Investigating the Applicability of Maslow’s Theory of Hierarchy of Needs on Selected Filipino Teachers

Investigating the Applicability of Maslow’s Theory of Hierarchy of Needs on Selected Filipino Teachers

Dr. Frederick Edward T. Fabella

FEU Roosevelt, Cainta, Rizal, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.71053

Received: 11 September 2023; Accepted: 21 September 2023; Published: 20 October 2023

ABSTRACT

This research attempted to confirm the applicability of the Theory on Hierarchy of Needs by Abraham Maslow on thirty (30) Filipino teachers who volunteered to be the respondents of the study. The Maslow and the Motivation Hierarchy: Measuring Satisfaction of the Needs, a 72-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire that measures the five dimensions of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, namely Physiological needs satisfaction, Safety needs satisfaction, Love needs satisfaction, Esteem needs satisfaction and Self-actualization needs satisfaction was administered on the respondents. Based on the findings, the respondents’ physiological needs are somewhat satisfied, their safety needs are somewhat satisfied, their love needs are completely satisfied and their esteem needs are completely satisfied. In addition, the respondents somewhat agree that their self-actualization needs are satisfied. The married respondents have significantly higher physiological needs satisfaction. When the respondents’ levels of needs satisfaction are ranked, love needs rank first followed by esteem needs, then by safety, next is physiological and last is self-actualization. Comparing the needs satisfaction of the respondents, significant differences were found between physiological and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, physiological and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, safety and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, safety and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, love and self-actualization needs satisfaction wherein in love has a higher mean and esteem and self-actualization needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean. Based on the foregoing, it would appear that Maslow’s proposition that the five dimensions of needs satisfaction decrease according the sequence of his theory’s hierarchy, is not the case for the respondents of the study. Furthermore, significant positive relationships were established between all possible pair-combinations of the respondents’ five dimensions of needs satisfaction. This implies that all these dimensions significantly influence each other in a positive direction.

Keywords: Abraham Maslow, Motivation, Hierarchy of Needs

INTRODUCTION

Abraham Maslow’s fame derives from his effort to develop a positive theory of motivation that would meet the prevailing theoretical requirements of his time while simultaneously remaining consistent with experimental, clinical and observational data¹. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a psychological theory of motivation that includes a five-tier model of human needs that is frequently represented as levels within a pyramid. Physiological needs, safety, love and belonging needs, esteem, and self-actualization are the different levels of this hierarchy and those at the bottom must be met before people can attend to the needs further up².

During the height of COVID-19, a study was conducted to explore how the pandemic affected the satisfaction of people’s needs. Many countries declared nationwide lockdowns, which even forced the closing of the outpatient wings of large hospitals. As a consequence, patients with other mild to severe ailments were encouraged to seek teleconsultation services so they could identify the right doctor for their particular conditions. Only when those patients’ fundamental requirements, such as access to food, medications, and the internet, had been satisfied, were these other demands met³.

One article that analyzed the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown states that nearly all of Maslow’s needs were adversely affected. Restriction of access to food, increased unemployment, limited access to family and friends and self-worth was questioned due to an uncertain future⁴.

But as the pandemic’s global impact declines and things slowly return to normal, the applicability of Maslow’s theory may once again be reviewed. In one study, 186 college students were conveniently selected from two colleges in Metro Manila and asked to recall a satisfying incident. The next step was for them to describe how they felt the event met their specific needs. The findings showed that the respondents’ most fulfilling experiences were when their higher-level needs—self-esteem and self-actualization—were more prominent⁵.

With respect to the world of employment, a study was conducted to identify the underlying needs of the working population in the Philippines. Using a mixed method sequential exploratory study, four categories of needs—job-related, career-related, organization-related, and family-related—were identified through interviews and a survey of 302 employees. Based on this study, family is a factor that is not mentioned in Western ideas of work motivation. Employee involvement was highly associated with the significance and existence of each of these four characteristics⁶.

Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to workplace settings suggests that managers have a duty to first ensure that the deficient needs are satisfied. This often refers to a secure workplace and fair pay. It also entails establishing an environment where workers can reach their maximum potential. Theoretically, failing to do so would increase employee annoyance, which might worsen performance and reduce work satisfaction⁷.

Another article asserts that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can still be useful in today’s society if it is seen as a guide for balancing our numerous demands rather than as a rigid hierarchy. The study further states that everyone has different priorities and reasons for placing some needs above others⁸.

In attempting to predict a country’s Quality of Life, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is used. Some confirmation was achieved utilizing a new and larger database. Results demonstrated remarkable agreement with several of Maslow’s predictions, including his sequence of need achievement. However, his theory of growth, according to which nations must reduce growth in one sector in order to boost growth in another, was refuted⁹.

But according to one study, Maslow’s original hierarchy of requirements won’t apply to a collectivist culture like China. It was discovered that belonging is a fundamental need. Self-esteem is disregarded and self-actualization is attained through addressing societal development needs¹⁰.

Because the Philippines is regarded as a collectivist society, whether or not Maslow’s theory is applicable to Filipinos remains a subject of some debate. In addition, the Filipino character appears to be undergoing a constant state of flux. Filipino identity, distortion and dysfunctionality, multidimensional ambivalence, dissonance, false justification and misuse, cynicism, and a reduction in moral courage are among the problems mentioned in one study on Filipino values. The study further claims that the pre-colonial, colonial, and postcolonial normative paradigms are continually competing and clashing inside the Filipino values system. Filipino values and norms are distorted, conflicted, and dysfunctional, unable to offer useful normative standards. A badly damaged social conscience is the effect of this¹¹.

Filipino teachers were among the hardest hit professions during the pandemic¹². Despite this, many still pursue careers in education. A study was conducted involving 31 young Filipino teachers (aged 21 to 30). They were asked to write narratives explaining their motivation for teaching. The stories were carefully examined to identify themes and key points. Ultimately, ten key themes emerged to summarize the motivations for young instructors’ involvement in the classroom. According to the young Filipino educators, their teaching aims include bringing about positive change, preparing students for life, inspiring others, promoting values, transforming lives, teaching out of passion, raising the bar for educational excellence, resolving social issues, imparting knowledge and skills and enabling others’ dreams¹³.

Another study looked into the motivations of Filipino preservice teachers to enroll in teacher education and connected these motivations to demographic traits. Eight reasons for entering the teaching profession were identified by a factor analysis of the replies from Philippine teacher education institutions. These reasons are idealistic, migratory, developmental, employment security and stability, supremacy, liberating, altruistic, and perpetual¹⁴.

In view of the foregoing, this study explored the applicability of Maslow’s Theory of Motivation on Filipino teachers and whether or not his assertion that the hierarchy principle may be typically observed empirically in terms of rising percentages of non-satisfaction as one moves up the hierarchy¹ is true.

Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

1. What are the respondents’ levels of satisfaction with respect to

• Physiological needs;
• Safety needs;
• Love needs;
• Esteem needs; and
• Self-actualization?

2. Is there a significant difference among the respondents’ levels of satisfaction with respect to

• Physiological needs;
• Safety needs;
• Love needs;
• Esteem needs; and
• Self-actualization?

3. Are there significant relationships between the respondents’ levels of satisfaction with respect to

• Physiological needs;
• Safety needs;
• Love needs;
• Esteem needs; and
• Self-actualization?

4. Do the respondents’ levels of needs satisfaction decrease according to the sequence of the hierarchy as proposed by Maslow’s Theory?

