1

Chapter 1

The Problem

The need to maintain a high level of competency in the field of every

profession has been a major concern of every educational and private sector.

Practically, all institution continuously searches to produce well-rounded

individuals who may be needed to man the various services in countries or

abroad. It is the mission of the Criminology program to provide the community

with professionally competent and morally upright graduates who can deliver

efficient and effective services in crime prevention, crime detection, and

investigation, law enforcement and custody and rehabilitation of offenders

among other. Thus, the academic institution is responsible in molding and

producing highly competitive graduates that is already equipped with scientific

knowledge and skills in addressing the future challenges in the field of promoting

peace and order which is the foundation of economic stability in the region and

country. The success of producing well-rounded and professionally competent

criminologists depends upon the quality and effectiveness of the academic

programs offered by the institution.

The academic program is the heart of a student college advance learning

experiences. This will utilize the student to possess a strong foundation on

theory, principles and acquire knowledge and skills in addressing the problem of

criminality in the country and the competence to meet the challenge and

demands in the rapidly changing and inter-disciplinary fields of criminal justice.

 2

Therefore, the academic program of institution should ensure quality learning’s to

ensure students achievement. As Criminology is a dynamic profession and a

multi-disciplinary science, students should be equipped with knowledge and skills

specifically that they will take licensure examination to become a licensed

criminologists to practice their profession. Assessing the effectiveness of the

academic program have driven us the researchers to conduct the study in order

to evaluate the current situation of the Criminology program of Professional

Academy of the Philippines.

Goodrum et al. (2005) state that, ideally, assessment “enhances learning,

provides about student progress, builds self-confidence and self-esteem and

develops skills in evaluation” (p.2). In addition, they argue that effective learning

occurs when correspondence exists between teaching, evaluation and results.

Therefore, due to its close relation with instruction and learning outcomes,

assessment has a key role in learning.

According to Capps and Lewis (2011), Assessment of Criminal Justice

Program and a move toward standard based education is beneficial. Program

Effectiveness Evaluation and Assessment exhibits a vital role in assessing the

competency, cost-effectiveness of the program as to determine whether the

designed objectives and institutional goals are attained. It is an important device

for improving, maintaining, enhancing, restructuring, or terminating programs. It

encompasses program's vision, curriculum, educational experience, program

outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

 3

Wang and Lumbs (2005) suggested that when program redesigned

courses, emphasis should be placed on a regular review of core courses, a

balance theory and practice, clear student learning objectives, flexible curricula to

meet the changes in the field and examination of duplication in courses.

Providing a balanced curriculum is very important in ensuring that criminal justice

programs are delivering qualified what they advertise. Payne, Blackwell & Collins

(2009) found that students with a high quality of criminal justice education were

more satisfied with their careers.

Showing accountability in terms of economic turbulence indicates that

academic programs are delivering qualified, knowledgeable, skillful, competent

and capable graduates is precisely a vital key to programmatic success (Bruns

and Bruns, 2007). Furthermore, Finckennauer (2005) stated that Criminal Justice

Education must follow in efforts to upgrade its reputation in the academic world

and to add to the professional outcomes of criminal justice policies and practice.

The researchers conducted this study in order to evaluate the current

situation of the Criminology Program of Professional Academy of the Philippines.

Currently, there are gaps and problems arising from the program of College of

Criminology in terms of its quality and effectiveness. There are professional

subjects prescribed by the Commission in Higher Education which are not

included in the prospectus of the College of Criminology and these are

Comparative Police System, Organized Crime Prevention and Fire Technology

and Arson Investigation. These professional subjects must be taught to the

students to enrich their competences. The curriculum of the courses must be

 4

aligned to the requirement set and prescribed by the Commission in Higher

Education. Furthermore, students taking up in the field of criminology must be

well taught and equip with the knowledge in order for them to be prepare and to

have a good foundation in taking the board examination. According to Romel K.

Manwong, difficulties in dealing with the board examination maybe reflection of

educational system and examinee have experienced. The factors affecting the

performance of the student in board examinations are: (1) the kind of faculty that

taught the students prior to their graduation (2) the methods of instruction and

strategies adopted in the classes. (3) The textbook and library available for

utilization and (4) the kind of students taking up the examination. In the past

three consecutive years, the performance ratings of the institution in criminology

board examination are subsequently below in average passing rate. In the recent

board examination held last December 2017, the overall performance rating of

the school is only 9.80%. The poor performance rating of the institution might

indicate that there is deficiency or problems in terms of quality and effectiveness

of the program. Thus the program needs an improvement and the strategies

applied should be enhanced and developed to produce a positive and excellent

program specific outcome.

Through this study the gaps and problems in terms of effectiveness of the

academic program of the College of Criminology can be addressed by evaluating

the current state of the program and providing opportunity for improvement and

promoting effective programs that would meet the demands and needs of student

in acquiring knowledge and competencies. This study will give insights on what
 5

changes could be done to improve the quality of the program to ensure lifelong

learning’s needed for holistic development of the graduates in globally

competitive graduate.

Furthermore the recommendation derived from this study can be a vital

basis in implementing changes and making improvement leading to the

development of the academic program of the College of Criminology.

Conceptual Framework

The Context-Input-Product-Process-Evaluation Model (CIPP), developed

in the 1960s purposely for educational evaluation (Stufflebeam, 1971), has been

described by Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007) as “a comprehensive framework

for conducting formative and summative evaluations of programs, projects,

personnel, products, organizations, and evaluation systems” (p. 325). The four

components of the CIPP model provide robust indicators for proactively

evaluating organizational health and success. The CIPP model is founded on an

overall definition of evaluation described as:

“The process of delineating, obtaining, reporting, and applying

descriptive and judgmental information about some object’s

merit, worth, significance, and probity in order to guide decision

making, support accountability, disseminate effective practices,

and increase understanding of the involved phenomena.

(Stufflebeam&Shinkfield, 2007, p. 326)“

 6

CIPP model basically provides a very systematic way of looking at many

different aspects of the curriculum development process. It was developed as a

means of linking evaluation with programme decision-making. It aims to provide

an analytic and rational basis for programme decision-making, base on cycle of

planning, structuring, implementing and reviewing and revising decisions, each

examined through a different aspect of evaluation –context, input, process and

product evaluation. The CIPP model is an attempt to make evaluation directly

relevant to the needs of decision-makers during the phases and activities of a

programme. Stufflebeam’s context, input, process, and product (CIPP) evaluation

model is recommended as a framework to systematically guide the conception,

design, implementation, and assessment of service-learning projects, and

provide feedback and judgment of the project’s effectiveness for continuous

improvement. The four aspects of CIPP Evaluation Model are context, input,

process and product evaluation.

The context evaluation is used to give a rational reason of a selected

program or curriculum to be implemented.Context can be evaluated on: the

program's objectives, policies that support the vision and mission of the

institution, the relevant environment, identification of needs, opportunities and

problems specific diagnosis. Input evaluation provides information about the

resources that can be used to achieve program objectives. Input Evaluation used

to find a problem solving strategy, planning, and design programs. Process

Evaluation serves to provide feedback to individuals to account for the activities

of the program or curriculum. The process evaluation is conducted by monitoring

 7

sources that can potentially cause failure, prepare preliminary information for

planning decisions, and explain the process that actually happened. Product

evaluation measure and interpret the achievement of goals. It assesses the

effectiveness of the program implemented. Evaluations of the products also

come to: the measurement of the impact of the expected and unexpected. The

evaluation is conducted: during and after the program. Stufflebeam and

Shinkfield suggest product evaluation conducted for the four aspects of

evaluation: impact, effectiveness, sustainability, and transportability. The decision

making process is done by comparing the findings / facts contained in context,

input, process and product standards or criteria that have been set previously.
 8

Diagram 1. Schematic Presentation of CIPP Model as applied to

Criminology Program

Context Vision, Mission, Goals

Evaluation and Objectives of
Criminology Program

Input
Evaluation Strategies of
Criminology Program

Implementation
Process
Evaluation Monitoring and
Feedback

Effectiveness
Product
of
Evaluation
Criminology Program
 9

The diagram presented shows the context, input, process and product

evaluation of the Criminology Program of Professional Academy of the

Philippines.

The Context Evaluation includes examining and determining the mission,

Vision, Goals and Objectives of the program of College of Criminology. Context

evaluation serves planning decisions by identifying unmet needs, unused

opportunities and underlying problems that prevent the meeting of needs or the

use of opportunities The mission of the College of Criminology of Professional

Academy of the Philippines is to produce competent Criminologists with scientific

knowledge and skills in the field of Law Enforcement and Criminalistics and be

fully committed to a sustainable community extension program and enrich with

research-oriented environment to ensure global excellence. Another part of

context evaluation is the Vision of the program. The College of Criminology

envisions of becoming a Center of Excellence that provides the most advanced

and innovative instructions to holistically develop and empower the students in

Criminal Justice System become academic, research and community service

oriented. Aside from the mission and vision, another important part of context

evaluation is the goals and objectives. The goals and objectives of the College of

Criminology are: develop students’ technical and scientific skills through research

and training pertaining to forensic science; apply the values of leadership,

integrity, accountability, responsibility and with courtesy while serving the

community; promote professionalism in the practice of criminology; initiate work

proficiency and creativity in community based services.

 10

Another significant part of CIPP Evaluation is the Input evaluation. The

input evaluation assesses alternative approaches such as plans and strategies of

the Criminology Program to meet the identified VGMO. This includes activities

such as description of inputs and resources. How the school has structured its

resources? Basically input evaluations are the plans and strategies that could be

implemented in the program to attain the desired goals and objectives. Input

evaluation helps prescribe a project to address the identified needs. It asks, “How

should it be done?” and identifies procedural designs and educational strategies

that will most likely achieve the desired results. Consequently, its main

orientation is to identify and assess current system capabilities, to search out and

critically examine potentially relevant approaches, and to recommend alternative

project strategies. The result of the input evaluation step is a project designed to

meet the identified needs. The success of a service learning project requires a

good project plan that, if implemented correctly, will benefit both service

providers (students) and service recipients (community members). Methods used

to execute an input evaluation include inventorying and analyzing available

human and material resources, proposed budgets and schedules, and

recommended solution strategies and procedural designs. Key input evaluation

criteria include a proposed plan’s relevance, feasibility, and superiority to other

approaches, cost, and projected cost-effectiveness.

Another significant part of CIPP Evaluation is the process evaluation.

Process evaluations assess the implementation of plans and strategies, the

monitoring of the program and gathering of the feedback. It includes how the
 11

school is running the programmes. Implementation is a crucial phase in which

the inputs are utilized in appropriate way to achieve the desired product. The

evaluators when assess school processes, they will gain information about what

is actually occurring in the school. It is in this phase that we can take

implementation decisions. The schools have various programmes and practices.

Each and every process in the school has to have a systematic approach. It may

be teaching learning process, organizing events like workshops for students,

parent teacher associations meetings, annual social program, sports meets, and

celebration days, organizing students’ co-curricular and extra-curricular activities,

preparing students for competitive and public examinations, for every process the

school has to have a systematic approach. In line with this, the College of

Criminology of Professional Academy of the Philippines has its own process of

evaluating the programs and these are implementation, monitoring and feedback.

The implementation of program is the first process of program evaluation. It

refers to how well a proposed program or intervention is put into practice and is

fundamental to establishing the internal, external, construct, and statistical

conclusion validity of outcome evaluations. The designed program should be

implemented and it must be followed up by monitoring. Monitoring is the

systematic process of collecting, analyzing and using information to track a

programme’s progress toward reaching its objectives and to guide management

decisions. The last process is feedback in which feedback mechanism is in-

placed for program refinement and revision.

 12

Another important part of CIPP Model is product evaluation in which it

determines and examines the general and specific outcome of the program. The

product evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the implemented program of

the College of Criminology. It will measure and interpret the achievement of

goals. Hayeslip (1989) in his review of the literature stated that law enforcement

officers with higher education have higher motivation, are better able to utilize

innovative techniques, display clearer thinking, have a better understanding of

the world of policing, and the necessity of education given the role of police.

