Holistic Formation Levels of Students exposed to

Poveda’s Personalized Education Program

Glen R. Mangali
Colegio de San Juan de Letran
Intramuros Manila
ABSTRACT
This research was conducted to determine the holistic levels of formation of
students in each brain quadrant when exposed to Poveda’s Personalized
Education Program. Specifically, it sought to determine the holistic levels of
formation of the students when grouped according to their year level; and the
significant difference on the holistic formation of the students across year levels.
The study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data analyses.
The study was conducted at Saint Pedro Poveda College, High School
department. The study used 240 students as respondents. Two sections in
second, third, and fourth year served as samples for this study. Simple random
sampling specifically Lottery or Fishbowl technique sampling with replacement
was used for two sections for each level.
Five-point Likert scale questionnaire describing the holistic formation of
students based on the four brain quadrants was used. The questionnaire was
composed of 28 item statement, which are as follows: Quadrant 1 Curriculum
Centered on the Person (items 1-7), Quadrant 2 Development of Individual Ability
(items 8-14), Quadrant 3 Process of Building a Person (items 15-21) and Quadrant
4 Individual Concern and Care for each Person (item 22-28).
The perceptions of students were computed using the mean, standard
deviation and One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to establish the significant
difference on the holistic formation of students across year levels.
Results revealed that the perceptions of the second, third, and fourth year
students on holistic formation when exposed at Poveda’s Personalized Education
Program did not differ significantly from each other and had no significant effects
on their perceptions towards holistic formation.
The application of Poveda’s Personalized Education Program can lead to
the holistic formation of students however, more improvement is necessary to
increase the levels of formation of students in each brain quadrant. The absence
of significant difference in the perceptions of students across level regarding
holistic formation suggests that students may be formed holistically in different
degrees and year levels. The results could also be linked to many factors such as
student’s lifestyle, upbringing, as well as implementation of the pedagogy and
program of the school, teachers, and administrators.

Key words: Poveda’s Personalized Education Program, holistic formation, brain

quadrant
Introduction
Since 1960, Saint Pedro Poveda College has implemented the
Personalized Education Program (PEP), an approach relevant in the Philippine
context and is anchored in UNESCO’s thrust for the 21st century. It is an open
approach coherent with St. Pedro Poveda's foundational vision. The principal
concern in this program is the totality and complexity of the person. Students in
Poveda’s Personalized Education Program are motivated to do their function while
being involved in the learning process through a highly personalized focus. This
approach employs the process of building the person to enable the student to live
a truly human life. Each student is given the opportunity to develop and accomplish
his objectives at a pace suited to his individual ability and characteristics as a
person. This educative style fosters dominion over one's self through formation
and development of faith, culture, and technology.
The philosophy of Poveda’s Personalized Education Program is based on
the fundamental beliefs, concepts, attitudes, and values of St. Pedro Poveda. All
these spell out his fundamental thought and style vis-à-vis education and the
educator-educand relationship. Unlike individualized instruction where the focus is
more on the instruction and on the teaching itself, in Poveda’s Personalized
Education, it is the PERSON of the educand that becomes the center (Pacia 2003).
The idea of “Poveda’s Personalized Education” emphasizes not only
facilitating learners to learn better via combining/incorporating/using different
strategies to create various learning experiences but also considering teachers’
teaching needs in preparing/designing/managing varied teaching/instructional
packages (Horace and Fok 2008). Teaching is transformed into the development
and formation of all the faculties of a person: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
- all three connecting with each other in an integrative at the same time. Poveda’s
Personalized Education is centered on the human being according to Pacia (2003).
Personalized Education is first and foremost focused on the individual learner as
a person with unique characteristics, capabilities, concerns, dispositions, and
motivations.
The Holistic formation of students in a Personalized Education Program
refers to the students’ attainment of formation based on the brain quadrant namely:
I control( fundamentally based on Christian humanism);I explore ( develop and
accomplish objective at pace suited to her; I pursue ( address his/her cognitive,
psychomotor and affective needs); and I preserve ( individual care and concern of
each person), anchored on Povedan philosophy. The figure below showed the four
brain quadrant and served as the basis in construction of questionnaire in this
study.
 IC “I control”
Fundamentally based on Christian
humanism
( Christ is the model of human life)
Curriculum is centered on the person
rather than on the curriculum to be
taught
Upper left lobe of the brain
I Pu “I pursue”
Process of building a person
holistically by addressing his
cognitive, affective and psychomotor
needs
IE “I explore”
Each student is allowed to develop
and to accomplished objectives at a
pace suited to individual ability and
the characteristics of his/her
personality.
Upper right lobe of the brain
I Pr “ I preserve”
Individual care and concern for each
person
A deep and reverential valuing of the
dignity of every educand in his/her
concrete circumstance and conditions

