UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

PUBLIC POLICY MONOGRAPHS

Key Issues in
Curriculum, Assessment,
and ICT in Basic Education

DINA OCAMPO
KATHRINA LORRAINE M. LUCASAN
Editors
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
PUBLIC POLICY MONOGRAPHS

Key Issues in
Curriculum, Assessment,
and ICT in Basic Education
DINA OCAMPO
KATHRINA LORRAINE M. LUCASAN
Editors
Published by the
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Lower Ground Floor, Ang Bahay ng Alumni
Magsaysay Avenue, University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City 1101
Telephone: 981-8500 (loc. 4266 to 68), 435-9283 / Telefax: 426-0955
E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]
Website: cids.up.edu.ph

Copyright 2019 by UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies

No copies can be made in part or in whole without prior written permission

from the authors and the publisher. The National Library of the Philippines CIP
Data Recommended entry:

Key issues in curriculum, assessment, and ICT in basic education / Dina

Ocampo, Kathrina Lorraine M. Lucasan, editors. — Quezon City :
University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development
Studies, [2019], c2019. pages ; cm

ISBN 978-971-742-123-0 (print)

ISBN 978-971-742-124-7 (electronic)

1. Basic education — Philippines — Curricula. 2. Basic education — Philippines. I.

Ocampo, Dina. II. Lucasan, Kathrina Lorraine M.

Cover and book design: Ace Vincent Molo

Cover image: Maria Fe Chiong Balaba

Contents
Introduction 1

3
The K to 12 Basic Education Program: Emerging Issues of Concern
Jocelyn DR. Andaya

The Basic Education Research Agenda of the Department of Education and

System Assessment in the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum 11
Gretchen G. Cordero

31
Research Agenda on Curriculum and Assessment
Leonor E. Diaz

35
Learning Analytics in the Philippine Context
Ma. Mercedes T. Rodrigo

41
Basic Education Curriculum, Assessment, and Corresponding ICT
Maria Hazelle Preclaro-Ongtengco

47
Summary of Workshop Output
Kathrina Lorraine M. Lucasan

Appendix: Participants 49
iii
1
8 RODRIGO

Basic Education Curriculum,

Assessment, and Corresponding ICT
MARIA HAZELLE PRECLARO-ONGTENGCO
Assistant Professor, College of Education, University of the Philippines Diliman

Two of the most groundbreaking decisions made for Philippine basic education were Department
Order No. 74, s. 2009, which was the institutionalization of Mother-Tongue Based Multilingual Education
(MTB–MLE), and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10533, also known as the Enhanced Basic Education Act of
2013. Having now undergone at least four to five years of implementation, these have helped pave the
way for significant changes in the delivery of education for the primary, intermediate and secondary levels
in terms of access, curricular content and pedagogical approach taken. The implementation of these of
course have been met with a lot of challenges, be it in terms of public acceptance, allocation of financial,
material as well as human resources and the overall response to change. Let me speak a little bit about the
role of oral language in the reform.

On the role of oral language development

One of the major leaps in Philippine education is having recognized the role of language in learning,
more specifically, learning literacy skills. Disability studies have shown that individuals who have
experienced delays in learning language have also experienced difficulty learning literacy skills. It is
therefore imperative that we are able to explore the various aspects of language learning such as (1)
learning how to communicate using a language, (2) learning about a language’s form, content use (Bloom
and Lahey in Hermosa 2002) and (3) learning through a language.

In a study on literacy trajectories by USAID (Ochoa 2018) conducted in Ilocos, Cebu, and Laguna
(December 2017) researchers investigated the relationship between the different languages and the factors
that affect literacy learning in Mother Tongue (MT), Filipino and English. Furthermore, through this
longitudinal study, Ochoa wanted to document the reading trajectory in each language to better determine
the readiness of learners to use Filipino and English as languages of instruction, come fourth grade. While
findings from this small-scale study prevent us from generalizing across the population, it does give us
insight on how children from this research learned literacy across three languages: (1) there was a steady
increase in the students’ learning literacy in each language (MT, Filipino, and English); (2) students
showed greater improvement in learning literacy in their MT more than the succeeding languages; (3)
learners from Ilocos and Cebu were unable to catch up with the rate at which Tagalogspeaking students
from Laguna were learning literacy skills in Filipino; and (4) learners from all regions did not display
readiness for using English as a language of instruction. What then do these research findings prompt us
to ask?