METHODOLOGY

Thirty (30) Filipino teachers volunteered to be the respondents of this study. Six (6) of them were males while twenty-three (23) were females. Their ages ranged between 24 to 50 with a mean age of 33. Thirteen (13) worked in private schools while seventeen (17) were employed in government schools. Fourteen (14) were single while sixteen (16) were married. They were asked to answer the Maslow and the Motivation Hierarchy: Measuring Satisfaction of the Needs instrument, a 72-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire that measures the five dimensions of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, namely Physiological needs satisfaction (15 items), Safety needs satisfaction (15 items), Love needs satisfaction (15 items), Esteem needs satisfaction (15 items) and Self-actualization needs satisfaction (12 items). The measures were developed based on their construct and content validity, which were examined using confirmatory factor analysis and the known-groups technique of validity evaluation. The scales were also evaluated for their ability to predict outcomes; specifically, they were compared to the theoretical hierarchy and each need was found to be a statistical predictor of the need that was directly above it¹⁵.

RESULTS

The following are the data gathered and the statistical treatments applied, which are presented in tabular form.

Table 1: Scale of Interpretation for Item Weighted Means of Responses to Physiological, Safety, Love and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Table 2: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Physiological Needs Satisfaction

Table 3: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Safety Needs Satisfaction

Table 4: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Love Needs Satisfaction

Table 5: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Table 6: Scale of Interpretation for Item Weighted Means of Responses to Self-Actualization

Table 7: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Table 8: Ranking of Needs Satisfaction

Table 9: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Physiological Needs Satisfaction

t = 2.3356

df = 27

standard error of difference = 0.166

P value and statistical significance:

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0272

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.38809523818

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.72903389642 to -0.04715657994

Table 10: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Safety Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 1.7328

df = 26

standard error of difference = 0.186

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0950

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not quite statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.32261904762

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.70532200471 to 0.06008390947

Table 11: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Love Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 0.9914

df = 27

standard error of difference = 0.168

The two-tailed P value equals 0.3303

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant. Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.1666666666495% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.51159203477 to 0.17825870148

Table 12: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 0.6603

df = 23

standard error of difference = 0.182

The two-tailed P value equals 0.5156

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.12023809518

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.49695498898 to 0.25647879862

Table 13: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Self-Actualization

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 1.4706

df = 19

standard error of difference = 0.219

The two-tailed P value equals 0.1578

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.32142857133

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.77888886280 to 0.13603172014

Table 14: Analysis of Variance between Responses to All Five Needs Satisfaction

Table 15: Comparison of Responses to Physiological and Safety Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 0.6574

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.085

The two-tailed P value equals 0.5161

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Physiological minus Safety equals -0.05555553

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.22840611 to 0.11729505

Table 16: Comparison of Responses to Physiological and Love Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 5.7047

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.050

The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Physiological minus Love equals -0.28666663

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.38944147 to -0.18389180

Table 17: Comparison of Responses to Physiological and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 3.3668

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.079

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0022

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be very statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Physiological minus Esteem equals -0.26666657

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.42865743 to -0.10467570

Table 18: Comparison of Responses to Physiological Needs and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 1.3669

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.087

The two-tailed P value equals 0.1822

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Physiological minus Self Actualization equals 0.11888887

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.05899871 to 0.29677645

Table 19: Comparison of Responses to Safety and Love Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 2.6913

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.086

P value and statistical significance:

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0117

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Safety minus Love equals -0.23111110

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.40673952 to -0.05548268

Table 20: Comparison of Responses to Safety and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 2.2560

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.094

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0318

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Safety minus Esteem equals -0.21111103

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.40250043 to -0.01972164

Table 21: Comparison of Responses to Safety Needs and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 1.8006

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.097

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0822

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not quite statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Safety minus Self Actualization equals 0.17444440

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.02370210 to 0.37259090

Table 22: Comparison of Responses to Love and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 0.3172

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.063

The two-tailed P value equals 0.7534

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Love minus Esteem equals 0.02000007

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.10896285 to 0.14896298

Table 23: Comparison of Responses to Love Needs and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 4.9312

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.082

The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Love minus Self Actualization equals 0.40555550

95% confidence interval of this difference: From 0.23734925 to 0.57376175

Table 24: Comparison of Responses to Esteem Needs and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 4.7026

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.082

The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Esteem minus Self Actualization equals 0.38555543

