ASSESSMENT OF THE SELF-ESTEEM LEVELS OF FIRST YEAR EDUCATION

STUDENTS AT BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY; IMPLICATION FOR CURRICULUM

ENHANCEMENT

PEDRO D. ABANADOR, EdD

LUZVIMINDA F. TANTOCO, EdD
ERNESTO S. DE GUZMAN

Abstract

The present research was carried out in order to assess the self-esteem levels of first year
students in the College of Education, Bulacan State University. The survey instrument used as
the means to assess the self-esteem levels of first year students is a checklist that was patterned
on the assessment tool developed by Lawrence (2006). Some items were modified to suit local
conditions. This was piloted and then administered to an opportunity sample of 50 first year
students at the College of Education. The quantitative data was analysed using the SPSS
computer package. The results reveal a medium self-esteem level of first year education students
with regards to unrealistic perception about self, weak foundation for positive self-esteem, not
confident for school work, does not cope well with failure, finds it hard to accept responsibility
for own actions, negative perceptions from others, easily led, image is very important, does not
have positive friendship and eating patterns disturbed. The results and findings in both profile
and self-esteem level of respondents support the assessment result and so it can therefore be
concluded that there is a medium self-esteem levels of first year education students having strong
implication to curriculum enhancement.

Introduction

This study is interested in assessing self-esteem levels of first year education students at
Bulacan State University. It seeks to assess how high or low self-esteem are having with the
students and its implication to curriculum enhancement. Self-esteem is one of the most studied
aspects of individual difference in personality. Humanist, psychodynamic, social psychological
and cognitive theorists have emphasised the importance of self-esteem. The impact on the
individual of having either high or low levels of self-esteem may not simply affect their life
expectations but also impact at a societal level. There is a belief, supported by Baumeister
(1999), that low self-esteem is responsible for a broad assortment of personal and social
problems. There is a dearth of evidence that suggests that school programs aimed at raising
children’s self-esteem produce a reduction in crime, delinquency, drug abuse and
underachievement in school. (Baumeister 1999). Curry and Johnson (1990) describe high self-
esteem as a secure sense of identity and an ability to acknowledge and value one’s own efforts
and achievements. They stress a connection between high self-esteem, confidence, energy and
optimism and argue that these traits have their roots in early years. Baumeister, Rice and Hutton
(1989) discuss self-esteem in terms of motivational orientation, with high self-esteem giving a
self-enhancing orientation. In other words a person considered to have high self esteem is more
likely to seek to capitalise on their good traits and pursue successes even under risky conditions.
On the other hand people with low self-esteem have a self-protecting orientation and avoid
failures and set backs. (Baumeister 1999). The importance of understanding more about self-
esteem in relation to education is clear. A suitable means of doing this is in the guise of a
straightforward self-esteem questionnaire whom the process of which students are quite familiar
with. With the focus of assessing self esteem levels of education students in mind, the statement
of the problem has been drawn up.

Statement of the Problem

The aim of the problem is to assess the self-esteem levels of first year education students
at Bulacan State University and its implication to curriculum enhancement.

Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions:

1. How may the profile of first year education students be described in terms of:
1.1 age;
1.2 gender;
1.3 parents’ educational background;
1.4 parents’ occupation;
1.5 monthly family income;
1.6 number of children?

2. How may the self-esteem levels of first year education students be assessed in terms of:
2.1 unrealistic perception about self;
2.2 weak foundation for positive self-esteem;
2.3 not confident for school work;
2.4 does not cope well with failure;
2.5 finds it hard to accept responsibility for own actions;
2.6 negative perceptions from others;
2.7 easily led;
2.8 image is very important;
2.9 does not have positive friendship;
2.10 and eating patterns disturbed?

3. What is the implication of the result of the assessment of self-esteem levels of first year
education students to curriculum enhancement?

