Results show that only a few teachers reported having adequate time to teach all learning competencies.
Guided by the goals and standards of the K to 12 Program and recognizing the need to ensure that these are attained by the learners, the Department of Education initiated the curriculum review.
The review is a quality control mechanism that primarily examines the curriculum in its various phases, i.e., intended, implemented, assessed, and achieved. It is not simply meant to fulfill one of the provisions of Republic Act (RA) 105333 or the Enhanced Basic Education Act to review the curriculum, but is also part of the Department's commitment to ensure quality, relevant, and liberating basic education for all through continuous curriculum refinement.
The Department, through the Bureau of Curriculum Development-Curriculum Standards Development Division, in collaboration with the ACTRC, started the review of the intended curriculum.
The review focused on the articulation of learning competencies within and across learning areas to identify gaps, issues, and concerns relative to the standards.
Significant findings reveal that the current curriculum has a substantial number of essential learning competencies, indicating curriculum relevance.
While a significant number of prerequisites are explicitly articulated, others were implicit or misplaced, and thus, needed to be addressed.
Corollary to the said findings are recommendations to further decongest the curriculum by reducing the number of desirable learning competencies per quarter to provide instructional space for implementers, revisit the sequence of the learning competencies within and across the content domains of the curriculum to ensure continuity and progression of skills, ensure articulation of competencies across quarters and grade levels through prerequisites, and ensure interconnection of learning competencies with the rest of the disciplines.
On the other hand, the review of the implemented curriculum explored factors that help and/or hinder teachers in implementing the curriculum, providing insights into what is working well, what could be further strengthened, and where problems exist, allowing for these to be addressed.
Results show that only a few teachers reported having adequate time to teach all learning competencies.
The percentage varies by learning area, grade level, and quarter, but typically fewer than 20% of teachers reported having adequate time to teach all the learning competencies assigned to a quarter.
Surprisingly, in some learning areas, almost half of the teachers did not have sufficient time to teach even half the number of learning competencies.
This supports the recommendation in the review of the intended curriculum that the number of learning competencies be reconsidered in order to ensure that all learning competencies can be taught with the required cognitive depth in the time available in schools.
Moreover, many teachers identified a mismatch between the prerequisite skills and knowledge assumed by the learning competencies within the curriculum, and the current skills and knowledge of the students who were expected to learn them.
Though the responses varied among learning areas, on average 25% of teachers responded negatively, indicating that their classes collectively are not prepared for the learning competency.
A few learning areas, grades, and quarters received a consistently positive pattern of responses.
Again, this gives credence to the recommendation of the previous review, which suggests articulating competencies across quarters and grade levels through well-defined prerequisites and ascertaining their interconnections.
The study highly recommends reducing the amount of learning required by the intended curriculum to ensure that all learning competencies are taught with the required cognitive depth in the time available, and to revise the sequencing, clarity of expression, cognitive demand of the learning competencies, and associated grade level standards, thus allowing prerequisite skills and knowledge to be built systematically from one grade level to the next.
Finally, the review of the tested curriculum explored the extent to which the national tests assess the intended curriculum, with a focus on students in Grade 3, Grade 6, Grade 10, and Senior High School (SHS).
The review showed that the national test items are aligned with the content of the intended curriculum, suggesting that the tests fairly assess the intended curriculum and can provide an indication of the extent to which learners have reached the expected standards.
Comparison of cognitive demand indicates that the cognitive demand of test items, while aligned to the current wording of the learning competencies in the K to 12 Curriculum documents, is too high.
The review also notes the dual mapping of the tables of specifications for the Grade 6 and Grade 10 National Achievement Test (NAT) and the Basic Education Exit Assessment (BEEA) to two different working frameworks: one originating from BEA and the other from BCD.
This is problematic as it sends inconsistent messages to stakeholders.
Incorporating both frameworks into the curriculum guides would send a more consistent message, especially to schools implementing the curriculum and to those using the results of the national curriculum testing to make inferences about the quality of learning of students.
These findings and recommendations provide significant inputs and directions worth prioritizing as the bureaus in the Curriculum and Teaching Strand engage the Department and relevant stakeholders in the recalibration of the K to 12 Curriculum.
Comments
Post a Comment