Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We

Needi

Leander P. Marquez
University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines

Abstract
One of the most prominent effects of globalization and the steady advance
of capitalism is the increase in demand for skilled human capital. This is
especially true in the Philippines, which relies on labor export in order to
keep its economy afloat. Nonetheless, despite the demands of the
globalized world, the Filipino children and youth should not only be sent
to schools to be taught skills that would make them competent laborers
for capitalist markets, but more importantly, they should be trained to
become critical thinkers so as to be open, sensitive, and understanding of
the beliefs and values of others as well as not to be enslaved by their
respective belief and value systems. In this light, this paper discusses how
critical thinking can be taught more effectively in education institutions in
the Philippines through reconsideration of the Taxonomy of Learning
Objectives and a push for Critical Pedagogy. I will argue that the
Taxonomy is reductive and lacking in terms of developing critical
thinking in students, whereas, critical pedagogy brings the children and
the youth to the table of dialogue by teaching them how to raise and
accept questions without the attitude of hostility, the latter being a
characteristic of an uncritical and enslaved mind.

Keywords: Critical Thinking, Taxonomy of Learning Objectives, Critical

Pedagogy, Education, Power Struggle

272 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

Critical Thinking in Philippine Education

Critical Thinking in Philippine Basic Education

Education plays a vital role in the development of a child to become a critical
thinker. Children are naturally curious and asking questions is like second
nature to them. Thus, children can be trained to think critically the moment that
they begin to ask questions. However, this means that a child’s initial training in
critical thinking does not begin at school, but at home. When a child enters
Kindergarten at the age of five, only then can educators step in to continue (or,
in most cases, to begin) the child’s critical thinking education. This is when the
role of education in the fostering of critical thinking begins.

A person’s mid to late formative years (5 to 8 years old) are very crucial in the
development of critical thinking; hence, basic education has the foremost
responsibility to habituate children to think critically during the early grades. In
the Philippines, basic education is spent studying Filipino, English,
Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Values Education, Music, Arts, Physical
Education, Health, Home Economics, and Technology and Livelihood
Education (see Department of Education website). The irony is that many of
these subjects (as well as those courses taught in higher education) include the
teaching of critical thinking in their respective curricula, and yet, many
“educated” Filipinos remain to be uncritical. A possible explanation is that
critical thinking is not being effectively taught in Philippine education.

Critical thinking can be taught to students when they are allowed to raise
questions, explore possibilities and engage in meaningful discussions. This can
be done through reflective teaching. The problem, however, is that teaching in
the Philippines is constrained to the didactic approach and has barely enough
room to be reflective. This may be because: a) teachers are guilty of the

273 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

misconceptions in teaching for thinking that were specified by Lipman (2003,

pp. 64-80); b) the quantity of information given is prioritized over the
development of critical thinking; c) didactic teaching is easier than reflective
teaching considering all the other things that a teacher is expected to do (lesson
planning, checking and grading of exams, etc.); d) many teachers are not used to
the reflective approach; and e) the government is bent on producing skilled
laborers more than critical thinkers. Despite these reasons supporting the
didactic approach in teaching, there is obviously a need to make room for
reflective teaching in every grade level and in all subject areas so as to facilitate
the development of the critical thinking aptitude of Filipino students. This can
begin by first establishing a common understanding of what “critical thinking”
is.

What is Critical Thinking?

One of the focal points of this paper is the concept of “critical thinking”.
Nevertheless, before I can proceed any further, I must first clarify what I mean
by the term “critical thinking” and show how this applies to Philippine basic
education through Critical Pedagogy. I would like to begin by laying down the
more common definitions of the term. A research report, titled, Critical
Thinking: A Literature Review (Lai, 2011) proved helpful for this purpose.

One can derive a variety of definitions of critical thinking formulated by

respective thinkers in the fields of Philosophy and Psychology. In philosophy,
for instance, critical thinking is defined as:

• “the propensity and skill to engage in an activity with reflective

skepticism” (McPeck, 1981, p. 8 in Lai, 2011, p. 6);
• “reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to
believe or do” (Ennis, 1985, p. 45 in Lai, 2011, p. 6);
274 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

• “skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment because it 1)

relies upon criteria, 2) is self-correcting, and 3) is sensitive to context”
(Lipman, 1988, p. 39 in Lai, 2011, p. 6);
• “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation,
analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the
evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or conceptual
considerations upon which that judgment is based” (Facione, 1990, p. 3 in
Lai, 2011, p. 6);
• “disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the perfections of
thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thought” (Paul,
1992, p. 9 in Lai, 2011, p. 6);
• “thinking that is goal-directed and purposive, ‘thinking aimed at forming
a judgment,’ where the thinking itself meets standards of adequacy and
accuracy” (Bailin et al., 1999b, p. 287 in Lai, 2011, p. 6); and
• “judging in a reflective way what to do or what to believe” (Facione,
2000, p. 61 in Lai, 2011, p. 6), among others.

Meanwhile, the discipline of psychology provides definitions of critical thinking

such as:

• “the mental processes, strategies, and representations people use to solve

problems, make decisions, and learn new concepts” (Sternberg, 1986, p.
3 in Lai, 2011, p. 8);
• “the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the
probability of a desirable outcome” (Halpern, 1998, p. 450 in Lai, 2011,
p. 8); and
• “seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that
disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims

275 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from

available facts, solving problems, and so forth” (Willingham, 2007, p. 8
in Lai, 2011, p. 8), to name a few.

Hence, Lai (2011) points out that Philosophy and Psychology provide the bulk
of the literature on discussions on critical thinking.