Significance of the Study

The study is significant to students who begin college unprepared for the challenges of
balancing their responsibilities and maintaining a healthy lifestyle in the face of stressors (Negga
et al., 2007). Students with low self-esteem open a door of vulnerability to negative outcomes
associated with exposure to stressful experiences, such as depressive symptoms that generate
further stressful experiences (Barker,2007). Social support acts as a buffer against high stress
levels, and it has been demonstrated that high self-esteem is associated with high academic
performance. Thus the findings of the study will help deans, professors and administrators of the
university to enhance the present curriculum of the college that will motivate students with
higher levels of self-esteem as early as their first year in the university.
Limitation of the Study

The study is limited to assess the self-esteem level of first year education students of
Bulacan State University, Malolos City province of Bulacan. The profile of respondents were
taken such as age, gender, parents’ educational background, parents’ occupation, monthly family
income, and number of children. The self-esteem levels of respondents is measured in terms of
unrealistic perception about self, weak foundation for positive self-esteem, not confident for
school work, does not cope well with failure, finds it hard to accept responsibility for own
actions, negative perceptions from others, easily led, image is very important, does not have
positive friendship and eating patterns disturbed. The instrument used in the study is a checklist
that was patterned on the assessment tool developed by Lawrence (2006) but some items were
modified to suit local conditions of the respondents and the locale of the study.

RESEARCH PARADIGM
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Processess Assessment of Self-Esteem levels of

Profile of Respondents
Age
Gender
Parents’ Educational
Background
Parents’ Occupation
Monthly Family Income
Number of Children
First year Education Students
Observing
Identifying 1.Unrealistic perception about self;
2.Weak foundation for positive self-
Classifying
Inferring esteem;
3.Not confident for school work;
Hypothesizing
Concluding 4.Does not cope well with failure;
5.Finds it hard to accept
Recommending
Implying 6.Responsibility for own actions;
7.Negative perceptions from others;
8.Easily led;
9.Image is very important;
10.Does not have positive friendship;
and eating patterns disturbed?

IMPLICATION TO CURRICULUM ENHANCEMENT

Fig. 1 Research Model of the Study

Literature and Studies

 To begin with, the attack on self-esteem must be understood as but one
engagement in a much wider war to preserve what might be called the Old School of
education. Critics who decry self-esteem programs typically slide into denunciations of
any sort of affective education -- and, for that matter, any academic instruction that
departs in content or method from a "basics" curriculum in which facts and skills in
primary subject areas are transmitted from teacher to student. By and large, these are the
same critics who dismiss bilingual education, invented spelling, multicultural curricula,
and cooperative learning as illegitimate. They reserve special scorn for anyone who
challenges such favored traditional practices as tracking, competition, grades, or
standardized testing. Sometimes they also speak up for punitive discipline, in which the
point is to maintain control of the classroom and get students to obey.
Not every commentary includes all of these elements, of course, but they coincide
often enough to warrant thinking of them as forming a sort of ideological package. An
attempt to help students feel better about themselves is thus viewed as just one more
departure from the way things ought to be. And for rhetorical purposes critics prefer to
describe their approach as being under siege -- notwithstanding the pervasiveness of the
practices they favor. For example, Finn insists with a straight face that the "prevailing
wisdom" today is to renounce standardized testing, tracking, and competition, while
Lerner refers to the assignment of a dominant role to self-esteem as "the reigning
orthodoxy" in education.
It is also worth observing that the preferred method of justifying attacks on self-
esteem (and other challenges to the Old School) is the use of highly selective anecdotes:
critics are apt to dredge up an example of silly classroom materials or a quotation about
feeling good that would redden the cheeks of most self-esteem loyalists. Very rarely are
real data provided to substantiate the criticism itself or its premises. (Of course,
supporting evidence is also scarce in defenses of self-esteem programs.)
People inherently seek to protect, maintain, and enhance their self-esteem (rocker,2002).
People must attempt to achieve success and stay away from failure in the areas in which they
have placed their self-worth in order for them to accomplish their goals of protecting,
maintaining, and enhancing their self-esteem (Crocker, 2002). The areas or domains that have a
strong impact on self-worth, depending on how people feel they measure up to a self-standard in
that domain, are referred to as contingencies of self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). People will
choose situations and engage in behavior that will enhance their self-esteem by fulfilling their
contingencies of self-worth (Crocker, 2002). For example, if people’s self worth is contingent on
family support, they will be likely to put time and effort into spending more time with their
family because successful relationships will validate the individual’s self-worth.

Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, and Bouvrette (2003), focused on seven domains (or
contingencies) hypothesized to be important to college students’ self-esteem: others’ approval,
appearance, competition, competence, family support, virtue, and God’s love. Crocker et al.’s
(2003) measure of contingencies of self-worth focused on (a) approval from generalized others,
which is generally seen as a source of conditional love, and (b) family support, which is
generally seen as a source of unconditional love. The implication for the current study is that
most people have contingent self-worth. In fact, only 4% of participants in Crocker et al.’s
(2003) study had non-contingent self-worth, and these participants could have had their
contingency in a domain that was not tested. This study focused on those who have external
contingencies of self-worth. In other words, people who place their self-worth on the approval of
other people, and if those other people are not approving of a certain trait that is of value to them,
then they are more likely to have lower self-esteem. For example, when people’s parents are not
approving of their grades, and they place their self-worth in their parents’ approval of them, then
they are likely to have lower self-esteem.
Others would like to see schools vigorously pursuing intellectual and sociomoral
development, pointing out that the two are actually difficult to tease apart. (Note that
intellectual development is quite different from a collection of discrete academic skills.)
To the critics' complaint that activities intended to help children become good people just
take time away from helping them to become good learners, it might be noted that any
number of classroom practices can do double duty. When the members of a class meet to
make decisions and solve problems, they get the self-esteem-building message that their
voices count, they experience a sense of belonging to a community, and they hone their
ability to reason and analyze. When students work together in well-designed cooperative
learning groups, they are likely to feel more positively disposed toward themselves and
one another -- and to learn more effectively. When children are helped to develop the
capacity (and inclination) to understand how other people see the world, they are more
likely to act generously -- and, given the focused use of imagination required, they also
develop intellectual skills. Finally, conversations about carefully chosen works of
literature can spark reflection on important values while they build a facility with and
appreciation for the language.
Closely aligned with the latter belief is the assumption that "human nature is to do
as little as necessary," as one columnist remarked in the course of ridiculing self-esteem
programs. A thorough refutation of this prejudice would require a review of virtually the
entire literature on personality theory and motivation. But we can say this much: the
desire to do as little as possible is an aberration, a sign that something is amiss. It may
suggest that the individual feels threatened and has fallen back on a strategy of damage
control, or that extrinsic motivators have undermined interest in the task by reframing it
as a tedious prerequisite to obtaining a reward, or that the task itself is perceived as
pointless and dull.
This last possibility suggests another hidden premise of the critics: that learning is
bitter medicine, an inherently unpleasant process that will naturally be avoided by happy,
satisfied children. (Thus, we had better make sure they aren't too happy or satisfied). In
the abstract, this is demonstrably false: it is almost impossible to stop happy, satisfied
children from learning. But if learning is taken to mean multiplying naked numbers, or
reading the sodden prose of a textbook and answering the even-numbered questions at the
end of the chapter, or memorizing disconnected facts and definitions, then yes, there is
some truth to the charge. But the problem does not lie with the students or with "human
nature" or with high self-esteem; it lies with a drill-and-skill curriculum. Ironically, this is
the very pedagogical approach championed by many critics of affective education.
The flip side of the fear that too much self-esteem will kill the desire to learn is the
faith that the disappointment attendant on losing a contest or flunking a test motivates
children to do better in the future. The logic here is that it is precisely the feeling that one
is a failure that creates an incentive to improve, a redoubling of one's efforts to learn.
(Premature or unearned self-esteem would therefore short-circuit that natural process.)
Usually this dismal premise lurks in the shadows of diatribes about self-esteem, but
occasionally it is spelled out explicitly:
When children fail at a task, the most likely result, all things being equal, is that they
will expect to do poorly on similar tasks in the future, and this expectation can set in
motion a self-fulfilling prophecy. In this highly qualified sense, self-esteem does indeed
seem to matter; the chances of success are higher for students who feel competent. On the
other hand, perceived competence comes to a large extent from experiencing success.
Thus, because failure can engender a feeling of incompetence (if not helplessness), future
levels of achievement are compromised.
Beyond its detrimental effect on performance, an experience with failure can
produce two other overlapping results: a desire to take the easy way out and a loss of
interest in whatever one has been doing. Both of these are presumably troubling to
educators across the ideological spectrum. Students who have failed at something are
inclined to prefer less challenging tasks than students who have succeeded. (Many
commentators on education seem to forget that trying to avoid failure and trying to
succeed are two very different orientations.) Similarly, students who have come to feel
incompetent are less likely than others to be interested in what they are working on. This
means that even those students who really do buckle down and try harder when they fail
-- the supposed success stories of the Old School methods -- may be doing so out of an
anxious, compulsive pressure to feel better about themselves rather than because they
enjoy learning. Even if they manage to understand what they are reading today, they may
not want to read tomorrow.
The destructive impact of failure on intrinsic motivation shows up with startling
consistency. Its effect on short-term performance, however, depends on a number of
factors. "It is not so much the event of failure, or even its frequency, that disrupts
performance as it is the meaning of failure," as Martin Covington has put it. Did someone
deliberately give me too tricky a task in the hope that I would somehow be a better
person for failing at it -- or did the task unexpectedly prove too challenging? Was failure
