A majority of 26 out of 32 rural students who participated in the focus group interviews identified their English teacher, Mrs. Alab, as the one who helps them most in learning well while the other six students identified either their Science teacher, Mrs. Agham or Miss Rosal, the Values Education teacher. Generally, the students refer to these three teachers as ‘strict but good’ teachers. They particularly identified Mrs. Alab as the ‘best of the three’ because her toughness as a teacher pushes them to study hard and do better in school. On the other hand, Mrs. Ningning, the Social Studies teacher, whom I identified as the ‘good teacher’ was perceived otherwise by the rural students. The students explained that Mrs. Ningning was not able to demonstrate practices which they perceive as good and helpful in learning well. The rural students’ perceptions of ‘good teaching’ practices can be categorized into four themes; namely: (1) establishing order and discipline in the classroom; (2) joining students in their after-school and rural community activities; (3) providing them with individual learning activities; and (4) giving well-explained lectures and ‘recitations’. Each of these practices is discussed below.
Establishing order and discipline in the classroom
The rural students in this junior class have eight teachers, five of whom are described by the students as ‘strict’. Three of these five teachers—Mrs. Alab (English), Mrs. Agham (Science), and Miss Rosal (Values education)—are identified as ‘strict but good’ teachers because, as one student from each of the five focus groups reported, “they want us to truly learn” (FG1); “they want us to pass the subject” (FG2); “it’s their way to help us move up to grade nine” (FG3); “they really care for us” (FG4); and “they want to be build our character and make us see the value of discipline” (FG5). On the other hand, the last two of the ‘strict’ teachers, Mrs. Nayon, the Tagalog language and literature teacher and Mr. Igot, the Maths teacher, were not perceived as ‘good’ teachers because, as one student explains, Mrs. Nayon “is only strict because she doesn’t want to get distracted. It’s for her, not for us. Besides she does not really know us personally and doesn’t even call us by our first name”. A different student describes Mr. Igot as “strict and almost good but is usually late, absent, or leave us with modules to work on while he is away”.
As I examine these students’ responses about their ‘strict but good’ teachers, it appears that students have an acute awareness of what happens in the classroom. Weinstein (2002) is particularly correct in claiming that students are “deeply sensitive observers of the classroom reality” (p. 288). The same can be said about the rural students in my study who seem to have strong beliefs towards who among their strict teachers are ‘good’ and those who only use their
171
authority for the purpose of asserting their position over the students or covering up for the lack of preparation in teaching.
With their ability to establish classroom structure and exude command in teaching, the three ‘strict but good teachers’ gain the respect and admiration from their students. For instance, one student, Enteng, admires and respects these three ‘strict but good’ teachers because, as he remarks, “they can make us behave with just one look. They always come to class prepared, which is obvious because they teach without looking at textbooks”. Another student, Jona, also expresses how “thankful [she is] to have teachers like them because they really care for [their] learning by coming to class even when [the students] learn that they’ve been very busy at school or even when the weather is bad—they don’t use it as an excuse not to teach”. Enteng’s and Jona’s responses resonate with the themes of respect reported in studies on classroom management (Weinstein & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006). In their review of studies on classroom management which focus on student perceptions on ‘effective managers’, Carol S. Weinstein and Anita Woolfolk Hoy concluded that the respect which students have for their teachers is crucial in understanding good teaching. This is because, as they explained, “students’ decisions about whether to cooperate (e.g. follow classroom rules, behave in class) are often based on their respect for the teacher” (Weinstein & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006, p. 182, example supplied). This particularly holds true with Pedro, the student whom I discussed in Chapter Seven to have a record of ‘cutting classes’ in the rural school. Pedro remarks:
I like [Mrs. Alab] the best even though she’s really strict with me. I think her being tough pushes me to come to school even there are times when I feel it’s better to just work on the farm for the money. She’s the voice in my head saying, ‘Go to school! Come to class!’ I think she’s the reason why I’m still in school.
