP subjects, making use of the literature, articles, and
other resources available to them to improve their communication skills. Pre-
service social science teachers should prioritize familiarizing themselves with
various pedagogies, particularly lecture-style teaching, by understanding
the strengths and weaknesses of each method. They should observe experienced
teachers in action, ask questions, and look for feedback on their own teaching
methods. They should also actively engage in teaching practice sessions to gain
practical experience in utilizing lecture style, either through simulated
classroom experiences or during teaching demonstrations.
4) For other researchers, it is recommended to expand the population of this study
and to focus on a qualitative approach to substantiate the numerical findings of
the study for generalizability.
REFERENCES
Agyekum, S. (2019). Teacher-Student Relationships: The Impact on High School

Students.
96
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED595084.pdf?fbclid=IwAR07OvmY9rnVKbWP
N-GyXIXO-XPQJSCKvTWsorjT3KW0grjCrF_6XNh-vvU
AL-Roomy, M. A. (2023). The Relationship Among Students’ Learning Styles, Health

Sciences Colleges, and Grade Point Average (GPA). Advances in Medical
Education and Practice, 14, 203–213. https://doi.org/10.2147/amep.s395720
Alaagib, N. A., Musa, O. A., & Saeed, A. M. (2019). Comparison of the effectiveness of
lectures based on problems and traditional lectures in physiology teaching in
Sudan. BMC Medical Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-0191799-
0
Alderman, E. M., & Breuner, C. C. (2019). Unique Needs of the Adolescent. Pediatrics,
144(6), e20193150. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3150
Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., & Klusmann, U. (2022). Is Empathy the Key to Effective
Teaching? A Systematic Review of Its Association with Teacher-Student
Interactions and Student Outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 34.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09649-y
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning
works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-38684-000
American Psychological Association. (2020, January). Students Experiencing Low

Selfesteem or Low Perceptions of Competence. Apa.org.
https://www.apa.org/ed/schools/primer/self-esteem
Baliling, V. F. (2020). Multiple Intelligences Strategies in Teaching Araling Panlipunan

among Public Secondary Schools in the City Division of Tabuk, Kalinga.
International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(6), 2469--2475.
https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.56.86
Barberos, M. T., Gozalo, A., & Padayogdog, E. (2019). The Effect of the Teacher’s
Teaching Style on Students’ Motivation. NYU Steinhardt.
https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/departments/teaching-and-
97
learning/research/practitioner-action-research/effect-teachers-teaching
Bhandari, P. (2022, February 24). Face Validity | Guide with Definition & Examples.
Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/face-validity/
Bishop, P., & Harrison, L. (2021). The Evolving Middle School Concept: This We (Still)
Believe. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 25(2).
https://doi.org/10.20429/cimle.2021.250202
Boholano, H., Cajes, R., & Boholano, G. S. (2021). Technology based teaching and
learning in junior high school. Research in Pedagogy, 11(1), 98–107.
https://doi.org/10.5937/istrped2101098b
Brinegar, K., & Caskey, M. (2020, June 5). Developmental Characteristics of Young
Adolescents. AMLE. https://www.amle.org/developmental-characteristics-
ofyoung-adolescents/
Burroughs, N., Gardner, J., Lee, Y., Guo, S., Touitou, I., Jansen, K., & Schmidt, W.
(2019). A Review of the Literature on Teacher Effectiveness and Student
Outcomes. IEA Research for Education, 6, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3030-16151-4_2
Butera, F., & Buchs, C. (2019). Social Interdependence and the Promotion of Cooperative
Learning. Social Psychology in Action, 111–127.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_8
Cabaguing, A. (2019). Teaching and Learning Styles in Social Science: The Case of
Samar State University, Philippines. International Review of Social Sciences,
4(11).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336074527_Teaching_and_Learning_St
yles_in_Social_Science_The_Case_of_Samar_State_University_Philippines?fbcli
d=IwAR18YJ1_hKdr2pBZzhG3Mnr8WeBDiPe1Ef2x5G8iXHN6BGinKx2E3m
Xjdpk
Carrington, G. (2023, January 5). What is Student-Centered Learning | Blog. Sora

Schools. https://blog.soraschools.com/5-benefits-of-student-centeredlearning/
#:~:text=Student%2Dcentered%20learning%20is%20an
98
Chaw, The National Center for Teacher Education
L. Y., & Tang, C. M. (2023). Learner Characteristics and Learners’ Inclination

towards Particular Learning Environments. Electronic Journal of E-Learning,
21(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.21.1.2537
Cheng, F.-F., Wu, C.-S., & Su, P.-C. (2021). The Impact of Collaborative Learning and
Personality on Satisfaction in Innovative Teaching Context. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713497
Clement, Dr. A., & Rencewigg, R. (2020). Qualities of Effective Teachers: students’
Perspectives. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management
(IJAEM), 2(10).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346895045_Qualities_of_Effective_Tea
chers_students%27_Perspectives
Crisolo, O. R., Camposano, S., & Rogayan, D. V. (2021). Relevance of social studies in
the 21st century society: Students perspectives. International Journal of Didactical
Studies, 2(1), 101457–101457. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.2021169729
De Loreto, J. M., Demate Jr, A., Dela Cruz, C., Periña, A. J., Paril, M., & Esteves, J.
(2019). A Phenomenological Study on the Challenges and Problems of New
Social Studies Teachers. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational
Studies, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v6i2p23
Dhillon, N., & Kaur, G. (2021). Self-Assessment of Teachers’ Communication Style and
Its Impact on Their Communication Effectiveness: A Study of Indian Higher
Educational Institutions. SAGE Open, 11(2), 215824402110231.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211023173
Discar, R. F., & Decena, A. (2023). Development of Araling Panlipunan Competencies

Among the Grade Ten Learners of Sayao National High School Using Flipped
Classroom Approach. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
9(2), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7976101
Ducharme, F., Lachance, L., Kergoat, M.-J., Coulombe, R., Antoine, P., & Pasquier, F.
(2016). A Comparative Descriptive Study of Characteristics of Early- and
LateOnset Dementia Family Caregivers. American Journal of Alzheimer’s
Disease & Other Dementiasr, 31(1), 48–56.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317515578255
99
Ekmekci, A., & Serrano, D. M. (2022). The Impact of Teacher Quality on Student
Motivation, Achievement, and Persistence in Science and Mathematics.
Education Sciences, 12(10), 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100649
Gagnon, D. (2019, February 8). 10 Qualities of a Good Teacher. Www.snhu.edu;

