Authors : Nelia E. Rule; Manuel V. Estera

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 1 - January

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yc6nyj4f

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/37xshvrv

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jan512

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

Abstract : This study explored the insights of teachers regarding the impact of the Revised K to 12 Curriculum on English literacy development among learners, focusing specifically on the English teachers from the 20 schools of the Gubat South District. The investigation examined teachers’ perspectives on how English literacy skills are reflected and supported in the curriculum, the classroom activities implemented to promote literacy, teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum’s effectiveness in enhancing literacy development, and the challenges they encounter in its implementation. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were gathered through teacher surveys and interviews to capture both quantitative trends and qualitative experiences. Findings revealed that most teachers acknowledge that the Revised Basic K to 12 Curriculum provides a clearer literacy progression and emphasizes foundational competencies such as reading comprehension, vocabulary development, and written expression. Teachers reported utilizing a variety of instructional activities including guided reading, peer discussions, phonics-based tasks, and interactive learning strategies to strengthen literacy engagement. Although English teachers generally perceived the revised curriculum as effective, many noted gaps between curriculum expectations and actual classroom realities. Challenges identified include limited instructional time, insufficient learning materials, varying learner readiness, large class sizes, and the need for continuous professional development aligned with curriculum reforms. These challenges were consistently echoed across the participating schools in the Gubat South District. Based on the results, a Learning Literacy Development Map is proposed to support curriculum implementation. The map outlines a structured progression of literacy skills—beginning with phonological awareness and decoding, followed by vocabulary building and fluency, and culminating in comprehension, analytical thinking, and purposeful writing. This framework aligns curriculum standards with developmentally appropriate classroom practices and provides teachers with a clear, step-by-step guide for literacy instruction. Overall, the study highlights the importance of responsive teaching practices, sustained teacher support, and well- aligned instructional resources to maximize the positive impact of the Revised K to 12 Curriculum on learners’ literacy growth, especially within the context of the 20 schools in the Gubat South District.

Keywords : Revised K To 12 Curriculum, Literacy Development, Teachers’ Insights, Learning Literacy Development Map.

References :