Lower right lobe of the brain

Lower left lobe of the brain
Fig. 1 Holistic formation based on the Four Brain Quadrant

Among the principles on which Poveda’s Personalized Education Program

operates are the following: Principle of Individuality (LEARNING TO BE), which
focuses on the development of unique individual; Principle of Openness or
Socialization and Communication (LEARNING TO LIVE TOGETHER) which
involves formation of the individual as a member of society; Principle of Creativity
(LEARNING TO DO), which stimulates and fosters the individual's capacity to
freely express and develop his/her creative aspect. This program believes that
learning is more effective if it stems from the initiative and interests of the learner
in a free, supportive, and non-threatening environment. This kind of climate
encourages the learners to discover and maximize her potentials and
consequently develop self-confidence and positive self-concept.
The integral formation of a Christian personality is also highlighted in
Poveda’s Personalized Education Program. It seeks to develop an integration of
faith and life among the students. To strengthen their spiritual and religious growth,
concrete experiences of church life are available to all students through
Eucharistic/sacramental celebrations and involvement in local or universal church
projects and activities.
The climate and classroom in Poveda’s Personalized Education Program
includes a variety of factors that works together to produce a greater result. These
involve tangible and intangible factors such as physical and emotional aspects.
The tangible or physical factors are known as the bolts and nuts, which are
the most basic. Tangible factors are the things received by teachers in the
classroom such as desk, chairs, books, shelves, wall displays, etc. These factors
are beyond the control of the teachers which include the classroom size and other
facilities.
In a PEP classroom, the teachers create a supportive and interesting
environment for the students. This environment enables the students to succeed
or to experience a measure of success. This forms the psychological aspects of
climate which the teacher has to think about in order to address particular needs
of individual students and of the class as a whole according to Pacia (2003).
As the students experience this kind of climate and classroom, they should
say to themselves that: (a) this is a good place to be (sense of security); (b) I belong
here; (c) This is a place I can trust; (d) I can do many things on my own and become
independent; and (e) I feel good here. These are the indicators needed to know if
PEP is being implemented in the classroom.
The physical set-up should permeate through a loving regard for the
person’s dignity and sincere concern for the person’s growth and development.
Aside from that, the psychological factors include the following: (1) a sense of
appreciation for the value of each person; (2) a sense of belonging; (3) a sense of
security; (4) joy in learning; (5) a sense of purpose; and (6) a sense of competence
as outlined by Pacia (2003).
The family climate in a PEP classroom is characterized by spontaneity,
confidence, and friendliness. This climate develops and presents intimate
relationships among learners. Personal contacts are spontaneous, thus, the
teacher roles are not only in the classroom but also during the free time of the
students. The teacher considers all these activities as occasions for formation. The
teachers put premium on the exercise of love, joy, goodness, simplicity,
naturalness, respect, and confidence (Pacia 2003).
This research was conducted to determine the holistic levels of formation of
the students exposed to Poveda’s Personalized Education Program.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following problems:
1. What are the holistic levels of formation of the students when
grouped according to their year level?
2. Is there a significant difference on the holistic formation of the
students across year levels?