Southern New Hampshire University.
https://www.snhu.edu/aboutus/newsroom/education/qualities-of-a-good-teacher
Garcia, C. (2021). The Role of Social Studies Course in the 21st Century Society:
Perspective from Educators and Learners. Journal of World Englishes and
Educational Practices (JWEEP), 3(1). https://doi.org/10.32996/jweep.2021.3.1.2
Garcia-Acojido, V. R. (2021). Merits And Demerits of Araling Panlipunan (Social

Studies) Teachers in Using Instructional Resources. Studies in Humanities and
Education, 2(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.48185/she.v2i1.293
Grace, M., & Nueva, C. (2019). Padayon Sining: A Celebration of the Enduring Value of
the Humanities A Literature Review on the Current Technocology in Education:
An Examination of Teachers Use of Technology and Its Association to Digital
Inequality in School. https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-
content/uploads/pdf/conferences/arts-congress-proceedings/2019/CP04.pdf?
fbclid=IwAR1NzmyMHVfAqZK_f_m-
XL7m9geN46TXrIDV4ZEdDF0h0vxE81PNZ0rif9o
Green, C., & Harrington, C. (2020). Student-Centered Learning: In Principle and in

Practice | Michigan Virtual. Michiganvirtual.org.
https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/student-centered-learning-
inprinciple-and-in-practice/
Habib, G. M. A. (2020, January 14). What is quality? Definition and examples:

Www.linkedin.com. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-quality-
definitionexamples-g-m-ahsanhabib?
fbclid=IwAR00KENlM4KUKZqWWumzjHRSxE6Lpf1LC_zki65ZX96ep
VSDoCOIa65PBas
Hadi, S., & Al-Taai, H. (2021). Teaching Methods are a Study of their Importance and
Types in Educational Institutions. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues,
100
24(6). https://www.abacademies.org/articles/teaching-methods-are-a-study-
oftheir-importance-and-types-in-educational-institutions.pdf
Haileybury. (2022, September 21). Why is Teacher Quality Important? Haileybury.

https://www.haileybury.com.au/news/why-is-teacher-quality-
important?fbclid=IwAR0lmDfjraNl1WPrBUA2ZJyvo763QhxyhDE1FJ3DU5vR
DQIjKbzcT283G8I
Hanifan, O. (2022, January 10). 5 ways to establish effective communication in the

classroom. Mentimeter.
https://www.mentimeter.com/blog/interactiveclassrooms/5-ways-to-establish-
effective-communication-in-the-classroom
Harrington, C., & DeBruler, K. (2019, October 22). What Exactly IS Student-Centered
Learning? | Michigan Virtual. Michiganvirtual.org.
https://michiganvirtual.org/blog/what-exactly-is-student-centered-learning/
Hassan, M. (2022, September 22). Cluster Sampling - Definition, Types, Examples.

Research Method. https://researchmethod.net/cluster-sampling/
Hawthorne, M., Cooper, A., Chavis, K., Burrell, T., & Evans, C. (2021). Ability and
responsibility: Need for Cognition and study habits in academic achievement.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1293615.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0CCVMekksa2mF5
pvyS6qp0GF2kKB_TekjlQz7JNhtns4J4npBKvQr4Fmg
Hein, G. (2016). Constructivist learning theory | exploratorium. Exploratorium.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/education/ifi/constructivist-learning
Hill, M. (2021, December 1). How to Practice Student-Centered Learning in Social

Studies. Inspired Ideas. https://medium.com/inspired-ideas-prek-12/how-
topractice-student-centered-learning-in-social-studies-386f10e7b2b7
Hirsh, Å., & Segolsson, M. (2020). “Had there been a Monica in each subject, I would
have liked going to school every day”: a study of students’ perceptions of what
characterizes excellent teachers and their teaching actions. Education Inquiry,
12(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1740423
101
Hysaj, The National Center for Teacher Education
A., Farouqa, G., Khan, S. A., & Hiasat, L. (2023). Reducing Stress Through
Formative Assessments: A Case of the Digital Platform. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_33
Kharb, P. (2013). The Learning Styles and the Preferred Teaching–Learning Strategies of
First Year Medical Students. Journal Of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 7(6).
https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2013/5809.3090
Kljajic, J. (2019). Inquiry-Based Learning as a Strategy to Support Student Success.

Major Papers. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/major-papers/63/
Kurt, S. (2021, February 21). Constructivist Learning Theory. Educational Technology.

https://educationaltechnology.net/constructivist-learning-theory/
Llego, M. A. (2022, August 21). Grade 8 Araling Panlipunan Most Essential Learning
Competencies (MELCs). TeacherPH. https://www.teacherph.com/grade-8araling-
panlipunan-melcs/
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2010). Nursing research: methods and critical
appraisal for evidence-based practice. In The Open Library (7th ed.).
Mosby/Elsevier. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23935312M/Nursing_research
Magsucang, G., Bacuno, S. M., Canon, R., Piamonte, E., Tintin, J., & Barza, J. (2020).
Effectiveness of Teacher’s Teaching Strategies on Academic Performance of
Selected Grade 12 General Academic Strand Students in Bestlink College of the
Philippines. Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(1).
https://www.ojs.aaresearchindex.com/index.php/aasgbcpjmra/article/view/1732
Manzano III, J. (2021). Integration of Action Civics Strategic Intervention Materials

(ACSIM) for Improved Learners’ Performance in Araling Panlipunan 8. IOER
International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 3(4).
https://ioer-imrj.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/12/Integration-of-Action-Civics-
Strategic-InterventionMaterials-ACSIM-for-Improved-Learners-Performance-in-
Araling-Panlipunan8.pdf?
fbclid=IwAR1fA5yXjm_QpM2xdV3kmwHI6XAw5rX8JEAC248JhaDkKt
vb8wHxb36dOaY
102
Marar, The National Center for Teacher Education
Z. (2021, January 1). What I Have Learned from Social Science. Social Science
Space. https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2021/01/why-i-have-learned-
fromsocial-science/
Marenus, M. (2024, February 2). Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

SimplyPsychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/multipleintelligences.html?
fbclid=IwAR0mpQ5JTMJHq4oqnc5dUw2qG6hvy7iJmYwoBdwWxwAKz-
BegqE3yOc0pY
Marlborough University. (2019). Four Communication Activities for Middle School

