SINTA

2.5

Impact

Google Scholar

10

h-index

Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER)

Open Access Journal

Assessment of a MATATAG Curriculum-Based Grade 1 Numeracy Workbook: Development, Validity, and Effectiveness

Hanna Leah Gabrillo
UM Digos College ROR
Philippines
Lyndell Indatuan
UM Digos College ROR
Philippines
Jirah Joyce Niño
UM Digos College ROR
Philippines
Retchelle P Sangco
UM Digos College ROR
Philippines
retchelle.sangco@umindanao.edu.ph
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aimed to develop a Grade 1 numeracy workbook aligned with the MATATAG Curriculum by identifying teacher-perceived difficult competencies and using them as the basis for structured, developmentally appropriate workbook activities.

    Methodology: The study employed a developmental research design, purposive sampling, two checklist-rating scale questionnaires, expert validation, teacher evaluation, and descriptive statistical analysis using mean and standard deviation. Respondents were 57 Grade 1 mathematics teachers from public and private schools in Digos City, Davao del Sur.

    Main Findings: Findings showed that selected first- and second-quarter competencies on addition, place value, decomposition, and number recognition were difficult for Grade 1 learners. The workbook integrated readiness tests, storytelling, Concrete-Representational-Abstract (CRA) progression, leveled activities, reflection, and lesson summaries. Expert validation and teacher evaluation demonstrated outstanding quality, achieving an overall mean score of 4.85 (SD = 0.12), described as Very High validity across face, content, usability, and pedagogical soundness.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The study offers a MATATAG Curriculum-based workbook directly derived from teacher-identified numeracy difficulties. Its integration of storytelling, tiered activities, emotional reflection, and concise lesson summaries provides a contextualized supplemental tool for early numeracy.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    H. L. Gabrillo, L. Indatuan, J. J. Niño, and R. P. Sangco, “Assessment of a MATATAG Curriculum-Based Grade 1 Numeracy Workbook: Development, Validity, and Effectiveness”, Ind. Jou. Edu. Rsc, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 601–614, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.37251/ijoer.v7i4.3490.