The figure below shows the conceptual paradigm of the study.

Poveda’s Four brain Holistic

Personalized quadrant
Formation of
Education
Students
Program

Figure 2 Conceptual paradigm

 Figure I indicates the relationship between the independent and the
dependent variables. The independent variable is the Poveda’s Personalized
Education Program. Whereas, the student’s holistic level of formation measured in
terms of perception of students is the dependent variable.
This research used questionnaires, interviews and classroom observations
to gather data and information about the study. Eighty (80) students composed of
second, third, and fourth year students of Saint Pedro Poveda College served as
respondents to this research. The research did not include first year students
because they are in the adjusting stage in high school and has a different program
compared to second, third and fourth year high school. The study did not test the
effectiveness nor compared PEP with other curricula and paradigms. This
research did not identify factors that affect the holistic formation of the students.
This study only assessed the perceptions of the students regarding their holistic
formation level when exposed to Poveda’s Personalized Education Program.
This study is important to the following: 1. Teachers, they can use the
findings of the study for an improved Poveda’s Personalized Education Program
instruction; 2.Students, implementation will mean better instruction and learning
environment. Hence, there will be better learning, understanding, and realization
of the lessons and school pedagogy; and 3. Curriculum maker, results of the study
may be considered in their formulation of curriculum framework.

Method
The study used a descriptive method and combination of qualitative and
quantitative data analysis on the holistic level of formation when exposed to
Poveda’s Personalized Education Program.

Respondents and Sampling

The study used two hundred forty (240) students as respondents. The
study was limited to Saint Pedro Poveda College, High School Department. Two
sections in the second, third, and fourth year served as samples for this study.

Research Instrument
Questionnaire for Students
The questionnaire consisted of three sections: (1) Personal information,
(2) Holistic formation based on Poveda’s Personalized Education Program (PEP),
and (3) Poveda’s Personalized Education Program Usage.
Section 2 consisted of 28 items in a five-point Likert Scale format,
describing the holistic formation of students based on the four brain quadrants,
which are as follows: Quadrant 1 Curriculum Centered on the PersonQuadrant 2
Development of Individual Ability, Quadrant 3 Process of Building a Person and
Quadrant 4 Individual Concern and Care for each Person.
The questionnaire was developed by the researcher. The questionnaire
was content and face validated by the proponent and experts. Students’ responses
on the questionnaires were tabulated. Percentage frequency distribution,
arithmetic mean, and ranking were determined.
 Students’ responses on the questionnaires were tabulated. Percentage
frequency distribution, arithmetic mean, and ranking were determined. To quantify
the perceptions of students the following level of satisfaction equivalents were
employed:
Range Interpretation
4.50 - 5.00 Strongly Agree
3.50 - 4.49 Agree
2.50 – 3.49 Undecided
1.50 – 2.49 Disagree
1.00 – 1.49 Strongly Disagree

To quantify the perceptions of students in their holistic level of formation

when exposed to Poveda’s Personalized Education Program, the following
degree equivalents were employed:

Range Interpretation
4.50 - 5.00 Very high formation
3.50 - 4.49 High formation
2.50 – 3.49 Moderate formation
1.50 – 2.49 Low formation
1.00 – 1.49 Very low formation

Data Gathering Procedure. The study was conducted during the first and second
trimester of the school year 2011-2012 at Saint Pedro Poveda College, High
School Department. Classroom observations focused on both students (learner-
focused observation and feedback) and teacher (planning and preparation,
teacher’s proficiency and competency, teacher’s decorum, learning activities, and
classroom management) were performed using indicators aligned on the
pedagogy of the school. Interviews were conducted to obtain accurate
interpretations and further validate the class observations and answers of the
students and teachers in the questionnaire. This provided an opportunity for in-
depth probing, and elaboration and clarification about the words used by the
respondents: teachers and students.

