forgiveness

150 Pages·2017·3.63 MB·English

Adventist University of the Philippines
Telephone: [phone]
Website: www.aup.edu.ph
PHILIPPINE COPYRIGHT 2018
by Adventist University of the Philippines Printing Press
All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, me-
chanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without permission
in writting from the publisher.
PRINTED IN THE PHILIPPINES
ISSN 2599-5294
J E ,
ournal of ducation
P , h
sychology and umanitiEs
June 2018 | Vol. 1, Issue 1 (Maiden Issue)
University Research Center
Adventist University of the Philippines
4
JEPh Editorial board
Eunice M. Aclan, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief
Nena P. Valdez, Ph.D.
Managing Editor
President University, Indonesia
Gracel Ann S. Saban, Ph.D.
Michael P. Naidas, Ph.D.
Associate Editors
Adventist University of the Philippines
PEEr rEviEwErs
lynnE m. waltErs, Ph.d.
Department of teaching, Learning anD cuLture
coLLege of eDucation anD human DeveLopment
texas a&m university, usa
noor hashima abd. aziz, Ph.d.
Department of Language stuDies,
schooL of Languages, civiLization, anD phiLosophy,
cas
universiti utara maLaysia, KeDah, maLaysia
Pattamawan Jimarkon zilli, Ph.d.
Department of engLish anD Linguistics
facuLty of LiberaL arts, thammasat university
bangKoK, thaiLanD
Earl JudE Paul clEoPE, Ph.d.
coLLege of arts anD sciences
siLLiman university, phiLippines
rEmwil tornalEJo, Ph.d.
systematic theoLogy Department
aDventist internationaL institute of aDvanceD stuD-
ies
phiLippines
kuang ching hEi, Ph.d.
facuLty of Languages anD Linguistics
university of maLaya, KuaLa Lumpur, maLaysia
Miriam P. Narbarte, Ph.D.
Jolly S. Balila, Ph.D.
Board Advisors
Myrtle C. Orbon, MA, RP
Editorial Coordinator
Vergel Neil B. Galang
Lay-out Artist
Journal of Education, Psychology, and Humanities (JEPH)
is published biannually (June & December)
by the Adventist University of the Philippines.
Journal of Education, Psychology, and Humanities (JEPH) Volume 1 Issue 1 | June 2018
t a b l E o f c o n t E n t s
school govErnancE and lEadErshiP Efficacy of
asEan school lEadErs ................................................ 7
Jeremiah Fameronag, Leonardo Dorado, Vicky Mergal
tracEr study of auP bEEd and bsEd graduatEs
from 2012-2016 ......................................................... 15
Eunice Aclan, Gracel Ann Saban, Jeremiah Fameronag, Rufina Francisco
filiPino call cEntEr agEnts’ English communication
ProficiEncy and how thEy dEvEloPEd it ........................ 20
Lordjane Mandar, Romeo Barrios, Precious Tayaben, Eunice Aclan,
Gracel Ann Saban, Kathleen Flores, Jeremiah Fameronag
forgivEnEss: its imPact in thE workPlacE ............................ 31
Lizhen Zhuo, Eunice Aclan, Mylene Gumarao,
Flor Villa Marticio, Jesse Songcayawon
family functioning and social lifE rEgulaiion
among adolEscEnts..................................................... 47
Michelle Francisco, Rosdy Lazaro, Mariecar Santos,
Flor Villa Marticio, Myrtle Orbon, Mylene Gumarao, Eva Castillo
intEgration of faith, valuEs, and lEarning in
art fundamEntals as ExPEriEncEd by
visual concEPt dEvEloPmEnt studEnts .......................... 54
Ann Anolin, Eunice Aclan, Reuben Pagaduan
univErsal constructs in sElEctEd novEls of
filiPino diasPora writErs: towards a modEl
for tEaching diasPora novEls ..................................... 72
Michael Naidas, Venancio Mendiola, Ma. Antoinette Montealegre
thE rolE of thE king’s mothEr in hEbrEw culturE ............... 84
Dominic Capentero, Rico Javien
PhEnomEnon of claPPing of hands in thE biblE
and thE PrEsEnt timE ................................................. 96
Faith Bayona, Julio Amurao
thE mEaning and usagE of Sheol in isaiah 14:9-10 ...............108
Ismael Cabason
Quality of social studiEs instruction as a corrElatE
of critical thinking disPosition and
rEsPonsiblE citizEnshiP ............................................ 113
Regina Diaz, Jesse Songcayawon
curricular PracticEs of sElEctEd tErtiary PrivatE-sEctarian
institutions ............................................................ 120
Oliveth H. Tolentinto, Manuela S. Tolentino, Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez
concErto in E flat maJor for alto saxoPhonE and string
orchEstra oPus 109 by alExandEr glazunov: a structural
analysis for tEaching intErmEdiatE lEvEl .................. 136
Sebastian Ariel Serrano-Ayala, Nerilyn Ann Beratio,
Khristine Ruth De Gracia, Sherryl Ann de Dios, Aera Jean Apalat

s g l E
chool ovErnancE and EadErshiP fficacy
asEan s l
of chool EadErs