41
 • What are the factors that contribute to better literacy learning in L1 as compared to L2?
• In what way should the implementation of Filipino and English as languages of instruction be
adjusted given that students are not necessarily ready for this transition?
• What kind of bridging program will need to be put in place so that there is a smooth transition
from using the MT to using Filipino and English as languages of instruction?

Perhaps it is also important to point out that there seems to be an assumption that learning a language
is synonymous to being ready to learn through a language. In the same vein, this may perhaps explain
why there is a major discrepancy between learners’ level of Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills
and their Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). The development of oral language in
classrooms may be more devoted to developing communications skills that may be cognitively less
demanding and which may be why students are less able to meet expectations when given cognitively
demanding opportunities to respond. So this prompts one to ask:

• What is the nature/the kinds of talk engaged in by students and teachers in their learning
community?
• What is the percentage of the student talk time and teacher talk time in a given learning session?

Other issues that continue to challenge teachers is the number of learners with diverse language needs
in one classroom. This is no different from my experience in New York when my monolingual classmates
were concerned that they had seven students with different languages in their classrooms. Perhaps, before
the opening of a school year, it may be considered that students be assessed using a language screening
tool that can help determine their level of proficiency, identify the language that the child can learn best
in so that individual children can be grouped and instruction can be differentiated so that it can suit the
students learning context and thus avoid a mismatch between the child’s home language and the medium
of instruction in the classroom.

Aside from developing oral language competencies is the importance of learning vocabulary. But it
is not just about increasing the total number of words that we know of, it is also about learning words used
in the different content area subjects (special lexicon for each) and of course the active use of these
terminologies (Connor 2008).

On curriculum content
Moneva (2016) worked on a case study of one particular class, looking a little more closely into the
implementation of the Integrated Language Arts curriculum for the first grade, third quarter in a school in
Las Piñas. Analysis of video recorded teaching sessions and transcriptions of sessions held were used as
basis for looking into the implemented curriculum. Documentary analysis was used for the ideal and
intended curricula, while summative tests were used to analyze the assessed curriculum. An analysis of
students’ answers was made to describe the attained curriculum.

Results of the study showed that the MTB–MLE and Filipino programs, grammar was the domain
that was taught most consistently while for English, it was vocabulary knowledge that received most
emphasis. Moneva’s research question focused on the level of alignment of the three subjects in the
Integrated Arts Curriculum, specifically MTB–MLE, Filipino and English in terms of the ideal, intended,
implemented, the assessed and the attained curricula. After having reviewed the results of this study, and
given that there are fourteen domains of literacy, I wondered:
BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM, ASSESSMENT, AND CORRESPONDING ICT 43
10 PRECLARO-ONGTENGCO

• Which domains of literacy are most/least prioritized in the teaching of the language subjects?
• Which competencies of these fourteen domains are attained by the students?
• What are the best practices of literature and skills integration implemented in classrooms that
addresses these different domains of literacy?
• In what ways is the level of alignment of the three subjects (i.e., MTB–MLE, Filipino, and
English) in terms of the ideal, the intended, the implemented, and the attained observed in
various classrooms across the nation?
• Which classrooms can serve as exemplars and which classrooms can be subject to further
analysis so that learning conditions can be further improved?
• In what ways has this kind of comprehensive assessment been done across subject areas and
grade levels?
• What do the NAT results reveal about student achievement in light of this educational reform?
• Are there consistent forms and sources of evaluation (both quantitative and qualitative) to track
student progress?

