Curriculum is the best instrument in the school to attain the learning goals in the nation. In education, curriculum comprises of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, wherein the learners acquire throughout several school subjects. These subjects are developed from the national goals of education in addition to the foundations of our culture. It is the aim of education that requires an adjustment and strategies to complete the advancement of the school curriculum. For example, if a country is supporting to methodical adjustment then the objectives would be interpreted into subjects, knowledge, skills and values, wherein will be taught into the students to realize the national goals (Esu & Emah, 2014). It is done if the ideas, perceptions and principles are transmuted into habit; into the instruction, education and evaluation programs that establish the daily involvements at all aims (Thong, 2013).
In the Philippines setting, the educators enhanced the Philippines’ basic educational system through K to 12 Curriculum. Announced in 2011 by the Department of Education (DepEd), directed by Secretary Armin Luistro, FSJ, the K to 12 Curriculum made kindergarten and 12 years of basic education (six years of primary education, four years of junior high school, and two years of senior high school SHS) to give adequate time for mastery of ideas and skills, create all -time learners, and train graduates for tertiary education, middle-level skills development, employment, and entrepreneurship.
One of the most important facets in the K to 12 Curriculum is crafting the curriculum applicable to the learners. For example, school activities are based on indigenous way of living, past events and even in experiences encountered by the students. As a matter of fact, this feature is not fresh to DepEd teachers for it is already entrenched in the Philippines educational system. To wit, (1) the DepEd Mission mentioned as: “To protect and promote the right of every Filipino to quality, equitable, culture – based, a complete basic education….”; (2) It is being stated in the provisions of our 1987 Philippine Constitution particularly on Article XIV, Section 14 which says that “The State shall foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of a Filipino national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression” and lastly, (3) Pursuant to DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2013, the K to 12 Curriculum should be contextualized (Rule II, Section 10.2 b), and amenable to permit schools to localize, indigenize, and improve the same constructed on their own educational and social perspectives (Rule II, Section 10.2 h). These standards and principles guide the efforts of the DepEd in maintaining the basic education system that is inclusive, equitable and culture – based.
The curriculum implementation is a resilient but intentional action by the government to certify that it yields proficient alumni who can perform as the pillar for an extremely capable labor force (Barlongo, 2015). This implementation would not be possible without putting the curriculum into effect. The operation needs the teacher, an implementing agent in the curriculum implementation process, wherein their knowledge, skills, experiences and expertise for introducing the curriculum in the classroom. From the time when execution takes place during the collaboration of the learner and the designed learning chances, the function of the teacher is unquestionable. If the teacher can explain the curriculum targets into reality, then the teacher understands the curriculum and implements it effectively. (Onojerena, 2014).
As stated by Undersecretary Dina Ocampo, “for you (teachers) to localize and contextualize the curriculum, you have to think of where you are so that you can make the curriculum relevant to you.” This means that wherever you may go in the different zones in the country, you will apply different materials, different means and different strategies so that you can transfer the ideals of the curriculum effectively.
With this, I found out that the teachers are fully aware on these standards and principles of the K to 12 Curriculum, but few are implementing it. Many claimed that they are implementing it, that serves as an opportunity to teach the concepts of Mathematics subject to confirm that all learners can use and apply what they have learned in real – life situations and on how learners best understand and connect every lesson to put meaning from them; but some of them have the difficulty in implementing it effectively.
This may happen since the implementation was done without a benefit of demonstration of how to do it. Moreover, to implement these principles of the lessons effectively, this study would like to create a new document of designing a lesson suited for it to provide a new model and how it should be integrated in the contextualization and localization of lessons in Mathematics.
I utilized a qualitative research that targets to deliver a clear arrangement and extensive designs obtained among a set of participants and creates data concerning human groups in shared situations. The atheoretical perspective and philosophical stance were clearly discussed below:
(Denzin, 2004) noted that to explain the human group of life and human conduct, a Symbolic Interactionism is atheoretical perspective constructed on the supporting evidences:
…human beings act towards things based on the meanings the things have for them; the meanings of such things are derived from the social interaction that the individual has with his fellows; … and these meanings are handled in, and modified through an interpretive process used by the person dealing with the things he or she encounters (Blumer 1969).
(Annells, 1996) developed the subject of individuals distributing same circumstances providing growth to “joint action” where followers of a group show patterned behaviors. These patterns of behavior are defined by fundamental rules, resources and procedures which are related to type and society (Denzin, 2004). Joint action needs full attention in this study since teachers with different stations might exhibit common behaviors that are constant with Blumer’s view of joint action. He also advises that any disappointment by the researcher to distinguish the relatedness of the activities of the entities within the shared group would be invalid. Therefore, it is crucial for the me to be fully sensitive of the relatedness of the proceedings of my research participants in the conduct of this study.
