SPIRAL PROGRESSION APPROACH IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS: ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v4i3.226Keywords:
content standards, lesson planning, instruction, assessment, teaching strategiesAbstract
The study aimed to evaluate the extent of implementation of spiral progression approach in teaching mathematics in the public secondary in the context of new normal. Quantitative was utilized in the conduct of the study. The quantitative descriptive research method was used to determine teachers understanding about spiral progression approach in terms of its background and content standards, to evaluate the extent of implementation of spiral progression approach in terms of lesson planning, instruction, assessment and teaching strategies, as well as to determine if there is a significant relationship between the two variables: teachers understanding and implementation of spiral progression approach. Percentage of the Correct response, Mean, Pearson r were used to determine teachers understanding and the extent of implementation of spiral progression approach. The findings of the study show that teachers moderately understood spiral progression approach. The extent of the implementation of SPA exceeded the expectations which results to a positive outcome of the feature of the curriculum. Findings revealed that there is a significant relationship between teachers understanding and the implementation of Spiral Progression Approach and Project ETISPA (Enhanced Teachers Implementation of Spiral Progression Approach) to be proposed as an extension project. To improve this study, there should be a promotion of advocacy that supports the sustainability and effectiveness of spiral progression approach, further orientation on the roles and responsibilities of teachers and school heads, and enrichment activities like benchmarking and brainstorming, wide dissemination, and implementation of the proposed programs.
References
Abelardo, L.J., Lomboy, M.A.A., Lopez, C.C., Balaria, F.E., Subia, G.S. (2019): Challenges encountered by the national high school teachers in doing action research. – International Journal of English, Literature and Social Science (IJELS) 4(4): 1046-1051.
Byrd, M.W. (2011): Education, economic growth, and social stability: Why the three are inseparable. – R. Azizian, A. Lukin, From APEC 12p.
Corpuz, B.B. (2014): The spiral progression approach in the K to 12 curriculum. – St. Louis University 41p.
Davis, E.G. (2007): A study of the effects of an experimental spiral physics curriculum taught to sixth grade girls and boys. – Baylor University 276p.
Department of Education (2020): DM NO. 89 S. 2020-Clarifications on the use of the most essential learning competencies (MELCs) and other related issues. – Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from:
Department of Education (2010): Discussion paper on the enhanced K+12 basic education program. – Republic of the Philippines 12p.
Dizon, R., Calbi, J., Cuyos, J., Miranda, M. (2019): Perspectives on the Implementation of the K to 12 Program in the Philippines: A Research Review. – International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Science 6: 757-765.
Dunton, J.B. (2019): Spiral progression approach in teaching science and the performance of learners in District I, Capiz. – In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing 1254(1): 6p.
Efland, A.D. (1995): The spiral and the lattice: Changes in cognitive learning theory with implications for art education. – Studies in Art Education 36(3): 134-153.
Enicola, P. (2021): Education Issues in the Philippines: The Ongoing Struggle. – ChildHope Philippines Official Portal. Retrieved from:
https://childhope.org.ph/education-issues-in-the-philippines/
Espique, E.F., Vera-Silva, D.D. (2021): Technology for teaching and learning 2 TTL2 Mathematics and Science Education. – Lorimar Publishing 196p.
Gazette, O. (2013): Republic Act No. 10533-An Act Enhancing the Philippine Basic Education System by Strengthening Its Curriculum and Increasing the Number of Years for Basic Education, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes. – Republic of the Philippines 11p.
George, D., Mallery, P. (2021): IBM SPSS statistics 27 step by step: A simple guide and reference. – Routledge 418p.
Goldstein, H. (2004): Education for all: the globalization of learning targets. – Comparative Education 40(1): 7-14.
Ibañez, E.D., Subia, G.S., Medrano-Allas, S., Mendoza, J.I., Mina, J.C. (2021): Modern Mathematics Applications: Solutions to Challenges Encountered in Teaching Spiral Progression in Mathematics 7. – Open Access Library Journal 8: 7p.
Jereb, E., Jerebic, J., Urh, M. (2022): Studying habits in higher education before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. – Athens Journal of Education 9: 1-17.
Johnstone, C.J., Schuelka, M.J., Swadek, G. (2020): Quality education for all? The promises and limitations of the SDG framework for inclusive education and students with disabilities. – In Grading Goal Four, Brill 10p.
Johnston, H. (2012): The Spiral Curriculum: Research into Practice. – Education Partnerships, Inc. 2p.
Koblin, J. (2021): Bruner’s 3 steps of learning in a spiral curriculum. – Sprouts Official Portal. Retrieved from:
https://sproutsschools.com/bruners-spiral-curriculum/
Liu, C.H., Matthews, R. (2005): Vygotsky's Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined. – International Education Journal 6(3): 386-399.
Middleton, J., Ziderman, A. (1997): Overview: World Bank policy research on vocational education and training. – International Journal of Manpower 18(1/2): 6-28.
Nishan, F., Mohamed, A. (2021): Emerging stronger: Policy directions for COVID-19 and beyond for public schools in the Maldives. – Fulbright Review of Economics and Policy 1(2): 266-285.
NISMED, U. (2001): One Hundred Years of Science and Mathematics Education in the Philippines. – UP NISMED 173p.
Oliver, K.M. (2000): Methods for developing constructivist learning on the web. – Educational Technology 40(6): 5-18.
Peteros, E.D., Ypil, S.C., de Vera, J.V., Alcantara, G.A., Fulgencio, M.D., Plando, D.B., Peconcillo Jr, L.B. (2022): Effects of School Proximity on Students’ Performance in Mathematics. – Open Journal of Social Sciences 10(1): 365-376.
Rahiem, M.D. (2021): Remaining motivated despite the limitations: University students’ learning propensity during the COVID-19 pandemic. – Children and Youth Services Review 120: 14p.
Rawlings Lester, R., Allanson, P.B., Notar, C.E. (2017): Routines are the foundation of classroom management. – Education 137(4): 398-412.
Resurreccion, J.A., Adanza, J. (2015): Spiral progression approach in teaching science in selected private and public schools in Cavite. – In Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress 3: 12p.
Sandhu, H.K., Grover, A. (2017): Innovation in Mathematics education. – International Journal of Advance Research in Science and Engineering 6(3): 262-266.
Steffe, L.P., Gale, J.E. (Eds.) (1995): Constructivism in education. – Psychology Press 600p.
Tan, M.C., Philippines, D., City, Q. (2012): Spiral progression approach to teaching and learning. – In CEAP National Convention, SMX Convention Center, Pasay City, Philippines 8p.
Troelstra, A.S., Van Dalen, D. (2014): Constructivism in Mathematics. – Elsevier 140p.
Veladat, F., Mohammadi, F. (2011): Spiral learning teaching method: Stair stepped to promote learning. – Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 29: 1115-1122.