Focusing on assessment
One such tool on literacy assessment was developed by the Assessment, Curriculum, and Technology
Research Centre (ACTRC 2016) in cooperation with the University of Melbourne with the support of
Australian Aid. This is one particular study that I was involved in. The LearnARMM study was designed
to track and analyze learning achievement of students in the rural and remote areas of the Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao. The objective was to gather baseline data of students who attended the
alternative delivery mode program, and the DepEd Basic Education. The study was conducted in Lanao
del Sur (where they speak Meranao), Maguindanao (where their MT is Maguindanaoan) and Tawi-Tawi
(a place that uses Sama as their MT). After surveying existing assessment tools, we realized that there
were no relatable materials for students from Muslim Mindanao. We needed to make our own. This
assessment tool is based on developmental progressions containing stages of increasing competence that
are reached by learners as they improve their knowledge and skills. The purpose is primarily to provide a
starting point for instruction.

One of the major challenges in assessment is creating a tool that can measure what one sets out to
measure. A tool for assessing both literacy and numeracy skills was developed based on the DepEd
curriculum and validated before its administration in the target areas. It was designed to individually
assess students and track their progress as they go up the grade levels. As part of the team that developed
the first few instruments we soon realized that there was more to creating test items for each Math topic
or literacy domain. It was not just a matter of creating items and putting them into one document. Several
factors needed to be considered.

The making of the tests needed to be a collaborative effort. It was collaboration of translators, early
grade consultants and literacy/mathematics content experts and early grade educators in the public
schools. Each member of the team was crucial so that (1) the terminologies included in the test reflected
what was used in their respective communities; (2) the items covered curriculum content, (3) the items
were developmentally appropriate and contextualized.

Other factors that affected item construction included curriculum-based concerns: for Math, it merited
an understanding of its specialized lexicon. Math has its own language. But for literacy it was necessary
to be domain-specific. For the numeracy test, it was important to verify terms used for numbers, fractions,
place value to name a few. But aside from knowing the exact terms used, it was also important to keep
the assessment objective in mind. In the same way that 25 cents of a dollar is called a quarter, that Sama
language had an equivalent terminology, dabunggul. To find out if the child understands that a quarter is
made up of 25 centavos, it would be more appropriate to use the Sama term, duwampu-kalimasin. Only a
clear appreciation of the goals of assessment would prompt test makers to choose duwampu-kalimasin
over the term dabunggul—and this is where the collaboration of translators, content area experts and early
grade educators was necessary. Translators provided the options dabunggul and duwampu-kalimasin,
content area experts analyzed the terms usefulness based on the goal of assessment, and early grade
education in the public school confirmed if the chosen term is something that the students would be
familiar with. For literacy, it was necessary to consult local speakers of the language who were also early
grades educators because of their familiarity with the orthography of their Mother Tongue.

In terms of contextualization, it was necessary to create books that had pictures of students that looked
similar to the way that they dress and situations that were similar to what they experienced. It was
necessary to contextualize assessment in order for the tool to be effective for its purpose. The use of local
names, local artifacts and local practices and experiences universal to all children were considered in the
crafting of each item. Having experienced the process of making such a tool prompted me to ask:

• In what ways should this tool be translated and contextualized such that all MTs are represented
and the growth of all learners may eventually be monitored and documented?
• What other curricular, cultural, and developmental factors would surface in the construction of
assessment tools for other Philippine languages and the learners’ varied contexts?
• In what way can such assessment tools inform us if basic education is being delivered
effectively?
• Is there a way that these same assessment tools can inform us of student performance/progress
and therefore be the basis for planning instruction?
• Are the purposes of assessment clearly understood and taken full advantage of?

One other research by ACTRC, The Science Curriculum Project (Care et. al. 2018), posed this
question pertaining to student readiness in a content-area based classroom, “Do students have the
prerequisite knowledge as they enter each chemistry quarter (Grades 7–10)?” What they realized was that
students were facing new content, without having the prerequisite skills needed for learning. And that is
where the failure cycle begins.