95% confidence interval of this difference: From 0.21787084 to 0.55324003

Table 25: Summary of Significant Differences between Respondents’ Needs Satisfaction

Table 26: Relationship between Responses to Physiological and Safety Needs Satisfaction

Table 27: Relationship between Responses to Physiological and Love Needs Satisfaction

Table 28: Relationship between Responses to Physiological Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Table 29: Relationship between Responses to Physiological and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Table 30: Relationship between Responses to Safety and Love Needs Satisfaction

Table 31: Relationship between Responses to Safety and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Table 32: Relationship between Responses to Safety and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Table 33: Relationship between Responses to Love and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Table 34: Relationship between Responses to Love and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Table 35: Relationship between Responses to Esteem and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Table 36: Summary of Significant Relationships between Respondents’ Needs Satisfaction

Table 37. Ranking of significant relationships between dimensions

DISCUSSION

Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 present the item weighted means for each of the five dimensions of needs satisfaction as well as their total item weighted means and their verbal interpretations. Physiological Needs Satisfaction responses are presented in Table 2. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.136 was obtained, which has a verbal interpretation of somewhat satisfied. Table 3 presents the responses to Safety Needs Satisfaction. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.191 was computed, which has a verbal interpretation of somewhat satisfied. The responses to Love Needs Satisfaction are shown in Table 4. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.422 was obtained, which has a verbal interpretation of completely satisfied. Table 5 presents the responses to Esteem Needs Satisfaction. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.402 was computed, which has a verbal interpretation of completely satisfied. The responses to Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction are shown in Table 7. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.017 was obtained, which has a verbal interpretation of somewhat agree.

In Table 8, the ranking of the five needs satisfaction is presented for both single respondents, married respondents and for all respondents based on the total item weighted means. It is noteworthy that for single respondents, the dimension with the highest degree of satisfaction is Esteem, while for married respondents, the dimension with the highest degree is love. When combined, the dimension with the highest degree of satisfaction is love needs.

Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 present the comparison of the degrees of satisfaction for the five dimensions between the single and married respondents using Welch’s t-tests. Although the total item weighted means for the married respondents are higher than that of the single respondents in all five dimensions, a significant difference was found only in the physiological needs satisfaction. And because the mean is higher for the married respondents, it can be inferred that physiological needs satisfaction is significantly higher for married respondents than for single respondents.

The analysis of variance computation of the five dimensions of Physiological needs satisfaction, Safety needs satisfaction, Love needs satisfaction, Esteem needs satisfaction and Self-actualization needs satisfaction of the respondents are presented in Table 14. The F-ratio of 9.21182 was obtained and with a p-value less than .00001, this implies that there is a significant difference among the five dimensions.

Tables 18 to 24 present the paired t-test computations between all dimensions of needs satisfaction of the respondents. The results of the paired t-tests are summarized in Table 25. No significant difference was found between the respondents’ physiological and self-actualization needs satisfaction, physiological and safety needs satisfaction, safety and self-actualization needs satisfaction, love and esteem needs satisfaction and safety and self-actualization needs satisfaction. However, significant differences were found between physiological and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, physiological and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, safety and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, safety and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, love and self-actualization needs satisfaction wherein in love has a higher mean and esteem and self-actualization needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean.

Tables 26 to 35 present the Pearson-r computations between all dimensions of the respondents’ needs satisfaction. The results of the correlation computations are summarized in Table 36. Significant positive relationships were established between all possible pair-combinations of dimensions of needs satisfaction.

Table 37 presents the ranking of positive relationship strength between dimensions of needs satisfaction of the respondents based on the computed Pearson r values. The dimensions with the strongest positive relationship is between physiological and love (1), followed by love and esteem (2), esteem and self-actualization (3), love and self-actualization (4), physiological and self-actualization (5), physiological and esteem (6), physiological and safety (7), safety and self-actualization (8), safety and love (9) and safety and esteem (10).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this study, the respondents’ physiological needs are somewhat satisfied, their safety needs are somewhat satisfied, their love needs are completely satisfied and their esteem needs are completely satisfied. In addition, the respondents somewhat agree that their self-actualization needs are satisfied.