1. Abduh, M., Hadi, S., & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2021). Teacher perceptions on curriculum implementation and literacy development. International Journal of Educational Research, 105, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101115 (SCT, OBE)
2. Afflerbach, P. (2017). Understanding and assessing reading comprehension: An interactive metacognitive perspective (2nd ed.). Routledge. (CLT, EL)
3. Al Darwish, S., & Al Qaysi, N. (2020). Impact of language and curriculum on student international exam performances in the United Arab Emirates. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1741982 (OBE)
4. Almario, R. (2021). Differentiated instruction and reading comprehension in elementary classrooms. Philippine Journal of Education Research, 15(2), 45–60. (CLT, EL)
5. Alsubale, A. (2016). Curriculum development for international implementation. (OBE)
6. Alvior, M. G. (2018). The significance of teacher training in curriculum implementation. Asian Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 8(2), 120–125. (SCT, OBE)
7. Aquino, L. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of revised literacy competencies in English: A Philippine perspective. Asian Journal of Curriculum Studies, 8(1), 12–27. (OBE, SCT)
8. Barrientos, J. (2021). Parental involvement and literacy outcomes in Grade 4 learners. Philippine Journal of Basic Education Research, 4(1), 34–50. (SCT)
9. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. (CLT)
10. Bernardo, J. (2020). Reading comprehension challenges in Philippine elementary classrooms. Education and Literacy Studies Journal, 7(2), 67–84. (CLT, EL)
11. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. (CLT, EL)
12. Blackman, M. (2024). Diversity in the English curriculum: Relevance and student engagement. (SCT, OBE)
13. Boyle, B., & Charles, M. (2016). Curriculum development. https://www.google.com.ph/books/edition/Curriculum_Development/ixxiCgAAQBAJ (OBE)
14. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. (CLT, EL)
15. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press. (CLT, EL)
16. Cabanilla, M. (2023). Culturally relevant reading materials and motivation in Grade learners. Philippine Educational Review, 18(1), 50–68. (SCT, EL)
17. Cabrera, L., Budao, D. V., & Canas, E. M. A. (2020). Between the lines: The case of teaching reading in the Philippine K to 12 classrooms (Unpublished manuscript). (SCT, OBE)
18. Casingal, M., De Vera, L., & De Vera, R. (2025). Structured reading programs and literacy outcomes. Philippine Journal of Elementary Education, 12(1), 10–25. (CLT, OBE)
19. Campbell, C., Lieberman, A., & Yashkina, A. (2018). Teacher collaboration and curriculum reform in Canada. (SCT, OBE)
20. Cherry, K. (2023). How Vygotsky defined the zone of proximal development. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-zone-of-proximal-development-2796034 (SCT)
21. Clay, M. M. (2005). Literacy lessons designed for individuals. Heinemann. (CLT, EL)
22. Cruz, P. (2019). Teacher competence and storytelling strategies in literacy development. Philippine Journal of Education Research, 13(2), 22–40. (CLT, SCT)
23. Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Harvard Education Press. (SCT, OBE)
24. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. (SCT)
25. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality around the world. Jossey-Bass. (SCT, OBE)
26. Davit, R. J., Perez, M., & Santos, F. (2019). The implementation of the K–12 program in Philippine basic education. Philippine Educational Review, 66(1), 34–50. (OBE, SCT)
27. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. (EL, SCT)
28. Dela Cruz, R. (2016). Reading comprehension of intermediate pupils under the K to 12 curriculum. Philippine Journal of Literacy, 3(1), 15–30. (CLT, OBE)
29. Del Rosario, E., & Sarmiento, C. (2021). Enhancing student learning through technology-supported teaching strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 8(3), 52–60. (CLT, EL)
30. Department of Education (DepEd). (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide. DepEd Central Office. (OBE)
31. Department of Education (DepEd). (2024). MATATAG Curriculum: Elementary education framework. DepEd Central Office. (OBE)
32. Dianela, J. F., Mercado, K. A. R., Vale, M. P., & Paterno, K. V. (2023). Evaluation of the effects of the 8-week learning recovery program on pupils’ reading competencies in Mother Tongue, Filipino, and English. International Journal of Research & Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), 10(11), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2023.1011010 (CLT, OBE)
33. Diaz, C. (2022). Small group instruction and literacy improvement. Philippine Journal of Basic Education, 6(1), 60–75. (CLT, EL)
34. Dinoro, A., Semilla, J. R., Dangdang, G., Fajardo, M. F., Beldad, E., Dominguez, E., Grageda, C., & Tero, J. (2023). Assessment of reading strategies in the Philippine basic education. Asia Research Network Journal of Education, 3(2), 59–73. (CLT, OBE)
35. Division Memorandum No. 107 s. 2024. (OBE)
36. Domingo, T. (2018). Formative assessment and literacy outcomes in Grade 4 learners. Philippine Educational Journal, 10(2), 33–48. (CLT, OBE)
37. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of Education, 189(1), 107–122. (CLT, EL)
38. Ehri, L. C. (2014). Teaching literacy in the 21st century. American Educator, 38(2), 6–14. (CLT)
