BORJA - EdD - Final-Chapter-1-appendices (Repaired)

1 Page
MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Chapter I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
This chapter presents the introduction which serves as background of the study,
statement of the problem which contains specific questions of the study, the significance of
the study that presents the importance of undertaking the study and the beneficiaries upon the
conduct of the study as well as scope and delimitation which gives the coverage and
boundaries of the study.
Introduction
Curriculum change is an inevitable consequence of an everchanging society. The role
of curriculum has always been the focus of all education leaders’ attention because it is the
key to provide quality and relevant educational programs and services to the learners in all
parts of the world. Regardless of sizes, types or origins, curriculum is considered the heart
and soul of all educational institutions (Khan & Law 2015).
Curriculum change involves processes similar to curriculum development. According
to Chamberlain and Cummings (2003), there are phases that a curriculum must undergo
before it fully develops it effectiveness. It has to start by drawing implications. Once
implications are assessed, planning starts which involves identification of the problem or
issues; forming a Curriculum Development Team and conducting needs assessment and
analysis. This is followed by implementing the plan. The last phase is assessing if the
implemented curriculum has helped achieved the educational goal (El Sawi,1996).
2 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Crucial to curriculum change or development are the planning and implementation
phases. The planning phase lays the foundation for all curriculum change while
implementation is the process that defines how teachers deliver instruction and assessment
through the use of specified resources provided in a curriculum. In the Philippines,
curriculum implementation guidelines are issued at the national level, but the actual
implementation is left to school teachers. They determine the resources to be used; teaching
and assessment strategies and other processes (Marinas & Ditapat, 2016).
Effective curriculum planning and implementation play a pivotal role in achieving
school improvement goal and quality education. Often, people equate success of school with
good grades on student report cards. But these measures alone cannot tell whether schools
have done a good job of helping students learn. The success of education is often indicated
by how much progress is made. Progress therefore is a priority because it would indicate
achievement (Goss et al., 2015). Schools have different contexts, strength and weaknesses
and manner of implementing curriculum and although there is no such thing as a one-size-
fits-all model for school improvement, it can sustain and accelerate improvement by
identifying and using evidence-based implementation of the curriculum (Cook et al., 2012).
Curriculum planning focuses on processes that involve making decisions about what
to learn, why, and how to organize the teaching and learning processes considering the
necessary requirements and the resources available (IBE UNESCO 2021).
Curriculum implementation refers to the planned or officially designed course of
study which is translated into syllabi, schemes of work, and lessons to be delivered to the
students is put into practice (Bediako, 2019). The process entails helping the learner acquire
knowledge or experience. It involves various factors like the learners, resource materials,
3 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
facilities, the teacher, the school environment, culture and ideology, instructional supervision
and assessment (Chaudhary, 2015). While the teacher is ultimately the one that interacts with
the students and is the main implementing agent of the curriculum, it is also being done on an
organizational level, with the school head acting as the intermediary of curriculum
implementation on both administrative and applied aspects of curriculum development.
Curriculum implementation focuses on how teachers deliver instruction and assessment
through the use of specified resources provided in a curriculum. Curriculum designs
generally provide instructional suggestions, scripts, lesson plans, and assessment options
related to a set of objectives.
Consequently, curriculum planning, and implementation requires restructuring and
replacement. Primary in this restructuring is taking into consideration the school culture,
norms and behavior. Those engaged in curriculum implementation must realize that the
programs being implemented deals with numerous changes, new pedagogical approaches,
new educational materials, new technologies and new education environments (Owhonda &
Amadioha, 2018).
It is a matter of adaptation to aggravating and everchanging circumstances. These
constantly changing factors underscore the need for curriculum planning and implementation
strategies to be periodically analyzed and evaluated to determine their effectiveness and
efficacy. Essential to this determination is whether the program or practices has been used
with fidelity, or that monitoring of implementation has taken place, and student achievement
has been positively impacted. Thus, despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, effective
curriculum implementation remains the end-goal of all educational institutions.

4 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
In 2018, the Department of Education (DepEd) launched the K to 12 Curriculum
which encourages teachers to choose from a variety of instructional models and their
corresponding strategies and methods. Barely had the schools begun to acclimatize in the
new curriculum, the global outbreak of the highly contagious new strain of Corona Virus
posed unprecedented challenges not only to the education sector but to everyone.
Delivery of education in the country has greatly changed because of the Corona virus
disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. Since public and private schools were closed to protect
the health of learners and educators, teaching had to be performed remotely with the use of
modular and digital platforms. As the country continues to confront different issues caused
by the pandemic, the department is addressing the challenges in the basic education. To
fulfill its commitment, which teaching, and learning continues, and the same time protect the
health and safety and well-being of the learners, teaching and non-teaching personnel, the
Department issued several memoranda.
In accordance with its legal mandate, a DepEd Order No (DO) 21 s 2019 or the
Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program was issued which sets forth
Flexible Learning Options (FLOs) that includes alternative delivery modes and its
corresponding learning resources that are responsive to the context, need, situation and
diversity of learners.
To ensure the continuity of education, DepEd Order NO 12 s 2020 titled Adoption of
the Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan (BE-LCP) for SY 2020-2021 in light of the
COVID-19 Pandemic was also issued.
The BE LCP is consistent with the mandate of Section 1, Article XIV of the 1987
Constitution for the State to promote the right of all citizens to make education accessible. In
5 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Section 6 Chapter 1 of RA No. 9155, or the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001
DepEd is vested with the authority, accountability, and responsibility for ensuring access to
education.
Modular Learning is a form of distance learning that uses Self-Learning
Modules (SLM) based on the most essential learning competencies (MELCS) provided
by DepEd. The modules include sections on motivation and assessment that serve as a
complete guide of both teachers' and students' desired competencies. Modular learning was
the most accessible of all the modalities, which parents themselves preferred for their
children. This involves students being taught through printed self-learning modules.
Education Secretary Leonor Briones called the modules the “backbone” of distance learning.
It became necessary to change curriculum planning and implementation strategies
because the department adopted new learning modalities such as online learning, modular
distance learning, radio-based learning, and TV-based learning. Curriculum implementation
therefore has taken a major overhaul and change.
Curriculum implementation strategies during COVID-19 pandemic must be
reconsidered to ensure that learning continues. The challenge faced now by educators is to
suit the curriculum implementation strategies to what will be the “new normal”. Projecting a
post pandemic scenario points to a blended learning setup since health protocols would still
be enforced even when COVID-19 is gone to ensure the safety of the people. Thus, face to
face learning may be restored but would still be limited. To ensure continuity of learning,
blended learning approach would be a popular choice and will be a suitable option.
In order to best guide the teachers in the curriculum planning and implementation,
there is a great need to come up with an instructional policy that can serve as guide of the
6 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
teachers to help them cope with the new normal set up. This policy will be based on
identified strategies that work during the new normal.
With this particular scenario on the need to periodically review and evaluate
curriculum planning and implementation strategies to adjust to the changes in environment,
pedagogy, technology and culture, and determine its efficiency and efficacy, the researcher
was prompted to undertake this research. This research aimed to determine the role played by
curriculum planning and implementation strategies to the school performance of elementary
and secondary schools in the Division of Marinduque. It also sought to determine how these
strategies are utilized by the teachers in the different schools of the division.
Statement of the Problem
Primarily, this study attempted to establish the relationship of level of practice of
curriculum planning and implementation strategies to the performance of public elementary
and secondary schools in the Division of Marinduque. It also sought to identify the level of
practice on strategies and the significance of these strategies before and during the adoption
of Modular Distance learning.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the schools in terms of the following:
1.1 level;
1.2 size; and
1.3 position classification of school head?

7 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
2. What is the level of practice of curriculum planning and implementation strategies
before and during adoption of Modular Distance Modality, by school profile as to the
following areas:
2.1 process;
2.2 people;
2.3 curriculum assessment;
2.4 curriculum delivery;
2.5 classroom management;
2.6 teaching strategy;
2.7 climate?
3. Is there a significant difference on the level of practice and curriculum planning
and implementation before and during the adoption of Modular Distance Modality of school
by profile as to following areas:
3.1 process;
3.2 people;
3.7 climate?
4. What is the performance of the schools before and during the adoption of Modular
Distance Modality when grouped into school profile as to:
4.1 level;
8 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
4.2 size; and
4.3 position classification of school head?
5. Is there a significant difference in the performance of schools by profile before and
during the adoption of Modular Distance Modality as to:
5.1 level;
5.2 size;
5.3 position classification of the school head?
6. Is there a significant relationship between curriculum planning and implementation
strategies and school performance?
7. What instructional policy on curriculum planning and implementation can be
formulated for the elementary and secondary schools in the Division of
Marinduque?
Significance of the Study
Quality education is a longtime quest of the Department of Education. As provided
in Republic Act No 9155, the primary concern of the Department of Education is the
improvement of the quality of education. This is also specifically stated in Sec.1, Article XIV
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states that the country aims to promote quality
education for all citizens of the country.
This research would be very useful in identifying effective curriculum planning and
implementation strategies contributing to the realization of DepEd’s quest for quality
education. Specifically, this research may be useful to the following:

9 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
For the educators, so that they may be able to identify the effective curriculum
planning and implementation strategies that will pave the way to effective learning. Once
these effective curriculum planning and implementation strategies are identified, the
Department of Education may institutionalize these strategies so that all schools may adopt it
for its improvement.
For education supervisors, who may utilize the results of this research as they
regularly provide technical assistance to teachers. Once the effective strategies for curriculum
planning and implementation are identified, the education supervisor may share these
strategies during their provision of technical assistance to the teachers during their rounds of
schools to monitor how the curriculum is implemented.
For the school heads, the findings of this research are significant inputs which may
be of great help to guide them during monitoring of teachers as they implement the
curriculum and ensure that effective curriculum implementation strategies are utilized by the
school.
For the teachers, who are instrumental in providing quality education to the students
and are directly affected by the school head’s supervision, they may adopt the identified
strategies in this research to ensure that they contribute to the improvement of the learning
standards of the school.
For future researchers, who will undertake research and use the result of this
research as baseline data for their undertaking. Other researchers may apply the result of the
research to a wider and more comprehensive scope of research.

10 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This research sought to identify the relationship of level of practice of curriculum
planning and implementation strategies to school performance. Through this study, the
strategies that may be adopted by schools for its continuous delivery of Basic Education amid
the pandemic situation and in the years ahead may be identified. It encompasses the
identification of effective strategies that improve the performance of the school. This
research also delved on how the schools adhere consistently in the use of curriculum and
planning strategies.
This research was undertaken in public elementary and secondary schools in the
Division of Marinduque. School Heads and selected teachers were the respondents of the
study to ensure that varying points of view on the subject matter were gathered. It covered
two school years, 2019-2020 before the pandemic in which face-to-face was the mode
delivery and 2020-2021 during pandemic in which Modular Learning Modality was the
delivery modality of Basic Education.
It was undertaken from July to November 2021 to be able to gather adequate
information from the respondents in different schools in the Division of Marinduque.

11 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents topically arranged related literature and studies which have
bearing and significance to the development of the research.
Review of Related Literature and Studies
Related literature and studies cited here give a clear background and the development
of curriculum planning and implementation strategies, its basic concept o and the models that
influenced its development.
School Profile
Every school creates a school profile. It contains general information about the
school. The school profile includes every piece of pertinent information of a specific school
such as school type, school size, population or enrolment, its administration, school board,
stakeholders, and all information which students and their parents need to know about the
school. It likewise provides information about the curriculum offered by the school, which
the students compared with other schools.
Levels of schools in the Philippines is based on K -12 Enhanced Basic Education
Curriculum. The elementary level is also called primary school or grade school, which is the
first part of the education system. It includes the first six years of compulsory education
(Grades 1to 6) after mandatory pre-school education called Kindergarten. Meanwhile, the
secondary schools are more commonly called “high schools” which are consisted of 4 lower
12 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
levels called Junior High School and 2 upper levels called Senior High School (Hickok,
2019).
Sizes of schools vary from small, medium, large, and very large for both elementary
and secondary levels. Accordingly, schools belong to small size if it has 9 and below teachers
at National Level and with 40 and below teachers at the National Capital Region (NCR);
while it is categorized as medium size if with 10 to 29 teachers at National Level and 41 to
80 teachers at NCR; large size if it has 30 to 50 teachers at National Level and 81 to 120
teachers at NCR; and very large if with 51 and above teachers at National Level and 121 and
above at NCR (Llego, 2017).
School head is a person responsible for the administrative and instructional
supervision of the school or cluster of schools. In the public elementary and secondary
schools, school heads vary in position classification as principal, head teachers, teacher in-
charge. Pursuant to Section 6.1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
Republic Act No. 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001), school principal
classification requires passing of qualifying test, must have at least five years experiences in
the aggregate as Head Teacher, Teacher-In-Charge, Master Teacher, or Teacher III.
Meanwhile, promotion to Head Teacher position classification is based on education,
training, experiences, and performance. Its higher positions are open on ranking basis where
merit and fitness are the main consideration for the position (Llego, 2019; 2019 DepEd
Guidelines on the Selection, Promotion, and Designation of School Heads).

13 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The Concept and Scope of Curriculum
A comprehensive understanding of the concept of curriculum implementation and the
strategies that should be adopted is only possible after understanding what a curriculum is. In
this regard, several researchers or educators have defined and described what a curriculum is.
For instance, Mishra (2011) defined curriculum is a design plan for learning that requires the
purposeful and proactive organizations, sequencing, and management of the interactions
among the teachers, the students, and the standards that educators want students to acquire.
Meanwhile, Aneke (2015) described that curriculum is a mechanism which the educational
system inculcates into the learner. It contains the knowledge, the skills, and the attitudes that
society prescribed. In order to achieve the objectives of the education, curriculum should
serve as an operation to explain all experiences and the intended learning outcomes which are
systematically planed and guided by reconstructing knowledge recognized as cognitive,
affective, psychomotor development of the learner (Aneke, 2015).
Likewise, Su (2012) claims that curriculum is seen as a means of achieving specific
educational goals and objectives. In this sense, a curriculum can be regarded as a checklist of
desired outcomes. In the curriculum development process, generally speaking, the objectives
are clear and specific in behavioral and observable terms. The emphasis on objectives is the
characterization of an objective curriculum model. In this sense, the focus is on products or
ends, and is also teacher-orientated or administrative-oriented.
In addition, over the years, there is a great number of researchers and educators who
have shed light on what curriculum is through their reviews of, or critical comments on, this
term. For example, Goodson (1994) description of curriculum as a ‘multifaceted concept,
constructed, negotiated at a variety of levels and in a variety of area” (p.11). This reflects the
14 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
complexities and interactive nature of curriculum. To Longstreet and Shane (1994) reveal
another side of curriculum which requires decision making. Meanwhile, Pratt (1994)
conceives curriculum as a plan for a sustained process of teaching and learning with a
specific focus on content. This view depicts that curriculum can be likened to construction
blueprints. As a blueprint is not a building per se, a curriculum is not actual teaching or
learning.
On the other hand, Brady (1995), view curriculum as a document--an outline of a
course program that is written on a piece of paper. Thus, curriculum “has become associated
with the official written programs of study published by ministries or departments of
education. This view of the visual written document attached to curriculum derives from the
need that, particularly in the phases of curriculum development and implementation, a
written form has to be made to include a statement of objectives, content, method, and
assessment. For Glatthorn (1987), curriculum is regarded as the plans that made for guiding
learners in school represented by retrievable documents of levels of generality and the
implementation of those plans in the classroom, those experiences take place in a learning
environment that also influences what learning is.
Curriculum Change and the Development of Curriculum
The curriculum is one of the four most important components of education. The
teaching-learning process continues based on the curriculum. Curriculum refers to all the
experiences that students gain through classrooms, workshops, playgrounds, and interactions
with teachers. In this sense, the curriculum throughout the school life touches on all aspects
of the student’s life and makes a cohesive personality.

15 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Curriculum change is a learning process for teachers and their schools. A good
understanding of change and a clear conception of the curriculum are necessary conditions
for improved implementation of the new curriculum into practice. Policymakers, education
leaders, and teachers need to know more about the drivers of successful curriculum change in
schools. Therefore, learning about educational change and its key features should become
integral elements of any serious curriculum reform process (Ansari, 2019).
The discussion of curriculum change has yielded other aspects of curriculum such as:
1) the ideal curriculum which is based on the scholars believes that should be taught; 2) the
formal curriculum, that is a monitoring agency (e.g. state mandates); 3) the perceived
curriculum which pertains to what the teachers say on what they are teaching in response to
students; 4) the operational curriculum which refers to what the local supervisors, parents,
and other observers see as taught in classrooms; and 5) the experiential curriculum which
includes interests, abilities, learning styles, and prior experiences (Goodlad et al., 1979).
This reflects that curriculum change is similar to the concept of educational reforms,
development, and innovation in which the later refers to the introduction of completely new
curriculum aspects, development and reform that implies general improvement of what is
already given (Fullan, 2007).
According to Monda and Das (2021), over the years, the discussion on curriculum
change focuses on teaching culture and philosophy that a wholesale moved away from
traditional such as subject-based, knowledge-centered, and teaching focused approaches,
when institutions turn to alternative (student-based, competence-centered, learning-focused)
approaches that stress the educator’s role as a facilitator of learning, rather than a transmitter
of knowledge.
16 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Education is a major tool shaping the society, there will never be a perfect
curriculum for all ages for the simple reason that the society continues to change from time to
time (Otunga et al., 2011). According to them, curriculum change can occur at three levels
namely; minor, medium and major. Minor changes may comprise of rearrangement of the
sequence of the subject content or learning activities or just the addition of one topic or
method to the instructional program. Medium changes may include an innovation like
integration of subjects, a new subject or a new approach to the existing subject. Major
changes will affect many aspects of the curriculum, like content, methods, approaches,
materials; subtracting or adding to what already exists.
There could also be changes in the conceptual design and organization calling for
new planning. The earliest recorded research in management of change in curriculum in the
1970’s borrowed heavily from theories outside education, and since then there have been
proposals and counter proposals about the best strategies, models and theories of curriculum
change management ranging from the traditional- Tyler model to the Complexity theory. As
more complex educational changes happen, definition and explanation of curriculum change
may not encompass the true essence of curriculum change (Otunga et al., 2011).
Curriculum Planning
One of the important variables of the study is curriculum planning. To understand its
concepts, contents and things associated to this, it is important to define what curriculum
planning is and what involves and contains curriculum planning and why is curriculum
planning done.
17 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Researchers in the field of education defined curriculum planning in various ways.
According to Emeruwa (1984 in Davidson, 2005), curriculum planning is the process of
building a program of learning experiences calculated to results in the attainment of set goals
for a particular people. It reflects that curriculum planning is the making of choices of
learning experiences for a group of people which is appropriate and desirable for them. To
Tanner and Tanner (1975 in Davidson, 2005), curriculum is the planned and guided learning
experiences and intended learning outcomes, formulated through the systematic
reconstruction of knowledge and experience, under the auspices of the school, for the
learners continuous and willful growth personal social competence. As for Davidson (2005),
curriculum as planned school instruction, prior to actual classroom teaching is designed for
learners in the form of educational programs under the guidance of the teacher (implementer)
who acts as a catalyst in the reconstruction of the child’s behavior.
In the discussion paper of Jerry (2018) about curriculum planning, he defined as a
continuous process which involves activities characterized by interrelationship among
individuals and groups as they work together in studying, planning, developing, and
improving the curriculum which is total environment planned by the school. This goes to
show that curriculum planning has to effective in order to come out to a decision making
process which is key to the success of education program.
The International Bureau of Education (2020) regards curriculum planning as a
process that concerned with making decisions about what to learn, why, and how to organize
the teaching and learning process taking into account existing curriculum requirements and
the resources available. At the general level, it often results in the definition of a broad
curriculum framework, as well as a syllabus for each subject to be used as reference by

18 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
individual schools. At the school level, it involves developing course and assessment plans
for different subjects. At the classroom level, it involves developing more detailed plans for
learning units, individual lessons and lesson sequences.
Moreover, curriculum panning should be developed well and properly coordinated to
be able to deliver quality teaching, learning, and assessment which build students’
knowledge, skills, and behavior in the disciplines. He added that a good curriculum planning
in school requires overcoming many obstacles, which means, there is no right way of going
about it, this makes curriculum planning requires for planning of policies, programs, and
lessons. Also, it requires supports of internal stakeholders namely, school principals,
teachers, and students as well as external stakeholders such as parents, school board, and
other professionals and community members who have the stronger interests in planning
(Jerry, 2018).
As a matter of fact, Alsubaie (2016) underscores the involvement of teachers in
curriculum planning. He points out that this induces good quality into the curriculum and
enriches the activities. Thus, teachers make the curriculum more worthwhile and relevant
with the activities that they infuse. This idea is reiterated by Carl (2009) who believes that
the opinion and ideas of the teacher should be included in the development of the curriculum.
The involvement of the teachers in the development process is essential in meeting the needs
of the society.
Also, Handler (2010) also found out the need for teacher involvement in the
development of curriculum. Teachers can contribute collaboratively and effectively working
with the curriculum development teams and arrange and compose textbooks. Teacher
involvement ensures the alignment of the content of curriculum with students. The teacher
19 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
may need to create lesson plans and syllabi within the framework of the given curriculum
since the teacher’s role is to implement the curricular student needs (Carl, 2009). Curriculum
then is the vehicle that contains the goods as represented by contents, the teacher delivers the
goods to the consumers which are the students.
In addition, Chaudhary (2015) explains just like the teachers, learners are also
involved in curriculum planning. Learners should be helped in acquiring knowledge and
skills. The researcher reiterates the importance of some factors that may affect curriculum
planning, just like the learners, resource materials and facilities, the teacher, the school
environment, culture and ideology, instructional supervision and assessment.
Curriculum Implementation
The concept of curriculum implementation has been viewed in many ways.
Curriculum implementation refers to how teachers deliver instruction and assessment through
the use of specified resources provided in a curriculum.
Curriculum designs generally provide instructional suggestions, scripts, lesson plans,
and assessment options related to a set of objectives. Such designs focus on consistency to
help teachers successfully implement and maintain the curricular structure in order to meet
various objectives (Wiles & Bondi, 2014). As noted earlier, researchers defined horizontal
alignment as similar instructional practices and curriculum use between teachers in the same
grade level, and vertical alignment as similarities in instructional practices and fidelity of
curriculum implementation between the previous and following grade levels. Having
curriculum alignment between the same grades and the preceding and following grades levels
20 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
offers consistency in supporting learning objectives and expectations designed to promote
student preparedness and growth (Tweedie & Kim, 2015).
Saugoleye (2015) states that curriculum implementation is the actual engagement of
the learner with planned opportunities. This implementation includes the instructional
materials that will be used. The process involves helping the learner acquire knowledge or
experience. Curriculum implementation, therefore, refers to how the planned or officially
designed course of study is translated by the teacher into syllabuses, schemes of work and
lessons to be delivered to students.
According to Chaudhary (2015), curriculum implementation entails putting into
practice the officially prescribed courses of study, syllabuses and subjects. The process
involves helping the learner acquire knowledge or experience. It is important to note that
curriculum implementation cannot take place without the learner. The learner is therefore the
central figure in the curriculum implementation process. Implementation takes place as the
learner acquires the planned or intended experiences, knowledge, skills, ideas and attitudes
that are aimed at enabling the same learner to function effectively in a society. Viewed from
this perspective, curriculum implementation also refers to the stage when the curriculum
itself, as an educational program, is put into effect.
Meanwhile, Akwesi (2012) explains that curriculum implementation is the practical
application of theory into practice in a way that eventual outcome is through the learner’s
performances in and outside the classroom. When teachers deliver curriculum contents and
instructional strategies in a way that they were designed and delivered, curriculum
implementation is said to have occurred. It must be noted that the effectiveness of the
21 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
implementation is affected by variables such as knowledge/experience, qualification,
availability of resources and motivational issues.
On the other hand, Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) affirm that successful curriculum
implementation results from careful planning that focuses on three factors: people, programs
and process. They underscored the importance of analyzing the role of people which is
equally important as the process. They claimed that schools failed in the implementation of
curriculum because instead of focusing on the factor of people, they focused on the process
without considering the culture, behavior and beliefs of the people.
Some researchers affirm that curriculum implementation is the main process to
achieve the curriculum objectives and there are five principles on its implementation which
could give effective teaching (Zheng & Wang, 2015; Hu et al., 2016; Xie and Xu, 2019; Bai
et al., 2020).
First, stimulating interest and motivation. Teachers should choose materials, contents,
and stories that students are interested in as warming up. The motivation was found
positively relating to students’ academic performance (Lee et al., 2016; Salta &
Koulougliotis, 2020) and creativity (Wang et al., 2021).
Second, cognitive conflict. Cognitive conflict is used to describe a situation that
students feel confused or puzzled, especially when that is inconsistent with their previous
experience or understanding (Kang et al., 2004). Cognitive conflict was found helpful in
improving students’ motivation and arousing their curiosity about the course contents (Kang
et al., 2010; Bao et al., 2014).

22 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Third, knowledge construction. Knowledge construction includes cognitive
construction and social construction. Cognitive construction is a process in which learners
actively construct their internal mental representations, which are realized through the
23 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
interaction of old and new experiences (Evans, 1973). Social construction is based on
Vygotsky’s viewpoint that social interaction is central to children’s cognitive development
(Vygotsky, 1978). Social construction here involves teacher–student interactions and
student–student interactions. Teachers should design courses with discussion sessions, in
which students could argue and share their views with other students. In this process,
knowledge is socially constructed, and specific ways of thinking are mutually reinforced. As
previous research found, compared to traditional instruction, courses that involve
collaborative experimentation and interactions, or storytelling, hands-on experiments, and
drama, could improve preschoolers’ thinking ability (Kakana et al., 2009). Also, cooperative
learning and peer-learning partnership could increase students’ motivation (Eisenkopf, 2010).
Fourth, metacognition and self-regulation. Metacognition and self-regulation are the basis of
all of these thinking methods. Metacognition is the awareness and control of one’s thinking
processes (Jang et al., 2020). Self-regulation refers to learners’ drive by the motivation or use
strategies to initiate and sustain focused goal-directed activities while ignoring distractions or
setbacks (Schunk et al., 2014). A good course should guide students to improve their meta-
cognitive ability to find what strategies they have used when solving problems, and teachers
should help students learn to monitor their thinking, internalize the monitoring process, and
make the monitoring process as part of their habitual mode of thinking (Hu et al., 2016).
Fifth, application and transfer. Given that the instructional process is based on the
specific course contents or activities, we would like to develop students’ ability to draw
inferences from one instance or apply what they have learned from courses to the problems
in real life. Thus, a good course should involve the application and transfer component,
which
24 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
could not only facilitate students’ transfer ability but also help students gain self-efficacy
when they make a successful transfer, which in turn improves their motivation to apply what
they have learned in other subjects (Iswahyudi, et al., 2019).
Models of Curriculum Implementation
There are different approaches to curriculum implementation, and while every
education institution arguably follows a strategy unique to themselves for the purposes of
scholarly research, three (3) models of curriculum implementation have been integrated into
this study based on their status as foundational precursors for the current models of
curriculum implementation used today:
The Overcoming-Resistance-to-Change (ORC) Model
Conceptualized in the late Cold-War Era when fears regarding the spread of
Communism were rife, the ORC Model of curriculum implementation relied heavily on
individual leadership skills in the execution of curricula. In order for new information to be
accepted by the group, rejection of concepts must be minimized by allowing advocates of the
new concept/information speak in favor of it. From an organizational perspective, school
administrators must view rank-and-file instructors as equals and take each individual
perspective into account. Hall and Loucks (1978) described the entire ORC Model as a series
of distinct phases, which are as follows:
Unrelated Concerns: Teachers do not yet perceive how proposed changes relate to
them and their work, and thus make no effort to resist these proposals.
25 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Personal Concerns: Teachers then begin to react to the changes in relation to their
individual status quos. Small doubts and fears begin to appear among the staff regarding how
the routines they have become accustomed to will now be affected by the changes.
Task-related Concerns: The actual use of the innovation is put into question at this
phase. Teachers at this stage will begin to question the effort required in acclimating to the
strategies to be adopted, the material aspect of the change, etc.
Impact-related Concerns: Effects to students, the community at large, and the
possibility of far-reaching effects attributed to the change are now put into attention at this
stage of the ORC Model.
Educational institutions employing the ORC Model usually have to their favor a
strong culture of professionalism in their ranks and harbor a professional environment where
creative and critical thinking is appreciated. Administrators are also expected to be eager to
collaborate with instructors to address concerns and have an attitude willing to take
calculated risks in order to improve how curriculum is translated into the classroom.
Concerns-Based Adoption (CBA) Model
The CBA is an independently created model of curriculum implementation similar to
the ORC Model in that any changes to the implementation of curriculum must be construed
as self-originated or coming from within the organization. Unlike the ORC Model, however,
the CBA Model was an approach targeted towards educational administrations addressing the
individual needs of teachers tasked with implementing the curriculum; this was done through
surveys of the faculty personnel and gauging the intensity of school administrations’ required
responses on a teacher-to-teacher basis. The “Stages of Concern” in the CBA Model is tallied
26 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
individually and rated according to seven distinct stages: (1) Unconcerned; (2) Informational;
(3) Personal; (4) Management; (5) Consequence; (6) Collaboration; (7) Refocusing
Faculty members in the early stages of the CBA Model will likely harbor concerns
centered on themselves and their circumstances prior to and regarding any changes they will
be asked to adopt into the implementation of the curriculum, like doubts and queries about
acclimating to the changes and/or how it might affect daily routines and certain personal
circumstances they have become accustomed to. As teachers progress through the stages and
become more familiar with the innovations in executing the curriculum, concerns then shift
more far-reaching consequences, such as how the implementation of curricular objectives
will impact students or other professional relationships, and what might be done to address
those concerns.
Linkage Model
The Linkage Model, the first iteration of which was conceptualized by Havelock
(1972), asserts that the implementation of curriculum requires a symbiotic interdependence
between a “user system” and a “resource system”. Teachers play key roles as the “link” in
the exchange of information and knowledge between the “resource system”, where the
content of the curriculum originates, and the “user system” or the learners aiming to make
use of the information to achieve societal objectives and who also become sources of
feedback for the “resource system” to continually update itself according to the needs of the
contemporary society.
The aforementioned models notwithstanding, curriculum implementation is generally
a flexible process which is still ultimately subject to the judgment of the individual teacher
whose main task is implementing the curriculum. Therefore, it is critical for any curriculum
27 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
implementation strategy to be deemed educationally valid to encourage the cooperation of
the teachers and secure the approval of the community at large – who, next to the learners, is
the main stakeholder in the education process.
Blended Instruction Model
Blended instruction employs a combination of various curriculum delivery techniques
such as asynchronous and synchronous online class sessions, modular instruction, and other
alternative approaches to instruction; should the situation call for it, even the traditional font-
of-knowledge is utilized in the blended curriculum implementation and delivery model. It
first gained popularity as an experimental method of pedagogy during the late 1990’s (Bryan
et al., 2016) and was adopted by the Department of Education (DepEd) as the primary model
the education sector’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This modality refers to a learning delivery that combines face-to-face with any or a
mix of online distance learning, modular distance learning, and TV/Radio-based Instruction.
Blended learning will enable the schools to limit face-to-face learning, ensure social
distancing, and decrease the volume of people outside the home at any given time (Llego,
2020). Dziuban (2018) defines blended instruction as "combination of online and in-class
instruction with reduced in-class seat time for students". Blended instruction entails “various
advantages” in the teaching-learning process, as it attempts to strike a balance between
optimal practices used in the traditional classroom setting and the availability of information
in the fast-paced and continually updated environment of the Internet, making it “an
operational model of teaching and learning style” (Kaur et al,2013).

28 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Bryan (2016) reported that blended instruction as a model of curriculum planning,
implementation and delivery is generally divided into three (3) methodologies based on the
level of interaction between teachers and learners: skill-based; attitude-based, and
competency-based. Skill-based blended instruction focused more on obtaining specific
competencies prescribed by the curriculum; the attitude-driven typology relied on peer and
group interactions to facilitate learning. Lastly, competency-based approaches tended to rely
on field experts and knowledgeable personnel to impart their experiences, akin to but falling
short of an apprenticeship.
Blended instruction’s primary selling point is that it gradually calls for the learner to
become an active participant in the teaching-learning process. What was once a setting in
which the learner passively took notes and relied more on rote memorization would, under
the blended instruction model, give way to a more active role where learners are expected to
come into lessons equipped with the necessary knowledge to participate and, to some extent,
competently question the content of the curriculum, which helps instill critical thinking and
raise the overall quality of instruction being received from teachers.
A study by the Organization for the International Cooperation and development
(OECD, 2009) indicated that there are twelve principles of effective teaching. The principles
were identified as creating supportive classroom climate, providing learners opportunity to
learn, raising teacher and learner enthusiasm, enhancing learner creativity and
innovativeness, establishing learners’ opportunity for thoughtful discourse, practice and
application; learning outcomes. Others reported learning variables include teacher
enthusiasm or businesslike behavior, providing student opportunity to learn criterion

29 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
material, making use of stimulating comments, varying level of cognitive questions and
interaction (Sciedu Press, 1927).
Kisirkoi and Mse (2016) conducted a study that sought to find out the extent to which
teachers used learner centered teaching learning approaches for instruction. It was established
that teacher centered approaches are dominantly applied by teachers when in class. The class
sessions were characterized by dominant teacher talk, questioning and chorus answers
dominated the class which allowed no further discussions. The teacher determined who has
to answer questions in class. The focus appeared to be transmitting content in a manner that
learners would reproduce through rote learning. There was little active learning, construction
of meaning, discovery and collaborative learning. The study established that the extent to
which teachers use learner centered teaching learning approaches and resources was
inadequate. Learner centered teaching learning approaches that involved learners in learning
were hardly used by the teachers involved in the study. The commonly used teaching
learning approaches by teachers was teacher-centered and mainly lecture and question and
answer approaches and rote learning. Teacher learner interaction was the dominant mode of
class interaction.
Curriculum Implementation Strategies
Curriculum implementation strategies are broad frameworks of the guidelines on how
educational institutions may go about implementing curricula into the classroom experience.
It must be noted that the term is separate from curriculum design, or the process of
choosing what goes into the curriculum. According to Bediako (2019), curriculum
implementation is “how the planned or officially designed course of study is translated by the
30 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
teacher into syllabuses, schemes of work and lessons to be delivered to students.” Therefore,
curriculum implementation refers to the act of translating into real classroom experiences
what
was planned into the curricular program, regardless of how the curriculum itself was
designed, and ensuring that learners are guided accordingly with the attainment of the
institution’s educational objectives in mind.
Chaudhary (2015) conducted a study looking into the factors affecting curriculum
implementation for students. In this study, it has outlined some of the factors that influence
the implementation process. He enumerated these factors as follows: the teachers; the
learners; resource materials and facilities; interest groups; the school environment, culture
and ideology and instructional supervision
In the usual curriculum development process, the individual teacher has a great deal
of influence as learning is itself an individual process, influenced by perspectives, social,
structural, and cultural contexts (Alkan, et al., 2019). Thus, teachers ultimately have the final
say – and the greatest burden – in the curriculum-making process. However, as teachers
became overburdened with the demands of their professional duty while conforming to
imposed local health and security standards when the COVID-19 pandemic spread this
practice became a reason for the drop in the quality of instruction, and it became clear that
school administrators must step in and alleviate the situation.
Rusman (2015) conducted a research which looked into the curriculum
implementation and studied on the “best practices” done by Elementary School teachers in
Planning, Implementing and evaluating curriculum. Results of the study indicate that school
teachers’ response to the implementation of curriculum falls into the category of positive. As
31 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
of the activity of planning, it falls into the category of very positive while the activities of
planning and evaluating the curriculum, they fall into the category of positive. There exists
several “best practices” worth emulating in terms of planning, implementing and evaluating
the curriculum by the elementary school teachers. The best practices include activities of
“sharing”, “hearing”, “in-house training” and “modelling real teaching” through their
implementation.
Literature are scarce in this particular topic as globally, researchers are still in the
midst of collating and identifying what works and what doesn’t in a process that includes
much trial and error. The pandemic has significantly altered and disrupted the current global
state of education that according to Bojovic et al. (2020), the immediate goal of educational
institutions everywhere is to quickly respond and ensure the continuity of educational
processes, as “Disruption in the education of young people would be a significant threat to
the quality of their lives in a post crisis society.
Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies
Planning and implementation of curriculum involves, people, assessment, delivery,
classroom management, teaching strategies, and school climate. process
Curriculum involves process. The process involves learner-centered which focuses
on interactions that shifts the emphasis from teaching to learning. As process, the curriculum
gives learners a voice in decision regarding content, teaching and learning activities and
assessment. The process itself is continually evaluated to create a dynamic, living curriculum
which is responsive to the changing environment and needs of the learners (Glatthorn, et al.,
2012).
32 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
In order to have successful planning, development and implementation of curriculum,
important people are involved in the process. To be effective, it needs the involvement of all
stakeholders, especially individuals who are directly involved in student instruction, are a
vital piece in successful curriculum development and revision (Johnson, 2001). It needs the
teachers’ involvement in the planning, development, and implementation, the challenges that
teachers face in the curriculum implementation, the preparation for teachers’ involvement in
curriculum planning and development and their role in the curriculum delivery and
assessment. Without a doubt, the most important people in the curriculum planning and
implementation are the teachers (Carl, 2009). Hence, teachers being the implementer are part
of the last stage of the curriculum development process.
Many studies support empowerment of teachers through participation of curriculum
planning, development, and implementation. For example, Fullan (1991) found that the level
of teacher involvement as a center of curriculum planning and development leads to effective
achievement of educational reform. Therefore, the teacher is an important factor in the
success of curriculum implementation including the steps of implication and evaluation.
Handler (2010) also found that there is a need for teacher involvement in the planning and
development of curriculum. Teachers can contribute by collaboratively and effectively
working with curriculum planning and development teams and specialists to arrange and
compose martial, textbooks, and content. Teacher involvement in the process of curriculum
planning and development is important to align content of curriculum with students needs in
the classroom.
Curriculum assessment is one of the important steps to ensure that a program aligns
to the vision and mission of schools as well as to the educational standards from the
33 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
standpoint of the government. Researchers mention that curriculum assessment serves as
process
guidelines to assess and measure the education period using some tools such as questionnaire
and interviews and other standardized tools (Priyambada et al., 2017). In fact, Chinese
University of Hongkong (CUHK) affirms that curriculum assessment relies heavily on a
subject-centered approach, such as interview and questionnaire. For instance, to assess the
curriculum the university made use of interview and question to describe the learning
outcome to produce graduates who have depth in knowledge, bilateral/trilingual proficiency,
cross-cultural sensitivity, a basket of learning skills, and the personal attributes including
honesty and integrity. In addition, questionnaire is used to improve teaching and learning
environment. However, these approaches neglect students’ learning behavior that would give
a better insight about curriculum assessment in conformity with the curriculum guideline.
Moreover, Nicol (2004) emphasizes that the purpose of assessment is to provide a
comprehensive structure that contributes to the educational intentions with students and for
the performance improvement and progress. The North London Collegiate School points out
that curriculum assessment support teaching and learning by identifying what students
already know and can else they could know. In this sense, it curriculum assessment becomes
an integral part of teaching and learning.
Furthermore, the Washtenaw Community College affirms that curriculum assessment
takes for some reasons. One of reason is to provide qualitative information that helps faculty
determine how they might improve programs through changes in the curriculum, teaching
methodologies, course materials and other areas. In this sense, curriculum assessment serves
as powerful rationale for securing support to curriculum changes. Another reason is to