Furthermore, the research studies conducted by Kingshott, et. al (A leadership

approach to criminal justice education: developing tomorrow’s decision makers)

discusses the significance of higher education in developing skills within the

specific context of criminal justice education. It proposes a developmental

continuum that begins with identifying the significance of higher education, in

particular liberal education, in preparing its graduates to make decisions both as

citizens (personal) and leaders (personal and societal). Those decisions will be

made in a diverse and complex world where increased globalization challenges

ethical and cultural perceptions that influence decision making. The continuum

for undergraduate and graduate is further developed along liberal education

lines, drawing best practice identified in other disciplines, with an educational

development that facilitates and enhances social responsibility and leadership in

general (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998).

The effectiveness of criminology program will equip the students to have a

strong foundation on theory, policies, practices and laws associated with criminal
 13

behavior and the methods applied to manage such deviant activities. Conversely,

Criminology is an emerging educational field that requires quality instruction to

provide pertinent and quality education.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to assess and evaluate the current situation of the

Criminology Program of the Professional Academy of the Philippines for the

academic year 2016-2017. Specifically this study shall answer the following

questions:

1.) What is the level of effectiveness on the academic program of the College

of Criminology of PAP?

a. Program content

b. Responsiveness to program objective

c. Program organization

d. Value – driven and orientation to ethical principles

e. Other Parameters

2.) How aligned is the current curriculum of the College of Criminology of

Professional Academy of the Philippines to the requirements set by the

Commission in Higher Education ?

3.) Based on the outcomes / findings of the study, what proposal shall be

recommended in order to improve the academic of College of

Criminology?
 14

Significance of the Study

Assessing the level of effectiveness of the existing academic programs of

Criminology Program will help in crafting recommendations that can develop and

improve the quality of the program. This study will provide benefits on different

person such the students, institutions, government and private organization and

etc. The following are the beneficiaries who can possibly benefit the study

undertaken:

Students.This study is very beneficial to the BS-Criminology students of

Professional Academy of the Philippines because all the changes that maybe

made for the improvement of the academic program of the College of

Criminology will help them to be globally competitive and be equipped with

scientific knowledge and skill in addressing the problem of criminality in the

country and the competence to meet the challenge of globalization in the field of

criminology. Furthermore, the students will have a strong foundation on theory,

policies, practices and laws upon taking the board examination and in the

practice of their profession.

Researchers.This is also beneficial to the researchers because it will

enhance the knowledge and understanding of researches based on the

evaluation conducted. Likewise, this will make them aware about the current

situation of the Criminology Program. This serves also as their guidelines for

professional and personal growth.

 15

Future Researchers. The result of this study can be used as a reliable

reference tool to the future researchers who would wish to conduct further

studies related to this. Through this study, they can gain additional knowledge,

information and could attain relevant idea for their future work and researchers.

This could serve as their guide for the furtherance of the study.

Criminology Department.This study is beneficial to the Criminology

Department because changes may be made within for the improvement of the

program. The department will be enlightened on what specific strategies could be

enhanced and develop in molding and producing a well-rounded and competent

criminologist. Through this study, they will be guided about the strength and

weaknesses of their programs and what should be done to produce a good

specific outcomes. This may serve as their reference guide if they plan to

conduct a study related to this.

Academic Institutions.This study is also useful to the academic

institution specifically the Professional Academy of the Philippines in seeking

further strategies to be implemented for the development of the academic

program of the College of Criminology. Likewise, this study may serve as a

reference guide in giving meaningful information that can be used as the basis

for improving educational programs. Furthermore, the study will provide insights

to the administrators regarding the level of effectiveness of the program and how

well the entire academic program is meeting its purpose. This study helps to

strengthen the programs and a vital basis in implementing changes and the
 16

restructuring of the academic programs to produce a globally competitive

criminology graduate.

Law Enforcement Agencies.This study is beneficial to the law

enforcement agencies because they will be provide with future law enforcers who

are knowledgeable, morally upright, professionally competent and capable to

meet the demands and challenges in the field of crime prevention, crime

detection, and investigation, law enforcement and custody and rehabilitation of

offenders.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study involved the BS-Criminology Students of Professional Academy

of the Philippines. The main purpose of the study is to assess and evaluate the

level of effectiveness of the existing academic program of the College of

Criminology in terms of program contents, responsiveness to program objectives,

program organization, values-driven and orientation to ethical principles and

other parameters, and the proposal that can be recommended to develop and

improve the equality and effectiveness of Criminology Program based on the

result of the students.

The researchers limited the study to two hundred seventy BS-Criminology

students of Professional Academy of the Philippines. Each of the respondents

was given a standard survey questionnaire used to evaluate the program of the

College of Criminology. The study was conducted during the second semester of

the academic year 2017-2018.

 17

Definition of Terms

The definition of terms serve as a glossary where the keywords used in

the study has been defined in its operational meaning in order to provide

comprehensive understanding about the study. It describes the terms on how

these are used in the undertaking. This is further developed to provide a better

elaboration of the words and phrases which are presented in the study for

thorough understanding and clarification.

Assessment

Assessment is a systematic approach to collecting, analyzing, and

reviewing data to improve learning. It tells how much students are learning and

what they’re learning it, and give it us insights into how we might refine our

programs to help them learn more. The best assessment activities supply as with

meaningful information that can be used as the basis for improving educational

programs (Astin, 1991). Assessment is not evaluation of individual faculty, staff,

or students; rather, it tells us how well the entire academic program is meeting its

purpose. Nor is assessment considered a simple record of course grades-

assessment occurs at the outcome or peogram level and is more longitudinal in

nature.

Context Evaluation

Context evaluation serves planning decisions by identifying unmet needs,

unused opportunities and underlying problems that prevent the meeting of needs

or the use of opportunities. This involves collecting and analyzing needs

 18

assessment data to determine goals, priorities and objectives of a

program.Evaluation “contexts” focus on environment which is the change will

occur and problems will appear. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify the

appropriate of the environment in order to achieve the mission and objective

program. According to Stufflebeam (2003), the objective of context evaluation is

to assess the overall environmental readiness of the project, examine whether

existing goals and priorities are attuned to needs, and assess whether proposed

objectives are sufficiently responsive to assessed needs.

Criminology Program

Criminology program aims to foster the values of leadership, integrity,

accountability and responsibility while serving fellowmen, community and the

country. The course is comprised of CHED mandated general education

subjects, profession-related courses and 2-phase practicum. Criminology

students will learn various theories, policies, practices and laws associated with

criminal behavior and the methods applied to manage such deviant

activities. The graduate of the this program should have developed the ability to

apply knowledge essential to the conduct of criminological research on crimes,

crime causation, victims, and offenders to include deviant behavior; skills

essential to the practice of crime detection and investigation and fields of

criminalistics, criminal law, evidence and procedure , law enforcement

administration and apply knowledge and skills in handling offenders’ welfare

and development for their re-integration to the community.

 19

Curriculum

The term curriculum refers to the lessons and academic content taught in

a school or in a specific course or program. In dictionaries, curriculum is often

defined as the courses offered by a school, but it is rarely used in such a general

sense in schools. Depending on how broadly educators define or employ the

term, curriculum typically refers to the knowledge and skills students are

expected to learn, which includes the learning standards or learning

objectives they are expected to meet; the units and lessons that teachers teach;

the assignments and projects given to students; the books, materials, videos,

presentations, and readings used in a course; and the tests, assessments, and

other methods used to evaluate student learning. An individual teacher’s

curriculum, for example, would be the specific learning standards, lessons,

assignments, and materials used to organize and teach a particular course.

Input Evaluation

Input evaluation serves structuring decisions by projecting and analyzing

alternative procedural designs. This involves the steps and resources needed to

meet the new goals and objectives and might include identifying successful

external programs and materials as well as gathering information. It answers the

question “How should we do it? It focused on the source involved in helping the

achievement of programme goal and objective. This was necessary information

known from time to time to control programme implementation. Evaluation inputs

used to find a problem solving strategy, planning, and design programs. In

 20

evaluation of input, the evaluators pay attention to the evaluation of all resources

allocated for the meeting of the targeted needs and achieving the targets.

Program-based alternative approaches, procedural plans, staffing terms and

conditions, budget and cost effectiveness may be considered in this scope

(Stufflebeam, 2014)

Effectiveness

Effectiveness is the capability of producing a desired result or the ability to

produce desired output. When something is deemed effective, it means it has an

intended or expected outcome, or produces a deep, vivid impression.

Quality

The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar

kind; the degree of excellence of something (en.oxforddictionaries.com). CHED

defines quality as the alignment and consistency of the learning environment with

the institutions vision, mission, and goals demonstrated by exceptional learning

and service outcomes and the development of a culture of quality.

Process Evaluation

Process evaluation serves implementing decisions by monitoring project

operations. Assessment “process" focused on process used to attainment of

the objectives and goal of the program. In process evaluations, the evaluators

monitor, document, study and report on the application of program plans. These

evaluators make feedbacks in the implementation process of a program, and

 21

upon completion of the program, report on the continuation of the program as

targeted and required (Stufflebeam, 2014). And in the process evaluation

dimension of an instructional design, the process management by the instructor;

the activities; and the used instructional methods and techniques may be

examined.

Product evaluation

Product evaluation serves recycling decisions by determining the degree

to which objectives have been achieved and by determining the cause of the

obtained results. The product evaluation at the end of the program serves as

determination and review of all the program achievements. The key questions of

the product evaluation are as follows: Has the program achieved targets? Have it

handled the targeted needs and problems successfully? What are the side

effects of the program? Were there also positive results in parallel to the negative

results? Are the achievements of the program worth the expenses? (Stufflebeam,

2014).

Program Evaluation

Program evaluation is a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and

using information to answer basic questions about a program. It is a valuable tool

for program managers who are seeking to strengthen the quality of their

programs and improve outcomes for the children and youth they serve. Program

evaluation answers basic questions about a program’s effectiveness, and

evaluation data can be used to improve program services. A program evaluation

 22

can find out “what works” and “what does not work.” It can showcase the

effectiveness of a program to the community and to funders, improve staff’s

frontline practice with participants, increase a program’s capacity to conduct a

critical self assessment and plan for the future and can build knowledge for the

out-of-school time field.

 23

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Related Literature

Assessment, defined as “a systematic process for gathering data

about student achievement,” is an essential component of teaching (Dhindsa,

Omar, &Waldrip, 2007, p. 1261). As Struyven, Dochy, and Janssens (2005)

argue, the impact of assessment is significantly observable on students’

performance. The way students approach learning determines the way they think

about classroom assignments and tests (Struyven et al., 2005). Recent studies

advocate for including students in the process of developing assessment tools

because, as Falchikove (2004) states, student involvement in peer assessment

adds more value to the learning process. Dhindsa, Omar, and Waldrip (2007)

note that examining student’ perceptions of assessment, stimulates students to

develop an authentic and realistic assessment approach that “rewards genuine

effort and in depth learning rather than measuring luck” (p. 1262). Thus, in order

to support this concept, studies suggest that students should be held responsible

for their learning, for the sake of this study, including their perceptions of

assessment seems to hold promise.

Banta, Griffin, Flateby& Kahn (2009) on their research stated that one of

the important challenges for universities and academic institutions today is their

continuation as the backbone of the society, providing the knowledge and

educating young people for addressing complex global challenges. Evaluating

 24

student learning and academic programs is rapidly taking center stage as the

principal gauge of higher education’s effectiveness. This demand has led to the

recognition that commitment to teaching and learning must include assessment

and documenting what and how much students are learning and also use such

information to improve the educational experiences being offered. A good college

education is not only a springboard to opportunity, but also a prerequisite for the

young generation to survive and thrive in the twenty first century.

Michael Scriven (1967) proposes the use of “formative and summative”

assessment in order to make the distinction between the roles of evaluation.

Hence, assessment is perceived to serve two different purposes:1) informative,

to improve instruction, and, 2) summative to measure students’ achievement

(Scriven, 1967, p. 41). The use of assessment to classify, predict, and sort has

also changed to advance the process of teaching and learning in addition to

accountability purposes (Gordon, 2008, p. 2).

According to Cavangah, Waldrip, Romanoski, and Dorman (2005),

although teachers and administrators typically select assessment forms and

tasks, the purpose of assessment varies among various stakeholders, including

students, teachers, parents, schools, and policy makers.

The importance of assessment in higher education has been a well

documented movement over the last several years (Krahn&Silzer, 1995; Liu,

2009). Assessment and the importance of accountability have been recognized

as such an important priority that the Commission on the Future of Higher

Education was established in 2005 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

 25

Programs are required to provide evidence of quality and effectiveness based on

program outcome assessment (ACJS, 2011).