39. Estrellado, J. B. (2023). Project-based learning in interdisciplinary instruction: Preparing future-ready learners. Philippine Journal of Basic Education, 12(1), 15–29. (EL, OBE)
40. Fernandez, L. A., & Rodelas, J. (2022). The effects of structured professional development on teaching practices. Journal of Teacher Development Studies, 9(1), 45–60. (SCT, OBE)
41. Flores, J. (2018). Literacy-based classroom activities and Grade 4 learners’ performance. Philippine Journal of Literacy, 5(2), 45–62. (CLT, EL)
42. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). The Fountas & Pinnell literacy continuum: A tool for assessment, planning, and teaching. Heinemann. (CLT, EL)
43. Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press. (SCT, OBE)
44. Fullan, M. (2017). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press. (SCT, OBE)
45. Funa, A., Balisoro, J. A., & Gabay, R. A. (2025). Reading literacy assessment in Philippine basic education: A cross-sectional, school-based Phil-IRI study. Journal of Basic Education Research, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.37251/jber.v6i3.2102 (CLT, OBE
46. Garcia, L. J. (2020). Addressing curriculum overcrowding in Philippine basic education. Curriculum Forum, 5(2), 12–22. (OBE)
47. Garcia, L. J., & Santos, R. M. (2023). Implementation insights on the MATATAG Curriculum: Lessons from K–12. Philippine Journal of Curriculum Reform, 10(1), 31–47. (OBE, SCT)
48. Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. (SCT, CLT)
49. Garcia, R., & Mendoza, S. (2019). Challenges in implementing literacy curriculum reforms. Philippine Journal of Basic Education, 3(1), 22–39. (OBE, SCT)
50. Gambrell, L. B. (2011). Motivation in the literacy classroom: Reading engagement. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01041 (CLT, EL)
51. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. (SCT)
52. Gray, S. L., Scott, D., & Mehistro, P. (2018). Curriculum reform in the European school. https://www.google.com.ph/books/edition/Curriculum_Reform_in_the_European_School/P9ldDwAAQBAJ (OBE, SCT)
53. Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020). Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation (OECD Education Working Papers No. 239). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en (OBE)
54. Guskey, T. R. (2019). Professional development and teacher change. (SCT, OBE)
55. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. Handbook of Reading Research, 3, 403–422. (CLT, EL)
56. Hall, E., & Wall, K. (2019). Teacher learning and curriculum reform in the UK. (SCT, OBE)
57. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Pearson. (SCT, OBE)
58. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2019). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. (SCT, OBE)
59. Imperial, J. M., & Ong, E. (2021). Application of lexical features towards improvement of Filipino readability identification of children’s literature. arXiv. (CLT, EL)
60. Johnson, E., & Keier, K. (2010). Supporting struggling readers in the elementary classroom. Guilford Press. (CLT, EL)
61. Johnson, R. (2022). The need for modern curriculum frameworks. (OBE)
62. Jones, M., & Taylor, R. (2023). Adapting curricula for contemporary societal needs. (OBE)
63. Jones, P., & Taylor, H. (2023). Aligning curriculum with societal needs. Journal of Educational Policy, 34(2), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2023.2114521 (OBE)
64. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. (EL, CLT)
65. Lee, J. (2023). Curriculum and responsible citizenship. (OBE)
66. Liao, Y., Wang, H., & Zhou, Q. (2022). Barriers to effective curriculum implementation. (OBE, SCT)
67. Luz, C. (2019). Technology integration in literacy instruction. Philippine Educational Technology Journal, 7(2), 44–60. (EL, CLT)
68. Luz, J. M., & Gregorio, H. C. (2014). Educational equity across Philippine regions: Resource and training gaps. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 14(2), 99–112. (OBE, SCT)
69. MacDonald, J. B. (1973). Curriculum theory. (OBE)
70. Magdale, R., Santos, P., & Valdez, M. (2024). Vocabulary pre-teaching and reading comprehension. Philippine Journal of Literacy Studies, 10(1), 15–30. (CLT, EL)
71. Mallapon, R. (2023). Interactive teaching methods under the MATATAG Curriculum. Basic Education Innovations Journal, 11(3), 25–33. (OBE, SCT)
72. Mangrobang, S. N. T., Labrador, L. D., & Gime, A. V. (2025). Filipino sight words from grades one to three: A tool towards developing early reading literacy skills in the Philippines. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 14(4), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2025.25841 (CLT, EL)
73. McNamara, D. S. (2015). Reading comprehension and literacy research with educational technologies. (CLT, EL)
74. Montejo, C. S., Saro, J. M., Sucong, J. A., Bustamante, M. F. O., & Perez, J. B. (2024). A qualitative exploration on the perceived impact of the MATATAG Curriculum on the basic education teaching in the school year 2024–2025. https://www.researchegate.net/publication/383272918 (OBE, SCT)
75. Munthe, E., & Cowey, A. (2017). Integrating instruction and curriculum. (OBE, SCT)
76. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (CLT, EL)
77. Nguyen, H. T. M., & Bui, T. T. (2020). English primary teacher agency in implementing teaching methods in response to language policy reform: A Vietnamese case study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22(1–2), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1793841 (SCT, OBE)
