Mathematics Teachers’ Readiness and Challenges on MATATAG Curriculum: An Embedded Mixed-Method Study

This embedded mixed-methods study assessed the readiness levels and implementation challenges of Grade 7 and 8 Mathematics teachers regarding the MATATAG Curriculum in a selected district within the Division of Valencia City, Bukidnon, for School Year 2025-2026. The study sought to answer three questions: (1) How ready are the teachers? (2) What challenges do they face? and (3) Is there a significant relationship between readiness and challenges?
The study was anchored on Fullan's Theory of Educational Change, the Readiness for Change Model, and Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory 9,15,1. Using an embedded mixed-methods design, data were collected from 30 teachers through a survey with quantitative items and open-ended prompts. Quantitative data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation. Qualitative responses were examined through a targeted explanatory review.
The findings revealed that teachers demonstrated high overall readiness (Mean = 3.62) but also experienced high overall challenges (Mean = 3.67). The highest readiness indicator was motivation (Mean = 4.57), while the lowest were designing problem-solving lessons within class time (Mean = 2.90) and access to instructional materials (Mean = 2.83). The most critical challenge was fast lesson pacing (Mean = 4.40), followed by increased workload (Mean = 4.20) and insufficient materials (Mean = 4.03). A significant, strong negative correlation was found between readiness and challenges (r = -0.721, p = .000).
Teachers are generally ready but need systemic support in time management and resources. Recommendations include adjusting lesson pacing, reducing non-teaching tasks, providing practical training, and ensuring the timely delivery of instructional materials.

MATATAG Curriculum, Teacher readiness, Implementation challenges

1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Caspe, G. M. F., & Sarrosa, A. J. V. (2025). Teacher readiness for the implementation of enhanced K-10 curriculum. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(6), 2308-2345. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cochran-Smith, M., Carney, M. C., & Keefe, E. S. (2022). Teacher stress and curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(4), 345-360. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Effective professional development for teachers. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Del Yunting, J., Santos, M. C., Ampong, A. H., Jr., Mejos, D., & Monreal, J. (2025). Evaluating teachers' perceptions on the first year of MATATAG curriculum implementation. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 7(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Department of Education. (2024). DO 010, s. 2024—Policy guidelines on the implementation of the MATATAG curriculum. DepEd. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2023). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134-2156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fullan, M. (2021). The New Meaning of Educational Change - Michael Fullan. Michael Fullan - Motion Leadership & New Pedagogies for Deep Learning Expert. https://michaelfullan.ca/books/new-meaning-educational-change/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kilag, O. K., Andrin, G., Abellanosa, C., Villaver, M., Uy, F., Jr., & Sasan, J. M. (2024). MATATAG curriculum rollout: Understanding challenges for effective implementation. International Multidisciplinary Journal of Research and Innovation, 1(2), 45-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & García, E. S. (2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation. AERA Open, 6(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. UNESCO. (2021). Global Education Monitoring Report 2021. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organizational change. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 88-110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2022). Implementation fidelity in curriculum reform. Educational Research Review, 35, 100-115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study