Administration of Questionnaire. The researcher explained to the student

participants that the survey was not a test and would not affect their class work,
performance, and academic standing. The researcher also explained that there
were no right and wrong answers. The researcher explained that the questions on
holistic formation focused on how Poveda’s Personalized Education (PEP) helped
mold them as a person. The students were also reminded to answer all the
questions and never leave any question unanswered. The student participants
completed the questionnaire in the classroom during their Science laboratory
schedule. The student participants took the survey in one hour.
 Data Analysis and Statistical Treatment. Mean rank, mean score summary and
one way ANOVA at 0.05 level of significance were used to determine the difference
in the perceptions of students in the holistic level of formation of students when
exposed to Poveda’s Personalized Education Program across year level. The
study also used simple frequency count, percentage frequency distribution,
arithmetic mean, and ranking.

Results and Discussion

Holistic Effect of the Poveda’s Personalized Education Program. Table 1
present the results of the respondents’ perceived agreements of the effect of the
administered PPEP per year level.

Table 1. Perceptions of Students on Holistic Formation Levels When Exposed to

Poveda’s Personalized Education Program
Year Level
2nd Year 3rd year 4th year
Mean Score

Mean Score

Mean Score
Interpretatio

Interpretatio

Interpretatio
Item

Rank

Rank

Rank
n*

n*

n*
I take Christ as the model in my decision
4.11 A 7 4.61 SA 3 4.44 A 1
making process.
I give equal value to the rich and the poor. 3.94 A 17.5 4.28 A 9 4.39 A 3
I help my classmates in their studies rather
4.05 A 10.5 4.11 A 12.5 4.21 A 5
than compete with them.
I realize that relationship with my
classmates; teachers and relatives need to 3.98 A 16 4.09 A 15 4.06 A 7
be continuously improved.
I can easily connect with the feelings and 11.
3.94 A 17.4 4.11 A 12.5 3.96 A
needs of others. 5
I follow my decision especially if it’s about
truth, integrity and honesty even if my 3.68 A 25 3.03 U 28 3.40 U 25
friends or clique do not like it.
I like mingling with the poor. 4.05 A 10.5 3.25 U 26.5 4.35 A 4
I reflect on things that I can improve every
3.81 A 22 3.25 U 26.5 3.73 A 22
time I get a low grades.
I seek help with my parents; teachers; and
3.85 A 21 3.43 U 25 3.76 A 20
friends in making decisions.
I give importance about the feelings of
4.03 A 13 4.49 A 5 4.40 A 2
others.
I always accomplish my goal within a given
3.73 A 23 3.75 A 20 3.36 U 26
time.
I develop my skills and ability based on my 11.
4.13 A 6 4.35 A 8 3.96 A
personality. 5
I prioritize things that can develop my
4.09 A 9 4.50 SA 4 3.95 A 13
talents and abilities.
I submit requirements on time. 4.16 A 2 3.64 A 23 4.05 A 8.5
I know my uniqueness, strengths and
4.10 A 8 3.68 A 22 3.94 A 14
weaknesses.
I maximize my talents, skills and abilities. 3.91 A 20 3.86 A 18 3.79 A 18
I love activities that address my emotional
4.04 A 12 3.53 A 24 3.78 A 19
needs.
I engage in drills that develop my perception
4.14 A 4 3.96 A 16 3.93 A 15
and reasoning.
I can relate with mental events that have
4.01 A 14 3.85 A 19 3.75 A 21
motor consequences or vice versa.
I like participating in activities that require
3.58 A 26 3.70 A 21 3.44 U 24
emotions.
I like activities that use logic and
3.69 A 24 3.90 A 17 3.59 A 23
computation.
I like games and activities in the class
3.93 A 19 4.89 SA 2 4.01 A 10
discussion.
I accept persons who do not meet my
4.14 A 4 4.10 A 14 3.88 A 17
standard.
I focus on building good relationship with
4.20 A 1 4.48 A 6 4.05 A 8.5
every member of the class.
I understand my classmate’s situation and
4.14 A 4 4.46 A 7 3.89 A 16
condition.
I understand and give suggestion on
improvement to my classmates every time 4.00 A 15 4.93 SA 1 4.11 A 6
they give unusual answers.
I accept excuses for non-cooperation or
3.20 U 27 4.21 A 10 3.01 U 27
helping group
I help my classmates if she is having
2.39 D 28 4.19 A 11 2.30 D 28
problem in school work.
OVERALL MEAN 3.89 A
4.02 A 3.84 A
* 4.50 – 5.00, Strongly Agree; 3.50 - 4.49, Agree; 2.50 – 3.49, Undecided; 1.50 – 2.49, Disagree; 1.00 – 1.49, Strongly Disagree

