Strategies of Secondary Mathematics Teachers in Module Development: The Case of Cotabato City

Background/purpose. Instructional modules are essential tools in supporting effective teaching and learning, particularly in mathematics education. Despite the increasing emphasis on learner-centered approaches, many teachers continue to adopt traditional strategies that prioritize content delivery over student engagement. This study was conducted to examine the strategies employed by secondary mathematics teachers in Cotabato City in developing instructional modules, to identify areas for improvement in instructional practices.

Materials/methods. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used. The initial phase involved a survey of 25 secondary mathematics teachers and 40 mathematics education students using a validated 24-item questionnaire. This was followed by a series of focus group discussions guided by open-ended interview questions. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) to determine relationships among variables, while qualitative responses were subjected to thematic analysis to further explain the survey results.

Results. The study found that teachers predominantly utilized strategies focused on explaining and evaluating, reflecting conventional approaches centered on knowledge transmission and assessment. In contrast, strategies associated with the 5E Instructional Model—such as engaging, exploring, and elaborating—were rarely employed. This indicates a lack of emphasis on inquiry-based and student-centered methods in module development.

Conclusion. The results highlight the need for professional development programs that equip teachers with practical skills in designing instructional modules based on active learning principles. Strengthening these areas may contribute to more meaningful learning experiences and improved outcomes for mathematics learners.

Keywords: Instructional Module Development, Teaching Strategies, 5E Instructional Model, Contextualized Learning, Secondary Education

References

Adu, A., & Folson, D. (2023). Effectiveness of 5E instructional model on students’ performance in mathematics non-routine problem. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports, 17(5), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2023/v17i5482

Adu, S., & Folson, R. (2023). Effects of the 5E Instructional Model on students' performance in mathematics. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 19(2), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2023/v17i5482

Alegre, K. C., & Falle, T. A. (2023). Challenges in using modular approach in mathematics to senior students in Zambales, Philippines. East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(7), 3039–3052. https://doi.org/10.55927/eajmr.v2i7.5376

Alegre, R., & Adelantar, M. (2022). Addressing the limitations of modular learning in teaching algebra. Journal of Mathematics Instruction, 14(1), 50–63.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Bosome, R. S., and Nabie, M. J. (2022). Engaging students through the 5E model in mathematics classrooms: A Ghanaian perspective. International Journal of Research in STEM Education, 5(2), 13–29.

Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. NSTA Press.

Crawford, M. L. (2001). Teaching contextually: Research, rationale, and techniques for improving student motivation and achievement in mathematics and science. CCI Publishing

Department of Education. (2016). Policy guidelines on the implementation of the Senior High School (SHS) program. Department of Education, Philippines.

Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching. Science Education Review, 3(3), 49–58.

Errabo, D. D., & Ongoco, A. A. (2024). Effects of interactive-mobile learning modules in students’ engagement and understanding in genetics. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2024-0023

Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Sutman, F. X., & Saxton, M. K. (2001). Promoting science and literacy learning for English language learners: Learning from instructional interventions. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 479–501.

Gordon, S., & Nicholas, J. (2013). Engaging mathematics learners through context-rich tasks. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 69(1), 29–35.

Hamdunah, H., Yunita, A., Zulkardi, and Muhafzan, M. (2016). Development a constructivist module and web on circle and sphere material with Wingeom software. Journal on Mathematics Education, 7(2), 109–116.

Hamdunah, H., Yunita, Y., Zulkardi, Z., & Muhafzan, M. (2016). Development of mathematics learning module based on constructivism approach. Journal on Mathematics Education, 7(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.7.2.3532.203-210

Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690121307

Madrazo, A. L., & Villareas Dio, R. (2020). Contextualized learning modules in bridging students’ learning gaps in calculus with analytic geometry through independent learning. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 457–476. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1294581.pdf

Magno, C. (2020). Contextualized Learning Material (CLM) in developing conceptual understanding of Grade 7 mathematics. IJSRP / institutional repository. https://doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.10.03.2020.p9967.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

Paguirigan, E. M., & Paguirigan, M. J. R. (2024). Development of a mathematics module using the 5E learning model. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(11), 504–519. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.11.26.

Pino, I. C. C. (2022). The journey of junior high school math teachers in module development: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Science and Management Studies, 5(3), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.51386/25815946/ijsms-v5i3p102

Refugio, C. N., Bulado, M. I. E. A., Galleto, P. G., Dimalig, C., Colina, D., Inoferio, H. V., & Nocete, M. L. R. (2020). Difficulties in teaching senior high school General Mathematics: Basis for training design. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(2), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v15i2.4589.

Runisah, R., Herman, T., and Dahlan, J. A. (2017). The enhancement of students’ mathematical critical thinking ability through the 5E learning cycle with metacognitive technique. International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education, 1(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v1i1.5698.

Rupnow, R., & Fukawa-Connelly, T. (2024). How mathematicians characterize and attempt to develop understanding of concepts and definitions in proof-based courses. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1284666. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1284666

Sionicio, M. C., & Besmonte, A. C. (2023). Assessing students’ learning: Revisiting challenges of secondary mathematics teachers in Bicol Region, Philippines. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(6), 1944–1957. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.06.23

Tep, V. (2024). Teacher educators as curriculum developers: A case study of practices, challenges, and strategies. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1328023. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1328023.

Turan, B., & Matteson, S. (2021). Balancing teacher guidance and student autonomy in 5E model implementation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(4), 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-020-09460-w

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!