Students. Www.marlborough.org.
https://www.marlborough.org/news/~board/health-and-
wellness/post/communication-activities-for-middle-school-students
Mastul, A.-R. H., Vera, C. T. de, & Jayme, C. B. (2023). Understanding the Use of
EduTech in Schools in the Philippines: Recommendations for Effectiveness.
Engineering Science Letter, 2(02), 37–40. https://doi.org/10.56741/esl.v2i02.307
McCombes, S. (2019, May 15). Descriptive research design | definition, methods, and
examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/
McKnight, K. (2016). England: What makes an effective teacher?

https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/corporate/global/pearson-dotcom/files/
innovation/global-survey/reports/RINVN9283_UK_July_090516.pdf
Mendoza, K. G. (2023, July 23). Panlipunan: Exploring the Social Fabric of Filipino
Society. With Pinoys. https://withpinoys.com/panlipunan-exploring-the-
socialfabric-of-filipino-society/
Miller, S. E., Legan, A. W., Henshaw, M. T., Ostevik, K. L., Samuk, K., Uy, F. M. K., &
Sheehan, M. J. (2020). Evolutionary dynamics of recent selection on cognitive
abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(6), 3045–3052.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918592117
Mufalo, S., Muleya, G., & Simui, F. (2021). Exploring the Global Emergence of Social
Studies at Junior Secondary School: A Glance on Literature Review. In
103
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (pp. 2454–

6186). https://www.rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-
5issue-7/694-703.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2-MW23xK9f6FDY-
Jj_FTJTWi7qrtKSvhrLNx6PuNRexSTBQlRX_b_SlVc
Munawaroh, M., Ratnawati, E., Ningsih, T. Z., & Nuryana, N. (2022). Enhancing
Students’ Communication Skills in Social Studies Learning Through Cooperative
Learning. Ta’dib, 25(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.31958/jt.v25i1.5826
Murphy, L., Eduljee, N. B., Parkman, S., & Croteau, K. (2019). Gender Differences in
Teaching and Classroom Participation Methods: A Pilot Study. Journal Of
Psychosocial Research, 13(2), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.32381/jpr.2018.13.02.5
Nikolopoulou, K. (2022, August 26). What Is Content Validity? | Definition & Examples.
Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/content-validity/
Pace, K. (2024, February 1). What’s the Difference Between Middle School and Junior
High School? Western Governors University.
https://www.wgu.edu/blog/difference-between-middle-school-junior-
highschool2207.html
Pradana, R. (2023, March 11). The Importance of Student Perspectives in Education.

Www.linkedin.com. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-
studentperspectives-education-rizki-
pradana?
fbclid=IwAR2KJfy8uHYTHklGvtX106p2n_C_RMjI1ABd8VohSRlgQkgvJkI6uc
ErBQ
Presto, A. C. (2023, June 21). Appreciating the importance of social studies, one
conversation at a time. Philstar Life. https://philstarlife.com/news-
andviews/117186-appreciating-importance-social-
studies?page=3&fbclid=IwAR0mIC98w9M6isPh1IUzOsJQkWHr3fnfzKQyNj4B
ydm2bxj7HkB5nmvBiz8
Ranido, O. (2023, January 10). Benefits of Student-Centered Approach - GIIS Tokyo.

Tokyo.globalindianschool.org.
104
https://tokyo.globalindianschool.org/blogdetails/benefits-of-student-centered-
approach
Renton Prep. (2022, September 7). What is a Student-Centered Learning Approach?

Rentonprep.org. https://rentonprep.org/what-is-a-student-centered-learning-
approach/?fbclid=IwAR0WS7sAlmhLjDZNqD3qcviHX0uHmzf8VBDnm4DwQ
wEdaWoWNskEJSZxvPc
Richardson, J. (2022, August 3). Why Is Social Studies So Boring? (11 Reasons Why).
VeryInformed. https://veryinformed.com/why-is-social-studies-soboring/?
fbclid=IwAR3NYS5OK_cbSCercR5mFh59umQurAtoVtg7jX7J402sizL8n4kM-
TUljY
Russo, S., Coristine, S., Fitzmorris, R., Beninato, P., & Rivolta, G. (2022). The
Importance of Student-Teacher Relationships. Classroom Practice in 2022.
https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/educ5202/chapter/the-importance-
ofstudent-teacher-relationships/
Searles, B. (2022). Student-Centered Learning in the Social Studies Classroom: Effective

Strategies that Build Critical Thinking. All Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
https://spark.bethel.edu/etd/844/
Selby, (2023a, August 7). Building Strong Social Skills: A Guide for Grade 7 Students.
Everyday Speech. https://everydayspeech.com/sel-implementation/buildingstrong-
social-skills-a-guide-for-grade-7-students/
Selby, (2023b, August 24). Exploring the Importance of Social Communication in Grade
9 Education. Everyday Speech.
https://everydayspeech.com/selimplementation/exploring-the-importance-of-
social-communication-in-grade-9education/
Selby, (2023c, August 24). Fostering Effective Communication in Middle School

Students: Insights for Educators. Everyday Speech.
https://everydayspeech.com/sel-implementation/fostering-
effectivecommunication-in-middle-school-students-insights-for-educators/
Seludo, J. G., & Murillo, N. M. (2023). Experiences and Challenges of Grades 7, 8 and 9
105
Araling Panlipunan Teachers in Promoting Students’ Civic Competence. Zenodo

(CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research).
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8202113
Serafico-Reyes, N. M. A., Sjamsuddin, H., Wiriaatmadja, R., & Hasan, S. H. (2019, April
1). Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies) in the Philippine Makabayan Learning
Area: Problems and prospects in articulating social studies as a discipline.
Www.atlantis-Press.com; Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/aes-18.2019.33
Shah, S., & Rajendra, K. (2021). Conceptualizing and Defining Pedagogy Etymological
Meaning of Pedagogy and Pedagogue. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in
Education, 11(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-1101020629
Styx, X. (2017). Learning Style Questionnaire and Teaching Style Questionnaire.