Jeremiah Fameronag, Leonardo Dorado, Vicky Mergal

Abstract
High leadership efficacy among leaders is an integral contributor to the develop-
ment and fulfillment of personal, group, and institutional outcomes. Its devel-
opment is not automatic; it must be intentional. This study investigated the
relationship between school governance and leadership efficacy. The investigation
used descriptive correlational design. The sample who answered the survey questions
consisted of 453 school leaders purposefully chosen from countries under the South-
ern Asia Pacific Division of SDAs. To analyze the data, frequency and percentage
for the demographic profile were used; mean and standard deviation for descriptive;
Pearson-r correlation for the relationship; multiple regression for the predictors; and
T-test and ANOVA for differences. The findings revealed that: school leaders have
high participation in the school governance and possess high leadership efficacy; there
is a moderate correlation between school governance and leadership efficacy; and that
there is no significant difference between leadership efficacy and respondents’ sex and
their institutional affiliation. However, a significant difference exists between leader-
ship efficacy and respondents’ age and designation. Academic governance, financial
governance, and designation predict leadership efficacy by 22.1%. The study supports
the notion that active participation in making decisions contribute to the leadership
efficacy of school leaders.
Keywords: school governance, leadership, efficacy
Successful organizations and business leaders may be the case as leadership efficacy has been
today realize that strong, effective, and efficient identified as the most relevant in leader develop-
leadership are all consequential to enlarge and ment and performance (Lester, Hannah, Harms,
support the viability and productivity of any insti- Vogelgesang, & Avolio, 2011). Leadership effi-
tution. The desire to develop and find leaders with cacy is important in shaping the outcomes of the
aforementioned characteristics has been the thrust individual person, the group, and the institution
of today’s administrators and middle managers. even under demanding situations (Hoyt as cited in
Administrators use resources to ensure that their Dugan, Fath, Howes, Lavelle, & Polanin, 2013).
respective organizations will have the two con- Despite the importance of leadership ef-
structs which are always present in any successful ficacy, in the ASEAN region, the need or demand
academic institutions, i.e., teacher leadership and for competent and effective leadership is enor-
efficacy (Williams, 2015). mous. Harvard Business Report wrote that in the
Indeed, effective leadership is the propul- ASEAN region, with its more than 600 million
sive force of organizational growth. When lead- people, various languages and dialects, finding
ers lead without efficacy, organizations will most leaders who are suitable to the task has been chal-
likely fail to achieve their target (Galoji, 2013). It lenging for many institutions (Ratanjee & Pyrka
8 Journal of Education, Psychology, and Humanities (JEPH) | ISSN 2599-5294
2015). Obviously, strong and effective leadership Brown, & Donahoo, 2016; Maricle, 2014; Walk-
is needed in the ASEAN region (Asian Develop- ley, 2015; Studies, 2009). Simply put, school gov-
ment Bank Institute, 2014). ernance is the process and participation of making
In this study, school governance is oper- political, academic, financial, and economic deci-
ationally defined as the participation in the pro- sions that impact school operation, personnel, and
cess of making academic, political, financial, students (Hunter, Brown, & Donahoo, 2016).
and economic decisions in schools. Studies have Sound school governance is important as
shown that school personnel’s participation in de- it sharpens managerial practices which, in turn,
cision-making is important (Mosheti, 2013). Un- generates improved standards of attainment (Ran-
fortunately, several studies have also revealed that son, Farrel, Peim, & Smith, 2005). School gov-
there is a low perception in the participation of ernance affects all the facets of the institution. It
teachers in decision-making on the development has become part of the educational landscape and
of the school budget, matters of school gover- a contributory factor to the realization of the vi-
nance, school personnel issues, and other mana- sion and mission of institutions of higher learning
gerial decisions (Jasmin-Olgra & Georgios, 2013; (Dela Cruz & Jimenez, 2015).