Assessment of Criminal Justice Programs

According to Capps and Lewis (2011), assessment of Criminal Justice

Programs and a move toward standard based education is beneficial. First,

assessing criminal justice programs provides evidence about student

achievement and the needs of students. Next, periodic assessment allows faculty

to evaluate their program and determine if changes need to be made in the

future. Lastly, assessment of criminal justice programs in conjunction with

external study results and faculty feedbacks can lead to positive program

changes.

Bloom (1969) asserts that when assessment is aligned with the process of

teaching and learning, it will have "a positive effect on students’ learning and their

motivation" (cited in Wiliam, 2008, p. 58). Assessment in general accounts for

"supporting learning (formative), certifying the achievement or potential of

individuals (summative), and evaluating the quality of educational institutions or

programs (evaluative)" (Wiliam, 2008, p. 59). Black and Wiliam (2004) put more

emphasis on the use of assessment to support learning; however, they also

assessments for learning which describes the process, assessment as a support

for learning, compared to assessment of learning that describes the nature of

assessment or the product(Wiliam& Black 1998; Wiliam& Thompson, 2008).

Similarly, other researchers agree that thecore features that characterize

 26

formative assessment are that it impacts the quality of teachingand learning, and

it engages students in self-directed learning environment (Chappuis&Stiggins,

2004).

Carmen, Butler and Odo (2006) stated that resources regarding the

practice of assessment are plentiful. However, many programs across the

country are unprepared or under-prepared to enter this new era of measuring

student learning and better evaluation. Criminal justice programs are not

exceptions to this trend.

Berg and Bing (1990) brought attention to promoting heterogeneity among

students and faculty in efforts to embrace tolerance and diversity as they pertain

to working in the criminal justice field.

Mijures and Blackburn (1990) also point out that attempts should be

sought in increasing heterogeneity of programs, and in promoting

multiculturalism.

The scholarly literature pertaining to assessments of criminal justice

education is sparse (Tontodonato, 2006).

Kleck, Wang and Tark (2007) addressed key barriers regarding

assessment, which pertain to the quality of criminal justice programs and noted

an absence of uniformity and agreement on standards in the criminal justice

discipline. Without uniformity and agreement upon such standards, difficulty lies

in assessing what appropriate outcomes of criminal justice education should

entail. As not all criminal justice programs are created equally, assessment
 27

practices need to be unique to each campus; one assessment plan does not fit

all programs. However, one of the first questions needing exploration is what

should criminal justice students be learning and how can their learning be

improved?

The assessment process begins by reviewing the evolution of

departments or programs and by re-evaluating mission statements and revising,

planning, altering, and clarifying goals and outcomes.

Palomba and Banta (1999) identified six components needed in every

assessment plan: 1.) developing learning objectives and goals, and; 2.) being

careful and thoughtful in designing and implementing the plan, and; 3.) involving

faculty, administrators, students, alumni, as well as others off-campus, such as

employers in the community, and; 4.) selecting and designing data collection

approaches, and; 5.) utilize findings of the assessment by acting upon them, and;

6.) reviewing and re-examining the process

Jedamus et al., (1980) further identified additional questions that program

assessments in higher education should seek to answer. Answers to the

following questions depend on the effectiveness of academic program

evaluations:

1. How can the quality of instructional programs be maintained?

2. How can programs be sensitive to the needs of students, society

and scholarship?

3. What fixed resources must be available if a program is to be offered

and its quality maintained?

 28

4. How can access for a variety of heterogeneous students be

maintained despite the pressures to increase tuition?

Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs

In order for evaluations to be effective, they first must be supported by a

commitment by top administrators and faculty leaders. This will help establish

critical organizational support. “Institutional policy and procedures should

integrate evaluation activity and results into decision-making processes for

academic program planning and resource allocation” (Jedamus, Peterson, and

Associates, 1980, p. 454). As faculty become more acquainted with the

assessment process, they soon realize that former methods used to assess

quality of academic programs, including peer evaluations, program reputation,

and measures of faculty productivity are not adequate measures or indicators of

student learning. Furthermore, course grades are insufficient measures of

learning in themselves. Accordingly, the new era of accountability calls for much

more (Bufkin, 2004).

Students must have the opportunity to practice the knowledge, skills,

attitudes, and behaviors they are expected to learn, apply, analyze, evaluate or

create” (Limbach& Waugh, 2001, p. 5). Providing a balanced curriculum is very

important in ensuring that criminal justice programs are offering what they

advertise. Students select criminal justice as a major because they find the

subject matter interesting and relevant to “the real world” (Krimmel&Tartaro,

1999; Gabbidon, Penn, & Richards, 2003). Payne, Blackwell & Collins (2009)
 29

found that students with a high quality of criminal justice education were more

satisfied with their careers.

Bates (2003) points out that placing students in the professional field and

giving them actual work experience creates a number of benefits, including “the

correction of misconceptions about workplace ‘reality,’ new skills, time

management, the development of self-confidence, and an increased awareness

of career options” (305). Ross and Elechi point out that criminal justice

internships afford the opportunity for students to “acquire valuable and

specialized skills, become acquainted with particular criminal justice agencies,

and…close the gap between theory and practice” (298).

Myers and Myers (2002) recognized that many criminal justice programs

were not directing adequate attention to or exposing students to coursework

pertaining to the investigation of high technology crimes. Offering a responsive

curriculum might include additional courses in computer technology, white-collar

crimes, and financial accounting in order that financial crimes can be better

understood. The effects of having such courses can increase a student’s

marketability upon graduation. Furthermore, in a world where white-collar crime

is encompassing and threatening, students who are trained in the areas of

financial accounting can better understand the ever-changing financial aspects of

crime. Students that are familiar with the examination of income statements,

balance sheets and statements of cash flows will have the skills to better

understand how to identify and combat those crimes such as embezzlement,

fraud and securities violations.

 30

Myers (1994) called for joint efforts with criminal justice programs and

local agencies, where students can learn about such agencies and agencies can

benefit from the program via knowledge gained from the academics and through

internship/career placements.

Tontodonato (2006) contended that additional measures are incorporated

to include student satisfaction constructs into assessment plans, thereby yielding

critical programmatic information regarding student attitudes and/or expectations

concerning respective programs.

Ward and Webb (1984) looked at the efforts to improve quality in criminal

justice education. The study called for potential accreditation, funding for

resources and setting minimum standards.

Eastep& Wolf (2010) in their study stated that equilibrium between

academic grounding and career preparation is tenuous. What seems increasingly

clear is that the gap between the community and the academic programming can

be effectively bridged through judicious use of the assessment process. It is in

the best interest of criminal justice academic programs to engage the community

in which their graduates hope to assume positions. The reciprocity that begins

with open dialogue can affirm partnerships that may lead to enhanced

employability for students.

Peace (2006) indicate that the key to success is clear objectives, the

identification of core curriculum content and the adaptation of an appropriate

 31

method to facilitate the transition from a law enforcement focus to a community

focus.

Finckenauer (2005) traces the realities associated with the overlap of

training and education in the criminal justice field, and how the evolution of the

field has created new professions within the discipline. Furthermore, the

discipline must adapt its curriculum to incorporate global and national priorities to

retain quality.

Proctor (2006) cited a number of changes in criminal justice education that

have helped to improve the reputation of these programs.

Southerland (2002) stressed the importance of having a well-rounded

program, which should include the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems,

criminology, law enforcement, corrections, courts and the law, and research and

statistics.

Current literature on assessment and instruction view assessment as a

longitudinal process that occurs during instruction and supports lifelong learning.

According to Dochy (1997), the concept of lifelong learning arose from the

business and industry sector, when people began arguing that the labor force

needed to be adaptable to “new technology and acquire new skills throughout

their working lives” (p. 3). Birenbaum (1996) makes a distinction between testing

and assessment, in which testing measures achievements, mainly cognitive skills

such as memorizing factual-information, and is considered separate from

instruction. However,the new paradigm of assessment offers an alternative for

 32

testing culture which is “characterized by so called objective, such as

standardized tests that focused on atomized bits of knowledge at the expense of

more complex, higher-order knowledge and skills”, assessment an integrated

part of instruction (Gulikers, Bastiaens, Kirshner&Kester, 2006, p. 382; Dochy,

1997).

Assessment is no longer exclusively in the hands of program

administrators, as faculty members are increasingly now responsible for and

accountable in taking part in evaluation efforts (Palomba and Banta, 1999).

Legislative mandates for accountability and financial crises have directed

administrators to attempt to include faculty in institutional decision-making (Miller,

McCormack, Maddox, and Seagren, 1996). Regarding assessment, faculty

participation is essential.

Educators need to examine programmatic and operational goals to

determine if alterations are considered necessary in their quests to ensure that

programs are deemed intellectually challenging and promote critical thinking. In

addition, there is a need to expand a multi-cultural understanding of their

environment and assist students in becoming informed, responsible citizens, so

they can adequately prepare to excel in future careers. Furthermore, terms such

as the appropriateness of curriculum, inputs, outcomes, outputs, direct and

indirect measures are becoming commonplace in higher educational

environments.

Programs need to evaluate whether students will demonstrate mastery of

program material and a comprehensive knowledge of the criminal justice field. In

 33

a criminological theory class, an objective/outcome could be that students will

comprehend the predominant theories related to the causation of crime.

Furthermore, Evaluations yield current assessments of strengths and

weaknesses of academic programs and determine needs, potentials and

opportunities for each program. Academic program reviews (evaluations) are

inclusive reviews of academic programs typically conducted every five to ten

years and are important devices for improving, maintaining, enhancing,

restructuring, or terminating programs. Evaluations encompass a program’s

vision, curriculum, educational experience, student enrollment and program

outcomes, cost effectiveness, and faculty contributions. The overall goal of

effective evaluations in higher education is to improve academic programs.

 34

Related Studies

Eastep and Wolf (2010) on their study "Toward Enhanced Criminal Justice

Employability; Linking Internships, Curriculum Content and

Assessment"addresses institutional efforts at the University of Central Florida

(UCF) to involve criminal justice program alumni and internship community

partners in curriculum assessment. This cooperative model was formulated to

better understand how expectations and outcomes relate to program

improvement with an eye toward ultimately increasing graduates’ chances at

success in employment. It utilizes focus group and survey methodology as

means to ascertain curriculum concerns, expectations, and satisfaction. Both

qualitative and quantitative measures are used.

This study was developed to review and assess the internship program at

the University of Central Florida as part of the larger program assessment effort.

The study began with the creation of a focus group of professionals in the

criminal justice field from both private and public agencies. This focus group

answered questions related to curriculum and internship programs, and then

assisted in the development of a survey instrument that was sent out to two

groups, agency representatives that utilized interns from the university, and

alumni of the criminal justice program (whether or not they had served as interns

in their academic program). The current research explores the results of this

focus group interaction and the survey findings, challenging the assumption that

completing an internship makes a student more employable. This study also

attempted to gain some insight as to whether specific identifiable factors might be

 35

responsible for interns being selected or rejected for hire into full-time

positions.The researchers used this multifaceted approach to collect both

qualitative and quantitative data. Although the primary purpose of this research

was to gather specific, in-depth information on student interns and their

employability, the use of the focus group generated additional questions related

to the criminal justice curriculum. Thus, the scope of the study broadened as the

community partners’ interests in curriculum matters were taken into

consideration.

The study concluded that both community partners and program alumni,

as stakeholders in the UCF Criminal Justice program, had various ideas about

curricular issues that might contribute to the educational integrity of the

graduating seniors, but there was little agreement in terms of the degree to which

a positive internship experience might enhance employment opportunities. From

the quantitative data, it appears students who completed internships had a

slightly greater chance for employment in a criminal justice agency or

organization. In terms of program improvement, data from this study were used

in program evaluation efforts. An ongoing assessment process requires constant

program review and this data provides significant insight into both the direction of

programming and specific course additions. A risk of focusing on deficiencies

with alumni was that the responses would lean toward the negative. However the

risk was balanced by the liberating effect of allowing alumni to provide their most

candid retrospective interpretation of courses and program experiences. Future

research should include the expansion of these survey questions to other

 36

institutions to determine the generality of findings. While this study specifically

aimed to determine the employability of criminal justice interns after graduation,

future longitudinal studies of students examining their service as interns may

triangulate the data. The equilibrium between academic grounding and career

preparation is tenuous. What seems increasingly clear is that the gap between

the community and the academic programming can be effectively bridged

through judicious use of the assessment process. It is in the best interest of

criminal justice academic programs to engage the community in which their

graduates hope to assume positions. The reciprocity that begins with open

dialogue can affirm partnerships that may lead to enhanced employability for

students.