34 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
provide comparative data which can give valuable information on how well the students are
meeting the learning outcomes in a specific program. Also, curriculum assessment could lead
to continuous improvement of effective teaching and learning.
In many ways, curriculum delivery enables learners to achieve their learning goals.
Curriculum delivery encompasses processes such as designing or selecting instructional
material, teaching, learning support, advice and guidance, coaching, mentorship, peer and
collaborative learning, feedback and assessment, personal development planning and
tutoring, skills development and practice, and access to resources (Ko & Sammons, 2014;
Stabback, 2016).
Curriculum delivery is linked to several aspects. One of the considerations is the
place of implementation or enactment phase in the process of curriculum change. Another
aspect is concerned on the elements that support teachers in the delivery and implementation
of the prescribed and intended curriculum. It also considered the usage by the teacher offered
flexibility delivery of curriculum at the school level. This refers to the choice for specific
content or combination of the delivery mode. Another is the pre-eminence of the teacher-
student-knowledge interaction that characterized student-centered approached to teaching.
And the interconnection between the various types of knowledge that a teacher has to master
(Capita, 2014).
Researchers affirmed that the effectiveness of curriculum delivery is connected to the
quality of instructional materials. School leadership’s contribution has an impact on
curriculum delivery, and the quality of instructional materials teachers use in the classrooms
(Ko & Sammons, 2014). Teachers need to be knowledgeable of the curriculum in use, and
the resources necessary for its effectiveness, which should be aligned with curriculum goals.
35 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
When teachers fail to align high standard instructional materials with curriculum goals and
learners’ need, the entire process is compromised, and failure is inevitable (Lashley, 2018).
Although teachers remain as the key element in effective curriculum delivery, the
instructional materials and resources used have a significant impact on curriculum delivery
and learners’ achievement and performance (Ko & Sammons, 2014).
The curriculum describes everything that a learner encounters and interacts with: the
means of the encounter and interaction, time of the encounter and interaction, and what the
encounter and interaction entail (Stabback, 2016). In simpler words, the curriculum is the
what, why, how, and when of students learning. Curriculum delivery needs to be transformed
to enhance learners’ encounter and interaction with concepts and learning experiences.
Transforming curriculum delivery needs to be through the selection and/or production of
curricula instructional materials and their use in the curriculum delivery process. Curriculum
delivery at its core aims to enhance curriculum impact on the learning and teaching
experiences in mainstream schools (Steiner et al., 2017).
Curriculum delivery in this context embraces the many ways in which learners are
enabled to achieve the outcomes offered to them by the curriculum. This includes teaching,
learning support, advice and guidance, coaching, mentorship, peer and collaborative learning,
feedback and assessment, personal development planning and tutoring, skills development
and practice, and access to curriculum resources especially curricula instructional materials.
The conception of the term “delivery” in this study intends for delivery to mean the provision
36 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
of information to learners in an appropriate way, enabling all learners to achieve curriculum
goals. (Polikoff & Koedel, 2017).
Classroom management is a critical aspect of teaching, and one way to support good
behavior in the classroom is by using the curriculum. It is linked to curriculum planning and
implementation because through curriculum, it provides lessons on appropriate behavior,
which can help to set the tone for the classroom and establish rules and expectations. It can
also help to reinforce positive behavior, provide opportunities for students to practice
expected behaviors, and give teachers strategies for addressing inappropriate behavior. In
addition, when used as an instructional tool, it can be helpful because it provides a structure
that helps keep class time focused on learning rather than disruptive activities. Teachers can
use the curriculum to teach classroom rules and procedures (Marzono, 2008).
When classroom management is viewed in a wider and holistic sense, it incorporates
every element of the classroom from lesson delivery to classroom environment (Nicholas,
2007). Accordingly, it includes creating organized and orderly classroom, establishing
expectations, including students’ cooperation in learning tasks, and dealing with the
procedural demands of the classroom. (Nicholas, 2007). This view of classroom management
contrasts to a more narrow view of classroom management as it deals with just discipline and
control. In the words of Bassey (2012), the wider view of classroom management shows
increased engagement, reduction in inappropriate and disruptive behaviors, promotion of
student responsibility for academic work, and improved academic performance of students.
In effect, discipline, control and the consequences become authoritative or punitive
approaches to classroom management. These have become much smaller part of the term
37 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
classroom management. Thus, classroom management denotes much more than any of these
words (Charlie, 2008). As put by Williams (2008), classroom management involves how the
teacher works, how the class works, how the teacher and students work together and how
teaching and learning takes place.
Teaching strategies refer to the methods, techniques, procedures and processes that a
teacher uses during instruction. It is generally recognized that teaching strategies are
multidimensional, and their effectiveness depends on the context in which they are applied.
In the teaching and delivery of curriculum, there is no single strategy that can guarantee
better student outcomes, however, research has highlighted a number of practices that enable
learning among students (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2003).
Some strategies involve inductive teaching and learning, higher levels of thinking
skill, open-ended questioning, discovery, evidence of reasoning, group interaction, pacing,
and other variety of processes used. Another strategy is role play which a form of
experiential learning (Russell & Shepherd, 2010). Students take on assigned roles and act out
those roles through a
scripted play. The role play can be carried out one-to-one (individual role play) or as a group
role play with each member in the group taking on a role/character. Roles and rules for a role
play are clearly defined in the script. Role plays can provide very powerful learning
experiences for students by immersing them in simulated real world situations in which
students act out a particular role/character in a safe environment (Dalgarno, et al., 2016).
Moreover, students can also be engaged in discussion and debate to encourage
students to create their own understanding of the content and connect it to their experiences.
38 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Learning is improved when students are encouraged to form opinions and develop their own
ideas about
the content. By including discussion and debate-style activities in respective classes, could
encourage students to think about the connect more deeply and gain broader insight through
the shared ideas and different perspectives of others (Allison, 1995).
Another strategy is student presentations that can be very valuable learning
experiences but giving oral presentations in class can also be stressful for students. Not only
are they worried about getting up in front of a group to speak, but also many of them haven’t
had much instruction in what constitutes an effective presentation. Lecturers and tutors can
help students prepare for their presentations and improve their oral presentation skills by
providing resources about preparing an oral presentation for an academic audience, choosing
and organizing content, practicing delivery, and including and using technology and visual
aids.
Centered on the concept that meaningful knowledge is created through concrete
experiences, hands-on learning opportunities for students are at the core of an experiential
course. Events are followed by reflection to develop applicable knowledge and theories for
future action. The type of experiences provided depend on the subject area and course
requirements, but can include practicum programs, laboratory experiments, role-playing
simulations, and problem-solving activities (Kolb & Kolb, 2009).
Also, media can be used in direct instruction, active learning teaching strategies and
student projects. Existing media resources can be used within lectures to stimulate interest in
and develop knowledge of the material being taught. This traditional approach is teacher-
39 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
centric, and information is pushed to the learner. Media allows the instructor to facilitate the
transfer of expert knowledge to novice learners. Given the tremendous rate of technological
change, instructors face an ongoing challenge in choosing the most effective media platform
to reach their students. Instructors can also create their own media to effectively and
efficiently convey knowledge media can be used in direct instruction, active learning
teaching strategies and student projects (Yowell & Rhoten, 2009). Meanwhile, technology
enhanced learning is the intentional integration of different modes of learning in both face-to-
face and online learning environments. TEL approaches will vary according to the discipline,
the year level, student characteristics and learning outcomes.
Integrative learning is an approach where the learner brings together prior knowledge
and experiences to support new knowledge and experiences. By doing this, learners draw on
their skills and apply them to new experiences at a more complex level. The concept behind
integrative learning is that students take ownership of their own learning, becoming critical
inquiries who are able to make meaningful connections between different disciplines and
utilize critical thinking to real-life problems (Mansilla, 2008).
School climate or environment means the extent to which the school implements
and guarantees student safety and health, which may include various aspects such as physical
growth, academic environment, physical and mental health support and services available, as
well as the appropriateness and adequacy of disciplinary (Lawrence & Vimala, 2012).
According to Rozario and Taat (2015), school climate is the result of interpersonal
relationships formed among students, teachers, families, administrators and school support
staff. In addition, the school climate also includes the academic elements, community, safety
and dimensions of the school environment which covers almost every feature of the school
40 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
environment that influences behavior, cognitive and developmental psychology (Wang &
Degol, 2016).
Operationally defined, school climate is an asset that can measure the work in an
environment based on the collective perception of people working in the environment which
can influence their behavior. This shows that how people perceive school climate and the
tasks related to the environment will influence the formation of the behavior of its members
(Stringer, 2002). The review some researchers have emphasized on the supportive physical
learning ecosystem and encouraging environment to enhance the quality of education at
institutions (Awang, et al, 2019).
Pavia (2010) tackles curriculum differentiation which underscore the modifications
that need to be done to the curriculum by adjusting process, skills, content and learning
environment to suit the different needs of the learners. These areas are elaborated in detail
by looking into process, curriculum assessment, curriculum delivery, classroom management
and teaching strategy to come up with a more defined components of curriculum planning
and implementation.
In order for students to have seamless acquisition of knowledge in these two different
modalities, there are seven areas wherein the strategies are defined. For planning, strategies
focused on process, people and curriculum assessment. During the implementation, strategies
focused on management, climate, classroom teaching and curriculum delivery are the main
considerations. It is in these areas that teachers must develop their skills.
Process
41 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Strategies involving process are affected by the adoption of distance learning
modality. To ensure that there is learning in the DLM, it is important that there is planning of
strategies that will be utilized by the teachers. Teachers must be able to share and benchmark
what planning activities must be undertaken so that learning continues. It is equally important
that a time is allotted for planning and teachers within the same level discuss what strategies
will work in a face to face class and in DLM set up. Equally important is the strategy of
providing orientation to the teachers how the curriculum should be cascaded in two differing
set up of face to face and remote learning. These 5 strategies are proven necessary to be
adopted so that the learners will be able to learn effectively in this unusual situation brought
about by the pandemic.
People
Strategies involving people or human resources is crucial. Hence, the Department of
Education pursued its people to continue with their duties and responsibilities to carry out the
goal of education. All actions of people, however, should consider the danger of exposure
that they might be forced to undergo to carry out their task. Strategies involving people must
likewise be adjusted to ensure safety. Strategies that must be adopted therefore must involve
the school heads and teachers closely working with one another to have a firm grasp on bow
to handle the new normal. The department has always relied on schools and every division to
organize a technical group that will provide assistance to the teachers so that the delivery the
curriculum in the Distance Learning Modality will be effective. Likewise, a support
mechanism should be readily available in the school to reduce the mental stress brought
about by the adjustment needed in an SLM based education. Furthermore, the school head
42 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
should also be readily available to support and extend understanding to the teachers who are
transitioning from a face to face set up to a DLM set up. Another important strategy that must
be adopted is the regular formulation and assessment of strategies that work in a dual set up
of learning.
Curriculum Assessment
Another important area is the strategies that involve curriculum assessment. These
strategies involve analyzing whether the curriculum answers the needs of the learners. The
needs of the learners should be identified, and teachers need to recalibrate the curriculum to
suit these needs. It is also a good strategy to organize sessions for teachers that will give them
opportunity to discuss how to transform the curriculum into a comprehensible lesson that
suits the set-up of a face to face class and Distance learning Modality. Equally important is
the strategy of examining the content development of the curriculum to ensure that it is
aligned with the new learning set up. The strategy of putting together the teachers and discuss
possible curriculum delivery and revision make the situation easier because this is one way of
benchmarking and sharing effective approaches.
Climate
One of the most affected components in curriculum implementation is the climate.
The transition from a regular face to face class to a SLM based distance learning involves a
change of strategies. This model proposes that teachers adopt strategies that enhance the
learning atmosphere of students in the two modalities. One such strategy is providing the
preliminaries in class using the ICT which both works in the two set up. Students show
positive response in the use of technology for the preliminaries. Providing support to learners
who are affected by the change of set up is also an important strategy. This can come in the
43 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
form of assurance that teachers understand the students’ difficulties in learning remotely.
Other working strategies popular to the teacher and students is by providing games and
relaxing activities that do not pressure the students. Equally necessary strategy is establishing
a not so strict time bound activities.
Classroom Management
For classroom management, adjustments in the rules that are ordinarily followed in a
face to face class. This does not mean however that no guidelines will be set. Guidelines are
still given, and attempt must be made in a virtual class to make the classroom climate similar
to that of a face to face class which is always geared on a conducive learning environment. In
managing a class in blended learning, teachers must utilize the strategies that give assurance
to students that the situation is recognized, and they are not pressured in doing a lot of things
at a very limited time.
Teaching Strategies
Teaching strategies that work in the blended learning should be utilized. This
involves giving positive feedback to the students to encourage participation. Games,
activities and tasks make the learning fruitful, fun and meaningful. It is also important that
goals and targets are within the capacity of the learners and adjusted to the situation of
pandemic. Anchoring the lesson to familiar situations and utilizing the media in the most
practical way are also strategic moves for the teachers. Teachers should also promote a safe
technology supported learning environment by properly handling the computer devices,
maintaining clean learning environment and by following the rules and regulations on proper
use of ICT.
Curriculum Delivery
44 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
For curriculum delivery, teachers may apply varied strategies that will be effective in
a Distance Learning Modality and face to face class. This points to a selection of strategies
that may be adopted in Blended learning. For example, knowledge of content across and
within curriculum content areas must be applied. It is also important that activities are
contextualized, lessons are adapted to belief, practices and tradition, differentiated
instructions are provided to diverse learners and the most crucial strategy is anchoring the
competencies used in the Weekly Home Learning Plan on the MELCS.
Issues on Curriculum Change, Delivery, and Implementation
Many researches point out that there are implementation problems as early as the late
1960’s. This prompted a lot of studies delving on the implementation system utilized by
different schools. Nnbulke (2012) elucidates on various factors that hinder the achievement
of instructional objectives which is equated to curriculum implementation. These factors
include: 1) Inability to manage a classroom; 2) Utilization of instructional materials and the
importance of the materials in teaching and learning greatly affect the implementation of a
curriculum. Instructional materials affect the efficiency of education by improving the quality
of teaching (Adeoye, 2010)
Curriculum implementation is not without issues. Saugoleye (2010) states that
implementation of the curriculum is a big challenge to the teachers. Teachers are having a
difficulty with some of the identified topics. Obilo (2010) points out that the time allotment
for the implementation of some heavy loads is not adequate enough. Another issue raised by
Alade in 2011 is the non-involvement of the culture in the curriculum implementation.
Curriculum is the instrument that the school uses to educate its society. Sadly, curriculum is
45 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
detached from culture and behavior of a particular group of people showing the lack of
understanding of the traditions, roles and responsibilities of citizens in a society.
Mezieobi (1993), conceptualized the term implementation simply as a process of
putting an agreed plan, decision, proposal, idea or policy into effect. Hence curriculum
implementation includes the provision of organized assistance to staff (teachers) in order to
ensure that the newly developed curriculum and the most powerful instructional strategies are
actually delivered at the classroom level.
Lewin’s Three-Step Model Change Management is an important theory that greatly
influenced the theory of curriculum change (Shirey, 2013). One criticism of Lewin’s theory
is that it is not fluid and does not account for the dynamic healthcare environment in which
nurses function today (Shirey). Experts assert that Lewin’s theory provides the fundamental
principles for change.
According to his theory, there are different driving forces that affect the equilibrium.
These driving forces are affected by restraining forces specifically the driving force of
government interventions is restrained by the fear of unknown. Society’s values as a driving
force is restrained by the forces of negative attitude to change. The driving force of
technological changes has tradition and values as restraining forces. The driving force of
knowledge explosions is restrained by limited resources. Lastly administrative support is
restrained by absolute equipment.
In the Philippines, the implementation of the new curriculum is regarded a solution to
the different issues in the education system in the country, but it also came with different
problems considering that it created a big change in the entire education system of the
country and Filipinos were affected by this change.

46 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
For instance, findings of Ednave, et. al., (2018) stated that the implementation of the
K to 12 programs presented the following challenges: a) lack of preparation and professional
development; b) excessive academic burden on students; and c) integration of lessons in the
real-life context. This would be a great challenge for all teachers to engage in different
training and to pursue higher education in order to manage the changes and ensure that their
growth corresponds to the demands of society.
The study of Cocal and Marcellano (2017) affirmed that physical and educational
facilities and services in one school in Pangasinan did not comply with the minimum
specifications laid down by the Department of Education. There was a great need for schools
to improve their physical facilities and educational resources in order to implement the K+12
program effectively and efficiently. The financial resource was a major problem for the
schools with regard to the implementation of the K+12 program.
Dizon, et al. (2018) affirmed that the implementation of the K to 12 programs in the
Philippines gave different impressions and speculations from teachers, parents, and students
who were greatly involved in this change if this helped the country improved its system in
the field of education to match it with the demand of the global market. Analysis of the data
revealed that there were different challenges that the program had faced, teachers, parents
and students had great hope that this addressed the county’s problem in developing the
country’s economy; the K to 12 programs gave graduates the ability to become competitive
on their own chosen field of specialization who possessed with the necessary skills and
competencies; and different Interactive teaching strategies and techniques must be used in
this new curriculum because it gave the students the ability to immerse themselves with the
real environment and able to see a bigger picture of it.

47 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Aside from the curriculum changes brought by the Enhanced Basic Education Act of
2013 or the K to 12 Curriculum, another curriculum and instructional change have transpired
in the entire education system in the Philippines due to COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic
has brought a challenging and distinctive situation in its educational system since this
developing country has never transitioned to distance education prior to the crisis.
The research of Toquero (2020) examined how the Philippine government faced the
challenges in the education system and provided a glimpse of reflection of the simple
application of an emergency remote teaching in an unstructured manner of lesson delivery
due to unprecedented emergency.
Focusing on the academic silver linings, the Filipino students are attuned to the
utilization of Facebook for virtual relations, news updates, and global trends. For example,
based on the January data (NapoleonCat, 2020), there are 73, 170,000 Filipinos who own a
Facebook account and this translates for 66.4% of the nation’s populace, with 24,000,000
active Facebook users whose age range are between 18 to 24. On the heightening of the
confirmed cases in the Philippines and worldwide, numerous Filipino students including
academicians have found solace online and created new online Facebook group pages for
various reasons. As of April 14, 2020, the Philippines has become the leading country in the
ASEAN region with the highest cases of COVID-19 accounting for 5, 223 confirmed cases
based on the Situation report-85 of the World Health Organization (2020). Shifting
cultivation through cyberspace, the Filipino people accessed Facebook accounts for daily
updates of the global crisis which is a shared similar experience among many nations.
The study of Talimodao and Madrigal (2021) revealed that one of the innovations in
the delivery of K to 12 Curriculum was the switch to printed modular distance learning
48 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
(PMDL). Analysis of the findings affirmed that the quality and implementation of the
curriculum through the modality in public elementary schools had challenges encountered as
disclosed by the teachers. Results revealed that both quality and implementation of PMDL
were consistently excellent, indicating the adherence of the modality to the national standards
set by the Department of Education. However, significantly lower quality of PMDL among
small and medium schools and the encountered challenges of teachers on assessments,
activities, outputs, parents’ incapacity, inconsistent participation, and compliance established
the need for instructional supervision.
With this development and in consideration of the novel learning modalities
introduced to all schools, the Department of Education was prompted to introduce and
downsize the existing Curriculum Guide to the most essential learning competencies.
Known to many as MELCs, the more than 3,000 learning competencies in the existing
curriculum was downsized to the most essential learning competencies.
Modular Distance Learning Modality
Anzaldo (2021) explored through qualitative research the modular distance learning
in the New Normal. Findings revealed that MDL had several advantages as follows: 1)
learning continues when learners adapt the changes. This means, the adaptation depends on
the ability of the learners to independent learning. Hence, there were learners who can study
on their own pace and need minimal supervision and guidance. These learners are open-
minded learners and flexible with changes in their environment; 2) parental realization of
their important role in the education of their children. Parents had become aware that
teaching is not easy; 3) MDL teaches learners the values as well as the lessons. Learners
49 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
learn how to manage their time because even if they are at home, they have to strictly follow
their schedule in answering the Learning Activity Sheets (LAS) or the learner’s answer
sheets based on their SLM or the self-learning modules. They also develop a closer bond
with their parents and guardians while having teaching and learning process at home; and 4)
teachers become open-minded with the challenges brought by the pandemic.
On the other hand, the disadvantages are the following: 1) not all learners answer
their modules, instead, some parents pamper their children and do the task for their children;
2) parents had hard time teaching their children using MDL, especially, lessons which
seemed difficult and complicated to teach since not all the parents or guardians were
knowledgeable in teaching their children through the MDL. In this regard, it was suggested
to blend online distance learning with modular distance learning when possible to get better
assistance from the teachers.
Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies and School Performance
Effective curriculum planning should, inherently, yield measurable results in student
learning. Yet, designing activities first and assessments 'after the fact' all too often reveals
that the activities may not contain evidence of learning. As a result, students do poorly on the
test. In the past, teachers have even blamed the students for not learning what they were
taught (Aviles, 2017). As practitioners recognized the flaws in curriculum design around
activity-oriented teaching with no clear purposes, the concept of planning curriculum in a
'backwards' manner began to revolutionize modern curriculum design. The backwards design
planning process is based on the steps of first identifying desired results, followed by
determining assessment evidence and, lastly, planning learning experiences and instruction.
50 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Though the original concept of planning backwards can be attributed to Ralph Tyler,
the significant altering of the process sequence is credited to Wiggins and McTighe (2005),
who conceptualized their work in the book, Understanding by Design (1990). Researchers
assert that when teachers utilize this process, student learning is measurably greater, and
classroom instruction leads to both specific outcomes and transferable skills (Fuglei, 2015).
As described by Professor Ryan Bowen of the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching:
The incorporation of backward design also lends itself to transparent and explicit
instruction. If the teacher has explicitly defined the learning goals of the course, then they
have a better idea of what they want the students to get out of learning activities…it
eliminates the possibility of doing certain activities and tasks for the sake of doing them.
Every task and piece of instruction has a purpose (2017).
When applied correctly, the process of designing curriculum in a backward manner
can significantly enhance not only the quality of teaching, but the resulting student learning
performance as well.
Brown and Predergast (2019) confirmed in their study that the implementation of
comprehensive curriculum planning process utilizing a unique weekly format following the
sequence of identifying first the standard, then assessment, and finally the instructional
activities would result in more focused teaching and learning practices which ultimately
improved academic performance.
On the other hand, Huaranga (2021) determined the degree of relationship between
curriculum planning for learning and teacher performance in the classroom at the secondary
school level in a public educational institution in Peru. Initially, background information is
identified that is related to the research variables, which are curriculum planning for learning,
51 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
through collegial work and teacher performance in the classroom. Analysis of the findings
revealed that curricular planning for learning carried out by the teacher has a moderate
positive correlation with the performance of the teacher in the classroom in the achievement
of the learning of the students of the secondary level of the Educational Institution.
Meanwhile, other researchers examined the effects of curriculum on academic
achievement and studying skills. It involved the 7 th grade primary students. Pretest and
posttest from the experiment models and semi-experimental model with control groups were
preferred. The comparative analysis proved that students could acquire efficient studying
skills by means of Curriculum for Developing Efficient Studying Skills and they increase
their academic achievements thanks to these studying habits. In this sense, if quality of
education is desired to be increased, students with high level of academic achievements are
intended and growing youth is expected to compete with the young population of other states
with the effect of globalization, it is necessary to make students acquire efficient studying
skills.
In addition, Andreitti and Su (2018) investigated the effects of changes and reforms in
the curriculum to students’ academic achievement on the basis of their theory the the pace of
a curriculum and the preparedness of a student jointly determine the match quality of the
curriculum for this student, so different students derive different benefits from learning under
the same curriculum. Furthermore, a change in the curricular pace has distributional effects
across students, benefiting some while hurting others. Testing the model prediction using a
quasi-natural experiment, G8 reform in Germany, which introduced a faster-paced
curriculum for academic-track students. Evidence consistent with our theory that while the
52 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
reform improves students’ test scores on average, such benefits are more pronounced for
well-prepared students. In contrast, less-prepared students do not seem to benefit from the
reform.
Curriculum Delivery and Implementation during Pandemic and School Performance
Due to pandemic situation, one of the changes that has transpired is the switch to
delivery of curriculum to distance online learning and modular distance learning. Various
researchers examined the effects of the changes in curriculum to the academic performance
of the students.
The study of Wolfgang et al. (2021) assessed the academic performance of the K-12
students in an online-learning environment in mathematics. Analysis of findings revealed that
low-achieving students showed greater improvement in performance than high-achieving
students. Findings suggest a narrowing gap in performance between low-and high-achieving
students. Researchers conclude that online learning environment had become effective in
preventing educational losses associated with the school shutdowns.
In another study, researchers examined how the students’ performance changed after
undergoing a transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (Kim, et al.,
2021). Findings revealed a significant decrease in scores in 2020 for 10 courses, while most
of the integrated system-based curriculum test scores showed strong correlations with
coefficients of 0.6 or higher both 2019 and 2020. The correlation coefficients were generally
higher in 2020. When students were divided into low, middle, and high achievement groups,
low-achieving students consistently showed declining scores in all 3 semesters. Researchers
conclude that the transition to online classes due to COVID-19 has led to an overall decline
53 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
in academic performance. This overall decline is associated to curriculum centered
instructions like recorded lecture which need to be addressed.
An article analyzing the impact of the pandemic to curriculum and student
performance conducted by Solard et. al (2020) explain that in the learning patterns of math
and reading learning from the beginning of the 2019-20 school year (before COVID-19
school closures) through the start of the 2020-21 school year. It was established that students
may be substantially behind in reading and especially in mathematics.
Research regarding online learning and teaching shows that they are effective only if
students have consistent access to the internet and computers and if teachers have received
targeted training and supports for online instruction. Because these needed requirements for
effectiveness have been largely absent for many, remote education during the pandemic has
impeded teaching and learning (Li & Farani,2020).
When schools in the United States switched from traditional face-to-face learning to
digital platforms for remote learning, many challenges arose. Gross and Opalka (2020) found
out that nearly 90% of principals reported that students in their schools lacked internet access
and 40% reported that access to technology and/or internet was also a barrier for their
teachers. A third of principals (35%) reported that district policies related to the use of online
tools (such as Zoom or G Suite for Education) presented limitations (Hamilton et al., 2020).
In addition, in an EdWeek (2020) survey in April, 74% of teachers said their students’
current level of engagement was “much lower” or “somewhat lower” than it had been prior
to the pandemic, and nearly a quarter of students were “essentially truant.”
Still some studies conducted revealed the effects of pandemic on the academic
performance of the students. The first main differential effect was noted at younger students.
54 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
They were more affected compared to older students (Tomasik, et al., 2020). This goes to
show that slower pace of learners in primary schools may be due to younger children relying
more on cognitive scaffolding during instruction because their capability for self-regulated
learning might have been sufficiently developed. From a socio-emotional perspective,
younger children might have been more sensitive to stressors related to the COVID-19
pandemic (Tomasik et al.).
The differential effect on low-performing and high-performing students may be due
to high-performing students being capable of improving their performance regardless of the
learning environment, while low-performing students specifically benefit from systematic
online learning (Clark et al., 2020). Additionally, low-performing students might be less
distracted in comparison to learning in a classroom setting (Spitzer & Musslick, 2021).
Finally, with the possibility to adapt the assignments in online programs individually to the
students, low-performing children might have been addressed more thoroughly according to
their needs (Spitzer & Musslick).
Bediako (2019) conducted a study on curriculum change and evaluation and found
out that the implementation of a curriculum is an essential part of curriculum development
that brings into existence anticipated changes. These changes can occur in several ways. He
further established that slow change occurs when minor adjustments are incorporated in the
implementation of the curriculum.
Meanwhile, researchers had seen no consensus as whether switched to virtual
learning has been more effective for K to 12 students as face-to-face instruction which may
be connected to teachers’ lack of pedagogical expertise in remote delivery of learning and

55 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
students’ motivation. Comparison of online and traditional teaching have revealed mixed
results and dearth of research on elementary learners (Arnesen et al., 2019).
The COVID-19 pandemic all in person opportunities for formal and informal
learning have ceased have been required to move to exclusive delivery through online
education (Alsoufi, et al., 2020). Online education is the delivery of learning materials using
internet for student-student and student-teacher interaction and for distributing educational
materials. Use of online education also assists in engaging a large group of students at one
time (where lectures may not be possible) with options of both synchronous and
asynchronous learning (Sinclair et al., (2015). While synchronous learning ensures that all
students learn the same content in a similar way, asynchronous learning facilitates
information to be communicated across sites and campuses, with students engaging in
learning at their own pace, and where feasible in their own time.
Similarly, online delivery of education as a component of blended learning, allows
tutors to flexibly adjust to student learning styles and assess them (Fontaine, et al. (2019). It
may assist teachers to provide the necessary support required for the individual student while
feedback may not be possible in a large group face-to-face session (Herbert, et al. (2017).
Engaging with a curriculum that has been transitioned from in person to online is likely to
impact how students learn and how they can contextualize that learning into clinical practice.
Understanding the impact of these initiatives on student engagement, learning and behavior
(both positive and negative), will provide important information for teaching and learning
practice into the future (Al-Balas et al. (2020), in particular the influence of online education
on the development of practical skills and graduate readiness to practice.

56 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The study of Kumar (2021) revealed due to COVID-19 pandemic much of the
curriculum has been adapted to an online format, the long-term consequence of which is yet
to be recognized. The changed format is likely to impact learning pedagogy effecting both
students and teachers which requires a systematic approach to evaluation of online teaching
and learning adaptation.
In similar study, Scavarda (2021) found out that online learning as instructional
innovation resulted to social isolation which greatly affected the work conditions of teachers
and professors as well as the learning process of students. This innovation allowed the
development of sustainable actions that prevented a collapse. In the educational sector, the
innovation was mainly due to the transition from presential classes to online classes. Many
difficulties were encountered to carry out online classes, mainly because online classes were
mixed with daily home routines without previous preparation for the transition. The findings
were attributed to the lack of training courses and the difficulties with Internet access.
The sociological experiment of Goodson and Schostak (2021) explored the
implications of “lockdown” or “confinement” to homes, which has suspended freedom of
movement, limited the freedom to associate with others, and established rituals of hygiene
regarding surfaces. These experiences of physical confinement and limitation of ordinary
freedoms raise the central question of how to return to “normal” and, indeed, what will count
as normal. In exploring the issues posed by these questions, this study offers an approach to
pedagogical and curriculum practice that seeks to embed democratic practice at all levels of
organization and interaction between individuals.
Furthermore, Gul and Khiliji (2021) it looked into the development of a curriculum
that addresses the specificities of students’ situations, while reminding them of global
57 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
connectedness. Based on semi-structured interviews with 10 curriculum experts, 20
principals, and 35 teachers, as well as content analysis of the 2018 National Curriculum
Framework of Pakistan, findings revealed that the curriculum was perceived as being highly
rigid, with little room for alternative modalities. Participants believed the curriculum could
not support children’s learning in normal times, much less during a pandemic. Therefore, it
suggests a complete revamping of the curriculum and strengthening of teachers’ capabilities.
It also suggests curricular material be updated to make it context specific, responsive to the
needs of learners, and supportive of independent learning.
Even before the pandemic, most national curricula were characterized as
overambitious, designed for ideal teachers and students, and ignoring the realities on the
ground. COVID-19 has exacerbated this problem by further reducing the instructional time
students receive. Given this challenge, countries should consider condensing the curriculum
to focus on core subjects and fundamental competencies within those subjects. They can also
help teachers by providing detailed lesson plans. Lockdowns and confinements have also
increased children’s stress and depression, highlighting the importance of incorporating
social-emotional learning into the curriculum. Countries can integrate into the curriculum
certain social-emotional competencies that will help students cope and thrive in this new
world.
School Performance
Notwithstanding the pandemic situation, measuring school performance is a regular
task that has to be done periodically. The year end performance indicators as elaborated in
DepEd Order No. 13 series 2018 was amended to suit the pandemic situation by DepEd
58 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Order 025 s.2022 on June 7, 2022. As stated in the DepEd Order, there are key performance
indicators such as graduation rate, promotion rate, repetition rate, school leaver rate. As
defined, Performance indicators are the means to focus on specific expectations of a
program. They facilitate the curriculum delivery strategies, and assessment procedures.
Policy
Educational policies are rules that are intended to help schools teach students
efficiently, fairly and safely as per the regulatory norms, and the Board to which the
Institution is affiliated. These terms determine how students are taught, what they are taught,
how schools manage students, and its personnel Educational policies are rules that are
intended to help schools teach students efficiently, fairly and safely as per the regulatory
norms, and the Board to which the Institution is affiliated. These terms determine how
students are taught, what they are taught, how schools manage students and its personnel
(Ulla, 2018). In the Philippines, the most comprehensive policy being implemented is the K
to 12 Program which added 2 years to the educational ladder of Phil. educational system. In
the event of the global health crisis, this policy was modified to suit the learning situation of
the students. The Department of Education issued the policy guidelines delineating the role
of Most Essential Learning Competencies otherwise known as MELCs.
Theoretical Framework of the Study
The study is anchored on several theories related to curriculum planning, delivery,
and implementation brought by curriculum change.
Constructivist Theory
59 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The Constructivist theory by Bruner (1966) posits that learning is an active process in
which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current and past knowledge
and that the learner selects and transforms information, constructs hypotheses and make
decisions, relying on a cognitive structure to do so. Cognitive structure (schema, mental,
models) provides meaning and strengthened by the view that constructing knowledge for
oneself leads to genuine learning and mastery (Jones, 2007).
Johnston (2005) explained that the learning is not about passivity and order, it is
about the messy process of discovery and construction of knowledge which leads to genuine
learning and content mastery. In 2008, Scheerens further proved that constructivist teaching
approaches produced the highest learning outcomes. He added that Constructivists emphasize
that teachers should act as facilitators who provide appropriate activities and support pupils
to personally construct their own meanings rather than receive them ready from the teachers.
Humanistic Theory of Learning
The humanistic learning theory was developed by Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers,
and James F. T. Bugental in the early 1900’s. Humanism was a response to the common
educational
theories at the time, which were behaviorism and psychoanalysis. Abraham Maslow
is considered the father of the movement, with Carl Rogers and James F.T. Bugental adding
to the psychology later down the line.
Maslow and humanistic psychology suggest that students are inherently good and will
make good decisions when all their needs are met. Humanistic psychology focuses on the
idea that learners bring out the best in themselves, and that humans are driven by their
60 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
feelings more than rewards and punishments. Maslow believed this and wrote many articles
to try and demonstrate it.
This belief that humans are driven by feelings causes educators who understand
humanistic psychology to focus on the underlying human, emotional issues when they see
bad behavior, not to just punish the bad behavior. The humanistic learning theory developed
further and harnesses the idea that if students are upset, sad, or distressed, they’re less likely
to be able to focus on learning. This encourages teachers to create a classroom environment
that helps students feel comfortable and safe so they can focus on their learning. Emotions
are at the center of humanism psychology. Humanistic learning is student-centered, so
students are encouraged to take control over their education. They make choices that can
range from daily activities to future goals. Students are encouraged to focus on a specific
subject area of interest for a reasonable amount of time that they choose.
Kurt Lewin Theory of Curriculum Change
Kurt Lewin developed a model that describes how people change. He proposed that in
order for people to change they need to need to move from their current state into one where
they realize that change is both possible and required. He suggests that knowledge
remains frozen until such time as something comes along to ‘unfreeze’ the person. That may
be new information or experiences, but until that takes place nothing will alter.
In education we are commonly trying to change people, to alter their knowledge,
skills, attitudes and relationships so we must work to unfreeze people from their current state.
Lewin went beyond this and claimed that it is not enough to simply challenge a view, it’s
61 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
what you do with that unfrozen state that matters as an educator. One needs to move learners
into a position where they are prepared to let go of past beliefs and then move to introduce
new knowledge, then complete the change process by embedding the new knowledge and
making it stick.
All these theories are very significant to the curriculum planning and implementation
strategies because they illustrate the influence and the way the curriculum will be managed
and implemented in school. The variation in strategies used in school depends on which
theory has wider influence on the school leaders and teachers.
Conceptual Framework of the Study
Figure 1 shows that curriculum planning and implementation strategies as to process,
people, curriculum assessment, curriculum delivery, classroom management, teaching
strategy, and climate before and during the adoption of Modular Learning Modality. In this
framework, it will delve on the relationship of curriculum planning and implementation to
the performance of schools by profile as to level, size, and position classification of school
heads as defined by the appropriate DepEd memoranda. Results would yield to the proposed
instructional policy paper for the continuous delivery of Basic Education in the Schools
Division of Marinduque.
62 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Curriculum Planning & Implementation

School Performance before and during
Strategies before and during the
adoption of Modular Learning Modality
Modular Learning Modality in terms of:
by profile as to:
process, people, curriculum
1. level
assessment, curriculum delivery,
2. size
classroom management,
3. Position Classification of SH
teaching strategies and climate
Identify the difference
63 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Identification of Effects
Proposed Instructional Policy for the Continuous Delivery of Basic

Education in the Schools Division of Marinduque
Figure 1: Variable Input Process Output Model
Research Hypotheses
The problems of the study prompted the formulation of the following hypotheses for
testing:
1. There is no significant difference on the level of practice on curriculum planning
and implementation strategies before and during adoption of Modular Distance Modality by
school profile.
2. There is no significant difference on the level of practice of curriculum planning
and implementation before and during the adoption of Modular Distance Modality of schools
64 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
by profile as regards to process, people, curriculum assessment, curriculum delivery,
classroom management, teaching strategies, and climate.
3. There is no significant difference in school performance before and during the
adoption of Modular Modality by school profile as to: level, size, and position classification
of school heads.
4. There is no significant difference in performance of schools by profile before and
during the adoption of Modular Distance Learning.
5. There is no significance relationship between curriculum planning and
implementation strategies and school performance.
Definition of Terms
This section gives meaning to the various terms used and encountered during the
course of the research.
Asynchronous. The term that describes the non-simultaneous engagement of a learner in a
particular class with their instructor, with regards to other learner in that particular class. In
this method, not all the learners in a class are given instruction in a particular topic at the
same time.
65 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Blended Learning. It refers to the instruction strategy that makes use of various
combinations of asynchronous and synchronous distance learning as well as other, more
traditional forms of instruction should the opportunity for it be applicable.
Curriculum Implementation. This refers to the planned or officially designed course of
study which is translated into syllabi, schemes of work and lessons to be delivered to the
students is put into practice.
Curriculum. A standard timetable of content taught to students. It is a program of study
aimed to guide instructors on what competencies and essential learning milestones students
must acquire during a definite time frame.
Distance Learning. It is a form of instruction characterized by the use of digital media
technology to bridge a locational gap between student and instructor.
General Scholastic Average. One of the indicators used as basis to determine the
performance of the school. It is determined by dividing the sum of all final grades by the total
number of learning areas.
Large School. A school in the Secondary Level with 26-50 teachers and has generated
resources amounting to 300,000 to 999,999.
Medium School. A school in the Secondary Level with 10-25 number of teachers with
resources generated from 100,000 to 299,999
Modular Learning. The instruction strategy wherein learners advance through the
curriculum by progressively completing pre-made content programs containing the lessons as
well as corresponding tasks and tests appropriate for the level of instruction required. It can
be done in a synchronous or asynchronous manner depending on how it is required.