Overall, the respondents agreed that intervention of the Poveda Personalized

Education Program contributes to holistic formation of a student. Though it
seems very desirable, the Povedan program however may fails to instill the value
of initiative among respondents, especially the 2nd and 4th year respondents, to
help co-students in terms of school-related problems
 Holistic Formation of Students Base on the Four Brain Quadrants.
Table 2 shows the level of formation that the respondents developed along the
PPEP based on the 4 brain quadrants.

Table 2. Mean Score Summary of Students in each Brain Quadrant

2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year

Mean Score

Mean Score

Mean Score
Interpretatio

Interpretatio

Interpretatio
Brain Quadrant

n*

n*

n*
Quadrant 1: (items 1-7)
Curriculum is centered on 3.96 High 3.93 High 4.12 High
the person rather than on formation formation formation
the curriculum to be taught.
Quadrant 2: (items 8-14)
Each student is allowed to
develop and to accomplish 3.97 High 3.91 High 3.89 High
objectives at a pace suited formation formation formation
to individual ability and the
characteristic of her ability.
Quadrant 3: (items 15-21)
Process of building a
High 3.78 High 3.74 High
person by addressing her 3.92
formation formation formation
cognitive, affective and
psychomotor needs.
Quadrant 4: (items 22-18)
A deep and reverential
valuing of the dignity of High 4.46 High 3.61 High
3.71
every educand in her formation formation formation
concrete circumstances
and conditions.
Average Mean Scores High High High
3.89 4.02 3.84
formation formation formation
*4.50 – 5.00, very high formation ; 3.50 - 4.49, high formation; 2.50 – 3.49, moderate formation; 1.50 – 2.49, low formation ; 1.00 – 1.49, very low formation

Table 2 significantly shows that all of the respondents’ holistic formation along
the four brain quadrants have undergone high formation, with mean averages of
3.71, 4.46 and 3.61 for 2nd, 3rd and 4th year levels respectively. Likewise,
among the 4 quadrants considered, if viewed on a year level basis, the highest
level of formation of the 2nd and 3rd year participants is on the 4th quadrant (a
deep and reverential valuing of the dignity of every educand in her concrete
circumstances and conditions); while that of the 4th year participants is on
quadrant 1 (curriculum is centered on the person rather than on the curriculum to
be taught).

Comparison of holistic formation across year level. Summarized on table 3 is the

result of the statistical analysis applied in determining the relationship among the
different levels of respondents on their perceived holistic formation brought about
by the administration of the Poveda Personalized Education Program.

Table 3. ANOVA Summary: Perceptions of Students on the Holistic Formation

Levels When Exposed to Poveda’s Personalized
Education Program

Sources of Sum of Df Mean f- value p-value Interpretation

variation square square (at 0.05
level)
Between 0.49 2 0.25 2.09 0.13 Not Sig.*
curricular year
Error 6.38 54 0.11

The results of the computed ANOVA summary between curricular years of

the perceptions of students on holistic level of formation indicated that the sum of
squares was 0.049 with degrees of freedom of 2 and 54. The results show no
differences in the perceptions towards holistic formation of students across year
levels [ f (2, 54) = 2.09, p =.13].