Mrs. Alab’s ability to instill discipline in the classroom is valued by her students in the same way that they value Miss Rosal’s ability to make them pay attention in class. The rural students, especially Eloisa, perceive Miss Rosal as ‘strict but good teacher’ because of the way she exudes command in teaching through her
loud and clear voice, plus her slow pacing around the room as she speaks during lectures to see if everyone is really paying attention. She takes teaching seriously, so we take learning seriously, too. It’s amazing how everyone is behaved and attentive in her class.
In the same way, Mrs. Agham, the science teacher, is also perceived as ‘strict but good’, especially her way of managing the boys who misbehave in class. One student, Jerik, describes how Mrs. Agham differs from his other teachers:
I appreciate how [Mrs. Agham] manages us (boys at the back). She does not reprimand us in front of our classmates. Instead, she addresses the entire class
172
to remind us of the proper classroom behavior. This is why I respect her because she respects us.
It can be noted in the rural students’ responses that they can distinguish between strict teachers who care for them and strict teachers who are unreasonably controlling. It also appears that they perceive good teaching from strict teachers who have the “ability to exercise authority and to provide structure without being rigid, threatening, and punitive” (Woolfolk Hoy and Weinstein, 2006, p. 183). The rural students are particularly sensitive to ‘strict uncaring teachers’ to an extent that they participate less agreeably to their classroom rules and engage less actively during their classes. Take for instance this sharing of Dagul about how he responds to one teacher he perceives as ‘strict and uncaring’:
When my friends and I are scolded in front of the class, we feel that we are being shamed. So, we turn ‘passive aggressive’ toward that teacher, and gets even with her by cutting classes or not listening to her lectures by making noise to distract her and just, you know, irritate her and make her blood pressure high.
Dagul’s response can be attributed to Schlosser’s (1992) “purposive acts” of students when they engage in ‘maladaptive behaviors as a reform of resistance’ against teachers who are not teaching properly or those who are rude and not even know their students by name (cited in Weinstein & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006, p. 183). Clearly, the rural students’ willingness to participate in the classroom is influenced by the respect they have for a teacher. Much of this respect comes from their perception of care expressed by teachers who exercise authority in order to teach them discipline rather than to punish them. These rural students respect ‘strict’ teachers who care for their learning by maintaining classroom order, which the students value because it provides them with a space conducive for studying, concentrating on their seatwork, focusing on their lessons, paying attention to lectures, and completing academic tasks. In general, it is a combination of authority and care which these rural students look for in their teacher’s practice of ‘good teaching’. It is the absence of both authority and care which they reported as the reason why they did not perceive Mrs. Ningning as a ‘good teacher’.
Why the students did not perceive Mrs. Ningning’s practices as ‘good teaching’
Across six different focus groups, several students reported that they find Mrs. Ningning “too kind” (FG3) and suggest that “she has to be a little bit more tough and strict in class (FG5)” but at the same time, “needs to reach out to her students not just in class but also outside” (FG2) and must “try to get to know more her students personally”. These responses suggest that while the students require their teachers to be tough and strict, they also want their teachers to show care for them. This echoes Weinstein and Woolfolk Hoy (2006) claim that “when students call for teachers to be
173
stricter, they are thinking of a particular kind of disciplinary practice” (p. 186) to an extent that such discipline primarily aims to create classroom order, so students can learn without too much distraction. This claim particularly holds true with one student, Isha, whose sharing about Mrs. Ningning gave me a clearer understanding why the rural students did not find her classroom practices as ‘good teaching’. Isha’s sharing reminded me of an incident in Mrs. Ningning’s class on my first day of observation, which I did not record in my fieldnotes because at that time I focused instead on Mrs. Ningning’s teaching strategies.
