Development and Validation of Contextualized Learning Materials in Grade 5 Pupils’ Math Word Problem- Solving in Selected Schools in North 2 District, Division of Gingoog City

Valerie Cleofe D. Pahalla; Isidro M.  Biol, Jr

doi:10.47175/rielsj.v7i2.1302

Valerie Cleofe D. Pahalla Saint Joseph Institute of Technology, Butuan City
Isidro M. Biol, Jr Saint Joseph Institute of Technology, Butuan City, Philippines

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47175/rielsj.v7i2.1302

Keywords: Contextualized learning materials, mathematics education, word problem-solving, Grade 5 learners, developmental research, ADDE model, LRMDS validation, MELCs

Abstract

This study developed and validated contextualized learning materials to address the least learned mathematical word problem-solving competencies of Grade 5 learners in selected schools in the North 2 District, Division of Gingoog City. Employing a developmental research design guided by the Analysis, Design, Development, and Evaluation (ADDE) model, the study analyzed the consolidated Beginning-of-School-Year Rapid Mathematics Assessment (BoSY RMA) results of 39 Grade 5 learners from San Jose Elementary School and Malibud Central School. Findings revealed that the most difficult competencies involved adding dissimilar fractions including mixed numbers (79.5%), solving multi-step problems involving multiplication of decimals (79.5%), illustrating and describing solid figures and their nets (71.8%), and interpreting data presented in tables and line graphs (48.7%). Based on these identified learning gaps, a contextualized workbook entitled Where Math Meets Life was developed. The workbook integrated community-based situations, real-life applications, guided examples, visual representations, vocabulary support, and progressive learning activities aligned with the Grade 5 Most Essential Learning Competencies (MELCs). The developed materials were evaluated by mathematics and language experts using the Department of Education Learning Resources Management and Development System (LRMDS) evaluation tool. Results indicated very high validity in both content and language, confirming the instructional quality, curriculum alignment, readability, and suitability of the materials for Grade 5 learners. A clustered Learning Action Cell (LAC)-based implementation plan was likewise proposed to facilitate future utilization of the validated workbook.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bautista, C. A. (2023). Reducing Mathematics Anxiety in the Classroom. Teachers and Curriculum, 23(1), 79-88.

Berns, R. G., & Erickson, P. M. (2001). Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing students for the new economy. National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education, The Ohio State University.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

Bosch, M., Gutierrez, A., & Llinares, S. (2024). A survey of Spanish research in mathematics education. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56(6), 1029-1044. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11858-024-01638-z

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

Department of Education. (2015). DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015: Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2016a). K to 12 Mathematics Curriculum Guide. Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2016b). DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016: The Learning Action Cell (LAC) as a K to 12 Basic Education Program school-based continuing professional development strategy for the improvement of teaching and learning. Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2016c). Learning Resources Management and Development System (LRMDS) evaluation tool. Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2022). National mathematics and numeracy assessment report. Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2023). DepEd Order No. 013, s. 2023: National Learning Recovery Program (NLRP). Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2025). DepEd Order No. 12, s. 2025: Administration of the Rapid Mathematics Assessment (RMA). Department of Education.

Department of Education. (2026). DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026: Guidelines on the responsible use of artificial intelligence in education. Department of Education.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson.

Dohinog, J., Aniñon, C., Gornez, I., Pagador, A. F., Garupa, M. J., Pocong, G. M., Bolo, C. C., Deniega, L. M., Sitones, J., Ducanes, R. J., Lai, J. A., Pescante, R. S., Temple, E., & Cabello, C. (2025). Utilization of contextualized instructional materials in education: A systematic review. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 44(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.440203

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Solution Tree Press.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45–51.

Jison, A. L. (2026). Student`s Learning and Teaching Styles: Predictors of Academic Performance in Science. International Journal of Education, Research, and Innovation Perspectives, 2(3), 1022-1076. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19058138

Johnson, E. B. (2002). Contextual teaching and learning: What it is and why it’s here to stay. Corwin Press.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

Pugosa, C. M., Yumol, C., Nogadas, C., & Etcuban, J. (2024). Effects of heuristic method on students’ performance in mathematics. British Journal of Teacher Education and Pedagogy, 3(2), 69-86. Programme for International Student Assessment. (2023). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.

Reyes, K. (2025). A systematic review of culturally relevant pedagogy in mathematics teacher education: Methods, successes, and room for improvement. International Educational Review, 3(1), 21-40.

Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics. (2019). SEA-PLM 2019 main regional report. SEAMEO, UNICEF, and UNESCO.

The Constitution of the Philippines. (1987). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Official Gazette.

The Enhanced Basic Education Act No. 10533. (2013). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College.

Tomlinson, B. (2013). Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (OER). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.