The same results are also true in terms of literacy learning. The recent conduct of the Philippine
Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI), non-readers have been identified to be frustrated learners (DepEd
2018). While informal reading inventories are used to describe the kind of texts students will be able to
read at an independent, instructional and frustration level, describing learners as frustrated reveals a lack
of understanding of the purpose of the assessment tool and the usefulness of the information that can be
gleaned from it. It continues to follow a deficit model rather than face varying reading abilities with a
growth mindset—which not only aims to address needs but also hones the learners’ strengths.

The need for student support

A one-size-fits all approach to teaching learners puts the unique needs of learners on hold. While there
are special education centers in every school, not all of these centers have the expertise needed to teach
learners in need of specialized instruction (e.g. braille, sign language). It is however important to
remember that not only learners with special needs will benefit from support services. Making sure that
there is the provision for support services—be it specialized instruction/support in the classroom,
afterschool assistance/instruction or counseling and guidance—will make for the holistic development of
all learners.
BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUM, ASSESSMENT, AND CORRESPONDING ICT 45
12 PRECLARO-ONGTENGCO

Inclusive practices can be put in place so that all learners’ needs are met. For examples, strategies that
work for children with learning disabilities (e.g. use of visual-auditory and kinesthetic modalities; use of
graphic organizers and mind maps) are also tools that regular learners will benefit from. We need to
organize instruction so that different abilities are considered and provided the much needed support. For
example, another research by USAID (BASA Pilipinas), explored a response-to-intervention model that
addresses needs in various settings: whole class, small group, and individual sessions. The approach
results from their study show that most gains noted were in the mechanical aspects of the reading process.

• While there is consideration for the level of support given to poor readers using the responseto-
intervention model, what teaching approach was actually used in delivering instruction?
• Which domains were prioritized for each mode of delivery?
• Who is responsible for facilitating this process? Who monitors progress for those who receive
specialized instruction? What kind of system must be put in place to provide guidance for
providers of this service? In what way is the effectiveness of intervention monitored or refined?

One way that monitoring of teaching is achieved is through the Learning Action Cells (LAC). The
LAC sessions serve as opportunities for teacher development as teachers go through workshop-type
discussions. This has also been link to lesson study which looks into the convergence of resources and
teacher knowledge such that planning and problem solving becomes a collaborative effort. As we look
deeper into how children respond to instruction, we must also look into student engagement.

The drop-out rates are real (FLEMMS 2013). There is a need to look at how involved students are in
the learning process cognitively, behaviorally, and emotionally. And maybe at some point, learners may
be encouraged to be more agentic (Reeve 2012). But another aspect of classroom instruction that may
help keep kids in schools is the availability of innovative learning materials. It is important to ensure the
access to books—specifically high quality children’s literature. Easy readers, chapter books and other
forms of texts for children can be made available to help encourage a reading culture. Which brings me
to the following questions:

• How can the development of a reading culture be realized?

• How can stakeholders participate in developing and sustaining a reading culture?
• Can such a culture increase readership in classrooms?
• In such an environment, how can learners help each other?
• In such an environment, how can learners help themselves?

These questions point us toward the need for the creation of a well-designed learning environment
that reflects a teacher’s educational philosophy that moves towards teaching with well-articulated
intentions.

• Are we able to design classrooms that encourage inquiry, critical thinking and provide occasion
for solving problems?

We need to move away from looking at ICT as just a different format of presenting text, but rather
we must consider it with instructional design in mind. In an initial review of an existing digital
enhancement of the lesson plans, a digital (animated) version of each lesson was created to help increase
interest and attention of its young viewers. What was missing however from this innovation was the
instructional design component that directs the use of ICT towards creating a more engaging learning
environment. Therefore, rather than serve merely as a representation of text, what kind of learning object
or device or technological feature can be incorporated in the delivery of the Teacher’s Guides Lessons
that encourages the creation of learning opportunities that children can respond to?
Teacher preparation
The success however of educational reform, relies heavily upon the human resources that drive the
provision of general or specialized educational services to those who need it. Teachers (from both public
and private schools) must be given the support necessary so that they can teach with the child in mind.
We need teachers who:

• Understand the premises of the reform;

• Display adequate content knowledge, proficiency in the languages of instruction and the
pedagogical knowledge to deliver instruction;
• Have the willingness to learn (sometimes on their own, e.g., Digital Teacher Professional
development tools; or collaboratively, e.g., LAC sessions) for self-improvement; and
• Have the willingness to learn about children and how children learn (e.g. engage in action
research)

That said, hopefully our inquiries can find answers that can help teachers work towards providing
what is needed for the success of an educational reform that will make the Philippines a more literate
society.

