Extent of Implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum and Its Effect on the Numeracy Skills of Elementary Learners in Public Elementary Schools in Sabangan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22602325Keywords:
MATATAG Curriculum, curriculum implementation, numeracy skills, instructional strategies, elementary mathematics, rural educationAbstract
This study examined the extent of implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum and its effect on the numeracy skills of elementary learners in public elementary schools in Sabangan, Mountain Province. A quantitative, non-experimental cross-sectional descriptive-correlational design with predictive analysis was employed. The study involved 192 elementary Mathematics teachers and 450 pupils from 18 public elementary schools. Curriculum implementation was measured through a researcher-developed questionnaire covering content delivery, instructional strategies, instructional materials, and assessment practices, while learners completed a 50-item numeracy assessment covering basic operations, number sense, problem solving, and logical reasoning. Weighted mean, descriptive statistics, Pearson product-moment correlation, and multiple regression were used. Implementation was favorably assessed in content delivery (M = 4.12), instructional strategies (M = 4.14), instructional materials (M = 4.19), and assessment practices (M = 4.11). Learners obtained an overall numeracy mean of 37.59 out of 50 (75.18%), interpreted as High, with stronger performance in basic operations and number sense than in problem solving and logical reasoning. Overall curriculum implementation was significantly and positively related to numeracy skills (r = .66, p = .001). The combined implementation dimensions explained 55% of the variance in numeracy performance (R² = .55), with instructional strategies emerging as the strongest predictor (β = .41, t = 5.27, p < .001). The findings indicate that effective classroom implementation of MATATAG, particularly through learner-centered and problem-solving-oriented instructional strategies, is associated with stronger numeracy outcomes. The study underscores the need for sustained teacher development, formative assessment, adequate instructional resources, instructional supervision, and focused support for higher-order numeracy skills.
Downloads
References
Azano, A. P., & Stewart, T. T. (2015). Exploring place and practicing justice: Preparing pre-service teachers for success in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 30(9), 1–12.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2020). Socioeconomic status moderates the relationship between growth mindset and learning in mathematics and science: Evidence from PISA 2018 Philippine data. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 8(2), 1–13.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through equitable teaching. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
Department of Education. (2023). MATATAG: Bansang Makabata, Batang Makabansa curriculum framework.
Department of Education. (2024). MATATAG Mathematics Curriculum Guide.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age Publishing.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 850–867.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.
Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2019). Mathematical competencies revisited. Springer.
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results. OECD Publishing.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in teachers’ use of curriculum materials. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587–597.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