Meanwhile, critical thinking in Critical Pedagogy (hereafter referred to as CP)

takes a, somewhat, different form from those that were aforementioned above.
In CP, critical thinking serves as a transformative tool, which begins in the
transformation of the individual and aims to culminate to the transformation of
the society at large. CP is an approach to education that underscores the
importance of transforming unjust power relations to emancipatory relations of
power that help people become autonomous subjects. Through critical
pedagogy, the objects of oppression – learners among them – are empowered to
transform their society through education by enabling them to take control of
every aspect of their lives. This is achieved by teaching students how to think
critically. Thus, critical thinking is a vital aspect of critical pedagogy. “Critical
pedagogy is a way of thinking about, negotiating, and transforming the
relationship among classroom teaching, the production of knowledge, the
institutional structure of the school, and the social and material relations of the
wider community, society, and, nation state” (McLaren, 1998, p.45). In other
words, critical thinking here is not simply cognitive, abstractive, or procedural,
but pragmatic and transformative.

Burbules and Berk (1999) offer an interesting comparison on how literatures on

Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy views the term “critical”. They pointed
out that the “Critical Thinking tradition concerns itself with criteria of epistemic
adequacy: to be “critical” basically means to be more discerning in recognizing

276 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

faulty arguments, hasty generalizations, assertions lacking evidence, truth

claims based on unreliable authority, ambiguous or obscure concepts, and so
forth” (Burbules and Berk, 1999, par. 4). Whereas, the Critical Pedagogy
tradition “regards specific belief claims, not primarily as propositions to be
assessed for their truth content, but as parts of systems of belief and action that
have aggregate effects within the power structures of society. [To be critical is
to ask] first about this system of belief, and action, who benefits? The primary
preoccupation of [being critical in] Critical Pedagogy is with social injustice
and how to transform inequitable, undemocratic, or oppressive institutions and
social relations” (Burbules and Berk, 1999, par. 5). It is worth noting, however,
that in both traditions, “criticality” assumes a transformative role. In Critical
Thinking, it is concerned with transforming false belief claims into truth, while
in Critical Pedagogy, it focuses on transforming power relations in society.

Inspired by these diverse definitions, I would like to offer my own take on what
critical thinking is. My definition, however, does not favor any particular
discipline or tradition, but seeks to find a point of “dialogue” or “agreement”
among these different but related perspectives on critical thinking.

Critical Thinking as a Questioning Attitude

My definition is this: critical thinking is a questioning attitude directed at a
thorough reconsideration, clarification, and validation of propositions, beliefs,
or systems leading to a personal acceptance, rejection, revision, or development
of the same. This definition is comprised of a number of factors such as: a)
questioning, b) attitude; directed at a thorough c) reconsideration, d)
clarification, and e) validation; of f) propositions, g) beliefs, or h) systems;
leading to a personal i) acceptance, j) rejection, k) revision, and l) development,
of the same.

277 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

In this definition, critical thinking is not considered as a skill because of

instances wherein we employ the term “critical thinking skill”, which means the
ability and/or proficiency in applying this questioning attitude. Seen under this
light, I consider critical thinking distinct from critical thinking skill.
Furthermore, even without expressly mentioning it, thinking is implied in my
definition since questioning cannot occur without thinking. In addition,
suspension of judgement is also presumed since one cannot claim to be engaged
in critically thinking about a certain subject matter if one has already prejudged
the same. Finally, it goes without saying that this definition of critical thinking
applies not only to the propositions, beliefs, or systems held by others but to
those that one holds for oneself as well.

Questioning. Critical thinking must always begin with asking questions.

Admittedly, not all instances of asking questions – “What time is it?”, “How are
you?”, “How’s the weather?” etc. – involves critical thinking, but still, critical
thinking always begins with questions because only through asking questions
can one arrive at: a) another question/s that could further the critical thinking
process; b) tentative answer/s that can still be explored; or c) definite answer/s.

Attitude. The propensity for asking questions and exploring possibilities is

essentially a state of mind – a disposition or tendency – without which, an
individual is less likely to think critically. This explains why some people think
critically more than others. Thus, critical thinking entails sustaining or
rekindling and developing a person’s natural inclination to ask questions.

Reconsideration. The questioning attitude involved in critical thinking is not

directed at finding definitive answers, rather, it is directed at reconsidering
propositions, beliefs, or systems that appear or claim to be definitive. Therefore,
when a person critically thinks, one necessarily reviews an existing viewpoint.

278 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

Even in research wherein one is expected to come up with an original idea, this
“original” idea does not originate from a vacuum, but through a meticulous
reconsideration of existing ideas.

Clarification. Propositions, beliefs, or systems may contain statements that are

vague or ambiguous, which uncritical thinkers could accept by faith, interpret
personally, or simply ignore. A questioning attitude, on the other hand, seeks to
clarify extensively these statements – the meanings of words or phrases in
relation to the context they are used – in order to arrive at a clearer
understanding of these propositions, beliefs, or systems.

Validation. A significant degree of justification is sought by this questioning

attitude before any judgment on whether a certain proposition, belief, or system
ought to be accepted, rejected, revised, or reinforced. Requiring justification
ensures that any claim that might be used as basis for other claims or actions is
corroborated by sufficient evidence.

Propositions. A proposition is a statement that may either be true or false as

well as the “thought” that the mind cognizes when expressed in a declarative
sentence. To illustrate: two different sentences uttered by two speakers can have
the same meaning. For instance, Mr. A’s statement that “That ball is red” holds
the same meaning as that Ms. B’s assertion that “That is a red ball”. They are
both saying the same thing though they uttered different sentences. This is also
true with different languages. The German Ms. C’s claim that “Schnee ist weis”
is no different from the Englishman Mr. D’s utterance that “Snow is white”.
There is understanding among advocates of propositions that whenever people
speak of the same thing through different declarative sentences, there exists
something in what each has said – and that something is a proposition
(Marquez, 2014).

279 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

Beliefs. A belief is: a) propositional attitude, b) evaluative and affective attitude,

and c) the object of the verb “to believe”. As a propositional attitude, a belief is
an attitude towards a proposition, which is expressed in the form “A believes
that p”. As an evaluative and affective attitude, belief is an attitude towards a
person or “entity” other than a proposition, which takes the form “A believes in
[person or “entity” other than a proposition]. Whereas as an object of belief,
belief is that which comes after the verb “to believe”, such as the proposition in
belief-that or the person or “entity” in belief-in statements (for full discussion,
see Marquez, 2014, pp. 32-42).