defined on the basis of someone else's judgment -- or something intrinsic to the task
itself? Did I experience that uniquely toxic form of failure in which one person must lose
to another in a public competition? Did the failure take place in the context of intense
pressure to succeed -- or a relaxed climate of exploration? Do I fear ridicule or
punishment (such as a poor grade) for having failed -- or am I part of a supportive
community where setbacks are no big deal?
Of course, beyond situational factors, it is also true that individual differences help
to account for the effects of failure: one child may redouble her efforts while another
throws in the towel. But the most significant of these predictors may just be the extent to
which a student is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated -- that is, interested in the
learning itself as opposed to being inclined to see success as a way of getting grades,
approval, or other rewards. Studies indicate that it is children with the latter orientation
who "showed performance impairment and less motivation ... following failure." And the
latter orientation follows predictably from being in environments that lead students to
focus on such artificial inducements.
Of all the factors that determine how students will respond to failure, research has
shown that the most important one of all is how they have come to explain that failure. If
I fall short, do I think it is because I'm stupid (ability), because I didn't try hard enough
(effort), because the questions were too hard (task difficulty), or because it just wasn't my
day (luck)? Some of these things are internal and some are external; some are stable and
some are variable; one (effort) is within my control and the rest are not. This framework,
proposed a generation ago by Bernard Weiner, has inspired a small library of work by
social and educational psychologists. The consensus is that "children who attribute their
failures to invariant or uncontrollable factors, such as insufficient ability, tend to be
debilitated by failure."
Interestingly, even children who succeed are less likely to continue learning
effectively if they explain their success in terms of how smart they are. Students who are
encouraged to focus on their ability -- or lack of it -- typically become preoccupied with
their performance. By contrast, those who explain their success or failure in terms of how
hard they tried are more likely to become absorbed in the task itself. This, in turn, means
that they are less likely to be thrown by failure and more likely to be intrinsically
motivated and to keep working at something until they get it. The key distinction here is
not hard to grasp: success, persistence, and interest tend to follow when children are
helped to think about what they are doing; the absence of these results suggests that
children have been led to think about how they are doing and, by extension, how able
they are. But what classroom practices create the latter, dysfunctional orientation?
To reflect on failure and success in the classroom is to return to the place we began
-- that is, a discussion of self-esteem's relation to achievement. As we saw, the evidence
doesn't support the claim that programs intended to help children feel good about
themselves are likely to raise students' achievement. But now it seems clear that the Old
School approach favored by many critics of these activities is even worse. So how can we
help students to learn? If there is reason to be skeptical about what we hear from both
boosters and bashers of self-esteem, where does that leave us?
 The answer, once again, depends on our objectives. If we are genuinely concerned
with students' intellectual development (as opposed to their scores on standardized tests),
then it makes sense to do all we can to help them focus on effort rather than ability, to
become absorbed with the learning itself rather than being preoccupied with their
performance. This, in turn, can be facilitated by what I have elsewhere called the "three
C's of motivation": collaboration, choice, and content (of the curriculum).
Collaboration involves more than occasional cooperative learning activities; it
means that students feel connected to their peers and that they experience the classroom
as a safe, supportive community -- not a place of isolation and certainly not a place where
they must compete against each other. Choice means that students are brought into the
process of making decisions about what (and how and why) they are learning -- as well as
other issues of classroom life. Finally, to raise the question of content is to challenge the
assumption that students are indifferent about their schoolwork because they are not
sufficiently "motivated" (or, from another point of view, because they simply have low
self-esteem). The real problem may be that the work itself is not meaningful, engaging, or
relevant.
Each of these considerations shows up again in slightly different form if our goals
for children extend beyond academics to issues of psychological health. Given that many
of the programs billed as self-esteem enhancers fail to have any appreciable effect on
how children feel about themselves, what does make a difference? Edward Deci and
Richard Ryan of the University of Rochester, drawing on the work of other psychologists
before them, have proposed that human beings have three fundamental needs: first, to
feel autonomous or self-determining – "to experience one's actions as emanating from the
self"; second, to have a sense of oneself as competent and effective; and third, to be
related to others and to be part of a social world.
It is not enough to meet these needs only when school is in session. But to the
extent we as educators want to help children feel good about themselves, we would do
better to treat them with respect than to shower them with praise. We should embrace
affective education, but in the context of building community rather than attending to
each individual separately. We ought to work with students rather than doing things (Old
School things or New Age things) to them. Contrary to what some in the self-esteem
movement seem to hold, students do not come to believe they are important, valued, and
capable just because they are told that this is so, or made to recite it. On the other hand,
they are even less likely to feel that way when they are compelled to follow directions all
day. Students acquire a sense of significance from doing significant things, from being
active participants in their own education.
In short, it is time we challenged the false dichotomy that has defined the debate
about self-esteem. Whether our objective is to help children become good (that is,
creative, self-directed, lifelong) learners or good (that is, secure, responsible, caring)
people -- or both -- we can do better than to concentrate our efforts on self-esteem. But let
us be careful that in criticizing that approach we do not end up doing even more harm to
students in the long run.