Www.academia.edu.
https://www.academia.edu/35036562/Learning_Style_Questionnaire_and_Teachi
ng_Style_Questionnaire?fbclid=IwAR0__p35dRu0xbmhCPGPssksIQdiWXzB_o
6oqyJ0Sw1cko5LMO0bWO28lgs
Subia, G. S., Trinidad, C. L., Pascual, R. R., Medrano, H. B., & Manuzon, E. P. (2019).
Learning Styles and Preferred Teaching Styles of Master of Arts in Teaching
(MAT), major in Vocational Technological Education (VTE) Generation Y
Learners. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 4(2),
431–436. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.4.2.35
Sword, R. (2020, November 16). Communication in the Classroom | Skills for Teachers.
The Hub | High Speed Training.
https://www.highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/communication-skills-for-teachers/
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. International
Journal of Medical Education, 2(2), 53–55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
The New MATATAG Araling Panlipunan Curriculum - Academ-e Philippines. (2023,

September 8). Academ-e. https://www.academ-e.ph/the-new-matatag-
curriculumguide/araling-panlipunan-cg-2023/
106
Tprestianni. (2022, October 26). Qualities of a Good Teacher: The 14 Qualities That Top
Our List. National University. https://www.nu.edu/blog/qualities-of-a-
goodteacher/
Tulivuori, J., & Panth, B. (2021, September 2). Teacher Quality is the Key to Improving
Education in Asia and the Pacific. Blogs.adb.org.
https://blogs.adb.org/blog/teacher-quality-key-improving-education-asia-
andpacific
Uchechi, B.-A. (2021). The Role of Teaching and Learning Aids/Methods in a Changing
World. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED613989.pdf
Ulker, V., & Ali, H. F. (2023). Inquiry-Based Learning Implementation: Students’

Perception and Preference. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational
Studies, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i2p220
Van Ryzin, M. J., Roseth, C. J., & McClure, H. (2020). The effects of cooperative
learning on peer relations, academic support, and engagement in learning among
students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(4), 283–291.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1806016
Verner, I. M., Perez, H., & Lavi, R. (2021). Characteristics of student engagement in
high-school robotics courses. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09688-0
Wan, T. K. (2021). Effects of Extra-Curricular Project-Based Learning Experiences on

Self-Efficacy and Interest in STEM Fields in High School. Dissertations, 59.
https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.jvdz-m6k2
What is the importance of Araling Panlipunan in the curriculum? – Wisdom-Advices.

(2019, November 10). Wisdom-Advices.com.
https://wisdom-advices.com/whatis-the-importance-of-araling-panlipunan-in-the-
curriculum/
Winthrop, R. (2020, June 4). The need for civic education in 21st-century schools.
Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-need-for-civic-education-in-
21st-century-
107
schools/?fbclid=IwAR1fA5yXjm_QpM2xdV3kmwHI6XAw5rX8JEAC248JhaDk
Ktvb8wHxb36dOaY
Yavich, R., & Rotnitsky, I. (2020). Multiple Intelligences and Success in School Studies.
International Journal of Higher Education, 9(6), 107–117.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1277917
Yaw, E. O., Donkor, S. T., Yeboah, J., & Appiah, C. (2022). Students’ Perceptions and
Attitudes Towards Techniques Used in Teaching and Learning of Social Studies
in the Colleges of Education in Ghana. Universal Journal of Social Sciences and
Humanities, 2(4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.31586/ujssh.2022.567
Yussif. (2022, May 17). What Is the Role of the Teacher in a Student-centered
Classroom? - Classroom Management Expert. Classroommanagementexpert.com.
https://classroommanagementexpert.com/blog/what-is-the-role-of-the-teacher-ina-
student-centered-classroom/
APPENDICES
109
Appendix A
110

111
APPENDIX B
Letter to the Validators

112

113

114

115

116

117
APPENDIX C
Profile of the Validators
Gerly Mae M. Garde, MAEd
Master of Arts in Education, Major in Social Science 8 years in service
Teacher II, Designated as TIC-SHS

118
Currently teaching at Eusebio Lopez Memorial Integrated School
Zarla D. Quirao, MAEd
Master of Arts in Education, Major in Social Science 5 years in service
Teacher I
Currently teaching at Dr. Vicente F. Gustillo Memorial National High School
Meah A. Bajande, MEd
Master of Education in Social Science 6 years in service
Teacher III
Currently teaching at Buenavista National High School
APPENDIX D
Criteria for Validating the Research Instrument
119

120

121
APPENDIX E
Letter to the Superintendent

122

123
RENZI B. DOLINO
APPENDIX F Validity of the Data Gathering Instrument
Criteria for Validation of the Research Instrument
Using the following criteria for evaluating questionnaires developed by Good and Scates, please
evaluate the attached questionnaire for the proposed study using the given scale. Thank you very
much.
124
Rating: 5 – Excellent 4 – Very Good 3 – Good 2 – Fair 1 – Poor

Areas Criteria V1 V2 V3
1 The questionnaire is short enough, and

respondents will respect it and would not 5 3 5
drain much of their precious time.
2 The questionnaire is interesting and has a face
appeal such that respondents will be induced 5 3 5
to respond to it and accomplish it fully.
3 The questionnaire can obtain some depth to
5 3 5
respondents and avoid superficial answers.
4 The items/questions and their alternative
responses are not too suggested and not to 5 4 5
stimulating.
5 The questionnaire can elicit responses which
5 3 5
are definite but not mechanically force.
6 Questionnaires/items are stated in such a
way that the responses will not be 5 4 5
embarrassing to the persons concerned.
7 Questionnaires/items are formed in such a
manner to avoid suspicion on the part of 5 4 5
the respondents.
8 The questionnaire is not too narrow nor
restrictive nor limited in its scope or 5 3 5
philosophy.
9 The responses to the questionnaire when taken
as a whole, could answer the basic purpose for
5 4 5
which the questionnaire is designed and
considered valid.
Mean 5 3.4 5
Overall Mean 4.47
Interpretation Very High Degree of Validity
APPENDIX G
Letter for the Conduct of Reliability

125

126
APPENDIX H
Reliability Results
127
APPENDIX I
SPSS Results
Frequencies
Statistics
SEX GRADELEVEL
Valid 259 259
N Missing 0 0
Frequency Table
SEX
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Female 116 44.8 44.8 44.8

128
Male 143 55.2 55.2 100.0
Total 259 100.0 100.0
GRADELEVEL
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
GRADE 7 68 26.3 26.3 26.3
GRADE 8 69 26.6 26.6 52.9
GRADE 9 67 25.9 25.9 78.8
GRADE 10 55 21.2 21.2 100.0
Valid Total 259 100.0 100.0
Qualities
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