Systems. There are instances wherein beliefs build up on top of one another that
they develop into complex systems and power relations such as those that can
be found in governments (democracy, socialism, capitalism, etc.), religions
(doctrines, practices, etc.), education (pedagogy, foundations, aims, etc.), and
the sciences (methodology, evidence, etc.), to name a few.

Acceptance. Upon thorough reconsideration, clarification, and validation of a

certain proposition, belief, or system, one may find logically compelling reasons
to accept it.

Rejection. However, upon doing the same, one may ultimately find it
unacceptable and decide to reject it.

Revision. Or perhaps, one may find certain parts acceptable while other parts in
need of revision and decide to conduct the appropriate modifications that may
lead to a “new” proposition, belief, or system.

Development. Finally, one may opt to build on a proposition, belief, or system

that one has reconsidered, clarified, and validated in order to develop its

280 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

strengths and reinforce its weaknesses. In this sense, revision and development
are deemed distinct from one another since the former pertains to the revision of
the proposition, belief, or system being reconsidered, whereas the latter refers to
the development of insights that were derived from a proposition, belief, or
system that one has accepted.

If we are to look at the philosophical and psychological definitions that were

presented in the previous section, one may observe that the definitions provided
by McPeck, Ennis, Paul, Sternberg, and Halpern lack the clarity that should be
supplied by a definition. Meanwhile, those that were provided by Lipman,
Facione, Bailin, and Willingham carry common themes such as: criteria,
methods, strategies, self-directed, self-corrective, contextual, and judgement. In
this light, I believe that the definition that I have offered avoids the vagueness
of the definitions given by McPeck, Ennis, Paul, Sternberg, and Halpern, while
accommodating and building on the strengths of the definitions provided by
Lipman, Facione, Bailin, and Willingham. Furthermore, the definition does not
only deal with the conceptual (propositions and beliefs) but also with the social
(systems) aspects of reality, which is central to CP. This is important in order to
enable critical thinkers to be more “in touch” with the world and recognize the
power struggle that surrounds them. With this definition in mind, I can now
proceed with my discussion on critical thinking in Philippine education.

I believe that we can get this underway by, first, opening the minds of Filipino
educators to the benefits of using the reflective approach in the development of
critical thinking. Second, we have to win government support by showing that
critical thinking is more valuable to nation-building than capitalism. And
finally, in order to determine how critical thinking can be effectively taught to
Filipino students, we must look into what we have and then, from there, lay out

281 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

what we need so as to provide opportunities to be didactic as well as reflective

in teaching.

What We Have: Taxonomy of Learning Objectives in an Outcomes-Based

Education Approach

The Place of Critical Thinking in Outcomes-Based Education

Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) appears to be the norm on education in
different parts of the world today. As an approach to education, OBE centers on
outcomes, that is, ensuring that student outputs meet the specified objectives of
a particular course. Basically, “[o]utcomes are really no more than statements of
intention, written in terms of student learning” (Killen, 2000, p. 5). This
“statement of intention” usually takes the form: “By the end of the lesson, the
student is expected to … [outcomes]”. OBE is the education sector’s response
to the overarching demand for quality assurance in a capitalist and globalized
world.

Killen (2000) points out that OBE can be seen as: 1) a theory of education; 2) a
systematic structure for education; and (3) a classroom practice. “We can think
of OBE as a theory (or philosophy) of education in the sense that it embodies
and expresses a certain set of beliefs and assumptions about learning, teaching
and the systemic structures within which these activities take place” (Killen,
2000, p. 2). We can also think of OBE as a systematic structure of education
wherein “it can provide administrators with some level of control over the
outcomes of education, and at the same time provide teachers with a large
degree of freedom to select the content and methods through which they will
help their students achieve those outcomes. The control (or, if you like, the
overall direction) will come through the specification of the syllabus objectives

282 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

and outcomes, and the freedom comes through the choices (about content,
teaching methods and assessment) that are left up to schools and individual
teachers” (Killen, 2000, p. 4). Finally, we can think of OBE as a classroom
practice, which “fits very well with the common sense notion that children at
school (or in any other educational situation) should be learning something, and
that specifying just what that learning is to be ought to help students to achieve
it” (Killen, 2000, p. 5). From these descriptions, it is not difficult to see that
OBE is essentially an application of Bloom’s Taxonomy, especially with
respect to numbers two and three.

Evidently, the “outcomes” in OBE are largely determined by the objectives that
are specified in the curriculum of every course. Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives, hereafter referred to as “Taxonomy”, serves a central
role in determining these objectives. “The taxonomy of educational objectives is
a framework for classifying statement of what we expect or intend students to
learn as a result of instruction” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 212). For this reason, OBE
employs the Taxonomy in constructing course objectives to specify which
skill/s the student has supposedly learned upon meeting a stated objective.
However, this raises the question as to whether critical thinking can be taught to
students through the use of the Taxonomy, because if it fails to teach students
critical thinking, then the Taxonomy has missed the point of education.

In this regard, critical thinking is not necessarily developed among students

even if the teacher ensures that the lesson plan includes all of the educational
objectives that are laid out in the Taxonomy. The National Council for
Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as “the intellectually
disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying,
analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or
generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication,

283 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

as a guide to belief and action” (Scriven and Paul, 1987 as cited in

Criticalthinking.org, 2015, para. 3). This definition appears to have been met
once all of the educational objectives in the Taxonomy are satisfied. However,
my notion of critical thinking pertains to the questioning attitude of an
individual towards propositions, beliefs, or systems before accepting, rejecting,
revising, or developing them. This means that when a person thinks critically,
one basically asks questions that aim to determine the truth or falsity of a
proposition or belief. Critical thinking, in the form of questioning, I believe is
the foundation of all the stages of the Taxonomy, yet is not bound by any of
them.

