Free will has been one of the interests of researchers and enthusiasts in philosophical studies and understanding. It is a term that is applicable in all aspects of human life. Free will is an individual’s capacity to make choices without certain constraints: physical (imprisonment), social (threats or manipulation) or personal (mental illness) [1]. In philosophical discussions on free will, free will is often used as synonymous with ‘freedom’ and  sometimes with acting ‘freely’ [2]. Hence, this study also considered freedom as free will per se. 

In addition, Walter [3] distinguishes three main aspects or components of free will in the present philosophical debate. Meynen [4] mentioned that the first component is, that to be free one must be able to do otherwise. Accordingly, the second aspect forwards that to be free means to act or choose for an understandable reason. Third, freedom requires that one is the originator of one’s actions [4]. However, some scholars argue that widespread belief in free will has evolved as it allows for larger and more complex societies to function and thrive [5]. Instilling in people a sense of control over their actions, this belief has allowed for the justification of rules and institutions that punish anti-social behavior and reward pro-social behavior [6] thus, rather counter-intuitively, the belief in free will is proposed to have enabled humans to become better at adhering to social norms [6].

With the growing interests in free will, various studies in different fields were conducted. These studies explored free will from different angles in various fields. Results of studies are discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. 

Harms et al. [6] studied how undermining belief in free will affect altruistic behavior. Their findings indicated that the effects of free will belief on prosocial behavior are more nuanced than previously suggested. They also revealed that people’s belief in free will did not reduce the probability that subjects would select the more generous distribution; however, this did not significantly influence the likelihood of subjects selecting the more generous distribution. Their study concluded that among religious subjects the negative effects of free will disbelief on charitable giving were cancelled out by their adherence to religion-based helping norms.            

In 2015, Hanaan and Radhakrishna defined free will of the rationalist-compatibilist type using Jamesian two-stage model. They showed that, although metaphysical libertarianism is provisionally protected against the dilemma of determinism by the two-stage model, it is vulnerable to the recursive version of the dilemma. As a defense for libertarian freedom, they proposed the infinitely recursive two-stage scheme. A free agent is described and free-willed agents. Concepts like moral responsibility and justice are helpful as props that encourage free-willed behavior and  thereby help reduce disorder, though not necessarily on the physical level [5]. Nonetheless, they posited that the remaining evolutionary journey, towards greater freedom of the will, is now “up to us”; it should be accomplished through self-determination.

On the other hand, Zhao et al. [7] examined the role of belief in free will on prejudice against outgroups from one’s own perspective across Han Chinese and white samples. Han Chinese people endorsed the belief in free will; the less that they showed prejudice against the Tibetan Chinese. Then, the belief of the Han Chinese in free will and their explicit feelings towards the Uyghur Chinese were used as an indicator of ethnic prejudice. The results showed that the participants in the condition of belief in free will reported less prejudice towards Uyghur Chinese compared to their counterparts in the condition of disbelief in free will. Finally, white peoples’ belief in free will was manipulated and  their pro-black attitudes were measured as an indirect indicator of racial prejudice; the results showed that, compared to the condition of disbelief in free will, the participants who were primed by a belief in free will reported stronger pro-black attitudes.

Meanwhile, Laurene et al. [8] measured the belief in free will as well as attitudes toward punishment, self-esteem and  locus of control among incarcerated adolescents and adults, whose freedom to act is externally constrained. The results indicate that free will is strongly endorsed in Western society even when freedom to act is severely restricted. However, incarcerated adolescents endorsed free will to a slightly lesser extent than their non-incarcerated counterparts in the study of Rakos et al. [9] while incarcerated and non-incarcerated adults offered equally strong endorsements.