Method

The survey instrument used in this study was a checklist that was patterned on the
assessment tool developed by Lawrence (2006) used in evaluating the self-esteem of individuals.
However, some items were modified to suit local conditions of respondents, which was
developed for the purpose of identifying levels of self esteem. The main reason for the use of a
questionnaire as opposed to semi-structured interview or any other method was for practical
reasons and speed. The questionnaire uses a mix of open and closed questions allowing for the
collection of quantitative data. One of the drawbacks of using this method is that it does not
allow for probing, prompting or the collection of additional data. It is however quick to
administer, relatively cheap and convenient for respondents. The questionnaire was broken into
10 short sections in an attempt to avoid ‘respondent fatigue’. The sections were made up of 5
qualitative questions, which were deliberately positioned in order to capture the student’s
comments while fresh. These questions required the respondent to read a statement and then
mark whether they have high, medium and low self-esteem. The answers were coded and given a
score, ranging from 3= high, 2= medium and 1= low self-esteem. Finally the first part is the
demographic information of the respondents.

A pilot study was performed and the questionnaire was designed accordingly. The
resulting questionnaire was then administered. The quantitative data was analysed in order to
establish the assessment of the self-esteem levels of first year education students which was then
statistically tested for significance. An opportunity sample of 50 participants made up of 18
males and 32 females agreed to take part. The group consisted of first year education students on
degree program for Bachelor in Elementary Education major in Generalist.

Results
Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the profile of first year students in terms of age, gender, parents’
educational background, parents’ occupation, monthly family income, and number of children.
It is shown on the table that out of 50 respondents 42 or 84 percent whose age ranges from 16 to
17 years old, 4 or 8 percent with age bracket of 18 to 19 years old and 20 and above respectively.
The gender of respondents is having 32 or 54 percent is female and 18 or 36 percent is male.
With regards to mother’s educational background, 27 or 54 percent of their mother are high
school , 10 or 20 percent are collegiate, 7 or 14 percent are graduate and 6 or 12 percent are
elementary. The father’s educational background is described to have the highest frequency of
high school education with 24 or 48 percent, followed by collegiate level with a frequency of 10
or 20 percent, 9 or 18 percent are graduate and 7 or 14 percent are elementary level. It could be
noted further that the occupation of parents is blue collar job with corresponding frequency that
is 43 for the father and 45 for the mother, while 7 father and 5 mothers whose occupation is a
white collar job. The monthly income of parents reveals that 22 or 44 percent whose income is
ranging from 5,000 to 9,999 pesos followed by a monthly income of 10,000 to 14,999 pesos
whose frequency is 16 or 32 percent, 1,000 to 4,999 where 8 or 16 percent of the 50 respondents
earned the amount, 3 or 6 percent with monthly income is 30,00 to 34,999 and 1 or 2 percent
whose income is ranging from 15,000 to 19,999 pesos.

Table 1

Profile of Respondents

Profile of Respondents Frequency Percentage

Age
20 and above 4 8.00
18 - 19 4 8.00
16 - 17 42 84.00
Total 50 100
Gender
Male 18 36.00
Female 32 54.00
Total 50 100
Mother’s Educational Background
Graduate 7 14.00
Collegiate 10 20.00
High School 27 54.00
Elementary 6 12.00
Total 50 100
Father’s Educational Background
Graduate 9 18.00
Collegiate 10 20.00
High School 24 48.00
Elementary 7 14.00
Total 50 100
Mother’s Occupation
White Collar job 5 10.00
Blue Collar job 45 90.00
Total 50 100
Father’s Occupation
White Collar job 7 14.00
Blue Collar job 43 86.00
Total 50 100
Monthly Income
30,000 – 34,999 3 6.00
25,000 – 29,999 0 0
20,000 – 24,999 0 0
15,000 – 19,999 1 2.00
10,000 – 14,999 16 32.00
5,000 – 9,999 22 44.00
1,000 – 4,999 8 16.00
Total 50 100

