Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 39 no. 9 (2025)

Navigating The Shift: Social Studies Teachers’ Early Experiences In Transitioning From K-12 To MATATAG Curriculum

Janette Demalata | Nancy B. Espacio

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum in the Philippines marks a significant shift from the K–12 Curriculum, necessitating adjustments from educators, particularly Social Studies teachers. This study explores the lived experiences of Grade 7 Social Studies teachers in both public and private schools in Banga, South Cotabato, Philippines, as they navigate this curriculum shift. Using phenomenological research design, the study examines the challenges encountered, adaptation strategies employed, and the overall impact of the curriculum shift on teaching practices. Data were gathered through in depth interviews with seven teachers and analyzed thematically. Findings reveal four major themes regarding teachers lived experiences: (1) Mixed Ease vs. Difficulty, (2) Adjustments in Teaching Preparations & Time, (3) Comparison to K–12 and Gains, and (4) Effects on Student Interactions & Engagement. Additionally, five key challenges emerged: (1) Major Challenges with Implementation, (2) Difficulty Understanding or Implementing Guidelines, (3) Impact on Workload & Access to Materials, (4) Support & Collaboration, and (5) Observations of Others’ Challenges. Teachers employed various adaptation strategies, including the use of external resources, collaborative learning, and digital tools to address instructional demands. The study underscores the need for enhanced support systems, adequate training, and resource availability to facilitate a smoother transition to the new curriculum. The findings contribute to policy recommendations that can inform educational leaders, curriculum developers, and policymakers in strengthening support mechanisms for teachers in future curriculum reforms.



References:

