SINTA

2.5

Impact

Google Scholar

10

h-index

Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER)

Open Access Journal

From K-12 to MATATAG: A Systematic Review of the Factors Driving Curriculum Transition

Jelargen D. Cabaya
University of Southern Mindanao - PALMA Cluster Campuses
Philippines
Cloyd Q. Gerios
University of Southern Mindanao - PALMA Cluster Campuses
Philippines
Jeremiah B. Lano
University of Southern Mindanao - PALMA Cluster Campuses
Philippines
Elmelyn B. Valenzuela
University of Southern Mindanao - PALMA Cluster Campuses
Philippines
Dr. Gideon S. Sumayo ORCID
University of Southern Mindanao - PALMA Cluster Campuses
Philippines
gideonsumayo@usm.edu.ph
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This systematic review examines the shift of Philippine curriculum from K-12 to the MATATAG. It aims to identify the key factors that drive this curriculum change, analyze perceptions from different education stakeholders, and assess how the MATATAG curriculum addresses the limitations found in the previous system.

    Methodology: Using the PRISMA framework, 25 relevant studies from 2020-2025 were analyzed thematically.

    Main Findings: Results reveal that systemic challenges such as content overload, weak foundational skills, and inadequate teacher training prompted the shift. Stakeholders generally support MATATAG for its streamlined competencies and contextual relevance, although issues in the implementation persist.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: Unlike earlier reviews that only describe the K-12 challenges or the policy intent of MATATAG, this study integrates both stakeholder perspectives and thematic analysis across multiple recent studies. By mapping how the MATATAG framework directly responds to previously documented limitations, it provides an evidence-based lens for anticipating long-term effects. This unique synthesis offers actionable insights for curriculum planners, policymakers, and teacher professional development programs seeking to align reforms with ground-level realities.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    J. D. Cabaya, C. Q. Gerios, J. B. Lano, E. B. Valenzuela, and G. S. Sumayo, “From K-12 to MATATAG: A Systematic Review of the Factors Driving Curriculum Transition”, Ind. Jou. Edu. Rsc, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 444–455, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.37251/ijoer.v6i4.2128.