66 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Module. As used in this study, a structured program containing sets of progressively
interrelated content used to implement curriculum. It may be printed or digital in form.
Performance. This indicates what concrete actions the student should be able to perform as
a result of participation in the program. Once program outcomes have been identified, the
knowledge and skills necessary for the mastery of these outcomes should be listed.
School Head. This refers to the head of the school such as principal, head teacher or teacher
in charge.
School Performance Indicator. It refers to the parameters that measure or indicate the level
of performance of the school. For this study, the performance indicator is based on the
General Scholastic Average (GSA) of the school
School Size. This refers to the different sizes of school as defined in DepEd Order No 19 s
2016 that classifies schools as small, medium, large and very large.
Small School. A school in the Secondary level with 9 and below number of teachers and has
generated 99,999 and below of resources.
Strategies. As used in this study, it refers to the premeditated plan of execution an
organization formulates in order to achieve mandated objectives set by a superior entity. This
includes, but is not limited to, the designation of techniques, technologies, contingencies,
guidelines, and resource allocation in accordance with the organization’s goals and standard
procedures.
Synchronous. It describes the method wherein all the learners in a particular class engage in
class activities at the same time.
Very Large School. A school in the Secondary Level 51 and above number of teachers and
has generated resources amounting to 1,000,000 and above.

67 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Chapter III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design, research locale, population and sample,
respondents of the study and the procedure and tools used in the research.
Research Design
68 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
This research employed the descriptive-quantitative research design. According to
McCombs (2019), descriptive research aims to accurately and systematically describe a
population, situation or phenomenon. In this kind of research design, the researcher does not
control or manipulate any of the variables, but only measures the variables. Thus, this
research design is best suited for this study since it determined the effects of curriculum
planning and implementation strategies before and during the adoption of Modular Learning
Modality to school performance by school profile as to level, size, and position classification
of school heads in the Schools Division of Marinduque.
Questionnaires were the researcher primary tools for collecting data from the school
heads and teachers in the Schools Division of Marinduque. Data processing involved
analysis, interpretation and discussion of measurable, comprehensive and understandable
data.
Research Locale
Generally, the study was conducted in the province of Marinduque. Marinduque is an
island province in the Philippines situated in the MIMAROPA region grouped under the
Luzon Island group. It has six municipalities namely: Boac, Buenavista, Gasan, Mogpog,
Santa Cruz, and Torrijos. Its capital is the Municipality of Boac. The province has a land area
of 952.58 square kilometers or 367.79 square miles. Its population as determined by the 2015
Census was 234,521.
The Schools Division of Marinduque, as of data from the Division Office dated May
2021 is comprised of the 256 schools manned by 3,192 personnel. It covers a total of 65,175
learners from Kindergarten to Senior High School levels, including those enrolled under the
69 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Alternative Learning System (ALS) in Marinduque. Of these schools, there are 46 Public
Secondary Schools and 183 Public Elementary Schools which are the total population
considered for this study.
Locally, the study was conducted in the 183 elementary schools and 46 secondary
schools (Junior High Schools) in the nine districts of the Schools Division of Marinduque
namely Boac North, Boac South, Buenavista, Gasan, Mogpog, Santa Cruz East, Santa Cruz
North, Santa Cruz South, and Torrijos. The elementary schools are composed of 19 ES in
Boac North District, 19 ES in Boac South District, 17 ES in Buenavista District, 22 ES in
Gasan District, 27 ES in Mogpog District, 19 ES in Santa Cruz East District, 17 ES in Santa
Cruz North District, 16 ES in Santa Cruz South District, and 27 ES in Torrijos District.
The Schools Division of Marinduque was chosen as the local for this study so that
the Division may be able to utilize its results or findings to further enhance the performance
of the students in the division.

70 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Figure 2 shows the location map of the study.
Figure 2. Map of Marinduque
Population and Sample
This research was conducted with the participation of 46 Secondary Schools and 183
Elementary Schools in the Schools Division of Marinduque. School heads, master teachers
and secondary school teachers served as the respondents for the study. In identifying the
71 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
school head, elementary and secondary school teacher respondents, random sampling was
used. To determine the total number of respondents, the Slovin’s Formula was used. The
table below shows the total number of respondents from the Elementary and Secondary
Schools in the Schools Division of Marinduque. A total of 337 respondents from at least 144
schools is the minimum required sample population acceptable for this study. The population
sample has 95% confidence level with a margin of error of ±5.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study are the Public Secondary and Elementary School Heads
and Secondary and Elementary School Teachers of the Division of Marinduque.
Respondents of various ranks within the province were surveyed, with Teachers 1-3
and Master Teachers making up the majority of the respondents at 82.97% of the total
population sampled, with 697 teachers participating in the study. This number represents
around 25% of the total non-school head population of the entire province of Marinduque
Table 1.
Number of Respondents by School District
Municipality School District School Head Teacher Total
Boac Boac North 11 27 38
Boac South 13 32 45
Buenavista Buenavista 9 47 56
Gasan Gasan 13 96 109
Mogpog Mogpog 19 84 103
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz East 21 105 126

Santa Cruz North 18 93 111
Santa Cruz South 12 101 113
Torrijos Torrijos 29 110 139
Grand Total 145 697 840
72 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
As shown in Table 1, respondents came from nine Districts of Marinduque namely

Boac North, Boac South, Buenavista, Gasan, Mogpog Sta Cruz East, Sta. Cruz North, Sta
Cruz South and Torrijos Districts. A total of 840 respondents were involved in the study
composed of 145 School Heads (17.26%) and 697 teachers (82.97%)
Table 2.
Respondents Frequency and Percentages by Rank
Position Frequency Percent

Teacher 1-3 664 79.5
Master Teacher 1-3 33 4.4
TIC 38 4.5
Head Teacher 1-6 45 5.4
Principal 1-4 52 6.2
Total 840 100
School heads made up around 17.1% of the total population sampled, with 145 school
heads having participated in the study. This number represents 63.32% of the 229-strong
school head population in Marinduque.
Table 2 and Figure 3 show the percentages of the respondents according to their
rank.
Legend:
Elementary Head
Elementary Teacher
26 Secondary Head
8- 109 - 13% .
32 Secondary Teacher
%
35 - 4%
428 - 51%
73 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Figure 3. Respondent Sample Population Percentages by Rank
Research Instruments
A research instrument was used that was field tested for improvements and
adjustments. A big school was chosen for field testing so that there is enough number of
teachers who participated in the field testing and in the final survey. The instrument was
validated by four experts such as an ICT expert, a statistician and a curriculum expert. It was
subjected to a reliability and validity tests. All suggestions and comments of the experts were
incorporated in the final manuscript of the research questionnaire that ensured that the data
gathered were exact, reliable and valid data.
Research data include the General Scholastic Standing (GSA), Mean Performance
Score and the mean score of each school which were used as bases for the school overall
performance. The schools themselves were categorized according to school level, size, and
position classification of school heads as defined by DepEd Memorandum No 66 series of
2018.
After completing the instrument, it was validated by 4 experts: 1 expert in Language
and Grammar, and 2 statisticians and an ICT expert. After computing the validators’ ratings,
the total score was 4.26, which means the instrument was valid and can provide unbiased
data for the interpretation, allowing 6-10% error. The table for this is shown below.
Table 3.
Validators’ Ratings for Content Validation of Research Instrument
Validator Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
1 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.14
74 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
2 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4.71
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.00
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.00
Grand Total 4.26
To establish the reliability of the research instrument, it was checked by a statistician,
and it was tried by 15 Secondary School Teachers of Mogpog National Comprehensive High
School and 15 Elementary teachers of Don Luis Hidalgo Memorial School on October 18,
2021. After that, the researcher computed for the reliability of the instrument using
Cronbach’s Alpha which showed that the instrument is highly reliable (See Appendix F).
The research instrument used for this study employs a Likert Scale. To establish the
instrument's reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was utilized to measure the degree of
consistency of the items used in the questionnaire. The ideal value for the Cronbach’s alpha
is generally accepted to be above 0.7, although values above 0.6 are also accepted (Nunnally,
1987; Adadan & Savisci, 2011). All the variables in the instrument have a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient greater than 0.95, indicating the high consistency and reliability of the items in the
instrument used for this study. Table 4 shows the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the
variables being tested in this research.
Data Gathering Procedure
In gathering the data for this research, the researcher followed a systematic procedure.
First, the approval to conduct a research was sought from the Schools Division
Superintendent. After securing the approval, the research questionnaire was sent to the
respondents through Google form in order to abide by the health protocols set by the Inter-
75 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Agency Task Force (IATF) against COVID-19. All District Offices were visited for the GSA
result of schools and the classification of schools in terms of size.
In order to supplement data gathered, data was collected from readily available
statistics from the Division Office and District Offices. Performance of the 46 secondary
schools and 183 elementary schools based on the performance indicators identified in this
study through the research questionnaire.
Data for relevant parameters such as school profile and General Scholastic Average,
were also readily available via individual school heads of respondents. Respondents in this
research participated in the study via Google Form that was provided in the respective Group
Chats of the District.
The researcher waited for seven days to retrieve and encode the responses to the
research questionnaire to gather enough responses from the respondents. This number of
days also considered the signal strength of the respondents’ internet provider as well as
factoring in their daily work schedules.
After retrieving the necessary information, the questionnaires were assigned numbers
to ensure a systematic retrieval and encoding of the data. This was also done to easily
identify the respondents and the schools where the questionnaires came from.
To facilitate the encoding of data, the researcher consulted statisticians and then
encoded the data using Microsoft Excel. After encoding, all the data were subjected to
required statistical tests using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), after which
the researcher tabulated and interpreted the data. Finally, the reporting of findings were
presented through a defense presentation scheduled through the relevant procedural channels.
76 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
To begin, an overview of the analysis of the quantitative data collected from the 165
schools that participated in the survey used for this research study, totaling 840 teachers and
school heads, was provided. The said overview includes the procedures of the analysis and a
tally of the educators who participated in the survey. The results of the respondents'
responses to the questions contained within the research instrument were also examined
A total 840 respondents coming from 165 schools from all over the nine School
Districts agreed to participate in the research, for a total of 72% of the schools in the Division
of Marinduque.
Data Analysis Procedures
The researcher utilized data collected from research surveys that were conducted
within 2 one (1)-week windows, one in October and another in November. The instrument
was sent both through various Internet-based platforms as well as the personal dissemination
of written copies, and the researcher periodically initiated contact to ensure that the
respondents did not forget about the survey being conducted. The instrument measured self-
reported frequency of curriculum planning and implementation strategies of 60 items, 50 of
which were categorized under seven classifications: the process, people, assessment,
delivery, management, and strategy of the curriculum planning and implementation practices
before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent adoption of
Distance Learning Modalities across the province.
The survey questionnaire (see Appendix C) consisting of nine (9) profiling questions,
50 Likert-scale questions, one question directed towards school heads only, and one optional
comment section. The instrument consisted of four sections. The first part contained
77 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
questions intended to produce specific data of the respondent participating in the survey,
namely:
A) The respondent’s name and e-mail address;
B) The respondent’s rank within their school;
C) The respondent’s school;
D) The respondent school’s designation according to size;
E) The respondent’s school’s level;
F) The respondent school’s address and School District, and;
G) The position of the school head assigned to the participating respondent’s school.
The next part of the instrument spanned a few pages/webpages and asked questions
regarding the curriculum implementation strategies and practices being assessed in this
research study. The third part of the instrument contained a question answerable only by the
respondent school heads as it asked for the numerical value of the respondent school’s GSA.
The last section was an contained an optional question asking for the respondent’s comment
regarding the state of curriculum planning and implementation.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To analyze the data, frequency percentage and descriptive statistical tool were
used. The results were examined using descriptive statistics and mean scores for the
various data sets were analyzed and treated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and
Paired Test Analysis.
Frequency
78 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
This was used to determine the profile of respondents who are assigned to teach in
small, medium, large and mega schools and position classification of the school heads.
Percentage
This was used to determine the curriculum implementation strategies adopted by
Public Secondary Schools in Marinduque Division before and during the shift to distance
learning modalities.
Mean
This was used to find out the extent of schools’ practice of curriculum planning and
implementation strategies in the delivery of the curriculum prior to and during the shift to
distance learning modalities. It was also used to determine the level of performance of the
schools during the implementation of face-to-face classes and during the implementation of
distance learning modalities in terms of the General Scholastic Average.
Likert Scale in the Research Instrument
To measure the responses of the respondents, a likert scale was used in the research
instrument with equivalent response: 5 for highly practiced; 4 for moderately practiced; 3 for
slightly practiced; 2 for poorly practiced and 1 for never practiced.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
It was used to establish the significant difference in schools’ performance during the Face-
to-face Modality and during Distance Learning Modality. Analysis of variance was done also
on school’s performance when grouped according to their size. It is also used to analyze the
difference in the level of practices.

79 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Paired Test Analysis
A paired sample t-test sometimes called the dependent sample t-test is a statistical
procedure used to determine whether the mean difference between two sets of observations is
zero. In a paired sample t-test, each subject or entity is measured twice, resulting in pairs
observations. Common applications of the paired sample t-test include case-control studies or
repeated-measures designs.
In this research, t-test was used to evaluate the relationship of curriculum planning
and implementation strategies to the school performance before and during Modular
Learning Modality.
Chapter IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the gathered data, the analysis and interpretation of the
statistical results of the study. All data are presented in tables that correspond to the stated
specific problems in Chapter 1. The first part presents curriculum planning and
implementation strategies before and during adoption of Modular Learning Modality by
school profile. The second part focuses on the significant differences in curriculum planning
80 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
and implementation strategies before and during adoption of Modular Learning Modality.
The third part shows the performance of schools by profile before and during the adoption of
Modular Learning Modality. The fourth part gives the significant differences in performance
level of schools by profile before and after adoption of Modular Learning Modality. After all
these facts are presented, a proposed model/framework to be used by the schools in the
different levels is shown.
This research was undertaken primarily to determine the relationship of curriculum
planning and implementation strategies to the school performance before and during the
adoption of Modular Learning Modality in the Schools Division of Marinduque. As stated in
Chapter 1 of this study, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced a drastic change in curriculum
delivery techniques from face-to-face classes to an adoption of a once-alternative and novel
form characterized by a mix of modular and distance-learning modalities. Handler (2010)
emphasized that the involvement of teachers in how the curriculum is planned, designed,
implemented and executed is vital to the success of overall curriculum development, and this
study relies on the underlying assumption that changes in the manner in which the
educational system delivers the curriculum also begets noticeable changes in education
institutions’ measurable parameters of success.
I. Profile of the School

81 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Legend:
Elementary
Secondary
52 - 36%
93 - 64%
Figure 4. Percentage of School By Level
As shown in Figure 4, schools from the elementary level comprise 93 or 64%
and 52 secondary schools or 36% making the total population of 100%.
Legend:
Small
Medium
Large
1 - 1%
Very Large
11 - 7%
52 - 31%
101 - 61%
82 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Figure 5. Percentage by Size of School
Figures 5 presents the percentage of schools based on the size of school. Small
Schools comprise of 101 or 61%. Medium Schools comprise 52 or 31% while Large Schools
has 11 or 7% and Very Large School is 1 or 1% of the total population.

83 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Legend:
Principal
Head Teacher Figure
Teacher-in-Charge
6.
65 - 39%
46 - 28%
54 - 33%
Respondents by Position Classification of School Head
Figure 6 presents the percentage based on position classification of school heads.
Principal I-IV makes up 65 or 39 % while Head Teacher is 54 or 33% and Teacher-In-Charge
comprise 46 or 28 %.
84 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
II. Level of Practice of the Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies
before and during the Adoption of Modular Learning Modality by the School Head in
the Schools Division of Marinduque
Table 4.1
Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies Before and During Adoption of
Modular Learning Modality based on School Level
Curriculum Planning and Before the Adoption of Modular During the Adoption of Modular Learning
Implementation Learning Modality Modality
Strategies Before and Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary Level
During Adoption of Level Level Level
Modular Learning Mean Descriptive Mean Descriptive Mean Descriptive Mean Descriptive
Modality Rating Rating Rating Rating
A. Process 4.45 Highly 4.34 Highly 4.20 Moderately 4.19 Moderately
Practiced Practiced Practiced Practiced
B. People 4.36 Highly 4.23 Highly 4.12 Moderately 4.17 Moderately
C. Curriculum 4.41 Highly 4.22 Highly 4.10 Moderately 4.14 Moderately
Assessment Practiced Practiced Practiced Practiced
D. Curriculum Delivery 4.50 Highly 4.45 Highly 4.19 Moderately 4.22 Highly
D. Curriculum 4.42 Highly 4.37 Highly 4.11 Moderately 4.13 Moderately
Management Practiced Practiced Practiced Practiced
E. Teaching Strategy 4.47 Highly 4.41 Highly 4.10 Moderately 4.16 Moderately
F. School Climate 4.49 Highly 4.46 Highly 3.92 Moderately 3.96 Moderately
Table 4.1 shows that curriculum planning and implementation strategies before and
during the adoption of Modular Learning Modality (MDL) by school based on level. When
grouped into level, schools in the elementary level had an obtained mean within the bracket
of 4.36 to 4.50 while schools in the secondary level had a recorded mean within the bracket
of 4.22 to 4.46, all with descriptive ratings of “Highly Practiced”. Results manifest that
regardless of level, both elementary and secondary schools highly practiced the curriculum
planning and implementation strategies before pandemic or adoption of MDL. On the other
85 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
hand, during pandemic due COVID-19 virus, all practices of curriculum planning and
implementation strategies were identified to be “Moderately Practiced” within the bracket of
3. 96 to 4.20 for schools in the elementary level and 3.96 to 4.19 for schools in secondary
level in all strategies, except in Curriculum Delivery with 4.22 remarked as “Highly
Practiced.”
At a closer look of all the strategies before pandemic, Curriculum Delivery got the
highest mean of 4.50 while the least obtain mean of 4.36 was identified under People in the
elementary level. For the secondary level, the highest mean of 4.46 was recorded under
School Climate while the least obtained mean of 4.22 was noted in Curriculum Assessment.
But in general, strategies were “Highly Practiced” regardless of school levels. This goes to
show, there is no difference in the practices of the strategies when schools are grouped into
level.
Schools switched and adopted Modular Learning Modality. Results indicate that from
among the strategies practiced during pandemic, only one strategy was “Highly Practiced” by
the secondary level that is Curriculum Delivery, while most of the strategies were
“Moderately Practiced” by the elementary and secondary levels. Results affirmed that all
strategies are highly practiced before pandemic, and these became moderately practiced
during pandemic. In fact, the practices of curriculum planning and implementation strategies
for Process became “Moderately Practiced.” with mean obtained of 4.20 and 4.19 both
interpreted “Moderately Practiced” both identified in the elementary and secondary schools.
Process involves learner-centered approach which focuses on interactions that shifts
the emphasis from teaching to learning (Glatthorn et al., 2012). Notable practiced strategies
under Process include “The school provides an orientation with teachers to explain the
86 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
content of the curriculum,” The teacher studies thoroughly the content of the curriculum,”
and The teacher examines the appropriateness of the competencies included in the
curriculum (See Appendix E). Data proved most schools put weight on the importance of
providing an orientation to the teachers on how curriculum should be implemented. It points
to the need that teachers should have a firm grasps of the curriculum. Johnson (2011) asserts
that successful implementation of curriculum involved stakeholders, especially individuals
who are directly involved in the instructions, who are the teachers. Likewise, before
pandemic the teaching and learning was explicitly executed by teachers. Through curriculum
process, the teachers thoroughly examine the content of teaching and learning activities as
well as the appropriateness of competencies to be taught to the learners (Glatthorn, et al.,
2012). In this sense, teachers are vital part of curriculum implementation. Carl (2009) affirms
that teachers are curriculum implements who take the last stage of curriculum development
process.
Apparently, with the switch and adoption of Modular Learning Modality, there were
many changes that had occurred in the curriculum planning and implementation (Zhao,
2019). Since planning is a continuous process, curriculum developers came out to a decision
to design a curriculum suited to the environment (Jerry, 2018). This is evident in the revision
of K to 12 Curriculum to Most Essential Learning Competencies (MELCs) which are taught
during the time of pandemic. The contents and learning competencies of the curriculum were
changed and adjusted to ensure that learning would still continue amid the pandemic.
In this regard, schools are more required to orient teachers about the content of the
new curriculum, discuss with the them the strategies in implementing the curriculum as
87 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
curriculum implementer (Davidson, 2005; Carl, 2009). Schools should institute a system for
evaluating strategies for curriculum implementation (Tanner & Tanner, in Davidson, 2005).
88 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 4.2
Modular Learning Modality based on School Sizes
Before the Adoption of Modular Learning During the Adoption of Modular Learning
Modality Modality
Indicators Small Medium Large Very Small Medium Large Very Large
Large
Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive
Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
A. Process 4.43 4.39 4.34 4.48 4.19 4.21 4.16 4.48

Highly Highly Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly
Practiced Practiced Practiced Practiced Practiced Practiced Practiced Practiced
B. People 4.34 4.27 4.29 4.28 4.13 4.14 4.13 4.38
Highly Highly Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly
C. Curriculum 4.37 4.31 4.28 4.40 4.12 4.10 4.04 4.48
Assessment Highly Highly Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly
D. Curriculum 4.50 4.45 4.42 4.62 4.20 4.20 4.22 4.40
Delivery Highly Highly Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly
D. Classroom 4.42 4.37 4.30 4.60 4.11 4.15 4.01 4.40
Management Highly Highly Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly
E. Teaching 4.47 4.40 4.37 4.55 4.12 4.12 4.09 4.33
Strategy Highly Highly Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately Highly
F. Climate 4.50 4.44 4.48 4.56 3.94 3.96 3.77 4.02
Highly Highly Highly Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately
Table 4.2 gives the data on curriculum planning and implementation strategies
practiced before and during adoption of Modular Learning Modality of schools when
grouped into size. At a glance, data revealed all curriculum planning and implementation
strategies are “Highly Practiced” by schools regardless of their sizes. But when pandemic
came into the picture and Modular Learning Modality was adopted as the most preferred
delivery of teaching and learning, only the schools with Very Large size “Highly Practiced”
most of the indicators with obtain mean within the bracket of 4.33 to 4.48 except Climate
which the obtain mean is 4.02 only.

89 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Schools with Very Large size has more than 50 teachers in the rural regions. It has
also thousands of learners with resources generated to 100,000 to 299,999.00 (Llego, 2017).
This goes to show that there are more manpower or human resources and more funds as
compared to those schools in small to large sizes. It can be deduced also that these schools
have more stakeholders who help the schools in their effective and efficient delivery of
Modular Learning Modality amid pandemic.
Process as part of curriculum planning and development involves teachers who are
vital contributors to the alignment of curriculum contents with the students’ needs in the
classroom (Handler, 2010). Fullan (1991) found that the level of teacher involvement as a
center of curriculum planning and development leads to effective achievement of educational
reform. Therefore, the teacher is an important factor in the success of curriculum
implementation including the steps of implication and evaluation.
People are the school heads and teachers and internal and external stakeholders in
schools. These are very evident in Very Large Schools because they have more manpower or
human resources. Collaboration of teachers in the planning and development of curriculum
was contributing to implementation. Handle (2010) affirmed that involvement of teachers is
deemed relevant to effective implementation of the curriculum.
Curriculum assessment enables learners to achieve their learning goals. Teachers in
very large schools were able to identify and assess the needs of the learners. Also, teachers in
very large schools were able to walkthrough the learning package and developed their
localized learning materials. This could also be a manifestation of both isolation measures
adopted to stem the spread of COVID-19 (Reimers, 2022) and the inherent expectations on
teachers regarding their professional ability to flexibly apply the curriculum (Handler, 2010).
90 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
This leads to teachers being relatively left to their own devices, up to a noticeable extent on
familiarizing themselves with the curriculum package and its content.
As for curriculum delivery, one area noteworthy is that the provision of differentiated
instruction to diverse learners received the highest drop in reported frequency of practice for
the curriculum delivery component. While teachers are afforded some degree of flexibility in
their decisions regarding curriculum implementation (Handler, 2010), the need for continuity
(Reimers, 2022) and the overall reported adherence to prescribed learning competencies
would contribute greatly to the homogenization of delivery, to say nothing of the fact that at
the very top of the bureaucracy the Philippine education sector decided to simplify the
curriculum; a reduction of 60% of learning competencies to what the DepEd describes as the
“Most Essential Learning Competencies”(DM NO. 89, S. 2020).
A simplified curriculum, coupled with the inherent trust, and to some extent, the
reliance of instructors on the said learning competencies as a guide with which they shape
their curriculum delivery, some extent of homogenization of teaching practices and content is
to be expected as they represent some form of normality to a crisis-hit sector (Zhao, 2021).
This study is a direct manifestation of this observation. Reliance of the teachers on the
learning competencies and having a guide on how to implement the curriculum have been
reflected in this study as a major consideration.
Hallgarten (2020) identified various resource-related obstacles to education during
the pandemic, which makes it unsurprising that providing access to resource materials
experienced the highest drop in reported frequency of practice. This corroborates to the fact
that when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, educational services suffered the most in terms of
availability, access and usage (Hallgarten). In the classroom, factors such as reliability of
91 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Internet services, instructors’ IT expertise and its direct correlation to the quality of
instruction (Winter, 2021) affect the overall ease in which students immerse themselves into
the lesson at hand. Respondents of this study, in particular those from the very large schools
have pointed out that in remote learning, expertise of teacher in digitalizing their workplace
and conducting their lesson greatly affect the implementation of the curriculum Guide or
MELCS and thereby affecting student learning. Delivery of the curriculum is affected if the
teacher does not have the expertise to use the technology. This makes learning a crucial
process.
Moreover, since the preferred modality is the modular learning, teachers were still
trying their best to provide all the possible learning opportunities toe the students. Their goal
is to enhance through different activities. It is generally recognized that teaching strategies
are multidimensional, and their effectiveness depends on the context in which they are
applied. In the teaching and delivery of curriculum, there is no single strategy that can
guarantee better student outcomes, however, research has highlighted a number of practices
that enable learning among students (Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2003).
Some strategies are inductive and deductive in nature. (Russell & Shepherd, 2010).
Although the delivery of teaching is modular, students are still simulated in real world
situations in which students act out a particular role/character in a safe environment in most
of their activities in the SLM (Dalgarno et al., 2016). Moreover, students are engaged in
discussion to encourage students to create their own understanding of the content and
connect it to their experiences. Learning is improved when students are encouraged to form
opinions and develop their own ideas about the content. By including discussion style
92 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
activities in respective classes, could encourage students to think about the connect more
deeply and gain broader insight through the shared ideas and different perspectives of others
(Allison, 1995).
Also, media can be used in direct instruction, active learning teaching strategies and
student projects. Existing media resources can be used within lectures to stimulate interest
and develop knowledge of the material being taught. This traditional approach is teacher-
centric, and information is pushed to the learner. Media, like the online platforms allows the
transfer of expert knowledge to novice learners. Given the tremendous rate of technological
change, instructors face an ongoing challenge in choosing the most effective media platform
to reach their students (Yowell & Rhoten, 2009).
The COVID-19 pandemic is, for the most part, unprecedented crisis in education,
considering the technological advancement of our era. It has caveats and drawbacks not
readily visible to society at large but is readily felt by the entire education sector and its
stakeholders. Teachers are increasingly frustrated (Collie, 2021) and isolated (Aperribai et
al., 2020) because of the blurring of the distinction between the workplace and the private
home (Jabukowski & Dominik, 2021). The said alienation and mounting frustration, coupled
with the desire for normality and the resort to the homogenization of the curriculum, has
resulted into a marked decrease in emotional rapport between the teacher and the learners and
a detachment of camaraderie between school administrators and its teaching personnel.
Summing up, before pandemic or the adoption of Modular Learning Modality, all
schools, regardless of sizes have the same practices of the curriculum planning and
implementation strategies, the slight mean difference may be attributed to specific practices
per schools, but the composite means tell they all have similar practices. Meanwhile, when
93 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
grouped into school size during pandemic, only the schools in Very Large size were able to
maintain the high level of practices of curriculum planning and implementation strategies.
94 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 4.3.
Modular Learning Modality based on Position Classifications of School Heads
Before the Adoption of Modular Learning Modality During the Adoption of Modular
Learning Modality
Indicators Principals Head Teachers Teachers-In- Principals Head Teachers Teachers-In-

Charge Charge
Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive
Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
A. Process 4.46 4.38 4.41 4.21 4.15 4.21

Highly Practiced Highly Practiced Highly Highly Moderately Moderately
Practiced Practiced Practice Practiced
B. People 4.44 4.30 4.24 4.20 4.10 4.18
Highly Practiced Highly Practiced Highly Highly Moderately Moderately
Practiced Practice Practice Practice
C. Curriculum 4.41 4.32 4.33 4.11 4.06 4.15
Assessment Highly Practiced Highly Practiced Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately
D. Curriculum 4.54 4.45 4.46 4.22 4.17 4.20
Delivery Highly Practiced Highly Practiced Highly Highly Moderately Moderately
Practiced Practiced Practice Practiced
D. Classroom 4.47 4.37 4.38 4.26 4.09 4.17
Management Highly Practiced Highly Practiced Highly Highly Moderately Moderately
E. Teaching 4.48 4.43 4.43 4.26 4.09 4.18
Strategy Highly Practiced Highly Practiced Highly Highly Moderately Moderately
F. Climate 4.53 4.46 4.46 3.85 3.91 4.00
Highly Practiced Highly Practiced Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately
Table 4.3 provides the data on curriculum planning and implementation strategies
practiced before and during adoption of Modular Learning Modality of schools when
grouped into position classifications of school heads. At a closer look, schools, regardless of
the position classification of school heads have similar level of practices “Highly Practiced”
across all curriculum planning and implementation strategies. During pandemic or adoption
of Modular Learning Modality, the practices of the curriculum planning and implementation
strategies had dropped to “Moderately Practiced” except in most indicators for schools
95 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
administered by School Principals in terms of their Process, People, Curriculum Delivery,
Curriculum Management, and Teaching Strategies.
Researchers affirmed that the effectiveness of curriculum planning, implementation,
and delivery is connected to the quality of school leadership which has an impact to quality
teaching delivery (Ko & Sammons, 2014). This is corroborated by the research of Napire
(2013) that proved that the position or designation of the school heads is a determinant of the
management styles. It found out that school principal as educational leader and manager are
responsible for managing the policies, regulations, and procedures to ensure that all students
supervised are safe.
Many researchers contended that the role of the principal continues to be key
variable to the improvement of schools (Portin et al., 1998). These researchers suggest that
school principals should cultivate shared power and management at all levels of the school’s
organization. Moreover, as administrators, they have to understand completely the existing
motivations for their fellow teachers. They have to perform many roles in an organization
and handle different kinds of situations using their own style of management. However, they
have to adjust their style according to the situation they are handling. The management style
should work best for any existing situation. Thus, managing without a specific style geared to
a specific set of circumstances which can slow down and even lead to costly mistakes of a
school manager.
96 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
III. Significant Difference on the Level of Practice and of Curriculum Planning and
Implementation Strategies practiced Before and During the Adoption of Modular
Learning Modality
Table 5.1
Practice of Strategies Before and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality based on
Process
School Profile Level of Practice of Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies Before
and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality in terms of PROCESS
P-Value - Before Interpretation P-Value During Interpretation
A. Level 0.000 Not Significant 0.060** Significant
B. Size 0.870 Significant 0.747** Significant
C. Position 0.006 Not Significant 0.491** Significant
Classification of
School Head
Table 5.1 gives the significant difference in the level of practices of Process as
curriculum planning and implementation strategy before and during adoption of Modular
Learning Modality. Results proved, regardless of school profile, all computed p-values
during adoption are significant to the level of practices. On the other hand, before adoption of
MDL, the level of schools and the position classifications of school heads are not significant
to the level of practice before the pandemic.
Findings could be attributed to the drop of frequency of practices of curriculum
planning and implementations affect. Tables 4.1 to 4.3 proved that drop of the level of
practices during pandemic in most of the schools regardless of school level. Likewise, there
was also a change in practices in terms of the sizes of the schools. Moderate practices were
noted in small to large schools based on its size as well as change in practices from Highly
Practiced to Moderately Practiced in schools based on position classifications especially in
schools administered by head teachers and Teachers-In-Charge.

97 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Meanwhile, before pandemic, no significant difference was identified as regards to
the process when schools are grouped in level and position classification of school heads. No
significant difference connotes no differences in the group’s answers. This goes to school,
that similar practices were done which were Highly Practiced (See Tables 4.1 and 4.3). In
contrast, a significant difference was seen when schools are grouped into size. The statistical
significant difference tells that group’s answers are substantially different from the other
groups’ answers. As reflected in Table 4.2 small to medium schools have low mean obtained
for their practices which are different from the large and very large schools. This means,
there was a huge drop of frequency of practices. Findings could be attributed to the resources
and involvement of small to large group of teachers in the planning and implementation of
curriculum to achieve effective delivery of Modular Learning Modality.
Rusman (2015) affirmed that the more teachers are involved in curriculum planning
means positive planning, implementing, and evaluating of the curriculum. Findings entail
that the number teachers are critical to the process of curriculum planning, delivery, and
implementation. In the usual curriculum development process, the individual teacher has a
great deal of influence as learning is itself an individual process, influenced by perspectives,
social, structural, and cultural contexts (Alkan et al., 2019).

98 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 5.2
Practice of Strategies Before and During the Adoption of Modular Learning Modality based
on People
and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality in terms of People
P-Value - Before Verbal Interpretation P-Value During Verbal
Interpretation
A. Level 0.000 Not Significant 0.007 Significant
B. Size 0.469 Significant 0.133 Significant
C. Position 0.368 Significant 0.166 Significant
Classification of
School Head
Table 5.2 provides the significant difference in the level of practices of People as
curriculum planning and implementation strategy before and during the adoption of Modular
Learning Modality. Data signify significant difference in the practices during the adoption of
MDL. All computed p-values were higher than 0.05 level of significance. The significant
difference indicates that one group answers vary with other groups’ answers. In order words,
during the pandemic when Modular Learning Modality was adopted, the practices of the
schools have changed from Highly Practiced to Moderately Practiced. In similar vein,
curriculum practices and implementation strategies as to people before pandemic proved
significant difference, except in school levels.
As for people, the name number of teachers are involved in the curriculum practices
and implementation, especially in small and medium schools. In the discussion paper of Jerry
(2018) about curriculum planning, he defined as a continuous process which involves
activities characterized by interrelationship among individuals and groups as they work
together in studying, planning, developing, and improving the curriculum which is total
environment planned by the school. This goes to show that curriculum planning has to
99 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
effective in order to come out to a decision making process which is key to the success of
education program.
Table 5.3
on Curriculum Assessment
and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality in terms of Curriculum
Assessment
Interpretation
C. Position 0.368 Significant 0.166 Significant
Classification of
School Head
Table 5.3 shows all computed p-values are higher than the level of significance set at
0.05 except in school level before the adoption of Modular Learning Modality. The
significant difference emphasizes that over the course of time and action, the level of
practices of the schools in their curriculum assessment has changed, from Highly Practiced to
Moderately Practiced.
With the changes in the curriculum the practices in assessment also changed. The
assessment has to adhere and support to the new objectives and has to meet the expectations
newly designed to promote students’ preparedness to the merge curriculum (Tweedie & Kim,
2015). The pandemic situation gives difficulties to teachers to provide authentic curriculum
assessment. Consequently, it drops the level of practices in some schools regardless of school
profile.
100 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 5.4.
Curriculum Delivery
and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality in terms of Curriculum Delivery
Interpretation
C. Position 0.022 Not Significant 0.096 Not Significant
Classification of
School Head
Table 5.4 presents the significant difference in the level of practices of Curriculum
Delivery as curriculum planning and implementation strategy before and during adoption of
Modular Learning Modality. There is significant difference in the level of practice of
Curriculum Delivery before pandemic by school size. The computed p-value is lower than
0.05 level of significance. On the other hand, no significant difference was identified in the
level of practices in Curriculum Delivery before pandemic by school level and by position
classification of school heads.
Moreover, significant difference was identified in the level of practice of Curriculum
Delivery by school level and school size after adoption of Modular Learning Modality while
no significant level was proved in the level of practice of Curriculum Delivery by position
The significant differences before the adoption of Modular Learning Modality
indicates that schools when grouped into size and position classification of school heads have
similar practices. During pandemic the practices of the curriculum planning and strategies
vary based on position classification. This goes to school that very large schools may have
different practices as compared with other schools.