  1. Abragan, F. Q., Abarcas, V., Aquino, I. M., & Bagongon, R. E. (2022). Research review on K-12 Curriculum implementation in the Philippines: A generic perspective. European Journal of Educational & Social Sciences, 7(1). 1-8.
  2. Abueva, A., (2019). Why does the Philippines need the K-12 education system? Retrieved from https: //soapboxie.com/social-issues/The-Implementation-o-the-K-12-Program-in-the-Philippine-BasicEducation-Curriculum
  3. Adams, P. (2018). What Can We Learn from PISA?. In International Trends in Educational Assessment (pp. 1-12). Brill.
  4. Adeleye, J. O. (2017). Pragmatism and its implications on teaching and learning in Nigerian schools. Research Highlights in Education and Science. 2-6.
  5. Aguas, P. P. (2020). Key stakeholders’ lived experiences while implementing   an aligned curriculum: A phenomenological study. The Qualitative Report, 25(10), 3459-3485.
  6. Albert, J.  R.  G., Basillote, L.  B., Alinsunurin, J.  P., Vizmanos, J.  F.  V., Muñoz, M.  S., & Hernandez, A.  C. (2023). Sustainable Development Goal 4: How Does the Philippines Fare on Quality Education? Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
  7. Bala, C. (2017). Problems encountered in K to 12 program. Retrieved from http://www.depedne.net/?page=news&action=details&opt=popup&REFECODE=ARPRO20170700024
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research        in       Psychology,    3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 191-205). Routledge.
  10. Bringula, R. P., Balcoba, A. C., Alfaro, L. E., & Merritt, J. (2018). Managing the perceived impact of K to 12 implementation on academic staff tenure and financial stability: evidence from five higher education institutions in the Philippines. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-018-9239-1
  11. Chao, R. Y. (2023). Higher Education in Philippines. In: Symaco, L.P., Hayden,  M. (eds) International Handbook on Education in South East Asia.  Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8136-3_7-3
  12. Cocal, C., & Marcellano, G. (2017). Challenges of the K+12 program  implementation in the public elementary schools of Pangasinan, Philippines. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 4(7). 141-147. 
  13. Combalicer, L. (2016). Best practices and problems in the initial implementation  of the K+12 Curriculum among teachers in Infanta, Quezon: Its implications to an effective implementation of senior high school. Journal of Education and Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.jesoc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/Edu-4.pdf
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed  methods approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Inc.
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed  methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
  16. Creswell. J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative,  quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th edition, Sage.
  17. Crossman, A. (2020). Understanding purposive sampling. An overview of the  methods and its applications. https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727
  18. Cruz, I. (2010). Reasons why we should support K to 12 Basic Education  Program in the Philippine Basic Education Curriculum. Retrieved from http://udyong.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=618 2:reasons-why-weshould-support-k-to-12-basic-education-program-in-thephilippine-basic-education-curriculum&catid=90&Itemid=1267
  19. Cruz, J. D. (2019). Talking Story: Understanding culture-based curricula.  International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 3(2), 75-88
  20. Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and  identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 677–692.
  21. De Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Using the theory of  planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology,  42, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.005
  22. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative  Research. Sage. 
  23. Department    of    Education.    (2019).    Policy    guidelines    on    the    K     to    12    basic    education    program. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/DO_s2019_021.pdf
  24. Department of Education.  (2023).  MATATAG:  DepEd’s new agenda to   resolve basic education woes. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2023/01/30/matatag-depeds-new-agenda-toresolve-basic-education-woes/
  25. Department of Education. (2002, June 17). Implementation of the 2002 basic  education curriculum. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp- content/uploads/2002/06/DO_s2002_025.pdf
  26. Dierendonck, C., Poncelet, D., & Tinnes-Vigne, M. (2024). Why teachers do (or  do not) implement recommended teaching practices? An application of the theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 15:1269954. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1269954
  27. Dizon, R. L., Calbi, J. S., Cuyos, J. S., & 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 Sciences, 6(6). 757-765. 
  28. Dworkin, S. L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth  interviews. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1319-1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6
  29. Ednave, R. E., Gatchalian, V. M. P., Mamisao, J. C. B., Canuto, X. O.,  Caugiran, M. D., Ekid, J. C. A., & Ilao, M. J. C. (2018). Problems and challenges encountered in the implementation of the k to 12 curriculum: A synthesis. [Unpublished thesis]. Saint Louis University.
  30. Estrellado, C. J. P. (2023). MATATAG curriculum: Why curriculum [must]  change? Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2(1). 6-10. https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2024.0001
  31. Evans, L. (2000). The effects of educational change on morale, job satisfaction and motivation. Journal of Educational Change, 1(2), 173–192.
  32. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd Edition, Sage Publication. 695-727.
  33. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.
  34. Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 20, 1408-1416.
  35. Guadalupe, J. T., Abaya, E. C., & Camposano, C. C. (2023). Enacting music curriculum contextualization in the Philippine K to 12 Curriculum: Negotiations, constraints, and mediating forces. Philippine Journal of Education Studies, 1(1). 11-36. https://doi.org/10.61839/29848180j7e8c7
  36. Guest, G., Namey, E., & McKenna, K. (2016). How many focus groups are enough? Building an Evidence Base for Non-Probability sample sizes. Field Methods, 29(1). 3-22
  37. Guo, L. (2012). The impact of new national curricular reform on Teachers.  Canadian and International Education, 41(2), 87-105. 
  38. Gurobat, P. M. N., & Lumbu-an, J. D. (2022). Challenges encountered in the implementation of the education program among senior high school students in the Philippines. Indonesian Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 2(1). 65-70. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijert.v2i1.41225
  39. Irwan. (2016). Behavioristic learning theory and its implications in learning jazz improvision. Journal of the Nation’s Light Preserving Pancasila, 10(2). 95– 117.
  40. Khoboli, B., & O’toole, J. M. (2012). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model:  Teachers’ participation in action research. Syst Pract Action Res 25, 137– 148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-011-9214-8
  41. Lagbao, J. C. U. (2024). Initial implementation of the MATATAG curriculum:  Views of the teachers and principals. EPRA International Journal of Environmental Economics, Commerce and Educational Management, 11(7). 10-17. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra0414
