Authors : Apple Joy T. Zabala; Atty. Velessa Jane N. Dulin

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 4 - April

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mru23p48

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yc54k36m

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25apr1888

Google Scholar

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 15 to 20 days to display the article.

Abstract : This study provides a thorough examination of competency coverage in Mathematics at Tupi Secondary High School, with a particular focus on the effectiveness of assessment tools used in various classroom settings, including Science Technology and Engineering (STE) and heterogenous or Basic Education Program (BEP) sections. The research aims to evaluate how well these assessment tools align with the competencies mandated by the Department of Education while identifying gaps in competency coverage. Additionally, the study analyses the strategies teachers employ to address these gaps within the designated instructional time. This research utilizes a mixed-methods approach, employing an explanatory sequential research design. It incorporates document analysis and thematic analysis to evaluate the data. The researcher compares the competencies expected by the DepEd with those covered at Tupi Secondary High School through the assessment tools used by Mathematics teachers. Findings indicate that STE and BEP sections U-test result is 0 and 16, which implies that both programs were not in the acceptance region, however, this reveals significant discrepancies between the two groups. The study emphasizes the importance of thorough planning and sufficient instructional time in ensuring comprehensive competency coverage, noting that STE teachers performed better than their heterogenous sections. These outcomes highlight the need for targeted improvements in the heterogenous sections, particularly in addressing competency gaps and ensuring adequate instructional time to meet DepEd curriculum requirements. This research advocates for strategic interventions, enhanced teacher training, and more effective use of assessment tools to bridge the competency gap and improve overall student learning outcomes in Mathematics.

Keywords : Assessment Tools, Competency Gaps, Mathematics Competencies.

References :

1. Akinwande, A. S. (2022). Active learning strategies for an effective mathematics teaching and learning. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1385531.pdf
2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Assessment and Classroom Learning: A Review of Research and Implications for Practice. The International Journal of Educational Research, 29(1), 21-31. Tandfonline.
3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
5. Department of Education. (2021). Basic education report 2021. Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph
6. Education Research Development Center. (2021). Challenges in mathematics education in the Philippines: An analysis of learning gaps and curriculum implementation. Education Research Development Center.
7. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). Sage Publications
8. Hamidi, F. A. (2022). Teaching mathematics based on integrating reading strategies and working memory in elementary school. Athens Journal of Sciences, 9(3), 156-167. https://www.athensjournals.gr/sciences/2022-5156-AJS-Hamidi-07.pdf
9. Hossain, K. M. (2020). Difficulties that students face when learning algebraic problem solving. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 51
10. Mbagwu, J. U., & Egbe, O. S. (2024). Barriers and difficulties of students in the mathematics learning process in junior high schools. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381286129_Barriers_and_Difficulties_of_Students_in_the_Mathematics_Learning_Process_in_Junior_High_Schools
11. Morse, J. M., & Cheek, J. (2021). Making room for qualitatively‐driven mixed‐methods research. Qualitative Health Research, 31(6), 1063–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732321990706
12. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
13. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2020). Mathematics performance of students in the Philippines: Analysis of national assessments. Philippine Statistics Authority.
14. Toyon, M. A. S. (2021). Explanatory sequential design of mixed methods research: Phases and challenges. *International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478)*, 10(5), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i5.1262
15. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020). Global education monitoring report: Inclusion and education – All means all. UNESCO.