101 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The number of teachers involved in the curriculum planning and implementation
strategies connotes significant difference in the level of practiced during pandemic. Table 4.2
affirmed the high level of practices of very large schools during pandemic. Results
corroborates with what Handle (2010) explained that involvement of teachers is deemed
relevant to effective implementation of the curriculum. The pandemic situation requires the
support of internal stakeholders such as school principals, teachers, and students as well as
external stakeholders such as parents, school board, and other professionals and community
members who have the stronger interests in planning (Jerry, 2018).
Table 5.5
Classroom Management
and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality in terms of Classroom
management
Interpretation
C. Position 0.015 Not Significant 0.388 Significant
Classification of
School Head
Table 5.5 manifests the significant difference in the level of practices of Classroom
Management as curriculum planning and implementation strategy before and during adoption
of Modular Learning Modality. No significant difference was identified in the practice of
Classroom Management by school levels as well as by position classification of school heads
before adoption of Modular Learning Modality. In contrast, during pandemic, data proved
significant difference in the practices of curriculum planning and implementation strategies
by school profile. Results only confirmed the changes in practices of schools from Highly
102 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Practiced to Moderately Practice during adoption of Modular Learning Modality (See Tables
4.1 to 4.3). Findings are manifestations of the changes in practices as the curriculum changed
during pandemic. Toquero (2020) confirmed the challenges in the education system in the
Philippines in times of pandemic. The adoption of Alternative Delivery Modalities like the
Modular Learning Modality is both a response and an application to an emergency remote
teaching in an unstructured manner of delivery, consequently, there are adjustments that
affect the practices of the curriculum implementer.
Table 5.6
Practice of Strategies Before and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality based
Teaching Strategy
and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality in terms of Teaching Strategy
Interpretation
B. Size 0.938 Significant 0.010 Not
Significant
C. Position-Classification 0.225 Significant 0.016 Not
of School Head Significant
Table 5.6 manifests the significant difference in the level of practices of Classroom
Management as curriculum planning and implementation strategy before and during adoption
of Modular Learning Modality. Significant difference in practices was identified before
pandemic based on school size and position classification of school heads.
Data proved no significant difference in the practices of schools by profile during
pandemic. Findings affirmed similar practices in terms of Classroom Management of schools
regardless of levels, sizes, and position classifications of school heads. Tables 4.1 to 4.3
confirmed that schools, regardless of profile schools “Moderately Practiced” of the
curriculum planning and implementation strategies during pandemic. The switch to Modular
103 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Learning Modality has changed the classroom management practices (Llego, 2020). While
this may be true in most schools, in some very large schools the practice of classroom
management was remarked “Highly Practiced” (See Table 4.2).
Table 5.7
Practice of Strategies before and during the adoption of Distance Learning Modality based
Climate
School Profile Level of Practice of Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies Before and
During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality in terms of Climate
Interpretation
A. Level 0.016 Not Significant 0.022 Not Significant
B. Size 0.025 Not Significant 0.044 Not Significant
C. Position 0.022 Not Significant 0.007 Not Significant
Classification of
School Head
Table 5.7 manifests the significant difference in the level of practices of Climate as
curriculum planning and implementation strategy before and during adoption of Modular
Learning Modality. Data confirmed no significant difference across levels before and during
adoption of Modular Learning Modality. All computed p-values are lower 0.05 level of
significance. This tells that schools regardless of profile have similar level of practices before
and after pandemic.
Findings also affirmed that before and during pandemic, schools safeguard and ensure
safety and health of students and teachers (Lawrence & Vimala, 2012; Rozario & Taat,
2015). Researchers explained that school climate is the interpersonal communication
between and among stakeholders (Rozario & Taat). In this regard, schools, with or without
the threat of pandemic have to ensure conducive learning environment because it influences
the cognitive development of the learners (Wang & Degol, 2016).

104 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
IV. Performance of Schools before and During the Adoption of Modular Distance
Modality When Grouped as to School Profile
Table 6.1
Performance of Schools by Profile Before and During the Adoption of Modular Learning
Modality based on School Level
Before Adoption of Modular Learning After Adoption of Modular Learning

Modality Modality
School Level
Mean Percentage Interpretation Mean Percentage Interpretation
Score Score
Elementary 83.43 Satisfactory 83.34 Satisfactory
Secondary 83.32 Satisfactory 83.88 Satisfactory
Total Mean 83.38 Satisfactory 83.61 Satisfactory
Table 6.1 underscores the schools’ performance level before and during adoption of
Modular Learning Modality (MLD) based on school level. Before the MLD, the level of
performance in the elementary has a mean percentage score of 83.43 while in the secondary
level is 83.34 both interpreted as “Satisfactory.” During pandemic, there is a slight decrease
in the mean percentage score for the elementary from 83.43% to 83.34% level but a slight
increase for the secondary level with a mean score 83.32 to 83.88, both belong to
“Satisfactory” level of school performance.
The results provide evidence that despite the pandemic situation teaching and
learning has been possible. It leads to good results, even if the improvement is negligible.
Both elementary and secondary schools were able to cope with challenges during the
pandemic. Talimodao and Madrigal (2021) confirmed the challenges during the Modular
Learning Modality faced by the schools.

105 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
With these data, it can be gleaned that the changes adopted by the elementary and
secondary levels to suit to the implications of the health crisis do not vary. The astounding
effect of this health crisis prompted the Department of Education to take control of almost all
details and processes to ensure that schools uniformly respond to the situation appropriately.
Memoranda were issued detailing guidelines on how to report to school, how to distribute
Self Learning modules and how to conduct home visitations. Processes were harmonized so
that all schools will know how to respond to situations. With these things, the curriculum
planning and implementation strategies in particular in the delivery of curriculum, process,
and people had contributed to the performance of schools.
Findings are corroborated by the research findings of Talimodao and Madrigal
(2021) that both quality and implementation of MLD were quality and satisfactory indicating
the adherence of the modality to the national standards set by the Department of
Education. This implies that adoption of Modular Learning Modality augments to the needs
of the learners. This merits also to the implementation of the Basic Education Learning
Continuity Plan (DepEd Order No.12, s. 2020). Furthermore, Anzaldo (2021) revealed that
MDL has been advantage also because there are independent learners who were able to
adapt themselves in this modality. These learners are open-minded learners and flexible with
changes in their environment and with parents who play their shared responsibilities with the
school.
106 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 6.2
Modality based on School Size
Before Adoption of Modular After Adoption of Modular

Learning Modality Learning Modality
Type of School
Mean Verbal Mean Verbal Interpretation
Interpretation
Small 3.24 Satisfactory 3.19 Satisfactory
Medium 3.20 Satisfactory 3.17 Satisfactory
Large 3.18 Satisfactory 3.25 Satisfactory
Very large 3.37 Satisfactory 3.62 Satisfactory
Table 6.2 reveals the level of school performance based on school size. According to
the results of the survey, Small- and Medium-sized schools decreased in the level of their
performance compared to their pre-pandemic performances, although the said decrease does
not constitute anything significant as shown in the statistical test conducted. Talimodao and
Madrigal (2021) affirmed significantly lower quality of Modular Learning Modality among
small and medium schools attributed to encountered challenges of teachers on
assessments, activities, outputs, parents’ incapacity, inconsistent participation, and
compliance established the need for instructional supervision.
Conversely, those categorized as Large and Very Large Schools recorded marked
increases in their respective performances when compared to their pre-pandemic levels,
though as with the previous two typologies, the recorded changes do not constitute anything
statistically significant.
107 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
As shown in this table, the result of the performance across school size remains
satisfactory, regardless of the pandemic. This maybe attributed to larger schools in
Marinduque are typically situated in areas where there is sufficient reliability of
telecommunication services as well as being relatively near centers of administration, which
make monitoring the said schools less difficult. This affirms that curriculum strategies and
implementation strategies such as process, people, curriculum assessment, curriculum
delivery, classroom management, and teaching strategies practiced by larger schools have
been effective. Data in Table 4.2 also affirmed the findings. The collaborative efforts and
involvement of school teaching staff and stakeholders in the curriculum planning and
implementation are contributed to this effect (Handler, 2010; Reimers, 2021).
Table 6.3
Modality based on Position Classifications of School Heads
Before Adoption of Modular After Adoption of Modular

Learning Modality Learning Modality
School Head Position
Mean Verbal Mean Verbal Interpretation
Interpretation
TIC 3.23 Satisfactory 3.27 Satisfactory
Head Teacher 3.24 Satisfactory 3.08 Satisfactory
Principal I-IV 3.22 Satisfactory 3.23 Satisfactory
Table 6.3 shows the level of performance before and during pandemic based on the
school heads” position. As shown in this table, the head teachers’ group has the highest mean
score of 3.24 before pandemic. On the other hand, they got the lowest mean score during
108 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
pandemic with a score of 3.08. Noteworthy to point out also that the principal’s group has a
consistent mean with 3.22 before the pandemic and 3.23 during the pandemic.
The result implies that the head teachers might have the most difficult adjustment
based on the recorded mean score. On the other hand, the school principals might have the
advantage of knowledge and experience to be able to adjust to any kind of situation.
Interestingly, the TIC group showed an increase in the mean score which implies that they
were able to adjust to the pandemic situation. This particular result may be attributed to the
fact that TICs are teachers acting as school heads, thus they have the grasp of the situation in
the field. This exposure to the field and situation gives them insight on how to handle the
situation best.
V. Significant Difference in the Performance of School Before and During the Adoption
of Modular Distance Modality
Table 7.1
Significant Difference in Schools Performance by Profile before and during Adoption of
Modular Learning Modality
Category Before Adoption of Modular Learning Interpretation

Modality S.Y 2019-2020 versus
During Adoption of Modular Learning
Modality During S.Y 2020-2021
A. Level
Elementary 0.874 Not significant
Secondary 0.383 Not significant
Table 7.1 proves no significant difference in schools’ performance before and during
adoption of Modular Learning Modality. The computed p-values are lower than 0.05 level of
109 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
significance. This indicates that school performance level did not change before and during
pandemic across levels. Both had satisfactory school level of performance (See Table 6.3).
No significant difference connotes that schools were able to cope up with the
pandemic. Despite the transition, the switch to modular learning modality, and other
adjustments made by teachers, they were able to adjust and adapt to the situation. Findings
were attributed to the practices of the schools across curriculum strategies and curriculum
implementation across strategies. Remarkable practices were identified in some larger
schools which maintained high level of practices in most curriculum planning and
implementation strategies except for school climate (See Table 4.2). This is substantial to the
practices of curriculum planning and implementation strategies.
Meanwhile, the new results of practices during pandemic for most schools lead to
good results or satisfactory results, even if the improvement is negligible. The negligible
improvement may be attributed to adjustments of the learners especially in the small to
medium schools which the adoption of Modular Learning Modality somehow affects the
reading literacy and numeracy, especially the younger children (Tomasik, et al., 2020).
Nevertheless. Learners give satisfactory results to schools as evident in Table 7.1 and 7.2.
Table 7.2
Significant Difference in the Performance Level of Schools by Profile before and during
Adoption of Modular Learning Modality
B. Size Before S.Y 2019-2020 versus Interpretations

During S.Y 2020-2021
Small 0.775 Not significant
Medium 0.081 Not significant
Large 0.462 Not significant
Very Large 0.446 Not significant
110 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 7.2 proves no significant difference in schools’ performance before and during
adoption of Modular Learning Modality. No significant difference between in performance
level of school before and during MDL by school size implies similar level of practices,
except for larger schools. Previous tables (Tables 4.1 to 4.3) underscored the level of
practices of schools across sizes. Regardless of sizes, before pandemic, schools have similar
level of practice “Highly Practiced” which drops to “Moderately Level” during pandemic or
adoption of Modular Learning Modality except for larger schools. Talimodao and Madrigal
(2021) proved significantly lower quality of Modular Learning Modality among small and
medium schools attributed to encountered challenges of teachers.
Table 7.3
Significant Difference in the Performance Level of Schools by Profile before and during
C. Position Classification of Before S.Y 2019-2020 versus

School Head During S.Y 2020-2021 Interpretations
Principal 0.972 Not significant
Head Teacher 0.737 Not significant
Teacher In-Charge 0.919 Not significant
Table 7.3 indicates no significant difference in school performance before and during
adoption of Modular Learning Modality. No significant difference found implies that schools
across profile had similar practices. Results indicated in the above tables and the foregoing
discussions support the findings, that regardless of school profile, schools have similar
performance which denotes similar level of practices of the curriculum planning and
implementation strategies. Thus, it is safe to say that the practices of the schools regardless of
levels have been effective and contributing to maintain a satisfactory performance of schools
amid pandemic.
111 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
It can deduced from the findings there could be a differential effect on low-
performing and high-performing students across levels, sizes, and position classifications of
school heads because of high-performing students being capable of improving their
performance regardless of the learning environment, while low-performing students
specifically benefit from systematic modular learning (Clark et al., 2020). Additionally, low-
performing students might be less distracted in comparison to learning in a classroom setting
(Spitzer & Musslick, 2021).
VI. Significant Relationship Between Curriculum Planning and Implementation

Strategies to School Performance Before and During Pandemic
Table 8.
Correlation of Planning and Implementation of Strategies and School Performance of Schools
Before and During the Adoption of Modular Learning Modality according to School Size and
Level
Before Modular Learning During Modular Learning

Modality Modality
School Size r Interpretation r Interpretation
Small 0.085 No correlation 0.046 No correlation
Medium 0.139 No correlation 0.087 No correlation
Large 0.021 No correlation -0.432 Low Negative
Correlation
School Level
Elementary 0.067 No correlation 0.024 No correlation
Secondary 0.095 No correlation 0.063 No correlation
Table 8 shows the correlation between the performance of each school and the scores
they received for Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies, sorted by school size
and then by school level.
In general, no correlation can be established between curriculum planning and
implementation strategies and school performance. While the performance and strategies of
112 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
large schools have low negative correlation, it is not statistically significant, (p=0.203) and is
likely due to low sample size.
Ling and Jha (2012), observed a positive, albeit very small (<2%) effect of school-
based management to the overall performance of students in public schools. It is unsurprising
that such a small effect will go unnoticed considering the limitations of the research
instrument.
To this effect, there is a need for a new instructional policy of delivery modality to
increase and improve the school level of performance from Satisfactory Level to Very
Satisfactory Level or even Outstanding Level when possible. The new model of delivery
modality is essential to strengthen the delivery of both modular learning (or any form of
distance learning) as the schools go back to the traditional modality, the limited face-to-face.
VII. Proposed Instructional Policy Paper for Continued Delivery of Education During
Pandemic
With these trends and developments shown in the study, it is highlighted that the
satisfactory performance of schools before and during the pandemic calls for an enhancement
of strategies in curriculum planning and implementation. Details of the proposed policy
paper is provided in Appendix A.

113 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Chapter V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary, conclusions derived from the findings and the
given recommendations based on the conclusions formulated in the study.
The study was conducted to determine the relationship of curriculum planning and
strategies to the school performance. It also sought to determine the level of practice of
curriculum planning and strategies in different schools. Finally, it sought to establish the
significant difference of different variables to the curriculum planning and implementation
strategies. and the significant difference strategies on the practice of curriculum planning and
implementation. The reported findings of practices relating to the various components of
curriculum planning and implementation were identified, and these practices were measured
via the survey instrument developed in accordance with existing models and various
available literature on the topic.
The insights gained from the results of this research study are keys in providing
education administrators studying educational reform a quantitative foundation of observed
and reported practices from varying education levels regarding significant changes in
curriculum planning and implementation components. Furthermore, the analysis gained from
this study may aid school administrators and teaching personnel in deciding whether a
unified structure for curriculum delivery should be discussed for meeting instructional goals
114 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
moving forward. These findings may provide a realistic basis for education officials in
deciding whether the current structure of flexible learning is the proper reform model to work
towards in the near and distant future.
Summary of Findings
1. Profile of the School
1 1. A total of 840 respondents participated in this study which is comprised of 534
or 64% from the elementary level and 305 or 36% from the secondary level.
1.2. Based on school size, the respondents are comprised of 61% from the small
school; 31% from medium schools; 7% from large schools and 1% from very large schools.
1.3. Based on the position classification of school heads, the respondents are
comprised of 38 or 4.5 % teacher in charge and; 45 or 5.4 % head teacher and 52 or 6.2%
principal 1-4.
2. Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies Before and During the Modular
Learning Modality by School Profile (Level, Size, and Position Classification of School
Heads)
2.1. When schools are grouped into level, the practices of curriculum planning and
implementation across strategies were found to be “Highly Practiced” before adoption of
Modular Learning Modality elementary. These dropped down to “Moderately Practiced”
during pandemic or adoption of Modular Distance.
2.2. Based on school size, the practices of curriculum planning and implementation
across strategies were found to be “Highly Practiced” before adoption of Modular Learning
Modality elementary. These dropped down to “Moderately Practiced” during pandemic or

115 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
adoption of Modular Distance, expect for larger schools or schools which belong to very
large size.
2.3. As regards to position classification of school heads, the practices of curriculum
planning and implementation across strategies were found to be “Highly Practiced” before
adoption of Modular Learning Modality in the elementary level. These dropped down to
“Moderately Practiced” during pandemic or adoption of Modular Distance, exept in schools
administered by School Principals with remarkable practices.
3. Significant Difference of the Level of Practice of Curriculum Planning and
Implementation Strategies Before and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality
by School Profile
3.1. In terms of Process as Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategy,
significant difference was proven across profile during adoption of Modular Learning
Modality. In contrast, no significant difference was identified across levels and position
classification of school heads. Meanwhile, there was a significant difference proved when
grouped into school size before adoption of Modular Learning Modality.
3.2. As regards to People as Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategy,
significant difference was proven across profile during adoption of Modular Learning
Modality and even before pandemic across school size and position classification of school
heads, except when schools are grouped into level.
3.3. For Curriculum Assessment as Curriculum Planning and Implementation
Strategy, significant difference was noted in schools across profile during pandemic or
116 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
adoption of Modular Learning Modality and even before pandemic across school size and
position classification of school heads, except when schools are grouped into level.
3.4. With regards to Curriculum Delivery as Curriculum Planning and
Implementation Strategy, significant difference was proved before and during pandemic or
adoption of Modular Learning Modality across school size. In addition, significant difference
was also affirmed during pandemic regardless of level. On the other hand, no significant
difference was determined before pandemic when schools are grouped into level and position
3.5. As to Classroom Management, Curriculum Planning and Implementation
Strategy, significant difference was proven across profile during adoption of Modular
Learning Modality and even before pandemic across school size, Meanwhile, no significant
difference was identified based on size and position classification of school heads.
3.6. When it comes to Teaching Strategy as Curriculum Planning and Implementation
Strategy, no significant difference was determined across profile during pandemic time or
adoption of Modular Learning Modality and even before pandemic regardless of school
level. Yet significant difference was identified before pandemic based on school size and
position classification of school heads.
3.7. As for the component of Climate under Curriculum Planning and
Implementation Strategy, no significant difference was proved before pandemic and during
adoption of Modular Learning Modality across level, size, and position classification of
school heads.
117 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
4. Schools Performance Before and During Adoption of Modular Learning Modality
when grouped into Profile
4.1. Based on school level, both elementary and second schools have satisfactory
performance before pandemic and during adoption of Modular Learning Modality
4.2. When grouped into size, schools have satisfactory level of performance.
4.3. According to position classification of school heads, schools have also
satisfactory level of performance.
5. Significant Difference in Performance of Schools by Profile Before and During
5.1. No significant difference was proven in the performance of school before
pandemic and during adoption of Modular Learning Modality regardless of school level.
Both elementary and secondary schools have satisfactory level of performance.
5.2. No significant difference was determined in the performance of schools before
pandemic and during adoption of Modular Learning Modality across school size. Small,
medium, large, and very large schools have satisfactory performance.
5.3. No significant difference was affirmed in the performance of schools before
pandemic and during adoption of Modular Learning Modality by position classification of
school heads. Regardless of it, schools have satisfactory level of performance.
6. Significant Relationship of Curriculum Planning and implementation Strategies and
School Performance
6.1. There is no correlation between Curriculum Planning and Implementation
Strategies and School Performance.

118 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
7. Instructional Policy Paper focusing on Curriculum Planning and Implementation
Innovations
Given the satisfactory performance of the schools before and during pandemic, an
instructional policy focusing on curriculum planning and implementation will play a pivotal
role in managing a blended learning set up in all schools.
To strengthen the delivery of curriculum as schools gradually goes back to the
traditional face-to-face, schools need to implement blended instructions. he researcher
proposed an Instructional Policy Paper for the Blended Learning as an intervention.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The level of practice of curriculum planning and implementation strategies before
the adoption of Modular Distance Modality is highly practiced. This is regardless of the
school profile. On the other hand, the level of practice in the elementary level during
pandemic was reduced to moderately practiced and in secondary schools are in the level of
highly practiced. Thus, the first null hypothesis set in this research is hereby affirmed.
2. The strategies of schools based on process, people, curriculum assessment,
curriculum delivery, classroom management, teaching strategies, and climate are the same
before and during the adoption of Modular Distance Modality. Schools, regardless of profile,
have manifested high level before pandemic and moderate level of practice during adoption
of Modular Distance Learning Modality. Therefore, the second null hypothesis set in this
research is hereby accepted.
3. The curriculum planning and implementation strategies has changed from Highly
Practiced to Moderately Practiced across strategies regardless of level, size, and position
119 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
classification of school heads. The slight decrease or drop in the level of practice did not
affect the school performance even during pandemic or adoption of Modular Learning
Modality. Schools maintained their satisfactory level of performance. Therefore, this
research affirms the third and fourth null hypotheses set, since no significant effect was
proven.
4. It was also established that there is no correlation between curriculum planning and
implementation strategies and school performance. Therefore, the fifth null hypothesis is
accepted.
Summing up, the moderate level of practices of curriculum planning and
implementation across strategies contributed in maintaining the satisfactory performance of
the schools during the pandemic time. In this sense, it is safe to affirm that the practices have
been effective to cope with the changes brought by the pandemic situation. However, the
satisfactory level of performance of schools call for strengthening the curriculum planning
and implementation strategies to be able to improve their school performance from
satisfactory level to very satisfactory level.
It is in this regard that, an Instructional Policy Paper is proposed which identifies key
components that must be considered in adopting different strategies for planning and
implementing the curriculum or MELCS and the adoption of different curriculum
innovations that will help improve the performance of the schools.
Recommendations
The following recommendations for further research can be made:

120 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
1. Based on the findings that all schools, regardless of level, size and position
classification of school heads reduced the utilization of curriculum planning and
implementation strategies during the pandemic, it is highly recommended that:
 School heads may guide the teachers on the strategies that may work during
blended learning as they are able to observe during class observation online and face to face.
During these observations, school heads may make an inventory of the strategies that they
observed as helpful in teaching the learners.
 Teachers may adopt curriculum planning and implementation strategies that are
suitable to the blended learning modality.
2. Based on the varied findings as to the significant difference before and during
adoption of Modular Learning Modality by school profile as shown in the different
components, it is recommended that:
 For the component of process, teachers may continue the utilization of strategies
that they are using during the pandemic. These strategies may be helpful in enhancing the
learning of the learners.
 In contrast, since the findings showed no significant difference when it comes to
school size and position classification of school heads, School heads of various sizes may
explore other strategies that may be recommended for use during the implementation and
delivery of the curriculum. Innovations as to curriculum implementation and delivery
should be further considered. As these explorations are conducted, sharing of best practices
may improve the existing practices.

121 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
 For the components of curriculum assessment, classroom management, teaching
strategy and climate which has no significant difference before and during the adoption of
Modular Learning modality, it is highly recommended to conduct a review of these
strategies and find out if they are properly utilized.
Teachers may review and conduct a walk through so as to check if there are some
steps not followed during the utilization of the strategies.
Education Program Supervisors and School Heads may conduct a thorough class
observation to find out if teachers are utilizing the strategies properly. These observations
must be highlighted by giving of recommendations and sharing of ideas to ensure that
findings will be known to teachers.
3. On the findings that school performance before and during adoption of MDL is
satisfactory, regardless of school profile, it is recommended that:
 Further investigation be made by other researchers on other metrics of school
performance and their relationship with the aforementioned components of curriculum
planning and implementation might provide additional information into the lack of
significant difference and lack of significant relationship of the said components with the
metric of school performance (GSA) used in this study
 Since only the components of process, people, assessment, delivery, management,
strategy and climate were analyzed as they relate to schools’ General Student Averages, it
may also help to broaden the scope of the study and include further aspects of learner
engagement that may provide different results within the unstudied areas. Other researchers
are encouraged to conduct this study.

122 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
4. Based on the findings that there is no significant difference in the performance of
school before and during the adoption of MDL across all school size, it is hereby
recommended that:
 Education Program Supervisors and School Heads conduct a thorough
investigation as to why the performance of schools remained in Satisfacrtory Level. It is
important to identify factors hindering the improvement of school performance.
 Researchers may conduct studies delving into the factors affecting the
performance of the schools.
5. Analyzing the findings that there is no correlation between strategies and school
performance, it is highly recommended that:
 School Heads and teachers conduct further studies delineating the reasons why
school performance remain satisfactory . Through these studies, they may enumerate the
different factors affecting the learning of the students.
 Despite the extensiveness of the research instrument used in this study, there is
scant information to directly suggest how the pandemic has affected curriculum planning and
implementation strategies across all levels of education. Perhaps other researcher may
undertake a study that includes in its methodology a phenomenological approach to how
curriculum planning and implementation is carried out specifically as a response to the
COVID-19 pandemic would provide for more robust data and might yield different
research results.
 This study was limited to educators and school heads only, without the input of
learners themselves. Augmenting the population sample to include learners from various
123 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
levels could result in a more inclusive and comprehensive collection of data across all levels
of education. In addition, a more intensive research instrument or methodology detailing how
the flexible learning reform model was progressively executed may provide different results
6. Findings of this study revealed that all schools remained in the satisfactory level.
It is hereby recommended that the instructional policy on the utilization of curriculum
innovations particularly curriculum planning, implementation and delivery proposed in this
study be considered. This instructional policy must take into consideration the blended
learning set up in the coming years.
REFERENCES
Adeoye, S.R (2010). Curriculum for the information age: Implication for teachers. Global
Journal.
Ainsworth, L. (2011). Rigorous curriculum design: How to create curricular units of study
that align standards, instruction, and assessment. Englewood, CO: Leadership and
Learning Center. Center for Applied Special Technology. 2014. “About UDL.”
http://www.cast.org/udl/
Akwesi, J.B. (2012). Implementation, issues in secondary schools in Ghana: Problems and
prospects. International Journal of Research Development, 4 (5).
Alison King, “Inquiring Minds Really Do Want to Know: Using Questioning to Teach
Critical Thinking,” Teaching of Psychology 22 (1995): 14.
Alkan, S. H. & Priestley, M. (2019). "Teacher mediation of curriculum making: The role of
reflexivity," Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(5).
Alsubaie, Merfat, A. (2016). Curriculum development: teacher involvement in curriculum

development. Journal of Education and Practice. 7 (9).
Andrietti, V. and Su, X. (2018). Education curriculum and student achievement. Theory and
evidence. Retrieved from https://sites.ualberta.ca/~xuejuan1/docs/G8_theory.pdf
124 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Aneke, Putri (2015). Effect of teachers’ qualifications on the implementation pf government

curriculum in secondary schools in Enugu State. International Research Journal of
Human Resources and Social Sciences.
Ansari Follow, H. (2019, June 13). Curriculum change/ curriculum change process / issues
in curriculum c... https://www.slideshare.net/HennaAnsari/curricul um-change-
curriculum-change-process-issuesin-curriculum-change.
Aperribai, L., Cortabarria, L., Aguirre, T., Verche, E., & Borges, Á. (2020). Teacher's
Physical Activity and Mental Health During Lockdown Due to the COVID-2019
Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 577886. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577886 July 1, 2021.
Arnesen, K. T., Hveem, J., Short, C. R., West, R. E., & Barbour, M. K. (2019). K-12 online
learning journal articles: Trends from two decades of scholarship. Distance
Education, 40(1), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553566
Aviles, N., & Grayson, K. (2017, August). Backward planning: How assessment impacts
teaching and learning. IDRA. www.idra.org/resource-center/backward-
planningassessment-impacts-teaching-learning/.
Awang,A. H., N. Ab Jalil, N. H. Salleh, H. Ab Jalil, and S. S. Salim, “Physical learning

ecosystem and built environment of tahfiz institutions in Malaysia: a systematic
review,” Journal of Architecture, Planning and Construction Management, 9, (1) 98-
103 2019.
Bassey, B. A. (2012). A Wider View of Classroom Management. Uyo: Ekong Publishing

House, Nigeria.
Bediako, Solomon (2019). Models and concepts of curriculum implementation, some

definitions and influence of implementation. DOI 10.13140/RG.2.2.17850.24009,
accessed from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Solomon_Bediako/publication/
333338710_Models_and_concepts_of_curriculum_implementation_some_definitions
_and_influence_of_implementation/links/5ce7835fa6fdccc9ddca714d/Models-and-
concepts-of-curriculum-implementation-some-definitions-and-influence- of-
implementation on September 14, 2020.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development:
teachers’ perspectives. Education Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
Bojovic, Z.; Bojovic, P. & Dusan, V. (2013). education in time of crisis: Rapid transition to
distance learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28 (3).
125 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Boyce J, Bowers AJ (2018). Towards an evolving conceptualization of instructional

leadership as leadership for learning. Journal of Educational Administration
56(2):161-182.
Brady, L. (1995). Curriculum development. Sydney: Prentice Hall
Brown, Colin R. Ph. & Prendergast, L. J. M.Ed.(2019). Improving academic performance

through a unique curriculum development process.Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1282962.pdf
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bryan, A., Volchenkova, K. N., (2016) "Blended Learning: Definition, Models, Implications
for Higher Education." Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Education.
Educational Science, 8 (2) 24-30. DOI:10.14529/ped160204.
Capita, L.E. (2014). Creative curriculum delivery at school level. Practitioner’s

perspectives.
Retrieved from https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277811/1-s2.0-
Carl, Arend E. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory into
practice. Juta and Company Ltd.
Charlie, M. U. (2008). Discipline and Management in the Classroom: Theory and practice.
Kaduna: Joyce Graphic Printer and Publishers Company, Nigeria.
Chaudhary, G. K. (2015).Factors affecting curriculum implementation for students.

Retrieved from Factors affecting curriculum implementation for students
Chamberlain, V. M., & M.N. Cummings (2003). Creative instructional methods for family &
consumer sciences/nutrition & wellness. Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw- Hill.
Chaudhary, G. K. (2015). Factors affecting curriculum implementation for students.

International Journal of Applied Research.
Cho, Y.; Kataoka, S. & Piza, S. (2021). Philippine Basic Education System: Strengthening
Effective Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond. Philippines
COVID-19 Monitoring Survey Policy Notes;. World Bank, Washington, DC. ©
World Bank. Accessed from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/
35649, November 21, 2021.
Collie, R. J. (2021). COVID-19 and teachers' somatic burden, stress, and emotional
exhaustion: Examining the role of principal leadership and workplace buoyancy.
AERA Open. 7, 233285842098618. doi:10.3886/E127641V1
126 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Cook, B. G., Smith, G.J, & Tankersley, M. (2012). Evidence-based practices in education. In
K. Harris(ed). Educational Psychology: Contributions to Education. American
Psychological Association, Washington DC, US: American Psychological
Association.doi:10.1037/13273-017.
Dalgarno, B., Sturt, C.,Knox, V., & Torsten, R. (2016). Practicing teaching using virtual
classroom role plays. Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2783&context=ajte
Davidson (2005) .The Principles of Curriculum Development in Nigeria. Snap Press ltd.
Retrieved https://academicpower.blogspot.com/2017/08/curriculum-planning.html
Demir, S.,Kilinc, M., & Demir, S. (2012). The effect of curriculum for developing efficient
studying skills on academic achievement and studying skills for learners. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068605.pdf
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskai, P. D., Norberg, A. & Sicilia, N.,(2018) "Blended
learning: The new normal and emerging technologies." International Journal of
Educational Technologies in Higher Education, 1 (3).
Ediger, M., (1995). Philosophy in curriculum development. Kirksville, Missouri: Simpson
Publishing Company.
EdWeek Research Center. (2020, June 25). Survey tracker: Monitoring how K–12 educators
are responding to Coronavirus. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/04/27/ survey-tracker-k-12-
coronavirusresponse.html
Emeruwa, A.k (1984) .Curriculum Process. London University of London Press.
Fuglei, M. (2018, August 29). How understanding by design improves lesson plans. Concord
University: Portland.
https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/backwards-design-lesson-
planning
Eisner, E.W. (1994). The educational imagination: On design and evaluation of school
programs. (3rd. ed) New York: Macmillan.
El Sawi, G.(996) Curriculum development guide: Population education for non-formal

education programs of out-of-school rural youth. United Nations Population Fund
(UNFPA), New York.
Fullan, M., 2007. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Routledge.
Fullan, M. (1991). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teacher College Press.
127 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Glatthorn, A. A. (2019). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and

implementation. SAGE Publication Inc. 5th ed.
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. & Boschee B. (2012). Curriculum

Leadership: Strategies for Development and Implementation, Third Edition.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Goodlad, J.L,Klein, M.F. & Tye, K.A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their
study. New York: McGraw Hill.
Goodson, I. F. (1994). Studying curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gross, B., & Opalka, A. (2020, June). Too many schools leave learning to chance during the
pandemic. Center for Reinventing Public Education. https://www.crpe.org/sites/
default/files/final_national_sample_brief_2020.pdf
Goss, P., Hunter, J., Romanes, D. &Parsonage, H. (2015). Targeted teaching: How better use
of data can improve student learning. Grattan Institute, Melbourne. Retrieved online:
https://grattan.edu. au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/827-TargetedTeaching.pdf.
Hall, G. & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing
staff development. Teachers College Record. p. 36-53
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hallgarten, J. (2020). Evidence on efforts to mitigate the negative educational impact of past
disease outbreaks. Institute of Development Studies. Accessed from https://reliefweb.
int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/793_mitigating_education_effects_of_disease_
outbreaks.pdf July 1, 2021
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., & Diliberti, M. (2020). Teaching and leading through a
pandemic: Key findings from the American Educator Panels Spring 2020 COVID-19
surveys. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-2.html
Handler, B. (2010). Teacher as a curriculum leader: A consideration of the appropriateness

of role assignment to classroom based practitioners historical role of teacher in
curriculum development. International Jouranl of teacher Leadership, 3 (9).
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to

Achievement. London and New York: Routledge.
Hickok, John (June 12, 2019). Serving Library Users from Asia: A Comprehensive
Handbook of Country-Specific Information and Outreach Resources. Rowman &
Littlefield. p. 439. ISBN 978-0-8108-8731-2. Retrieved January 12, 2022.
https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/media/what.html
128 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Huaranga, H. A. V. (2021).Curriculum Planning for learning and its relationship to teachers

performance. Retrieved from
portal.amelica.org/ameli/jatsRepo/382/3821677003/html/index.html
Havelock, R. G. & Havelock, M. C. (1971). Preparing knowledge linking change agents in

education: A materials and training development project. Center for Research on
Utilization of Scientific Knowledge Institute for Social Research. University of
Michigan.
IBE UNESCO (2005). Curriculum planning. Geneva, Switzerland.
International Bureau of Education (2020). Curriculum planning. Retrieved from

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/glossary-curriculum-terminology/c/curriculum-
planning#
Jerry, C. (2018). Importance of Curriculum Planning. Retrieved from

http://edufruit.blogspot.com/2017/03/88-importance-of-curriculum-planning.html
Johnston, Peter & Costella, Paula (2005) Principles for Literacy Assessment. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40 (2). International Literacy Association.
Jakubowski T.D. & Sitko-Dominik M.M. (2021) .Teachers’ mental health during the first
two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. PLoS ONE 16(9): e0257252.
Accessed from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257252 July 1, 2021.
Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press
Alexandria Virginia.
Kaur, M. (2013) "Blended learning - Its challenge and future." Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Science, 93, 612-617. Doi.10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.248.
Kim, D.H., Lee, H. J., Lin, Y., & Kang, Y. J. (2021). Changes in academic performance in
online, integrated system-based curriculum implemented due to the COVID-19
pandemic in a medical school in Korea. Retrieved from doi:
10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.24. Epub 2021 Sep 23.
Khan, M. & Law, L.S. (2015). An integrative approach to curriculum development in

higher education in the USA: A theoretical framework. International Education
Studies, 8(3).
Ko, J., & Sammons, P. (2014). Effective teaching (Reprint of 2014 Report 978-1-909437-75-
3). University of Oxford: Education Development Trust.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297–
327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108325713
129 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Lashley, L. (2017). The effects of computer aided instruction in mathematics on the

performance of grade four pupils—Guyana. SAGE Open. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/2158244017712775
Lashley, L. (2018). A comparative study between cognitive and behavioral approaches

toward students’ academic performance in region no. 5 in postcolonial Guyana.
International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review, 5(1). Retrieved
from https://journalissues.org/abstract/lashley-january-2018/
Lawrence, A.S.A, & Vimala, A. (2012)“School Environment and Academic Achievement of

Standard IX Students,” Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in The
World, 2, (3), 210-215.
Llego, M.A. (2017). Schools Category. Retrieved from https://www.teacherph.com/best-

brigada-eskwela-implementing-schools/
Llego, M.A. (2019). 2019 DepEd Guidelines on the Selection, Promotion and Designation of
School Heads. Retrieved from https://www.teacherph.com/promotion-school-heads/
Ling, C. and Jha, S. (2012). The effects of school-based management in the Philippines: an
initial assessment using administrative data. Journal of Developmental Effectiveness.
4(2), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.692389
Longstreet, W.S. and Shane, H.G. (1993). Curriculum for a new millennium. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Mariñas, B. & Ditapat, M.P. (1998). Philippines: Curriculum development. In: UNESCO
Statistical Yearbook. (Accessed 23 July 2017).
Marzano, R., Warrick, P. and Simms, J. (2014). A handbook for high reliability schools: The
Next step in school reform. Bloomington, In: Marzano Research Laboratory.
Marzano, R. (2003). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for

increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Monda, N. and Das, A C. (2021). Overview of curriculum change: A brief discussion.

Retrieved from https://eprajournals.com/jpanel/upload/914pm_44.EPRA
%20JOURNAL-6581.pdf
McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential questions: Opening doors to student

understanding. Alexandria, VA: ASC.
Mezieobi. K. A. (1993). Social studies curriculum. Owerri, Whyte and Whyte.

130 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Mishra, A. & Shrivastav, N. (2018). Engineering curriculum development based on

educational theories. International Journal of Science and Research, 7(6).
Nnabuike, E.K. (2012). Practical guide to effective teaching. Hallmark Publishers Enugu.
Nicholas, A. A. (2007): Classroom Climate and students’ Behaviour. Kaduna: Bill Graphics
and Press, Nigeria.
Obilo, I P (2010). Challenges of the New Government teacher in curriculum Implementation.