    More Citation Formats

  • 5391
    Abstract views
    790
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. A. R. Sta. Catalina, Curriculum development and instructional planning. Manila, Philippines: Educational Publishing House, 2014.
    2. M. A. Llego, “Problems and issues in the implementation of the K to 12 curriculum,” TeacherPH, 2017.
    3. M. Tan, “Quality issues in the K–12 basic education curriculum,” Asia-Pac. J. Curric. Stud., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 74–89, 2020.
    4. J. Arrogante, “Challenges in implementing the K–12 curriculum,” J. Educ. Res. Stud., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 44–51, 2019.
    5. J. E. D. Mendoza and R. A. Deri, “Real-world context in mathematics teaching: Teachers’ insights,” Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2228–2239, 2025, doi: 10.38124/ijisrt/25mar1723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25mar1723
    6. A. D. Ampang, “Pedagogical approaches and challenges among teachers in the implementation of the K-12 curriculum in the Division of Maguindanao I,” Randwick Int. Educ. Linguist. Sci. J., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 443–450, 2023, doi: 10.47175/rielsj.v4i2.722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47175/rielsj.v4i2.722
    7. G. Quijano, “Assessing the K-12 program implementation in the Philippines as an input to school-based policy plan,” J. Educators, Teachers Trainers, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 248–266, 2023, doi: 10.47750/jett.2023.14.01.022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47750/jett.2023.14.01.022
    8. A. S. Barrias et al., “Perceptions of internet users in the implementation of the K-12 curriculum in the Philippines using association of words: Input for curriculum enhancement,” Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci., vol. 22, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.1.00372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2024-22.1.00372
    9. P. M. N. Gurobat and J. D. Lumbu-an, “Challenges encountered in the implementation of the education program among senior high school students in the Philippines,” Indones. J. Educ. Res. Technol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 65–70, 2022, doi: 10.17509/ijert.v2i1.41225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ijert.v2i1.41225
    10. A. L. P. Carvajal et al., “Future-proofing teachers in reframing teacher education curriculum in the Philippines: Basis for policy recommendations,” Int. J. Open-access Interdiscip. New Educ. Discov. (ETCOR), vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 235–252, 2025, doi: 10.63498/nxz2st271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.63498/nxz2st271
    11. DepEd, MATATAG Curriculum Overview, DepEd, Philippines, 2023.
    12. J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE, 2018.
    13. M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, Art. no. n71, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
    14. M. Fullan, The new meaning of educational change, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Teachers College Press, 2016.
    15. Department of Education, MATATAG Curriculum Guide, DepEd, Philippines, 2023.
    16. D. Santos and P. Javier, “Teachers’ and parents’ reactions to MATATAG implementation,” Philipp. J. Educ. Reform, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 88–101, 2024.
    17. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE, 2018.
    18. UNESCO, Reimagining Education: Towards a Post-COVID Learning Recovery. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2021.
    19. V. Clarke and V. Braun, “Thematic analysis,” J. Positive Psychol., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 297-298, 2016, doi: 10.11080/17439760.2016.1262613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
    20. E. C. Po, “Challenges faced by school heads and teachers in the implementation of the MATATAG curriculum and performance of students,” Int. J. Adv. Multidiscip. Stud., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 88–98, 2025.
    21. H. Moosapour, F. Saeidifard, M. Aalaa, A. Soltani, and B. Larijani, “The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: A conceptual framework,” J. Diabetes Metab. Disord., vol. 20, pp. 919-929, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s40200-021-00773-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-021-00773-8
    22. M. Ringsten, K. Färnqvist, M. Bruschettini, and M. Johansson, “Inclusion, characteristics and methodological limitations of systematic reviews in doctoral theses: A cross-sectional study of all universities in Sweden,” Cochrane Evid. Synth. Methods, vol. 3, pp. 1-9, 2025, doi: 10.1002/cesm.70015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70015
    23. C. J. P. Estrellado, “MATATAG curriculum: Why curriculum must change,” J. Interdisc. Perspect., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 6–10, 2023, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10336930. DOI: https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2024.0001
    24. C. C. P. Alvarado, “Communicative competence in spiral progression curriculum: A study reinforcing the implementation of MATATAG curriculum in the Philippines,” J. Humanit. Educ. Dev., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 11–29, 2023, doi: 10.22161/jhed.5.6.3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22161/jhed.5.6.3
    25. J. K. de la Fuente, “Curriculum issues affecting student learning outcomes in the Philippines”, TeacherPH, 2022.
    26. M. R. C. Lapinid et al., “Aligning Philippine K to 12 assessment policies against international benchmarks: Implications for quality reform,” Philipp. J. Sci., vol. 153, no. 6B, pp. 2375–2392, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56899/153.6B.12
    27. R. J. Blasabas and M. V. Sumaljag, “Philippine K to 12 implementation: Difficulties and coping strategies of public elementary school administrators,” SLONGAN, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 63–87, 2020.
    28. M. F. C. L. Dabbay and G. L. Largoza, “Are K to 12 students in the Philippines overworked – by design?,” Research Paper Series No. 006, Second Congressional Commission on education (EDCOM II), Pasay, Philippines, 2024.
    29. J. Tomasouw, “The challenges of the Kurikulum Merdeka Implementation,” in KnE Soc. Sci.: Proc. Int. Conf, Soc. Sci. 2024 (ICSS 2024), vol. 11, pp. 456–465, 2024.
    30. T. Wulandari, “Project-Based Learning in the Merdeka Curriculum in elementary schools: A systematic literature review,” Edukasia: J. Penelit. Pendidik. Islam, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 220–232, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62775/edukasia.v5i2.793
    31. D. F. Astuti, “The challenges teachers and students face in implementing the Merdeka Belajar Curriculum,” Edukasia: J. Penelit. Pendidik. Islam, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62775/edukasia.v5i1.1066
    32. H. Hunaepi, M. I. Ibrahim, and L. Fitriani, “Transforming Education in Indonesia: The impact and challenges of the Merdeka Belajar Curriculum,” in Politics and Governance in Indonesia: Trends and Transitions. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Press, 2024, pp. 112–129.
    33. B. H. Duong, Complexities in Teaching Competencies: Vietnam’s Competency-Based Curriculum Reforms, RISE Programme Working Paper, no. 22/094, pp. 1–35, 2022.
    34. N. T. Liên, “Vietnamese teachers’ career adaptability in implementing the 2018 general education curriculum,” Cogent Education, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2384923 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2554951
    35. T. C. Chun, “The teaching of higher order thinking skills (HOTS) in the Malaysian education context,” Malays. Online J. Educ. Manag., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22452/mojem.vol7no3.1
    36. M. A. Zakaria, “Higher order thinking skills (HOTS): Acting method as approach of critical pedagogy in education culture,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 123–134, 2021.
    37. J. M. Saro, C. B. Montejo, J. A. Sucong, M. F. O. Bustamante, and J. B. Perez, “A qualitative exploration on the perceived impact of the MATATAG curriculum on basic education teaching in the school year 2024–2025,” Int. J. Adv. Multidiscip. Res. Stud., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 952–966, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049X.2024.4.4.3134
    38. M. C. Abaiz, J. R. Baluro, D. M. Dolotallas, L. M. Gimeno, M. J. Pomasin, and A. Cabanilla, “Teachers’ perspectives on MATATAG curriculum in the Philippines,” J. Humanit. Educ. Dev., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 11–29, 2025.
    39. J. J. Rojas, “K-12 curriculum: A kindergarten, grade I, and grade IV teachers’ voice,” Ignatian Int. J. Multidiscip. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 701–708, 2023, doi: 10.17613/f705c-pgc75.
    40. D. B. Aberde Jr., M. G. P. Aracillo, L. S. Gadian, C. B. Serilo, and I. G. C. Balbon, “Practitioners’ perspective in teaching GMRC in MATATAG curriculum,” United Int. J. Res. Technol., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 98–106, 2025.
    41. O. K. Kilag et al., “MATATAG curriculum rollout: Understanding challenges for effective implementation,” Int. Multidiscip. J. Res. Innov. Sustain. Excellence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 172–177, 2024, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11183037.
    42. A. Arimoto, “Efforts to institutionalize active learning in Japanese Higher Education,” SAGE Open, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2016, doi: 10.1177/2158244016644948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016644948
    43. H. Ito, “The Demise of Active Learning Even Before Its Birth in Japan,” Educ. Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 48–62, 2022, doi: 10.1080/20004508.2021.1880327
    44. D. Villasoto, “PROJECT ReCOUNT: Improving numeracy levels among KS2 learners in Lopez West District,” Psychol. Educ.: A Multidiscip. J., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 794–798, 2024, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14823754.