  42. Lee, J. C. K., & Yin, H. B. (2011). Teachers’ emotions and professional identity in curriculum reform: A Chinese perspective. Journal of Educational Change, 12(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-010-9149-3.
  43. Lee, J. C. K., Huang, Y. X. H., Law, E. H. F., & Wang, M. H. (2013). Professional identities and emotions of teachers in the context of curriculum reform: A Chinese perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.809052
  44. Lee, W. O. (2012). Education for future-oriented citizenship: Implications for the  education of twenty-first century competencies. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(4), 498-517.
  45. Li, J. B. (2009). A survey investigating on teachers’ pressure and coping  strategies under the background of new curriculum implementation in Guangzhou areas (Order No. 10396665). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1869125365). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1869125365?accountid=173015
  46. Li, M. (2011). Research on senior high school teachers’ receptivity to new  curriculum reform (Order No. 10497272). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1870242764). Retrieved  from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1870242764?accountid=173015
  47. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications,  Inc.
  48. MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior  toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teach. Teach. Educ. 29, 46–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.006
  49. Maguate, G. S., Kilag, O. K. T., Sasan, J. M. V., Divera, M. F. L. (2024). Cultural 
  50. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Sage  Publications.
  51. McCormick, J., & Ayres, P. L. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and occupational  stress. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(4), 463-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910967446
  52. McCormick, J., Ayres, P. L., & Beechey, B. (2006). Teaching self-efficacy,  stress and coping in a major curriculum reform: Applying theory to context. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(1), 53-70.
  53. Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative  research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
  54. Mullis, I.  V., Martin, M.  O., Foy, P., Kelly, D.  L., & Fishbein, B.  (2020).  TIMSS   2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science.
  55. Ni, Y., & Lu, J. (2020). Research on junior high school English reading class  based on the principle of timing and Thorndike’s three laws of learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(6). 962-969. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1106.13
  56. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic  analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
  57. Olipas, C. N. P. (2024). A qualitative exploration of the MATATAG curriculum’s  perceived impact on history and geography education in the school year 2024-2025. European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, 2(1). 526-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.59324/ejtas.2024.2(1).45
  58. Olson, K., Lannan, K., Cumming, J., MacGillivary, H., & Richards, K. (2020).  The Concerns-Based Adoption Model and Strategic Plan Evaluation: Multiple Methodologies to Understand Complex Change. Educational Research: Theory and Practice, 31(3),49-58.
  59. Pantao, J. G. (2021). Crisscrossing textbook writing tasks and core  values of education students in an outcomes-based education platform.  In 6th UPI International Conference on TVET  2020 (TVET  2020). Atlantis Press. 357-364
  60. Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th Edition,  Sage Publications.
  61. Perez, J. E. (2023). Navigating educational leadership challenges:  Transformations and policy implications for Filipino principals. The Asian Journal of Education and Human Development (AJEHD), 4(1). https://doi.org/10.69566/ajehd.v4i1.75
  62. Rai, P. C., & Lama, R. (2020). Pragmatism and its contribution to education. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 8(3). 1844-1847. responsiveness and educational equity: Exploring the MATATAG curriculum in the light of Sociocultural Theory. International Multidisciplinary Journal of Research for Innovation, Sustainability, and Excellence (IMJRISE), 1(6). 566-572. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11518009
  63. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative  research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.
  64. Rivera, J. G. (2017). Articulating the foundations of Philippine K to 12  curriculum: Learner-centeredness. AsTEN Journal of Teacher Education, 2(1). 59-70. 
  65. Schleicher, A. (2021). Learning from the past, looking to the future:   Excellence and equity for all. OECD.
  66. Sergio, M. R. S. (2012). K-12 education reform: Problems and prospects.  Gibon, 9. 70-80.
  67. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative  research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.
  68. Sikes, P. (1992). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In M. Fullan &  A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change. Falmer.
  69. Singh, J. A. (2007). Philosophical foundation of education. A.P.H. Publishing  Corporation.
  70. Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative  evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. National  Research Centre for Social Research.
  71. Staddon, J. E., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual Review of  Psychology, 54, 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124
  72. Sun, H. (2009). A survey and analysis on junior and senior high school English  teachers’ receptivity to the new curriculum: The case study of Huainan city, Anhui province (Order No. 10528680). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1870420763). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1870420763?accountid=173015
  73. Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine  of Higher Learning, 44(1), 6–15
  74. Trivedi, A. J., & Mehta, A. (2019). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – theory of  human motivation. International Journal of Research in all Subjects in Multi Languages, 7(6). 38-41.
  75. Troman, G., & Woods, P. (2000). Careers under stress: Teacher adaptations  at a time of intensive reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(3), 253–275
  76. Ungar, M. (2021). Multisystemic resilience: Adaptation and transformation in  contexts of change. Oxford University Press.
  77. UNICEF.  (2019).  The Southeast Asia primary learning metrics program:  Thinking globally in     a       regional           context. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000371730
  78. Verzosa, D. M. B., & Vistro-Yu, C. P. (2019). Prospects and challenges in  implementing a new mathematics curriculum in the Philippines. In: VistroYu C., Toh T. (eds) School Mathematics Curricula. Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective. Springer, Singapore.
  79. Vilches, M. L. C. (2018). Involving teachers in the change process: One English  language teacher’s account of implementing curricular change in Philippine basic education. In Wedell, M. and Grassick, L. (Eds.). International Perspectives on Teachers Living with Curriculum Change. Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 15-37.
  80. Yap, R. (2011). Policy Brief. Retrieved from https://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PB%20201102%20%20K%20to%2012%20The%20Key%20to%20Quality.pdf..

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic