HERPRP Researchers Highlight Initial Findings in Brown Bag Series Part 2
The Higher Education Research and Policy Reform Program (HERPRP) of the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS) held its second online brown bag series on September 10, 2025.
The brown bag highlights the initial research progress of the scholars.
Featured Scholars and Research Presentations
1. Leonardo D. Tejano, MAEd (Mariano Marcos State University)
“University Language Policies and their Impact on Students, Stakeholders, and the Community”
Asst. Prof. Leonardo D. Tejano highlights that university language policies in the Philippines predominantly prioritize the English language, particularly in academic journals and board examinations. He emphasizes that language use in higher education is continually shaped by emerging institutional pressures and global competitiveness. He also notes that most national discussions and debates on language policies are focused on basic education, leaving higher education institutions (HEIs) less examined. Moreover, he argues that if policymakers are to consider translating laws into regional and national languages, there is a pressing need to align existing language policies within the higher education sector.
To address these gaps, Mr. Tejano uses Theory of Analysis that consists three interrelated dimensions: (1) Ideology, Text, and Practice, which explore the underlying beliefs, discourses, and operational realities of language use; (2) Policy Movement and Governance, which examine the processes of policy formulation, communication, implementation, and monitoring; and (3) Inclusivity Mechanisms, which assess stakeholder access, participation, learning support, and community engagement. His study employs a qualitative research approach, utilizing interviews with policymakers, faculty members, students, administrative staff, parents, and community partners. Although the study may not cover all possible respondents, Mr. Tejano reiterates that it represents a significant contribution and a foundation for future research on the implementation of inclusive language policy in higher education.
Preliminary findings reveal several key trends. First, most HEIs position English as the default language to signal internationalization, improve institutional rankings, and enhance graduate employability. Second, a few institutions foreground Filipino to promote national identity and equity, employ multilingualism for community engagement, or adopt contextual bilingualism at the discretion of faculty members. Third, everyday communication practices among stakeholders are far more multilingual than formal policies recognize. Consequently, individuals from non-dominant language backgrounds often experience linguistic pressure and occasional alienation, underscoring the need to make regional and indigenous languages more accessible in instruction, administrative services, and community outreach.
From an initial survey of 15 HEIs, findings show that seven institutions use English as the medium of instruction, one uses Filipino, and four employ contextual bilingualism, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, to balance global readiness with local responsiveness. During focus group discussions, several recurring themes emerged: (1) low visibility of language policies among students and staff; (2) the prestige of English being associated with anxiety, pressure, and social hierarchy; (3) the common practice of code-switching among faculty and students in daily interactions; and (4) a strong desire for the recognition and integration of regional and indigenous languages in academic and institutional contexts.
In conclusion, Asst. Prof. Tejano posed several guiding questions for further inquiry: (1) In what contexts is English required, and where might Filipino or regional languages be more appropriate? (2) How are Filipino, regional, and indigenous languages formally recognized across lectures, administrative operations, learning materials, and academic support services? (3) When and how may code-switching and translanguaging be permitted in teaching and learning? (4) What rules govern the language of assessment, especially in cases where English-only summative tasks are tied to licensure, and under what conditions are multilingual, Filipino, or local submissions valid? (5) What languages should be used for student services, official communications, and community engagement? (6) Finally, how might English and Filipino be paired with regional languages for more inclusive public-facing communication?
2. Priscilla Mizpah P. Santillana, Ph.D. (University of Batangas)
“Developing the Internship Quality and Learning Index: A Framework for Evaluating and Developing Host Training Establishments”
Prof. Priscilla Mizpah P. Santillana, Ph.D., started her presentation by outlining that her literature review encompasses studies focusing exclusively on on-the-job training (OJT) in higher education. Specifically, the review considered texts addressing standards, best practices, learning indicators, student performance, and challenges related to internship programs. Only studies published in English or Filipino between 2020 and 2025 were included in the analysis.
Her findings underscore that internships serve as avenues for mentorship and guidance, cross-departmental exposure, and multicultural awareness. Moreover, she notes the alignment of internship programs with curricular objectives, the prioritization of structured feedback mechanisms, and the importance of stronger partnerships between HEIs and host training establishments (HTEs). The identified learning indicators include employability, work ethics, personal development, technical or discipline-specific competencies, and higher-order thinking skills.
Regarding current practices, Prof. Santillana notes that HTEs employ interns across various functions, including administrative assistance, technical support, multimedia production, and customer relations. On the other hand, she also identified several challenges, such as coordinator limitations (e.g., inadequate training, irregular visits, and frequent reassignments), resource deficiencies (e.g., outdated equipment and insufficient facilities), communication breakdowns (e.g., unclear objectives, lack of guidance, and weak HEI–HTE linkages), time constraints, student-related issues (e.g., fear of rejection, low confidence, tardiness, and timidity), and institutional weaknesses (e.g., poorly managed OJT offices, ambiguous policies, and misaligned curricula).