In 2001, Krathwohl and his team published the revised Taxonomy. He later
pointed out that critical thinking was not included in the revisions because it
cannot be narrowed down to a single category. “Problem solving and critical
thinking were two other terms commonly used by teachers that were also
considered for inclusion in the revision. But unlike understand, there seemed to
be no popular usage that could be matched to a single category. Therefore, to be
categorized in the Taxonomy, one must determine the intended specific
meaning of problem solving and critical thinking from the context in which they
are being used” (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 218). Seen in this light, critical thinking
arguably encompasses more than one category in the Taxonomy, yet, even if all
of the categories are tapped in the objectives, this may not necessarily translate
to teaching critical thinking because the idea of critical thinking, itself, is
context-based. Consider the following portion of a welder apprenticeship course
outline (see Alberta Advanced Education and Technology, 2007, p. 11ff):

284 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

Supposing a student who has enrolled in this course has met all of the given
objectives. Was critical thinking developed in the student? Not necessarily.
Meeting all of the listed objectives does not ensure that the student will learn
how to think critically. Critical thinking, in this instance, would be manifest
when the student begins to question and verify the information that were handed
down by the teacher or when the student tries to find other ways to improve on
285 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

the knowledge and skills that have already been taught. This, of course, entails
questioning the self as well as questioning the more knowledgeable others – an
act of dialogue, communication, and language – and to think through all the
claims that have been made in relation to this questioning before accepting them
to be true.

If we are to look at the hierarchy of thinking skills, namely: remembering,

understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating, the two topmost
levels are the ones that require critical thinking the most since they entail value
judgement. Yet, if this is the case, the obvious question is: “Where in the
preceding levels was critical thinking supposed to have been developed so that
it can be used in the latter levels?” Thus, the question on whether critical
thinking is learned when student output meets all of the categories laid out by
the Taxonomy invites us to look into how this approach looks at the notion of
“thinking”, as a whole.

Lower Order versus Higher Order Thinking

The Taxonomy presents the thinking skills in a hierarchical fashion, which can
be visualized as a pyramid. Furthermore, these levels of thinking are bifurcated
in two – a lower level and a higher level. This means that in order to arrive at
higher levels of thinking, one must be able to be skilled at the lower levels first,
at least in the Original Taxonomy. “The categories were ordered from simple to
complex and from concrete to abstract. Further, it was assumed that the original
Taxonomy represented a cumulative hierarchy; that is, mastery of each simpler
category was prerequisite to mastery of the next more complex one”
(Krathwohl, 2002, pp. 212-213). In the Revised Taxonomy, however, this
overlap between the different levels was permitted. “The revised taxonomy also
arranges skills from the most basic to the most complex. However, because
skills such as understanding can be exercised on many levels, the developers

286 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

allowed categories to overlap. For example, understand is technically lower on

the hierarchy than apply. However, the skill of explaining is more cognitively
complex than executing, even though that skill is associated with a higher
category. As a result, ‘the hierarchy is no longer considered cumulative,’
according to Krathwohl” (Munzenmaier and Rubin, 2013, p. 18).

The drawback of this presentation is that it leads one to think that human
cognitive faculties work in a hierarchical or a “production line” fashion,
wherein there are “stages” in the thinking process. While this may be true in the
neural or micro level, the whole process happens almost instantaneously in the
macro level. In the same way, learning cannot be simply construed to happen in
rigid hierarchical stages – a criticism that can also be attributed to Piaget’s
theory of cognitive development. I mentioned Piaget here because I believe that
the Taxonomy can only work in relation to Piaget’s cognitive development
theory.

When an individual, for instance, who is in the late preoperational stage (7 years
old) states the definition of matter, Bloom would say that the child is at the
lower order thinking stage of remembering. Fast forward to 30 years later, the
same individual – who is in the formal operational stage and who has now
earned a doctorate degree in Theoretical Physics – articulates the complexities
of Quantum Theory. Can it be said that the physicist is still at the lower order
thinking stage in relation to the complexities of Quantum Theory that s/he has
just explained? If yes, since the physicist merely stated what s/he remembers,
then we can say that the application of the Taxonomy is dependent on the stage
of one’s cognitive development. If not, since the difficulty involved in stating
the intricacies of the Quantum Theory cannot be summarily dismissed as merely
requiring lower level thinking, then we can argue that remembering is not
exclusively lower level thinking. I am inclined to believe that it is the former,

287 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

and for this reason, it is trouble-free for many educational institutions to simply
apply both theories because they seem to be considerably complementary with
each other. However, outside this “relationship”, thinking is essentially far from
being hierarchical, but more of oscillating among the different “levels” of
thinking with varying speed and intensity. This is especially evident in
conversations wherein the gap between responses only takes an average of 200
milliseconds long, thus, illustrating that active thinking occurs while listening to
what the other person is saying at the same time (for full discussion, see Stivers,
et al., 2009; Yong, 2016).

The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Its Detriments to Philippine

Education
It would be unjust not to recognize the fact that having learning objectives in
education is helpful in terms of focusing on what students are supposed to learn.
Employing learning objectives, at the very least, provides a system that
complements a time-bound classroom setting education by specifying clearly
what student should have learned by the end of the term or school year.
However, as to how these objectives are used and to what ends or purposes may
prove to be its very disadvantage. Let us look at the Philippine educational
setting, for instance.

Broadly speaking, the Taxonomy is widely implemented in the Philippines

today. One may observe that Philippine education is by and large influenced by
capitalist interests. This means that students and graduates are geared toward
replenishing the country’s labor force. For this reason, the quality and
objectives of education are focused on skills training. Thus, educational
objectives are formulated in relation to skills development.

288 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

By virtue of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum No.

