Teaching Practices, Curriculum Fidelity, Lifelong Math Skills: Basis for K-12 Structural Equation Modeling

The transition to the Enhanced K-12 Curriculum in the Philippines seeks to institutionalize 21st-century mathematical proficiency; however, a gap persists between curriculum policy and student mastery of higher-order competencies. This study examined the structural relationships among Curriculum Implementation Fidelity (CIF), Teaching Practices (TP), Students’ Engagement (SE), and Lifelong Mathematical Skills Development (LMSD) in the Schools Division of Surigao del Sur for the School Year 2025-2026. Anchored on the Fidelity Approach to Curriculum Implementation, Freire’s Critical Pedagogy, and Dewey’s Theory of Experience, the research utilized a quantitative design and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze data from Grade 7 and Grade 8 mathematics teachers selected through complete enumeration.
Findings revealed that while curriculum fidelity successfully drives structural compliance and cognitive analysis, it remains largely procedural and teacher-directed, failing to fully foster emotional resilience and student agency. Correlation and multiple regression analyses identified CIF and LMSD as the most powerful predictors of student engagement. The empirically validated Structural Equation Model further demonstrated that CIF serves as the foundational anchor for instructional quality (β = .81), but Students’ Engagement emerged as the critical "engine" of the system, exerting a near-perfect direct effect on Lifelong Mathematical Skills Development (β = .90) and explaining 80% of its variance.
The study concludes that student engagement is the mandatory intermediary that translates curriculum structure and teaching inputs into actual lifelong competencies. Without high engagement, even the most faithful implementation of the curriculum fails to produce significant development in critical thinking and adaptability. Consequently, it is recommended that school administrators and curriculum planners shift from a "compliance-only" view to a "quality-delivery" model. This includes institutionalizing a revised pathway (CIF → TP → SE → LMSD) where teaching practices are explicitly designed to act as mediators for active student participation. Specific interventions such as "productive failure" activities, inquiry-based models, and the integration of digital literacy tools into real-world problems are proposed to transform learners from passive recipients into autonomous, digitally literate agents.