SR .53048
259 1.67 4.00 3.3179
PP .48664
CE 259 1.50 4.00 3.2317 .53983
GC .43246
259 1.50 4.00 3.2471
259 2.00 4.00 3.4208
EE 259 1.75 4.00 3.2838 .46907
TOTAL1 259 1.80 3.20 2.6367 .27419
Valid N (listwise) 259

129

SR PP
CE GC EE TOTAL1 * SEX
SEX SR PP CE GC EE TOTAL1
Mean 3.3649 3.2543 3.2931 3.5043 3.3750 2.6853
N 116 116 116 116 116 116

Female Std. Deviation .54547 .45443 .56364 .40911 .36787 .26002
3.2797 3.2133 3.2098 3.3531 3.2098 2.5972
Mean
143 143 143 143 143 143
Male N
Std. Deviation .51678 .51214 .51871 .44040 .52713 .27989
Mean 3.2317 2.6367
3.3179 3.2471 3.4208 3.2838
N
259 259 259 259 259 259
Std. Deviation
Total .53048 .48664 .53983 .43246 .46907 .27419
SR PP CE GC EE TOTAL1 * GRADELEVEL
GRADELEVEL SR PP CE GC EE TOTAL1
Mean 3.1618 3.1250 3.1103 3.3382 3.1949 2.5537
GRADE 7 N 68 68 68 68 68 68
.55983 .52101 .48750 .42269 .45063 .23217

Std. Deviation
Mean 3.2319 3.1812 3.1812 3.2826 3.1268 2.5543
69 69
N 69 69 69 69
GRADE 8
Std. Deviation .56100 .46944 .64723 .50895 .56168 .31562
Mean 3.5224 3.5075 3.4104 3.6045 3.4701 2.7985

GRADE 9
67 67 67 67
130
N .40295 .44800 .46811 67 .3772 .29363 67 .2405

Std. Deviation 3.3697 3.0909 3.3000 6 3.3636 8
Mean 55 55 55 3.4727 55 2.6455
N 55 .3068 55 .2150
GRADE 10
Std. Deviation .51589 .37381 .48686 4 .45343 1
Mean 3.3179 3.2317 3.2471 3.4208 3.2838 2.6367
N 259 259 259 259 259 259
Total Std. Deviation .53048 .48664 .53983 .43246 .46907 .27419
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence
(2tailed) Difference
Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
SR assumed 1.287 257 .199 .08522 .06620 -.04515 .21559

131

1.280 240.270 .202 .08522 .06658 -.04593 .21637
Equal variances
not assumed
.674 257 .501 .06087 -.07885
Equal variances .04102 .16090
PP assumed
Equal variances
not assumed .682 254.906 .496 .04102 .06012 -.07737 .15942
Equal variances
assumed 1.236 257 .217 .08331 .06739 -.04938 .21601
CE
1.226 .222 .06797
not assumed 236.783 -.05059
257 .04617
2.835 .005 .05332
assumed
GC 2.857 252.283 .005 .05291 .04697
not assumed
Equal variances 2.858 257 .005 .16521 .05782 .05136 .27906
EE assumed
Equal variances
not assumed 2.963 251.676 .003 .16521 .05576 .05539 .27503
Equal variances
2.601 257 .010 .08814 .03388 .02141 .15487
TOTAL assumed
1 Equal variances
not assumed
2.621 252.279 .009 .08814 .03363 .02192 .15436
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups
5.117 3 1.706 6.445 .000
Within Groups 67.487 255 .265
SR Total 72.605 258
Between Groups 7.136 3 11.239 .000

2.379
PP Total 61.100 258
3.514 1.171
Between Groups 3 4.168 .007
.281
71.671 255
CE Within Groups
Total 75.185 258
132
Between Groups 4.190 3 1.397 8.083 .000

.173
GC Within Groups 44.062 255
Total 48.252 258
Between Groups 4.916 3 8.058 .000
1.639
EE Within Groups 51.851 255 .203
Total 56.767 258

3 13.716 .000
Between Groups 2.695 .898
TOTAL1 Within Groups 16.701 255 .065
Total 19.397 258
Multiple Comparisons
Tukey HSD
Dependent (I) (J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Mean
Variable GRADEL
Difference (I-
GRADEL Lower Upper
EVEL EVEL J) Bound Bound
GRADE 8 -.07012 .08791 .855 -.2975 .1572

*
GRADE 9 -.36062 .08856 .000 -.5896 -.1316
GRADE 7
GRADE
10 -.20793 .09329 .118 -.4492 .0333
GRADE 7 .07012 .08791 .855 -.1572 .2975
GRADE 9 -.29050* .08824 .006 -.5187 -.0623

GRADE 8
GRADE
10 -.13781 .09299 .450 -.3783 .1027
SR GRADE 7 .36062* .08856 .000 .1316 .5896

133

GRADE 8 .29050* .08824 .006 .0623 .5187
GRADE 9
GRADE
10 .15269 .09361 .363 -.0894 .3948
GRADE 7 .20793 .09329 .118 -.0333 .4492

GRADE
GRADE 8 .13781 .09299 .450 -.1027 .3783
10
GRADE 9 -.15269 .09361 .363 -.3948 .0894
GRADE 8 -.05616 .07861 .891 -.2594 .1471
GRADE 9 -.38246 * .07919 .000 -.5872 -.1777
GRADE 7
GRADE
10 .03409 .08343 .977 -.1817 .2498
GRADE 7 .07861
.05616 .891 -.1471 .2594
GRADE 9 * .07890
GRADE 8 -.32630 .000 -.5303 -.1223
GRADE
10 .09025 .08316 .699 -.1248 .3053
PP
*
GRADE 7 .38246 .07919 .000 .1777 .5872
GRADE 8 .32630 *
.07890 .000 .1223 .5303
GRADE 9
GRADE
10 .41655* .08370 .000 .2001 .6330
GRADE GRADE 7 -.03409 .08343 .977 -.2498 .1817

