SINTA

3.2

Impact

Scholar

11

H-Index

Journal of Social Knowledge Education (JSKE)

an Open Access Journal

Pre-Service Teachers’ Political Conversations on Social Media: Marites–Makabayan Interpretations for Social Studies Education

Mary Joy Supnet
President Ramon Magsaysay State University ROR
Philippines
Jerish Anne C. Espiritu
President Ramon Magsaysay State University ROR
Philippines
Kyla Nicolle E. Oliva
President Ramon Magsaysay State University ROR
Philippines
Brix Mirote
President Ramon Magsaysay State University ROR
Philippines
brixmirote@prmsu.edu.ph
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study explored how Filipino pre-service teachers experience and interpret political conversations on social media, distinguish Marites-oriented from Makabayan-oriented discourse, and understand the implications for civic learning, integrated social science education, and their future responsibilities as social studies teachers.

    Methodology: A qualitative descriptive design was used with eleven second-year pre-service teachers from the College of Teacher Education at President Ramon Magsaysay State University, Castillejos Campus, during the academic year 2025–2026. Individual audio-recorded interviews were conducted through Google Meet or face-to-face according to participant preference and convenience, using an expert-reviewed semi-structured guide. Audio-checked transcripts were manually coded and analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase procedure, followed by expert theme review and participant member checking; reported English translations were checked by a language expert.

    Main Findings: Four themes were developed: political talk as everyday digital exposure; participation as selective and emotionally negotiated; distinguishing Marites from Makabayan discourse; and social media as informal civic learning. The themes indicate learning outcomes involving political awareness, reflective participation, source verification, evidence-based judgment, perspective-taking, respectful dialogue, and responsible digital participation.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The study advances a culturally grounded Marites–Makabayan framework for examining the credibility, tone, ethics, evidence, and public purpose of online political discourse. As a context-sensitive continuum rather than a fixed binary, the framework contributes to integrated social science education and digital civic pedagogy—teaching that connects interdisciplinary analysis with source evaluation, civic online reasoning, ethical dialogue, and the preparation of future teachers to facilitate controversial public issues responsibly.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    M. J. Supnet, J. A. Espiritu, K. N. Oliva, and B. Mirote, “Pre-Service Teachers’ Political Conversations on Social Media: Marites–Makabayan Interpretations for Social Studies Education”, Jo. Soc. Know. Ed, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 478–489, Jul. 2026, doi: 10.37251/jske.v7i4.3599.