46 (CMO No. 46) that was released in 2012, that is, “Policy-Standard to
Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an
Outcomes-Based and Typology-Based QA”, OBE was institutionalized in the
country. Looking at the “Rationale for Enhancing QA” of CMO No. 46 series of
2012 (particularly sections 3 and 4, p. 2), one can see the unmistakeable
influence of capitalism on the objectives of Philippine educational system in the
sense that it only specified the “engineering; information technology and
computing; maritime education; accounting; and nursing” (sec. 2) professions as
examples of disciplines that must meet national and international standards
(notice that skilled workers in these professions are relatively in demand
overseas); as well as puts emphasis on “educating quality leaders, thinkers,
planners, researchers, technological innovators, entrepreneurs, and the much-
needed work force to launch the national economy” (sec 3), which is evidently
geared towards the production of laborers. In relation to this, in 2014, CHED
released the “Handbook on Typology, Outcomes-Based Education, and
Institutional Sustainability Assessment”, hereafter referred to as “Handbook”, to
guide “HEIs on how to implement outcomes-based education” (CHED, 2014, p.
11). Annex 4 of the Handbook (see CHED, 2014, pp. 83-85) enumerates the
recommended verbs that can be used in constructing learning outcomes, which
were adapted from the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.

In this light, one of the dangers in viewing thinking skills as stringently

hierarchical is that education may simply be reduced to skills training since
skills-based jobs rarely require a level of thinking that goes beyond Bloom’s so-
called “lower order”. Another, and more appalling, danger is that it may develop
the misconception that there are people who are capable of higher order
thinking and there are those who are not. This can lead to sentiments that only
those who are capable of higher order thinking should pursue further studies

289 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

while those who are not capable should pursue technical or vocational courses
and merely settle for manual labor. Given these dangers, I would not venture
into applying the Taxonomy unless to develop in the students the questioning
attitude that is directed at examining the prevalent belief systems in order to
transform them or reinforce them, as needed. This can be done by looking at the
Taxonomy simply as a tool to develop a critical attitude and not as hierarchical
levels of thinking – in other words, as a tool to facilitate critical pedagogy.

What We Need: Critical Pedagogy in Philippine Education

Critical Pedagogy and Power Struggle

Critical pedagogy is a philosophy of education that was mainly derived from
Paulo Freire’s critical theory and was developed by many subsequent thinkers.
“Critical pedagogy is not about an a priori method that simply can be applied
regardless of context. It is the outcome of particular struggles and is always
related to the specificity of particular contexts, students, communities, and
available resources” (Giroux, 2011, p. 4). The basic principles of critical
pedagogy can be summarized as: a “critique of current conditions; a focus on
transformation and emancipation; emphasis on the value-laden and political
nature of education; and interest in culture, identity and subjectivity” (McLean,
2006, p. 94). Apart from these, critical pedagogy also especially zeroes in on
power – especially political and economic power – since it is at the crux of the
struggle among social classes.

[The] unequal social relation, where capital dominates over labor, structures
all production practices and has only a single rationale, the creation of surplus
value (profit) … Therefore, the existing social structure of capitalism is
motivated parochially by the generation of profit and thus workers of all
colors, genders, sexualities, and religions can never be rightfully compensated
for what their labor produces. For Marxists, the historic effort of workers to
290 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

end the inequality located at the point of production (exploitation), which

exclusively benefits the capitalist class, is the basis of class struggle. (Viola,
2009, p. 9)

Critical pedagogy focuses on power due to the fact that power can be used
either to oppress or to liberate, and in terms of the former, the status quo cannot
be changed without some form of power to secure the latter. “Critical pedagogy
takes as one of its central projects an attempt to be discerning and attentive to
those places and practices in which social agency has been denied and
produced” (Giroux, 2011, p. 3). Advocates of critical pedagogy, therefore, see
education as a form of political power that may be utilized to end oppression. It
may be raised, however, that although the intention of using education as a
power is to liberate the oppressed, the liberator may possibly be transformed by
power into an oppressor. “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise
influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the
certainty of corruption by authority” (Dalberg–Acton, 1887, p. 9).

Despite the popularity of the said quote, the claim that it attempts to assert is
very much difficult to prove. History has provided us with the likes of Hitler,
Hussein, and Marcos who were corrupted by power and used it to oppress, but it
has also given us Jesus Christ and Gandhi who used their power to help the
oppressed, yet, were not corrupted by it. Thus, the evidence provided by history
shows us that it is possible for people to overcome the corrupting tendencies of
power, provided that they were prepared to handle it. “This, then, is the great
humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their
oppressors as well” (Freire, 2005, p. 44).

291 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

I believe that this is where critical pedagogy plays an important role in

education. “To educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that …
comes easiest to those of us who teach who also believe that there is an aspect
of our vocation that is sacred … that our work is not merely to share
information but to share in the intellectual and spiritual growth of our students”
(Hooks, 1994, p. 13). In teaching through CP, teachers open the minds of the
students in order to entertain possibilities and respect differences by teaching
them to listen, think, and speak, that is, to engage in dialogue. Critical pedagogy
“draws attention to the ways in which knowledge, power, desire, and experience
are produced under specific basic conditions of learning and illuminates the role
that pedagogy plays as part of a struggle over assigned meanings, modes of
expression, and directions of desire, particularly as these bear on the formation
of the multiple and ever-contradictory version of the ‘self’ and its relationship to
the larger society” (Giroux, 2011, p. 4).

The Role of Dialogue in Critical Pedagogy

Earlier in this paper, I proposed my definition of critical thinking. I defined it as
a “questioning attitude directed at a thorough reconsideration, clarification, and
validation of propositions, beliefs, or systems leading to a personal acceptance,
rejection, revision, or development of the same”, and proceeded on explaining
each aspect of the definition. Unfortunately, critical thinking, in this sense,
cannot be successfully communicated, taught, or transmitted to students without
recognizing the importance of allowing avenues for dialogue. The role of
dialogue is to enable the fostering of social equality by inviting people to sit
around the table of negotiation. This means that people who engage in a
dialogue are willing to hear and to be heard. More specifically, the role of
dialogue is to break the culture or theme of silence, which is characteristic of
oppression. “The theme of silence suggests a structure of mutism in face of the
overwhelming force of the limit-situations” (Freire, 2005, p. 107). Thus, in an

292 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

oppressed society, people are only silent because they feel helpless and
hopeless. In an oppressed society where helplessness and hopelessness
permeate, people cannot develop a questioning attitude because they are not
allowed to find their voice, speak their minds, and engage in critical reflection.
“Human beings are not built in silence, but in word, in work, in action-
reflection” (Freire, 2005, p. 88) and the presence of a culture of silence in a
democratic society indicates that there is something wrong.