References
Connor, Carol McDonald. 2008. “Oral Language Development Oral Language Development and Its
Influence on Literacy.” Presented at the Florida Center for Reading Research Florida Center for
Reading Research And Florida State University National Reading First Research 2008. Accessed
2018.

Care, Esther, Pam Robertson, Lea Pradilla, and Xerxes de Castro. 2018. Targeted Assessments Supporting
Inclusion. Quezon City: Assessment, Curriculum and Technology Research Centre.

Care, Esther, Alvin Vista, Lea Pradilla, Rebekah Luo, Claire Scoular, and Masa Pavlovic. 2014.
Longitudinal study of learning achievement of students in the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao. Quezon City: Assessment, Curriculum and Technology Research Centre.

Davalos, Maria Beatriz. 2018. Testing an approach to reading remediation for grades 1 and 2 learners –
The Basa Pilipinas Pilot. Manila: USAID Basa Pilipinas.
Hermosa, Nemah. 2002. The Psychology of Reading. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Open
University.

Kucer, Stephen B. 2005. Dimensions of Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing
in School Settings. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moneva, Louvena. 2016. “Isang case study: Pagkakatapat ng kurikulum sa pagbasa sa unang baitang”
(Unpublished thesis). University of the Philippines Diliman.

Ochoa, Cecilia. 2018. Tracking literacy trajectories under DepEd’s Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education (MTB–MLE) Policy. Manila: USAID Basa Pilipinas.
Philippine Statistics Authority. 2013. 2013 FLEMMS: Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media
Survey. Quezon City: Philippine Statistics Authority.

Reeve, Johmarshall. 2012. “A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement.” In

Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, Sandra L. Christenson, Amy L. Reschly, and Cathy
Wylie, eds., 149–72. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
14 PRECLARO-ONGTENGCO

Summary of Workshop Output

KATHRINA LORRAINE M. LUCASAN
UP CIDS Education Research Program

To have a more in-depth interaction on the issues raised by the discussants, workshops were
conducted. Two groups were formed for the workshop based on relevant topics: (1) curriculum and ICT
integration, and (2) assessment and ICT integration. Each group collaborated and discussed to come up
with a response to this question: What research should the University of the Philippines Center for
Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS) Education Research Program (ERP) conduct in the next
five years to help develop basic education policy formulation? The groups categorized policy needs
according to urgency. Policies which need to be released within three years are categorized as “very
urgent,” while policies which need to be released within five years are categorized as “urgent.”

Curriculum and ICT integration

The discussion revolved around K to 12 curriculum design and implementation with emphasis on
kindergarten, mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE), and senior high school. All
research topics identified were considered very urgent.

These were the following:

(1) How was the curriculum implemented in terms of the following:

a) Instructional delivery;
b) Learning processes;
c) Learning resources;
d) Learning environment;
e) Use of ICT resources;
f) Incentive provisions to schools and teachers with best practices;
g) Teacher preparation; and
h) Variation of languages (MTB-MLE)?

(2) To what extent is the curriculum framework implemented in terms of:

a) Design
b) Content
c) Philosophy
d) Implementation

47
 SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP OUTPUT

e) Assessment

(3) What curriculum innovations are evident?

(4) What is the role of ICT in the delivery of programs?