Amidst the idea of joint action, an equal stability and predictability is also stipulated to social interaction. This level is tested by the modification of different scenarios and issues appear in the current society. This is shown in the DepEd curriculum with various decades, from the Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) to Revised – Basic Education Curriculum (RBES) up to the present curriculum, the K to 12. As a result, the present mandates turn out to be ineffective and possibly directed to a level of uncertainty in the teaching learning process.
The perfect approach for my research is the Symbolic Interactionism which is postulated on the reality that teachers establish their proceedings on their understandings of the K to 12 Curriculum. The presence of interconnecting of the experiences of the teachers within the group, patterned behaviors appear consequently of group norms. Additionally, (Charmaz, 2006) noted that Symbolic Interactionism suggests that people can organize and reflect regarding their proceedings, instead of responding in a systematic way. (Morse, 2001) also added that Symbolic Interactionism presents grounded theory methods that permits the researcher to distinguish patterned behaviors while sustaining the perception of the human beings. From the specific perceptions of human beings develop into general one was claimed by (Charmaz, 2006).
Supporting education, teachers play an important role in teaching – learning process; with due respect, they are observed by the society as being educated and expert in all areas. With this, it is the teacher’s perception that establishes the foundation of this study of the experiences of teachers about this DepEd mandates on Contextualization and Localization of lessons especially in the field of Mathematics.
When starting this qualitative research study, I suitably sited in a (Guba ; Lincoln, 1994;2005) constructivist paradigm. Additionally, this includes a relativist ontology and a subjective reality.
From the ontological and epistemological assumptions mentioned previously and in what way these assumptions directed to the purpose that the experiences of the Mathematics teachers in contextualizing and localizing in their lessons might be discovered using a constructivist approach.
Constructivism, as defined by Guba and Lincoln (2005), is vernacular. This implies that authenticity is created with the viewpoints of the participants. The inquirer is the participant in the research and the outcomes of an inquiry are formed by the collaboration of the inquirer and inquired into. Thus, to determine the experiences of the Mathematics teachers, I considered that it is mandatory to recognize how the participants created their own interpretation in contextualizing and localizing of lessons in Mathematics and their communications with the organization and the school environment.
I asked my research participants the comprehensive research question “How do teachers experience the contextualization and localization in Mathematics teaching?” to gather data with the aim of the research. This comprehensive research question was involved in human perspective. Since the experiences of the teachers and how do they interact with the DepEd mandates certifies consideration on human social interaction, a grounded theory method is appropriate to use (Glaser ; Strauss, 1967).
Historically, grounded theory was formerly started by Strauss and Corbin in 1960’s. They confirm that the basic condition of the grounded theory method is to study the impact of constructions and practices that is created to the relative factors in the research design, organization and conclusions of the research.
The Grounded theory methodology and Symbolic Interactionism are mutually related in their aims. The main target is to find out the essential common practices that is “the theoretical reflections and summarizations of the patterned, systematic uniformity flows of social life which people go through, and which can be conceptually ‘captured’ and further understood through the construction of basic social process theories”. They are jointly related with the constructions of implication about persons achievement and collaboration contained by relative constructions and practices.
I believed that Symbolic Interactionism and Grounded Theory methodology were effective to apply because Symbolic Interactionism gives framework in collecting the data needed; and Grounded Theory methodology presents an organized approach in generating a substantive theory. Thus, constructivist grounded theory is the perfect methodology to explore the experiences of the teachers in contextualizing and localizing lessons in Mathematics.
Domain of Inquiry
The main purpose of the study is to investigate the experiences of Mathematics Teachers on Contextualization and Localization in the Division of City of Bogo, Cebu Province SY 2017-2018, towards developing a substantive theory.
Specifically, it was guided with the following questions:
1. What are the experiences of Mathematics teachers in Contextualization and Localization of lessons?
2. How do the interactions of the processes involve in the implementation and localization?
3. What substantive theory can be generated constructed on the discoveries of the study?
Significance of the Study
In view of these substantive theory, the persons who will benefit are the following:
Students. The students become more – motivated to learn Mathematics concepts as well as the skills they needed to be applied in real – life situations. They can discover our interesting and wonderful world around the lens of Mathematics.
Teachers. This serves as an instructional method to connect the lessons applicable to the students in the real world. Expected content and performance standards will be covered; demonstrated the effective implementation of the curriculum through contextualization and localization of lessons in Mathematics and enhanced students’ learning.
School Heads. Every school head in both public secondary and elementary schools in the Division of City of Bogo increase awareness into their teachers’ experiences, potentials, and inclinations, so helping them in acquiring approaches for implementing contextualization and localization of lessons in Mathematics effectively.
Program Specialists. Through this, the Department of Education (DepEd) prepared students to become 21st century learners where in – depth knowledge, abilities, values and attitudes they acquired by means of stability across all areas.
Researcher. As an implementing agent, I have the knowledge and skills on how to implement effective Contextualization and Localization of lessons in the field of Mathematics.
Future Researchers. To the future researchers, they will explore other substantive theories to help improve the curriculum implementation in the teaching learning process.