Inferential statistics

In order to assess the self-esteem levels of first year education students the mean and
standard deviation was used to determine the descriptive assessment of respondents assessment
to their self-esteem levels. This test was selected, as it is the most appropriate for use with the
interval data generated by the self-esteem levels. SPSS was used to calculate the self-esteem
levels and profile of respondents. The results displayed in table 2 below, show the levels of self-
esteem of first year education students thereby confirming to have medium self-esteem level.

In reviewing the quantitative data sets and comparing them with the individual scores for
self-esteem a common theme is revealed. The 50 respondents with the self-esteem, tended to
have more specific and ambitious long-term goals for a medium self-esteem level. For example,
the unrealistic perception about self, weak foundation for positive self-esteem, not confident for
school work, does not cope well with failure, finds it hard to accept responsibility for own
actions, negative perceptions from others, easily led, image is very important, does not have
positive friendship and eating patterns disturbed, all received a mean of 2 when rounded to a
nearest whole number which may be interpreted that the respondents’ self- esteem level is
medium.

The variability coefficient is less than 1 which would implies that there was a
manifestation of homogeneous or lesser variability on the assessment of every respondent using
the checklist of Lawrence for self-esteem that was modified based on local conditions. In
contrast the respondents assessed themselves to have low level of self-esteem specifically on
items about negative perceptions from others, especially the items on frequently putting them
down by their siblings and peers, and often victim of teasing or bullying.

This is due to the fact that respondents tend to be more matured than when they were in
their high school days. They tried to improve their level of self-esteem as they ignore their
siblings and peers when they tried to put them down. Somehow they are not directly affected by
the reactions of people around them. Meanwhile the self-esteem on easily led manifests a low
level on feeling guilty about doing or saying what they want.

From this, it is possible to argue that those with higher esteem tend to be more ambitious
and more specific in their goals. This would concur with the findings of Baumeister, Rice and
Hutton (1989) in regard to motivational orientation.

Table 2

Self-Esteem of First Year Students

Unrealistic perception about itself Mean Standard Interpretation
Deviation
a. I often says negative things about myself. 1.94 0.70 Medium Self-
Esteem
b. I sometimes exaggerates or fabricates 1.82 0.99 Medium Self-
stories to inflate my image. Esteem

c. I do not expect to be liked. 1.90 0.73 Medium Self-

Esteem
d. I do not expect to succeed. 1.92 0.89 Medium Self-
Esteem
e. I feel inferior to most of the people I 1.96 0.75 Medium Self-
know. Esteem

Weak foundation for positive self-esteem 1.91 0.81 Medium Self-

Esteem
a. I have learning difficulties. 1.78 0.94 Medium Self-
Esteem
a. I tend to bully younger or weaker peers. 1.76 1.18 Medium Self-
Esteem
b. I associate with peers who are unpopular 1.90 0.88 Medium Self-
with others. Esteem

Not Confident for School Work 1.81 1.00 Medium Self-

Esteem
a. I am unwilling to try new things unless 1.88 0.84 Medium Self-
sure of success. Esteem
b. I do not initiate own learning. 1.86 0.80 Medium Self-
Esteem
c. I seldom take on extra or more challenging 1.96 0.63 Medium Self-
tasks. Esteem
d. I do not volunteer answer in class 1.86 0.82 Medium Self-
Esteem
e. I have less scholastic than my classmates. 1.78 0.78 Medium Self-
Esteem
Does not cope well failure 1.87 0.77 Medium Self-
Esteem
a. I often says I don’t know or I can’t 1.74 0.84 Medium Self-
remember rather than make an error Esteem

b. I get upset if I lose. 1.84 0.76 Medium Self-

Esteem
c. I minimize successes when they do occur. 1.94 0.61 Medium Self-
Esteem
d. I attribute success to good luck. 1.90 0.88 Medium Self-
Esteem
 e. It takes a long time for me to get over a 1.80 0.72 Medium Self-
mistake that I’ve done. Esteem

