Exploring Vertical Coherence of Content Topics in Philippine Spiral Kto10 Mathematics Curriculum

Ryan V. Dio

Abstract


Vertical coherence of the content topics coupled with careful sequencing of learning competencies considering student’s cognitive level of development has been identified as an excellent characteristic of a well-planned spiral progression approach of the curriculum. This descriptive-evaluative method of study tailored with the Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) as a framework of analysis explored the Philippine Kindergarten to Grade 10 (Kto10) mathematics curriculum guide (CG) to determine the program strengths and areas that need improvement. The qualitative approach to the analysis of CG is supported by the feedbacks and experiences of 16 teacher-informants (3Male, 13Female). The curriculum mapping revealed that content topics were arranged in increasing complexity (though there were observed discontinuity) with the corresponding progression of mathematical tasks across the grade level. However, the spiral design of the curriculum failed to decongest the distribution of the content and learning competencies which became unrealistic to implement for general classrooms according to the level of cognitive development of Filipino learners as revealed by the feedbacks and experiences of mathematics teachers. The K to 10 Mathematics curriculum needs revision covering the most essential learning competencies (vertically arranged) per content area anchored on international benchmarks.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.11.15


Keywords


Vertical Coherence; Philippine Kto10 Mathematics; Spiral Progression Approach; Curriculum Mapping; Discrepancy Evaluation Modelg, Vertical Coherence, Philippine K to 10 Mathematics, Spiral Progression Approach

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdullah, A. H., & Shin, B. (2019). A comparative study of quadrilaterals topic content in mathematics textbooks between Malaysia and South Korea. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(3), 315-340. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1229909.pdf

Ager, M. (2020, October 22). No study yet on poor PISA results; Gatchalian feels sorry for learners. Inquirer. net. Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net

Ahmad, J. (2011, October 25). Provus discrepancy evaluation model (DEM) [ppt]. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net

Albano, E. (2019, September 26). Grade 6 NAT Scores at ‘low mastery’ level. The Manila Times. Retrieved from https://www.manilatimes.net

Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.25115/EJREP.V418.1217

Ari, A. (2011). Finding acceptance of Bloom's revised cognitive taxonomy on the international stage and in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(2), 767-772. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ927376.pdf

Bradley, L. H. (1985). The 10 indicators of effective curriculum development. Curriculum Leadership and development Handbook (pp. 141-146), Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Briggs, D. C., & Peck, F. A. (2015). Using learning progressions to design vertical scales that support coherent inferences about student growth, measurement. Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 13(2), 75-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2015.1042814

Burghes, D., & Hindle, M. (2004). Response to key issues raised in the post-14 mathematics inquiry. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 35(5), 633-660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390412331271230

Capilitan, D. B., Cabili, M. V., & Sequete, F. R. (2015). A Review on the issues in the implementation of K to 12 science curriculums: A baseline study. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10755.30249

Casayuran, M. (2020, February 10). Gatchalian: Curriculum reform needed for better PISA result. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from https://mb.com.ph/2020/02/10/gatchalian-curriculum-reform-needed-for-better-pisa-result/

Castillo, R. C. (2014). A paradigm shifts to outcomes-based higher education: Policies, principles, and preparations. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 14(1), 174-186.

Department of Education (DepEd). (2016). Philippine K to 10 Mathematics Curriculum Guide. Retrieved from http://lrmds.deped.gov.ph

Drew, C. (2020). Bruner’s spiral curriculum: The 3 key principles [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://helpfulprofessor.com/spiral-curriculum/

Ezeudu, F. O., Nkokelonye, C. U., & Adigwe, J. C. (2013). Science education and challenges of globalization in the Igbo nation. US-China Education Review, 3(2), 116-127. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540919.pdf

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M. (2005). Curriculum Leadership: Development and Implementation. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320: Sage Publications.

Hale, J. A. (2008). A guide to curriculum mapping: Planning, implementing, and sustaining the process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Harden, R. M. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141-143. doi:10.1080/01421599979752

Hatzakis, T., Lycett, M., & Serrano, A. (2007). A program management approach for ensuring curriculum coherence in IS (higher) education. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(5), 643-657. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000707

Herrera, C., & Dio, R. (2016). Extent of readiness of grade 10 students for general Mathematics of senior high school in Sorsogon City, Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts, and Sciences, 3(4), 1-8. Retrieved from https://apjeas.apjmr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/APJEAS -2016.3.4.01.pdf

Jacobs, H. H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED489051

Jacobs, H. H., & Johnson, A. J. (2009). The curriculum mapping planner: Templates, tools, and resources for effective professional development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jensen, R. J. (1990). One point of view: The spring is wound too tight on our spiral curriculum. The Arithmetic Teacher, 38(1), 4-5. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.38.1.0004