Moriarty (2006) conducted a national study of assessment in criminal

justice programs. She asked criminal justice program chairpersons from a

random sample of 369 two- and four-year colleges to respond to a web-based

survey about their program’s assessment activities. Before being selected for

participation, programs were vetted to ensure that they offered degrees in

criminal justice and that the program was not considered a “diploma mill”. One

hundred, sixty-two faculty members, each representing one college, responded

to the request yielding a 44% response rate. Slightly over half (53%) of the

programs have implemented a set of learning objectives, and 52% have

identified and implemented an assessment instrument. Those who reported their

department’s involvement in assessment activities indicated that this work began

between 1980 and 2005, with most programs initiating this process during 2000
 37

or later. This is to be expected since assessment and the use of performance

indicators in education became popular during the past decade. Moriarty (2006)

found that the most popular assessment measure among the respondents was

the use of student grades in coursework, with 80% using grades for assessment

purposes. The next most frequently used measure was student surveys, with

79% of responding departments administering instruments to students. Grades

are certainly important and are the most traditional measure of student

performance. They are not, however, always an ideal measure for assessment.

Moriarty noted that grades “may be a good measure of familiarity with major

theories and analytical approaches, but when grades are used as an assessment

tool, we are often left to ponder just what the students did not understand. When

a student receives a “B” in a theory class, exactly which theories or theorist or

paradigms or schools of thought is the student having difficulty mastering” (2006,

p. 424).

Moriarty (2006) identified the ideal plan to assess student learning as

containing the following components: development of a set of learning objectives,

creation and implementation of assessment instruments, regular data collection

and analysis, and the implementation of changes based on the results of the

analysis. Without these characteristics, any assessment plan will be a short-lived

venture void of value and lacking tangible results. In order to achieve an

assessment plan which can be easily maintained and produce a bounty of

information, a program must have faculty members who buy into the importance

of assessment of student learning. Faculty, however, must also be supported by

 38

the administration in two keys ways. First, administrators must agree to let faculty

members own the results and, second, they must provide administrative/data

entry support for the ventures. Without both faculty and administrative support,

assessment activities may not be successful.

Bower (2005) on her study "Developing Research and Thinking Skills

through Active Learning and Assessment in Undergraduate Criminology

Core"concluded and implicated that the scaffolding of student learning within

courses and the program curriculum implies the need to connect course content

in a way that enables students to build upon prior knowledge and internalize new

concepts and skills, and develop autonomous learning strategies as they

advance through the program curriculum. In turn, this places considerable

emphasis on the value of collaboration among program faculty. In situations such

as ours, where a single faculty member is teaching multiple courses identified as

crucial locations for practice and assessment, it is still important to collaborate

with other faculty in the design of their courses to support student learning and

promote the development of autonomous learning strategies. Learning

opportunities that serve to reinforce or advance knowledge and skills taught in

preceding courses should be deliberately woven into the curriculum.

Furthermore, she implicates that plan for assessing the effectiveness of the

academic program involves the use of direct and indirect evidence. Given the

modifications made to the program curriculum, investigating the relationship

between these modifications and students’ self-reports on experiences related to

active learning, higher order learning, level of academic challenge, and the use of
 39

technology in their learning may yield information useful for further refinement the

academic program.

Bruns and Bruns (2009) on their study “Decoding the complexities of

assessment strategies in criminal justice education” concluded that there is no

single approach to program assessment. Many different approaches have been

evolving in higher education over the past several decades. This is driven

externally by demands for accountability and internally by pressures for resource

allocation and the need to maintain program quality. Further exploration is also

vitally needed to determine what a ‘quality’ program actually entails. The process

of assessment and devising learning outcomes that are truly meaningful is now

permanently ingrained in the realm of higher education. Assessing learning

outcomes and programmatic goals is not voluntary, but is becoming mandated as

a standard and an on-going practice. Gathering appropriate assessment data is

challenging, on-going and time consuming.

Furthermore, a thorough and careful comprehension of assessment is

vital to its success, as assessment results should detail where and how program

improvement can be made. Academic rigor should be addressed. First and

foremost, those involved in assessment practices must become comfortable with

common assessment language and terminology and be willing to begin the

process. While there currently is no single focus, agreement or theory on how to

conduct a program evaluation, faculty must embrace the process and find

measures that will best fit their respective program in determining whether

students are meeting learning objectives. Demonstrating that measurable

 40

outcomes are indeed showing that programmatic or institutional goals are being

met is paramount. Utilizing student grades, as established earlier, will not suffice.

The utilization of direct measures is important and incorporating creative and

usable indirect measures will add greater value to all stakeholders. Those

measurements must be defined and implemented to provide solid results to

provide evidence that programmatic goals are being attained. Assessment need

not be a dreaded faculty activity, but one in which we deliver results

demonstrating that our students are learning that which we intend for them to

learn, thereby allowing them to market themselves to attain and achieve their

desired career goals. That in turn, will reflect back to the academic program and

will lead to higher retention rates and overall interest in the program or institution.

Carlan (2007) found in his study at Alabama Police Department that

college-educated police officers (with criminal justice degrees) have greatly

enhanced their understanding of law and the criminal justice system. In addition,

a significant number of police officers indicated that their education provided

them at least some improvement in communication skills, critical thinking skills,

administration skills, human relations skills, and patrol and investigation

procedures. Furthermore, the higher the college degree, the more value the

officer placed on his/her education. Criminal Justice programs are not offered,

nor do they function, in a vacuum. The important work of educating

undergraduate students to assume positions in the tricky business of public

policy implementation involves exposing both the students and the academic

programs to the community. Service-learning, internships, advisory board

 41

participation, and community-based research projects are some ways criminal

justice programs interface with community partners

 42

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

This chapter deals with the research methods, environment, respondents,

instruments, procedures and the descriptive evaluation of data. This chapter

discusses details of strategies and approaches used in answering the research

problems.

Research Design

The study used quantitative-descriptive method of research. According to

the University of Southern California (2016), quantitative studies emphasize

objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis

of data collected through questionnaires, and surveys. In quantitative study, it is

common to use tables, graphs, and other non-textual elements to help the reader

understand the data.

University of Minnesota (2015) stated that descriptive studies describe the

characteristics of a population or phenomenon being studied. It does not answer

questions about how/when/why the characteristics occurred. Rather it addresses

the “what” question to the situation being studied. Descriptive studies primarily

concerned with finding out “what is” might be applied to investigate the questions

stated in the statement of the purpose of this study.

 43

Location/Locale

The study will be conducted in the College of Criminology of Professional

Academy of the Philippines which is located in South Poblacion, City of Naga,

Cebu. The researchers provided a location map that can be seen below (figure

1).

Figure 1.Location Map of Professional Academy of the Philippines

 44

Respondents

The respondents of the study are the BS-Criminology Students of

Professional Academy of the Philippines. There are two hundred seventy

criminology students who are enrolled in this academic year 2017-2018. The two

hundred seventy students will be answering the standard questionnaires. The

information they could contribute will be helpful in the study.

Tools

The researchers use standard survey questionnaires. The standard

survey questionnaire was derived from the Commission on Higher Education for

evaluating a program which will be utilized for the gathering of data needed in

assessing the effectiveness of the criminology program.

The standard survey questionnaire has two parts. The first part of the

survey questionnaire will be the evaluation on the effectiveness of criminology

program wherein its has five areas which includes program content,

responsiveness to program objectives, program organization, values-driven and

orientation to ethical principles and other parameters. The questionnaire used the

4-Point Likert Scale that has corresponding equivalent. 4 is for very good, 3 for

good, 2 for fair and 1 for poor. This standard questionnaire is based on the

existing Criminology programs such as the effectiveness of the program towards

with the vision, mission and goal of the institution and the effectiveness of the

program on implementation.
 45

The second part of the survey questionnaire will determine how align is

the current curriculum of the BS-Criminology of Professional Academy of the

Philippines to the requirements set by Commission on Higher Education. The

questions will be answered by the fourth year criminology students. This is to

secure an accurate and exact answers and findings.

Reliability and Validity

To assess the validity and reliability of the standard questionnaire, it must

be shown to the adviser or coordinator of the criminology program for validation.

The purpose of this is to confirm the standard questionnaire to be accurate and

clear out whatever vagueness in the questionnaire were made. Since this

questionnaire follows the CHED requirements in addition to being the standard

questionnaire used in program evaluation by the department, there is no need to

conduct mock evaluation as this has been proven to be valid and reliable.

Data Gathering Procedure

Data gathering procedure began by asking permission from the

coordinator/ assistant dean of the College of Criminology to conduct a study on

the assessment of effectiveness of the criminology program. Then after securing

the permission, the researchers will prepare survey questionnaires. The reliability

of the questionnaires will be checked and validated. After it has been checked

and validated, the questionnaires will be distributed to the two hundred seventy

respondents to answer it for 10-15 minutes after which the questionnaires will be

collected by the researchers. The results of the questionnaires will be tabulated,

 46

analyzed and interpreted to come up with findings, possible recommendations

and conclusion.

Data Analysis

The result of the survey will be treated following the CIPP evaluation

model. In order to give data analysis of the study, the responses will be subjected

to the use of getting the weighted average mean and will be presented in matrix

presentation. Weighted average mean – is similar to an ordinary arithmetic mean

(the most common type of average), except that instead of each of the data

points contributing equally to the final average, some data points contribute more

than others. The notion of weighted mean plays a role in descriptive statistics

and also occurs in a more general form in several other areas of mathematics. If

all weights are equal, then the weighted mean is the same as the arithmetic

mean. Weighted mean is a kind of average. Instead of each data point

contributing equally to the final mean, some data points contribute more “weight”

than others.The weighted average formula is used to calculate the average value

of a particular set of numbers with different levels of relevance. The relevance of

each number is called its weight. The weights should be represented as a

percentage of the total relevancy. The most common formula used to determine

an average is the arithmetic mean formula. This formula adds all of the numbers

and divides by the amount of numbers.

 47

The formula used by the researchers:

The Table 1 on the next page will illustrate the 4-Point Likert Scale and

interpretation into corresponding value judgment. The basis of the value

judgment is the level of effectiveness in the financial management program.

Table 1: The Standard Questionnaire’s corresponding Value Judgment for

Level of Effectiveness in the Criminology Program

Scale Descriptive Evaluation Value Judgment

1 point Poor Ineffective

2 points Fair Needs Improvement

3 points Good Average

4 points Very Good Effective

Flow of the Research Process

The input of research flow of the study is the statement of the purpose.

The question pertains to the assessment of effectiveness Criminology program of

and what proposal can be recommended. The statement of the purpose are: (1)

What is the level of effectiveness on the academic program of the College of

Criminology of Professional Academy of the Philippines in terms of: (1.1)

 48

Program Content, (1.2) Responsiveness to program objectives, (1.3) Program

Organization, (1.4) Values-Driven, and Orientation to Ethical Principles, and (1.5)

Other Parameters; (2) How aligned is the current curriculum of BS-Criminology of

Professional Academy of the Philippines; and (3) what proposal shall be

recommended in order to improve the academic program of College of

Criminology.

The process of the research flow includes the usage of standard

questionnaires, the checking of the reliability, the distribution of the

questionnaires to the respondents, the tabulation of the results of the

questionnaires and the analysis and presentation of the data.

The output of this study will be the revised curriculum of the Criminology

program by adding major board subjects on the prospectus prescribed by the

Commission on Higher Education.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical Considerations can be specified as one of the most important parts

of the research. Dissertations may even be doomed to failure if this part is

missing.

As the researchers have gathered data in our research, the researchers

have recognized that there are some ethical considerations to observe and to

comply:
 49

I. Informed consent

Informed consent means that the person participating in the evaluation

process is fully informed about the evaluation being conducted. Participants

need to be made aware of the purpose of the project, who or what group is

funding it, how the findings will be used, if there are any potential adverse

impacts of their participation and who will have access to the findings. The

main purpose of informed consent is that the participant is able to make an

informed decision as to whether they will participate in the assessment or not.

Additional information should also be provided in the event that the participant

becomes distressed in any way during their participation.