    More Citation Formats

  • 27
    Abstract views
    18
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. Department of Education, “MATATAG Curriculum,” Department of Education, 2023.
    2. Y. Lee, R. M. Capraro, and M. M. Capraro, “Mathematics teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in problem posing,” International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 13, no. 2, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.12973/iejme/2698.
    3. R. Merkley et al., “‘We don’t have things for counting’: An exploration of early numeracy skills and home learning experiences of children growing up in poverty in South Africa,” Journal of Numerical Cognition, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 268–284, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.5964/jnc.8061.
    4. P. Onyango, “International study ranks Kenyan grade two and threes last in literacy levels,” Evewoman Magazine, Jul. 10, 2020.
    5. Department of Education, “Statement on the Philippines’ ranking in the 2018 PISA results,” Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines, 2019.
    6. E. A. Pascual and N. San Miguel, “Systematic forecasting & meta-analysis of numeracy and literacy skills: Selected divisions of Region IV-A Calabarzon, Philippines,” International Journal of Research Publication, vol. 100, no. 136, pp. 111–120, 2023, doi: 10.47119/IJRP10013611120235665.
    7. L. O. Reyes, A. V. Atienza, and M. U. Calayag, “The use of Project BIBO in improving the numeracy rate of elementary schools in Candelaria East District,” Indian Academic Research Review, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2024, doi: 10.53378/iarr.924.112.
    8. UNESCO, “250 million children out-of-school: What you need to know about UNESCO’s latest education data,” UNESCO, 2023.
    9. United Nations, “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. [Online]. Available: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
    10. Philippine Institute for Development Studies, “Sustainable Development Goal 4 on quality education for all: How does the Philippines fare and what needs to be done?” PIDS Discussion Paper, 2023, doi: 10.62986/dp2023.16.
    11. S. Z. Duterte, “Basic Education Report 2023 speech,” Office of the Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines, 2023.
    12. World Bank, “PISA 2018: Programme for International Student Assessment—Philippines country report,” World Bank, 2020.
    13. S. McLeod, “Jerome Bruner theory of cognitive development,” Simply Psychology, Feb. 1, 2024.
    14. J. A. Van de Walle, K. Karp, and J. M. Bay-Williams, Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson, 2022.
    15. M. Maisyaroh, B. B. Wiyono, A. Valdez, and S. Mangorsi, “The implementation of instructional supervision in Indonesia and the Philippines, and its effect on the variation of teacher learning models and materials,” Cogent Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2021.1962232.
    16. L. Tunnell, “What makes an effective curriculum,” Education Advanced, 2022.
    17. R. Picat and E. B. Natividad, Jr., “Contextualized interactive learning materials (CILMs) for Mathematics 1,” Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 434–450, 2023, doi: 10.62025/dwijmh.v2i3.34.
    18. S. Campbell, M. Greenwood, S. Prior, T. Shearer, K. Walkem, S. Young, D. Bywaters, and K. Walker, “Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1744987120927206.
    19. A. Bhat, “Quantitative data collection: Best 5 methods,” QuestionPro, 2024.
    20. D. Huyler and C. M. McGill, “Book review: Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches,” New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 75–77, 2019, doi: 10.1002/nha3.20258.
    21. J. L. Pimentel, “Some biases in Likert scaling usage and its correction,” International Journal of Scientific and Applied Research, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 183–191, 2019.
    22. J. Li and Y. Copur-Gencturk, “Learning through teaching: The development of pedagogical content knowledge among novice mathematics teachers,” Journal of Education for Teaching, vol. 50, no. 4, 2024, doi: 10.1080/02607476.2024.2358041.
    23. M. Chacón-Castro, J. Buele, A. D. López-Rueda, and J. Jadán-Guerrero, “Pólya’s methodology for strengthening problem-solving skills in differential equations: A case study in Colombia,” Computers, vol. 12, no. 11, Art. no. 239, 2023, doi: 10.3390/computers12110239.
    24. H. Gao, T. Evans, and A. Fergusson, “Student explanation in middle and secondary mathematics and statistics: A scoping literature review,” arXiv, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14417.
    25. J. M. Spector, M. J. Bishop, J. Elen, and M. D. Merrill, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5.
    26. S. McKenney and T. C. Reeves, Conducting Educational Design Research. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2018, doi: 10.4324/9781315105642.
    27. Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley, Mathematics: Teacher’s Edition, Grade 3, Massachusetts ed. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Education, 2008.
    28. E. Boström and T. Palm, “The effect of a formative assessment practice on student achievement in mathematics,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 8, Art. no. 1101192, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1101192.
    29. R. Reyes and A. Reyes, “Systematic review and meta-analysis: The role of storytelling in enhancing mathematics education,” International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1441–1454, 2025, doi: 10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000209.