Jin, H., Mikeska, J., Hokayem, H., & Mavronikolas, E. (2019). Toward coherence in the curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A review of learning progression literature. Science Education, 103, 1206-1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21525

Luft, J. A., Dubois, S. L., Nixon, R. S., & Campbell, B. K. (2014). Supporting newly hired teachers of science: Attaining teacher professional standards. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 1–48. doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.980559

Masters, K., & Gibbs, T. (2007). The spiral curriculum: Implications for online learning. BMC Medical Education, 7, 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-52

Mateo, J. (2019, December 12). DepEd begins a review of the K-12 math curriculum. The Philippine Star. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com.

Mingus, T. (2002). A case study of spiraling content and pedagogy through core courses for pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. Readings in innovative ideas in teaching collegiate mathematics, 21-42.

Morales, M. P. E. (2017). Transition and transformations in Philippine physics education curriculum: A case research. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 469-492. Retrieved from https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary

Musa, S., & Ziatdinov, R. (2012). Features and historical aspects of the Philippine educational system. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 2(2), 155-176. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1057820

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Nebres, B. F. (2009). Engaging the community, targeted interventions: achieving scale in basic education reform. Education Research Policy Practice, 8, 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-009-9068-3

Okabe, M. (2013). Where does Philippine education go? The ‘K to 12’ program and Reform of Philippine basic education. Institute of Developing Economies (IDE) Discussion Paper No. 425 (pp. 1-30). Chiba: Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net /40589215/ARRIDE_Discussion_No.425_okabe.pdf?

Philippine Republic Act No. 10533. (2013, May 15). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. Retrieved from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph /2013/05/15/republic-act-no-10533/

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2018). PISA Results in Combined Executive Summaries, Volume I, II & III. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Combined_Executive_Summaries_PISA_2018.pdf

Provus, M. M. (1969). The Discrepancy Evaluation Model: An Approach to Local Program Improvement and Development. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED030957.pdf

Reeves, C., & McAuliffe, S. (2012). "Is curricular incoherence slowing down the pace of school mathematics in South Africa? A methodology for assessing coherence in the implemented curriculum and some implications for teacher education". Journal of Education, 53, 9-36. http://hdl.handle.net/11189/3337

Roach, A. T., Niebling, B. C., & Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158-176. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20282

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of 'well taught’ mathematics courses. Educational Psychologists, 23(2), 145-166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2302_5

Schweitzer, K. (2020, February 11). Curriculum mapping: Definition, purpose, and tips [Blog post]. Retrieved from thoughtco.com/curriculum-mapping-definition-4155236.

Shilling, T. (2013). Opportunities and challenges of curriculum mapping implementation in one school setting: Considerations for school leaders. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(2), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.3776/joci.%25y.v7i2p20-37

Snider, V. E. (2004). A comparison of spiral versus strand curriculum. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4, 29-39. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ755132

Science Education Institute- Department of Science and Technology (SEI-DOST), & Philippine Council of Mathematics Teachers Educators (MATHTED, Inc. (2011). Mathematics framework for Philippine basic education. Manila: Author.

Smith, A. (2004). Making Mathematics Count: The Report of Professor Adrian Smith’s Inquiry into Post-14 Mathematics Education. London: The Stationary Office. Retrieved from http://www.mathsinquiry.org.uk/report/MathsInquiryFinalReport.pdf

Suter, W. N. (2012a). Qualitative research defining and designing. Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach, 2, 1-10.

Suter, W. N. (2012b). Qualitative data, analysis, and design. Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach, 2, 342-386. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483384443.n12

Tanudjaya, C. P., & Doorman, M. (2020). Examining higher-order thinking in Indonesian lower secondary mathematics classrooms. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 277-300. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1252003.pdf

Tran, D., Reys, B. J., Teuscher, D., Dingman, S., & Kasmer, L. (2016). Analysis of Curriculum Standards: An Important Research Area. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(2), 118-133. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.2.0118

Van den Akker, J. (2004). Curriculum perspective: An introduction. In: Curriculum Landscape and Trends. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7_1

Verzosa, D. M. B., & Vistru-Yu, C. P. (2019). Prospects and challenges in implementing a new mathematics curriculum in the Philippines. In C. Vistru-Yu & T. Toh, (Eds) School Mathematics Curricula. Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective. Singapore: Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_11

Vidali, E. L., & Adams, L. D. (2006). The challenges of globalization. Changes in Education Policy and Practice in the Greek Context, Childhood Education, 82(6), 358-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2006.10522862


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493