II. Voluntary participation

Voluntary participation means that people participate in the evaluation

free from coercion. Participants are free to withdraw their participation at any

time without negatively impacting on their involvement in future services or

the current program and relationships with any of the researchers or research

bodies involved. It can be challenging to encourage high risk youth to become

engaged in a program and it is therefore difficult when participants choose not

to continue in a program. It is the right of participants to leave a program of

this nature at any time; therefore no pressure should be placed on those who

choose not to continue. Explanations are also not required.

III. Confidentiality

Confidentiality means that any identifying information is not made

available to or accessed by anyone but the program

 50

coordinator. Confidentiality also ensures such identifying information is

excluded from any reports or published documents. Given that there are often

small numbers in peer based programs, it is very important to consider how

reports are worded to ensure that there is no opportunity for people to be

identified even though names are not used.

IV. Anonymity

Anonymity is a stricter form of privacy than confidentiality, as the identity

of the participant remains unknown to the research team. This is more difficult to

achieve than confidentiality as participants in the context of social research are

usually known to the program coordinator.

V. Debriefing and Communications

In keeping the study to be informative and accurate, the researchers will

do a briefing to the respondents for them to answer the questionnaire in all

honesty and without reservations and to understand the nature of the research

undertaking open for comments and feedbacks. The researchers will have some

exchange information from the expert of the study for the researchers to make it

precise.

VI. Only assess relevant components

Only assess those components that are of relevance to the

program/initiative being conducted. High risk populations are sometimes

being used as guinea pigs or a captive audience to ask all sorts of questions

in evaluations that are of interest to groups conducting the program/initiative

but not relevant to the program nor will be to the group who are involved in
 51

the program. It is important to keep evaluations as simple as possible and to

remain focused on the intention of the evaluation and what the data gathered

will be used for.

 52

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the responses of the respondents about their

evaluation on the Criminology Program as well as the researchers’ analysis of

their responses guided by different other supportive information. The data that

we had gathered were analyzed and interpreted carefully and presented in the

preceding pages of this chapter.

Program Content

The first part of the study deals with the program content of the

Criminology Program. The bases of the program content are the subjects found

in the prospectus and syllabus of the said program which contain different topics

to be delivered with quality learning outcomes.

 53

Table 1: Program Content

RATING Total # of Total Average

PROGRAM CONTENT
Respondents Score Rate

4 3 2 1

1. Responsiveness of the
needs of community, 58 113 81 18 270 751 2.78 %
government or country.
2. Alignment to the national
goal of training a
sustainable economic 64 112 84 10 270 770 2.85%
development.
3. Relevance to the need for
the community
improvement. 82 102 67 19 270 787 2.91%

4. Responsiveness to the
need for global
competitiveness. 63 94 95 18 270 742 2.75%

5. Responsiveness to the
needs for employment
opportunities among 60 101 89 20 270 741 2.74%
graduates.
6. Transmission concepts
necessary for work mastery.
54 97 107 12 270 733 2.71%

7. Transmission of
knowledge and skills
needed for job 60 90 99 21 270 729 2.70%
competencies.
TOTAL 19.44%

FACTOR AVERAGE 2.78%

Table 1 presents the numerical results on the program content. The table

above shows that there are 113 criminology students who give a rating of 3 for
 54

the effectiveness of criminology program in terms of the responsiveness to the

needs of community, government or country while 81 criminology students give a

rating of 3 then 58 criminology students rate 4 and only 18 criminology students

rate 1 and the total score and corresponding average rate are 751 and 2.78. With

regards to the alignment to the national goal of attaining a sustainable economic

development, the highest number of criminology students which is 112 give a

rating of 3 followed by 84 criminology students who gives a rating of 2 then 64

criminology students rate 4 and only 10 criminology students gives a rating 1 with

a total score of 770 and corresponding average rate of 2.85. In terms of

relevance to the need for the community improvement, 102 criminology students

give a rating of 3, 82 criminology students give a rating of 4 while 67 criminology

students gives a rating of 2, and 19 criminology students give a rating of 1, the

total score is 787 and 2.91 is the average rate. When it comes to

responsiveness to the need for global competitiveness, there are 95 criminology

students who give a rating of 2 followed by 94 criminology students who rate 3,

63 criminology students gives a rate of 4 and only 18 criminology students who

gives the lowest rating of 1 and the total score and average rate are 742 and

2.75. And for the responsiveness to the needs for employment opportunities

among graduates, majority of the criminology students which is 101 gives a

rating of 3 while 97 criminology students rate 2, then 54 criminology students

give a rating of 4 and only 20 criminology students gives a lowest rating of 1 and

2.74 is the average rate is and the total score is 741. With regards to the

transmission concepts necessary for work mastery, 107 criminology students’

 55

rate for 2 while 97 criminology students give a rating of 3, 54 criminology

students rate 4 and only 12 criminology students who gives a rating of 1 and the

total score and average rate are 733 and 2.71. The last element of the program

content which is transmission of knowledge and skills needed for job

competencies, 99 criminology students give a rating of 3, 90 criminology students

rate 3, then 60 criminology students gives the highest rating of 4 and only 21

criminology students give the lowest rating of 1, the total score and average rate

are 729 and 2.70.

As reflected in table 1, the weighted means of the rating of the students in

terms of program content range from 2.70 to 2.91. The elements of the program

content that obtained an average rate interpreted as “Good” were as follows:

responsiveness of the needs of business, government or industry (2.78),

alignment to the national goal of attaining a sustainable economic development

(2.85), relevance to the need for the community improvement (2.91),

responsiveness to the need for global competitiveness (2.75), responsiveness to

the needs for employment opportunities among graduates (2.74), transmission

concepts necessary for work mastery (2.71), and transmission of skills needed

for job competencies (2.70). The factor average rate of the program content is

2.78.

The obtained average rate based on evaluation depicts that the

effectiveness of the Criminology Program of Professional Academy of the

Philippines in terms of program content is in the “average” level. It implicates that

the program delivers a good outcome to the student’s learning but there should
 56

be a clear emphasis that the institution delivering qualified program should

maintain the goodwill and will seek further strategies for better improvement of

the education. The evaluation was in the average level as students foresee that

there will still some subjects that there were not offered by the institution itself. If

only those subjects were offered, it would produce an excellent outcome and

students will acquire good foundation on theory, practices and the application of

laws.

Responsiveness to Program Objectives

The second part of the study deals with the responsiveness to program

objectives. This part deals whether the criminology program of Professional

Academy of the Philippines is responsive in attaining the specified program

objectives. These aspects emphasize the compliance of the program and its

improvements towards the students in general.

 57

Table 2: Responsiveness to Program Objectives

RATING Total # of Total Ave.

RESPONSIVENESS TO
PROGRAM 4 3 2 1 Respondents Score Rate
OBJECTIVES
1. Relevance to CMO
program goals and 51 67 121 31 270 678 2.51%
objectives.
2. Selection course
components lead to
fulfillment of program 70 88 98 14 270 754 2.79%
goal and objectives.
3. Compliance with the
goal transmits
knowledge among the 58 84 101 27 270 713 2.64%
students.
4. Improvement of the
student attitudes, value
and ethics. 87 103 70 10 270 807 2.99%

5. Transmission of
knowledge and skills in
the field of crime 64 113 78 15 270 766 2.84%
prevention, law
enforcement, scientific
crime detection,
correctional
administration and allied
fields.
6. Development of
knowledge and skills in
the practice of crime 52 110 100 8 270 746 2.76%
detection and
investigation and field
of criminalistics.
7. Development of
criminological research
skills on crime, crime 68 107 90 5 270 778 2.89
causation, victim and
offenders.
TOTAL 19.42%

FACTOR AVERAGE 2.77%

 58

Table 2 presents the numerical results on the responsiveness to program

objectives. Table shows that for the element of relevance to CMO program goals

and objectives 2 is the highest number of students rating which has 121

criminology students and 67 criminology students rate for 2, there were 51

criminology students gives a rating of 2 and only 31 criminology students for 1,

the total score and average rate are 678 and 2.51. In selection of course

components lead to fulfillment of program goals and objectives, there were 98

criminology students who give a rating of 2 while 88 criminology students rate for

3 then 70 criminology students gives a rating of 4 and only 14 criminology

students gives a rating of 1, the total score and average rate are 754 and 2.79 .

In compliance with the goal to transmit knowledge among students, the highest

number of criminology students which is 101 give a rating of 2 followed by 84

criminology students who gives a rating of 3 then 58 criminology students rate 4

and only 27 criminology students gives a rating 1 with a total score of 713 and

corresponding average rate of 2.64. For improvement of the student attitudes,

value and ethics, the table shows that the highest rating is 3 which has 103

criminology students that gives the rating and 87 for 4, next is 70 criminology

students gives the rating of 2 and lastly only 10 criminology student who rate for

1, it has the corresponding average rate of 3.15 and a total score of 807. The fifth

element which is the transmission of knowledge and skills in the field of crime

prevention, law enforcement, scientific crime detection, correctional

administration and allied fields shows that there were113 criminology students

give a rating of 3, 78 criminology students give a rating of 2 while 64 criminology

 59

students gives a rating of 2, and 15 criminology students give a rating of 1, the

total score is 766 and 2.84 is the average rate. With regards to the development

of knowledge and skills in the practice of crime detection and investigation and

field of criminalistics it also shows that 3 is still has the highest rating in which

there were 110 criminology students gives a rating on that then 100 for 2

followed by 52 criminology students for 4 and only 8 criminology students gives a

rating of 1, the total score is 746 and the corresponding average rate is 3.09. The

last element is thedevelopment of criminological research skills on crime, crime

causation, victim and offenders wherein 107 criminology students gives the rating

of 3 and 90 criminology students gives a rating of 2 then 68 criminology students

for 4 and 5 criminology studentswho gives rate for 1 with a corresponding

average rate of 2.89 and a total score of 778.

As shown in table 2, the element under the responsiveness to program

objectives which got the lowest average rate is the relevance to CMO program

goals and objectives. It reflects that the criminology program in terms of

relevance to CMO program goals and objectives needs an improvement to be

more effective. The elements under the responsiveness to program objectives

obtained an average rate interpreted as “Good” were as follows: selection course

components lead to fulfillment of program goal and objectives (2.79), compliance

with the goal transmits knowledge among the students (2.64), improvement of

the student attitudes, value and ethics (2.99),transmission of knowledge and

skills in the field of crime prevention, law enforcement, scientific crime detection,

correctional administration and allied fields (2.84), development of knowledge

 60

and skills in the practice of crime detection and investigation and field of

criminalistics(2.76),development of criminological research skills on crime, crime

causation, victim and offenders (2.89). The obtained average rating of the

responsiveness to program objectives is 2.74.

The obtained average rate based on evaluation depicts that the

effectiveness of the Criminology Program of Professional Academy of the

Philippines in terms of responsiveness to program objectives is in the “average”

level. This implicates that the institution is somewhat responsive to the program

objectives set by Commission on Higher Education. The program should be

responsive in order for the students to have scientific knowledge and skills in

their field of concentration.

Program Organization

The program organization talks about the curriculum on the Criminology

Program which is the prospectus or the syllabus of the said program. It shows

different subjects with its pre-requisites in logical sequence, the sequence level

of the subjects from easiest to the most difficult, the alignment of basic subjects

according to the student’s major field of concentration if it fits according to what

courses they are in, and the alignment of elective subjects based on students’

major field of concentration.

 61

Table 3: Program Organization

RATING Total # of Total Ave.

PROGRAM
ORGANIZATION 4 3 2 1 Respondents Score Rate

1. Logical sequence of
course/subjects to 70 86 110 4 270 762 2.82%
include pre-requisites.
2. Sequencing of
course/subjects
according to level of 68 108 87 7 270 777 2.88
difficulty (from the
easiest to the most
difficult).
3. Alignment of basic
course/subjects
according to the 59 87 112 12 270 732 2.71
student’s major field of
concentration.
4. Alignment of
electives according to
the student’s major 60 101 100 09 270 752 2.79
field of concentration.
TOTAL 11.20

FACTOR AVERAGE 2.8

Table 3 presents the numerical results of the level of effectiveness of

program organization. Table shows that in terms of logical sequence of

course/subjects to include pre-requisites, there are 110 criminology students who

give a rating of 2 while 86 criminology students give a rating of 3, 70 criminology

students give a rate of 4 and only 4 criminology students gives a rating of 1, the

total score and average rate are 762 and 2.82. With regards to the sequencing

of course/subjects according to level of difficulty we come up the highest rate of 3

which was rated by 108 criminology students, while 87 criminology students give

a rating of 2 then 68 criminology students give a rating of 4 and only 7

 62

criminology students for 1 and with an average rate of 2.88 and total score of

762. When it comes to the alignment of basic course/subjects according to the

students major field of concentration the highest number of criminology students

which is 112 give a rating of 2, 87 criminology students rate 3 while 59

criminology students for the rating of 4 and the remaining 12 criminology

students gives a rating of 1 with the total score of 732 and with the corresponding

average of 2.71. The last element under program organization is alignment of

electives according to the students major field of concentration in which 3 is the

highest rating which 101 criminology students answered, 100 criminology

students who answered 2 while 61 criminology students gives a rating of 4 and

the remaining 9 criminology students gives a rating of 1 with total score of 752

and with the average rate of 2.94.

As shown in table 3, the overall average rate in terms of program

organization is 2.8 with a descriptive evaluation of good.The element under

program content which got the lowest average rate is alignment of basic

course/subjects according to the student’s major field of concentration. The

elements under the program organization that obtained an average rate

interpreted as “Good” were as follows: logical sequence of course/subjects to

include pre-requisites(2.82),sequencing of course/subjects according to level of

difficulty (from the easiest to the most difficult) (2.88), Alignment of electives

according to the student’s major field of concentration (2.79).The obtained

average rating of the program organization is 2.8. The obtained average rate

based on evaluation depicts that the effectiveness of the Criminology Program of

 63

Professional Academy of the Philippines in terms of responsiveness to program

objectives is in the “average” level.

Based on the results stated above, if the program organization will be

revised accordingly, there will be a big possibility that it would result to excellent

quality. If this will happen, it will give a positive impact to the students and to the

program itself. Students will also be guided properly if the program organization

is arranged accurately as well as on the.

Values-Driven & Orientation to Ethical Principles

We have to consider these five elements that are under the values-driven

and orientation to ethical principles in producing an excellent outcome. Hence, in

this area it provides a concise overview on how criminology program is used in

creating higher values and ethics towards the integrity as a way of living.

Through this, it serves as our good foundation in attaining higher standard of

conduct that may also help the students to achieve their educational potential.

Likewise, the program may be able to move on the direction of reaching and

meeting its goals towards the students’ performance.

 64

Table 4: Values-Driven & Orientation to Ethical Principles

VALUES-DRIVEN & RATING Total # of Total Ave.

ORIENTATION TO
ETHICAL 4 3 2 1 Respondents Score Rate
PRINCIPLES
1. Emphasis on
honesty, responsibility 80 99 90 1 270 798 2.96
and integrity as a way
of life.
2. Inculcation of
equity, transparency
and justice in dealing 70 100 87 13 270 767 2.84
with others.
3. Emphasis on
compliance with the
regulators (e.g. 48 75 120 27 270 684 2.53
CHED, DEPED,
ETC.)
4. Infusion of the
principles of good and
right living. 116 99 50 5 270 866 3.21

5. Infusion of respect
for the other people’s 88 120 58 4 270 832 3.08
rights.
TOTAL 14.62

FACTOR AVERAGE 2.92

Table 4 represents the numerical results of value-driven and orientation to

ethical principles. With regards to emphasis on honesty, responsibility and

integrity as a way of life it indicates that 3 is the highest rating which was rated by

99 criminology students while 90 criminology students gives a rating of 2 then 80

criminology students gives a rating of 4 and only 1 criminology student who gives

a rating of 1 which is the lowest, the total score is 798 and the average rate is

2.96. In inculcation of equity, transparency and justice in dealing with others

there are 100 criminology students who give a rate of 3, 87 criminology students
 65

gives a rating of 2, then 70 criminology students gives a rating of 4 and the

remaining 13 criminology students gives a rating of with a total score of 767 and

average rate of 2.84. With regards to the emphasis on compliance with the

regulators (e.g. CHED, DEPED, ETC.) the highest number of students with 112

give a rating of 2 followed by 75 criminology student who gives a rating of 3, and

48 criminology students rate 3 and the remaining 27 criminology students gives a

rating 1 and this element has a total score of 683 with a corresponding average

rate of 2.53. In terms of infusion of the principles of good and right living, 4 got

the highest number of students rating which has 116 while 99 criminology

students give a rating of 3 which is good and only 5 criminology student for the

rating of 1 with a total score of 866 and average rate of 3.21, and lastly in the

infusion of respect for the other people’s rights, wherein 120 criminology students

give a rating of 3 and only 4 criminology student for the rate of 1 and has a total

score of 832 with a corresponding average rate of 3.08.

As reflected in table 4,infusion of the principles of good and right living and

infusion of respect for the other people's rights got a high average rating of 3.21

and 3.08 while emphasis on the compliance with the regulators got the lowest

average rate of 2.53. Respectively, the elements under values – driven &

orientation to ethical principles obtained average rates that were interpreted as

good. The Criminology Program of the Professional Academy of the Philippines

in terms of values-driven & orientation to ethical principles is in the average level

which means that it is of high quality but not excellent as what students

answered.
 66

Based on the evaluations reflected above, it clearly shows that the

institution holds dearly in creating higher values and ethics towards the students.

The students should not just be equipped with the scientific knowledge and skills

but also with desirable values and good ethics. If the students foster values-

driven, it would result a highly oriented-individuals and will help to achieve

students potential.

Other Parameters

The other parameters emphasize what are the necessary and important

actions to take for the continuous improvement of the Criminology Program.

These will be the measurement towards a more effective program because

program was implemented with corresponding actions to take to be sure that

there’s an improvement, and we could make revision of it based on the feedback

mechanism. Other parameters emphasize that the program and curriculum must

be reviewed regularly and in a timely manner. The continuous development of

the curriculum needs also the support of the management itself.

 67

Table 5: Other Parameters

RATING Total # of Total Ave.

OTHER
PARAMETERS 4 3 2 1 Respondents Score Rate

1. Participative
approach in the 47 77 108 38 270 661 2.45
program development
and review process.
2. Feedback
mechanism is in-
placed for program 39 85 117 29 270 674 2.50
refinement and
revision.
3. Program &
curriculum reviews are
conducted regularly 35 70 122 43 270 637 2.36
and a timely manner.
4. Management
supports in the
continuous curriculum 67 93 100 10 270 757 2.80
development.
TOTAL 10.11

FACTOR AVERAGE 2.53

Table 5 shows the numerical result of the evaluation about the various

components or aspect of the program specifically on other parameters of the

program. The table above shows that 2 has the highest number of students

rating which has 108 criminology students and 77 criminology students rate for 3,

there were 47 criminology students gives a rating of 2 and 38 criminology

students give a rating for 1 with an average rate of 2.45 which means need

improvement. With regards to feedback mechanism is in-placed for program

refinement and revision, there were 117 criminology students who give a rating of

2 followed by 85 criminology students who rate 3 while the 29 criminology

 68

students gives a rating of 1 with a corresponding average rate of 2.50 and a total

score of 674. In terms of program & curriculum reviews are conducted regularly

and a timely manner there were 122 criminology students who gives a highest

rating for 2 followed by 3 which has 70 criminology students and 43 criminology

students gives a rating of 1 and the lowest rating which has 35 criminology

student who give for 4 and the corresponding average is2.36. For the

management supports in the continuous curriculum development, the table

shows that the highest rating is 2 which has 100 students that gives the rating

and 93 criminology students for the rating of 3, next is 67 criminology

studentswho gives the rating of 4 and lastly 10 criminology student gives a rating

of 1 wherein it has the corresponding average rate of 2.80 and total score of 757.

As reflected in table 5, one of the aspect of the program that got the

lowest average rate is the program & curriculum reviews are conducted regularly

and a timely manner which is only 2.43. Aside from that, the highest average rate

is only 2.80 while the rest of the average ranges from 2.45 to 2.50 which is in fair

level or needs an improvement. The overall average rate of the other parameters

is only 2.53 which indicate that the level of effectiveness of the criminology

program is in average level that needs an improvement to attain an excellent

program outcome.

Curriculum Alignment
 69

This part will assess and evaluate whether the criminology program

offered by higher institutions meet the requirements mandated and prescribed by

Commission on Higher Education.

Table 6 Curriculum Alignment

Criminology Program of Professional

Academy of the Philippines
CHED REQUIREMENTS Aligned Not Total # of
Aligned Respondents
1. Criminology program should be comprised 0
of General Education Components, 80 80
Professional Courses & Practicum
2. The program should offer 540 hours 0
Practicum 1 & 2/ Community Immersion with 6 80 80
credit units.
3. The Criminology program should meet the 0
CHED minimum requirements of the academic 80 80
unit for graduation of BS-CRIM which is 165
academic units
4. The professional subjects should fully offer
and implement a minimum number of 104 0 80 80
credit units.
5. The General Education Components should
be in accordance with CHED Memo Order No. 0 80 80
59-Series of 2006.

Table 6 represents the numerical outcome based on the survey conducted

in determining how aligned is the current curriculum of BS-Criminology of

Professional Academy of the Philippines. The table reflects that the criminology

program of PAP is aligned to some of the requirements of CHED and these

are(1.)the criminology program should comprised of General Education

Components, Professional Subjects (2) The program should offer 540 hours
 70

Practicum 1 & 2/ Community Immersion with 6 credit units (3) The Criminology

program should meet the CHED minimum requirements of the academic unit for

graduation of BS-CRIM which is 165 academic units in which the 80 respondents

answered that the program is aligned. But on the other CHED requirements, 80

of the respondents said the Criminology program is not aligned when it comes to

the requirements wherein professional subjects should fully offer and implement

a minimum number of 104 credit unitsand the General Education Components

should be in accordance with CHED Memo Order No. 59-Series of 2006. The

table indicates that the program of the BS-Criminology of Professional Academy

of the Philippines is not fully aligned to the requirements set by the Commission

on Higher Education

If the program is not fully aligned to the requirements, it might create a big

possibility to the failure of institutions to provide a stabilized and quality education

to the students. This would not just implicate a negative outcome to the students

but as to the integrity and goodwill of the institution. If the program itself is not

that effective, it will impose difficulty in achieving its specified program objectives

in attaining quality of education in a globally competitive world.

 71

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter comprises the summary of findings of the research study

conjointly with the conclusions, and recommendations that significantly comes

from the results of the study.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This study is all about the assessment on the effectiveness of Criminology

Program of Professional Academy of the Philippines. This study used the

quantitative- descriptive method that emphasizes objective measurements and

the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through

questionnaires and surveys.

This study intended to know the level of effectiveness of criminology

program and how aligned is the current curriculum of BS-Criminology to the

requirements of CHED. This study was conducted at the Professional Academy

of the Philippines specifically in the College of Criminology. The standard

questionnaire was utilized for the gathering of data needed in assessing the

effectiveness of criminology program. This is used because the standard

questionnaire is derived from the Commission on Higher Education for evaluating

 72

a program. This standard questionnaire used the 4-Point Likert Scale. We had

gathered ideas and opinions from the students. There were two hundred seventy

(270) informants who aided the researchers in obtaining valuable information

needed for the study.

Based on the result of the survey conducted, the researchers found out

that:

1. The level of effectiveness of program content of criminology

program is 2.78 which is interpreted as good. It implicates that the

program content of criminology program of Professional Academy

of the Philippines is in average level. Majority of the criminology

students give a rating of 3 followed by a rating of 2 then 5 and

lastly 1. In line with this, there is a need to grow or even a

continuous development of this program. Conversely, having high

academic standards isn't enough if they are not implemented

through powerful instructional methods. The program must deliver

a quality learning outcomes.

2. The level of effectiveness of criminology program in terms of

responsiveness to the program objectives is 2.77 somewhat lower

to the ratings of program content and interpreted as good. It

indicates that with regards to responsiveness to the program

objectives, criminology program of Professional Academy of the

Philippines is also in average level. Furthermore, most of the

students give a rating of 3 followed by 2, 4 and lastly 1.

 73

3. The level of effectiveness of program organization of the

criminology program is only 2.8 which is interpreted as good. Out

from the four components which is subjectively under the program

organization, the alignment of basic course/subjects to the

students major field of concentration got the lowest average rating

which is only 2.71 interpreted as good and it needs an

improvement.