Paper presenred at 23rd Annual Conference at Curriculum Organization of Nigeria at
Ebony State. 15th -18th September 2010.
Oliva, P. (1997). The curriculum: Theoretical dimensions. New York: Longman.
Orstein, A.C. and Hunkins, F. P. (1989). Curriculum and innovations. Education And urban
Society. 22 (1).
Organization for the International Cooperation and Development (2009). Creating effective
teaching and learning environment: First result from TALIS. OECD Publishing
www.oecd.org/publishing.
Otunga, R. N., Odero; I. I., & Barasa, P. L. (2011). A Handbook for curriculum and
instruction. Eldoret: Moi University Press.
Owhonda, Mirian N. & Amadioha, Samuel (2018, August). Strategies of Curriculum

Implementation in Nigeria: Rivers State Experience. Universal Journal of
Humanities, Physical, Social and Management Sciences (USHPSMS), 11(3).
Pak, K. &Desimone, L. M. (2019). How do states implement college-and career-r eadiness

standards? A distributed leadership analysis of standards-based reform.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 447–476. Accessed from
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799463 November 21,2021.
Polikoff, M., & Koedel, C. (2017). Big bang for just a few bucks: The impact of math
textbooks in California. (Evidence Speaks No. #5). Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/big-bang-for-just-
afew-bucks-the-impact-of-math-textbooks-in-california/
Pratt, D. (1994). Curriculum planning: A handbook for professionals. Fort Worth: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.
131 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Priyambada, S.A,. Mahendrawathi, E.R., and Bernardo Nugroho Yahyab (2017).Curriculum

assessment of higher education institution using aggregate profile clustering.
Retrieved from https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii
Reimers, F. M. & Schleicher, A.(2020). A framework to guide an education response to the

COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. OECD Publishing.
Reimers, F. M., (2021) Leading educational change during a pandemic: Reflections of

hope and possibility. Independently Published. ISBN: 9798595951531.
Rozario, G.R. and M. S. Taat, “The Influence of Learning Environment and Academic Self-
Efficacy Towards Mathematics Achievement in Masterskill Global College,
Malaysia,” International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 4, (2), 43-52, 2015.
Russell, C., & Shepherd, J. (2010). Online role‐play environments for higher education.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 992-1002.
Rusman, M. (2015). Curriculum implementation at elementary schools: A study on “best

practices” done by elementary school teachers in planning, implementing, and
evaluating the curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 6 (21).
Sangoleye, S. A. & Obilo, P. I. (2015). Curriculum implementation and the teacher:

Challenges and way forward. Paper presented at Alvan Ikoku Federal College of
Education
Scheerens, J. (2008). Review of research on school and instructional effectiveness.

University of Twente, Department of Educational Organization and Management.
Shirey, M. R. (2013). Lewin’s theory of planned changes as a strategic resource. J Nurse

Adm.
Spillane, J., B. Reiser and T. Reimer (2002), “Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research”. Review of Educational
Research, 7 2(3), 387-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387.
Spitzer, M., and Musslick, S. (2021). Academic performance of K-12 students in an online-
learning environment for mathematics increased during the shutdown of schools in
wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE, 16:e0255629. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0255629
Stabback, P. (2016, March). What makes a quality curriculum? Series current and critical
issues in curriculum and learning (No.2IBE/2016/WP/CD/02). Paris, France: The
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
132 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Stringer, R. Leadership and organizational climate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
2002.
Steiner, D. (2017)’ Curriculum research: What we know and where we need to go,
https://standardswork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sw-curriculum- research-
reportfnl.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2018).
Su, S. W. (2012, January). The Various Concepts of Curriculum and the Factors Involved in
Curricula-making. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3 (1), 153-158.
Retrieved from doi:10.4304/jltr.3.1.153-158
Tanner, A. & Tanner, C. (1975) Handbook of Curriculum Evaluation UNESCO Paris.

Chimex Publishers
Tomasik, M. J., Helbling, L. A., and Moser, U. (2020). Educational gains of in-person vs.
distance learning in primary and secondary schools: a natural experiment during the
COVID-19 pandemic school closures in Switzerland. Int. J. Psychol. 56, 566–576.
doi: 10.1002/ijop.12728
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. The American Journal of Psychology, 39, 212–
222. https://doi.org/10.2307/1415413.
Toquero, C. M. (2021). Emergency remote education experiment amid COVID-19 pandemic.

International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 15. Accessed
https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.5113. December 12, 2021.
Tweedie, M. G., & Kim, M. (2015). EAP curricular alignment and social acculturation:
Student perceptions. TESL Canada Journal, 33(1), 41-57.
Tyler, R. W. (1975). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago
Press.
Virgilio, S.J., & Virgilio, I.R. (1984). The role of the principal in curriculum implementation.
EBSCOHOSTconnection, 104(4), 346.
Washtenaw Community College (n.d). Assessment and its importance. Retrieved from
https://www.wccnet.edu/mywcc/faculty-staff/curriculum/assessment/importance.php
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Wiles, J. W., & Bondi, J. C. (2014). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (9th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Williams, W. O. (2008). Educational Management. Ibadan: Pandac Publications, Nigeria.

133 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Wolfang, M., Spitzer, H., and Musslick, S. (2021). Academic performance of K to 12

students in an online learning environment for mathematics increased during the
shutdown of schools in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.Retrieved from
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255629
Wojciechowski, E., Murphy, P., Pearsall, T. &French, E., (May 31, 2016) "A Case Review:
Integrating Lewin’s Theory with Lean’s System Approach for Change" OJIN: The
Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 21 (2), Manuscript 4.
Zivko Bojovic, Petar D. Bojovic, Dusan Vujošević & Jelena Suh (2020). Education in Times
of Crisis: Rapid Transition to Online Learning. Computer Applications in
Engineering Education Vol. 28, Issue 6. November 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.
22318. Accessed from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.223180in%
20a%20time%20of,and%20armed%20conflict%20%5B50%5D.&text=The%
20education%20process%20in%20a,to%20overall%20normalization%20in%
20society on March 27, 2021.
APPENDICES
134 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Appendix A
Proposed Policy Paper
A Proposed Policy Paper on Curriculum Planning and Implementation Innovations

to Improve the Performance of Schools in Basic Education
I. Background
The delivery of education in the country has greatly changed because of the
emergency health crisis caused by the pandemic Since public and private schools were
closed to protect the health of learners and educators, teaching had to be performed remotely
with the use of modular and digital platforms. As the country continues to confront different
issues caused by the pandemic, the department is addressing the challenges in the basic
education in order to fulfill its commitment of ensuring teaching and learning continues and
135 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
the same time protect the health and safety and well-being of the learners, teaching and non-
teaching personnel.
In accordance with its legal mandate and to ensure the continuity of education, DepEd
Order NO 12 s 2020 titled Adoption of the Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan (BE-
LCP) for SY 2020-2021 in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic, was issued which sets forth
Flexible Learning Options (FLOs) that includes alternative delivery modes and its
corresponding learning resources that are responsive to the context, need, situation and
diversity of learners. The BE LCP is consistent with the mandate of Section 1, Article XIV
of the 1987 Constitution for the State to promote the right of all citizens to make education
accessible. In Section 6 Chapter 1 of RA No. 9155, or the Governance of Basic Education
Act of 2001 DepEd is vested with the authority, accountability, and responsibility for
ensuring access to education.
Modular Learning is a form of distance learning that uses Self-Learning Modules
(SLM) based on the most essential learning competencies (MELCS) provided by DepEd.
The modules include sections on motivation and assessment that serve as a complete guide
of both
teachers' and students' desired competencies. Modular learning was the most accessible of
all the modalities, which parents themselves preferred for their children. This involves
students being taught through printed self-learning modules. Education Secretary Leonor
Briones called the modules the “backbone” of distance learning. Thus, it became necessary
to change curriculum planning and implementation strategies because the department
adopted new learning modalities such as online learning, modular distance learning, radio-
136 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
based learning, and TV-based learning. Curriculum implementation therefore has taken a
major overhaul and changes.
Curriculum planning and implementation strategies during COVID-19 pandemic
must be reconsidered to ensure that learning continues. The challenge faced now by
educators is to suit the curriculum implementation strategies to what will be the “new
normal”. Projecting a post pandemic scenario points to a blended learning setup since health
protocols would still be enforced even when COVID-19 is gone to ensure the safety of the
people. Thus, face to face learning may be restored but would still be limited. To ensure
continuity of learning, blended learning approach would be a popular choice and will be a
suitable option.
Globally, changes in education which have been initiated in response to a world in
crisis have shown that reforms in the curriculum made impactful results. Many countries
have initiated reforms in the curriculum implementation practices to ensure that knowledge
skills
and competencies that they need. However, effective reforms have yet to be shown after the
actual execution of shifts in instruction platforms and practices (Hudson, 2019).
In addition to this complexity, a major issue many countries encounter when trying to reform
curricula concerns implementation of the reform. According to Fullan (2015), curriculum
implementation corresponds to the means to accomplish desired objectives, and for the
changes in the curriculum to bear fruit, it needs to be translated into classroom practices.
The topic of implementation has been widely studied in fields such as public management,
public policy, organizational change and education. Echoing traditions and debates in these
137 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
fields, curriculum reform has previously been seen from a “top-down” perspective, where
the “success” of the implementation was measured by the “fidelity” and “adherence” to the
reformed curriculum by implementers, such as teachers (Castro Superfine, Marshall and
Kelso, 2015). Nevertheless, this approach does not fit the trend of autonomy-centered
curriculum enactment, where the central role of teachers in the process, both as enactors and
mediators of the policy, makes obsolete the concept of fidelity itself (Braun, Maguire and
Ball, 2010). In effect, a more dominant view of implementation has appeared recently,
shifting towards a more “bottom-up” approach that emphasizes the autonomy and discretion
of implementers. In this view, teachers’ agency is recognized as playing a crucial role in
curriculum implementation, as teachers are not solely passive executors only playing a role
at the final stage of the reform, but rather active actors that should be taken into account
throughout the whole reform process. Accordingly, “implementation fidelity” has given way
to “implementation integrity”, that is “the degree to which teachers’ adaptations of materials
are congruent with the curricular goals and principles undergirding the structures.
Reforming the curriculum is at the heart of the strategy being considered by the
Department of Education. The performance of schools in Marinduque, as indicated in the
results of 2020-2021 General Scholastic Average (GSA) remains in the satisfactory level.
This has been the status before pandemic and remained in the same level, though slightly
higher during the pandemic. This implies that the curriculum planning and implementation
strategies that are utilized must be reinforced or reformed in order to enhance the school
performance.
II. Rationale
138 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The two years of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on the country’s
education sector. Serious threats to health and safety, financial security, and access to
resources have made various sectors of society yearning for some semblance of normalcy
and stability. It has a uniquely particular impact on the global education sector, as
government have resorted to drastic measures ranging from significant changes in curriculum
to school closures (UNESCO, 2020). As the practicability of the reforms to learning
programs are being ascertained, difficulties in both sides of the teaching-learning process are
steadily exasperated by the transition to new modalities and stark difference in how the
division of labor within the professional ranks is reported and practiced become a challenge
to education administrators. To this end, the Department of Education (DepEd) launched the
Sulong Edukalidad doctrine of education reform. It strives to impart Filipino learners the
skills necessary to succeed in the tech-savvy 21 century. Chief among these reforms is the
st
implementation of the flexible and blended learning modalities that adapt to the local impact
of COVID-19 on the education sector. One of the flagship delivery methods in flexible and
blended learning is the adoption of modular distance learning modality, which makes use of
individualized instruction through a combination of digital and printed self-learning modules.
One of any distance learning model’s key assumptions is that instruction and delivery
of the curriculum to the learner would take place in the face of an actual geographical
separation between the teacher/instructor and the student/learner are geographically remote
from each other during the course of the instruction and delivery process of the curriculum.
Modular Distance Learning (MDL) makes use of pre-Online Distance Learning (ODL), and
television (TV)/Radio-Based Instruction. Distance learning is a learning method where the
teacher and student are separated geographically. Interaction between students, along with
139 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
interaction between students and their instructors, is done mostly through online classes and
prepared module created in accordance with prevailing official prescription from the national
and regional education departments. Historically speaking, distance learning was
traditionally known as the “self-study” method of education; a mostly novel-and alternative-
form of education. Learners primarily receive and obtain their learning materials through
various combinations of postal snail-mail, e-mail exchange, or over various channels on the
Internet Assessments, however, still take the form of written exams or assignments,
performance tasks, or portfolios. We term the model as “alternative” and “novel” because
distance learning as a mode of education in the Philippines previously applied only to
learners who are unable physically attend class and other exceptional circumstances that
compel learners to be physically extraneous from the traditional class setting.
In the Schools Division of Marinduque, the modular distance learning is often utilized
at both primary and secondary levels. Ideally, this would employ individualized instruction
strategies that allows learners to use Self Learning Modules(SLM) in print or digital format,
and other learning resources like learner’s materials, textbooks, activity sheets, study guides,
and other study materials.
The Modular Distance Learning has a process (DepEd Order no. 12 s, 2020). Under
DepEd's printed modular learning system, teachers will personally provide their learners with
the necessary SLMs per quarter, which mean students will be receiving 4 sets of SLMs for an
entire academic year. The distribution of SLMs to parents will take place before the opening
of classes. For learners whose parents are unavailable to get these from schools, designated
pick up locations for the SLMs will be coordinated with their respective barangay officials.
This distribution, in theory, will be done at least 4 times for the school year. Aside from
140 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SLMs weekly tasks will also be distributed to learners, subject to the conditions specified in
this paragraph.
However, the practical application of the flexible/distance learning reforms exposed
flaws that need to be resolved. Most immediate of these problems include the quality of life
for teachers in the course of adhering both to their professional standards and abiding by
travel and resource restrictions that affect the quality of instruction delivered by teachers.
Nationwide, trainings and seminars were held, some a few months after the pandemic was
officially announced to a week before the first re-opening of class. Learning guidelines in
transitioning to a mostly modular approach, the process of monitoring learners using the
Most Essential Learning Competencies(MELCs), designing Weekly Home learning Plan
(WHLP), and Learner Assessment were given. The implementation of this modular distance
learning requires competent teachers to properly execute the processes and tasks to be done.
Meeting the demands of the transition fall solely on the shoulder of the entire teacher
population. Thus, teachers are expected to have good mental and physical health as well as
possess prerequisite skills in facilitating how the curriculum is delivered to their learners.
Moreover, the modular distance learning as a modality is not easy for teachers. It is very
challenging for teachers from the preparing the Self-Learning Modules, printing, assorting,
distributing, retrieving, and checking of answer sheets. Then, along the process, teachers
need to monitor all the students and home visit those who are lagging behind. They will also
design activities suitable for them plus the administration of summative test every two weeks.
One day is also allotted for the distribution of Self-Learning Modules in their respective
barangays. It is a tiring process, and it requires mastery so that the teachers will not waste
their time in every task. In short, teachers need to be competent in instructional delivery
141 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
using modular approach. This competency can only be developed through the help of their
knowledge and skills in digital and their resiliency. Thus, the proponent proposed this model
as a guide for all who are crafting trainings/activities that develop teachers’ competencies in
times of pandemic.
It is equally important to identify other factors that are detrimental to a higher performance
level of students. The low performance of schools in all learning areas has been the subject of
research and planning of the Department of Education. It is this situation that this policy paper is
being proposed.
II. Objectives:
This proposed policy paper aims to improve the General Scholastic Average (GSA)
of the schools by:
1. identifying curriculum planning and implementation innovations that may be
utilized by the schools.
2. improving curriculum delivery platforms through modular learning modality and
limited face-to-face modality with the provision of training opportunities to school heads on
how to supervise blended instruction and training opportunities to teachers on implementing
blended instruction being the catalyst of change;
3. intensifying the curriculum planning and implementation strategies focusing on
curriculum delivery, curriculum assessment, and teaching strategies.
Key Concepts:
The policy paper is based on the “Satisfactory” level of performance of schools,
regardless of level, size, and position classification of school heads before pandemic and
142 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
during adoption of Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies. Below are the key
concepts that are used in crafting this proposed policy paper:
MDL- The Modular Distance Modality is a learning modality adopted that makes use of
other means of delivering instructions such as Self Learning Materials(SLMs) and other
platforms such as radio, TV and other technologies
MELCS- the Most Essential Learning Competencies known as MELCs is the reduced and
compact version of the K to 12 curriculum that focused on delivering the most essential
learning competencies in order to suit the learning situation of students to the new normal.
Curriculum Planning and Implementation Innovations- These are innovations in the
planning and implementation including delivery of the curriculum. These innovations are
conceptualized in order to ensure that learning process is simplified, and that the curriculum
may still be delivered ib the context of the new normal.
IV. Policy Guidelines:
This Policy Proposal is written to assist those in positions of influence to initiate
significant changes to current practices in curriculum implementation and development.
1. A well-designed curriculum implementation innovations that places greater long-
term emphasis on educators’ professional development that would be instrumental in helping
teachers and parents adapt to the challenges of the current transition period in curriculum
delivery. Teachers report that the heavy workload brought about by the blurring of work and
private spaces in the implementation of DLM/blended learning hinders their participation in
professional development activities. Therefore, providing increased institutional support for
the professional development of rank-and-file educators should ensure the onboarding of

143 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
teachers in favor of the necessary adjustments in instruction delivery and adapt to the shift in
curriculum implementation.
2. An inclusive-consultative perspective to curriculum implementation is strongly
recommended for consideration. Adopting a “bottom-up” approach that not only
acknowledges but encourages and institutionalizes the role of grassroots stakeholders in the
holistic education of learners should project better results in the long run. In order for this to
come to fruition, parents and guardians should be strongly encouraged to attend extensive
information seminars and training programs aimed at equipping them with competencies that
would increase their ability to properly aid students at the home-based learning setting. This
could be done through a series of consultative meetings where students, parents, stakeholders
and key educators will be included.
3. Innovations in the different components may be presented as follows:
Curriculum Planning Innovations
It is important that schools utilize strategies that are highly practiced during
pandemic. The utilization of these strategies must also be monitored to find out if they are
being practiced appropriately. These strategies must include the following: Providing an
orientation to teachers so that they will be familiar with the Curriculum Guide or MELCS.
There should be brainstorming on the best strategies that teachers may use in teaching the
students. There should be an opportunity to reflect on how strategies work and does not
work. This will be highlighted by a demonstration class to showcase the strategies that work.
All these strategies will improve the process of implementing the curriculum.
It is equally important that school heads and teachers work together to plan and map
out the strategies that will be utilized by the teachers in teaching in a blended learning set up.
144 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Support mechanism, technical group and technical assistance from the Division Office
personnel are equally important.
In planning the curriculum, needs assessment of the students and teachers is an
important step because planning of innovations will be anchored on this curriculum It is
equally important to conduct a walkthrough of the Curriculum Guide or MELCS must be
done by the teachers because this will provide them an overview of what is to be taught to the
students. Moreover, it is important that strategies must include the following: Providing an
orientation to teachers so that they will be familiar with the Curriculum Guide or MELCS.
There should be brainstorming on the best strategies that teachers may use in teaching the
students. System for evaluating the strategies used must be instituted. A thorough study of
the content of the curriculum must also be done. Moreover, opportunity to reflect on how
strategies work and do not work should always be part and parcel of the process. This will be
highlighted by a demonstration class to showcase the strategies that work. All these strategies
will improve the process of implementing the curriculum.
Curriculum Implementation Innovations
The successful implementation of curriculum depends heavily on how teachers apply
varied strategies. For example, knowledge of content across and within curriculum content
areas must be applied. It is also important that activities are contextualized, lessons are
adapted to belief, practices and tradition, differentiated instructions are provided to diverse
learners and the most crucial strategy is anchoring the competencies used in the Weekly
Home Learning Plan on the MELCS. For classroom management, adjustments must be
made in a virtual class to make the classroom climate similar to that of a face to face class
which is always geared on a conducive learning environment. Teaching strategies that are
145 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
used in the blended learning should still be utilized but there should be a revisit on how to
use them. The practice of giving positive feedbacks to the students to encourage
participation may still be utilized. Games, activities and tasks that make the learning fruitful,
fun and meaningful should still be practiced. It is also important that goals and targets are
within the capacity of the learners and adjusted to the situation of pandemic. Anchoring the
lesson to familiar situation and utilizing the media in the most practical way are also strategic
moves for the teachers. Teachers should also promote a safe technology supported learning
environment by properly handling the computer devices, maintaining a clean learning
environment and by following the rules and regulations on proper use of ICT.
Curriculum Delivery Innovations
The pandemic situation calls for the involvement of parents and stakeholders for the
Modular learning Modality be successful. Given that parents would be involved in the
management of the Self Learning Modules, it is urgent that a training is provided to parents.
This is a short training and orientation on how SLMs will be unfolded to their children. This
may seem difficult to parents, but Blended Learning Modality will remain as a learning
modality in the new normal for a longer period. Another training must be planned by the
Human Resource Development Division for Supervisors, school heads and teachers so that
they could adjust their strategies to the new normal set up. The new situation brought about
by the pandemic calls for learning, relearning and rediscovering. On the national level, the
Department of Education will engage the parents, teacher, PTA officers, community and the
stakeholders through a consultation to orient them on the new learning modality for a
blended learning. It would also be an opportunity to find out the factors affecting the
satisfactory performance of the schools.

146 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Curriculum Monitoring and Evaluation
The Department will strengthen the role of Monitoring and Division in designing tools that
will help capture the effect of these curriculum planning and implementation. A program
more elaborate than Project Kumustahan must be reintroduced. Monitoring and evaluation of
the effect of curriculum planning and implementation to the performance of the schools
should be established. At present, curriculum planning and implementation strategies utilized
by the teachers before and during pandemic has no direct impact to the performance of
schools. It remained in the satisfactory level for elementary and secondary schools.
References:
Almerino, Porferio (2020) Evaluating The Academic Performance of K-12 Students in the
Philippines: A Standardized Evaluation Approach
Fullan, Michael. The New Meaning of Educational Change.
https://michaelfullan.ca › Books by Michael Fullan
Gossa 2015/ Hudson 2019
IBE UNESCO (2005). Curriculum planning. Geneva, Switzerland.
Maguire, Meg et al.(2010). Behaviour, classroom management and student "control":

Enacting policy in the English secondary school
Superfine, Alison C.
https://www.researchgate.net › scientific-contributions
School Performance among Children and Adolescents during COVID-19 Pandemic: A

Systematic Review
DepEd Order No 12 series 2020 . Adoption of the Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan
DepEd Order No 21 series 2019 . Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic education Program
DepEd Guidelines on the Most Essential Learning Competencies
Porferio M. Almerino,1 Lanndon A. Ocampo,2,3 Dharyll Prince M. Abellana,2 Jana Gloria F.

Almerino,4 Irene O. Mamites,5 Lilibeth C. Pinili,6 Janine Joy L. Tenerife,6 Regina E.
Sitoy,7 Limuel J. Abelgas,7 and Emerson D. Peteros1
147 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
APPENDIX B
Relevant Laws
The Basic Education Act of 2013 or REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10533
AN ACT ENHANCING THE PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM BY

STRENGTHENING ITS CURRICULUM AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
YEARS FOR BASIC EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
SECTION 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the “Enhanced Basic Education Act
of 2013”.
148 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall establish, maintain and support a complete,
adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people, the country
and society-at-large.
Likewise, it is hereby declared the policy of the State that every graduate of basic education
shall be an empowered individual who has learned, through a program that is rooted on
sound educational principles and geared towards excellence, the foundations for learning
throughout life, the competence to engage in work and be productive, the ability to coexist in
fruitful harmony with local and global communities, the capability to engage in autonomous,
creative, and critical thinking, and the capacity and willingness to transform others and one’s
self.
For this purpose, the State shall create a functional basic education system that will develop
productive and responsible citizens equipped with the essential competencies, skills and
values for both life-long learning and employment. In order to achieve this, the State shall:
(a) Give every student an opportunity to receive quality education that is globally
competitive based on a pedagogically sound curriculum that is at par with international
standards;
(b) Broaden the goals of high school education for college preparation, vocational and
technical career opportunities as well as creative arts, sports and entrepreneurial employment
in a rapidly changing and increasingly globalized environment; and
(c) Make education learner-oriented and responsive to the needs, cognitive and cultural
capacity, the circumstances and diversity of learners, schools and communities through the
appropriate languages of teaching and learning, including mother tongue as a learning
resource.
SEC. 3. Basic Education. — Basic education is intended to meet basic learning needs which
provides the foundation on which subsequent learning can be based. It encompasses
kindergarten, elementary and secondary education as well as alternative learning systems for
out-of-school learners and those with special needs.
SEC. 4. Enhanced Basic Education Program. — The enhanced basic education program
encompasses at least one (1) year of kindergarten education, six (6) years of elementary
education, and six (6) years of secondary education, in that sequence. Secondary education
includes four (4) years of junior high school and two (2) years of senior high school
education.
Kindergarten education shall mean one (1) year of preparatory education for children at least
five (5) years old as a prerequisite for Grade I.
Elementary education refers to the second stage of compulsory basic education which is
composed of six (6) years. The entrant age to this level is typically six (6) years old.
Secondary education refers to the third stage of compulsory basic education. It consists of
four (4) years of junior high school education and two (2) years of senior high school
education. The entrant age to the junior and senior high school levels are typically twelve
(12) and sixteen (16) years old, respectively.
Basic education shall be delivered in languages understood by the learners as the language
plays a strategic role in shaping the formative years of learners.
For kindergarten and the first three (3) years of elementary education, instruction, teaching
materials and assessment shall be in the regional or native language of the learners. The
Department of Education (DepED) shall formulate a mother language transition program
149 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
from Grade 4 to Grade 6 so that Filipino and English shall be gradually introduced as
languages of instruction until such time when these two (2) languages can become the
primary languages of instruction at the secondary level.
For purposes of this Act, mother language or first Language (LI) refers to language or
languages first learned by a child, which he/she identifies with, is identified as a native
language user of by others, which he/she knows best, or uses most. This includes Filipino
sign language used by individuals with pertinent disabilities. The regional or native language
refers to the traditional speech variety or variety of Filipino sign language existing in a
region, area or place.
SEC. 5. Curriculum Development. — The DepED shall formulate the design and details of
the enhanced basic education curriculum. It shall work with the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) to craft harmonized basic and tertiary curricula for the global
competitiveness of Filipino graduates. To ensure college readiness and to avoid remedial and
duplication of basic education subjects, the DepED shall coordinate with the CHED and the
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).
To achieve an effective enhanced basic education curriculum, the DepED shall undertake
consultations with other national government agencies and other stakeholders including, but
not limited to, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Professional
Regulation Commission (PRC), the private and public schools associations, the national
student organizations, the national teacher organizations, the parents-teachers associations
and the chambers of commerce on matters affecting the concerned stakeholders.
The DepED shall adhere to the following standards and principles in developing the
enhanced basic education curriculum:
(a) The curriculum shall be learner-centered, inclusive and developmentally appropriate;
(b) The curriculum shall be relevant, responsive and research-based;
(c) The curriculum shall be culture-sensitive;
(d) The curriculum shall be contextualized and global;
(e) The curriculum shall use pedagogical approaches that are constructivist, inquiry-based,
reflective, collaborative and integrative;
(f) The curriculum shall adhere to the principles and framework of Mother Tongue-Based
Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) which starts from where the learners are and from what
they already knew proceeding from the known to the unknown; instructional materials and
capable teachers to implement the MTB-MLE curriculum shall be available;
(g) The curriculum shall use the spiral progression approach to ensure mastery of knowledge
and skills after each level; and
(h) The curriculum shall be flexible enough to enable and allow schools to localize,
indigenize and enhance the same based on their respective educational and social contexts.
The production and development of locally produced teaching materials shall be encouraged,
and approval of these materials shall devolve to the regional and division education units.
SEC. 6. Curriculum Consultative Committee. — There shall be created a curriculum
consultative committee chaired by the DepED Secretary or his/her duly authorized
representative and with members composed of, but not limited to, a representative each from
the CHED, the TESDA, the DOLE, the PRC, the Department of Science and Technology
(DOST), and a representative from the business chambers such as the Information
Technology – Business Process Outsourcing (IT-BPO) industry association. The consultative
150 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
committee shall oversee the review and evaluation on the implementation of the basic
education curriculum and may recommend to the DepED the formulation of necessary
refinements in the curriculum.
SEC. 7. Teacher Education and Training. — To ensure that the enhanced basic education
program meets the demand for quality teachers and school leaders, the DepED and the
CHED, in collaboration with relevant partners in government, academe, industry, and
nongovernmental organizations, shall conduct teacher education and training programs, as
specified:
(a) In-service Training on Content and Pedagogy — Current DepED teachers shall be
retrained to meet the content and performance standards of the new K to 12 curriculum.
The DepED shall ensure that private education institutions shall be given the opportunity to
avail of such training.
(b) Training of New Teachers. — New graduates of the current Teacher Education
curriculum shall undergo additional training, upon hiring, to upgrade their skills to the
content standards of the new curriculum. Furthermore, the CHED, in coordination with the
DepED and relevant stakeholders, shall ensure that the Teacher Education curriculum offered
in these Teacher Education Institutes (TEIs) will meet necessary quality standards for new
teachers. Duly recognized organizations acting as TEIs, in coordination with the DepED, the
CHED, and other relevant stakeholders, shall ensure that the curriculum of these
organizations meet the necessary quality standards for trained teachers.
(c) Training of School Leadership. — Superintendents, principals, subject area coordinators
and other instructional school leaders shall likewise undergo workshops and training to
enhance their skills on their role as academic, administrative and community leaders.
Henceforth, such professional development programs as those stated above shall be initiated
and conducted regularly throughout the school year to ensure constant upgrading of teacher
skills.
SEC. 8. Hiring of Graduates of Science, Mathematics, Statistics, Engineering and Other
Specialists in Subjects With a Shortage of Qualified Applicants, Technical-Vocational
Courses and Higher Education Institution Faculty. — Notwithstanding the provisions of
Sections 26, 27 and 28 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as the “Philippine
Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994”, the DepED and private education institutions
shall hire, as may be relevant to the particular subject:
(a) Graduates of science, mathematics, statistics, engineering, music and other degree courses
with shortages in qualified Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) applicants to teach in
their specialized subjects in the elementary and secondary education. Qualified LET
applicants shall also include graduates admitted by foundations duly recognized for their
expertise in the education sector and who satisfactorily complete the requirements set by
these organizations: Provided, That they pass the LET within five (5) years after their date of
hiring: Provided, further, That if such graduates are willing to teach on part-time basis, the
provisions of LET shall no longer be required;
(b) Graduates of technical-vocational courses to teach in their specialized subjects in the
secondary education: Provided, That these graduates possess the necessary certification
issued by the TESDA: Provided, further, That they undergo appropriate in-service training to
be administered by the DepED or higher education institutions (HEIs) at the expense of the
DepED;
151 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
(c) Faculty of HEIs be allowed to teach in their general education or subject specialties in the
secondary education: Provided, That the faculty must be a holder of a relevant Bachelor’s
degree, and must have satisfactorily served as a full-time HEI faculty;
(d) The DepED and private education institutions may hire practitioners, with expertise in the
specialized learning areas offered by the Basic Education Curriculum, to teach in the
secondary level; Provided, That they teach on part-time basis only. For this purpose, the
DepED, in coordination with the appropriate government agencies, shall determine the
necessary qualification standards in hiring these experts.
SEC. 9. Career Guidance and Counselling Advocacy. — To properly guide the students in
choosing the career tracks that they intend to pursue, the DepED, in coordination with the
DOLE, the TESDA and the CHED, shall regularly conduct career advocacy activities for
secondary level students. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 27 of Republic Act No.
9258, otherwise known as the “Guidance and Counselling Act of 2004”, career and
employment guidance counsellors, who are not registered and licensed guidance counsellors,
shall be allowed to conduct career advocacy activities to secondary level students of the
school where they are currently employed; Provided, That they undergo a training program to
be developed or accredited by the DepED.
SEC. 10. Expansion of E-GASTPE Beneficiaries. — The benefits accorded by Republic Act
No. 8545, or the “Expanded Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private
Education Act”, shall be extended to qualified students enrolled under the enhanced basic
education.
The DepED shall engage the services of private education institutions and non-DepED
schools offering senior high school through the programs under Republic Act No. 8545, and
other financial arrangements formulated by the DepEd, and the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) based on the principles of public-private partnership.
SEC. 11. Appropriations. — The Secretary of Education shall include in the Department’s
program the operationalization of the enhanced basic education program, the initial funding
of which shall be charged against the current appropriations of the DepEd. Thereafter, the
amount necessary for the continued implementation of the enhanced basic education program
shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.
SEC. 12. Transitory Provisions. — The DepEd, the CHED and the TESDA shall formulate
the appropriate strategies and mechanisms needed to ensure smooth transition from the
existing ten (10) years basic education cycle to the enhanced basic education (K to 12) cycle.
The strategies may cover changes in physical infrastructure, manpower, organizational and
structural concerns, bridging models linking grade 10 competencies and the entry
requirements of new tertiary curricula, and partnerships between the government and other
entities. Modeling for senior high school may be implemented in selected schools to simulate
the transition process and provide concrete data for the transition plan.
To manage the initial implementation of the enhanced basic education program and mitigate
the expected multi-year low enrolment turnout for HEIs and Technical Vocational
Institutions (TVIs) starting School Year 2016-2017, the DepEd shall engage in partnerships
with HEIs and TVIs for the utilization of the latter’s human and physical resources.
Moreover, the DepEd, the CHED, the TESDA, the TVIs and the HEIs shall coordinate
closely with one another to implement strategies that ensure the academic, physical,
financial, and human resource capabilities of HEIs and TVIs to provide educational and
152 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
training services for graduates of the enhanced basic education program to ensure that they
are not adversely affected. The faculty of HEIs and TVIs allowed to teach students of
secondary education under Section 8 hereof, shall be given priority in hiring for the duration
of the transition period. For this purpose, the transition period shall be provided for in the
implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
SEC. 13. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on the Enhanced Basic Educational
Program (K to 12 Program). — There is hereby created a Joint Oversight Committee to
oversee, monitor and evaluate the implementation of this Act.
The Oversight Committee shall be composed of five (5) members each from the Senate and
from the House of Representatives, including Chairs of the Committees on Education, Arts
and Culture, and Finance of both Houses. The membership of the Committee for every
House shall have at least two (2) opposition or minority members.
SEC. 14. Mandatory Evaluation and Review. — By the end of School Year 2014-2015, the
DepEd shall conduct a mandatory review and submit a midterm report to Congress as to the
status of implementation of the K to 12 program in terms of closing the following current
shortages: (a) teachers; (b) classrooms; (c) textbooks; (d) seats; (e) toilets; and (f) other
shortages that should be addressed.
The DepEd shall include among others, in this midterm report, the following key metrics of
access to and quality of basic education: (a) participation rate; (b) retention rate; (c) National
Achievement Test results; (d) completion rate; (e) teachers’ welfare and training profiles; (f)
adequacy of funding requirements; and (g) other learning facilities including, but not limited
to, computer and science laboratories, libraries and library hubs, and sports, music and arts.
SEC. 15. Commitment to International Benchmarks. — The DepEd shall endeavor to
increase the per capita spending on education towards the immediate attainment of
international benchmarks.
SEC. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — Within ninety (90) days after the
effectivity of this Act, the DepEd Secretary, the CHED Chairperson and the TESDA
Director-General shall promulgate the rules and regulations needed for the implementation of
this Act.
SEC. 17. Separability Clause. — If any provision of this Act is held invalid or
unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity and effectivity of the other provisions
hereof.
SEC. 18. Repealing Clause. — Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 or the
“Education Act of 1982”, Republic Act No. 9155 or the “Governance of Basic Education.
Act of 2001″, Republic Act No. 9258, Republic Act No. 7836, and all other laws, decrees,
executive orders and rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 19. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
153 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
APPENDIX C
Research Instrument
To the Respondent:
Hi! I am Ma. Corazon A. Borja, a doctoral student of Marinduque State College –

Graduate School who is currently working on my dissertation entitled “Curriculum Planning
and Implementation Strategies of Basic Education in the Division of MARINDUQUE: A
Basis for a Strategic Curriculum Model”. This undertaking is a requirement for the Degree of
Doctor of Education, major in Curriculum Development and Management.
154 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
I earnestly request your cooperation and support by answering completely and

honestly this questionnaire. Rest assured that the information that will be given through this
tool will be utilized for research purposes and will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
For your queries regarding this research, please contact me via my email address
coryborj@yahoo.com or my contact number +639064413747.
Thank you for your time and effort.
Very truly Yours,
MA. CORAZON ADATO BORJA
APPROVED
DR. JULIETA Q. NABOS

Adviser/Dean of School of Advanced Education
RESPONDENT’S CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY
I give my consent to the researcher for me to participate in this study subject to

the following conditions:
1. I was informed of the purpose of the study;
2. Information that will be gathered here will be treated with utmost
confidentiality;
3. Results and Discussion of the findings of this research will be treated with
accuracy and without bias; and
4. The welfare of the subject will be a priority of the researcher
Signature
__________________
Date
Part 1: Respondent’s Profile

NAME: (optional)
Email Address
Position
( ) Teacher 1-3 ( ) TIC
( ) Master teacher 1-3 ( ) Head teacher 1-6
155 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
( ) Principal 1-IV
Name of school:
Type of School: ( ) Small ( ) Large
( ) Medium ( ) Very Large
Level of School ( ) Elementary ( ) Secondary

Address of School:
District:
Position of the School Head: ( ) TIC
( ) Head Teacher
( ) Principal 1-IV
PART II: PLANNING & CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

Below are different curriculum planning and implementation strategies. This study aims to
determine the curriculum planning and implementation strategies used in the school. Using
the Likert Scale below, identify the strategies you use and the extent of its utilization by
ticking the appropriate response:
LIKERT SCALE:
5 - Highly Practiced
4 -Moderately Practiced
3 - Slightly Practiced
2 – Poorly Practiced
1- Never Practiced
2.1 CURRICULUM PLANNING STRATEGIES
2.1.1 Process
STRATEGIES BEFORE DURING

PANDEMIC PANDEMIC
5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2
1 1
156 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
1. Our school provides an orientation to

teachers to explain the content of the
curriculum.
2. Our school provides opportunity to discuss

the strategies that will be utilized in
implementing the curriculum.
3. Our school institutes a system for evaluating
strategies to be used in implementing the
curriculum.
4. Our school allows for brainstorming that will
identify the most suitable strategies for the
different learning areas.
5. Our school has systematized the utilization of

strategies by learning areas.
6. The teacher studies thoroughly the content of
the curriculum.
7. The teacher examines the appropriateness of
the competencies included the curriculum.
8. The teacher chooses the appropriate

approach in implementing the curriculum.
9. The teacher plans to demonstrate how a
particular strategy works in translating a
curriculum into lesson
10. The teacher reflects on previous practices to
choose the best strategies.
2.1.2 People

PANDEMIC PANDEMIC
5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2
1 1
1. The School Head and Teachers work together
in planning the teaching strategies that can be
utilized in curriculum implementation.
2. A technical group provides support in the
formulation of strategies for curriculum.
3. A support mechanism is available in school/s

157 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
to help teachers overcome difficulties and

understand the teaching strategies that will be
used.
4. The School Head is readily available to coach
the teachers on the use of strategies for
curriculum implementation.
5. Schools Division Office monitors the teachers
to provide technical assistance in the utilization
of strategies for curriculum implementation
2.1.3 CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT

PANDEMIC PANDEMIC
5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2
1 1
1. Identification and assessment of the needs of
learners.
2. Organization of sessions with other teachers

to strategize on how to transform the curriculum
into a lesson.
3. Examination of the content development of
the curriculum.
4. Analysis of the possible curriculum delivery

and revision.
5. Walkthrough of the curriculum package is
conducted to be familiar with the curriculum
package
2.2. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

2.2.1. Curriculum Delivery
PANDEMIC PANDEMIC
5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2
1 1
1. Knowledge of content across and within

curriculum content areas is applied.
.
158 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
2. Classroom activities are contextualized.

