Implementation of the Science 5 Curriculum in the District of Ambaguio, SDO Nueva Vizcaya: Strategies, Resources, Instructional, and Administrative Support
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsair.V2.I2.279Keywords:
Administrative Support, Curriculum Implementation, District of Ambaguio, Instructional Resources, Instructional Support, Science 5 Curriculum, Teaching StrategiesAbstract
This study assessed the implementation of the Science 5 curriculum in the District of Ambaguio, Schools Division Office of Nueva Vizcaya, focusing on strategies, resources, instructional support, and administrative support. Anchored in the Theory of Curriculum Implementation, the study employed a descriptive quantitative research design to provide an objective description of curriculum implementation in public elementary schools. The respondents were 14 Grade 5 teachers teaching Science 5, selected through purposive sampling based on their direct involvement in implementing the curriculum. Data were gathered using a researcher-made questionnaire and analyzed through frequency, percentage, and weighted mean. Findings revealed that the implementation of the Science 5 curriculum was generally positive, with a composite weighted mean of 3.33. Among the four areas assessed, strategies used by teachers obtained the highest mean of 3.61, followed by administrative support with 3.35, instructional support with 3.27, and resources with 3.08 as the lowest-rated area. The results indicate that teachers were able to implement the curriculum with commitment and that school leadership provided a favorable level of support. However, limitations in instructional resources and the need for stronger instructional support remained evident. The study concluded that effective curriculum implementation depends not only on teacher effort but also on the enabling conditions provided by the school system. It is recommended that schools and district leaders strengthen the provision of science teaching materials, learning resources, and sustained instructional support to improve the quality and sustainability of Science 5 curriculum implementation.
References
Balagtas, M. U., Garcia, D. C. B., & Ngo, D. C. (2019). Looking through Philippine’s K to 12 curriculum in mathematics and science vis-a-vis TIMSS 2015 assessment framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(12). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108494
Balinario, J. C. (2021). Awareness, attitude, implementation and academic performance in science curriculum: A correlational study. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Applied Business and Education Research, 2(4), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.02.04.07
Datoy, F. C. (2020). Teaching competence and challenges encountered in secondary science instruction. International Journal of English Language Studies, 2(4), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijels.2020.2.4.4
Hammack, R., & Ivey, T. (2019). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of K-5 engineering education and perceived barriers to implementation. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(4), 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20289
Hamunyela, H. N., Makaye, J., & Cabarrubias-Dela Cruz, K. (2022). Implementation of the revised biology curriculum in selected junior secondary schools in Namibia. Creative Education, 13(9), 2958–2972. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2022.139187
Kanamugire, C., Yadav, L. L., & Mbonyiryivuze, A. (2019). Tutors’ perceptions about science curriculum reforms and challenges for their implementation in Teacher Training Colleges in Rwanda. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 15(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v15i1.9
Lyle, A., Spillane, J. P., & Haverly, C. (2023). State-level efforts to reform elementary science education. Educational Policy, 38(2), 350–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048231163787
Palestina, R. L., Pangan, A. D., & Ancho, I. (2020). Curriculum implementation facilitating and hindering factors: The Philippines context. International Journal of Education, 13(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v13i2.25340
Pareja Roblin, N., Schunn, C. D., & Bernstein, D. (2018). Exploring shifts in the characteristics of US government-funded science curriculum materials and their (unintended) consequences. Studies in Science Education, 54(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2018.1441842
Rammbuda, M. C. (2023). Challenges faced by curriculum advisors when offering curriculum support to schools in rural South Africa. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 12(5), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v12i5.2582
Rogan, J. M. (2007). How much curriculum change is appropriate? Defining a zone of feasible innovation. Science Education, 91(3), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20192
Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145819
Seeber, E. R., Spillane, J. P., & Yin, X. (2024). Leading systemwide improvement in elementary science education: Managing dilemmas of education system building. American Educational Research Journal, 61(5), 1074–1112. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312241269165