In fact, Rakos et al. [9] first evaluated the strength of the baseline belief, which required development of a sounder measure of belief in free will. They also explored the development aspects of the belief in free will and  the relationships between belief in free will and other variables of interest among senior high school (SHS) and college students. Their study revealed that SHS and college students endorsed the belief in free to a much stronger extent; adults associated belief in free will with rehabilitation, retribution and  deterrence while adolescents only related the belief to retribution; adults produced a negative correlation between the belief in free will and locus of control whereas adolescents evidenced no association between the variables. Both age groups demonstrated significant correlations between the belief and self-esteem. Finally, adolescents evidenced no correlation between the belief and religious conviction while adults produced a negative correlation between two variables.

In the field of forensic psychiatry, Meynen explored how forensic psychiatrists are confronted with the issue of free will and how they should deal with this concept and the confusion surrounding it. Meynen revealed that free will is required for moral responsibility. Also, not all issues related to free will are relevant to forensic work; the compatibility question can and should be distinguished from the ethical issue of what is required for moral responsibility. Hence, psychiatrists should at least feel free to think about free will and that the conceptual challenges connected to the issues of free will and accountability could rather encourage than deter forensic psychiatrists to think about them.

On one hand, Monroe and Malle [10] sought to reconstruct folk concept of free will by asking people to define the concept and by confronting them with a neuroscientific claim that free will is an illusion which invited them to either reconcile or contrast free will with determinism. Their study suggested that the core of people’s concept of free will is a choice that fulfills one’s desires and is free from internal or external constraints; no evidence was found for metaphysical assumptions about dualism or indeterminism.

Finally, though the existence and interest in free will have been studied just like the abovementioned studies, little studies and empirical evidences showed and investigated the application of free will in classroom context. In such light, this study was conceptualized to explore free will in classroom settings as experienced by seasoned teachers. 

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to describe the lived experiences of seasoned teachers. Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions:

• How do teachers view free will in classroom

• How do teachers practice free will in classroom

• What model can be formulated to understand free will in classroom

Research Design

This study employed qualitative descriptive design. Lambert & Lambert [11] stated that the goal of qualitative descriptive studies is a comprehensive summarization, in everyday terms, of specific events experienced by individuals or groups of individuals. Accordingly, qualitative descriptive studies tend to draw from naturalistic inquiry, which purports a commitment to studying something in its natural state to the extent that is possible within the context of the research arena. Clearly, there is no pre-selection of study variables, no manipulation of variables and  no prior commitment to any one theoretical view of a target phenomenon. Nonetheless, the design is primarily concerned with experiences that are phenomenal in accordance to the merit put by people to their experiences; the number of participants is set until saturation of data is achieved. 

Since this study described the views of teachers on free will and its implementation in their classrooms, the researcher found the design most appropriate. After all, a basic or fundamental qualitative descriptive design is a valuable method in and of itself; it does not require the researcher to move as far from or into the data; and, does not require a conceptual or highly abstract rendering of the data, compared to other qualitative designs [11]. 

Population and Locale of the Study

The study was conducted in one campus of a state college in Ilocos Sur. The participants of the study were the college instructors and professors of the target campus. The participants were chosen using criterion sampling in which three criteria were set. First, they have been teaching for at least 10 years. Second, they are holding permanent items. Finally, they willingly agreed to be interviewed and observed. With these criteria, five participants were considered.

Data Collection Instrument

In the collection of data, an interview guide containing concepts, definitions, references and a priori codes was the main data gathering instrument. The interview guide focused on the views of teachers on free will in instruction and the ways on how they practice free will in their classes. From the interview guide, an aide memoir was constructed that contains questions that were asked during the interview. Finally, an observation guide was used during the classroom observations.

Data Collection Procedure

In gathering the data, the researcher constructed first the interview and observation guides so as not to lose track in the conduct of the study. After that, the researcher identified the participants through criterion sampling. After identifying the participants, they were informed of the nature of the study. They were also asked to give their consent in participating in the study through observation and interview consent form.

Furthermore, schedules for the interviews were set. In order to aid the researcher and further encapsulate the experiences and views of the participants, the researcher used an aide memoir. The aide memoir serve as guide in conducting the interviews since it contains guide questions that shall surface the experiences of the participants. Then, classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with the participants’ students were conducted to triangulate the gathered data from the participants.