Mosheti, 2013; Yao, 2014). Most of the time, The structure of school governance is also
decisions are only handed down; thus, leadership an important factor in building the relationship
empowerment which increases leadership efficacy with all stakeholders of the organization (Spence,
is set aside (Jasmin-Olgra & Georgios, 2013; Yao, 2009). SG may seem to be out of interest of some
2014). teachers, yet this issue is critical as it affects the
quality of classroom life. Teachers’ deeper in-
Objectives of the Study volvement in this aspect would help influence the
This study determined the relationship direction of the school. Their insights must also be
between school governance and leadership effica- heard (Sadker, Zittleman, & Sadker, 2012). Even
cy. It aimed to find the extent of stakeholders’ per- though governance in the academe may not be as
ception on school governance in terms of academ- clear as other variables like leadership styles, it is
ic governance, political governance, and financial as equally important as student learning (Manns,
governance and the level of leadership efficacy of 2011).
the respondents in terms of self-discipline lead-
ership efficacy, involvement leadership efficacy, Leadership Efficacy
service leadership efficacy, and challenge lead- Leadership efficacy (LE) is extracted
ership efficacy. It also aimed to find the signifi- from Bandura’s (1997) theory of general self-effi-
cant relationship between school governance and cacy which submits that self-belief plays a pivot-
leadership efficacy, and the significant difference al role in ones’ future behavior and development.
in perceived leadership efficacy considering sex, In Bandura’s socio-cognitive theory, self-efficacy
age, institutional affiliation, and designation. Fi- is defined as the most powerful self-regulatory
nally, it also identified the significant predictors of mechanism that influences behaviors (Bobio &
leadership efficacy. Manganelli, 2009). Capitalizing on this term,
Review of Literature leadership efficacy is the leader’s personal belief
School Governance in his/her knowledge, skills, and abilities in lead-
School governance (SG) is synonymous- ing others (DuBrin, 2012; Hannah et al., as cited
ly considered with decision-making and the pro- in Humphrey, 2014). LE is clearly different from
cesses required of it (Dela Cruz & Jimenez, 2015; confidence in the knowledge, skills, and capaci-
Maricle, 2014). It is concerned with the organi- ty as teachers (teacher efficacy) or as a statesman
zational structure not only of the school itself but (political efficacy). LE is the personal internal be-
also about the key responsible authorities, and how lief in one’s capacity, capability, and competence
they apportion, manage, and uphold accountabil- to lead and accomplish leadership-related tasks
ity, control, responsibility and outcomes (Hunter, (Dugan, Fath, Howes, Lavelle, & Polanin, 2013).
Volume 1 Issue 1 | June 2018
School Governance and Leadership Efficacy of ASEAN School Leaders 9
It is a personal perception of possessing the capa- bedding of leadership, the practice that is common
bility to exert leadership through direction setting in shared governance, is a core component of lead-
and relationship building amongst peers to gain ership efficacy development. Jasmin-Olgra and
higher commitment to achieve goals and over- Georgios (2013) in their study examining school
come obstacles (Paglis & Green as cited in Ander- governance in primary schools found out that the
son, Krajewski, Goffin, & Jackson, 2008). greatest predictor of teacher and leadership effica-
To develop high leadership efficacy, one cy is the school personnel’s participation in school
should believe that he/she has the capacity to lead governance.
his/her followers and the group as a unit to achieve
set goals (Humphrey, 2014). Further, leadership Methodology
efficacy reflects leaders’ judgment of their capa- This study utilized descriptive-correla-
bilities to (1) set direction where the group should tional design to describe the relationship between
be going; (2) obtain followers’ commitment and school governance and leadership efficacy among
allegiance to switch to the set goals; and (3) pre- ASEAN school leaders in SSD. Administrators
vail over the hurdles obstructing the possible com- and middle managers of Seventh-day Adven-
pletion of the set institutional goal (Bobio & Man- tist educational institutions in ASEAN particu-
ganelli, 2009). To synthesize, leadership efficacy larly under the Southern Asia-Pacific Division
is one’s personal belief in his/her capacity, capa- (SSD) served as the population of this study.
bility, and competence to successfully lead and SSD is composed of 14 countries and 11 union
accomplish leadership roles in the organization. fields. However, assessing several factors such
Leadership efficacy has a positive contri- as the language, finances, and distance, only seven
bution in developing leadership capacity, behav- unions were purposively chosen, namely Central
ior, aspirations, and even effectiveness (Hannah et Philippine Union Conference (CPUC), East Indo-
al., 2008; Machida & Schaubroek, 2011). In this nesia Union Conference (EIUC) North Philippine
day and age where organizations are facing tumul- Union Conference (NPUC) South Philippines
tuous tasks ahead of them, leaders should not only Union Conference (SPUC), Southeast Asia Union
possess key skills, abilities, and knowledge. Or- Mission (SAUM), and West Indonesia Union
ganizational leaders are also in need of psycholog- Mission (WIUM). After the union fields were
ical resources in order for them to employ those identified, the researcher purposively selected
capabilities they have across dynamic contexts educational institutions where respondents were
(Hannah, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2012). drawn. In the selection of respondents, purposive
sampling was also utilized due to the set criteria
Leadership Efficacy including the designation and years of service.