In this light, the role of dialogue in critical pedagogy is to help people realize
that the way towards their emancipation is through confronting their personal
social conditions by thinking and talking about them as well as by recognizing
the fact that they can do something to change it. “Language is a practice that
constructs and is constructed by how language learners understand their social
surroundings, histories, and their possibilities for the future” (Norton & Toohey,
2004, in Aliakbari and Faraji, 2011, p. 82). Since dialogue is a way for us to
overcome the culture of silence, which is “a culture of acceptance, resignation
and fatalism” (Vittoria, 2014, p. 110), it will help us face our inhibitions with
having to do something regarding our situation. Furthermore, it enables critical
thinking as a questioning attitude to begin to develop.

Thus, it is the responsibility of teacher education institutions to produce

educators that are not afraid to establish a dialogical relationship with their
students in order to develop them to become critical thinkers. “Dialogue is the
encounter between men … Hence, dialogue cannot occur between those who
want to name the world and those who do not wish this naming – between those
who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak
has been denied them” (Freire, 2005, p. 88). In my classroom, for instance, I
discourage my students to address me using titles such as “sir”, “mister”, or
“professor” and encourage them to call me simply by my first name. This is my

293 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

way to encourage critical thinking among my students and to create a culture

that allows a questioning attitude. They are not to think of me as someone who
will always be on the lookout if they are giving right or wrong answers but as a
teacher-learner who learns with them (learner-teachers) as we philosophize in
class. This approach is relatively new in the Philippines since Filipinos are very
much hooked up on drawing respect from “power” signified by titles and ranks.
The obvious criticism to this approach, however, is that the students may lose
respect for me as their teacher and that they may not recognize my authority
inside the classroom.

The strategy that I employ in order to setup this kind of culture in my classroom
is based on rational dialogue. During the first day of class, when I announce to
my students that they should call me by my first name instead of any title, I
challenge them to justify why they should address me using titles instead of my
name. If they fail to present a compelling argument, then there is no reason not
to call me by my name. The reasons that were presented to me usually boil
down to two main things: 1) because they do not want to be disrespectful, and
2) because I am their teacher. For the first reason, I usually ask them whether
they intend to disrespect me by calling me by my name, whereas for the second
reason, I ask them whether or not calling me by my first name changes the fact
that I am their teacher. Of course, they would answer both questions in the
negative. The point here is, my authority as a teacher does not reside on the
titles by which the students call me, but in their recognition that I do have that
authority. Since culture is “an activity in which people actually produce the
conditions of their own agency through dialogue, community participation,
resistance, and political struggle …” (Giroux, 2011, p. 111), creating a culture
wherein I discourage them from using these titles to address me, I believe, gives
the impression that I am willing to dialogue with them despite the authority that
comes with my position as their teacher.

294 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

Moreover, I tell my students that they are free to ask questions and share their
thoughts at any time as long as they are related to the topic that we are
discussing. Freire (1998) recognizes the importance of recognizing and
respecting the autonomy of the learner, which is reflective of the respect that a
teacher gives to oneself as an unfinished being. I make it a point to let them
know that our class is a safe place for them to express their opinions about
things and that our purpose is to analyze these opinions together to see if they
are founded on sound arguments. This way, I do not impose my thoughts on
them while, at the same time, give them the opportunity to consider every claim
in a critical manner.

The problem with many teachers today is that they consider themselves as the
repository of knowledge inside their respective classrooms and that any
deviation by the students from what has been taught to them is wrong. I believe
that this attitude by teachers begins to take root during their training to become
educators. It is highly likely that their approach to teaching is similar to the
approach that they have experienced from their teachers while they were still
students. If this is true, then, teacher education institutions should adopt an
approach that would enable in-training educators to be open to dialogue by
setting up an environment wherein they can discuss thoughts with their
professors instead of the latter merely handing down facts and figures to them.
“To engage in dialogue is one of the simplest ways we can begin as teachers,
scholars, and critical thinkers to cross boundaries, the barriers that may or may
not be erected by race, gender, class, professional standing, and a host of other
differences” (Hooks, 1994, p. 130).

An example of this is the “community of inquiry” wherein participants, in-

training educators in this instance, engage in collaborative dialogue in order to
arrive at truth. In the community of inquiry, the participants are free to agree

295 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

and disagree with one another without the fear of facing hostility or judgement.
The role of the teacher is to guide the course of the discussion with very
minimal input about one’s opinions on the subject-matter being discussed.
Through training in a community of inquiry, future teachers would not be afraid
to be proven wrong in their beliefs, but would welcome any opportunity from
students to re-evaluate and revise their beliefs through the latter’s thoughts and
questions in the course of rational dialogue. In other words, the community of
inquiry deters the culture of silence by empowering its members to speak and
helps avoid inflicting what Freire (2005) calls “narration sickness” to education.

Critical Pedagogy in Philippine Education

If the notion of critical thinking that I am proposing will be taught to Filipino
students, then one of the ideal and promising avenues to do so is through critical
pedagogy. Introducing CP in the Philippine education system is possible,
despite the traditional and conservative nature of our society, although it would
not be easy. The question that we need to answer is: “will a nation stand up
against oppression and welcome critical pedagogy if they do not feel oppressed
at all?” Answering this question entails surmounting at least two challenges.
The first challenge is to help majority of the Filipino people overcome their
desensitized attitude towards their oppression and not become oppressors,
themselves.