The married respondents have significantly higher physiological needs satisfaction.

When the respondents’ needs satisfaction are ranked, love needs rank first followed by esteem needs, then by safety, next is physiological and last is self-actualization.

Comparing the needs satisfaction of the respondents, significant differences were found between physiological and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, physiological and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, safety and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, safety and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, love and self-actualization needs satisfaction wherein in love has a higher mean and esteem and self-actualization needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean.

Based on the foregoing findings, it would appear that Maslow’s proposition that the five dimensions of needs satisfaction decrease according the sequence of his theory’s hierarchy, is not the case for the respondents of the study.

Significant positive relationships were established between all possible pair-combinations of the respondents’ five dimensions of needs satisfaction. This implies that all these dimensions significantly influence each other in a positive direction.

Similar researches are recommended on larger samples and with respondents from other professions.

ETHICAL DECLARATION

The researcher declares that this study strictly adhered to the ethics of research. Informed consent was obtained, freedom to withdraw at any time from the study was made known to the participants, their identities were anonymized, the participants were not exposed to any physical, psychological or social harm and the results were used for research purposes only. The researcher further ensured steps to prevent bias in the interpretation of the data. Lastly, there was no conflict of interest in the conduct of the study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to the respondents of this study and to the author of the Maslow and the Motivation Hierarchy: Measuring Satisfaction of the Needs instrument.

REFERENCES

1. Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 1943;50(4):370–96. doi:10.1037/h0054346
2. Mcleod S. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
3. Shoib S, Amanda TW, Menon V, Ransing R, Kar SK, Ojeahere MI, et al. Is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs applicable during the COVID-19 pandemic? Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2022 Jan 18;44(1):98–100. doi:10.1177/02537176211060435
4. Ryan, B. J., Coppola, D., Canyon, D. V, et al. (2020). COVID-19 community stabilization and sustainability framework: An Integration of the Maslow hierarchy of needs and social determinants of health. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.109
5. Santamaria JGO. Motivating the future workforce of Philippine Organizations [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://pmr.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pmr/article/view/208
6. Ilagan, J. R. A., Hechanova, R. M., Co, T. A. C. and Pleyto, V. J. Z. “Bakit Ka Kumakayod?” Developing a Filipino Needs Theory of Motivation. Ateneo de Manila University. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 2014, 47(1), 117-143
7. Singh T, Behera MP. Application of the maslow’s hierarchy of need theory: Impacts and implications on employee’s career stages. Training and Development Journal. 2016;7(2):43. doi:10.5958/2231-069x.2016.00007.x
8. Ahmad Dar S, Sakthivel DrP. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is still relevant in the 21st Century. Journal of Learning and Educational Policy. 2022;(25):1–9. doi:10.55529/jlep25.1.9
9. Hagerty, M.R. Testing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: National Quality-of-Life Across Time. Social Indicators Research 46, 249–271 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006921107298
10. Gambrel P, Cianci R. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Does It Apply In A Collectivist Culture [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2023 Sept 10]. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/ae442f92052554df14618b5bd9104141/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
11. Benitez, J. L. (2022). An Inquiry into the Problems Concerning Filipino Values and Norms. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 10(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.32871/rmrj2210.01.03
12. Sevillano S. Teachers uphold quality education amid challenges [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1185242
13. Rogayan DV. Why young Filipino teachers teach? [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://po.pnuresearchportal.org/ejournal/index.php/apherj/article/view/1028
14. Hao, Arleen B.; de Guzman, Allan B. Why go into teaching? Understanding Filipino preservice teachers’ reasons for entering teacher education. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy. 2007, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p115-135. 21p.
15. Taormina RJ, Gao JH. Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction of the needs. The American Journal of Psychology. 2013;126(2):155–77. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0155