10 GRADE 8 -.09025 .08316 .699 -.3053 .1248
GRADE 9 -.41655* .08370 .000 -.6330 -.2001
GRADE 8 -.07087 .09059 .862 -.3051 .1634
GRADE 9 -.30015 *
.09126 .006 -.5362 -.0642
GRADE 7
GRADE
10 -.18971 .09614 .201 -.4383 .0589
GRADE 7
.07087 .09059 .862 -.1634 .3051
GRADE 9
GRADE 8 -.22929 .09093 .059 -.4644 .0059
GRADE
10 -.11884 .09583 .602 -.3667 .1290
CE
*
GRADE 7 .30015 .09126 .006 .0642 .5362
.22929
GRADE 8 .09093 .059 -.0059 .4644
GRADE 9
GRADE
.11045 .09646 .662 -.1390 .3599
10
GRADE GRADE 7 .18971 .09614 .201 -.0589 .4383
GRADE 8 .11884 .09583 .602 -.1290 .3667
GC GRADE 9 -.11045 .662 -.3599 .1390
134
10 GRADE 8 .05563 .09646 .862 -.1281 .2393
GRADE 9 -.26624* .07103 .001 -.4513 -.0812
GRADE .07155
-.13449 .283 -.3294 .0605
GRADE 7
10 .07538
GRADE 7 -.05563 .862 -.2393 .1281
*
GRADE 9 -.32187 .07103 .000 -.5062 -.1375
GRADE
.07130
GRADE 8 10 -.19012 .058 -.3844 .0042
.07514
GRADE 7 .26624* .07155 .001 .0812 .4513
GRADE 8 .32187* .07130 .000 .1375 .5062
GRADE 9
GRADE
.13175 .07564 .304 -.0638 .3273
10
GRADE 7 .13449 .07538 .283 -.0605 .3294
GRADE
GRADE 8 .19012 .07514 .058 -.0042 .3844
10
GRADE 9 -.13175 .07564 .304 -.3273 .0638
GRADE 8 .06804 .07705 .814 -.1312 .2673

*
GRADE 9 -.27530 .07762 .003 -.4760 -.0746
GRADE 7
GRADE
.08178
10 -.16878 .168 -.3803 .0427
GRADE 7 -.06804 .07705 .814 -.2673 .1312
EE GRADE 8
*
GRADE 9 -.34334 .07734 .000 -.5433 -.1433
GRADE
10 -.23682* .08151 .021 -.4476 -.0260
*
GRADE 7 .27530 .003 .0746 .4760
.07762
GRADE 8 .34334* .000 .1433 .5433
GRADE 9 .07734
GRADE
.10651 .08205 .565 -.1057 .3187
10
GRADE 7 .16878 .08178 .168 -.0427 .3803
GRADE .0260
*
GRADE 8 .23682 .08151 .021 .4476
10
GRADE 9 -.10651 .08205 .565 -.3187 .1057
TOTAL1 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 -.00067 .04373 1.000 -.1138 .1124

135

GRADE 9 -.24483* .04405 .000 -.3588 -.1309
GRADE
10 -.09178 .04641 .199 -.2118 .0282
GRADE 7 .00067 .04373 1.000 -.1124 .1138
GRADE 9 -.24416* .04389 .000 -.3577 -.1306

GRADE 8 GRADE
10 -.09111 .04626 .202 -.2107 .0285
GRADE 7 .24483* .04405 .000 .1309 .3588
GRADE 8 .24416* .04389 .000 .1306 .3577

GRADE 9 GRADE
10 .15305* .04657 .006 .0326 .2735
GRADE 7 .09178 .04641 .199 -.0282 .2118
GRADE GRADE 8 .09111 .04626 .202 -.0285 .2107

10 GRADE 9 -.15305* .04657 .006 -.2735 -.0326
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Pedagogies
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

LST .41950
259 1.67 4.00 3.4929
DBT .55532
259 1.00 4.00 3.1840
EL 259 1.67 4.00 3.3256 .42421

IBL .46020
TET 259 1.67 4.00 3.2960 .47147
259 2.00 4.00 3.2458
CL 259 1.33 4.33 3.3694 .45132
RPS 259 1.67 4.00 3.2535 .47828
TOTAL2 259 2.43 4.00 3.3096 .31956
Valid N (listwise) 259

136
Independent Samples Test
t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. Mean Std. Error
95% Confidence
(2tailed) Difference
Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
variances 2.350 257 .020 .12212 .05197 .01978 .22445
assumed
Equal .12212
LST variances not 2.323 233.195 .021 .05257 .01854 .22569
assumed Equal
variances
assumed 3.764 257 .000 .25478 .06768 .12150 .38807
DBT
Equal
variances not 3.825 256.221 .000 .25478 .06660 .12362 .38594
assumed
.15451
Equal 2.958 257 .003 .05223 .05166 .25736
variances
assumed Equal
variances not .003 .15451 .05195 .05219 .25683
EL assumed Equal
variances 2.974 .9 250.615
assumed 95 257
.321 .05719 .05750 -.05605 .17043
IBL
Equal
variances not .999 .319 .05723 -.05551 .16989
.05719
assumed Equal 250.278
257
variances
assumed Equal -.224 .823 .05902 -.12947 .10298
TET
137

-.222 235.150 .824 -.01324 .05962 -.13069 .10421
variances not
assumed Equal
variances
-.01324
assumed Equal
1.058 257 .291 .05638 -.05139 .17067
variances not
assumed Equal
.05964
variances
CL 1.046 233.093 .297 .05704 -.05275 .17203
assumed Equal
variances not
.05964
assumed Equal 2.986 257 .003 .05887 .05983 .29167
variances
assumed
.17575
Equal 2.952 233.448 .003 .05954 .05844 .29306
variances not
assumed
RPS .17575
2.943 257 .004 .11582 .03935 .03833 .19331
TOTAL2 2.900 229.087 .004 .11582 .03994 .03713 .19451
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.335 3 1.445 8.973 .000
LST Total 45.404 258
3.970 3 1.323 4.464 .004
Between Groups
255 .296
75.591
DBT Within Groups
Total 79.561 258
Between Groups 1.232 3 .411 2.316 .076
EL Within Groups 45.197 255 .177