One may argue that Filipinos have already acted to liberate themselves from
oppression that is why they elected President Rodrigo Duterte and that this is a
sign that Filipinos are already becoming “critical”. However, one may not see
that this instance of being “critical” is not, in fact, being critical because it is a
manifestation of how the nation is deeply interred in its Hispanic colonial past.
People see Duterte as a political Messiah – in the same way that Jesus was
perceived by many in his time – who will save them from the evils and

296 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

oppression of the ruling class. “There is a new religion that is sweeping the
nation, and Rodrigo Duterte is its new messiah” (Evangelista and Curato, 2016,
para. 17). In fact, in a news report published by local network GMA, it pointed
out that “[i]n his first opinion column for Philippine Daily Inquirer,
[Presidential Communications Office Secretary] Andanar compared his first
meeting with Duterte in Davao City to when Jesus met the fishermen who
would be his apostles at Galilee” (Macas, 2016, para. 2; see also Andanar,
2016). The point of critical pedagogy, on the other hand, is to develop the
individual into someone who would work out one’s emancipation without
necessarily relying on a “superhero” figure for liberation. Liberation, Freire
(2005) argues, is a mutual process that needs to be pursued by both the
oppressor and the oppressed.

Case in point: time and time again, the most overused word in political
campaigns in the Philippines is “change”. Politicians have always promised
change because the people have been clamoring for it since anyone can
remember. Duterte’s slogan “change is coming” is an example of this and,
indeed, change has come. News broadcasted in major local television networks
have showcased drug pushers being killed, apprehended, or surrendering left
and right. It can be expected that the lawful arrest and surrender of drug pushers
will be applauded by many, but the reports of drug pushers being killed,
whether by the police or vigilantes, or the “threats” being mounted against
corrupt public servants, being tolerated by the public as if these oppressors
deserved to be punished without due process seem to be surreal. In other words,
from being oppressed by those who hold power – since the old government
seems to tolerate them – many appear to be celebrating the fact that these
oppressors are being oppressed by the new government. Only time will tell if
the change that has come will turn out for the better or for the worse. Despite
this, critical pedagogy teaches us that to be critical is to speak up even if the

297 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

tables have turned towards our advantage. The goal is not to shift the center of
power from the oppressor to the oppressed, but to get rid of the culture of
oppression, altogether. As Freire puts it: “In order for this struggle [for
humanization] to have meaning, the oppressed must not … become in turn
oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both”
(Freire, 2005, p. 44). If this is the case, then how would we, Filipinos, accept an
educational philosophy that asserts speaking up against the oppressors of our
oppressors?

The second challenge, therefore, is to convince the public that domination is not
the key to social transformation. Domination is a product of power struggle
wherein the strong overcomes the weak and oppresses them. However, Bizzell
(1991) explains that there are three kinds of power: coercion, influence, and
authority.

One sort of power might be imagined as exercised by A over B, regardless of

B's consent or best interests. Here A uses B to benefit A, and there's nothing B
can do about it. I will call this sort of power “coercion” … A second sort of
power might be imagined as exercised by A over B only with B's consent,
which is given only if B is convinced that doing as A suggests will serve B's
best interests. I will call this sort of power “persuasion” … [A] third sort of
power [is that] which I will call “authority.” Authority is exercised by A over
B instrumentally in the sense that sometimes B must do what A requires
without seeing how B's best interests will be served thereby, but A can
exercise such authority over B only if B initially grants it to A. (Bizzell, 1991,
pp. 56-57)

For Bizzell, “authority” is the sort of power that ought to be practiced since it is
not simply based on force as that of coercion or on the assurance of serving
one’s best interests as that of persuasion, but on a trusting attitude that those

298 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

who rule will be just, impartial and will pursue the common good. Seen from
this perspective, it is the role of the teacher to exercise one’s authority to make
the students, that is, the Filipino youth in this case, realize that the only way to
free themselves from oppression is by “learning how to solve daily problems
collectively and collaboratively” (Naiditch, 2010, p. 96).

Unfortunately, this kind of authority is slowly and systematically being taken

away from teachers by a market-driven outlook on education. “Teachers are
increasingly reduced to the status of technicians and denied any control over
their classrooms or school governance structures” (Giroux, 2011, p. 153).
Whereas students are seen as investments for the job market, teachers are
regarded as manufacturers of skilled laborers and schools as factories. There is
much ado for technical skills training at the expense of educating students to
think critically and helping them to become socially aware. For this reason, it is
all the more important for teachers to strive to be “transformative intellectuals”
(Giroux, 1985) and to “engage in the hard work of debunking corporate
culture’s assault on teaching and learning, orient their teaching for social
change, connect learning to public life, link knowledge to the operations of
power, and allow issues of human rights and crimes against humanity in their
diverse forms to occupy a space of critical and open discussion in the
classroom” (Giroux, 2004, p. 77). The responsibility to become transformative
intellectuals, of course, does not rest on the teachers alone, but also to students,
parents, communities, and the government, all of which are collaborators in the
struggle towards liberation.

It is through this collaborative effort that, perhaps, the cycle of oppression might
come to an end. Filipino educators, therefore, should “strengthen their reserves
in courage and intellectual power [so that] they can shape curricula and school
processes [thereby] influencing the ideals and attitudes of the next generation”

299 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

(Counts, 1978, in Foley, Morris, Gounari and Wilson, 2013, p. 116).

Essentially, Filipino teachers, together with the rest of the citizenry, need to
shape the Philippine educational system in such a way that would foster
collaborative dialogue instead of divisive competition since “education should
contribute to the expansion of human freedom and autonomy from the
knowledge that it more often serves as a mechanism of social discipline and
control, and that the balance between these possibilities is worked out through
educational practice itself” (Amsler, 2010, p. 20). It is through this that critical
thinking as a questioning attitude can be effectively and efficiently taught to
Filipino students.

Ultimately, liberating ourselves and our oppressors is the challenge incumbent

upon every Filipino. Yet, the obvious conclusion to our earlier question is that
unless Filipinos become sensitive to their oppression and willing to act on it,
critical pedagogy will only be seen as a threat to the status quo. Many Filipinos
have been oppressed for a very long time that it is clearly difficult to make them
see that using power to overthrow an oppressive government only to make
oppressors out of themselves is futile in every way. However, there is still hope
for the young. In order to free themselves from the manacles of oppression, we
have to educate the Filipino youth to become critical thinkers and this can be
achieved through a pedagogy that is critical, reflective, and reflexive, otherwise,
nothing will change. And thus, only through emancipatory education can we
achieve true liberation. The first step towards this end, I believe, is to introduce
Philosophy in Philippine basic education, because Philosophy specializes in
rekindling our speculative interest. This is important in order to enable Filipinos
to speculate – to speculate about the possibility and the advantages of adopting
critical pedagogy in the Philippine education system; to consider the possibility
that this might be good for us, after all. Thus, apart from critical pedagogy, I am
also arguing for Philosophy in basic education. But that is another story.