The results showed that the perceptions of students on holistic formation of

Poveda’s Personalized Education in each curricular year do not vary similarity
when compared with each other. They also indicated that perceptions of second,
third, and fourth year students on holistic formation when exposed to Poveda’s
Personalized Education Program did not differ significantly from each other and
had no significant effect on their perceptions towards holistic formation.

Conclusions
The application of Poveda’s Personalized Education Program can lead to
the holistic formation of students however, more improvement is necessary to
increase the levels of formation of students in each brain quadrant. The absence
of significant difference in the perceptions of students across level regarding
holistic formation suggests that students may be formed holistically in different
degrees and year levels. The results could also be linked to many factors such
as student’s lifestyle, upbringing, as well as implementation of the pedagogy and
program of the school, teachers, and administrators.
Recommendations forwarded by the researcher centralizes on the
following: (1) identification of factors that may affect the level of holistic formation
of secondary students; (2) conduct of graduate tracer studies as follow-up on the
holistic formation of the graduates; (3) inclusion of Poveda’s Personalized
Education Program in the courses offered by different colleges.

References

Ayaso-Cabusora, T. (2003). Matching teaching and learning styles and student

achievement in the intermediate grades. Doctoral Dissertation, University
of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
Concepcion,M.G.O (2004). Development of an intervention program for effective
management of classroom behaviors for secondary teacher of Metro
Manila. Doctoral Dissertation, Philippine Normal University, Manila.
Classroom management. (2001). Retrieved June 25, 2011, from Classroom
management.com:
http://www.myclassroommanagement.com/consequences-and-
rewards/common-behavior-problems-and-solutions/
Duke, D.L. (1990). Teaching: An introduction. New York: McGraw Hill
Publishing Company, Inc.
Dreikurs, R.S. (2009). Children: the Challenge New York: Hawthorn Book
c2009
Galino, A. (1965). Pedro Poveda. Itenerio Pedogogica. Madrid: Consejo Superior
De Investigaciones Cientificas , Instituto de Pedagogica.
Golub, J. & Hammerken A. (1996). Focus on Collaborative learning: classroom
practices in teaching English. National Council of Teachers of English.
Grasha, A.F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority,
personal model, facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching. 42, 142-149
Gregorio, B.L. (1996). Student impressions on peace issue & participatory
approach: their application in history classes in the college of ADZU.
College of Liberal Arts Teacher, Ateneo de Zamboanga University,
Zamboanga.
Jones V.J. (1995). Approaches to Behavior Modification Review of Education
Research, Boston, Massachusetts.
Martinez, N.M. (1995). Classroom Management and disciplinary problem of
elementary school teachers: their implication to effective teaching.
Unpublished Paper, Master’s Thesis. Agusan Institute of Technology,
Butuan City.
Pacia, C.G. (2003). Personalized Education. Center of Educators Formation.
Segovia Bldg. Poveda Learning Center.
Queypo, M.F. (1998). Classroom management skills in Science Teaching of the
Private Secondary Schools in Ilocos Sur. Unpublished Paper, Master’s
Thesis. University of Northern Philippine, Vigan, Ilocos Sur.
Rodriguez, R.A. (2009). Preschool Program of the Division of city schools Manila:
Basis for intervention training model. Unpublished Paper,Master’s Thesis.
Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology, Manila.
Rinaldi, C. & Gurung, R. (2005). Does matching teaching and learning styles
optimize learning? Teaching Forum, 1. Retrieved www.
uwlax.edu/teachingforum?indesx/html
Tiberio, E.G. (2005). Changing patterns in classroom practice of teachers in
secondary city school in the province of Negros Occidental. Doctoral
Dissertation, West Negros College, Bacolod City.
Wong, H. (2000, October 25). What can yoou do to have a well-managed
classroom? Retrieved from teachers’.net.gazette.
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/hwong.html