4. The level of effectiveness of criminology program when it comes

to values driven & orientation to ethical principles is 2.92 which

got the highest average ratings out of five areas wherein its is

interpreted as good. The rating is somewhat in high quality but not

as excellent as it is. It indicates that with this component,

criminology program of Professional Academy of the Philippines

is also in average level. Most of the students give a rating of 3.

5. The level of effectiveness of criminology program with regards to

the other parameters of the program is 2.53 which got the lowest

average rate compare to other areas of the program and is

interpreted as fair. It implicates that the criminology program of

Professional Academy of the Philippines needs an improvement.

Majority of the criminology students give a rating of 2.

6. In terms of alignment of curriculum, it was found out that the

curriculum of BS-Criminology of Professional Academy of the

Philippines is not fully aligned to the requirement mandated and

 74

prescribed by CHED. There are professional subjects wherein

mandated by CHED that was not offered in prospectus or in the

curriculum of BS-Criminology. With regards to General Education

Courses, some of the subjects prescribed by CHED were not

offered also in the curriculum. These subjects should be offered to

so that it will produce a specific excellent outcome of program.

CONCLUSIONS

The Criminology Program of Professional Academy of the Philippines got

a general average rating of “2.76” in the five areas which means that the

effectiveness of the program is in the average level. Out of the five areas of the

program, only the other parameter area got a rating of fair which means that the

program needs an improvement. This signifies and indicates that the program is

not very effective yet and it needs well define strategies and in-structural

methodologies to produce an excellent outcome. In a growing and competitive

environment, being average is not sufficient. The criminology program should

enhance and meet more than just the expectation of the students and parents.

It’s a competitive advantage for the institution having not just an average

standard of their program evaluation; it would not just create goodwill on the

institution but would also enhance the confidence of the students. On the

contrary, if the criminology program would just maintain these average

standards, this might open the possibility of having an ineffective program

evaluation and soon might not only affect the program but also the institution as a

whole. Furthermore, the curriculum of BS-Criminology of PAP is not fully

 75

alignment to the requirement set by Commission on Higher Education as there

were professional subjects that were not listed in the prospectus. These subjects

must be offered in order that students will acquire great knowledge and skills in

combating future challenges in the field of criminology. The program offered by

the higher institution should meet the requirements set and prescribed by

Commission on Higher Education to avoid complexities. It is further concluded

that a revision of the curriculum should be done.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the researchers recommend the

following:

A.PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION

A revised curriculum is recommended for the Criminology Program of

Professional Academy of the Philippines as presented on the next page.

 76

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE OF CRIMINOLOGY(BSCRIM)

Major in Firearms Identification(Forensic Ballistic)

CMO No. 54 s. 2007/ CMO No. 23 s. 2010

SUBJECT CODE DESCRIPTIVE TITLE LEC LAB UNITS PRE-

REQUISITES
FIRST YEAR FIRST SEMESTER

FIL 1 KomunikasyonsaAkademikon 3 0 3 None

g Filipino

ENG 1 Communication Arts 1 3 0 3 None

MATH 1 College Algebra 3 0 3 None

POL SCI 3 Philippine Government and 3 0 3 None

Constitution

CRIM 30 General Psychology in 3 0 3 None

Criminology

CRIM SOC 1 Introduction to Criminology 3 0 3 None

FAI 1 Introduction to Firearms 3 0 3 None

Identification

FAI 2 Study of Small Firearms 3 0 3 FAI 1

Identification

DEF TACT 1 Judo/Karate/Arnis 3 0 3 None

CWTS 1 Civic Welfare Training Service 3 0 3 None

ROTC 1

29 0 29
 77

SECOND SEMESTER

FIL 2 Pagbabasa at 3 0 3 FIL 1

PagsulatsaIbatIbangDisiplina

ENG 2 Communication Arts 2 3 0 3 ENG 1

SOC SCI 1D Society and Culture with 3 0 3 None

Family Planning

MATH 7 Plane Trigonometry 3 0 3 MATH 1

LEA 19 Introduction to Philippine 3 0 3 None

Criminal Justice System

C SCI 1 Computer Literacy 2 3 3 None

FAI 3 Techniques in Handling 3 0 3 FAI 1 and 2

Physical Evidence

FAI 4 Principles in Firearms 3 0 3 FAI 1,2 and 3

Identification

DEF TACT 2A Markmanship and Combat 2 0 2 DEF TACT 1

Shooting

CWTS 2 Civic Welfare Training Service 3 0 3 CWTS 1

ROTC 2

28 3 29
 78

SECOND YEAR FIRST SEMETER

SOC SCI 5 Rizal's Life, Works and 3 0 3 None

Writings

CHEM 1 General Chemistry Lec 3 0 3 None

CHEM 1L General Chemistry Lab 0 2 2 None

HISTORY 1 Philippine History 3 0 3 None

PHILO 1 Logic 3 0 3 None

ENGL 21 Speech, Argumentation and 3 0 3 ENG 1 AND 2

Debate

FAI 5 Theory on Ballistic 3 0 3 FAI 1-4

Examination

LEA 20 Police Org. and Admin. 3 0 3 None

DET TACT 3 First Aid And Water Survival 2 0 2 None

20 2 25

SECOND SEMESTER

ENG 4 World Literature 3 0 3 ENG 1 AND 2

CRIMNLSTCS 30 Personal Identification Lec 2 0 2 None

CRIMNLSTCS 30L Personal Identification Lab 0 2 2 None

CHEM 4 Forensic Chemistry Lec 3 0 3 CHEM 1

CHEM 4L Forensic Chemistry Lab 0 2 2 CHEM 1

FAI 6 Practical Exams on Bullet and 3 0 3 FAI 1-5

Shells with the Bullet

Comparison Microscope
 79

ECON 1 Economics, Taxation and 3 0 3 None

Agrarian Reform

LEA 21 Police Patrol and Plans Opns. 3 0 3 LEA 20

ENGL 24 Technical Report Writing 3 0 3 ENG 1 AND 2

DEF TACT 4A Driving Course 2 0 2 None

22 4 26

THIRD YEAR FIRST SEMESTER

CRIMNLSTCS 33 Questioned Documents Lec 2 0 2 None

CRIMNLSTCS 33L Questioned Document Lab 0 2 2 None

CRIMNLSTCS 31 Police Photography Lec 2 0 2 None

CRIMNLSTCS 31L Police Photography Lab 0 2 2 None

ETHICS 1 Ethics and Values 3 0 3 None

LEA 22 Police Personnel and Record 3 0 3 None

Management

LEA 23 Fundamentals of Criminal 3 0 3 None

Investigation

CORR 1 Institutional Corrections 3 0 3 None

Organized Crime Prevention 0 0 3 None

16 4 20

SECOND SEMESTER

LAW 21 Criminal Law Book 1 and 2 6 0 6 None

CRIM SOC 2 Juvenile Delinquency and 3 0 3 None

Crime Preventon
 80

LEA 24 Traffic Management and 3 0 3 LEA 23

Accident Investigation

LEA 25 Special Crime Prevention 3 0 3 None

Practise

CORR 2 Non-Institutional Correction 3 0 3 None

Fire Technology and Arson 0 0 0 None

Investigation

18 0 18

FOURTH YEAR SECOND SEMESTER

CRIMNLSTCS 41 Legal Medicine 3 0 3 None

CRIMNLSTCS 42 Polygraph (Lie Detection Lec 2 0 2 None

CRIMNLSTCS 42L Polygraph (Lie Detection Lab 0 2 2 None

CRIM SOC 3 Human Behavior and Crisis 3 0 3 None

Management

LEA 26 Security and Safety 3 0 3 None

Management

LAW 24 Criminal Procedure and Court 3 0 3 None

Testimony

PRACTICUM 1 On-the-Job Training 3 0 3 None

REVIEW Criminology Board Exam 0 0 0 None

Review
 81

Comparative Police System 3 0 3

20 22

SECOND SEMESTER

LAW 23 Criminal Evidence 3 0 3 LAW 21 AND

21A

LEA 27 Police Communication 3 0 3 LEA 20

System

LEA 28 Police Intelligence 3 0 3 None

LEA 29 Drug Education and Vice 3 0 3 CRIM SOC 2A

Control

ETHICS 2 Police and Community 3 0 3 ETHICS 1

Relation

LEA 30 Research Methods and 3 0 3 None

Statistics

PRACTICUM 2 On-the-Job Training 3 0 3 PRACTICUM 1

REVIEW Criminology Board Exam 0 0 0 None

Review

21 0 21

196
 82

B. SECONDARY RECOMMENDATION

Other recommendations are relevant for the improvement of Criminology

Program of Professional Academy of the Philippines. Below are important for

further improvements:

1. A monthly evaluation of the students should be done and implemented.

The evaluation will monitor and measure the students learning outcomes.

2. There should be a regular monitoring of students academic performance.

3. Timely and regular conduct of program evaluation or curriculum review.

4. There must be a Students Enhancement Program (SEP) for the fourth

year Criminology students. This program is designed to prepare and

harness the student’s foundation in the professional subjects upon taking

the criminology board examination. This program is somewhat similar to

Board Exam Review.

5. The schedule of Research and Statistics subject must be transferred from

second semester to first semester in order that students will have an

enough time in conducting the research endeavor. As what we have

assessed, researchers observed that it’s a struggle on the part of student

in conducting research with a short period of time.

 83

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berg, L., and Bing, R. (1990).Mentoring members of minorities: sponsorship and

the gift.Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1, 153-65.

Bruns, J. and Bruns, D. (2007).Effecting change in colleges and universities.

Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, (2), 53-63.

Cavanagh, R. F., Waldrip, B. G., Romanoski, J. T., Fisher, D. L., & Dorman, J. P.

(2005, December).Measuring student perceptions of classroom assessment.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for

Research in Education, Parramatta, Australia.

Bates, M. 2003. “The Assessment of Work-Integrated Learning: Symptoms of

Personal Change.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 14(2): 303-326.

Black, P. J., &Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards

through classroom assessment. London: King’s college London School of

Education.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., &Krathwohl, D. R.

(1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York:

David McKay.

Bower J.A. (2005) Developing Research & Thinking Skills through Active

Learning and Assessment in Undergraduate Criminology Core. The Association

 84

for American Colleges and Universities Quantitative Literacy VALUE Rubric is

available online at http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/QuantitativeLiteracy.cfm

Bruns, J. and Bruns, D. (2007).Effecting change in colleges and universities.

Journal of Leadership Studies, 1, (2), 53-63.

Bruns, J. and Bruns, D. (2009).Decoding the complexities of assessment

strategies in criminal justice education. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Assessment Forum

Bufkin, J. (2004). Criminology/Criminal justice master’s programs in the United

States: Searching for commonalities. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15,

(2), 239-262.

Capps J. E. & Lewis, M. E (2011) Improving Student Outcomes by Instituting a

Standards-Based Curriculum: Lessons Learned. Academy of Criminal Justice

Sciences Assessment Forum

Carmen, A., Butler, R., and Odo, J. (2006). Criminology and criminal justice through the
lenses of the law enforcement community: An attitudinal assessment. Criminal Justice
Studies, 19, (2), 209-222.

Philip E. Carlan, (2007) "The criminal justice degree and policing: conceptual

development or occupational primer?", Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30 Issue: 4, pp.608-

619, https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710833893
 85

Dhindsa, H., Omar, K., &Waldrip, B. (2007, August 1). Upper Secondary

Bruneian Science Students' Perceptions of Assessment. International Journal of

Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1280.

Eastep, M.A., & Wolf, R. (2010). Toward enhanced criminal justice

employability: Linking internships, curriculum content and assessment. Academy

of Criminal Justice Sciences..

Falchikov, N. (2004). Improving assessment through student involvement:

Practical solutions for higher and further education teaching and learning.

London: Routledge.

Finckenauer, J. O. (2005), The quest for quality in criminal justice education.

Justice Quarterly, 22(4), 413-427.

Fisher, D. L., Waldrip, B. G., & Dorman, J. (2005, April). Student perceptions of

assessment: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

Montreal, Canada.

Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., &Rennie, L. (2001).The status and quality of teaching

and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of

Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

 86

Gordon, E. W. (2008). The transformation of key beliefs that have guided a

century of assessment.In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.). The future of assessment: Shaping

teaching and learning. (pp. 53-82). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hayeslip, David W. Jr. 1989. ―Higher Education and Police Performance

Revisited: The Evidence Examined through Meta-Analysis,‖ American Journal of

Police 8(2):49-63.