78. Nguyen, T. (2022). Curriculum reform and democratic education. (OBE)
79. Niemi, H. (2021). Global curriculum reforms. (OBE)
80. OECD. (2018). OECD Education Working Papers. https://one.oecd.org/document/EDU/WKP(2020)27/En/pdf (OBE)
81. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en (OBE)
82. OECD. (2021). Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264234084-en (OBE)
83. Olipas, C. L. (2024). Streamlining basic education curriculum for efficiency. DepEd Research Digest, 13(1), 18–26. (OBE)
84. Opeña, L. J., et al. (2013). The Philippine language-in-education policy: Perceptions and attitudes towards English and Filipino languages in a multilingual setting. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.315 (SCT, OBE)
85. Ordonez, A., Tiongco, D., & Manalo, R. (2021). Teachers’ resistance to curriculum reform: Barriers and enablers. International Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 78–90. (SCT, OBE)
86. Palasan, A. S. (n.d.). Improving grammar, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills through cognitive academic language learning approach. Researchers World – International Refereed Social Sciences Journal. (CLT, EL)
87. Pastera, J. M. R., Gaitano, J. H., & Martir, E. M. (2024). Learners’ reading strategies and comprehension skills. International Journal of Science and Management Studies, 7(5), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.51386/25815946/ijsmsv7i5p104 (CLT, EL)
88. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2018). Teacher perceptions of Common Core Standards. (OBE)
89. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). Guilford Press. (CLT, EL)
90. Pressley, M., & Allington, R. (2015). Reading instruction that works: Evidence-based practices (4th ed.). Guilford Press. (CLT, EL)
91. Quintano, C., Esto, J., & Sumayo, G. (2025). Reading practices and reading environments among Grade 6 pupils in a public elementary school. International Journal of Philosophy, Linguistics, and Humanities, 1(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.70847/592961 (CLT, EL)
92. Rahman, N. H. A. (2014). From curriculum reform to classroom practice: An evaluation of the English primary curriculum in Malaysia (Doctoral dissertation, University of York). (OBE)
93. Rhoads, B., Lim, A., & Cortez, F. (2020). Integrating technology in basic education: Opportunities for learner-centered instruction. Journal of Digital Learning, 5(4), 102–115. (EL, CLT)
94. Ricardo, J., Flores, M., & Santiago, L. (2021). Teacher preparedness and student performance in curriculum reform. Philippine Journal of Educational Evaluation, 14(2), 39–52. (SCT, OBE)
95. Takayama, K., & Apple, M. (2019). Japanese education and holistic learning. (SCT, EL)
96. Tan, C., & Deneen, C. (2018). Curriculum reform in Singapore. (OBE, SCT)
97. Tan, C., & Tiongson, E. (2020). Developing critical thinking in learners. (CLT, EL, OBE)
98. Tarr, J. E., Grouws, D. A., Chávez, Ó., & Soria, V. (2013). Impact of curriculum reform: Evidence of change in classroom practice in the United States. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282728568 (OBE, SCT)
99. Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts, 60(5), 568–580. (CLT, EL)
100. Tyler, R. W. (1975). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press. (OBE)
101. Van Elk, R., & Kok, S. (2016). The impact of a comprehensive school reform policy for weak schools on educational achievement: Results of the first 4 years. De Economist, 164(4), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-016-9281-4 (OBE)
102. Votke, J. (2023). Reading achievement and curriculum change. (OBE, CLT)
103. Votke, M. (2023). The impact of changing English language arts curriculum on the reading growth of fourth-grade students. Theses and Dissertations, 536. https://scholar.stjohns.edu/theses_dissertations/536 (OBE, CLT)
104. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. (SCT, EL)
105. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. (SCT, EL)
106. Wallace, C. S., Prather, E. E., Milsom, J. A., Johns, K., & Manne, S. (2020). Students taught by a first-time instructor using active learning teaching strategies outperform students taught by a highly regarded traditional instructor. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2004.09684. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.09684 (EL, CLT)
107. Warren, E., & Miller, J. (2020). The Australian Curriculum: A national approach. (OBE)
108. White, S., & Roberts, D. (2021). Curriculum and student citizenship. (OBE, SCT)
109. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1990). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (OBE, EL)
110. William, B., Lara, D., & Lola, D. (2025). The effect of reading interventions and programs on literacy rates in Philippine elementary schools. (Unpublished manuscript). ResearchGate. (CLT, EL, OBE)
111. Wood, B. E., & Butt, G. (2014). Teachers as curriculum makers: The importance of teacher agency. Curriculum Perspectives, 34(3), 45–54. (SCT, OBE)
112. Yinger, R. J. (1980). Teacher planning and instructional decision-making. (SCT, EL)
113. Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & John, D. S. A. (2013). Using visual aids as a motivational tool in enhancing students’ interest in reading literary texts. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1305.6360. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6360 (CLT, EL)