    More Citation Formats

  • 19
    Abstract views
    5
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. C. Greenhow and C. Lewin, “Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning,” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 6–30, 2016, doi: 10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954.
    2. S. Boulianne and Y. Theocharis, “Young people, digital media, and engagement: A meta-analysis of research,” Social Science Computer Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 111–127, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0894439318814190.
    3. S. Boulianne, “Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 524–538, 2015, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008542.
    4. S. Boulianne, “Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation,” Communication Research, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 947–966, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0093650218808186.
    5. J. Kahne and B. Bowyer, “The political significance of social media activity and social networks,” Political Communication, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 470–493, 2018, doi: 10.1080/10584609.2018.1426662.
    6. J. Matthes, “Social media and the political engagement of young adults: Between mobilization and distraction,” Online Media and Global Communication, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6–22, 2022, doi: 10.1515/omgc-2022-0006.
    7. H. Gil de Zúñiga, N. Jung, and S. Valenzuela, “Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 319–336, 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x.
    8. M. Barnidge, B. Huber, H. Gil de Zúñiga, and J. H. Liu, “Social media as a sphere for ‘risky’ political expression: A twenty-country multilevel comparative analysis,” The International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 161–182, 2018, doi: 10.1177/1940161218773838.
    9. A. A. Arugay and J. K. A. Baquisal, “Mobilized and polarized: Social media and disinformation narratives in the 2022 Philippine elections,” Pacific Affairs, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 549–573, 2022, doi: 10.5509/2022953549.
    10. K. Agojo, M. Bravo, J. Reyes, J. Rodriguez, and A. Santillan, “Activism beyond the streets: Examining social media usage and youth activism in the Philippines,” Asian Journal of Social Science, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 180–187, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ajss.2023.04.006.
    11. R. Tariq, I. A. Zolkepli, and M. Ahmad, “Political participation of young voters: Tracing direct and indirect effects of social media and political orientations,” Social Sciences, vol. 11, no. 2, Art. no. 81, 2022, doi: 10.3390/socsci11020081.
    12. D. Intyaswati, E. Maryani, D. Sugiana, and A. Venus, “Social media as an information source of political learning in online education,” SAGE Open, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–8, 2021, doi: 10.1177/21582440211023181.
    13. M. Choi, “A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the Internet age,” Theory & Research in Social Education, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 565–607, 2016, doi: 10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549.
    14. M. Choi, M. Glassman, and D. Cristol, “What it means to be a citizen in the Internet age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale,” Computers & Education, vol. 107, pp. 100–112, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.002.
    15. L. M. Jones and K. J. Mitchell, “Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship,” New Media & Society, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 2063–2079, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1461444815577797.
    16. P. Mihailidis and B. Thevenin, “Media literacy as a core competency for engaged citizenship in participatory democracy,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 1611–1622, 2013, doi: 10.1177/0002764213489015.
    17. S. McGrew, J. Breakstone, T. Ortega, M. Smith, and S. Wineburg, “Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning,” Theory & Research in Social Education, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 165–193, 2018, doi: 10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320.
    18. J. Breakstone, M. Smith, S. Wineburg, A. Rapaport, J. Carle, M. Garland, and A. R. Saavedra, “Students’ civic online reasoning: A national portrait,” Educational Researcher, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 505–515, 2021, doi: 10.3102/0013189X211017495.
    19. A. M. Guess, M. Lerner, B. Lyons, J. M. Montgomery, B. Nyhan, J. Reifler, and N. Sircar, “A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 117, no. 27, pp. 15536–15545, 2020, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920498117.
    20. D. Kellner and J. Share, “Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of education,” Policy Futures in Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 59–69, 2007, doi: 10.2304/pfie.2007.5.1.59.
    21. S. Barzilai and C. A. Chinn, “A review of educational responses to the ‘post-truth’ condition: Four lenses on ‘post-truth’ problems,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 107–119, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1786388.
    22. M. Sandelowski, “Whatever happened to qualitative description?” Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 334–340, 2000, doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G.
    23. H. Kim, J. S. Sefcik, and C. Bradway, “Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review,” Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 23–42, 2017, doi: 10.1002/nur.21768.
    24. L. A. Palinkas, S. M. Horwitz, C. A. Green, J. P. Wisdom, N. Duan, and K. Hoagwood, “Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research,” Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, vol. 42, pp. 533–544, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
    25. K. Malterud, V. D. Siersma, and A. D. Guassora, “Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power,” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 26, no. 13, pp. 1753–1760, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444.
    26. H. Kallio, A.-M. Pietilä, M. Johnson, and M. Kangasniemi, “Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 2954–2965, 2016, doi: 10.1111/jan.13031.
    27. A. Tong, P. Sainsbury, and J. Craig, “Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups,” International Journal for Quality in Health Care, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 349–357, 2007, doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
    28. Republic Act No. 10173, “Data Privacy Act of 2012,” National Privacy Commission, Philippines, Aug. 15, 2012.
    29. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    30. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis,” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 589–597, 2019, doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806.
    31. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 328–352, 2021, doi: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.
    32. L. S. Nowell, J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules, “Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 16, pp. 1–13, 2017, doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847.
    33. S. J. Tracy, “Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research,” Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 837–851, 2010, doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121.
    34. F. van Nes, T. Abma, H. Jonsson, and D. Deeg, “Language differences in qualitative research: Is meaning lost in translation?” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 313–316, 2010, doi: 10.1080/14780887.2010.488922.
    35. R. Berger, “Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research,” Qualitative Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 219–234, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1468794112468475.
    36. S. Boulianne, “Standby ties that mobilize: Social media platforms and civic engagement,” Social Science Computer Review, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 1001–1016, 2023, doi: 10.1177/08944393211067687.
    37. E. Fraxanet, A. Kaltenbrunner, F. Germano, and V. Gómez, “Analyzing news engagement on Facebook: Tracking ideological segregation and news quality in the Facebook URL dataset,” EPJ Data Science, vol. 14, Art. no. 73, 2025, doi: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00585-3.
    38. K. Thorson, “Facing an uncertain reception: Young citizens and political interaction on Facebook,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 203–216, 2014, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.862563.
    39. G. Neubaum and N. C. Krämer, “Monitoring the opinion of the crowd: Psychological mechanisms underlying public opinion perceptions on social media,” Media Psychology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 502–531, 2017, doi: 10.1080/15213269.2016.1211539.
    40. E. C. Tandoc Jr., Z. W. Lim, and R. Ling, “Defining ‘fake news’: A typology of scholarly definitions,” Digital Journalism, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 137–153, 2018, doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143.
    41. S. Lewandowsky, U. K. H. Ecker, C. M. Seifert, N. Schwarz, and J. Cook, “Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 106–131, 2012, doi: 10.1177/1529100612451018.
    42. D. M. J. Lazer *et al*., “The science of fake news,” Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, pp. 1094–1096, 2018, doi: 10.1126/science.aao2998.
    43. E. Denniss and R. Lindberg, “Social media and the spread of misinformation: Infectious and a threat to public health,” Health Promotion International, vol. 40, no. 2, Art. no. daaf023, 2025, doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaf023.
    44. P. A. B. Fulleros and R. P. Nitafan, “The Monday Afternoon Tree: A grounded theory of slacktivism among Filipino students in a state university,” Philippine Social Science Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 42–53, 2024, doi: 10.52006/main.v7i2.944.
    45. P. McAvoy and D. Hess, “Classroom deliberation in an era of political polarization,” Curriculum Inquiry, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 14–47, 2013, doi: 10.1111/curi.12000.
    46. G. Itzchakov, N. Navon, J. T. Crawford, N. Weinstein, and K. G. DeMarree, “Harmony in political discourse? The impact of high-quality listening on speakers’ perceptions following political conversations,” Media and Communication, vol. 13, Art. no. 9871, 2025, doi: 10.17645/mac.9871.
    47. W. Journell, “Taking a reasoned stance against misinformation,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 12–17, 2021, doi: 10.1177/0031721721992559.
    48. J. Kahne and B. Bowyer, “Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 3–34, 2017, doi: 10.3102/0002831216679817.
    49. J. Kahne and B. Bowyer, “Can media literacy education increase digital engagement in politics?” Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 211–224, 2019, doi: 10.1080/17439884.2019.1601108.