    30. C. D. F. Punzal, M. A. Q. Aberin, and F. F. Francisco, “The potentially implemented spiral curriculum: A 3-feature analysis of geometry textbook chapters,” in Recent Advances in Mathematics Textbook Research and Development, C. Qi, L. Fan, J. Liu, Q. Liu, and L. Dong, Eds. Singapore: Springer, 2025, pp. 321–326, doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-8426-4_44.
    31. C. A. Tomlinson, “Differentiated instruction,” in Fundamentals of Gifted Education. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2017, pp. 279–292, doi: 10.4324/9781315639987-26.
    32. A. Çayır and E. Balcı, “The effect of differentiated instruction on gifted students’ critical thinking skills and mathematics problem-solving attitudes,” Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 392–398, 2023, doi: 10.5897/ERR2023.4375.
    33. A. Roche, A. Gervasoni, and P. Kalogeropoulos, “Factors that promote interest and engagement in learning mathematics for low-achieving primary students across three learning settings,” Mathematics Education Research Journal, vol. 35, pp. 525–556, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s13394-021-00402-w.
    34. A. Dey and S. A. Munshi, “Fun with images: An analysis of the role of visual literacy in facilitating easy and enjoyable learning with a focus on future prospects,” Libri, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 109–127, 2025, doi: 10.1515/libri-2024-0143.
    35. V. S. Pagutayao et al., “Retrieval-based learning: A strategy to improve the retention rate in science of Grade 7 learners,” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 36–47, 2025.
    36. E. T. B. Agustin, “Development and evaluation of a proposed worktext in solid mensuration,” SPUP Graduate School Research Journal, 2019.
    37. C. R. Basilio and E. M. S. Sigua, “Development and validation of multimedia-based instructional module in Science 7,” International Research Journal of Science, Technology and Education Management, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 152–162, 2022.
    38. C. P. Elveña and J. R. Llarenas, “Development and acceptability of worktext in differential calculus among students of University of Rizal System,” International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 259–263, 2024, doi: 10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804062.
    39. J. Zheng, S. Li, X. Chen, and R. H. Huang, “A functional review of research on clarity, immediacy, and credibility of teachers and their impacts on motivation and engagement of students,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, Art. no. 712419, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712419.
    40. A. Abaniel, “Enhanced conceptual understanding, 21st century skills and learning attitudes through an open inquiry learning model in physics,” Journal of Technology and Science Education, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 199–215, 2020, doi: 10.3926/jotse.1004.
    41. Y.-C. Tsai, “Empowering students through active learning in educational big data analytics,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 11, Art. no. 14, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40561-024-00300-1.
    42. M. S. Ibarra-Sáiz, G. Rodríguez-Gómez, and D. Boud, “The quality of assessment tasks as a determinant of learning,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 943–955, 2021, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1828268.
    43. Education Endowment Foundation, “Metacognition and self-regulated learning: Guidance report,” 2018.
    44. S. M. E. Gulay and P. V. Pontillas, “Reading motivation and engagement among Grade IV learners of Opol West District schools,” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Arts, vol. 7, no. 8, Art. no. 40, 2024, doi: 10.47191/ijmra/v7-i08-40.
    45. J. M. G. Turla, H. P. P. Escobido, A. P. Manlang, J. P. Mendoza, A. S. O. Samson, and J. Q. Estingor, “The effects of vocabulary skills on the reading comprehension of Grade 2 pupils in selected elementary schools in Cabiao, Nueva Ecija,” International Journal of Management, Education and Emerging Technology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 30–34, 2025.
    46. S. L. Day, N. Atilgan, A. E. Giroux, and B. D. Sawyer, “The influence of format readability on children’s reading speed and comprehension,” Education Sciences, vol. 14, no. 8, Art. no. 854, 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14080854.
    47. M. Qiu and M. Abdul Ghani, “Research on illustrations and layout design of primary school textbooks based on children’s reading psychological characteristics,” Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, vol. 773, pp. 271–278, 2024, doi: 10.2991/978-2-38476-222-4_75.
    48. J. Navaitienė and E. Stasiūnaitienė, “The goal of the universal design for learning: Development of all to expert learners,” in Improving Inclusive Education Through Universal Design for Learning, vol. 5, A. Galkienė and O. Monkevičienė, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021, pp. 23–57, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-80658-3_2.
    49. J. Shao, Y. Chen, X. Wei, X. Li, and Y. Li, “Effects of regulated learning scaffolding on regulation strategies and academic performance: A meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, Art. no. 1110086, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1110086.
    50. J. T. Sambayon, D. P. Luceñara, C. P. Luceñara, Q. M. Bayron, R. A. Peñaloga, and E. A. Larombe, “Effectiveness of contextualized learning materials in improving the reading skills and comprehension level of the students,” Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 435–445, 2023, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7702258.