From these insights, Prof. Santillana concluded that mentorship remains the most significant and effective practice, serving as a key driver of learning and development. Communication skills emerged as both a learning outcome and a recurring challenge, marking them as a focal area for improvement. Furthermore, she emphasizes the need to align internship practices with the standards set by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (AQRF), the Philippine Qualifications Framework (PQF), and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) to uphold academic legitimacy. Despite these frameworks, implementation gaps persist at both HEI and HTE levels, particularly in institutional capacity, coordinator preparedness, and partnership sustainability.
Moving forward, Prof. Santillana intends to conduct a documentary analysis of pertinent policies, standards, and guidelines (PSGs) to identify specific provisions concerning internships and to conduct interviews with representatives from various HTEs to further enrich her analysis.
3. Jovelyn G. Delosa, Ph.D. (Northern Bukidnon State College)
“Accreditation, Student Outcomes and Continuous Quality Improvement Mechanisms: An Inquiry”
Assoc. Prof. Jovelyn G. Delosa, Ph.D., shares that accreditation serves as a strategic necessity for institutional reform, particularly in the formulation and enhancement of HEIs’ academic and community development plans. Drawing on existing research, she emphasizes that accreditation systems must be grounded in continuous quality improvement (CQI) frameworks to ensure sustainability and responsiveness to educational standards. Based on her preliminary review of related literature, Assoc. Prof. Delosa identifies three primary objectives for her study: to determine the extent to which accreditation contributes to the attainment of student learning outcomes; to examine how accreditation fosters a culture of CQI within HEIs; and to identify the lessons learned throughout the accreditation process.
To achieve these objectives, the study examined peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2025, with a focus on higher education, accreditation, student outcomes, and continuous quality improvement. Additionally, key informant interviews were conducted with quality assurance officers and administrators from various accredited institutions to supplement the document analysis and provide practical insights into their institutional experiences.
The preliminary literature review revealed several recurring themes. First, accreditation contributes significantly to the attainment of student outcomes by ensuring that programs comply with established quality benchmarks. Second, accreditation reinforces institutional management and governance by promoting accountability and aligning organizational operations with research priorities and institutional values. Third, while accreditation data hold great potential for institutional improvement, they are often underutilized in practice. Finally, accreditation is frequently perceived as a bureaucratic industry rather than a developmental process that directly supports student learning and success.
The interview responses provided valuable perspectives that expand on these findings. Participants affirm that accreditation contributes to improved student learning outcomes by ensuring quality in academic offerings, maintaining updated and standardized services, and requiring institutions to engage in self-assessment and ongoing improvement efforts. Through accreditation, institutions are also motivated to continuously refine their educational practices, thereby fostering confidence among faculty, students, and stakeholders. It also facilitates systematic feedback mechanisms involving students and external reviewers. Respondents also shared examples of measurable improvements resulting from accreditation, including the monitoring and evaluation of faculty syllabi for constructive alignment, improved performance in licensure examinations, and curriculum revisions that emphasize practical and experiential teaching strategies. Moreover, the influence of accreditation extends to pedagogical practices, as external accreditors often provide recommendations for enhancement and encourage the adoption of innovative teaching and assessment methods.
Lessons learned from the accreditation process highlight the importance of evidence-based decision-making and reinforce the understanding that quality assurance is not a one-time endeavor but an ongoing institutional responsibility. Among the most common challenges reported are the need for early and active participation of faculty and students in the accreditation process, as well as the necessity of maintaining comprehensive documentation.
Finally, Assoc. Prof. Delosa notes her intent to explore further how students support and engage in accreditation initiatives, how institutions translate accreditation reports into student-centered outcomes, and how a theoretical framework can be developed to articulate the potential of accreditation in maximizing student learning outcomes. To strengthen the study’s analytical depth, she also plans to conduct additional expert interviews to refine the study’s initial analysis.
4. Juvy Lizette M. Gervacio, Ph.D. (University of the Philippines Open University)
“Crafting the Rules of Intelligence: Some Policy Insights on the Use of AI and Higher Education Policies from Asia and Europe”
Assoc. Prof. Juvy Lizette M. Gervacio, Ph.D., seeks to examine the multifaceted role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education through several key objectives. Her study aims to present the current use of AI and its emerging issues in the Philippine context, discuss relevant AI guidelines across macro, meso, and micro levels, highlight the salient features of the Philippine AI roadmap in relation to higher education, and provide insights into the formulation of AI-related policies. In outlining the challenges that HEIs face in integrating AI, Assoc. Prof. Gervacio identifies the lack of institutional AI policies, the need for AI training among adult educators, and the absence of organizational initiatives to promote the responsible use of AI as major barriers to progress.
The study employs a normative research methodology that focuses on a comprehensive review and analysis of policy-driven materials, supplemented by roundtable discussions (RTDs) and academic presentations at local and international forums. The methodological structure is organized across three levels—macro, meso, and micro, allowing for a holistic examination of AI in education. As part of this framework, Assoc. Prof. Gervacio notes that UNESCO’s primary objective is to establish an ethical foundation for AI governance, ensuring that AI contributes to peace, justice, and sustainable development, while providing concrete policy guidance for governments, industries, and civil society.
