Lived Experiences of Filipino Teachers: A Comparative Study of the Philippines and Thailand

This study explores the lived experiences, challenges, and comparative insights of Filipino teachers working in two different contexts, the Philippines and Thailand. In this pure qualitative research utilizing comparative phenomenological design, data were gathered from teachers across both settings to understand how they experience teaching the learner-centered approach which are enacted within diverse cultural, linguistic, and institutional environments. Findings revealed that teachers in both contexts experienced a clear role shift from content deliverers to facilitators of learning, resulting in more interactive, participatory, and flexible classroom environments. However, teachers encountered significant challenges, including classroom management and noise during active learning, heavy time and preparation demands, limited instructional resources, language barriers, and diverse levels of student readiness.
Comparative perspective analysis showed that while both countries share strong policy support for learner-centered pedagogy implementation varies, as actual experienced by the participants. Thai schools were described as more resource-rich, enabling smoother facilitation of interactive lessons, whereas Philippine teachers often faced limited materials and larger class sizes, requiring adaptive, low-cost strategies. Cultural and linguistic factors also shaped classroom participation, particularly in Thailand where English proficiency posed barriers. The study recommended an enhanced cross-country adaptable action plan as support program to strengthening learner-centered pedagogy.

Comparative Phenomenology, Filipino Teachers, Lived Experiences

1. Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. De Gruyter Mouton. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandur, A. (2012). School-based management developments and partnership: Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(2), 316–328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Edutopia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barrot, J. S. (2021). K to 12 curriculum reform in the Philippines: Towards making students college and career ready. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 52, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bautista, A., et al. (2023). Teacher professional learning in student-centered classrooms. Educational Research Review, 39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2017). Language use and academic achievement in Philippine schools. Educational Psychology, 37(3), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bernardo, A. B. I., & Dacumos, G. C. (2020). Challenges in implementing learner-centered pedagogy in Philippine classrooms. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(3), 451–462. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Burns, R. B. (1997). Introduction to research methods. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. British Council. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Del Valle, R. S. (2023). Learner-centered pedagogy in Philippine public schools: Policy and practice gaps. Philippine Journal of Education, 102(2), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. DepEd. (2016). K to 12 Curriculum Guide. Department of Education, Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016. The Learning Action Cell (LAC) as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Derrah, E. J., et al. (2024). Learner autonomy and engagement in multilingual classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 117(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., & Poole, I. R. (2022). Classroom management for elementary teachers (11th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2013). Handbook of classroom management. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Florian, L. (2014). What counts as inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286–294. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Fry, G. W., & Bi, H. (2013). The evolution of educational reform in Thailand. Educational Policy, 27(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Galang, J. R., et al. (2021). Student-teacher ratio and learning outcomes in Southeast Asia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2001). Educational change and leadership in Thailand. School Leadership & Management, 21(1), 31–44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Jacela, M. A. (2025). Filipino teachers’ experiences in Thailand: Language, culture, and learner-centered pedagogy. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 14(1), 23–38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN. Hong Kong University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual Education, 5(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Marzano, R. J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Research-based strategies for every teacher. ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Merrill, B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: Methods and applications in education and training. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ministry of Education Thailand. (2008). Basic Education Core Curriculum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Republic Act No. 10533. (2013). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Scoular, C. (2020). Equipping students with 21st-century skills. OECD Education Working Papers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. SEAMEO. (2023). Teacher professional development and mobility in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Teachers Click. (2025). Classroom size challenges in Philippine education. (Web source) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom. ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Trakulphadetkrai, N. (2018). Thailand education reform challenges. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Tupas, R. (2015). Inequalities in English language education in the Philippines. Language Policy, 14(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Ulla, M. B., Bucol, J. L., & Dechatiwongse, P. (2022). English language teaching in Thai classrooms. Asian EFL Journal, 24(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. UNESCO. (2014). Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all (EFA Global Monitoring Report). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. UNESCO. (2023). Teacher mobility and education systems: Global perspectives. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. UNESCO Bangkok. (2014). Education systems in Southeast Asia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study