To recall, Mrs. Ningning was teaching her lesson on ancient Egyptian civilisation (see Chapter Eight). I noticed that while she was setting up the LCD projector and the students were working quietly on their seats, one boy, Kanoy, who finished his work earlier than others, pulled a clip off a girl’s hair in front of him. The girl, Isha, grimaced, turned around, and stared scornfully at Kanoy. Then, she looked at Mrs. Ningning as a gesture of seeking her help to call out Kanoy. However, Mrs. Ningning who was reviewing her slides on her laptop did not have a clue about the incident. Isha shrugged and continued her work, looking upset. Kanoy sniggered. Two weeks later, during our focus group interviews, Isha narrates this incident without mentioning who the teacher was. Isha comments, “I do not like this teacher who is not aware of what is happening in her class, like boys who pull girls’ hair. I can’t give her the same respect I have for [Mrs. Alab]”. Isha compares this teacher (whom I understand is Mrs. Ningning) with Mrs. Alab whom she likes and respects because Mrs. Alab “knows who is misbehaving even when she is writing on the board. To make that student stop, she simply says his name”. Isha also thinks that Mrs. Alab makes her “feel protected in class” and keeps her “free from distractions, not like this teacher who ignores noisy and rowdy boys. It’s difficult to focus when the class is disorderly.” Clearly, as Isha’s response suggests, students “have little respect for teachers who are unable to achieve an orderly classroom environment” (Weinstein & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006, p. 210).
In a separate focus group from Isha, the boy, Kanoy expresses his thoughts about Mrs. Ningning when I asked him about his views about strict teachers and how they influence the way he behaves in class. Kanoy replies:
I misbehave because [Mrs. Ningning] doesn’t care. She doesn’t know me anyway. But with … [Mrs. Alab], I behave properly. I don’t want to upset her because I know she only wants me to pay attention, which is why she strict. She does not get mad just to embarrass me in class. Well, [Mrs. Ningning] doesn’t do that to me either, but she doesn’t care if I misbehave or not.
Kanoy’s willingness to behave in class appears to be influenced by the care and respect he receives from Mrs. Alab. More importantly, in saying, ‘I don’t want to upset her’, Kanoy believes that when he behaves in class, he is returning the care and respect Mrs. Alab gives him. To some
174
extent, Kanoy’s behavior in Mrs. Alab’s class resembles Noddings’s (1992; 2013) notion of reciprocal caring, which suggests that while the care given and received between a teacher (as the carer) and a student (as the cared-for) is almost always asymmetrical, there are instances however when a student acknowledges the teacher’s actions or behavior as caring and returns the care received. This is evidenced in Kanoy’s decision to behave and pay attention in Mrs. Alab’s class when he recognizes that behind her ‘being strict and tough’ is an intention to care for his learning. Kanoy’s response also resonates with the findings in Davidson’s (1999) study which suggest that students whose teachers demonstrate care and respect for them are willing to reciprocate by being attentive and conscientious.
This perception of care however is not associated with Mrs. Ningning. For the rural students, especially Isha and Kanoy, Mrs. Ningning is perceived as uncaring when she does not notice minor misconduct that distracts others from learning or when she deliberately ignores misbehaviors that disrupt classroom order. However, in my interview with Mrs. Ningning, she clearly expressed how she cares for her students, particularly in the way she “instill[s] in [them] a deep sense of appreciation and confidence in belonging to a rural farm”. The students however, as they revealed in the focus group interviews, did not perceive these ‘caring efforts’. This suggests that while “teachers do care, [they however] are unable to make connections that would complete caring relations with their students” (Noddings, 2005, p. 2). The rural students perceive care when a teacher makes an effort to extend what they refer to as pakikisama, a Filipino concept which roughly translates to ‘harmonious interpersonal relationships’. Mrs. Ningning however did not mention as much about ‘student-teacher relationship’ or ‘home visits’ as Mrs. Alab did in our interview, which gave me the impression that relationship is not much of a priority for Mrs. Ningning as it is for other teachers in the rural school. This is affirmed in one of her students’ comments, “except in the classroom, we barely have other chance to know more about [Mrs. Ningning]. Clearly, it is not what Mrs. Ningning does in class (i.e. her use of learner-centered strategies such as ‘groupwork’ as discussed in Chapter Eight) but what she does not do (i.e. being strict, creating classroom order, fostering relationships) that influenced the rural students’ perception that her way of teaching is not good (enough).