Finds it hard accept responsibility for own 1.84 0.76 Medium Self-
actions Esteem

a. I deny wrong doing when clearly at fault. 1.72 0.98 Medium Self-
Esteem
b. I am unwilling to make decisions for 2.00 1.00 Medium Self-
himself or herself. Esteem

c. I give credit to others when things go well 1.94 0.76 Medium Self-
Esteem
d. I find difficult to apologize. 1.54 0.92 Low Self-
Esteem
e. I rely on others to make decisions. 1.96 0.77 Medium Self-
Esteem
Negative perception from others 1.73 0.89 Medium Self-
Esteem
a. I am frequently put down by my siblings. 1.60 1.11 Low Self-
Esteem
b. I am frequently put down by my peers. 1.60 1.06 Low Self-
Esteem
c. I am often put down by adults in family. 2.00 1.04 Medium Self-
Esteem
d. I am often put down by adults in school. 1.78 1.06 Medium Self-
Esteem
e. I am often victim of teasing or bullying. 1.68 1.16 Low Self-
Esteem
Easily led 1.73 1.09 Medium Self-
Esteem
a. I am anxious to follow peer group fads and 1.84 0.88 Medium Self-
fashions. Esteem

b. I am easily led by others. 2.26 0.72 High Self-

Esteem
c. I don’t initiate activities. 1.86 0.96 Medium Self-
Esteem
d. I don’t voice my own opinion. 1.82 0.84 Medium Self-
Esteem
e. I feel guilty about doing or saying what I 1.66 0.91 Low Self-
want. Esteem

Image is very important 1.89 0.86 Medium Self-

Esteem
a. I try to look tough 1.92 0.72 Medium Self-
 Esteem
b. I try to maintain a cool image. 1.90 0.81 Medium Self-
Esteem
c. I try to impress my peers by acting 2.00 0.98 Medium Self-
clownish in school. Esteem

d. I act tough even I am unsure of myself. 1.88 0.93 Medium Self-

Esteem
e. I rely on possessions to gain prestige. 1.94 0.93 Medium Self-
Esteem
Does Not have Positive Friendship 1.93 0.87 Medium Self-
Esteem
a. I often try to buy friendships. 1.76 1.30 Medium Self-
Esteem
b. I find making friends difficult. 1.84 1.03 Medium Self-
Esteem
c. People consider me aloof and distant. 1.76 1.14 Medium Self-
Esteem
Eating patterns disturbed 1.79 1.16 Medium Self-
Esteem
a. I try to improve my image by extreme 1.78 0.94 Medium Self-
dieting. Esteem

b. I use food for comfort. 1.86 0.80 Medium Self-

Esteem
c. I lose appetite whenever I am criticized. 1.78 1.03 Medium Self-
Esteem
Total 1.81 0.92 Medium Self-
Esteem

Discussion

The intention of this research was to address the assessment of self-esteem levels of first
year education students of Bulacan State University. Statistical testing has demonstrated a
medium self-esteem levels and this has been further supported by the more descriptive data
provided by each respondent.

The strengths and weaknesses of the method, sample and application will now be
reviewed. The method of accessing the sample was efficient in terms of response rate. The aim
was to obtain 50 completed questionnaires. The high rate of respondents may have been affected
by an element of conformity pressure. The classroom where the students answered the checklist
were conducive to the high response rate and the fact that the professor teaching the class
introduced the researcher and clearly gave her approval further encouraged cooperation. It also
meant that all the respondents were subject to the same external conditions. Despite the possible
pressure to take part, the respondents may have felt uneasy about writing their answers in the
close proximity of their classmates; this could alter the responses given and thus the reliability of
the study. By capturing an audience in this opportunist way, one inevitably ends up with an
unrepresentative sample. In this case a group of students from the bachelor of Elementary
Education major in Generalist were all first year with 18 males and 32 females. These
imbalances are bound to bias the results. The program of study a particular student may be
studying is likely to have an effect, however little difference in responses could be identified
between the profile of students. It would however be dangerous to assume that this would be the
case across all students in the university. It can be argued that students from other courses and
majors in the College of Education may attract similar types of students with similar levels of
self-esteem and the views or experiences of an education student may vary considerably.

The focus of the study is concerned very much with general overall self-esteem levels
with college experience. The open ended questions have however highlighted a host of factors
affecting satisfaction which have not been fully analysed in this case. The findings have simply
been used to indicate general levels of self-esteem. The self esteem aspect of the study has
revealed that in this research sample levels of self-esteem scores range from medium to low level
with no scores indicating high self-esteem. A possible explanation for this may be that few
people with high self-esteem would even consider attempting other degree course rather than
education course in the first place. Further investigation may shed more light on this possibility.