At the macro level, UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, adopted by all 193 member states, serves as a guiding framework for the responsible development and application of AI technologies that uphold human rights, dignity, inclusivity, and sustainability. The ethical principles embedded in this framework include proportionality and non-maleficence, safety and security, privacy and data protection, multi-stakeholder governance, responsibility and accountability, transparency and explainability, human oversight, sustainability, awareness and literacy, as well as fairness and non-discrimination. Its key policy action areas cover data governance, education and research, gender equality, culture and language, health and social well-being, environmental sustainability, and the labor economy. In addition, Assoc. Prof. Gervacio examines regional developments, noting that the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) has introduced a Smart Education Readiness Index to measure institutional readiness, leadership, and infrastructure for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0) across ASEAN member countries.
At the meso level, Assoc. Prof. Gervacio highlights the Philippine Artificial Intelligence Roadmap, launched by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in 2021, as a key policy framework for the country’s responsible and ethical adoption of AI. She highlights that the Philippines is among the first 50 countries worldwide to have established a national AI strategy and policy. The roadmap encompasses four dimensions: digitization and infrastructure, research and development, workforce development, and regulation. Its strategic objectives include enhancing AI research and development, cultivating a skilled AI workforce, promoting AI adoption across industries, fostering a culture of innovation, and ensuring the ethical and responsible use of AI. The 2024 National AI Strategy Roadmap 2.0 (NAISR 2.0) expands on these efforts by addressing the rapid advancements in generative AI, positioning the Philippines as a regional AI leader, investing in upskilling and reskilling programs, fostering an AI ecosystem with conscience, and advancing innovation through the mastery of emerging technologies.
In the higher education context, Assoc. Prof. Gervacio emphasizes the importance of research and development as a means to accelerate institutional AI integration. She recommends that HEIs recruit AI experts to serve as mentors, allocate funding for AI research and algorithmic innovation, and provide incentives for collaborative research internships with public and private institutions. In workforce development, she proposes integrating data science and analytics into general education curricula, establishing partnerships with technology firms to enhance access to computing resources, and developing AI-centered graduate programs. She also advocates for the inclusion of AI-related coursework in professional training to prepare industries for digital transformation. Furthermore, to strengthen digitalization and infrastructure, HEIs and research institutions must ensure access to secure and reliable networks and invest in the extensive training of analysts and data scientists to derive actionable insights from available data.
On the issue of AI governance, she highlights Republic Act No. 10173, also known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012, which establishes legal standards for data protection in the Philippines. She also cites ongoing initiatives at the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU), which is currently training personnel from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in developing e-learning courses, including those focusing on data privacy and the utilization of AI. Complementing these efforts is the National Cybersecurity Plan (2022), which outlines the country’s strategic framework for securing cyberspace and protecting critical infrastructure, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding government networks and sensitive data.
Assoc. Prof. Gervacio also discusses the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)’s Digital Competency Standards (DCS), which define five core competencies: information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem-solving. These are aligned with the European Union’s Digital Competence Framework, contextualized for Philippine use. Meanwhile, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) promotes digital transformation in teacher education through its flexible learning framework, integration of information and communications technology (ICT) in pre-service teacher training, and alignment with the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST).
At the micro level, the University of the Philippines launched its Principles for Responsible and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence policy in 2023, providing guidelines for the development and use of AI within the university and the country. The principles include common good, empowerment, cultural sensitivity, privacy, and accountability. In research and development, the policy includes meaningful human control, transparency, fairness, safety, and environmental friendliness. In education, it champions the primacy of learning goals, human capital development, capacity building, education management and delivery, collaboration, and development. For UPOU, it issued memorandum 2024-001: Guidelines on the Use of AI in Teaching and Learning on January 9, 2024. It emphasizes responsible use of AI in course design, course delivery, and the declaration of students’ use of AI in their schoolwork.
From these macro, meso, and micro perspectives, Assoc. Prof. Gervacio derives several policy implications for the Philippine higher education sector. These include adherence to international frameworks, bridging infrastructure gaps, developing national and institutional regulations for AI adoption, and investing in capacity-building programs to strengthen digital competencies among teachers, students, and academic staff. She emphasizes the importance of intuitive and accessible AI design, user-centered technological support, and sustained relevance in technological innovation. Furthermore, she suggests that HEIs incorporate AI into their organizational mission and vision, create adaptive technology policies aligned with open educational resources (OER), integrate AI into curriculum development, and train the academic workforce for AI-driven transformation.
Lastly, Assoc. Prof. Gervacio outlines her future research plans, which involve integrating her findings with collaborative studies conducted alongside partners from Slovakia, Indonesia, and Thailand through the Asia-Europe Foundation. These efforts will be further advanced through scholarly exchanges and research visits in Shanghai, China, aimed at deepening international dialogue on AI ethics, governance, and education.
The full research presentations of all four scholars will be delivered at the Higher Education Symposium, scheduled on November 5, 2025, at the UP CIDS Conference Hall, Lower Ground Floor, Ang Bahay ng Alumni, Magsaysay Avenue, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City. The event will also be simultaneously streamed via Zoom to accommodate virtual participants.
Participation is free of charge and open to the public. Interested participants may register through the following link: https://forms.gle/Cy2UW22SXDH3YmC6A.