Given that her relationship with the students is constrained within the classroom, it appears that Mrs. Ningning’s lower level of engagement with managing students’ misbehaviors comes from her limited knowledge of the interpersonal domain of her job, and her lack of engagement with the students’ personal backgrounds. For the rural students, they feel most cared for when a teacher strengthens close and personal relationships (pakikisama) not only with them but also with their families. The rural students also identified other ways in which a teacher can
175
build pakikisama, such as when a teacher joins them in their extra-curricular activities in the rural village. This type of activity however is not practised by Mrs. Ningning. This then brings us to the second most helpful teacher practice in learning well as identified by the rural students.
Joining students in their after-school and rural community activities
Across five different focus groups, the rural students randomly tell stories about their school clubs in which there are instances when their teachers participate in the activities that students organize for the school and the rural community. While not entirely an instructional strategy used in the classroom, this teacher practice of joining students in their extra-curricular activities is mentioned frequently by the rural students who perceive it as not only helpful in learning well but also in giving them “a sense of achievement” (FG5); “a feeling of belonging to this class” (FG2) “a reason to stay in school” (FG3); and most importantly, an opportunity to “establish strong personal relationships with teachers” (FG4). Given this influence of extra-curricular activities in the students’ sense of achievement in school, it becomes necessary for me as the researcher to explore further the dynamics between the rural students and their teachers in these school clubs.
During our focus group interviews, I noted how enthusiastic the rural students were in narrating their stories about their experiences in their after-school and community activities with their teachers (i.e. Mrs. Alab, Miss Rosal, Mrs. Agham, Mr. Igot, and Mr. Ugma) who are also their school club advisers. These telling of stories would continue even after their focus groups. As I share lunch with them or walk home with them, the rural students continued to tell me how much they like being in their school clubs because, as they expressed, they “learn cool science hacks” from Mrs. Agham, “get a break from speaking in English and just communicate freely” with Mrs. Alab, and even “share high-fives and confide anything about life” with Miss Rosal.
Given the positive views of the rural students towards their extra-curricular activities, I conducted an extra focus group interview with selected eight rural students from the same junior class, so I could explore more fully their perceptions of ‘good teacher practices’ related to after- school and community activities. Two of these students were members of campus journalism whose club adviser was also Mrs. Alab, their English classroom teacher. Both students, Ben and Cory, were also volunteer ‘broadcasters’ who reported school and community announcements after their flag ceremonies. Ben narrates how campus journalism under Mrs. Alab’s guidance enhances his “communication skills and brings out talents” he never thought he had, like “public speaking and news writing”. In the same way, Cory shares how Mrs. Alab gave her the opportunity to attend student press conferences in the city and even accompanied her during her “first
176
editorial writing competition with students from other schools in the city”. Cory also recalls how Mrs. Alab reminded her to compete, “win or lose, the most important thing is doing one’s best”. Cory further expressed, “[Mrs. Alab] makes me feel accomplished as a student, even if it is not about academics”.
Two other students in this extra focus group recount their experiences as ‘eco-marshals’ in their Science club with their Science teacher, Mrs. Agham who is also their club adviser. Julma recalls how she and other student volunteers, together with Mrs. Agham, are already on campus at six in the morning, “earlier than the rest of the students to make sure the school grounds are clean, and the litter are properly segregated”. Niño, on one hand, narrates how Mrs. Agham designated him as the team leader to “supervise the late-comers who are weeding the school lawn as a consequence for coming late and not attending the flag ceremonies”. Niño’s sharing helped me understand why there are students from all grade levels cleaning and weeding the school lawn every morning after the flag ceremonies, which, as it turns out, is a disciplinary strategy to discourage students from coming late to school. It also happens that Mrs. Agham lives nearby which explains why she is already on campus early to supervise her ‘eco-marshals’. Julma and Niño also narrate how Mrs. Agham stays after school to coach them for their science quiz bees so they can “compete with other students in the city”. Julma recalls how excited and anxious she was