Total 46.429 258
138
Between Groups 4.003 3 1.334 6.719 .000

.199
IBL Within Groups 50.637 255
Total 54.639 258
Between Groups 3
.993 255 .331 1.498 .216
Within Groups 56.357 .221
TET
Total 57.350 258
Between Groups 3.105 3 1.035 5.337 .001
255
Within Groups 49.448 .194
CL
Total 52.553 258
3.090
Between Groups 3 1.030 4.696 .003
Within Groups 255
55.928 .219
Total 258
RPS 3
Between Groups 59.018 .828 8.849 .000
2.484
Within Groups
23.862 255 .094
Total
TOTAL2 26.346 258
Multiple Comparisons
Tukey HSD
Dependent Std. Sig.
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
(I) (J) Error
Variable Difference
GRADE GRADELE Lower Upper
LEVEL VEL (I-J) Bound Bound
GRADE 8 -.03339 .06857 .962 -.2107 .1439
GRADE 7 GRADE 9 -.31885* .06908 .000 -.4975 -.1402

GRADE 10 -.18271 .07278 .061 -.3709 .0055
GRADE 7 .03339 .06857 .962 -.1439 .2107

*
LST GRADE 8 GRADE 9 -.28546 .06883 .000 -.4635 -.1075
139

GRADE 10 -.14932 .07254 .170 -.3369 .0383
GRADE 7 .31885* .06908 .000 .1402 .4975
GRADE 9 GRADE 8 .28546* .06883 .000 .1075 .4635
GRADE 10 .13614 .07302 .246 -.0527 .3250
GRADE 7 .18271 .07278 .061 -.0055 .3709

GRADE
GRADE 8 .14932 .07254 .170 -.0383 .3369
10
GRADE 9 -.13614 .07302 .246 -.3250 .0527
GRADE 8 -.03794 .09304 .977 -.2785 .2027
GRADE 7 GRADE 9 -.27436* .09372 .019 -.5167 -.0320

GRADE 10 -.25401 .09874 .052 -.5094 .0013
GRADE 7 .03794 .09304 .977 -.2027 .2785
GRADE 8 GRADE 9 -.23643 .09338 .057 -.4779 .0051

GRADE 10 -.21607 .09842 .127 -.4706 .0384
DBT
GRADE 7 .27436* .09372 .019 .0320 .5167
.23643
GRADE 9 GRADE 8 .09338 .057 -.0051 .4779
GRADE 10 .02035 .09907 .997 -.2358 .2765
GRADE 7 .25401 .09874 .052 -.0013 .5094

GRADE
GRADE 8 .21607 .09842 .127 -.0384 .4706
10
GRADE 9 -.02035 .09907 .997 -.2765 .2358
GRADE 8 .04277 .07194 .934 -.1433 .2288

GRADE 9 -.12365 .07247 .323 -.3111 .0638
EL GRADE 7
GRADE 10 -.09750 .07635 .578 -.2949 .0999
GRADE 8 GRADE 7 -.04277 .07194 .934 -.2288 .1433
GRADE 9 -.16641 .07221 .100 -.3532 .0203

GRADE 10 -.14027 .07610 .256 -.3371 .0565
GRADE 7 .12365 .07247 .323 -.0638 .3111
GRADE 9 GRADE 8 .16641 .07221 .100 -.0203 .3532

GRADE 10 .02614 .07660 .986 -.1720 .2242
GRADE 7 .09750 .07635 .578 -.0999 .2949

GRADE
GRADE 8 .14027 .07610 .256 -.0565 .3371
10
GRADE 9 -.02614 .07660 .986 -.2242 .1720
IBL GRADE 7 GRADE 8 -.12859 .07615 .332 -.3255 .0683

140
GRADE 9 -.33026* .07671 .000 -.5286 -.1319

GRADE 10 -.23012* .08081 .024 -.4391 -.0211
GRADE 8 GRADE 7 .12859 .07615 .332 -.0683 .3255

GRADE 9 -.20167* .07643 .044 -.3993 -.0040
GRADE 10 -.10154 .08055 .589 -.3098 .1068
GRADE 7 .33026* .07671 .000 .1319 .5286

*
GRADE 9 GRADE 8 .20167 .07643 .044 .0040 .3993
GRADE 10 .10014 .08108 .605 -.1095 .3098
GRADE 7 .23012* .08081 .024 .0211 .4391

GRADE .10154
GRADE 8 .08055 .589 -.1068 .3098
10
GRADE 9 -.10014 .08108 .605 -.3098 .1095
GRADE 8 -.06010 .08033 .877 -.2678 .1476
GRADE 7 GRADE 9 -.15701 .08092 .214 -.3663 .0523

GRADE 10 -.01373 .08525 .999 -.2342 .2067
GRADE 7 .06010 .08033 .877 -.1476 .2678
GRADE 8 GRADE 9 -.09691 .08063 .626 -.3054 .1116
TET GRADE 10 .04638 .08498 .948 -.1734 .2661

GRADE 7 .15701 .08092 .214 -.0523 .3663
GRADE 9 GRADE 8 .09691 .08063 .626 -.1116 .3054
GRADE 10 .14328 .08554 .339 -.0779 .3645
GRADE 7 .01373 .08525 .999 -.2067 .2342
GRADE
GRADE 8 -.04638 .08498 .948 -.2661 .1734
10
GRADE 9 -.14328 .08554 .339 -.3645 .0779
GRADE 8 -.18073 .07525 .079 -.3753 .0139

GRADE 7 GRADE 9 -.27656 *
.07580 .002 -.4726 -.0805
*
GRADE 10 -.25241 .07986 .009 -.4589 -.0459
GRADE 7 .18073 .07525 .079 -.0139 .3753
CL GRADE 8
GRADE 9 -.09583 .07553 .584 -.2911 .0995
GRADE 10 -.07167 .07960 .805 -.2775 .1342

GRADE 7 .27656* .07580 .002 .0805 .4726
.09583
GRADE 8 .07553 .584 -.0995 .2911
GRADE 9
141

GRADE 10 .02415 .08012 .990 -.1831 .2314
GRADE 7 .25241* .07986 .009 .0459 .4589

GRADE .07167
GRADE 8 .07960 .805 -.1342 .2775
10
GRADE 9 -.02415 .08012 .990 -.2314 .1831
GRADE 8 -.10465 .08002 .559 -.3116 .1023

*
GRADE 7 GRADE 9 -.29522 .08062 .002 -.5037 -.0867
GRADE 10 -.17210 .08493 .181 -.3917 .0475
GRADE 7 .10465 .08002 .559 -.1023 .3116
GRADE 8 GRADE 9 -.19057 .08033 .085 -.3983 .0172

