INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1128
www.rsisinternational.org
Peace Education in Higher Education: Awareness, Attitudes, and
Predictors of Student Engagement
Genesis G. Camarista., Marlyn V. Rivera., Almar, J. Java., Arque V. Calvez., Jeza Mae P. Paragile.,
Michelle L. Palata., Raul A. Tan., Jerson T. Valiao
West Visayas State University-Himamaylan City Campus, Philippines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800099
Received: 04 Aug 2025; Accepted: 10 Aug 2025; Published: 10 September 2025
ABSTRACT
In an era of increasing global unrest and polarization, peace education has become a vital tool for fostering
empathy, critical thinking, and civic engagement among young people. This study examines the levels of
awareness and attitudes of university students toward peace education, particularly across five dimensions:
conceptual understanding, relevance, application, policy awareness, and self-assessment. Anchored in Social
Learning Theory, Transformative Learning Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and Human Needs
Theory, the research utilized a quantitative descriptive-correlational design. Data were collected from 298
students at West Visayas State University-Himamaylan City Campus in Negros Occidental, Philippines using a
validated, researcher-developed questionnaire. Descriptive statistics revealed that students were highly to very
highly aware across all dimensions, with the highest mean scores in conceptual understanding and awareness
of scope. Attitudes toward peace education were also very positive (M = 4.62), indicating strong student
support for its integration into campus life. A significant and strong positive relationship was found between
awareness and willingness to engage in peace initiatives (r = 0.81, p < .001), with regression analysis showing
that awareness accounted for 65% of the variance in engagement. These findings highlight the importance of
strengthening awareness as a foundation for active student participation. The study recommends the
establishment of a Campus Peace Education Program and the enhancement of curricular and co-curricular
strategies to foster sustained engagement. Results contribute to the growing body of literature supporting peace
education in higher education and provide empirical evidence for policy development and program
implementation in Philippine universities.
Keywords: Attitudes Toward Peace, Higher Education, Peace Education, Student Awareness, Student
Engagement
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In an era marked by increasing global unrest, polarization, and violence—both in physical and digital spaces—
peace education has emerged as a vital framework for fostering empathy, nonviolence, critical thinking, and
intercultural understanding among young people. Universities, as centers for civic responsibility and
transformative learning, are uniquely positioned to integrate peace education into their curricula and co-
curricular initiatives (Bajaj, 2008; Salomon & Cairns, 2011). Despite this potential, peace education remains
underexplored and under-implemented in many higher education institutions, particularly in the Philippine
context (Montiel & de Guzman, 2011).
Peace education strongly aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—particularly
SDG 16, which advocates for “peace, justice, and strong institutions,” and SDG 4, which promotes inclusive
and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all (UNESCO, 2017). Specifically, SDG
Target 4.7 emphasizes the importance of education for sustainable development, global citizenship, human
rights, and a culture of peace and non-violence.
Nationally, the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023–2028 supports peacebuilding as part of its
governance and human development goals, citing education as a core tool in combating radicalization,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1129
www.rsisinternational.org
promoting inclusion, and fostering social cohesion (NEDA, 2023). Additionally, the Department of Education
has implemented peace education through its Values Education and Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao programs,
though it remains limited at the tertiary level. Agencies like the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and
the Office of the Presidential Adviser on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity (OPAPRU) have likewise
encouraged the institutionalization of peace efforts in campuses, though concrete initiatives such as Peace
Education Centers are still rare.
However, there is limited empirical data assessing the awareness and attitudes of students toward peace
education, particularly in the university context. This gap hinders data-driven policymaking and program
development. As studies by Harris and Morrison (2013) and Page (2008) suggest, peace education must be
grounded in student-centered approaches that reflect learners' lived experiences and perspectives to be
effective.
This study aims to address this gap by examining university students’ levels of awareness and attitudes toward
peace education. While various peace efforts exist on a national scale, the absence of institutionalized peace
structures—such as Campus Peace Education Centers—remains a critical challenge. Establishing such centers
can serve as hubs for advocacy, curriculum integration, dialogue, and student leadership in peacebuilding.
Ultimately, this research contributes to the broader peacebuilding agenda by helping shape more responsive,
inclusive, and empowered graduates committed to societal transformation.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to assess the level of awareness and attitudes of university students toward peace education—
specifically in terms of conceptual understanding, application, and policy awareness—in order to determine the
relationship between awareness and engagement.
Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions:
1. What is the level of university students’ awareness of peace education in general and in terms of its
dimensions (conceptual understanding, awareness of scope, application of knowledge, policy and
initiative awareness, and self-assessment awareness)?
2. What are students’ attitudes toward the value and significance of peace education at the university
level?
3. Does higher awareness of peace education predict greater willingness to support and engage in peace
center activities?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical foundation of this study is anchored on several interrelated frameworks that explain how
individuals acquire knowledge, develop attitudes, and translate awareness into action—particularly within the
context of peace education. One key underpinning is Social Learning Theory by Albert Bandura (1977), which
emphasizes that individuals learn not only through direct instruction but also by observing others, modeling
behaviors, and forming values based on social interactions. In the university setting, students are influenced by
peers, instructors, institutional policies, and media in shaping their understanding and attitudes toward peace-
related concepts.
Another relevant theory is Transformative Learning Theory by Jack Mezirow (1991), which posits that
meaningful learning occurs when individuals critically examine their assumptions, engage in reflective
discourse, and undergo perspective transformation. Peace education, as a transformative process, aims to foster
deeper conceptual understanding, empathy, and a commitment to social change—making Mezirow’s theory
highly applicable to the goal of cultivating peace-oriented attitudes and behaviors among students.
This study also draws from the Theory of Planned Behavior by Icek Ajzen (1991), which suggests that
attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence an individual’s intention to perform a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1130
www.rsisinternational.org
behavior. This framework helps explain whether higher levels of awareness about peace education lead to
increased willingness among students to participate in peace center activities and programs. Understanding
these relationships can inform how awareness campaigns and educational interventions can be structured to
promote student engagement.
Lastly, Human Needs Theory, particularly as applied to peace and conflict by John Burton (1990), underlines
the idea that lasting peace is achieved when fundamental human needs—such as identity, security, and
recognition—are addressed. By promoting awareness and attitudinal change through peace education,
universities can become spaces where students feel empowered to address these needs nonviolently and
constructively, thus reinforcing the value of a Campus Peace Education Program.
Collectively, these frameworks provide a robust theoretical basis for investigating how awareness and attitudes
toward peace education develop and how they can inform the creation of meaningful and responsive campus-
based peace initiatives.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study adopted a quantitative descriptive-correlational research design to examine university students’
awareness and attitudes toward peace education. The descriptive component is utilized to determine and
present the levels of awareness and attitudes among students regarding peace education and its dimensions—
such as conceptual understanding, application of knowledge, policy awareness, and personal assessment. This
approach allows the researcher to quantify patterns in the respondents' perceptions, enabling the measurement
of variables using structured questionnaires (Creswell, 2014).
The correlational component of the design investigates the relationship between students' level of awareness
and their willingness to support or engage in peace education activities. This component is essential for
understanding whether a statistically significant association exists between the independent variable
(awareness of peace education) and the dependent variable (attitude and engagement). According to Gay,
Mills, and Airasian (2012), correlational research is appropriate when the goal is to identify relationships
among naturally occurring variables without manipulating them.
This design is ideal for studies aiming to generate empirical data that can be statistically analyzed to inform
educational institutions and policymakers about students' perspectives on peace education. The design ensures
objectivity, generalizability (within the sampled population), and the potential for future replication or
extension of the research.
Furthermore, using a structured survey instrument enables the systematic collection of data from a broad
population, increasing the reliability and validity of the findings (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2019). This
methodology is aligned with previous studies exploring educational awareness and attitudes, particularly in
assessing the extent to which cognitive and affective components influence student engagement (Neuman,
2014).
Participants
The participants in this study were university students enrolled across different year levels and academic
programs at a state university satellite campus in the Philippines. The inclusion criteria required students to be
currently enrolled in undergraduate programs. Both male and female students were included to ensure diverse
perspectives.
A stratified random sampling technique was used to ensure proportional representation from various colleges
or departments. Within each stratum, participants were randomly selected to maintain objectivity and minimize
sampling bias. The desired sample size was determined using Slovin’s formula with a 5% margin of error.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1131
www.rsisinternational.org
Research Instruments
This study utilized a researcher-developed survey questionnaire to assess university students’ awareness and
attitudes toward peace education. The instrument was carefully designed based on existing literature and
theoretical frameworks related to peace education and was subsequently validated by subject matter experts in
both peace education and social science research to ensure its content validity and clarity.
The questionnaire was composed of three major sections. The first section gathered the demographic profile of
the respondents, including age, sex, year level, and academic program. These variables provided contextual
information and were used in the analysis of potential patterns or differences among groups.
