Graduate Perception-Based Evaluation of the Philippines Senior High School Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Curriculum Adequacy: Domain Analysis of Core, Specialized and Contextualized Subjects
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study aimed to determine the level of adequacy of the Senior High School Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics curriculum in the Philippines by evaluating its three curricular domains: core subjects, specialized subjects, and contextualized subjects, based on the perceptions of college students who completed the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics strand.
Methodology: A quantitative research design was employed using a structured survey questionnaire with a 4-point Likert scale, with reliability established through Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.87). A total of 159 college Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics students in Benguet, Philippines were selected through random sampling. Data were analyzed using weighted mean and standard deviation, while differences among curriculum domains were examined using the Friedman test, with post hoc pairwise comparisons conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction. Interpretation was guided by established curriculum evaluation frameworks.
Main Findings: Core subjects were rated as adequate (M = 3.16, SD = 0.44), specialized subjects as highly adequate (M = 3.60, SD = 0.45), and contextualized subjects as adequate (M = 3.18, SD = 0.50). Mathematics and science-related subjects received higher ratings, whereas contextualized and humanities-related subjects showed greater variability in perceived relevance to Science,Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics preparation. The Friedman test revealed a statistically significant difference among the three domains (χ² = 75.77, p < 0.001), with specialized subjects rated significantly higher than both core and contextualized subjects.
Novelty/Originality of this study: This study provides a domain-based evaluation of Science,Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics curriculum adequacy by separately examining core, specialized, and contextualized subjects through the perspective of college-level Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Senior High School graduates. It advances existing knowledge by offering empirical evidence on curriculum alignment and perceived preparedness, helping inform targeted curriculum refinement within the Philippine K–12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics framework.
References
UNESCO, Engineering for Sustainable Development: Delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing, 2021.
UNESCO, Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing, 2021.
World Bank, Realizing the Future of Learning: From Learning Poverty to Learning for Everyone Everywhere. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank Publications, 2021.
OECD, Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2024.
R. W. Bybee, The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, VA, USA: NSTA Press, 2013.
OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Vol. I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2023.
OECD, Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2023.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Science and Engineering for Grades 6–12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2019.
Y. Li, K. Wang, Y. Xiao, and J. E. Froyd, “Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 7, Art. no. 11, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2011.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, STEM Integration in K–12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2014.
S. Marginson, C. Tytler, B. Freeman, and K. Roberts, STEM: Country Comparisons. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council of Learned Academies, 2013.
UNESCO, STEM Education in Southeast Asia: Policy Review. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok Office, 2021.
Asian Development Bank, “Education,”
World Bank, World Development Report 2023: Learning Recovery. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank Publications, 2023.
Republic of the Philippines, “Republic Act No. 10533: Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013,” Official Gazette, May 15, 2013.
Department of Education, “K to 12 Senior High School STEM Curriculum Guide.” Pasig City, Philippines: Department of Education, 2016.
R. W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1949.
J. Biggs, “Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment,” Higher Educ., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 347–364, 1996, doi: 10.1007/BF00138871.
E. M. Furtak, T. Seidel, H. Iverson, and D. C. Briggs, “Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 300–329, 2012, doi: 10.3102/0034654312457206.
OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Vol. II): Learning During Disruption. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2023.
P. M. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. H. Tai, and K. Klopfenstein, “Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study,” Sci. Educ., vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 468–490, 2020, doi: 10.1002/sce.21563.
D. L. Stufflebeam and C. L. S. Coryn, Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2014.
OECD, Pathways to Professions: Understanding Higher Education Systems. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2022.
World Bank, Improving STEM Education Outcomes in Developing Countries. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank Publications, 2022.
J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 2018.
J. C. Nunnally and I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed. London, U.K.: Sage Publications, 2018.
D. C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 10th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2019.
L. R. Gay, G. E. Mills, and P. Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications, 10th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson, 2012.
X. Wang and J. L. Degol, “Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2017, doi: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1269118.
R. H. Tai, C. Q. Liu, A. V. Maltese, and X. Fan, “Planning early for careers in science,” Science, vol. 312, no. 5777, pp. 1143–1144, 2006, doi: 10.1126/science.1128690.
D. C. Geary, “Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics,” J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 250–263, 2011, doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318209edef.
J. Osborne, “Science literacy and communication,” Sci. Educ., vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 633–639, 2010, doi: 10.1002/sce.20386.
J. Hattie, Visible Learning: The Sequel. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2023, doi: 10.4324/9781003380542.
UNESCO, Transforming STEM Education for Sustainable Development. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing, 2023.
W. H. Schmidt, H. C. Wang, and C. C. McKnight, “Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 525–559, 2005, doi: 10.1080/0022027042000294682.
K. C. Margot and T. Kettler, “Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 6, Art. no. 2, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2.
P. M. Sadler and R. H. Tai, “The two high-school pillars supporting college science,” Science, vol. 317, no. 5837, pp. 457–458, 2007, doi: 10.1126/science.1144214.
X. Chen, STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields (NCES 2014-001). Washington, DC, USA: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 2013.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2012.
A. V. Maltese and R. H. Tai, “Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students,” Sci. Educ., vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 877–907, 2011, doi: 10.1002/sce.20407.
R. Bell, L. Smetana, and I. Binns, “Simplifying inquiry instruction,” Sci. Teach., vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 30–33, 2005.
S. D. Opfer and D. Pedder, “Conceptualizing teacher professional learning,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 250–285, 2021, doi: 10.3102/0034654320936226.
X. Wang, “Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1081–1121, 2013, doi: 10.3102/0002831213488622.
Asian Development Bank, Education Sector Directions. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2021.
UNESCO, Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing, 2023.
A. Wigfield and J. S. Eccles, “Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 68–81, 2000, doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
D. F. Kuratko, Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, and Practice, 9th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Cengage Learning, 2016.
M. Koehler and P. Mishra, “What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?,” Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 60–70, 2009, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2009.10470107.
OECD, The Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Framework 2030. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2021.
D. A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson, 2015.
Copyright (c) 2026 Joan B Mariano
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER) is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