and School Governance
School governance has an effect on the Results and Discussion
development of leadership efficacy. When collab- Extent of School Leaders’ Perception on School
oration is present, leaders are given freedom to Governance
interact with each other and even with individuals Academic governance. The result showed
higher than their current positions and are given that school-leaders’ participation in school gov-
opportunities to be involved in the organization ernance in the context of Academic Governance
participating in making decisions (Dugan, 2011). has an overall mean of 3.89 and SD=.74 which is
Similarly, Williams (2015) declared that self-ef- interpreted as high participation.
ficacy of teacher leaders can be nurtured through The majority of the respondents recognize
various learning opportunities and structures. Wil- that school leaders are part of the Academic Coun-
liams also divulged the three key elements that cil, which garnered the highest mean of 4.25) and
strengthen leadership efficacy, i.e., time, commu- SD of 1.02). They also personally experienced be-
nication, and collaboration. The study of Hannah ing involved in the distribution of workload at all
et al. (2008) further revealed that purposeful em- levels with a mean of 4.068 and SD=1.11. Both
Journal of Education, Psychology, and Humanities (JEPH) Volume 1 Issue 1 | June 2018
10 Journal of Education, Psychology, and Humanities (JEPH) | ISSN 2599-5294
of the aforementioned items are interpreted as given to school having the lowest mean (3.62) and
high participation. The lowest mean falls on the SD (1.17). Yet all the items under financial gover-
item, “The management commends my creativi- nance are interpreted as high participation.
ty in curriculum innovation even when it is not The result of this study implies that school
successful” with mean=3.48 and SD=1.10 and “I leaders in SSD are much involved in the financial
am given the option to decrease workload” with governance of their institution. The management
mean=3.44) and SD=1.22, both interpreted as av- trusts and believes in their fiscal decisions and
erage participation. inputs as management honors and gives prefer-
Political governance. The result revealed ence not only to their proposed equipment to be
that school-leaders’ participation in political gov- purchased but also to their proposed budget. Yet,
ernance in their respective institutions has an school leaders would still want to be more em-
overall mean=3.82 and SD=.91 which is interpret- powered when it comes to making decisions on
ed as high participation. what to do with the grants given to the school.
The item, “The management puts a high The findings of the study are incongruent
premium on school leaders’ responsibility in cre- to the ideas of several authors. In the fiscal man-
ating a good working environment”, has the high- agement of any institution, school leaders’ partic-
est mean (4.12) and SD (.93), followed by “The ipation is much needed. Several committees are
management consults school leaders regarding necessary for the approval and purchase of equip-
changes in policies pertaining to tenure” with ment. When a teacher and school leader decide
a mean=3.88 and SD=1.07. However, the item, to participate on one or several committees, they
“The management involves school leaders in facilitate coordination and communication that
holding hearings on cases involving faculty be- helps focus on what is important to students, par-
fore making decisions” marked the lowest mean ents, and even the community as a whole (Nath
(3.66) and SD (1.24). Nevertheless, the previous & Cohen, 2011). Stephens and Franklin (2015)
item is still interpreted as high participation. also highlight the need to listen to suggestions not
This implies that school leaders in SSD only of school leaders and teachers but even of
are encouraged and supported to foster a positive the students and parents in purchasing material
working environment that is conducive and ben- and equipment. Yet, this should be done without
eficial to both the school personnel and students. ignoring the set selection criteria before the actual
School leaders are also consulted and their opin- purchase is done.
ions heard whenever there are changes in policies
pertaining to faculty tenure. Yet, administrators Summary of the Extent of Stakeholders’ School
could ensure more involvement of school leaders Governance Participation
in holding hearings on cases that involves faculty The result showed the summary of the de-
before making decisions. scriptive result of items under school governance
Financial governance. The result de- with a grand mean of 3.80 and SD=.70 which is
scribed school-leaders’ participation in financial interpreted as high participation and homoge-
governance in their respective institutions with an neously perceived. The highest mean in school
overall mean=3.76 and SD=.85 which is interpret- governance lies in the area of academic gover-
ed as high participation. School leaders have ex- nance with a mean=3.84 and SD=.74, followed
perienced how the management gives preference by political governance with a mean of 3.82 and
to their proposed equipment to be purchased, be- SD=.91. The lowest mean is in the area of finan-
ing the item with the highest mean (3.90) and SD cial governance with a mean=3.76 and SD=.85.
(.98). Their proposed budget has also been given Yet, all items are interpreted as high participation.
priority, having the second highest mean (3.83) The data revealed that school leaders in
and SD (1.04). However, school leaders felt they SSD territory participate highly in the academic
needed more empowerment when it comes to and political governance of their institution Yet,
making decisions on what to do with the grants their participation in financial governance can still
Volume 1 Issue 1 | June 2018