3. The lessons are adapted to the belief,
practices and tradition of the
community/environment
4. Differentiated instructions are provided to
diverse learners.
5. Competencies are anchored on the

curriculum/MELCs
2.2.2 Classroom Management

PANDEMIC PANDEMIC
5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2
1 1
1. Easy access to resource materials is provided
2. The students are immersed to the lesson

using
audio visual materials and pictures.
3. Adjustments are made to accommodate the
difficulties of the students.
4. Record keeping and feedbacking is
conducted.
5. Resources that can be used in delivering the
lesson are systematically organized.
2.2.3 Teaching Strategy

STATEMENTS BEFORE DURING
PANDEMIC PANDEMIC
5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2
1 1
1. Positive feedbacks are provided to students
2. Equal opportunities are provided to all
students
3. Games, organizers and interesting activities
are used by the teacher
4. Learner creativity is enhanced through
different activities.
5. Coherent lesson presentation is given by the
teacher.
6. Goals and targets appropriate to their ages,
interest and levels of development are planned.
7. Familiar situations is used in expounding on
159 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
the lesson
8. Activities which are practical and manageable
are included in the lesson.
9. Tasks are broken into simple steps to facilitate
learning.
10. Various media are used extensively.
2.2.4 Climate
PANDEMIC PANDEMIC
5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2
1 1
1. The situation of the children is observed,
and lessons are adjusted to their needs.
2. Manageable classroom climate are created
3. Learner enthusiasm is raised through varied
tasks
4. Relaxed atmosphere is created for children’s
comfort
5. Discussions are made enjoyable.
PART III. SCHOOL PERFORMANCE(to be answered by the School Head)
Level of Performance
DATA SY 2019-2020 SY 2020-2021

GSA
PART IV: Comments and suggestions on curriculum planning and implementation strategies
that are currently practiced in school.
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your time and cooperation!
160 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Appendix D
ADMINISTRATIVE LETTERS
October 9, 2021,
DR. ELSIE T. BARRIOS

SCHOOLS DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT
SCHOOLS DIVISION OF MARINDUQUE
MADAM:
Greetings of Good health!

I am Ma. Corazon A. Borja, a doctoral student enrolled at the Doctoral Degree in Education, Major in
Curriculum Development in the School of Graduate Education and Professional Studies and Management at the
MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE (MSC). I am currently working on a doctoral research entitled
“Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies in Basic Education Of Marinduque: A Basis For A
Strategic Curriculum Implementation Model”. A research instrument will be used in the said research.
In view with this, I would like to ask permission to field test my research instrument in one of the
secondary schools in Boac particularly at Marinduque National High School. This school is one of the
respondent schools but since it has the biggest number of teachers, it will still be feasible to conduct the field
testing of the instrument.
I would like to reassure you that whatever result of this research will be used for the benefit of the
educational institutions. I have attached here the research instrument for your reference.
I am looking forward that my request would merit your positive response
Thank you and God bless.
RESPECTFULLY yours,

RESEARCHER
Recommending Approval:
161 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
VALIDATION SHEET
Name of Validator: DR. AQUILINA S. RIVAS
Degree: Doctor of Education major in Educational Administration
Position: Schools Division Superintendent, National Capital Region (ret)
To the evaluator: Please check the appropriate box for your ratings.
Scale: 5 Excellent 4- Very Good 3 -Good 2 -Fair 1- Poor
5 4 3 2 1
1. Clarity and Specificity of Directions /
 The vocabulary level, language, structure
and concepts are within the level of the
respondents.
 The directions for each part is clear and
simple enough to be understood by the
respondents.
2. Presentation and Organization /
 The statements are presented logically and in
an organized manner.
 The flow of concepts is logically presented.
3. Adequateness of the Content /
 The subtopics and statements appropriately
presented the substance of the research.
 The statements are designed to determine
the
Idea needed in the research instrument.
4. Attainment of the Purpose /

 The instrument as a whole fulfills the
objectives of the research.
5. Objective
 Each statement in the research requires
specific response that measures only one
behavior, and no aspect of the research is
biased or leading to an idea
6. Suitability of Concepts and Statements /

 The language used for each statement is
comprehensible to the respondents
162 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
 Ideas are within the level of the respondents

7. Scale and Evaluation Rating /
 The scale adapted is appropriate.
 The scale used measures the expected
response of the respondents.
Total Score 5
Comment:
The questionnaire should be revised after pre testing to a sample group.
_______________________
DR. AQUILINA SIENA RIVAS
Certificate of Validation
This is to certify that I have thoroughly evaluated the research instrument to be used in the
research entitled “Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies in Basic
Education of Marinduque: A Basis for a Strategic Curriculum Implementation Model”.
This certification is issued for validation purposes of the research instrument. Issued on the
10th day of October, 2021.
________________________
Dr. Aquilina Siena Rivas
163 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Request Letter for Tool Validation
October 9, 2021
DR. LIZA MARIE MANOOS,

PROFESSOR
MADAM:
I am MA. CORAZON A. BORJA, a doctoral student enrolled at the Doctoral Degree in

Education, Major in Curriculum Development in the School of Graduate Education and
Professional Studies and Management at the MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE (MSC).
I am currently working on a doctoral research entitled “Curriculum Planning and
Implementation Strategies In Basic Education Of Marinduque: A Basis For A Strategic
Curriculum Implementation Model”. A RESEARCH INSTRUMENT will be used in the
said research.
In view with this, the researcher would like your expertise to validate the attached self-made
research instrument. Knowing your experience in the field of research and education, I would
like to ask for your help in validating the said instrument before administering it to the
participants of this study.
I have attached here the validation sheet, research instrument and statement of the problem of
the study. I will be glad to hear your suggestions and comments for the improvement of the
instrument.
I am looking forward that my request would merit your positive response. Your positive
response is highly appreciated.
Thank you and God bless.
Very truly yours,

RESEARCHER
APPROVED
DR. JULIETA Q NABOS

DEAN, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED EDUCATION
164 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
VALIDATION SHEET
Name of Validator: DR. LIZA MARIE M. MANOOS

Degree: Doctor of Education major
Position: Marinduque state College Professor
5 4 3 2 1
1. Clarity and Specificity of Directions /
respondents.
respondents.
2. Presentation and Organization /
3. Adequateness of the Content /
the
4. Attainment of the Purpose /

5. Objective
6. Suitability of Concepts and Statements /

165 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL

7. Scale and Evaluation Rating /
Total Score
Comments and Suggestions

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________
_______________________
DR. LIZA MARIE M. MANOOS
research entitled Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies in Basic
Education of Marinduque: A Basis for a Strategic Curriculum Implementation Model.
_______________________________
DR. LIZA MARIE M. MANOOS
166 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
VALIDATION SHEET
Name of Validator: DR. ROGEL LIMPIADA

Degree: Doctor of Education
Position: College Professor, Enverga University
5 4 3 2 1
1. Clarity and Specificity of Directions
respondents.
respondents.
2. Presentation and Organization
3. Adequateness of the Content
the
4. Attainment of the Purpose

5. Objective
167 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
6. Suitability of Concepts and Statements

7. Scale and Evaluation Rating
Total Score 3.14
Comments and Suggestions
This study is very timely and will cater to the need of the time. Good luck to the
researcher. I have inserted my comments in the questionnaire above, and humbly
suggested some modifications in the SOP. The suggestions that I made will
enable the instrument to gather data suited to the statistical tools to be used such
as frequency count and percentage for the school profile, mean and general mean
for the curriculum planning and implementation strategies, Kruskal-Wallis-H-Test
for the significant differences and Spearman Rho for the Correlation part.
Instrument should be two-sided, to show the assessment of BEFORE and
DURING. Phrasing of questions should consider the context of the respondents.
It could begin with Our school…
_______________________
Signature of Validator
research entitled Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies in Basic
Education of Marinduque: A Basis for a Strategic Curriculum Implementation Model.
168 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
_____________________
Dr. Rogel L. Limpiada
APPENDIX E: RESULT OF STATISTICAL TREATMENT AND ANALYSIS
2. What are the curriculum planning and implementation strategies adopted by public schools
in Basic Education before and during the adoption of Modular Learning Modality based on
the school profile?
Table 6. Curriculum and Implementation Strategies adopted by Public Schools in Basic
Education Before and During Pandemic: Process
BEFORE PANDEMIC DURING PANDEMIC

STRATEGIES Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
Interpretation Interpretation
1. Our school provides an
orientation to teachers to Highly
4.51 4.29 Highly Practiced
explain the content of the Practiced
curriculum.
2. Our school provides
opportunity to discuss the
Highly
strategies that will be utilized 4.44 4.22 Highly Practiced
Practiced
in implementing the
curriculum.
3. Our school institutes a
system for evaluating Highly Moderately
4.33 4.11
strategies to be used in Practiced Practiced
4. Our school allows for
brainstorming that will
Highly Moderately
identify the most suitable 4.38 4.18
Practiced Practiced
strategies for the different
learning areas.
5. Our school has
systematized the utilization Highly Moderately
4.34 4.14
of strategies by learning Practiced Practiced
areas.
6. The teacher studies
Highly
thoroughly the content of the 4.46 4.25 Highly Practiced
Practiced
curriculum.
7. The teacher examines the 4.46 Highly 4.26 Highly Practiced
appropriateness of the Practiced
competencies included the
169 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
curriculum.
8. The teacher chooses the
Highly
appropriate approach in 4.42 4.22 Highly Practiced
Practiced
9. The teacher plans to
demonstrate how a
Highly Moderately
particular strategy works in 4.32 4.12
Practiced Practiced
translating a curriculum into
lesson
10. The teacher reflects on
Highly Moderately
previous practices to choose 4.42 4.12
Practiced Practiced
the best strategies.
Total Mean Highly Moderately
4.41 4.19
Practiced Practiced
Legend: 1.00 – 1.80 Never Practiced 1.81 – 2.60 Poorly Practiced 2.61 – 3.40 Slightly Practiced
3.41 – 4.20 Moderately Practiced 4.21 – 5.00 Highly Practiced
2.1.2 People

1. The School Head and
Teachers work together in
planning the teaching Highly
strategies that can be Practiced
utilized in curriculum
implementation.
2. A technical group
provides support in the Highly Moderately
4.22 4.06
formulation of strategies for Practiced Practiced
curriculum.
3. A support mechanism is
available in school/s to help
teachers overcome Highly Moderately
4.25 4.09
difficulties and understand Practiced Practiced
the teaching strategies that
will be used.
4. The School Head is
readily available to coach
Highly Moderately
the teachers on the use of 4.42 4.17
Practiced Practiced
strategies for curriculum
implementation.
170 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
5. Schools Division Office

monitors the teachers to
provide technical assistance Highly Moderately
4.33 4.13
in the utilization of strategies Practiced Practiced
for curriculum
implementation
4.31 4.13
Practiced Practiced
2.1.3 CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT

1. Identification and
Highly Moderately
assessment of the needs of 4.39 4.17
Practiced Practiced
learners.
2. Organization of sessions
with other teachers to
Highly Moderately
strategize on how to 4.33 4.12
Practiced Practiced
transform the curriculum into
a lesson.
3. Examination of the
Highly Moderately
content development of the 4.33 4.15
Practiced Practiced
curriculum.
4. Analysis of the possible
Highly Moderately
curriculum delivery and 4.30 4.12
Practiced Practiced
revision.
5. Walkthrough of the
curriculum package is Highly Moderately
4.36 4.00
conducted to be familiar with Practiced Practiced
the curriculum package
4.34 4.11
Practiced Practiced
171 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
2.2. CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

2.2.1 Curriculum Delivery
1. Knowledge of content
Highly
across and within curriculum 4.50 4.24 Highly Practiced
Practiced
content areas is applied.
2. Classroom activities are Highly Moderately
4.42 4.11
contextualized. Practiced Practiced
3. The lessons are adapted
to the belief, practices and Highly Moderately
4.43 4.16
tradition of the Practiced Practiced
community/environment
4. Differentiated
Highly Moderately
instructions are provided to 4.45 4.08
Practiced Practiced
diverse learners.
5. Competencies are
Highly
anchored on the 4.57 4.40 Highly Practiced
Practiced
curriculum/MELCs
4.47 4.20
Practiced Practiced
2.2.2 Classroom Management

1. Easy access to resource Highly Moderately
4.42 4.02
materials is provided Practiced Practiced
2. The students are
immersed to the lesson Highly Moderately
4.27 3.91
using audio visual materials Practiced Practiced
and pictures.
3. Adjustments are made to
Highly Moderately
accommodate the difficulties 4.39 4.16
Practiced Practiced
of the students.
4. Record keeping and Highly
feedbacking is conducted. Practiced
5. Resources that can be 4.42 Highly 4.16 Moderately
used in delivering the lesson Practiced Practiced
are systematically
172 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
organized.
4.40 4.16
Practiced Practiced
2.2.3 Teaching Strategy

Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
STRATEGIES
Interpretatio Interpretation
n
1. Positive feedbacks are Highly
provided to students 4.56 4.31 Highly Practiced
Practiced
2. Equal opportunities are Highly
provided to all students Practiced
3. Games, organizers and
Highly Moderately
interesting activities are 4.47 3.80
Practiced Practiced
used by the teacher
4. Learner creativity is
Highly Moderately
enhanced through different 4.46 4.02
Practiced Practiced
activities.
5. Coherent lesson
Highly Moderately
presentation is given by the 4.42 4.03
Practiced Practiced
teacher.
6. Goals and targets
appropriate to their ages, Highly Moderately
4.44 4.17
interest and levels of Practiced Practiced
development are planned.
7. Familiar situations is used Highly Moderately
4.41 4.15
in expounding on the lesson Practiced Practiced
8. Activities which are
Highly Moderately
practical and manageable 4.42 4.08
Practiced Practiced
are included in the lesson.
9. Tasks are broken into
Highly Moderately
simple steps to facilitate 4.42 4.12
Practiced Practiced
learning.
10. Various media are used Highly
extensively. 4.25 4.21 Highly Practiced
Practiced
4.44 4.12
Practiced Practiced
173 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
2.2.4 Climate
1. The situation of the
children is observed, and Highly Moderately
4.52 4.13
lessons are adjusted to their Practiced Practiced
needs.
2. Manageable classroom Highly Moderately
4.46 3.88
climate are created Practiced Practiced
3. Learner enthusiasm is Highly Moderately
4.43 4.01
raised through varied tasks Practiced Practiced
4. Relaxed atmosphere is
Highly Moderately
created for children’s 4.44 3.89
Practiced Practiced
comfort
5. Discussions are made Highly Moderately
4.53 3.73
enjoyable. Practiced Practiced
4.48 3.93
Practiced Practiced
3. Is there significant difference in curriculum planning and implementation strategies of

public schools in Basic Education when grouped according to school profile?
School Profile Curriculum Planning p-value Verbal
Interpretation
Before Pandemic 0.383 Not Significant
Position
During Pandemic 0.652 Not Significant
Type of School
School Level
District
School Head Before Pandemic 0.921 Not Significant
Position During Pandemic 0.934 Not Significant
School Profile Implementation p-value Verbal

Strategies Interpretation
Position Before Pandemic 0.612 Not Significant
174 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL

Type of School
School Level
District
During Pandemic 0.004 Significant
School Head Before Pandemic 0.153 Not Significant
Position During Pandemic 0.709 Not Significant
4. What is the level of school performance before and during the implementation of Modular
Distance Modality when grouped according to profile?

Position Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
Teacher 1-3 3.24 Satisfactory 3.23 Satisfactory
Master Teacher 1-3 3.05 Satisfactory 3.18 Satisfactory
Head Teacher 1-3 3.28 Satisfactory 3.00 Satisfactory
Principal 1-4 3.25 Satisfactory 3.17 Satisfactory

Type of School Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
Small 3.24 Satisfactory 3.19 Satisfactory
Medium 3.20 Satisfactory 3.17 Satisfactory
Large 3.18 Satisfactory 3.25 Satisfactory
Very large 3.37 Satisfactory 3.62 Satisfactory

School Level Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
School Head Position BEFORE PANDEMIC DURING PANDEMIC

Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
175 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Head Teacher 3.24 Satisfactory 3.08 Satisfactory
Principal I-IV 3.22 Satisfactory 3.23 Satisfactory

Position Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
Boac SD 3.33 Satisfactory 3.00 Satisfactory
Boac ND 3.23 Satisfactory 3.20 Satisfactory
Gasan 3.17 Satisfactory 3.34 Satisfactory
Mogpog 3.30 Satisfactory 3.35 Satisfactory
Sta. Cruz SD 3.12 Satisfactory 2.68 Satisfactory
Sta. Cruz ND 3.20 Satisfactory 3.33 Satisfactory
Sta. Cruz ED 3.06 Satisfactory 3.13 Satisfactory
Buenavista 3.31 Satisfactory 3.37 Satisfactory
Torrijos 3.25 Satisfactory 3.25 Satisfactory
5. Is there a significant difference between the school performance during the face-to-face
Modality and Modular Learning Modality when grouped according to school profile?
School Profile Implementation p-value Verbal

Strategies Interpretation
GSA 2019-2020 .491 Not Significant
Position
Type of School
School Level
GSA 2019-2020 .000 Significant
District
GSA 2020-2021 .000 Significant
School Head GSA 2019-2020 .239 Not Significant
Position GSA 2020-2021 .980 Not Significant
176 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
6. Is there a significant relationship between curriculum planning and implementation
strategies and school performance before and during the implementation of Modular
Distance Modality?
Correlations
curriculum implementation
planning strategies
curriculum planning Pearson Correlation 1 .152
Sig. (2-tailed) .325
N 44 44
implementation Pearson Correlation .152 1
strategies Sig. (2-tailed) .325
N 44 44
Correlation p-value Verbal Interpretation

curriculum planning and
implementation .325 Not Significant
strategies
Correlations
GSA Before GSA During
Pandemic Pandemic
GSA Before Pearson Correlation 1 .383**
Pandemic Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 229 229
GSA During Pearson Correlation .383** 1
Pandemic Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 229 229
Correlation p-value Verbal Interpretation

GSA before pandemic .000 Significant
and GSA during
177 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
pandemic
2. Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies Before and During Adoption

of Modular Learning Modality based on Profile- School Level
Curriculum Planning and Before the Adoption of Modular During the Adoption of Modular
Implementation Strategies Learning Modality Learning Modality
Before and During Adoption Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary
of Modular Learning Modality Level Level Level Level
Mean AE Mean AE Mean AE Mean AE
A. Process 4.45 4.34 4.20 4.19
B. People 4.36 4.23 4.12 4.17
C. Curriculum Assessment 4.41 4.22 4.10 4.14
D. Curriculum Delivery 4.50 4.45 4.19 4.22
D. Curriculum Management 4.42 4.37 4.11 4.13
E. Teaching Strategy 4.47 4.41 4.10 4.16
F. School Climate 4.49 4.46 3.92 MP 3.96 MP
Legend:
1.00-1.80 Never Practiced (NP) 1.81-2.60 Poorly Practiced (PP) 2.61-3.40 Slightly Practiced
(SP) 3.41-4.20 Moderately Practiced (MP) 4.21-5.00 Highly Practiced (HP)
2.2 Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies Before and During Adoption
of Modular Learning Modality based on Profile- School Size
Curriculum Planning and Before the Adoption of Modular During the Adoption of Modular
Implementation Learning Modality Learning Modality
Strategies Before and Small Medium Large Extra Small Medium Large Extra
During Adoption of Large Large
Modular Learning Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Modality AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE
A. Process 4.43 4.39 4.34 4.48 4.19 4.21 4.16 4.48
B. People 4.34 4.27 4.29 4.28 4.13 4.14 4.13 4.38
C. Curriculum 4.37 4.31 4.28 4.40 4.12 4.10 4.04 4.48
Assessment
D. Curriculum Delivery 4.50 4.45 4.42 4.62 4.20 4.20 4.22 4.40
D. Curriculum 4.42 4.37 4.30 4.60 4.11 4.15 4.01 4.40
Management
E. Teaching Strategy 4.47 4.40 4.37 4.55 4.12 4.12 4.09 4.33
F. School Climate 4.50 4.44 4.48 4.56 3.94 3.96 3.77 4.02
178 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
2.3 Curriculum Planning and Implementation Strategies Before and During Adoption
of Modular Learning Modality based on Profile- School Head (Plantilla
Position/Designation)
Curriculum Before the Adoption of Modular During the Adoption of Modular Learning
Planning and Learning Modality Modality
Implementation
Strategies
Before and Principals Head Teacher Principals Head Teacher In-
During Adoption Teachers In- Teachers Charge
of Modular Charge
Learning Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Modality AE AE AE AE AE AE
A. Process 4.46 4.38 4.41 4.21 4.15 4.21
B. People 4.44 4.30 4.24 4.10 4.10 4.18
C. Curriculum 4.41 4.32 4.33 4.11 4.06 4.15
Assessment
D. Curriculum 4.54 4.45 4.46 4.22 4.17 4.21
Delivery
D. Curriculum 4.47 4.37 4.38 4.06 4.09 4.17
Management
E. Teaching 4.48 4.43 4.43 4.06 4.09 4.18
Strategy
F. School 4.53 4.46 4.46 3.85 3.91 4.00
Climate
3. Is there a significant difference in the practice of strategies before and during the
adoption of Distance Learning Modality by school profile based on the following:
3.1 process;
3.2 people;
3.7 climate?
3.1 practice of strategies before and during the adoption of Distance Learning
Modality based on Process
School Level of Practice of Curriculum Planning and Implementation
Profile Strategies Before and During Adoption of Modular Learning
Modality in terms of PROCESS
P-Value - Verbal P-Value Verbal
Before Interpretation During Interpretation
A. Level 0.949 Not Significant 0.698 Not

179 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Significant
B. Size 0.763 Not Significant 0.511 Not
Significant
C. School 0.153 Not Significant 0.709 Not
Head Significant
<0.05 Significant** > 0.05 Not Significant *
Modality based on People
Modality in terms of People

Significant
Significant
Head Significant
Modality based on Curriculum Assessment
School Profile Level of Practice of Curriculum Planning and Implementation
Strategies Before and During Adoption of Modular Learning
Modality in terms of Curriculum Assessment

Significant
Significant
Head Significant
Modality based Curriculum Delivery
180 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Modality in terms of Curriculum Delivery


Significant
Significant
Head Significant
Modality based Classroom Management
Modality in terms of Classroom management

Significant
Significant
Head Significant
Modality based Teaching Strategy
Modality in terms of Teaching Strategy

Significant
Significant
Head Significant
181 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Modality based Climate
Modality in terms of Climate

Significant
Significant
Head Significant
4. What is the performance of school by profile before and during the adoption of
Distance Learning Modality?
4.1
School Profile – Before Adoption of DLM During Adoption of DLM
Level
GSA Performance Mean Performanc
Level e Level
Total Mean
Legend: 74 below Poor (P) 75-79 Fairly Satisfactory (FS) 80-85 Satisfactory (S)
86-90 Very Satisfactory 91-100 Outstanding
4.2
School Profile – Size Before Adoption of DLM During Adoption of DLM
Mean Performance Mean Performance
Level Level
Small 4.42 HP 4.13 MP
Medium 4.41 HP 4.12 MP
Large 4.42 HP 4.12 MP
Very Large 4.35 HP 4.20 MP
Total Mean 4.40 HP 4.14 MP
Legend:
182 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
4.3
School Profile – Before Adoption of DLM During Adoption of DLM
School Heads Mean Performance Mean Performanc
Level e Level
Principal 4.39 HP 4.17 MP
Head Teacher 4.39 HP 4.09 MP
Teacher In-Charge 4.47 HP 4.10 MP
Total Mean 4.42 HP 4.12 MP
Legend:
5. Is there a significant difference in the performance level of schools by profile

before and during MDL
Category Before S.Y 2019-2020 versus
A. Level
Elementary 0.874 Not significant
Secondary 0.383 Not significant
There is no significant difference between the performance level of school before

and during MDL by school level.
B. Size Before S.Y 2019-2020 versus
Small 0.775 Not significant
Medium 0.081 Not significant
Large 0.462 Not significant
Very Large 0.446 Not significant

and during MDL by school size.
C. School Head Before S.Y 2019-2020

versus
Principal 0.972 Not significant
Head Teacher 0.737 Not significant
Teacher In- 0.919 Not significant
Charge
and during MDL by school head.
183 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Correlation of Performance of Schools and Implementation of Strategies

Before and During the Adoption of Modular Learning Modality according to
School Size and Level
School Size Before Modular Learning During Modular Learning
Modality Modality
r Interpretation r Interpretation
Small 0.085 No correlation 0.046 No correlation
Medium 0.139 No correlation 0.087 No correlation
Large 0.021 No correlation -0.432 Low Negative
Correlation
Correlation of Performance of Schools and Implementation of Strategies

Before and During the Adoption of Modular Learning Modality according to
School Level
School Level Before Modular Learning During Modular Learning
Modality Modality
r Interpretation r Interpretation
Elementary 0.067 No correlation 0.024 No correlation
Secondary 0.095 No correlation 0.063 No correlation
APPENDIX F
184 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
RESULT OF CRONBACH TEST
Correlation Matrix
1. Our school pr 1. Our school pr 2. Our school pr 2. Our school pr
1. Our school pr -0.008
2. Our school pr 0.421 -0.053
2. Our school pr 0.407 0.554 0.025
3. Our school in 0.216 0.011 0.490 0.070
3. Our school in 0.010 0.400 -0.120 0.565
4. Our school al 0.325 0.114 0.552 0.036
4. Our school al 0.463 0.531 -0.057 0.711
5. Our school ha 0.795 0.183 0.436 0.475
5. Our school ha 0.320 0.190 0.255 0.293
6. The teacher s 0.492 -0.088 0.522 -0.013
6. The teacher s 0.133 0.204 -0.022 0.234
7. The teacher e 0.561 0.019 0.564 0.124
7. The teacher e 0.230 0.065 0.219 0.080
8. The teacher c 0.546 -0.208 0.531 0.099
8. The teacher c 0.213 0.041 0.109 0.312
9. The teacher p 0.525 0.247 0.296 0.327
9. The teacher p 0.251 0.208 0.301 0.538
10. The teacher 0.234 -0.009 0.458 -0.100
10. The teacher 0.340 0.323 0.304 0.506
1. The School He 0.467 0.329 0.383 0.257
1. The School He 0.017 0.530 -0.028 0.505
2. A technical 0.569 0.177 0.484 0.232
2. A technical 0.241 0.741 0.152 0.544
3. A support mec 0.488 0.265 0.463 0.317
3. A support mec 0.113 0.342 -0.119 0.593
4. The School He 0.704 0.184 0.344 0.301
4. The School He 0.036 0.241 0.077 0.157
5. Schools Divis 0.466 0.247 0.392 0.098
5. Schools Divis 0.112 0.409 -0.046 0.185
1. Identification 0.216 0.028 0.354 0.079
1. Identification -0.148 0.346 0.091 0.231
2. Organization 0.224 0.212 0.141 0.101
2. Organization -0.122 0.482 -0.019 0.399
3. Examination o 0.470 0.065 0.267 0.124
3. Examination o 0.042 0.330 0.089 0.089
4. Analysis of t 0.484 0.227 0.273 0.249
4. Analysis of t -0.081 0.557 0.056 0.284
5. Walkthrough o 0.662 0.171 0.341 0.397
5. Walkthrough o -0.010 0.238 0.017 0.165
1. Knowledge of -0.124 0.088 0.094 -0.058
1. Knowledge of 0.167 0.619 -0.013 0.521
2. Classroom act 0.008 0.202 0.183 -0.053
2. Classroom act 0.262 0.575 0.184 0.549
3. The lessons 0.627 0.094 -0.050 0.538
3. The lessons 0.107 0.309 0.286 0.098
4. Differentia -0.072 0.235 0.119 0.153
4. Differentia 0.291 0.103 0.318 0.146
5. Competencies -0.199 0.094 -0.201 0.000
5. Competencies 0.129 0.443 -0.399 0.512
1. Easy access t 0.023 -0.079 0.103 -0.192
1. Easy access t -0.111 0.606 0.049 0.444
2. The students 0.314 0.000 0.147 -0.000
2. The students 0.247 0.652 0.120 0.595
3. Adjustments a 0.173 0.125 0.300 0.040
3. Adjustments a 0.165 0.304 0.325 0.323
4. Record keeping 0.121 0.157 0.254 -0.065
4. Record keeping -0.031 0.707 0.147 0.320
5. Resources th -0.021 0.055 0.034 -0.158
5. Resources th 0.185 0.022 0.322 0.043
1. Positive feed 0.238 0.082 -0.032 0.121
1. Positive feed 0.106 0.134 0.301 0.467
2. Equal opportu 0.174 -0.024 0.104 0.224
2. Equal opportu 0.307 0.199 0.212 0.474
3. Games, organi -0.202 0.248 -0.066 -0.059
3. Games, organi -0.028 0.453 -0.069 0.337
4. Learner creat 0.060 -0.141 0.057 -0.246
4. Learner creat 0.071 0.064 0.121 0.146
185 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
5. Coherent les -0.015 0.062 0.150 -0.030

5. Coherent les 0.088 0.212 0.117 0.365
6. Goals and ta 0.042 0.082 0.025 -0.124
6. Goals and ta 0.311 0.438 0.255 0.304
7. Familiar situ 0.378 0.055 0.127 0.287
7. Familiar situ 0.361 -0.081 0.319 0.231
8. Activities wh 0.496 0.133 -0.026 0.355
8. Activities wh 0.310 0.442 0.445 0.251
9. Tasks are bro 0.101 0.039 0.060 -0.010
9. Tasks are bro 0.500 0.221 0.064 0.509
10. Various medi 0.187 0.018 -0.209 -0.111
10. Various medi 0.338 0.475 0.095 0.655
1. The situation -0.063 -0.079 0.103 -0.025
1. The situation 0.209 0.416 0.074 0.546
2. Manageable c 0.585 -0.041 -0.044 0.351
2. Manageable c -0.029 0.248 0.265 0.108
3. Learner enthu -0.019 -0.188 0.031 -0.152
3. Learner enthu 0.584 0.352 0.471 0.566
4. Relaxed atmo -0.015 -0.178 -0.048 -0.298
4. Relaxed atmo 0.381 0.342 0.297 0.332
5. Discussions -0.014 -0.087 0.023 -0.166
5. Discussions 0.305 0.058 0.256 0.249
3. Our school in 3. Our school in 4. Our school al 4. Our school al
3. Our school in 0.451
4. Our school al 0.694 -0.005
4. Our school al 0.225 0.499 0.272
5. Our school ha 0.317 0.034 0.556 0.503
5. Our school ha 0.287 0.158 0.272 0.424
6. The teacher s 0.201 -0.066 0.201 -0.002
6. The teacher s 0.052 0.085 0.098 0.322
7. The teacher e 0.510 -0.072 0.648 0.340
7. The teacher e 0.215 -0.085 0.412 0.305
8. The teacher c 0.266 -0.135 0.468 0.111
8. The teacher c 0.157 0.275 0.098 0.129
9. The teacher p -0.046 -0.133 0.138 0.211
9. The teacher p 0.114 0.019 0.295 0.416
10. The teacher 0.180 0.011 0.039 -0.169
10. The teacher 0.079 0.309 0.208 0.252
1. The School He 0.307 -0.070 0.461 0.318
1. The School He 0.271 0.645 0.182 0.606
2. A technical 0.482 -0.014 0.519 0.344
2. A technical 0.219 0.340 0.254 0.652
3. A support mec 0.491 0.256 0.520 0.495
3. A support mec 0.169 0.496 0.199 0.579
4. The School He 0.453 -0.013 0.666 0.447
4. The School He 0.315 0.159 0.521 0.322
5. Schools Divis 0.339 -0.086 0.448 0.211
5. Schools Divis 0.276 0.330 0.273 0.450
1. Identificatio 0.283 0.064 0.085 0.098
1. Identificatio 0.316 0.535 -0.015 0.219
2. Organization 0.407 0.110 0.345 0.292
2. Organization 0.373 0.578 0.237 0.330
3. Examination o 0.273 -0.036 0.362 0.285
3. Examination o 0.366 0.147 0.606 0.258
4. Analysis of t 0.242 0.050 0.356 0.392
4. Analysis of t 0.271 0.423 0.250 0.348
5. Walkthrough o 0.257 0.183 0.155 0.401
5. Walkthrough o 0.392 0.350 0.184 0.208
1. Knowledge of -0.156 -0.202 0.002 0.045
1. Knowledge of -0.115 0.317 -0.050 0.559
2. Classroom act 0.330 -0.087 0.632 0.114
2. Classroom act -0.049 0.328 0.000 0.363
3. The lessons -0.060 0.085 0.080 0.518
3. The lessons 0.370 0.059 0.516 0.236
4. Differentia 0.095 0.144 0.140 0.394
4. Differentia 0.391 0.262 0.186 0.197
5. Competencies 0.120 0.158 0.129 0.241
5. Competencies -0.219 0.363 -0.136 0.745
1. Easy access t 0.382 -0.079 0.411 -0.038
1. Easy access t 0.341 0.721 0.088 0.350
2. The students 0.177 0.018 0.189 0.190
2. The students -0.024 0.347 -0.043 0.427
186 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
3. Adjustments a 0.240 0.202 0.139 0.259

3. Adjustments a 0.390 0.342 0.209 0.480
4. Record keepin 0.341 -0.037 0.570 0.049
4. Record keepin 0.092 0.155 0.115 0.406
5. Resources th 0.401 -0.083 0.621 0.123
5. Resources th 0.615 0.217 0.609 0.277
1. Positive feed -0.057 -0.068 0.044 0.233
1. Positive feed 0.019 0.135 -0.087 0.064
2. Equal opportu 0.186 0.283 0.108 0.296
2. Equal opportu 0.191 0.296 0.017 0.392
3. Games, organi 0.318 0.258 0.298 0.171
3. Games, organi 0.265 0.652 0.121 0.384
4. Learner creat 0.025 -0.044 0.078 -0.079
4. Learner creat 0.076 0.185 0.019 0.363
5. Coherent les 0.219 0.182 0.096 0.129
5. Coherent les 0.042 0.317 -0.008 0.270
6. Goals and ta 0.045 -0.061 0.117 -0.009
6. Goals and ta -0.051 -0.062 0.205 0.282
7. Familiar situ 0.011 0.236 -0.086 0.129
7. Familiar situ 0.194 0.129 0.180 0.219
8. Activities wh 0.189 0.036 0.500 0.487
8. Activities wh 0.229 0.135 0.414 0.335
9. Tasks are bro 0.198 0.032 0.297 0.082
9. Tasks are bro -0.047 -0.012 0.120 0.439
10. Various medi -0.063 -0.230 0.191 0.114
10. Various medi 0.094 0.321 0.319 0.517
1. The situation -0.067 0.125 -0.039 -0.245
1. The situation 0.078 0.529 0.077 0.537
2. Manageable c -0.209 0.011 -0.098 0.306
2. Manageable c 0.405 0.111 0.410 0.383
3. Learner enthu 0.148 0.038 0.144 -0.097
3. Learner enthu 0.263 0.434 0.142 0.564
4. Relaxed atmo 0.000 -0.127 0.077 -0.088
4. Relaxed atmo 0.237 0.286 0.076 0.382
5. Discussions -0.168 -0.141 -0.060 -0.009
5. Discussions 0.344 0.226 0.426 0.507
5. Our school ha 5. Our school ha 6. The teacher s 6. The teacher s
5. Our school ha 0.193
6. The teacher s 0.544 0.325
6. The teacher s 0.248 0.419 0.488
7. The teacher e 0.640 0.230 0.508 0.368
7. The teacher e 0.432 0.268 0.511 0.616
8. The teacher c 0.626 0.375 0.671 0.270
8. The teacher c 0.136 0.370 0.259 0.149
9. The teacher p 0.600 0.354 0.429 0.159
9. The teacher p 0.320 0.416 -0.006 0.172
10. The teacher 0.228 0.193 0.634 0.101
10. The teacher 0.438 0.297 0.393 0.203
1. The School He 0.571 0.601 0.503 0.356
1. The School He 0.128 0.480 -0.079 0.140
2. A technical 0.516 0.541 0.376 0.201
2. A technical 0.346 0.449 0.170 0.321
3. A support mec 0.432 0.562 0.393 0.242
3. A support mec 0.221 0.385 -0.041 0.286
4. The School He 0.753 0.324 0.275 0.034
4. The School He 0.209 0.522 0.058 0.098
5. Schools Divis 0.436 0.638 0.429 0.159
5. Schools Divis 0.072 0.552 -0.008 0.014
1. Identificatio 0.226 0.294 0.340 0.110
1. Identificatio -0.091 -0.006 0.058 0.235
2. Organization 0.369 0.480 0.396 0.350
2. Organization 0.130 0.223 0.129 0.286
3. Examination o 0.556 0.504 0.560 0.368
3. Examination o 0.199 0.025 -0.097 0.065
4. Analysis of t 0.554 0.457 0.334 0.092
4. Analysis of t 0.093 0.178 -0.025 -0.032
5. Walkthrough o 0.477 0.401 0.355 0.012
5. Walkthrough o 0.013 0.542 0.089 0.227
1. Knowledge of 0.035 0.206 0.286 0.314
1. Knowledge of 0.170 0.318 0.018 0.121
2. Classroom act 0.366 0.186 0.258 0.284
2. Classroom act 0.174 0.408 0.172 0.228
187 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
3. The lessons 0.655 0.074 0.123 0.202