Finally, the audio recordings were transcribed. Then, spot-checking was done on the interview recordings to avoid the transcriptionist effect. Spot-checking is done to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data. This is conducted by allowing other transcribers to recheck the interview transcripts while listening to the audio or video recordings. Then, member checking procedures were done to ensure the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the data [12]. In this study, member checking was done in three ways. First, the participants reviewed and commented on their interview transcripts. Second, series of follow up interviews to follow up unclear statements of the participants were conducted. Third, the results of the analysis were disseminated to the participants. In this process, the participants were given the chance to react on the results. After the member checking procedures, cool and warm analyses were done.

Mode of Analysis

Interview recordings were transcribed to arrive at extended texts that were subjected to cool and warm analyses. Extended texts refer to the transcribed audio or video recordings. During the cool analysis, anchors and phenomenal referents were marked to facilitate the identification of themes within the text [12]. Simply, cool analysis was conducted by looking into patterns or significant statements from the extended texts in order to facilitate the next step which is warm analysis. In the warm analysis, highlighted words or phrases were proof-read and analyzed to formulate categories and themes [13]. The significant statements were thematized and interpreted as they transpired in the categorization of data. Finally, member checking procedures were done to ensure the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the data to establish the validity, truthfulness and trustworthiness of the emerging patterns, [12].

Findings

In determining the views and practices of teachers in observing free will in classroom context, the cool and warm analyses of the responses of the select teachers yielded recognizable two features of free will in classroom context: teacher-facilitated free will and student-facilitated free will. Although the identified features of free will in classroom context may seem occur in different teachers, the features represent the simultaneous phenomena which commenced one after the other as a response to the diversity among learners and the changes in the curricula. 

Teacher-Facilitated Free Will

In this study, it is interesting to note the views of teachers on free in classroom context and how they implement it their views in their respective classes. Through the interview, free will is viewed as a concept facilitated by a teacher. As verbalized by the participants:

• “Free will is something like ah they are free to do what they want with the guidance of the teacher.” (P1)

• “Free will is that, the teacher will act as then a facilitator with those learning endeavors that was design for that subject and let student to do learning at their own free time, at their own free way on what to do.” (P2)

In this feature of free will, the participants highlighted it implementation by allowing students to freely express their thoughts or ideas in the discussion and in designing the class activities. As expressed, 

• “Implementing free will in the classroom, for me it will give the opportunity to the students to say what is on their mind. They are free to ask question also and do what they really think is best for them.” (P3)

• “It’s letting my students participate and join in planning some of the activities of the lesson.” (P4)

• “Give activities of the students but we always also include the suggestions of the students.” (P5)

• “Free will also comes in the form of letting them share their experiences in relation to the lesson.” (P6)

Moreover, the participants manifested a positive attitude towards the implementation of free will in classroom context. In implementing free will, they also revealed that the types of students are being considered. As shared by the participants.

• “Implementing freewill in classrooms is okay. I think it’s right time to implement it in the classroom. It’s the right time because we now have different kinds of students nowadays. We now have the millennial students.” (P4)

• “I think the implementation of freewill in the classroom might be a good avenue because we already have different learners.” (P6)

• “There’s nothing wrong about implementing freewill in the classroom. In fact you can even help them to become a better student.” (P1)

Succinctly, the foregoing nature of free will in classroom context that is being driven by teachers is described in this study as teacher-facilitated free will. 

Student-Facilitated Free Will

Through the interview, the participants manifested the other feature of free will. They revealed that free will is also determined by the students. However, they highlighted that this feature of free will is coupled with responsibility. As evidenced by the following verbalizations: 

• “I think this is about uhh students who want to learn or the students who don’t want to learn.” (P1)

• “So if a student chooses not to learn for whatever reasons, clearly I think there is a free will on that. But of course with letting them understand that they have to be responsible with their decisions.” (P4)

• “It should be more, that they’re more responsible also in their decision or in their acts that they know also how to control their actions.” (P3)

• “Even you assign them their own activity; still they will not do it and comply with it because they do not know what to do.” (P2)

In this feature of free, the participants exercise it by also allowing students to share their ideas in the course of class discussion. As mentioned:

• “During group activities ahm, brainstorming will be held first because in that way the opinions of every student is entertained or is welcomed and it’s being heard.” (P4)

• “If we also allow the students to interact with us and accept what they really want to uhh, or what are their ideas.” (P3)

Simply put, the free will that is determined by actions of students is referred in this study as student-facilitated free will.

Free Will Model in Pedagogy

The abovementioned discussion gave birth to the model that could be used to understand free will in pedagogy or in classroom context. Clearly, the model show that two features of free will in classroom context surfaced as result of the views of teachers on free will and how they implement it in their respective classrooms. In the outer layer of the model, free will is located while the inner circle is divided into two which reflect the two features of free will in pedagogy: teacher-facilitated free will and students-facilitated free will. This means that free will in classroom context should be understood based on how teachers and students use and facilitate it. The first feature of free will is teacher-facilitated which means that teachers served as primary agent in order for free will to manifest in classroom (Figure 1). The second feature is student-facilitated. This feature is described by the students’ choice of whether to learn or not to learn. Hence, teachers and students are agents of free will in classroom context.

Figure 1: Free Will in Classroom

Through the lens of qualitative descriptive design, the study surfaced the two features of free will in classroom context: teacher-facilitated and student-facilitated. These two features characterized the understanding of teachers on the theoretical and practical applications of free will.

As revealed in the study, teachers facilitate free will. This feature of free will in classroom is described as allowing students to share their thoughts, opinions and  ideas on the different classroom activities and discussions. Also, students are allowed to modify some class activities with the supervision and guidance of the teachers. Most importantly, teachers let the students decide which action to do and direction to follow with a reminder of the big responsibility that is required from them; thus, the observance of free choice among students. 

In the context of the mentioned feature of free will, free will is an individual’s capacity to make choices without certain constraints [1]. However, some environments make it more likely that an individual will be more fully reflective, in effect to make his or her own decisions [1]. Bandura succinctly summarized that proponents of free will granted humans the power of free choice in the likeness of absolute agency…an enigmatic, autonomous causative force shrouded in conceptual ambiguity about what it is, where it comes from and  how it manages to operate autonomously in the midst of environmental pressures. Hence, free choice entails responsibility, sense of introspection and  social pressure. 

Furthermore, Monroe and Malle found that free will was conceptualized as being able to make a choice, as following one’s desires and /or as being free of internal and external constraints, without necessarily construing free will as a special kind of causative power. Rousseau [1] claimed that free will is both an individual and a social construction, born out of how the brain talks to itself and the expectations and opportunities human communities convey to their members. Accordingly, it is also likely to increase an individual’s expectation that others will themselves feel bound to keep the commitments they have freely made like in the case of the students and the teachers.

On the other hand, free will is also facilitated by students. In this feature of free will, students are given the freedom to choose whether to learn or not to learn and to act or not to act in the class discussions and activities. In this case, Rotenberg philosophized that free will is actually a free choice of a definite type of behavior from many options that are determined by different objective conditions. Accordingly, the essence of the free will is the subject’s choice of one option of motivated behavior from many options. Free will is usually taken to mean, explicitly by philosophers and implicitly by others, that the agent has the ability to cause his or her own behavior uncaused by anything else. Hence, It is also likely to increase an individual’s expectation that others will themselves feel bound to keep the commitments they have freely made [1].