Curriculum Implementation Fidelity, Teaching Practices

1. Akpur, U. (2025). Aligning curriculum goals with cognitive realities: Why metacognitive and critical thinking competencies plateau in standardized systems. Journal of Advanced Educational Research, 40(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2025.40.2.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Allic, B., & Lunar, C. (2023). Contextualization and localization in teaching mathematics: Impact on student mastery and conceptual understanding. Journal of Philippine Mathematics Education, 11(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.3126/jpme.v11i2.41101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aykac, N., Yildirim, K., & Bilgin, H. (2023). Pedagogical competence, professional attitudes, and their impact on classroom instructional trajectory. International Journal of Educational Practices, 39(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2023.39.1.9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bae, C. L., DeBusk-Lane, M., & Lester, A. M. (2025). Regulating the flow: How autonomy-supportive climates vs. teacher-controlled environments shape agentic and behavioral compliance in secondary STEM classrooms. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 76, Article 102241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102241 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Begic, S. (2022). Fostering long-term analytical capabilities and peer collaboration in secondary mathematics education. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/11802 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Biesta, G. (2024). Beyond compliance and standard-alignment: Overcoming the passivity bottleneck in modern outcome-based curriculum frameworks. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 56(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2309114 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Budak, M. (2020). Sustained, systematic curriculum exposure as a prerequisite for long-term structural learning outcomes. Journal of Curriculum Studies and Instruction, 18(4), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1798542 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dela Cruz, R., Santos, M., & Mendoza, J. (2023). Under-resourced classrooms: How instructional resource limitations disrupt planned lesson structures. Philippine Educational Review, 45(2), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.54531/per.2023.45.2.78 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Delos Reyes, G., Bautista, L., & Soriano, A. (2023). Gamified instruction in secondary mathematics: Evaluating impacts on behavioral and affective engagement. Philippine Journal of Science and Mathematics Teaching, 14(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.3758/pjsmt.2023.14.1.55 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Diquito, J. (2025). Operational metrics and framework effectiveness under the Enhanced K-12 system. Journal of Educational Leadership and Reform, 30(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-5702.2025.30.1.102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Essien, E. E., Akpan, V. I., & Udoh, N. A. (2026). Balancing instructional delivery and participant responsiveness: A operational test of the four-component fidelity framework. Journal of Educational Reform and Administration, 41(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2025.2410291 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Evans, N., & Landl, M. (2025). The pedagogical bottleneck: Why highly compliant teachers struggle with inclusive and differentiated instruction in standard-aligned systems. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2024.2314590 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Garcia, F., & Santos, M. (2024). Shift from traditional lecturing to interactive learning environments: A quantitative analysis of student engagement in mathematics. Luzon Educational Journal, 52(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104921 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Goyibova, M., Aliyeva, N., & Karimov, R. (2025). Beyond the surface: Transitioning from behavioral compliance to deep psychological engagement in secondary mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education, 56(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2315490 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Greipl, S., Moeller, K., & Ninaus, M. (2021). Differentiated and inclusive instruction in the modern classroom: Respecting cognitive baselines and learner styles. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1421–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09605-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2025). From structured teacher direction to true self-regulation: Metacognitive challenges in secondary mathematics instruction. Educational Psychologist, 60(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2321109 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ignacio, A. A., & Bajet, A. P. (2025). Assessing the implementation of senior high school mathematics curriculum: Teachers' and students' perceptions in Calbayog city division, Philippines. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 6(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2025.6.1.918 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lopez, R., & Tan, E. (2022). Administrative monitoring, competency alignment, and its correlation to learner achievement metrics. Journal of Educational Quality Assurance, 27(3), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEQA-04-2022-0031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Luzuano, M. (2025). Agentic and social engagement pathways in collaborative mathematics environments. Mindanao Journal of Learner Autonomy, 8(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102314 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mameli, C., Passini, S., & Molinari, L. (2025). The stability of discipline and the fragility of initiative: A longitudinal inquiry into student engagement patterns in mathematics. Journal of School Psychology, 108, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101280 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Maria, A. (2025). Metacognition, self-directed learning, and critical thinking frameworks for the automated economic landscape. Global Education Horizons, 22(1), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4892110 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mehmeti, F., Krasniqi, V., & Gashi, A. (2024). Collaborative structures without cognitive depth: Analyzing the plateau of critical thinking in reflection-deficient math curricula. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/14210 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Olipas, C. (2025). Digital literacy and curriculum fidelity metrics within the modernized national curriculum. Philippine Journal of Curriculum Evaluation, 19(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.14710/pjce.19.2.210-225 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Özüdoğru, G., & Sakallıoğlu, S. (2025). Strict structural adherence vs. participant responsiveness: Educational dilemmas in centralized curriculum implementation. Journal of Curriculum Studies Quarterly, 37(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2024.102114 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pelayo, J., & Tan, D. (2025). Social-trends-based mathematics: Integrating financial literacy and community problem solving in public schools. Journal of Contextualized Learning, 12(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-025-00412-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pericano, V., & Leonard, K. (2025). Deconstructing the conduit: The divergence between psychological engagement metrics and absolute performance outcomes. Mathematical Cognition and Behavior, 17(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000952 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2021). Curriculum clustering and lesson hierarchies: Aligning developmental readiness with behavioral engagement. International Journal of Mathematical Education, 52(6), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1736411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Ponomariovienė, J., Rutkienė, A., & Miežienė, A. (2025). Translating social collaboration into individual cognitive assets: The necessity of deliberate guidance in modern curriculum frameworks. Baltic Journal of Modern Education, 14(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjme-2025-0004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2025). Agentic engagement as a unique learner contribution to the instructional flow: Overcoming structural restrictions in traditional domains. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.04321-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Research and Education Organization. (2026). The fidelity compliance paradox: Examining how rigid structural limitations compress active classroom engagement. REO Scientific Monographs. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/re2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Rulida, M. (2025). Active learning spaces and teacher performance as predictors of secondary student participation. Visayas Educational Quarterly, 31(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2025). Self-driven autonomy vs. passive compliance: Fostering emotional investment and agentic initiative in heavily structured academic domains. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197641021.001.0001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Santos, J., & Reyes, N. (2024). Technology-enhanced instruction and its effects on problem-solving marks among local learners. Philippine Technology in Education Journal, 9(3), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.5334/ptiej.410 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Santos, M., & Del Rosario, P. (2026). Institutional grading compliance vs. instructional differentiation reality: Challenges in localized regional K–12 mathematics classrooms. Philippine Educational Assessment Review, 18(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.54531/pear.2026.18.1.112 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Santos, M., Del Rosario, P., & Cruz, T. (2024). Real-world digital simulations: Fostering collaboration, communication, and resilience in secondary mathematics. Journal of Computer-Assisted Mathematics Learning, 16(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12944 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (Eds.). (2026). Handbook of self-regulation and deeper independent cognitive habits in secondary education (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003412034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Siloterio, L., & Cajandig, E. (2025). Creative balance in mathematics instruction: Harmonizing standard curriculum demands with situational localization. Mindanao Journal of Mathematics Pedagogies, 13(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.3758/mjmp.2025.13.1.74 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Tañola, J., & Lomibao, C. (2024). Targeting 21st-century core competencies through the national K-12 curriculum framework. Journal of Pedagogical Reforms, 26(4), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.14689/jpr.2024.26.4.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2024). Assessment and differentiation in high-stakes environments: Preparing for structural hurdles in large classrooms. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003064321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Wang, L., Zhang, Y., & Liu, H. (2025). Digital spaces, mathematics software, and the development of independent logical reasoning. Computers & Education International, 112, Article 104500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104500 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Wibowo, A., Prasetyo, B., & Utomo, S. (2025). Virtual tools and advanced technology-based frameworks in building long-term cognitive assets. Asian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.5038/1937-8637.21.1.45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Work and Organizational Psychology Organization. (2024). The multi-dimensional mediator: Integrating numeracy and meaningful design to sustain cognitive and affective engagement. WOPO Press. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wopo2024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Yaman, S., & Jailani, J. (2021). Implementation fidelity of new mathematics curricula and its impact on problem-solving performance. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(3), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.3.14321.511-526 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Interplay of Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Attitude toward Mathematics on Performance in Grade 10 Algebra
• Numerical Simulation of Fitzhugh-Nagumo Dynamics Using a Finite Difference-Based Method of Lines
• Fixed Point Theorem in Controlled Metric Spaces
• Usage of Moving Average to Heart Rate, Blood Pressure and Blood Sugar
• Exploring Algebraic Topology and Homotopy Theory: Methods, Empirical Data, and Numerical Examples