The second section was the Peace Education Awareness Scale, which employed a 5-point Likert scale (ranging
from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) to measure students’ awareness across five key dimensions:
conceptual understanding of peace education, awareness of its scope and relevance, application of peace
knowledge in daily life, familiarity with national and institutional peace policies and initiatives, and self-
assessment of peace-oriented values and behaviors. This section aimed to capture both the cognitive and
behavioral aspects of peace education awareness.
The third section, the Peace Education Attitude and Engagement Scale, included items designed to assess
students’ attitudes toward the value and significance of peace education, as well as their willingness to support
or participate in peace-related programs and activities within the university. This portion of the instrument
measured both affective responses and behavioral intentions related to peace engagement.
To establish the reliability of the instrument, a pilot test was conducted with 30 students who were not
included in the actual study sample. The responses were analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha to evaluate the
internal consistency of each scale. The results of the reliability test indicated that the questionnaire was
statistically sound and suitable for use in the full study.
Data Collection Procedure
Prior to data collection, permission was sought from the university’s research ethics committee. Students were
informed about the purpose of the study and gave their informed consent. Data were collected through online
and printed surveys, depending on accessibility and student preference.
Data Analysis Procedure
The data collected from the survey were encoded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) software. To address the specific research questions, appropriate statistical techniques were
employed. Descriptive statistics, including the mean and standard deviation, were used to summarize and
interpret the levels of awareness and attitudes of university students toward peace education. These measures
provided a general overview of the central tendencies and variability within the respondents' answers.
To examine the relationship between students’ awareness of peace education and their willingness to
participate in peace-related activities, the study utilized Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient. This
non-parametric test was chosen due to the ordinal nature of the Likert-scale data and was appropriate for
identifying the strength and direction of association between the two variables.
Furthermore, regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive power of awareness levels on
engagement behavior. This analysis helped assess the extent to which students’ awareness of peace education
could statistically explain their likelihood of supporting or engaging in peace-centered programs and
initiatives. All statistical tests were interpreted using appropriate significance levels to ensure the validity and
reliability of the findings.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1132
www.rsisinternational.org
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To address the first research question, the study assessed the level of university students’ awareness of peace
education both in general and across five key dimensions: conceptual understanding, awareness of scope,
application of knowledge, policy and initiative awareness, and self-assessment awareness. The data were
collected using a structured survey instrument, and mean scores were computed and interpreted to determine
the overall and dimensional levels of awareness. The results are presented in the table below.
Table 1 Level of University Students’ Awareness of Peace Education
Dimensions
n
Mean
SD
Conceptual Understanding
298
4.75
.39
Awareness of Scope
298
4.64
.46
Application of Knowledge
298
4.39
.50
Policy and Initiative
298
4.20
.61
Self-assessment
298
4.52
.48
General Awareness
298
4.50
.40
Note: 4.51-5.00 Very Highly Aware; 3.51-4.50 Highly Aware; 2.51-3.50 Moderately Aware; 1.51-2.50 Slightly
Aware; 1.00-1.50 Not Aware at All
Findings reveal high levels of awareness across all dimensions of peace education, aligning well with existing
literature. Specifically, students report very high awareness in conceptual understanding (M = 4.75),
awareness of scope (M = 4.64), and self-assessment awareness (M = 4.52); and high awareness in application
of knowledge (M = 4.39), policy & initiative awareness (M = 4.20), and general awareness (M = 4.50). These
results suggest a strong, multi-faceted understanding consistent with normative benchmarks—where scores of
4.21–5.00 denote “very highly aware” and 3.41–4.20 “highly aware.”
For comparison, a study by Elahi (2013) among Pakistani university students found that while overall
awareness levels were high, they were less differentiated across dimensions, and mindfulness of institutional
policy was notably weaker. In contrast, the sample demonstrates balanced strength both in theory (conceptual
understanding) and practice (policy awareness), suggesting enhanced institutional emphasis or exposure.
These results also align with research by Khan, Ahmed, and Parveen (2024), which noted elementary learners’
conceptual understanding of peace is substantial, but that more explicit curricular integration was
recommended. The high conceptual mean in this study (M = 4.75) reflects such integration at the university
level, building a robust knowledge foundation.