In addition, the act by which teachers inform their students about the consequences of the choices they make is a form of informed consent. Balaguer underscored the notion of informed consent comes to mind as an exemplar of how to choose situations can be structured to promote exercise of free will; informed consent arises in circumstances where individuals have a clear appreciation of the facts and the implications of a course of action for the future. After all, circumstances where individuals make conscious decisions for which multiple options exist are arguably good exemplars of free will hence, implying free will as being committed to unique forms of causality, non-determinism, or even uncaused causes.

Above all, Rotenberg stated that free will represents itself in the ability to select the definite goal and to integrate the holistic behavior oriented on this goal while taking into consideration many factors. Accordingly, in order to realize a free will, it is necessary to search for the most relevant options from the big set of different options. As such, conscious, rational choice and self-control seem to be integral parts of what people perceive as free.

In classroom context, free will is described in this study as teacher-facilitated and student-facilitated. These features of free will highlight the synergy of the two main actors in the teaching learning process. In order for free will to take place in every classroom, teachers and students create an atmosphere of free exchange of ideas. This allows both the teachers and students to make their decisions; hence, highlighting free will as the mechanism of human decision-making. 

Interestingly, this study impliedly equated free will as freedom. This freedom is impossible without some degree of order [1]. Order provides the basis of trust between actors supports and regulation of behavior [1]. Thus, teachers and students must have a shared vision for their classes. 

Finally, Hanaan and  Radhakrishna [14] forwarded that free will is a concept in philosophy that refers to the putative capacity of a human agent to control her [his] behavior by choices made by an act of will, on basis of her personal motives, convictions and intentions. They also believed that the concept rests on the belief that human behavior is not fully determined by external causes; from a common sense perspective, we feel we are free in making decisions. Such descriptions are posited features of free will in classroom context. 

Limitation of the Study

This study was limited only to describing how teachers view and implement free will in classroom context. Constrained by the unwillingness of the targeted male participants, most of the participants in this study were female. Hence, this study recommends that further studies should be conducted to explore the difference between how male and female teachers view and implement free will in their respective classes.

1. Rousseau, D.M. “Free will in social and psychological contracts.” Society and Business Review, vol. 11, no. 2, 2016, pp. 210–216.

2. Kane, R. The Oxford handbook of free will. Oxford University Press, 2002.

3. Walter, H. Neurophilosophy of free will: From libertarian illusions to a concept of natural autonomy. MIT Press, 2001.

4. Meynen, G. “Free will and psychiatric assessments of criminal responsibility: A parallel with informed consent.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, vol. 13, 2010, pp. 313–320.

5. Baumeister, R.F. and A.E. Monroe. “Recent research on free will: Conceptualizations, beliefs and processes.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by J.M. Zanna and M.P. Zanna, Academic Press, 2014.

6. Harms, J. et al. “Free to help? An experiment on free will belief and altruism.” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 3, 2017, e0173193.

7. Zhao, X. et al. “The effect of belief in free will on prejudice.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 3, 2014, e91572.

8. Laurene, K.R. et al. “Perception of free will: The perspective of incarcerated adolescent and adult offenders.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology, Springer, 2011.

9. Rakos, R.F. et al. “Belief in free will: Measurement and conceptualization innovations.” Behavior and Social Issues, vol. 17, 2008, pp. 20–39.

10. Monroe, A.E. and B.F. Malle. “From uncaused will to conscious choice: The need to study, not speculate about people’s folk concept of free will.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology, Springer, 2009.

11. Lambert, V.A. and C.E. Lambert. “Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design.” Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, vol. 16, no. 4, 2012.

12. de Guzman, A. and  E. Tan. “Understanding the essence of scholarship from the lived experiences of a select group of outstanding Filipino researchers.” Educational Research Journal, vol. 22, no. 1, 2007, pp. 49–65.

13. Valdez, L.P.M. et al. “Every move counts in learning: Filipino clinical instructors’ scaffolding behaviors in teaching medication administration.” Nurse Education Today, 2012.

14. Hanaa, H. and S. Radhakrishna. “The concept of free will as an infinite metatheoretic recursion.” Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, vol. 13, no. 3, 2015, pp. 354–366.