Jedamus, P., Peterson, M., and Associates. (1980). Improving academic

management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kleck, G., Wang, S., and Tark, J. (2007).Article productivity among the faculty of

criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2000-2005. Journal of

Criminal Justice Education, 18, (3), 385-405.

Krahn, H. &Silzer, B.J. (1995). A study of exit surveys: The graduand survey at

the University of Alberta. College and University Summer, 12-23.

Krimmel, J.T. &Tartaro, C. (1999).Career choices and characteristics of criminal

justice Undergraduates. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 10, 277-289

Liu, O.L (2009). Measuring value-added in higher education: Conditions and

caveats. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 81-94.

Mijares, T. and Blackburn, R. (1990). Evaluating criminal justice programs:

Establishing criteria. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 33-41.

 87

Miller, M., McCormack, T., Maddox, A. and Seagren, A. (1996). Faculty

participation in governance at small and large universities: implications for

practice. Planning and Change, 27, 180-190.

Moriarty, L.J. (2006). Investing in quality: The current state of assessment in

criminal justice programs. Justice Quarterly, 23(4), 409-427.

Moriarty, L.J. & Garrett, J.J. (2008). Criminal justice assessment: Staying ahead

of the bullet. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(3), 217-222.

Myers, L. and Myers, L. (2002).Preparing for high technology crime: an

educational assessment of criminal justice and criminology academic programs.

Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13, (2), 251-271.

Myers, L. (1994). The evaluation of CJ programs: Assessment of evolving

standards in context. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 5, (1), 31-48.

Palomba, C. and Banta, T. (1999). Assessment essentials: planning,

implementing and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Payne, B. and Monk-Turner, E. (2005).Collaborating with undergraduates:

obstacles and tips.Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16, (2), 292- 301.

Proctor, J. L. (2006). Academic achievement and statistical knowledge: a

comparison of criminal justice and noncriminal justice majors. Journal of Criminal

Justice Education, 17(1), 143-161

 88

Ross, L.E. and O.O. Elechi. 2002. “Student Attitudes Towards Internship

Experiences: From Theory to Practice.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 13:

297-312.

Scriven, M. (1967).The methodology of evaluation (Vol. 1). Washington, DC:

American Educational Research Association.

Southerland, M.D. (2002). Criminal justice curricula in the United States: A

decade of change. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 589-601. U.S. Department of

Education (2005).Commission of the Future of Higher Education. Retrieved

January 15, 2011,

fromhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/about.html.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., &Janssens, S. (2005, August 1). Students' Perceptions

about Evaluation and Assessment in Higher Education: A Review. Assessment

and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325-341.

Stufflebeam D. L. &Shinkfield A. J (2007). Evaluation Theory, Models, and

Applications. ISBN: 978-1-118-06318-7 Mar 2007, Jossey-Bass. 768 pages

Stuffiebeam, Daniel L. “The Relevance of the CIPP Evaluation Model for

Educational Accountability.” Journal of Research and Development in

Education, (Fall 1971).

 89

Tontodonato, P. 2006. “Goals, Expectation and Satisfaction Among Criminal

Justice Majors: Implications for Faculty, Students and Programs.” Journal of

Criminal Justice Education 17:162-199.

Wang, Y. &Lumb, R.C. (2005).Future research in criminal justice higher

education-A case Study of curriculum renovation. Future Research Quarterly (2),

5-21

Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2010).Developing higher level thinking. Journal of

Instructional Pedagogies, 3, 1-9.

JOURNALS

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (2011).ACJS Certification Standards,

Retrieved February 18, 2018 from http://www.acjs.org/pubs/167.

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (2000). Handbook for Program Review

and Academic Standards Alexandria, Va.: The Academy.

Association for American Colleges and Universities. (2013). VALUE: Valid

Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education. Retrieved

frhttp://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/QuantitativeLiteracy.cfm
 90

APPENDICES

A. APPROVAL LETTER

February 7, 2018

MR. ANICETO B. BEROU JR., MBA

AVP Academic, Res. & Dev.
Professional Academy of the Philippines
South Poblacion, City of Naga, Cebu

Sir:

Greetings!

We, the fourth year criminology students taking up LEA 30 –Thesis Writing would
like to request from your good office to allow us conduct a survey to all
Criminology students of Professional Academy of the Philippines who are
enrolled in this semester 2017-2018. This survey is in connection with our study
entitled “Assessment on the Effectiveness of Criminology Program of
Professional Academy of the Philippines. In line with this, we are providing
standard questionnaire to be distributed to our respondents for them to answer it
honestly and voluntarily.

Your kind approval on this matter is highly respected.

Respectfully yours,

Leslie Mae M. Parera

Group Representative

Noted by:

Mr. Roly C. Gonzaga

Subject Teacher

Acknowledge by:

Dr. Veronica V. Calang

OIC. Criminology Department
 91

B. QUESTIONNAIRE
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Criminology Program

Part 1. Rate the effectiveness of the Criminology program by encircling the numerical
given which represents your evaluation of the various components or aspect of the
program. The numerals with their qualitative equivalents are as follows:
4-Very Good 3- Good 2-Fair 1-Poor
(3.26 to 4.00) (2.51 to 3.25) (1.76 to 2.50) (1.00 to 1.75)

A. Program content: Factor Average:_____________

1. Responsiveness of the needs of business, government or industry. 4 3 2 1

2. Alignment to the national goal of attaining a sustainable economic development. 4 3 2 1
3. Relevance to the need for the community improvement. 4 3 2 1
4. Responsiveness to the need for global competitiveness. 4 3 2 1
5. Responsiveness to the needs for employment opportunities among graduates. 4 3 2 1
6. Transmission concepts necessary for work mastery. 4 3 2 1
7. Transmission of skills & knowledge needed for job competencies. 4 3 2 1

B. Responsiveness to program Objectives:

1. Relevance to CMO program goals and objectives. 4 3 2 1

2. Selection of course components lead to fulfillment of program goal & objectives. 4 3 2 1
3. Compliance with the goal to transmit knowledge among the students. 4 3 2 1
4. Improvement of the student attitudes, value and ethics. 4 3 2 1
5. Transmission of knowledge and skills in the field of crime prevention, law 4 3 2 1
enforcement, scientific crime detection, correctional administration & allied fields.
6. Development of knowledge and skills in the practice of crime detection 4 3 2 1
and investigation and fields of criminalistics.
7. Development of criminological research skills on crimes, crime causation, 4 3 2 1
victim and offenders.

C. Program Organization:
1. Logical sequence of course/subjects to include pre-requisites. 4 3 2 1
2. Sequencing of course/subjects according to level of difficulty
(From the easiest to the most difficult). 4 3 2 1
3. Alignment of basic course/subjects according to the student’s 4 3 2 1
major field of concentration.
4. Alignment of electives according to the students major field of concentration. 4 3 2 1

D. Values-Driven & Orientation to Ethical Principles:

1. Emphasis on honesty, responsibility and integrity as a way of life. 4 3 2 1

2. Inculcation of equity, transparency and justice in dealing with others. 4 3 2 1
3. Emphasis on compliance with the regulators (e.g. CHED, DEPED, ETC.) 4 3 2 1
4. Infusion of the principles of good and right living. 4 3 2 1
5. Infusion of respect for the other people’s rights. 4 3 2 1

E. Other parameters:
1. Participative approach in the program development and review process. 4 3 2 1
2. Feedback mechanism is in-placed for program refinement and revision. 4 3 2 1
3. Program & curriculum reviews are conducted regularly and a timely manner. 4 3 2 1
 92

4. Management supports in the continuous curriculum development. 4 3 2 1

General Average:______________________

Part II: The Commission on Higher Education strictly prescribed and mandated
the requirements of Criminology Program offered by higher institution. Kindly put
your corresponding answer by checking if the criminology program of PAP is
aligned or not aligned to the requirements set by CHED.

Criminology Program of
Professional Academy of the
Philippines
CHED REQUIREMENTS Aligned Not Aligned
1. Criminology program should be comprised of General
Education Components, Professional Courses &
Practicum
2. The program should offer 540 hours Practicum 1 & 2/
Community Immersion with 6 credit units.

3. The Criminology program should meet the CHED

minimum requirements of the academic unit for
graduation of BS-CRIM which is 165 academic units
4. The professional subjects should fully offer and
implement a minimum number of 104 credit units.
5. The General Education Components should be in
accordance with CHED Memo Order No. 59-Series of
2006.
 93

Curriculum Vitae

Personal Information

Name : Leslie Mae M. Parera

I.D. No. : 14791523

Date of Birth : November 05, 1997

Place of Birth : Lutac, City of Naga, Cebu

Present address : Lutac, City of Naga, Cebu

Age : 20 Year Old

Sex : Female

Civil Status : Single

Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Background

College : Professional Academy of the Philippines

Colon Street Cebu City

4TH Year BS-Criminology Major in Forensic Ballistics

2017-2018
 94

High School : Lutac National High School

Lutac, City of Naga, Cebu

2013-2014

Elementary : LutacElementary School

Lutac, City of Naga, Cebu

2009-2010

Trainings, Seminars & Conferences Attended

RIZAL YOUTH ASSEMBLY SEMINAR

Paglaum Hall, Ramon Aboitiz,

July 31.2015
 95

Personal Information

Name : Randy Alduesa

I.D. No. : 14791469

Date of Birth : October 11, 1994

Place of Birth : Carcar City

Present address : Graje, Guadalupe, Carcar City Cebu

Age : 23 Year Old

Sex : Female

Civil Status : Single

Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Background

College : Professional Academy of the Philippines

Colon Street Cebu City

4TH Year BS-Criminology Major in Forensic Ballistics

2017-2018
 96

High School : Maximino Noel Memorial National High School

Guadalupe, Carcar City, Cebu

2013-2014

Elementary :Guadalupe Elementary School

Guadalupe, Carcar City, Cebu

2009-2010
 97

Personal Information

Name : Ace P. Lagcao

I.D. No. : 14791608

Date of Birth : October 11, 1994

Place of Birth : Cebuano Tupi, South Cotabato

Present address : North Poblacion, San Fernando, Cebu

Age : 23 Year Old

Sex : Male

Civil Status : Single

Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Background

College : Professional Academy of the Philippines

Colon Street Cebu City

4TH Year BS-Criminology Major in Forensic Ballistics

2017-2018
 98

High School : Cebuano National High School

Tupi, South Cotabato

2013-2014

Elementary :Cebuano Elementary School

Tupi, South Cotabato

2009-2010
 99

Personal Information

Name : Jundrill L Canonigo

I.D. No. : 14791727

Date of Birth : August 03, 1996

Place of Birth : Cebu City

Present address : Balirong, City of Naga, Cebu

Age : 21

Sex :Male

Civil Status : Single

Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Background

College : Professional Academy of the Philippines

South Poblacion, City of Naga, Cebu

4TH Year BS-Criminology Major in Forensic Ballistics

2017-2018
 100

High School : De La Salle ASMC

DAS, Lutopan, Toledo, Cebu City

2013-2014

Elementary : De La Salle ASMC

DAS, Lutopan, Toledo, Cebu City

2009-2010
 101

Personal Information

Name : Mark Anthony Generalao

I.D. No. : 14791353

Date of Birth : May 10, 1995

Place of Birth : Buruan, Iligan City

Present address :South Poblacion, City of Naga, Cebu

Age : 22 Year Old

Sex : Male

Civil Status : Single

Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Background

College : Professional Academy of the Philippines

Colon Street Cebu City

4TH Year BS-Criminology Major in Forensic Ballistics

2017-2018
 102

High School : Naga National High School

Central Poblacion, City of Naga, Cebu

2012-2013

Elementary :Punta Silum Elementary School

Punta Silum, Manticao, Misamis Oriental

2008-2009
 103

Personal Information

Name : James Venirando B. Villas

I.D. No. : 14791243

Date of Birth : February 10, 1990

Place of Birth : Cebu City

Present address : 139 Colveta 2 Tabada t., Mambaling, Cebu city

Age : 28 Year Old

Sex : Male

Civil Status : Single

Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Background

College : Professional Academy of the Philippines

Colon Street Cebu City

4TH Year BS-Criminology Major in Forensic Ballistics

2017-2018
 104

High School : San Rafael National High School

Navotas, Metro Manila

2005-2006

Elementary :Mambaling Elementary School

Mambaling, Cebu City

2001-2002
 105

Documentations
106
107
108
109
110