(5) For MTB-MLE, what curriculum innovations have been implemented in terms of:
a) Language mapping;
b) Distinguishing class models;
c) Context-sensitive;
d) Two mother tongues in class;
e) Challenge of a linguistically-diverse context;
f) Bridging Grades 3 to Grade 4;
g) Materials development;
h) Cultures;
i) Policies on teacher innovation; and
j) Implementation evaluation?

Assessment and ICT integration

The group on assessment and ICT discussed varied topics of different degrees of urgency. The most
urgent research that the group identified was on policy for inter-agency development of an admission
tool to address issues related to admission of senior high school graduates to tertiary education.

Research considered very urgent is on the crafting of an ALS assessment policy while those
considered urgent are on (1) policy on ICT infrastructure for analytics and provision of funds thereof,
and (2) assessment of socio-emotional learning.
APPENDIX
 Basic Education Curriculum and ICT Integration

Standing, from left to right: Junette Fatima Gonzales, Rowel Padernal, Leonor Diaz, Anthony Ocampo,
Malcolm Garma; seated, clockwise: Alona Encinares, Aurelio Vilbar, Greg Pawilen, Flordelita Male, Rey
Valenzuela, Agnes Panem, Romylyn Metila, Eugene Penales

Name Institutional Affiliation

1 Adnan Comaradang (Documenter) UP CIDS ERP

2 Leonor Diaz Professor, College of Education, UP Diliman

3 May Eclar Regional Director, Department of Education–

Cordillera Administrative Region

4 Alona Encinares Education Program Specialist, Department of

Education–Region IV-A CALABARZON
49
APPENDIX • PARTICIPANTS

Name Institutional Affiliation

5 Heidi Forte Senior Technical Education and Skills

Development Supervisor, Technical Education
and Skills Development Authority
6 Malcolm Garma Regional Director, Department of Education–
Region I

7 Junette Fatima Gonzales Junior Research Associate, UP CIDS ERP

8 Flordelita Male Education Program Supervisor, Department of

Education–National Capital Region

9 Romylyn Metila Assistant Professor, College of Education,

UP Diliman

10 Rowel Padernal Education Program Specialist,

Bureau of Curriculum Development,
Department of Education

11 Greg Pawilen Associate Professor, College of Human Ecology,

UP Los Baños

12 Eugenio Penales Curriculum and Learning Management Division

Chief, Department of Education–Region IX

13 Rey Valenzuela Information Technology Officer, Department of

Education–Region IV-A CALABARZON

14 Aurelio Vilbar (Moderator and Reporter) Associate Professor, College of Social Sciences,
UP Cebu
APPENDIX • PARTICIPANTS

51
Basic Education Assessment and ICT Integration

Clockwise: Jocelyn Andaya, Gretchen Cordero, Edizon Fermin, Lea Pradilla, Sammy Dolba, Maria Hazelle
Preclaro-Ongtengco, Sierra Paraan, Ma. Mercedes Rodrigo, Jose Camacho, Lana Escario, Kathrina Lorraine
Lucasan

Name Institutional Affiliation

1 Jocelyn Andaya (Moderator) Director, Bureau of Curriculum Development,

Department of Education

2 Jose Camacho Dean, Graduate Studies, UP Los Baños

3 Gretchen Cordero Chief, Education Research Division, Bureau of

Education Assessment, Department of Education

4 Sammy Dolba Professor, College of Flexible Learning,

Philippine Normal University

5 Helen Enginiero Teacher, Quirino High School

6 Lana Escario Principal, Zapatera Elementary School

7 Edizon Fermin (Reporter) Director for Innovation, Miriam College

 8 Kathrina Lorraine Lucasan (Documenter) Junior Research Associate, UP CIDS ERP

9 Anthony Ocampo Faculty, UP Integrated School

10 Sierra Paraan Save the Children Foundation

APPENDIX • PARTICIPANTS

Name Institutional Affiliation

11 Lea Pradilla Assessment, Curriculum, and Technology

Research Centre

12 Maria Hazelle Preclaro-Ongtengco Assistant Professor, College of Education,

UP Diliman

13 Ma. Mercedes Rodrigo Professor, Ateneo de Manila University