3. The lessons 0.294 0.236 0.270 0.382
4. Differentia -0.034 0.248 -0.097 -0.000
4. Differentia 0.281 0.575 0.648 0.317
5. Competencies 0.014 0.185 0.228 0.621
5. Competencies 0.184 0.101 -0.052 0.386
1. Easy access t 0.210 0.066 0.199 0.203
1. Easy access t -0.033 0.154 -0.068 0.096
2. The students 0.334 0.516 0.566 0.365
2. The students 0.243 0.427 0.279 0.372
3. Adjustments a 0.341 0.259 0.513 0.310
3. Adjustments a 0.246 0.360 0.189 0.268
4. Record keepin 0.441 0.145 0.344 0.173
4. Record keepin -0.015 0.335 -0.072 0.258
5. Resources th 0.346 0.015 0.158 0.304
5. Resources th 0.264 0.343 0.300 0.443
1. Positive feed 0.383 0.321 0.589 0.618
1. Positive feed 0.185 0.416 0.244 0.246
2. Equal opportu 0.228 0.296 0.263 0.241
2. Equal opportu 0.347 0.451 0.315 0.230
3. Games, organi 0.188 -0.122 0.162 0.205
3. Games, organi 0.036 0.173 -0.004 0.177
4. Learner creat 0.161 0.152 0.547 0.306
4. Learner creat 0.055 0.480 0.245 0.163
5. Coherent les 0.170 0.037 0.314 0.154
5. Coherent les -0.052 0.318 -0.027 -0.040
6. Goals and ta 0.207 0.269 0.558 0.623
6. Goals and ta 0.217 0.424 0.312 0.474
7. Familiar situ 0.368 0.229 0.511 0.070
7. Familiar situ 0.211 0.443 0.324 0.282
8. Activities wh 0.757 -0.011 0.115 0.116
8. Activities wh 0.348 0.217 0.183 0.049
9. Tasks are bro 0.414 -0.043 0.486 0.267
9. Tasks are bro 0.547 0.384 0.374 0.532
10. Various medi 0.254 0.186 0.258 0.405
10. Various medi 0.508 -0.155 -0.156 -0.094
1. The situation 0.050 0.066 0.494 0.203
1. The situation 0.216 0.434 0.188 0.373
2. Manageable c 0.533 0.113 0.290 0.054
2. Manageable c 0.089 0.490 0.008 0.299
3. Learner enthu 0.123 0.245 0.443 0.335
3. Learner enthu 0.475 0.459 0.315 0.000
4. Relaxed atmo 0.095 0.176 0.517 0.502
4. Relaxed atmo 0.235 0.646 0.283 0.032
5. Discussions -0.007 0.120 0.212 -0.072
5. Discussions 0.423 0.464 0.456 0.469
7. The teacher e 7. The teacher e 8. The teacher c 8. The teacher c
7. The teacher e 0.447
8. The teacher c 0.635 0.302
8. The teacher c 0.276 0.185 0.491
9. The teacher p 0.257 0.168 0.550 0.338
9. The teacher p 0.284 0.258 0.339 0.246
10. The teacher 0.315 0.218 0.516 0.536
10. The teacher 0.138 0.255 0.411 0.470
1. The School He 0.471 0.384 0.540 0.237
1. The School He -0.119 -0.040 0.064 0.088
2. A technical 0.659 0.267 0.445 0.256
2. A technical 0.192 0.516 -0.034 0.151
3. A support mec 0.545 0.421 0.420 0.354
3. A support mec 0.157 0.127 0.238 0.531
4. The School He 0.678 0.316 0.512 0.344
4. The School He 0.029 0.316 0.239 0.224
5. Schools Divis 0.325 0.259 0.333 0.100
5. Schools Divis -0.048 0.179 -0.052 0.100
1. Identificatio 0.186 0.104 0.299 0.110
1. Identificatio 0.075 0.218 -0.240 0.047
2. Organization 0.358 0.320 0.350 0.140
2. Organization 0.092 0.213 -0.022 0.241
3. Examination o 0.375 0.447 0.551 0.184
3. Examination o 0.421 0.331 0.101 0.310
4. Analysis of t 0.300 0.197 0.407 0.147
4. Analysis of t -0.011 0.152 -0.196 0.064
188 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
5. Walkthrough o 0.451 0.230 0.384 0.602

5. Walkthrough o -0.036 0.343 -0.053 0.267
1. Knowledge of 0.107 0.363 0.106 -0.157
1. Knowledge of 0.119 0.012 0.132 0.243
2. Classroom act 0.303 0.467 0.206 -0.081
2. Classroom act 0.086 0.087 0.207 0.381
3. The lessons 0.158 0.283 0.198 0.016
3. The lessons 0.557 0.607 0.397 0.464
4. Differentia 0.028 0.307 -0.089 -0.000
4. Differentia 0.407 0.356 0.486 0.528
5. Competencies 0.317 0.354 0.113 0.109
5. Competencies 0.096 0.346 -0.098 0.154
1. Easy access t 0.177 0.377 0.116 -0.145
1. Easy access t -0.056 0.006 -0.170 0.137
2. The students 0.310 0.364 0.414 0.228
2. The students 0.169 0.117 0.220 0.372
3. Adjustments a 0.129 0.463 0.244 -0.000
3. Adjustments a 0.342 0.357 0.122 0.134
4. Record keepin 0.100 0.556 0.213 -0.147
4. Record keepin 0.094 0.118 -0.267 -0.159
5. Resources th 0.445 0.499 0.205 -0.015
5. Resources th 0.578 0.455 0.262 0.111
1. Positive feed 0.235 0.434 0.369 0.025
1. Positive feed -0.050 0.090 0.205 0.246
2. Equal opportu 0.055 0.177 0.262 0.080
2. Equal opportu 0.280 0.000 0.418 0.378
3. Games, organi 0.140 0.281 -0.075 -0.226
3. Games, organi 0.104 -0.057 0.116 0.390
4. Learner creat -0.120 0.577 0.152 -0.129
4. Learner creat 0.022 0.301 0.225 0.212
5. Coherent les -0.053 0.446 0.028 -0.154
5. Coherent les 0.027 -0.049 0.206 0.566
6. Goals and ta 0.013 0.613 0.135 -0.136
6. Goals and ta 0.403 0.360 0.287 0.276
7. Familiar situ 0.067 0.291 0.372 0.658
7. Familiar situ 0.181 0.218 0.445 0.235
8. Activities wh 0.371 0.360 0.287 0.012
8. Activities wh 0.402 0.124 0.322 0.246
9. Tasks are bro 0.348 0.575 0.321 0.337
9. Tasks are bro 0.228 0.437 0.404 0.167
10. Various medi 0.165 0.374 0.096 -0.081
10. Various medi 0.256 0.089 0.034 0.148
1. The situation 0.079 0.112 0.432 0.464
1. The situation 0.185 0.007 0.397 0.416
2. Manageable c -0.000 0.092 0.246 -0.108
2. Manageable c 0.305 0.392 0.136 0.120
3. Learner enthu 0.016 0.316 0.296 -0.024
3. Learner enthu 0.261 -0.057 0.370 0.221
4. Relaxed atmo 0.100 0.505 0.188 -0.118
4. Relaxed atmo 0.201 0.022 0.277 0.412
5. Discussions -0.172 0.279 0.026 -0.180
5. Discussions 0.646 0.389 0.681 0.469
9. The teacher p 9. The teacher p 10. The teacher 10. The teacher
9. The teacher p 0.318
10. The teacher 0.572 -0.042
10. The teacher 0.401 0.351 0.371
1. The School He 0.569 0.324 0.318 0.335
1. The School He 0.129 0.319 -0.038 0.462
2. A technical 0.329 0.253 0.208 0.203
2. A technical 0.306 0.446 0.142 0.337
3. A support mec 0.102 0.190 0.232 0.330
3. A support mec 0.066 0.282 -0.009 0.400
4. The School He 0.512 0.237 0.214 0.175
4. The School He 0.138 0.295 -0.006 0.445
5. Schools Divis 0.472 0.210 0.188 0.176
5. Schools Divis 0.178 0.130 -0.061 0.067
1. Identificatio 0.202 0.000 0.294 0.000
1. Identificatio -0.270 -0.017 0.091 -0.027
2. Organization 0.284 0.127 0.188 -0.082
2. Organization -0.098 0.268 0.013 0.317
3. Examination o 0.460 0.117 0.266 0.138
3. Examination o -0.055 0.077 -0.007 0.104
189 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
4. Analysis of t 0.517 0.194 0.232 0.214

4. Analysis of t -0.033 0.196 0.014 0.335
5. Walkthrough o 0.572 0.286 0.563 0.259
5. Walkthrough o 0.292 0.199 0.289 0.171
1. Knowledge of 0.175 0.261 0.082 -0.017
1. Knowledge of 0.262 0.309 0.139 0.289
2. Classroom act 0.158 0.125 -0.122 0.042
2. Classroom act 0.336 0.346 0.245 0.430
3. The lessons 0.435 0.226 -0.067 0.205
3. The lessons 0.231 0.273 0.381 0.180
4. Differentia -0.126 0.312 -0.079 -0.092
4. Differentia 0.379 0.154 0.581 0.272
5. Competencies -0.183 -0.028 -0.117 -0.102
5. Competencies -0.011 0.168 -0.190 0.189
1. Easy access t 0.004 -0.274 -0.068 -0.125
1. Easy access t -0.089 0.095 0.056 0.367
2. The students 0.336 -0.041 0.269 0.043
2. The students 0.364 0.288 0.270 0.403
3. Adjustments a 0.289 -0.056 0.465 0.350
3. Adjustments a 0.148 0.366 0.360 0.410
4. Record keepin 0.214 0.005 0.174 0.258
4. Record keepin -0.006 0.267 -0.098 0.060
5. Resources th 0.072 -0.039 -0.072 -0.003
5. Resources th -0.098 0.242 0.024 0.167
1. Positive feed 0.222 0.036 0.021 0.102
1. Positive feed 0.427 0.464 0.274 0.351
2. Equal opportu -0.012 0.029 0.017 0.196
2. Equal opportu 0.412 0.209 0.335 0.062
3. Games, organi -0.151 -0.149 -0.088 0.039
3. Games, organi -0.057 0.013 0.197 0.353
4. Learner creat 0.074 -0.240 0.221 0.294
4. Learner creat 0.103 0.308 0.234 0.325
5. Coherent les -0.045 -0.168 0.232 0.247
5. Coherent les -0.036 0.162 0.182 0.327
6. Goals and ta 0.212 -0.135 0.234 0.249
6. Goals and ta 0.175 0.359 0.169 0.334
7. Familiar situ 0.543 -0.066 0.682 0.503
7. Familiar situ 0.007 0.240 0.141 0.372
8. Activities wh 0.355 0.093 -0.169 0.166
8. Activities wh 0.312 0.125 0.391 0.334
9. Tasks are bro 0.224 -0.194 0.296 0.136
9. Tasks are bro 0.354 0.426 0.007 0.332
10. Various medi 0.248 -0.096 -0.122 -0.072
10. Various medi 0.212 0.405 -0.107 0.490
1. The situation 0.132 -0.116 0.398 0.447
1. The situation 0.182 0.308 0.182 0.532
2. Manageable c 0.498 0.049 0.029 0.254
2. Manageable c 0.275 0.435 0.208 0.098
3. Learner enthu 0.049 -0.165 0.133 0.239
3. Learner enthu 0.476 0.354 0.351 0.425
4. Relaxed atmo 0.087 -0.268 0.127 0.069
4. Relaxed atmo 0.556 0.242 0.517 0.406
5. Discussions 0.117 -0.026 0.100 0.129
5. Discussions 0.223 0.236 0.255 0.197
1. The School He 1. The School He 2. A technical 2. A technical
1. The School He 0.308
2. A technical 0.804 0.119
2. A technical 0.497 0.489 0.357
3. A support mec 0.614 0.314 0.691 0.494
3. A support mec 0.150 0.530 0.122 0.285
4. The School He 0.629 -0.000 0.707 0.336
4. The School He 0.338 0.563 0.178 0.430
5. Schools Divis 0.743 0.129 0.733 0.389
5. Schools Divis 0.344 0.462 0.309 0.557
1. Identificatio 0.361 0.071 0.371 0.076
1. Identificatio -0.103 0.183 -0.115 0.394
2. Organization 0.616 0.182 0.546 0.342
2. Organization 0.132 0.488 -0.016 0.525
3. Examination o 0.673 0.119 0.597 0.256
3. Examination o 0.107 0.021 0.273 0.296
4. Analysis of t 0.605 0.262 0.527 0.282
4. Analysis of t 0.140 0.515 0.047 0.620
190 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
5. Walkthrough o 0.432 0.016 0.535 0.428

5. Walkthrough o 0.263 0.346 0.123 0.539
1. Knowledge of 0.049 -0.029 -0.103 0.250
1. Knowledge of 0.178 0.419 0.153 0.508
2. Classroom act 0.401 0.053 0.236 0.226
2. Classroom act 0.390 0.395 0.309 0.531
3. The lessons 0.205 0.081 0.210 0.217
3. The lessons 0.450 0.018 0.407 0.419
4. Differentia 0.090 0.318 0.100 0.513
4. Differentia 0.645 0.228 0.553 0.393
5. Competencies 0.137 0.081 0.084 0.022
5. Competencies -0.057 0.300 -0.073 0.431
1. Easy access t 0.318 -0.075 0.322 0.040
1. Easy access t 0.181 0.659 0.097 0.537
2. The students 0.501 0.030 0.401 0.127
2. The students 0.511 0.423 0.353 0.585
3. Adjustments a 0.227 0.335 0.042 0.288
3. Adjustments a 0.246 0.479 0.273 0.515
4. Record keepin 0.381 0.173 0.105 0.353
4. Record keepin 0.348 0.411 0.284 0.691
5. Resources th 0.267 -0.079 0.276 0.042
5. Resources th 0.325 0.216 0.420 0.232
1. Positive feed 0.489 0.032 0.274 0.138
1. Positive feed 0.216 0.223 0.053 0.240
2. Equal opportu 0.176 0.312 0.087 0.000
2. Equal opportu 0.433 0.298 0.378 0.252
3. Games, organi 0.090 0.187 0.028 0.115
3. Games, organi 0.026 0.551 0.038 0.247
4. Learner creat 0.177 0.084 -0.083 0.157
4. Learner creat 0.179 0.465 0.035 0.364
5. Coherent les 0.113 0.300 -0.084 0.323
5. Coherent les 0.178 0.367 0.208 0.226
6. Goals and ta 0.342 0.126 0.021 0.299
6. Goals and ta 0.520 0.102 0.481 0.496
7. Familiar situ 0.277 0.091 0.163 0.274
7. Familiar situ 0.379 0.366 0.331 0.197
8. Activities wh 0.357 0.060 0.308 0.162
8. Activities wh 0.397 0.319 0.373 0.413
9. Tasks are bro 0.281 -0.196 0.145 0.130
9. Tasks are bro 0.535 0.217 0.301 0.425
10. Various medi 0.223 -0.184 0.071 0.057
10. Various medi 0.148 0.296 0.189 0.375
1. The situation -0.064 -0.075 -0.149 -0.202
1. The situation 0.189 0.651 0.120 0.280
2. Manageable c 0.178 0.070 0.073 0.075
2. Manageable c 0.295 0.388 0.222 0.480
3. Learner enthu 0.210 0.155 0.123 -0.033
3. Learner enthu 0.421 0.574 0.395 0.432
4. Relaxed atmo 0.195 -0.096 0.020 -0.041
4. Relaxed atmo 0.534 0.452 0.507 0.487
5. Discussions 0.000 0.047 -0.127 0.201
5. Discussions 0.370 0.280 0.361 0.201
3. A support mec 3. A support mec 4. The School He 4. The School He
3. A support mec 0.490
4. The School He 0.602 0.253
4. The School He 0.404 0.495 0.274
5. Schools Divis 0.513 0.006 0.613 0.324
5. Schools Divis 0.423 0.237 0.345 0.584
1. Identificatio 0.491 0.248 0.256 0.028
1. Identificatio 0.305 0.204 -0.108 -0.063
2. Organization 0.459 0.212 0.490 0.236
2. Organization 0.191 0.437 0.023 0.424
3. Examination o 0.545 0.204 0.561 0.267
3. Examination o 0.402 0.330 0.485 0.353
4. Analysis of t 0.473 0.227 0.612 0.242
4. Analysis of t 0.201 0.221 0.065 0.497
5. Walkthrough o 0.512 0.245 0.675 0.003
5. Walkthrough o 0.189 0.117 0.200 0.474
1. Knowledge of 0.003 -0.047 -0.097 0.211
1. Knowledge of 0.435 0.497 0.213 0.243
2. Classroom act 0.171 0.018 0.376 0.380
2. Classroom act 0.472 0.307 0.194 0.118
191 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
3. The lessons 0.171 0.282 0.435 -0.016

3. The lessons 0.518 0.227 0.504 0.177
4. Differentia 0.355 0.235 -0.010 0.267
4. Differentia 0.539 0.174 0.385 0.223
5. Competencies 0.171 0.376 0.000 0.032
5. Competencies 0.245 0.560 0.079 0.104
1. Easy access t 0.308 0.009 0.302 0.321
1. Easy access t 0.345 0.274 -0.049 0.259
2. The students 0.440 0.138 0.406 0.118
2. The students 0.520 0.418 0.233 0.150
3. Adjustments a 0.328 0.177 0.061 0.246
3. Adjustments a 0.463 0.372 0.142 0.313
4. Record keepin 0.318 0.036 0.336 0.529
4. Record keepin 0.399 0.228 0.040 0.238
5. Resources th 0.134 0.055 0.433 0.290
5. Resources th 0.428 0.190 0.301 0.322
1. Positive feed 0.263 0.157 0.195 0.044
1. Positive feed 0.088 0.282 -0.012 0.143
2. Equal opportu 0.476 0.542 0.116 0.191
2. Equal opportu 0.431 0.497 0.335 0.017
3. Games, organi 0.057 0.124 0.052 0.106
3. Games, organi 0.308 0.525 0.051 0.195
4. Learner creat 0.171 -0.141 -0.078 0.379
4. Learner creat 0.362 0.360 -0.029 0.475
5. Coherent les 0.341 0.140 -0.079 0.416
5. Coherent les 0.602 0.660 0.110 0.285
6. Goals and ta 0.156 -0.035 -0.030 0.359
6. Goals and ta 0.599 0.239 0.301 0.123
7. Familiar situ 0.292 0.309 0.296 0.176
7. Familiar situ 0.565 0.299 0.092 0.327
8. Activities wh 0.234 0.238 0.702 0.212
8. Activities wh 0.550 0.293 0.414 0.209
9. Tasks are bro 0.252 0.179 0.417 0.117
9. Tasks are bro 0.411 0.359 0.341 0.262
10. Various medi 0.003 -0.043 0.325 0.191
10. Various medi 0.146 0.272 0.400 0.068
1. The situation 0.068 0.184 -0.066 0.141
1. The situation 0.400 0.633 0.058 0.256
2. Manageable c 0.093 0.041 0.309 0.070
2. Manageable c 0.237 0.158 0.209 0.410
3. Learner enthu 0.191 0.101 -0.037 0.441
3. Learner enthu 0.494 0.308 0.334 0.096
4. Relaxed atmo 0.102 -0.134 0.000 0.168
4. Relaxed atmo 0.407 0.118 0.368 0.240
5. Discussions 0.070 -0.196 -0.073 0.389
5. Discussions 0.567 0.567 0.416 0.314
5. Schools Divis 5. Schools Divis 1. Identificatio 1. Identificatio
5. Schools Divis 0.619
1. Identificatio 0.444 0.145
1. Identificatio -0.132 0.174 0.223
2. Organization 0.671 0.462 0.640 0.122
2. Organization 0.035 0.270 -0.122 0.503
3. Examination o 0.731 0.436 0.683 -0.032
3. Examination o 0.161 0.370 -0.099 0.323
4. Analysis of t 0.679 0.397 0.633 -0.058
4. Analysis of t 0.108 0.435 -0.193 0.476
5. Walkthrough o 0.463 0.259 0.398 0.068
5. Walkthrough o 0.351 0.626 -0.027 0.320
1. Knowledge of 0.175 0.343 -0.045 0.180
1. Knowledge of 0.143 0.384 0.273 0.244
2. Classroom act 0.517 0.438 0.041 0.092
2. Classroom act 0.280 0.361 0.206 0.353
3. The lessons 0.229 0.131 0.189 -0.054
3. The lessons 0.292 0.180 0.305 0.309
4. Differentia 0.054 0.452 0.083 0.413
4. Differentia 0.534 0.427 0.357 0.241
5. Competencies 0.092 0.131 0.126 0.271
5. Competencies -0.125 0.244 0.000 0.332
1. Easy access t 0.388 0.382 0.294 0.111
1. Easy access t -0.028 0.377 -0.056 0.651
2. The students 0.638 0.481 0.462 0.159
2. The students 0.295 0.319 0.346 0.427
192 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
3. Adjustments a 0.213 0.163 0.558 0.324

3. Adjustments a 0.099 0.142 0.363 0.390
4. Record keepin 0.391 0.302 0.135 0.088
4. Record keepin 0.257 0.355 0.161 0.469
5. Resources th 0.341 0.257 0.062 0.011
5. Resources th 0.310 0.292 0.075 0.283
1. Positive feed 0.441 0.091 0.451 -0.078
1. Positive feed 0.210 0.052 0.398 0.154
2. Equal opportu 0.225 0.127 0.705 0.158
2. Equal opportu 0.266 0.121 0.600 0.115
3. Games, organi 0.212 0.173 0.167 0.215
3. Games, organi -0.110 0.093 0.120 0.358
4. Learner creat 0.216 0.263 0.098 0.062
4. Learner creat 0.103 0.266 0.297 0.074
5. Coherent les -0.045 0.163 0.313 0.430
5. Coherent les -0.036 0.128 0.383 0.244
6. Goals and ta 0.298 0.267 0.079 0.163
6. Goals and ta 0.349 0.125 0.107 0.138
7. Familiar situ 0.171 0.170 0.199 0.063
7. Familiar situ 0.076 -0.025 0.286 0.016
8. Activities wh 0.304 0.208 0.047 -0.170
8. Activities wh 0.167 0.078 0.167 0.051
9. Tasks are bro 0.224 0.104 0.212 0.125
9. Tasks are bro 0.287 0.064 0.370 0.042
10. Various medi 0.427 0.374 -0.041 -0.120
10. Various medi -0.026 -0.007 -0.245 -0.014
1. The situation 0.004 0.015 0.059 0.111
1. The situation -0.008 0.106 0.175 0.230
2. Manageable c 0.259 0.242 0.055 -0.235
2. Manageable c 0.209 0.323 0.091 0.130
3. Learner enthu 0.261 0.328 0.097 -0.050
3. Learner enthu 0.346 0.257 0.389 0.200
4. Relaxed atmo 0.283 0.265 0.060 -0.000
4. Relaxed atmo 0.463 0.385 0.193 -0.048
5. Discussions 0.117 0.418 -0.146 -0.100
5. Discussions 0.170 0.190 0.244 0.109
2. Organization 2. Organization 3. Examination o 3. Examination o
2. Organization 0.254
3. Examination o 0.834 -0.061
3. Examination o 0.148 0.276 0.144
4. Analysis of t 0.690 -0.090 0.799 0.082
4. Analysis of t 0.021 0.683 -0.119 0.406
5. Walkthrough o 0.398 -0.005 0.451 0.136
5. Walkthrough o 0.294 0.407 0.190 0.214
1. Knowledge of 0.145 0.145 0.183 0.084
1. Knowledge of 0.262 0.153 0.257 0.234
2. Classroom act 0.447 0.334 0.441 0.442
2. Classroom act 0.247 0.170 0.345 0.275
3. The lessons 0.201 -0.121 0.475 0.094
3. The lessons 0.496 0.167 0.464 0.601
4. Differentia 0.159 0.246 0.167 0.310
4. Differentia 0.594 0.306 0.567 0.089
5. Competencies 0.383 0.346 0.264 0.206
5. Competencies 0.050 0.250 0.096 0.261
1. Easy access t 0.376 -0.013 0.473 0.374
1. Easy access t 0.018 0.591 -0.103 0.301
2. The students 0.650 0.051 0.775 0.137
2. The students 0.423 0.353 0.380 0.174
3. Adjustments a 0.335 0.104 0.480 -0.087
3. Adjustments a 0.218 0.262 0.190 0.081
4. Record keepin 0.328 0.244 0.417 0.278
4. Record keepin 0.180 0.349 0.027 0.206
5. Resources th 0.395 0.139 0.393 0.558
5. Resources th 0.431 0.420 0.327 0.374
1. Positive feed 0.609 0.072 0.656 -0.218
1. Positive feed 0.223 0.186 0.284 -0.278
2. Equal opportu 0.416 0.036 0.509 -0.164
2. Equal opportu 0.554 0.128 0.503 -0.159
3. Games, organi 0.346 0.389 0.210 0.198
3. Games, organi 0.138 0.411 0.024 0.312
4. Learner creat 0.146 0.047 0.372 -0.084
4. Learner creat 0.148 0.178 0.188 -0.214
193 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
5. Coherent les 0.100 0.224 0.210 0.019

5. Coherent les 0.052 0.108 0.119 0.185
6. Goals and ta 0.278 0.204 0.411 -0.005
6. Goals and ta 0.205 0.088 0.269 0.286
7. Familiar situ 0.145 0.137 0.352 0.052
7. Familiar situ 0.122 0.031 0.288 -0.131
8. Activities wh 0.286 0.010 0.450 0.330
8. Activities wh 0.064 0.044 0.123 0.244
9. Tasks are bro 0.347 0.215 0.387 0.304
9. Tasks are bro 0.395 0.149 0.538 -0.081
10. Various medi 0.289 -0.005 0.372 0.149
10. Various medi -0.122 0.257 -0.110 0.274
1. The situation 0.038 0.181 0.177 0.164
1. The situation 0.149 0.313 0.185 0.142
2. Manageable c 0.070 -0.241 0.368 -0.212
2. Manageable c 0.213 0.167 0.102 0.153
3. Learner enthu 0.248 0.091 0.423 0.081
3. Learner enthu 0.230 0.138 0.311 -0.101
4. Relaxed atmo 0.249 -0.066 0.402 -0.018
4. Relaxed atmo 0.247 0.085 0.237 -0.103
5. Discussions -0.093 -0.112 0.074 -0.070
5. Discussions 0.374 0.249 0.400 0.278
4. Analysis of t 4. Analysis of t 5. Walkthrough o 5. Walkthrough o
4. Analysis of t 0.099
5. Walkthrough o 0.577 0.038
5. Walkthrough o 0.161 0.429 0.295
1. Knowledge of -0.021 0.153 -0.126 0.303
1. Knowledge of 0.352 0.209 0.382 0.104
2. Classroom act 0.311 0.281 -0.114 0.274
2. Classroom act 0.362 0.268 0.415 0.225
3. The lessons 0.401 -0.128 0.367 0.015
3. The lessons 0.380 0.080 0.434 0.276
4. Differentia 0.050 0.403 0.089 0.205
4. Differentia 0.493 0.281 0.570 0.476
5. Competencies 0.084 0.037 -0.141 0.015
5. Competencies 0.094 0.218 0.168 0.008
1. Easy access t 0.122 -0.014 -0.169 0.226
1. Easy access t -0.082 0.623 -0.005 0.412
2. The students 0.588 -0.027 0.352 0.292
2. The students 0.398 0.317 0.415 0.216
3. Adjustments a 0.477 0.170 0.225 0.265
3. Adjustments a 0.319 0.355 0.366 0.364
4. Record keepin 0.306 0.257 -0.019 0.396
4. Record keepin 0.156 0.578 0.068 0.219
5. Resources th 0.252 0.093 -0.094 0.192
5. Resources th 0.211 0.247 0.091 0.339
1. Positive feed 0.507 -0.186 0.126 -0.100
1. Positive feed 0.294 0.023 0.286 0.344
2. Equal opportu 0.534 -0.151 0.175 -0.071
2. Equal opportu 0.514 -0.097 0.553 0.081
3. Games, organi 0.195 0.266 -0.187 0.020
3. Games, organi 0.140 0.308 0.174 0.108
4. Learner creat 0.133 0.106 -0.138 0.316
4. Learner creat 0.228 0.188 0.234 0.252
5. Coherent les 0.063 0.327 -0.098 0.259
5. Coherent les 0.187 0.162 0.345 -0.056
6. Goals and ta 0.116 0.147 -0.152 0.453
6. Goals and ta 0.215 0.093 0.323 0.039
7. Familiar situ 0.272 0.145 0.608 0.313
7. Familiar situ 0.134 -0.077 0.154 -0.005
8. Activities wh 0.470 0.011 0.230 0.025
8. Activities wh 0.221 0.104 0.394 0.034
9. Tasks are bro 0.254 0.063 0.239 0.102
9. Tasks are bro 0.388 -0.057 0.288 0.048
10. Various medi 0.229 -0.076 -0.004 0.274
10. Various medi 0.141 0.271 0.283 -0.049
1. The situation 0.004 -0.014 -0.011 0.054
1. The situation 0.285 0.229 0.217 0.020
2. Manageable c 0.349 -0.159 0.246 0.093
2. Manageable c 0.193 0.228 0.217 0.582
3. Learner enthu 0.046 0.011 -0.252 0.274
3. Learner enthu 0.559 0.302 0.595 0.118
194 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
4. Relaxed atmo 0.140 -0.121 -0.174 0.277

4. Relaxed atmo 0.427 0.239 0.646 0.472
5. Discussions -0.039 0.136 -0.092 0.313
5. Discussions 0.255 0.008 0.301 0.064
1. Knowledge of 1. Knowledge of 2. Classroom act 2. Classroom act
1. Knowledge of 0.282
2. Classroom act 0.400 -0.170
2. Classroom act 0.126 0.721 -0.057
3. The lessons 0.026 0.186 0.093 0.219
3. The lessons 0.057 0.327 0.358 0.423
4. Differentia 0.386 0.318 0.165 0.345
4. Differentia 0.228 0.197 0.259 0.397
5. Competencies 0.335 -0.000 0.513 -0.087
5. Competencies 0.218 0.562 0.023 0.290
1. Easy access t 0.207 -0.225 0.578 -0.163
1. Easy access t -0.005 0.345 0.058 0.542
2. The students 0.378 0.136 0.547 0.257
2. The students 0.147 0.724 -0.007 0.874
3. Adjustments a 0.206 0.185 0.186 0.097
3. Adjustments a 0.167 0.435 -0.101 0.252
4. Record keepin 0.214 -0.056 0.554 0.000
4. Record keepin 0.210 0.427 0.101 0.446
5. Resources th 0.217 -0.191 0.812 -0.257
5. Resources th 0.221 -0.077 0.532 0.052
1. Positive feed 0.176 0.104 0.382 0.070
1. Positive feed 0.261 0.235 0.015 0.346
2. Equal opportu -0.040 0.224 0.084 0.075
2. Equal opportu -0.027 0.443 -0.099 0.370
3. Games, organi 0.136 -0.123 0.586 -0.289
3. Games, organi -0.311 0.488 -0.175 0.432
4. Learner creat 0.355 -0.125 0.321 -0.045
4. Learner creat 0.213 0.351 -0.100 0.092
5. Coherent les 0.231 0.092 0.093 0.000
5. Coherent les -0.255 0.516 -0.352 0.531
6. Goals and ta 0.491 -0.082 0.444 0.055
6. Goals and ta 0.131 0.512 0.000 0.667
7. Familiar situ -0.002 0.176 -0.065 0.315
7. Familiar situ -0.211 0.197 -0.261 0.353
8. Activities wh -0.050 0.007 0.529 -0.065
8. Activities wh -0.172 0.423 -0.081 0.370
9. Tasks are bro 0.102 -0.125 0.563 -0.164
9. Tasks are bro 0.035 0.328 0.100 0.385
10. Various medi 0.400 -0.109 0.635 -0.171
10. Various medi -0.243 0.233 0.083 0.227
1. The situation 0.351 0.208 0.187 0.245
1. The situation -0.052 0.661 -0.177 0.647
2. Manageable c 0.291 0.243 0.020 0.152
2. Manageable c 0.235 0.179 0.213 0.042
3. Learner enthu 0.484 -0.029 0.330 0.000
3. Learner enthu -0.081 0.468 -0.139 0.540
4. Relaxed atmo 0.539 -0.133 0.487 -0.125
4. Relaxed atmo -0.068 0.405 -0.157 0.417
5. Discussions 0.634 0.194 0.086 0.000
5. Discussions 0.215 0.338 0.249 0.169
3. The lessons 3. The lessons 4. Differentia 4. Differentia
3. The lessons 0.031
4. Differentia 0.141 0.186
4. Differentia -0.040 0.409 0.181
5. Competencies -0.018 0.267 0.141 0.324
5. Competencies 0.444 0.195 0.373 0.007
1. Easy access t 0.167 0.190 0.079 0.174
1. Easy access t -0.111 0.194 0.349 0.279
2. The students 0.288 0.322 0.207 0.653
2. The students 0.161 0.400 0.239 0.514
3. Adjustments a 0.237 0.261 0.187 0.323
3. Adjustments a 0.116 0.339 0.304 0.321
4. Record keepin 0.214 0.330 0.085 0.128
4. Record keepin -0.091 0.160 0.431 0.176
5. Resources th 0.122 0.476 -0.055 0.143
5. Resources th 0.000 0.392 0.201 0.443
1. Positive feed 0.227 0.237 -0.157 0.406
1. Positive feed 0.226 0.050 0.089 0.282
195 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
2. Equal opportu 0.277 0.122 0.024 0.216

2. Equal opportu 0.246 0.216 0.149 0.514
3. Games, organi 0.047 0.166 0.000 0.107
3. Games, organi -0.081 0.376 0.011 0.157
4. Learner creat 0.093 0.057 0.044 0.264
4. Learner creat -0.075 0.107 0.281 0.335
5. Coherent les 0.089 0.078 0.327 0.161
5. Coherent les -0.046 0.245 0.318 0.267
6. Goals and ta 0.157 0.138 0.035 0.315
6. Goals and ta 0.045 0.519 0.119 0.309
7. Familiar situ 0.354 0.163 0.114 0.544
7. Familiar situ 0.054 0.166 0.128 0.241
8. Activities wh 0.667 0.234 -0.063 0.042
8. Activities wh -0.000 0.423 0.104 0.158
9. Tasks are bro 0.134 0.452 -0.074 0.403
9. Tasks are bro 0.490 0.292 0.055 0.214
10. Various medi 0.233 0.113 -0.202 0.153
10. Various medi 0.386 0.197 0.012 -0.101
1. The situation -0.133 0.190 -0.184 0.325
1. The situation 0.115 0.276 0.104 0.254
2. Manageable c 0.684 -0.259 -0.123 0.106
2. Manageable c -0.137 0.445 0.203 0.253
3. Learner enthu 0.110 -0.048 0.043 0.324
3. Learner enthu 0.305 0.067 0.227 0.450
4. Relaxed atmo 0.034 0.119 -0.134 0.346
4. Relaxed atmo -0.036 0.208 0.010 0.581
5. Discussions -0.041 -0.146 0.196 0.150
5. Discussions 0.083 0.437 0.196 0.495
5. Competencies 5. Competencies 1. Easy access t 1. Easy access t
5. Competencies 0.444
1. Easy access t 0.266 -0.099
1. Easy access t 0.032 0.228 0.077
2. The students 0.524 0.195 0.391 -0.023
2. The students 0.107 0.364 -0.070 0.559
3. Adjustments a 0.178 0.256 0.199 0.147
3. Adjustments a 0.077 0.320 -0.072 0.375
4. Record keepin -0.015 -0.107 0.511 0.100
4. Record keepin 0.114 0.249 0.034 0.500
5. Resources th 0.542 0.113 0.659 -0.059
5. Resources th 0.510 0.063 0.333 0.270
1. Positive feed 0.569 0.268 0.217 -0.236
1. Positive feed -0.028 -0.042 -0.116 0.095
2. Equal opportu 0.369 0.275 0.155 -0.049
2. Equal opportu 0.189 0.141 -0.070 0.067
3. Games, organi 0.614 0.235 0.352 0.104
3. Games, organi 0.122 0.324 -0.235 0.519
4. Learner creat 0.093 0.037 0.452 0.043
4. Learner creat 0.094 0.298 -0.129 0.113
5. Coherent les -0.000 0.176 0.430 0.361
5. Coherent les -0.046 0.254 -0.139 0.345
6. Goals and ta 0.291 0.067 0.518 0.127
6. Goals and ta 0.091 0.226 -0.085 0.201
7. Familiar situ -0.080 0.176 0.039 0.125
7. Familiar situ -0.162 -0.027 0.010 0.220
8. Activities wh 0.187 0.312 0.393 -0.097
8. Activities wh -0.170 0.056 -0.074 0.291
9. Tasks are bro 0.494 0.226 0.451 -0.087
9. Tasks are bro 0.070 0.322 0.091 0.043
10. Various medi 0.443 0.197 0.448 -0.251
10. Various medi -0.124 0.330 -0.239 0.317
1. The situation 0.266 0.066 0.068 0.077
1. The situation 0.165 0.443 -0.320 0.417
2. Manageable c -0.155 0.232 0.145 -0.137
2. Manageable c 0.120 0.085 0.080 0.198
3. Learner enthu 0.275 -0.055 0.636 0.083
3. Learner enthu -0.153 0.177 -0.256 0.351
4. Relaxed atmo 0.492 0.084 0.538 -0.105
4. Relaxed atmo -0.219 0.018 -0.211 0.303
5. Discussions -0.166 0.062 0.247 0.007
5. Discussions 0.539 0.371 0.170 0.081
2. The students 2. The students 3. Adjustments a 3. Adjustments a
2. The students 0.314
196 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
3. Adjustments a 0.436 0.190