In essence, the data reflect an advanced level of awareness across all five dimensions, which not only exceeds
earlier benchmarks but also demonstrates cohesiveness—contrasting with other findings that highlight
imbalances (e.g., high conceptual awareness but low policy knowledge). These results suggest that the
university’s approach to peace education effectively addresses both theory and application, possibly through
formal courses, campus initiatives, and structured self-reflection—offering a promising basis for further
research or program development.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1133
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 2 Level of University Students’ Attitudes Toward Peace Education
n
Mean
SD
Description
Attitudes
298
4.62
.46
Very Positive
Note: 4.51-5.00 Very Positive; 3.51-4.50 Positive; 2.51-3.50 Neutral; 1.51-2.50 Negative; 1.00-1.50 Very
Negative
The results of the study reveal that university students exhibit a very positive attitude toward the value and
significance of peace education, as reflected by a mean score of 4.62 (SD = 0.46). This indicates that students
not only recognize the importance of peace education but are also supportive of its integration into the
academic and social life of the university. Their strong affirmation may be attributed to increasing exposure to
global and national discourses on peace, social justice, and intercultural understanding—particularly within a
higher education context that encourages civic engagement and critical thinking.
This result is consistent with previous studies highlighting the receptiveness of young people to peace-oriented
learning. For example, Salomon and Cairns (2010) emphasized that university students are typically more open
to ideas of conflict resolution, empathy, and nonviolence, particularly when these are contextualized within
relevant social issues and facilitated by dialogic learning. Similarly, Bar-Tal and Rosen (2009) found that
positive student attitudes toward peace education often stem from meaningful personal or community
experiences with social conflict, increasing their motivation to participate in initiatives promoting
peacebuilding.
In the Philippine context, a study by Macaspac (2018) concluded that students from state universities displayed
favorable attitudes toward peace education, viewing it as necessary for promoting unity in diversity and
reducing social discrimination. The study emphasized that the presence of peace education in the curriculum
helped foster a culture of tolerance and intercultural understanding. These findings reinforce the idea that
students are not only aware of the relevance of peace education but are also willing to engage with it as a
vehicle for positive change.
Moreover, the very positive attitude observed in this study may also reflect the influence of national efforts
such as the Department of Education’s integration of peace education frameworks in basic education, and the
Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) advocacy for human rights and peace literacy, which collectively
shape students’ perceptions even before entering university.
Finally, the high attitude score supports the notion that peace education resonates with university students and
is viewed as a meaningful component of their personal and academic growth. This suggests strong potential for
successfully establishing a Campus Peace Education Program, as students are likely to support and engage in
initiatives that promote peace, dialogue, and active citizenship.
Table 3 Linear Regression Analysis Predicting Attitudes from Awareness
Predictor
r
change
F change
p-value
Attitudes
0.81
0.65
0.65
558.33
0.000
Table 4 Regression Coefficients
Model
t
p-value
Constant
Attitude
0.49
0.92
2.81
23.63
0.005
0.000
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1134
www.rsisinternational.org
Note: *p<0.05
Equation: Awareness = 0.92 (Attitude) + 0.49
The results show a strong relationship between students’ awareness of peace education and their willingness to
support peace center activities. Statistically, even at the lowest end of the awareness scale, students show a
meaningful level of willingness to engage (intercept B = 0.49, p = .005). This suggests that students already
have a baseline openness toward peace initiatives, even before additional awareness is considered.
However, awareness plays a major role: for every one-point increase in awareness, willingness rises by almost
one full point (B = 0.92, p < .001)—a very strong and significant effect. This highlights that students who are
more aware of peace education are also much more likely to support and participate in peace-related programs.
The model also shows that awareness alone explains 65% of the variation in willingness (R² = .65)—which is
unusually high for studies like this. In comparison, previous research by de Felice et al. (2024) found that
peace attitudes explained only 31% of behavior. Your study shows that awareness might be an even better
predictor of engagement than attitude alone.
Other researchers, like Elahi (2013) in Pakistan and Arslan et al. (2015) in Turkey, found that peace education
can boost interest and participation, but they didn’t measure how strongly awareness predicts willingness.
Your study fills that gap by showing this connection in clear numbers.
In short, the findings suggest that raising awareness among students could be one of the most effective ways to
encourage participation in peace-related activities. Future studies can build on this by adding more factors like
students' backgrounds or past involvement to see how they compare with awareness as predictors.
CONCLUSIONS
Students demonstrate a high level of awareness of peace education across all dimensions, particularly in
conceptual understanding, awareness of scope, and self-assessment. This likely reflects effective integration of
peace-related topics within the university’s academic and extracurricular programs. Perhaps formal instruction,
seminars, and national advocacy efforts—such as CHED’s promotion of peace and human rights education—
have contributed to this widespread awareness.
Students also exhibit a very positive attitude toward peace education, as indicated by the high mean score. This
suggests they not only value peace education but also view it as important for their personal, academic, and
civic development.
Awareness strongly predicts willingness to engage in peace education programs. The regression analysis
shows that a one-point increase in awareness results in nearly a one-point rise in willingness, explaining a
substantial 65% of the variance in willingness to participate. This suggests that perhaps awareness—especially
when it includes understanding real-world applications and policies—may be a more direct driver of student
engagement than attitudes alone.
The results highlight the importance of strengthening awareness as a foundation for participation. Since
awareness has a strong influence on willingness to engage, future peace initiatives may benefit from enhancing
students’ exposure to peace concepts, institutional policies, and applications through interactive and reflective
learning. A well-developed Campus Peace Education Program, based on these findings, is likely to receive
strong student support and foster sustained engagement in peacebuilding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Establish a Campus Peace Education Program. Develop and institutionalize a comprehensive peace education
program on campus that builds on the students' existing high awareness and positive attitudes. This program
can include workshops, peace forums, community outreach, and student-led initiatives to promote sustained
engagement and leadership in peacebuilding.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1135
www.rsisinternational.org
Strengthen Curricular and Co-Curricular Integration. Continue and expand the integration of peace education
concepts within both academic subjects and co-curricular activities. Departments may collaborate with the
guidance office, student affairs, and civic organizations to create interdisciplinary peace-related projects that
connect theory with real-world practice.
Design Awareness-Driven Engagement Strategies. Since awareness significantly predicts willingness to
participate, initiatives should focus on deepening students’ understanding of peace policies, local and global
issues, and practical applications. This could include simulation activities, policy analysis sessions, or
immersion programs in conflict-affected communities.
Enhance Institutional Support and Visibility. The university administration, with the support of CHED and
relevant agencies, should provide resources, recognition, and platforms for peace education initiatives.
Promoting these programs through campus-wide campaigns can further normalize peacebuilding as a valued
part of student life.
Encourage Reflective and Dialogic Learning. Create safe spaces for dialogue and reflection where students can
critically explore peace-related topics and examine their own biases and assumptions. Facilitated
conversations, peace circles, and peer mentoring can encourage deeper internalization of peace values.
Conduct Further Research and Evaluation. Future studies should examine other predictors of engagement,
such as prior experiences, demographic variables, or peer influence. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of
peace education efforts will ensure that programs remain relevant, responsive, and impactful.
REFERENCES
1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2. Arslan, H., et al. (2015). Effects of peace education on intercultural sensitivity and engagement among
Turkish youth.
3. Bajaj, M. (2008). Envisioning a transformative peace education: Theoretical foundations and central
pedagogical practices. Peace & Change, 33(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0130.2008.00483.x
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
5. Bar-Tal, D., & Rosen, Y. (2009). Peace education in societies involved in intractable conflicts: Direct
and indirect models. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 557–575.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330969
6. Burton, J. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and prevention. St. Martin’s Press.
7. CHED Memorandum Order No. 1, Series of 2015. Integration of Peace Education in the Higher
Education Curriculum.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
9. de Felice, A., et al. (2024). Peace attitudes and sustainable behavior among university students.
10. Elahi, R. (2013). Peace education in Pakistan: An exploratory study. prr.hec.gov.pk
11. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education
(10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
12. Harris, I., & Morrison, M. L. (2013). Peace education (3rd ed.). McFarland.
13. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
applications (10th ed.). Pearson Education.
14. Macaspac, A. T. (2018). Attitudes of state university students towards peace education. Asia Pacific
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(2), 34–42.
15. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
16. Montiel, C. J., & de Guzman, J. M. (2011). Peace education in the Philippines: Trends and directions.
Peace Review, 23(4), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2011.620257
17. NEDA (National Economic and Development Authority). (2023). Philippine Development Plan 2023–
2028. https://pdp.neda.gov.ph
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue VIII August 2025
Page 1136
www.rsisinternational.org
18. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.).
Pearson Education.
19. Office of the Presidential Adviser on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity (OPAPRU). (2023). National
Peace Framework.
20. Page, J. S. (2008). Peace education: Exploring ethical and philosophical foundations. Information Age
Publishing.
21. Richey, R. C., & Nelson, W. A. (2001). Developmental research. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1099–1130). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
22. Salomon, G., & Cairns, E. (2011). Handbook on peace education. Psychology Press.
23. UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning objectives. United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444