It has proved useful to have a mix of data in order to gain a more balanced view. There
was a tendency for some respondents to tick the same response column to all quantitative
questions. This could mean that the respondent felt that the same answer applied to all questions
or they were just arbitrarily ticking the same column with little thought. Bryman (2001)
describes this as acquiescence, the tendency for people to consistently agree or disagree. One
way to identify if the respondents are really reading the questions and answering accordingly is
to include the odd reversed score question. The option to split the order of questions to avoid
possible order affects was considered, should the study be taken further this may well be worth
consideration. A minor level of deceit was employed in that respondents were not informed about
the self-esteem aspect to the study. This was considered to be of minimal ethical consideration
and acceptable in order to prevent any affects resulting from the participants knowing that their
self-esteem was the subject of the study. This study also notes that 13 respondents completed the
further information form requesting a copy of this report.

Conclusion and Recommendations

 This study has established an assessment of self-esteem levels of first year education
students, in that there was a medium level of self-esteem of respondents. This has been
demonstrated through a significant, strong, positive mean ratings and standard deviation
measures of the variables supported by quantitative data. In other words it can be concluded that
one has medium self-esteem level. The possibility that college of education life seems to have
students intention to shift to another degree program of the university as it only appeals to those
with higher self-esteem. It may be the case that college of education may not attract those with
low self-esteem. It has been established through the literature that self-esteem is a useful trait to
possess. Baumeister (1999) suggests that raising self-esteem could bring about dramatic
improvements to both the individual and society as a whole. Inclusion and lifelong learning are
driving forces throughout education today. Watson and Taylor (1998).Perhaps by attempting raise
levels of self esteem from an early age, may access a student to select an education course, can
be increased.

Implications to Curriculum Enhancement

Since student respondents in the study were assessed to have medium self-esteem level,
therefore the dean and professors in the college of education in Bulacan State University must sit
on a conference to identify ways on how to improve the self- esteem level of first year students
through curriculum enhancement.

Prior to the result of the assessment, the researchers find it important to review the
subjects offered in all majors of the college of education by requiring students to take up Values
Education subject. The subject must be offered during the first semester of their first year of
studies and making the lesson on self-esteem development be a part and parcel of their learning
competencies to have enough background of the course they have taken in college. Students
must manifest high level of self-esteem and enjoy acquiring formal training of being an effective
classroom teacher.

References

Academic definitions (2004) [online] www.brainydictionary.com/words/defin/satisfaction.htm

(Accessed 17/10/2004)

Baumeister, R. (1999) The Self in Social Psychology. Philadelphia: Psychology Press

Brown, G. et al. (1997) Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge

Bryman, A (2004) Social Research Methods, (2nd ed.): Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coolican, H (1999) Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, (3rd ed.): London: Hodder
and Stoughton.

Curry and Johnson (1990) Self esteem and successful early learning.
Durkin, K. (1995) Developmental Social Psychology: from infancy to old age. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.

Eysenck, M. (2000) Psychology, a student’s handbook, Hove: Psychology Press Ltd.

Gross, R. (1996) Psychology: the Science of Mind and Behaviour. (3rd ed.): London: Hodder and
Stoughton.

Hayes, N. (2000) Foundations of Psychology. (3rd ed.): London: Thomson Learning.

Lee et al (1999) Factors Related to Student Satisfaction with University. [on

line]http://www.qut.edu.au/talss/fye/papers/JollyPaper.doc (accessed 16/11/2004)

Malley, J. (1998) The Measurement and Meaning of Student Satisfaction: A Review.

Melbourne: ACER.

May, T. (2003) DSE212 Exploring Psychology Methods Booklets 4 & 5. UK: OU Publication

Postema, M. and Markham, S. (2001) A Methodology for Subject Evaluation: Defining Student
Satisfaction. [on line]http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/-
smarkham/techreports/satisfaction_2203.htm (accessed 17/10/2004)

Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self Image. Princeton: New Jersey Princeton
University Press.

Rosenberg, M (1965) Self Esteem Scale [on line] http://www.atkinson.yorku.ca/-

psyctest/rosenbrg.htm.
(Accessed 17/10/2004)

Watson, D and Taylor, R. (1998) Lifelong learning and the University: A Post-Dearing Agenda.
London: The Falmer Press