3. Adjustments a 0.057 0.347 0.641
4. Record keepin 0.247 -0.014 0.469 0.165
4. Record keepin -0.033 0.574 0.106 0.443
5. Resources th 0.411 -0.178 0.209 0.038
5. Resources th 0.374 0.140 0.226 0.413
1. Positive feed 0.584 0.281 0.359 0.000
1. Positive feed 0.207 0.372 0.319 0.366
2. Equal opportu 0.406 0.193 0.572 0.332
2. Equal opportu 0.361 0.510 0.251 0.286
3. Games, organi 0.277 -0.142 0.393 0.153
3. Games, organi -0.060 0.411 0.208 0.352
4. Learner creat 0.380 -0.039 0.603 0.120
4. Learner creat 0.137 0.163 0.523 0.566
5. Coherent les 0.130 0.124 0.728 0.511
5. Coherent les 0.000 0.539 0.082 0.301
6. Goals and ta 0.427 0.148 0.536 0.194
6. Goals and ta 0.133 0.635 -0.050 0.229
7. Familiar situ 0.378 0.333 0.396 0.174
7. Familiar situ -0.000 0.319 0.204 0.312
8. Activities wh 0.333 -0.024 0.151 -0.029
8. Activities wh -0.083 0.323 0.201 0.367
9. Tasks are bro 0.490 0.012 0.346 -0.058
9. Tasks are bro 0.257 0.493 0.256 0.227
10. Various medi 0.547 -0.077 0.108 -0.201
10. Various medi -0.249 0.190 -0.072 0.233
1. The situation 0.391 0.230 0.199 -0.072
1. The situation 0.097 0.633 0.263 0.392
2. Manageable c 0.319 0.140 0.207 0.000
2. Manageable c 0.025 0.077 0.343 0.594
3. Learner enthu 0.404 0.016 0.293 0.059
3. Learner enthu 0.224 0.544 0.406 0.476
4. Relaxed atmo 0.573 -0.051 0.395 0.000
4. Relaxed atmo 0.214 0.441 0.267 0.446
5. Discussions 0.122 -0.050 0.220 0.090
5. Discussions 0.426 0.282 0.266 0.269
4. Record keepin 4. Record keepin 5. Resources th 5. Resources th
4. Record keepin 0.063
5. Resources th 0.447 -0.098
5. Resources th 0.230 0.195 0.536
1. Positive feed 0.217 0.029 0.312 0.183
1. Positive feed 0.078 0.159 -0.205 0.040
2. Equal opportu 0.245 0.024 0.072 0.175
2. Equal opportu -0.081 0.169 -0.185 -0.000
3. Games, organi 0.405 0.060 0.648 0.337
3. Games, organi 0.003 0.166 -0.048 0.077
4. Learner creat 0.665 -0.123 0.257 0.185
4. Learner creat 0.124 0.177 -0.136 0.094
5. Coherent les 0.563 0.204 0.104 0.148
5. Coherent les -0.175 0.308 -0.373 -0.077
6. Goals and ta 0.665 0.149 0.347 0.336
6. Goals and ta 0.117 0.521 -0.089 0.162
7. Familiar situ 0.175 -0.177 -0.101 -0.092
7. Familiar situ 0.135 0.124 -0.307 0.154
8. Activities wh 0.414 -0.180 0.609 0.209
8. Activities wh 0.228 0.318 -0.078 0.013
9. Tasks are bro 0.400 -0.208 0.630 0.181
9. Tasks are bro 0.258 0.210 -0.007 0.087
10. Various medi 0.314 -0.077 0.607 0.283
10. Various medi 0.057 0.091 0.112 0.143
1. The situation 0.083 -0.348 0.170 0.095
1. The situation -0.079 0.248 -0.191 0.106
2. Manageable c 0.227 -0.198 -0.030 -0.111
2. Manageable c 0.214 0.351 0.286 0.368
3. Learner enthu 0.462 -0.133 0.345 0.314
3. Learner enthu -0.013 0.351 -0.319 0.073
4. Relaxed atmo 0.422 -0.152 0.515 0.363
4. Relaxed atmo -0.028 0.242 -0.186 0.026
5. Discussions 0.348 -0.021 0.016 -0.059
5. Discussions 0.064 0.032 0.300 0.384
1. Positive feed 1. Positive feed 2. Equal opportu 2. Equal opportu
1. Positive feed 0.171
197 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
2. Equal opportu 0.572 0.321

2. Equal opportu 0.391 0.568 0.488
3. Games, organi 0.414 -0.149 0.366 -0.050
3. Games, organi -0.006 0.077 0.231 0.345
4. Learner creat 0.386 0.023 0.277 -0.216
4. Learner creat 0.247 0.397 0.455 0.377
5. Coherent les 0.085 0.112 0.336 0.000
5. Coherent les -0.044 0.235 0.384 0.492
6. Goals and ta 0.442 0.184 0.185 -0.095
6. Goals and ta 0.289 0.144 0.078 0.240
7. Familiar situ 0.110 0.316 0.141 0.392
7. Familiar situ 0.181 0.240 0.345 0.344
8. Activities wh 0.335 -0.097 0.220 0.099
8. Activities wh -0.063 0.125 0.107 0.420
9. Tasks are bro 0.512 -0.068 0.269 0.155
9. Tasks are bro 0.579 0.426 0.379 0.426
10. Various medi 0.493 -0.096 0.084 -0.173
10. Various medi -0.130 0.039 -0.056 0.033
1. The situation 0.217 0.200 0.155 0.035
1. The situation 0.200 0.230 0.375 0.454
2. Manageable c 0.272 0.196 0.241 0.164
2. Manageable c -0.014 0.190 0.044 0.145
3. Learner enthu 0.280 0.096 0.227 -0.029
3. Learner enthu 0.105 0.354 0.359 0.592
4. Relaxed atmo 0.540 -0.027 0.263 -0.144
4. Relaxed atmo 0.052 0.242 0.019 0.424
5. Discussions 0.013 -0.026 -0.043 -0.219
5. Discussions 0.409 0.039 0.385 0.526
3. Games, organi 3. Games, organi 4. Learner creat 4. Learner creat
3. Games, organi 0.162
4. Learner creat 0.269 -0.131
4. Learner creat 0.050 0.329 0.336
5. Coherent les 0.235 0.081 0.699 0.447
5. Coherent les -0.307 0.523 -0.173 0.449
6. Goals and ta 0.296 -0.123 0.845 0.193
6. Goals and ta -0.180 0.311 0.000 0.190
7. Familiar situ -0.106 0.136 0.322 0.235
7. Familiar situ -0.358 0.317 0.230 0.471
8. Activities wh 0.353 -0.085 0.136 -0.148
8. Activities wh -0.075 0.521 -0.100 0.351
9. Tasks are bro 0.548 -0.003 0.375 0.060
9. Tasks are bro -0.116 0.128 0.214 0.337
10. Various medi 0.308 -0.335 0.394 -0.100
10. Various medi 0.143 0.257 -0.277 -0.047
1. The situation 0.088 0.220 0.349 0.080
1. The situation -0.044 0.768 -0.075 0.360
2. Manageable c -0.082 -0.248 0.370 0.081
2. Manageable c 0.091 0.137 0.045 0.423
3. Learner enthu 0.255 -0.088 0.696 0.150
3. Learner enthu -0.067 0.352 -0.090 0.368
4. Relaxed atmo 0.382 -0.232 0.774 0.142
4. Relaxed atmo -0.193 0.285 -0.004 0.409
5. Discussions -0.055 -0.302 0.653 0.374
5. Discussions 0.164 0.328 0.052 0.374
5. Coherent les 5. Coherent les 6. Goals and ta 6. Goals and ta
5. Coherent les 0.169
6. Goals and ta 0.601 -0.256
6. Goals and ta -0.075 0.433 0.171
7. Familiar situ 0.304 0.344 0.246 0.041
7. Familiar situ 0.341 0.573 0.163 0.458
8. Activities wh 0.053 -0.201 0.137 -0.068
8. Activities wh 0.131 0.472 -0.057 0.528
9. Tasks are bro 0.239 -0.056 0.325 -0.034
9. Tasks are bro 0.243 0.282 0.333 0.489
10. Various medi -0.023 -0.473 0.532 0.000
10. Various medi -0.138 0.072 -0.275 0.157
1. The situation 0.099 0.121 0.267 0.085
1. The situation 0.049 0.575 -0.033 0.461
2. Manageable c 0.154 -0.162 0.312 0.000
2. Manageable c 0.171 0.000 0.172 0.131
3. Learner enthu 0.465 -0.100 0.711 0.000
3. Learner enthu 0.118 0.424 -0.115 0.259
198 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
4. Relaxed atmo 0.337 -0.353 0.788 0.043

4. Relaxed atmo 0.012 0.278 -0.018 0.278
5. Discussions 0.453 -0.129 0.457 0.000
5. Discussions 0.110 0.338 0.094 0.281
7. Familiar situ 7. Familiar situ 8. Activities wh 8. Activities wh
7. Familiar situ 0.161
8. Activities wh 0.185 -0.089
8. Activities wh 0.199 0.452 0.102
9. Tasks are bro 0.461 -0.198 0.537 0.055
9. Tasks are bro 0.211 0.625 0.358 0.244
10. Various medi -0.002 -0.261 0.529 -0.229
10. Various medi 0.099 -0.014 0.537 0.397
1. The situation 0.399 0.010 -0.055 -0.074
1. The situation 0.190 0.480 -0.039 0.408
2. Manageable c 0.350 0.047 0.510 -0.049
2. Manageable c -0.085 0.130 0.051 0.354
3. Learner enthu 0.228 0.200 0.107 -0.157
3. Learner enthu 0.362 0.355 0.091 0.468
4. Relaxed atmo 0.107 -0.051 0.215 -0.215
4. Relaxed atmo 0.417 0.284 -0.022 0.466
5. Discussions 0.172 0.025 -0.012 -0.053
5. Discussions 0.247 0.360 0.297 0.386
9. Tasks are bro 9. Tasks are bro 10. Various medi 10. Various medi
9. Tasks are bro 0.128
10. Various medi 0.458 0.237
10. Various medi 0.089 0.175 -0.099
1. The situation 0.376 -0.007 0.187 -0.153
1. The situation -0.116 0.352 -0.241 0.217
2. Manageable c 0.081 0.335 0.385 0.175
2. Manageable c 0.045 0.084 0.146 0.097
3. Learner enthu 0.214 0.086 0.330 -0.338
3. Learner enthu -0.103 0.269 -0.272 0.312
4. Relaxed atmo 0.470 0.066 0.686 -0.338
4. Relaxed atmo -0.030 0.150 -0.062 0.167
5. Discussions 0.068 -0.057 0.249 -0.201
5. Discussions 0.440 0.308 0.195 0.050
1. The situation 1. The situation 2. Manageable c 2. Manageable c
1. The situation 0.326
2. Manageable c 0.145 0.057
2. Manageable c -0.208 0.175 -0.164
3. Learner enthu 0.482 0.036 0.383 -0.026
3. Learner enthu -0.066 0.602 0.310 0.220
4. Relaxed atmo 0.443 -0.125 0.384 0.114
4. Relaxed atmo -0.007 0.384 0.159 0.509
5. Discussions 0.247 -0.145 0.505 0.159
5. Discussions 0.325 0.544 0.072 0.399
3. Learner enthu 3. Learner enthu 4. Relaxed atmo 4. Relaxed atmo
3. Learner enthu -0.141
4. Relaxed atmo 0.732 -0.242
4. Relaxed atmo -0.079 0.661 -0.069
5. Discussions 0.562 -0.047 0.551 0.152
5. Discussions 0.243 0.346 0.236 0.293
5. Discussions
5. Discussions 0.038
Item and Total Statistics

Total
Variable Count Mean StDev
1. Our school provides an orien 30 4.47 0.94
1. Our school provides an ori_1 30 4.30 0.92
2. Our school provides opportun 30 4.53 0.57
2. Our school provides opport_1 30 4.10 0.96
3. Our school institutes a syst 30 4.20 0.71
3. Our school institutes a sy_1 30 3.83 1.18
4. Our school allows for brains 30 4.37 0.89
4. Our school allows for brai_1 30 4.23 0.77
5. Our school has systematized 30 4.23 1.01
5. Our school has systematize_1 30 4.23 0.77
6. The teacher studies thorough 30 4.43 0.82
6. The teacher studies thorou_1 30 4.33 0.92
199 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
7. The teacher examines the app 30 4.40 0.81

7. The teacher examines the a_1 30 4.10 1.21
8. The teacher chooses the appr 30 4.53 0.51
8. The teacher chooses the ap_1 30 4.33 0.92
9. The teacher plans to demonst 30 4.43 0.63
9. The teacher plans to demon_1 30 4.47 0.51
10. The teacher reflects on pre 30 4.47 0.86
10. The teacher reflects on p_1 30 4.07 0.98
1. The School Head and Teachers 30 4.50 0.63
1. The School Head and Teache_1 30 4.33 0.71
2. A technical group provides 30 4.53 0.68
2. A technical group provide_1 30 4.33 0.66
3. A support mechanism is avail 30 4.37 0.67
3. A support mechanism is ava_1 30 4.30 0.92
4. The School Head is readily a 30 4.30 1.09
4. The School Head is readily_1 30 4.37 0.89
5. Schools Division Office moni 30 4.43 0.63
5. Schools Division Office mo_1 30 4.17 0.87
1. Identification and assessmen 30 4.50 0.68
1. Identification and assessm_1 30 4.30 0.79
2. Organization of sessions wit 30 4.33 0.71
2. Organization of sessions w_1 30 4.27 0.83
3. Examination of the content d 30 4.40 0.81
3. Examination of the content_1 30 4.37 0.76
4. Analysis of the possible cur 30 4.43 0.68
4. Analysis of the possible c_1 30 4.27 0.78
5. Walkthrough of the curriculu 30 4.27 1.01
5. Walkthrough of the curricu_1 30 4.23 0.94
1. Knowledge of content across 30 4.63 0.56
1. Knowledge of content acros_1 30 4.20 0.92
2. Classroom activities are con 30 4.63 0.61
2. Classroom activities are c_1 30 4.00 0.98
3. The lessons are adapted to 30 4.67 0.80
3. The lessons are adapted t_1 30 4.17 0.91
4. Differentiated instruction 30 4.90 0.31
4. Differentiated instructi_1 30 3.90 1.06
5. Competencies are anchored o 30 4.67 0.80
5. Competencies are anchored_1 30 4.40 0.97
1. Easy access to resource mate 30 4.77 0.43
1. Easy access to resource ma_1 30 4.27 0.91
2. The students are immersed to 30 4.67 0.55
2. The students are immersed _1 30 3.90 0.80
3. Adjustments are made to acco 30 4.40 0.72
3. Adjustments are made to ac_1 30 4.00 1.11
4. Record keeping and feedbacki 30 4.57 0.94
4. Record keeping and feedbac_1 30 4.47 0.63
5. Resources that can be used 30 4.53 0.82
5. Resources that can be use_1 30 4.40 0.67
1. Positive feedbacks are provi 30 4.77 0.50
1. Positive feedbacks are pro_1 30 4.47 0.51
2. Equal opportunities are prov 30 4.70 0.47
2. Equal opportunities are pr_1 30 4.33 0.76
3. Games, organizers and intere 30 4.67 0.61
3. Games, organizers and inte_1 30 3.70 1.06
4. Learner creativity is enhanc 30 4.77 0.77
4. Learner creativity is enha_1 30 3.97 0.76
5. Coherent lesson presentatio 30 4.80 0.48
5. Coherent lesson presentat_1 30 4.20 0.92
6. Goals and targets appropria 30 4.73 0.64
6. Goals and targets appropr_1 30 4.00 0.95
7. Familiar situations is used 30 4.63 0.89
7. Familiar situations is use_1 30 4.30 0.79
8. Activities which are practic 30 4.47 1.07
8. Activities which are pract_1 30 3.90 0.76
9. Tasks are broken into simple 30 4.43 1.07
9. Tasks are broken into simp_1 30 4.13 0.82
10. Various media are used exte 30 4.63 0.61
10. Various media are used ex_1 30 4.03 0.93
1. The situation of the childre 30 4.77 0.43
1. The situation of the child_1 30 3.93 0.87
2. Manageable classroom climat 30 4.83 0.46
2. Manageable classroom clim_1 30 3.83 0.83
3. Learner enthusiasm is raised 30 4.73 0.52
200 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
3. Learner enthusiasm is rais_1 30 3.90 0.84

4. Relaxed atmosphere is creat 30 4.67 0.84
4. Relaxed atmosphere is cre_1 30 3.70 1.18
5. Discussions are made enjoya 30 4.87 0.35
5. Discussions are made enjo_1 30 3.60 1.04
Total 30 391.67 34.12
Cronbach’s Alpha
Alpha
0.9597
Omitted Item Statistics

Adj. Squared
Adj. Total Total Item-Adj. Multiple Cronbach’s
Omitted Variable Mean StDev Total Corr Corr Alpha
1. Our school provides an orien 387.20 33.67 0.4723 * 0.9592
1. Our school provides an ori_1 387.37 33.69 0.4569 * 0.9593
2. Our school provides opportun 387.13 33.92 0.3431 * 0.9595
2. Our school provides opport_1 387.57 33.62 0.5091 * 0.9591
3. Our school institutes a syst 387.47 33.81 0.4329 * 0.9593
3. Our school institutes a sy_1 387.83 33.68 0.3629 * 0.9597
4. Our school allows for brains 387.30 33.68 0.4863 * 0.9592
4. Our school allows for brai_1 387.43 33.62 0.6455 * 0.9588
5. Our school has systematized 387.43 33.48 0.6273 * 0.9588
5. Our school has systematize_1 387.43 33.63 0.6293 * 0.9589
6. The teacher studies thorough 387.23 33.68 0.5324 * 0.9591
6. The teacher studies thorou_1 387.33 33.67 0.4850 * 0.9592
7. The teacher examines the app 387.27 33.70 0.5141 * 0.9591
7. The teacher examines the a_1 387.57 33.42 0.5674 * 0.9590
8. The teacher chooses the appr 387.13 33.86 0.5196 * 0.9593
8. The teacher chooses the ap_1 387.33 33.72 0.4277 * 0.9594
9. The teacher plans to demonst 387.23 33.82 0.4689 * 0.9593
9. The teacher plans to demon_1 387.20 33.93 0.3669 * 0.9595
10. The teacher reflects on pre 387.20 33.80 0.3667 * 0.9595
10. The teacher reflects on p_1 387.60 33.59 0.5328 * 0.9591
1. The School Head and Teachers 387.17 33.69 0.6884 * 0.9589
1. The School Head and Teache_1 387.33 33.76 0.4993 * 0.9592
2. A technical group provides 387.13 33.74 0.5623 * 0.9591
2. A technical group provide_1 387.33 33.67 0.6845 * 0.9588
3. A support mechanism is avail 387.30 33.61 0.7636 * 0.9587
3. A support mechanism is ava_1 387.37 33.62 0.5386 * 0.9590
4. The School Head is readily a 387.37 33.47 0.5899 * 0.9589
4. The School Head is readily_1 387.30 33.66 0.5061 * 0.9591
5. Schools Division Office moni 387.23 33.77 0.5594 * 0.9591
5. Schools Division Office mo_1 387.50 33.67 0.5090 * 0.9591
1. Identification and assessmen 387.17 33.84 0.4055 * 0.9594
1. Identification and assessm_1 387.37 33.88 0.2943 * 0.9597
2. Organization of sessions wit 387.33 33.70 0.5924 * 0.9590
2. Organization of sessions w_1 387.40 33.77 0.4118 * 0.9594
3. Examination of the content d 387.27 33.58 0.6649 * 0.9587
3. Examination of the content_1 387.30 33.84 0.3579 * 0.9595
4. Analysis of the possible cur 387.23 33.70 0.6118 * 0.9590
4. Analysis of the possible c_1 387.40 33.83 0.3568 * 0.9595
5. Walkthrough of the curriculu 387.40 33.55 0.5517 * 0.9590
5. Walkthrough of the curricu_1 387.43 33.70 0.4464 * 0.9593
1. Knowledge of content across 387.03 34.00 0.2159 * 0.9597
1. Knowledge of content acros_1 387.47 33.65 0.4977 * 0.9592
2. Classroom activities are con 387.03 33.88 0.3862 * 0.9594
2. Classroom activities are c_1 387.67 33.59 0.5318 * 0.9591
3. The lessons are adapted to 387.00 33.84 0.3429 * 0.9595
3. The lessons are adapted t_1 387.50 33.58 0.5901 * 0.9589
4. Differentiated instruction 386.77 34.03 0.2899 * 0.9597
4. Differentiated instructi_1 387.77 33.40 0.6691 * 0.9586
5. Competencies are anchored o 387.00 33.88 0.2931 * 0.9597
5. Competencies are anchored_1 387.27 33.74 0.3839 * 0.9595
1. Easy access to resource mate 386.90 34.01 0.2552 * 0.9597
201 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
1. Easy access to resource ma_1 387.40 33.76 0.3871 * 0.9595

2. The students are immersed to 387.00 33.81 0.5577 * 0.9592
2. The students are immersed _1 387.77 33.61 0.6264 * 0.9588
3. Adjustments are made to acco 387.27 33.73 0.5406 * 0.9591
3. Adjustments are made to ac_1 387.67 33.49 0.5582 * 0.9590
4. Record keeping and feedbacki 387.10 33.71 0.4280 * 0.9594
4. Record keeping and feedbac_1 387.20 33.90 0.3498 * 0.9595
5. Resources that can be used 387.13 33.86 0.3106 * 0.9596
5. Resources that can be use_1 387.27 33.79 0.4807 * 0.9592
1. Positive feedbacks are provi 386.90 33.90 0.4365 * 0.9594
1. Positive feedbacks are pro_1 387.20 33.94 0.3468 * 0.9595
2. Equal opportunities are prov 386.97 33.92 0.4312 * 0.9594
2. Equal opportunities are pr_1 387.33 33.73 0.5107 * 0.9591
3. Games, organizers and intere 387.00 33.97 0.2393 * 0.9597
3. Games, organizers and inte_1 387.97 33.71 0.3816 * 0.9596
4. Learner creativity is enhanc 386.90 33.89 0.2870 * 0.9597
4. Learner creativity is enha_1 387.70 33.78 0.4346 * 0.9593
5. Coherent lesson presentatio 386.87 33.95 0.3570 * 0.9595
5. Coherent lesson presentat_1 387.47 33.79 0.3478 * 0.9596
6. Goals and targets appropria 386.93 33.86 0.3955 * 0.9594
6. Goals and targets appropr_1 387.67 33.66 0.4804 * 0.9592
7. Familiar situations is used 387.03 33.70 0.4649 * 0.9592
7. Familiar situations is use_1 387.37 33.82 0.3744 * 0.9595
8. Activities which are practic 387.20 33.68 0.3947 * 0.9595
8. Activities which are pract_1 387.77 33.77 0.4620 * 0.9593
9. Tasks are broken into simple 387.23 33.68 0.4018 * 0.9595
9. Tasks are broken into simp_1 387.53 33.67 0.5410 * 0.9591
10. Various media are used exte 387.03 33.98 0.2184 * 0.9597
10. Various media are used ex_1 387.63 33.86 0.2704 * 0.9598
1. The situation of the childre 386.90 34.02 0.2292 * 0.9597
1. The situation of the child_1 387.73 33.65 0.5304 * 0.9591
2. Manageable classroom climat 386.83 34.00 0.2577 * 0.9597
2. Manageable classroom clim_1 387.83 33.76 0.4228 * 0.9594
3. Learner enthusiasm is raised 386.93 33.97 0.2894 * 0.9596
3. Learner enthusiasm is rais_1 387.77 33.64 0.5646 * 0.9590
4. Relaxed atmosphere is creat 387.00 33.91 0.2458 * 0.9598
4. Relaxed atmosphere is cre_1 387.97 33.51 0.5042 * 0.9592
5. Discussions are made enjoya 386.80 34.08 0.1118 * 0.9598
5. Discussions are made enjo_1 388.07 33.46 0.6297 * 0.9588
202 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
APPENDIX F
General Scholastic
Average of 9 Districts
Dstrict 1
SCHOOL SY 2020-2021 SY 2019-2021
1E – A 84.27 80.6
1E – B 89.25 81.28
1E – C 84.75 84.2
1E – D 84.47 84.2
1E – E 85.69 83
1E – F 84.43 82.98
1E – G 84.6 84
1E – H 84.35 85.20
1E – I 84.52 86.42
1E – J 84.25 81.16
1E – K 84.80 82.51
1E – L 85.15 87.53
1E – M 85.59 82.98
1E – N 84.68 84.625
1E – O 84.13 82.625
1E – P 84.60 83.75
1E – Q 84.04 82.83
1E – R 84.15 84
1E – S 83.66 81.58
1E – T 84.41 82.6
1E – U 84.6 86
1E – V 84.74 84.77
1E – W 84.68 81.25
1E – Y 84.98 81.47
1E – Z 84.60 81.75
1E – AA 85.28 83.92
1E – BB 85.57 88.89
203 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SECONDARY
SCHOOL SY 2020-2021 SY 2019-2020

1S – A 83.80 84.17
1S – B 83.85 83.01
1S – C 83.69 82.48
1S – D 84.39 87.2
1S – E 84.15 83.68
1S – F 84.28 83.7
1S – G 80.05 84.07
1S – H 84.42 84.68
204 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
DISTRICT 2
School Year 2019-
SCHOOL 2020 School Year 2020-2021
2E – A 85.64 84.40
2E – B 83.45 84.61
2E – C 85.06 84.29
2E – D 87.89 88.03
2E – E 86.78 85.43
2E – F 85.35 84.35
2E – G 86.84 85.65
2E – H 84.00 84.58
2E – I 85.32 84.49
2E – J 86.04 85.55
2E – K 83.28 84.02
2E – L 85.44 86.58
2E – M 83.66 85.44
2E – N 87.98 87.23
2E – O 90.78 91.43
2E – P 90.36 91.37
2E – Q 85.68 84.33
2E – R 84.22 85.65
2E – S 82.88 84.54
SECONDARY
2S – A 80.22 82.68
2S – B 81.32 84.91
2S – C 79.33 83.20
2S – D 81.36 84.12
2S – E 82.31 84.46
205 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SCHOOL 2019-2020 SY :2020-2021

3E – A 82.60 79.01
3E – B 84.40 72.12
3E – C 85.20 82.84
3E – D 81.49 78.18
3E – E 81.49 76.65
3E – F 83.67 78.00
3E – G 83.74 84.00
3E – H 81.00 78.75
3E – I 81.60 70.68
3E – J 81.20 83.57
3E – K 82.32 80.48
3E – L 82.20 81.86
3E – M 80.45 78.17
3E – N 81.60 63.71
3E – O 81.80 82.18
3E – P 85.04 85.71
3E – Q 81.00 73.25
SECONDARY
DISTRICT 3
3S – A 84.7 82.25
3S – B 82.94 82.88
3S – C 84.73 85.11
3S – D 80.11 83.86
3S – E 81.38 83
3S – F 81.97 81.53
206 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
District 4
SCHOOL 2019-2020 2020-2021
4E – A 85.24 83.38
4E – B 86.02 83.31
4E – C 85.88 84.97
4E – D 80.12 82.88
4E – E 85.76 83.21
4E – F 85.34 83.58
4E – G 84.33 82.22
4E – H 82.16 83.82
4E – I 79.34 80.85
4E – J 78. 2 79.4
4E – K 81.38 82.54
4E – L 85.39 83.16
4E – M 83.12 84.3
4E – N 81.48 83.28
4E – O 80.36 81.49
4E – P 84.24 85.41
4E – Q 81.64 83.91
4E – R 81.97 82.23
4E – S 82.64 83.63
Secondary
2019-2020 2020-2021
4S – A 82.08 83.63
DISTRICT 5
NO. SCHOOL 2019-2020 2020-2021
5E – A 85.23 81
5E – B 84.78 85
5E – C 86.87 83
5E – D 82.77 79
5E – E 84.72 82
5E – F 85.93 84
5E – G 81.75 80
5E – H 84.48 85
207 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
5E – I 85.42 82
5E – J 84.36 82
5E – K 86.05 85
5E – L 85.27 80
5E – M 83.45 79
5E – N 84.59 81
5E – O 83.57 84
5E – P 83.99 81
5E – Q 86.49 83
5E – R 83.58 80
5E – S 84.45 83
SECONDARY
SCHOOL 2019-2020 2020-2021

5S – A 82 83
5S – B 81.63 86.12
DISTRICT 6
SCHOOL 2019-2020 2020-2021
6E – A 84.62 84.03
6E – B 83.97 85.76
6E – C 83.29 82.19
6E – D 82.72 82.49
6E – E 84.63 84.07
6E – F 82.58 82.83
6E – G 81.68 80.77
6E – H 84.67 83.96
6E – I 84.66 84.23
6E – J 83.37 83.45
6E – K 84.86 83.74
6E – L 82.88 83.23
6E – M 82.62 81.27
6E – N 81.83 81.64
6E – O 83.07 83.47
6E – P 83.63 83.61
6E – Q 83.01 82.52
208 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
6E – R 83.75 86.56
6E – S 83.42 81.22
6E – T 83.79 82.74
6E – U 84.79 83.22
6E – V 82.48 81.08
6E – W 82.60 82.55
6E – Y 84.13 84.99
6E – Z 81.98 82.32
6E – AA 82.29 80.64
6E – BB 82.75 81.37
SECONDARY
6S – A 82.60 82.36
6S – B 83.2 82.42
6S – C 84.25 86
6S – D 81.72 81.95
6S – E 83.92 83.91
6S – F 85 86
DISTRICT 7
SCHOOL 2019-2020 2020-2021
7E – A 81.4 84.3
7E – B 82.2 85.56
7E – C 80.3 83.67
7E – D 83.08 85.45
7E – E 82.78 86.47
7E – F 82.4 84.09
7E – G 83.8 86.4
7E – H 80.4 80.8
7E – I 84.48 86.56
7E – J 81.23 80.46
7E – K 80.14 82.24
7E – L 83.68 85.34
7E – M 82.2 83.4
7E – N 79.5 81.2
7E – O 80.46 81.5
7E – P 78.6 76.4
209 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
SCHOOL 2019-2020 2020-2021

7S – A 84.74 84.25
7S – B 82.52 83.5
7S – C 85.25 84.70
7S – D 83.17 83.78
7S – E 82.75 81.05
DISTRICT 8
SCHOOL 2019-2020 2020-2021
8E – A 83.24 86.57
8E – B 8220 85.86
8E – C 81.24 84.27
8E – D 82.24 85.28
8E – E 84.42 86.33
8E – F 83.22 86.38
8E – G 80.58 81.24
8E – H 79.97 83.29
8E – I 84.68 86.34
8E – J 80.28 84.21
8E – K 82.29 86.4
8E – L 80.12 83,29
8E – M 81.36 80.4
8E – N 83.29 82.23
8E – O 82.34 84.43
8E – P 80.2 81.3
8E – Q 83.21 85.33
DISTRICT 9
SCHOOL 2019-2020 2020-2021
9E – A 86 84.83
9E – B 83 70.16
9E – C 84 85.66
9E – D 87 88.83
9E – E 84 85
9E – F 89 90
9E – G 85 87.16
9E – H 88 86
210 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
9E – I 87 87
9E – J 84 86
9E – K 86 87.5
9E – L 85 86.5
9E – M 85 84.5
9E – N 89 87.16
9E – O 84 87.6
9E – P 86 85.5
9E – Q 89 86.83
9E – R 86.02 86.33
9E – S 85 87.16
9E – T 85 87.16
9E – U 86.07 86.33
9E – V 85 85
9E – W 89 85.25
9E – X 87.87 86.5
9E – Y 87.17 85
9E – Z 85.43 83.25
211 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
CURRICULUM VITAE
Ma. Corazon Adato Borja

Zone V, Tabi, Boac, Marinduque
macorazon.borja@deped.gov.ph
+639064413747/+639387445730
(042) 7545 059
QUALIFICATIONS
 Career Executive Service Written Examination (CESWE) Passer (2016)

 Passer of National Qualifying Examination for School Head (NQESH)
(Rank I in the Division, Among the top 10 in the Region)
 Master Teacher Test Passer (2010)
 Passer of the Self-Assessment Test for Secondary Teachers Rank 1 (School Level)
and Rank 5 (Division Level)
 Recipient of awards from division up to National Level
Top Performing School Head in the District (2020)
Metrobank Provincial Winner, Regional Finalist 2014
Outstanding Teacher 2007
Outstanding School Paper Adviser Division to National Level 2007
 Recipient of International scholarships
Regional English Language Center (RELC) Specialist Certificate in Action Research
in Singapore
University of Oregon Short Course in Summative and Formative Assessment
 Bagged scholarship for 50 students of Marinduque National High School assigned as
Program Coordinator of ACCESS PROGRAM sponsored by US Embassy
 Demonstration teacher from school to national level
 Trainer, facilitator, speaker in workshops and seminar
 Writer, contributor, editor in chief and author of learning materials and local
newsletters
 With 8 years of teaching experience in prestigious private schools (Colegio San
Agustin Makati and St. Scholastica’s Academy Marikina) and 18 in public schools
OTHER QUALIFICATIONS
 Professional BOARD Exam for Teachers -80.07
212 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
 Writer of 2 Strategic Intervention Materials national and regional workshop)

 Writer of Oratorical Pieces that won in National Speech Contests
 Editor in Chief (The Moriones Gem-( 2007- 2009))
WORK EXPERIENCE
 Mogpog National Comprehensive High School Principal 2 (2019-present)
 Marinduque National High School Principal 2, Senior High School (2017- 2019)
 Argao National High School Principal 1 (2014-2017)
 Marinduque National High School - Master Teacher 1 (1999 – 2014)
 Colegio San Agustin Makati – Grade School Teacher 1993-1997
 St. Scholastica’s Academy Marikina- Grade School teacher 1989-1992
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
 Doctor of Education Major in Curriculum Development and Management
 Master in Education (Language) – Marinduque State College
 Master in Education (Reading)- UP Diliman -2000- 2004 (earned 36 units)
 Specialist Certificate in Action Research - RELC Scholarship program- 2007
 Obtained certificate in the course Assessment: Summative and Formative Practices in
Language Learning and Teaching. University of Oregon E teacher Program
 Bachelor in Secondary Education (English)- UP Diliman – 1984-1989
 Secondary Level – Marinduque National High School -1980-84 (graduated
Salutatorian)
 Elementary Level- Boac North Central School- 1976-1980 (graduated Valedictorian)
PERSONAL INFORMATION
ADDRESS: Tabi, Boac Marinduque

SCHOOL: Marinduque National High School
CIVIL STATUS: Married
GENDER: Female
HEIGHT: 4”11
DATE OF BIRTH: June 4 ,1967
PLACE OF BIRTH: Sta. Mesa, Manila
FAMILY: Single Parent and with 4 kids
MERITORIOUS ACHIEVEMENTS
 Top Performing School Head in the District 2020

213 Page
GRADUATE SCHOOL
 Outstanding Teacher Metrobank Foundation Provincial Finalist Sy 2014-15

 Outstanding School Paper Adviser (National Level) SY 2007-08
 Outstanding School Paper Adviser (Regional Level) SY 2007-08
 Outstanding School Paper Adviser (Division Level) SY 2007-08
 Outstanding Secondary School Teacher (Division Level) SY 2007-08
 Metro Bank Nominee 2007-2008
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
 Text Editor First Coffee Table Book of Marinduque
 Host, Master of Ceremonies of Different Programs Quiz Master And Coach of
Speech and Journalism Contests
 Coach of National Winners in Oratorical Contests
Speech Contest sponsored by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas 2005
Speech Contest sponsored by GSP “All About Sex” May 2008
 Writer of Oratorical Pieces that Won in National Contests
 Discussant/Facilitator and Demonstration Teacher
1. Demonstration Teacher during the Division
Demonstration Festival held in Mogpog Central School

BORJA - EdD - Final-Chapter-1-appendices (Repaired)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BORJA - EdD - Final-Chapter-1-appendices (Repaired)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Page

MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

boundaries of the study.

Curriculum change is an inevitable consequence of an everchanging society. The role

and soul of all educational institutions (Khan & Law 2015).

Curriculum change involves processes similar to curriculum development. According

before it fully develops it effectiveness. It has to start by drawing implications. Once

Crucial to curriculum change or development are the planning and implementation

through the use of specified resources provided in a curriculum. In the Philippines,

Effective curriculum planning and implementation play a pivotal role in achieving

necessary requirements and the resources available (IBE UNESCO 2021).

Curriculum implementation refers to the planned or officially designed course of

implementation on both administrative and applied aspects of curriculum development.

Curriculum implementation focuses on how teachers deliver instruction and assessment

through the use of specified resources provided in a curriculum. Curriculum designs

related to a set of objectives.

Consequently, curriculum planning, and implementation requires restructuring and

It is a matter of adaptation to aggravating and everchanging circumstances. These

strategies to be periodically analyzed and evaluated to determine their effectiveness and

curriculum implementation remains the end-goal of all educational institutions.

In 2018, the Department of Education (DepEd) launched the K to 12 Curriculum

Department issued several memoranda.

To ensure the continuity of education, DepEd Order NO 12 s 2020 titled Adoption of

COVID-19 Pandemic was also issued.

Modular Learning is a form of distance learning that uses Self-Learning

Modules (SLM) based on the most essential learning competencies (MELCS) provided

by DepEd. The modules include sections on motivation and assessment that serve as a

children. This involves students being taught through printed self-learning modules.

It became necessary to change curriculum planning and implementation strategies

distance learning, radio-based learning, and TV-based learning. Curriculum implementation

therefore has taken a major overhaul and change.

Curriculum implementation strategies during COVID-19 pandemic must be

identified strategies that work during the new normal.

curriculum planning and implementation strategies to adjust to the changes in environment,

curriculum planning and implementation strategies to the school performance of elementary

Statement of the Problem

Primarily, this study attempted to establish the relationship of level of practice of

curriculum planning and implementation strategies to the performance of public elementary

of Modular Distance learning.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the schools in terms of the following:

1.2 size; and

1.3 position classification of school head?

2. What is the level of practice of curriculum planning and implementation strategies

2.3 curriculum assessment;

2.4 curriculum delivery;

2.5 classroom management;

2.6 teaching strategy;

3. Is there a significant difference on the level of practice and curriculum planning

by profile as to following areas:

3.3 curriculum assessment;

3.4 curriculum delivery;

3.5 classroom management;

3.6 teaching strategy;

Distance Modality when grouped into school profile as to:

4.2 size; and

4.3 position classification of school head?

5. Is there a significant difference in the performance of schools by profile before and

during the adoption of Modular Distance Modality as to:

5.3 position classification of the school head?

6. Is there a significant relationship between curriculum planning and implementation

strategies and school performance?