GRADE 10 -.06746 .08465 .856 -.2864 .1515
RPS
*
GRADE 7 .29522 .08062 .002 .0867 .5037
.19057
GRADE 9 GRADE 8 .08033 .085 -.0172 .3983
GRADE 10 .12311 .08521 .473 -.0973 .3435
GRADE 7 .17210 .08493 .181 -.0475 .3917
GRADE
GRADE 8 .06746 .08465 .856 -.1515 .2864
10
GRADE 9 -.12311 .08521 .473 -.3435 .0973
GRADE 8 -.07180 .05227 .517 -.2070 .0634
GRADE 9 -.25370* .05266 .000 -.3899 -.1175

GRADE 7
*
GRADE 10 -.17180 .05548 .012 -.3153 -.0283
GRADE 7 .07180 .05227 .517 -.0634 .2070

*
GRADE 9 -.18190 .05247 .003 -.3176 -.0462
GRADE 8
GRADE 10 -.09999 .05530 .272 -.2430 .0430
TOTAL2
*
GRADE 7 .25370 .05266 .000 .1175 .3899
GRADE 8 .18190* .05247 .003 .0462 .3176

GRADE 9
GRADE 10 .08190 .05566 .456 -.0620 .2258
GRADE 7 .17180* .05548 .012 .0283 .3153
GRADE GRADE 8 .09999 .05530 .272 -.0430 .2430

10 GRADE 9 -.08190 .05566 .456 -.2258 .0620
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
APPENDIX I
Language Certificate
143

144
CURRICULUM VITAE
Personal Data
Name: Cristy Marie B. Damandaman
Address: Phase 4 Barangay Rizal,
San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental
Date of Birth: September 09, 2002
Place of Birth: San Carlos City
Sex: Female
Civil Status: Single
Email Address: damandaman.cmb@stud.pnu.edu.ph
Religious Affiliation: Roman Catholic
Name of Father: Reneboy P. Damandaman
Name of Mother: Corazon B. Damandaman
Educational Background
Elementary: School of the Future
Junior HS: Julio Ledesma National High School
Senior HS: Julio Ledesma National High School
Tertiary: Philippine Normal University Visayas

145
Personal Data
Name: Roy B. Benedicto, Jr.
Address: Barangay Banquerohan,
Cadiz City, Negros
Occidental
Date of Birth: September 18, 2002
Place of Birth: Cadiz City
Sex: Male
Email Address: benedicto.rjb@stud.pnu.edu.ph
Name of Father: Roy D. Benedicto
Name of Mother: Fatima B. Benedicto
Elementary: Cadiz West 1 Elementary School
Cadiz West 2 Elementary School
Junior HS: Dr. Vicente F. Gustilo Memorial National High School
Senior HS: Dr. Vicente F. Gustilo Memorial National High School

146
Personal Data
Name: Renzi B. Dolino
Address: Purok Molave, Barangay 1
San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental
Date of Birth: June 22, 2003
Place of Birth: San Carlos City
Sex: Male
Email Address: dolino.rb@stud.pnu.edu.ph
Name of Father: Rossel M. Dolino
Name of Mother: Raquel B. Dolino
Elementary: Florentina Ledesma Elementary School
Junior HS: Tañon College
Senior HS: Tañon College

147
Personal Data
Name: Lyndon V. Libradilla
Address: Purok Mahida-iton Andrea
Village II, Barangay Zone 2
Cadiz City, Negros
Occidental
Date of Birth: August 09, 2002
Place of Birth: Cadiz City
Sex: Male
Email Address: libradilla.lv@stud.pnu.edu.ph
Name of Father: Hanly B. Libradilla, Sr.
Name of Mother: Jenelyn V. Libradilla
Elementary: Cadiz West 1 Elementary School

148
Junior HS: Dr. Vicente F. Gustilo Memorial National High School
Senior HS: Dr. Vicente F. Gustilo Memorial National

DAMANDAMAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAMANDAMAN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAMANDAMAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

The National Center for Teacher Education

STUDENTS’ PREFERRED QUALITIES AND PEDAGOGIES OF AN

A THESIS Presented to The Faculty of Teacher and Development

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Course 2S-SOC19

Cristy Marie B. Damandaman

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

The National Center for Teacher Education

This thesis attached hereto, titled STUDENTS’ PREFERRED QUALITIES AND

ROMMEL E. BACHOCO, MEd

Approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements in 2S-SOC 19 (Research II) by the

ALBERTO A. RICO, PhD

RICHELLE A. DELMO, PhD EPHRAIM R. ESTACION, JR., PhD

Accepted in partial fulfillment for the course 2S-SOC 19 (Research II).

MARIA FATIMA P. DOLENDO, EdD

_____________ MA. WENNA B. FERNANDEZ, PhD

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

This The National Center for Teacher Education

Keywords: Araling Panlipunan, Pedagogies, Qualities, Teachers

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

The The National Center for Teacher Education

We are deeply grateful to Prof. Rommel E. Bachoco, our ever-supportive research

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

Our The National Center for Teacher Education

Thank you. May God bless us all and Godspeed!

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

The National Center for Teacher Education

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………… xii

LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………………….. xiii

CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Background of the Study……………………………………………………….. 1

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework……………………………………….. 14

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………. 19

Significance of the Study………………………………………………………. 20

Scope and Limitations of the Study……………………………………………. 21

CHAPTER 2: METHODS (CHECK INDENTION AND PAGINATION)

Sampling and Participants of the Study………………………………………. 25

Validity of the Research Instrument…………………………………………… 28

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

The National Center for Teacher Education

Reliability of the Research Instrument………………………………………… 29

Data Gathering Procedure……………………………………………………... 30

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Interpretation of the Data………………………………………………………. 33

CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of the Study………………………………………………………….. 76

Summary of the Findings………………………………………………………. 77

CURRICULUM VITAE………………………………………………………… 127

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

The National Center for Teacher Education

2.1 Profile of the Junior High School Students of Villacin National

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

3.9 Comparison between Sociable and Respectful (SR) in Grades 7,

3.10 Comparison between Professionalism and Preparedness (PP) in

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

9, and 10 using the PostCenter

3.18 Comparison between Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) in Grades 7,

PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY VISAYAS

The National Center for Teacher Education

1 Schematic Diagram illustrating the Theoretical/Conceptual