300 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

Notes
1
I would like to thank Asst. Prof. Abigail Thea O. Canuto for her invaluable comments on the initial
drafts of this paper. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the reviewers for their very
helpful insights.

References
Alberta Advanced Education and Technology (2007): Apprenticeship and Industry Training:
Welder Apprenticeship Course Outline. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED538617.pdf.
Aliakbari, Mohammad and Faraji, Elham (2011): “Basic Principles of Critical Pedagogy”.
International Proceedings of Economic Development and Research, Vol. 17, pp. 77-85.
Singapore: IACSIT Press.
Amsler, Sarah (2010): “Education as a Critical Practice”. eds. S. Amsler, J. Canaan, S.
Cowden, S. Motta, and G. Singh. Why Critical Pedagogy and Popular Education Matter
Today. Birmingham: C-SAP.
Andanar, Martin (2016). “How I ran into Digong”. Inquirer.net.
http://www.opinion.inquirer.net/97949/how-i-ran-into-digong.
Bizzell, Patricia (1991): “Power, Authority, and Critical Pedagogy”. Journal of Basic
Writing, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 54-70.
Burbules, Nicholas and Berk, Rupert (1999): “Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy:
Relations, Differences, and Limits”. eds. Thomas Popkewitz and Lynn Fendler. Critical
Theories in Education. New York: Routledge.
http://www.faculty.education.illinois.edu/burbules/papers/critical.html.
Commission on Higher Education (2012): CMO No. 46: Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality
Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-
Based QA. http://www.ched.gov.ph/.
Commission on Higher Education (2014): Handbook on Typology, Outcomes-based
Education, and Institutional Sustainability Assessment. http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Handbook%20on%20Typology%20Outcomes.pdf.
Criticalthinking.org (2015): Defining Critical Thinking.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.
Dalberg–Acton, John Emerich Edward (1887): “Letter I”. Acton-Creighton Correspondence.
The Online Library of Liberty.
Department of Education (n.d.): Grade 1 to 10 Subjects. http://deped.gov.ph/k-to-
12/curriculum-guides/Grade-1-10.
Evangelista, Patricia and Curato, Nicole (2016): “The Rapture of Rodrigo Duterte”. Rappler.
http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/130266-rodrigo-duterte-rapture-
imagined-president.
Foley, J.A., Morris, D., Gounari, P., and Wilson, F.A. (2015): “Critical Education, Critical
Pedagogies, Marxist Education in the United States”. Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 110-144.
Freire Paulo (1998): trans. Patrick Clarke. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and
Civic Courage. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

301 | P a g e
Critical Thinking in Philippine Education: What We Have and What We Need

Freire, Paulo (2005): trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th
Anniversary Edition. New York and London: Continuum.
Giroux, Henry (1985): “Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals”. Social Education, Vol. 49,
No. 5, pp. 376-379.
Giroux, Henry (2004): “Cultural Studies, Public Pedagogy, and the Responsibility of
Intellectuals. Communication and Critical or Cultural Studies, Vol. 1, No 1, pp. 59-79.
Giroux, Henry (2011): eds. Shirley R. Steinberg and Ana Maria Araujo Freire. On Critical
Pedagogy. New York and London: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hooks, Bell (1994): Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New
York and Oxford: Routledge.
Killen, Roy (2000): Outcomes-Based Education: Principles and Possibilities. Unpublished
Manuscript, University of Newcastle, Faculty of Education.
Krathwohl, David (2002): “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview”. Theory into
Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4. Ohio: Ohio State University
Lai, Emily (2011): Critical Thinking: A Literature Review. Pearson.
http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf.
Lipman, Matthew (2003): Thinking in Education, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Macas, Trisha (2016): “Andanar compares Duterte to Jesus: Like the apostles, I obeyed”.
GMA News Online. http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/584058/news/nation/andanar-
compares-duterte-to-jesus-like-the-apostles-i-obeyed.
McLaren, P. (1998): Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education. New York: Longman.
Marquez, Leander (2014): “Belief as an Evaluative and Affective Attitude: Some
Implications on Religious Belief”. Social Science Diliman, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 28-52.
McLean, Monica (2006): Pedagogy and the University: Critical Theory and Practice. New
York: Continuum.
Munzenmaier, Cecelia and Rubin, Nancy (2013): “Bloom’s Taxonomy: What’s Old is New
Again”. Perspectives. California: The eLearning Guild.
Naiditch, Fernando (2010): “Critical Pedagogy and the Teaching of Reading for Social
Action”. Critical Questions in Education, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 94-107.
Stivers, T., Enfield, N.J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G.,
Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J.P., Yoon, K., and Levinson, S. (2009): “Universals and Cultural
Variation in Turn-taking in Conversation”. ed. Paul Kay. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 106, No. 26.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/26/10587.full.pdf.
Vittoria, Paolo (2014): “Dialogue in Critical Pedagogy: Generative Word as Counter-
Hegemonic Action”. International Journal of Educational Policies, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 103-
114.
Viola, Michael (2009): “The Filipinization of Critical Pedagogy: Widening the Scope of
Critical Educational Theory”. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1,
pp. 1-28.
Yong, Ed (2016): “The Incredible Things We Do During Conversations”. The Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/01/the-incredible-thing-we-do-during-

302 | P a g e
Leander P. Marquez

conversations/422439/.

Author Details
Leander P. Marquez is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy
of the University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines.
Contact: leandermarquez08@yahoo.com / lpmarquez@up.edu.ph.

i
I would like to thank Asst. Prof. Abigail Thea O. Canuto for her invaluable comments on the initial drafts of this
paper. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the reviewers for their very helpful insights.

303 | P a g e