Theorizing Learning Gaps in High School Mathematics

Main Article Content

Maricris Dictado
Januard Dagdag

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Despite mathematics being globally recognized as essential for academic success and the development of lifelong skills, Filipino high school students consistently perform poorly in national and international mathematics assessments. This chronic underperformance is especially visible in public schools and reflects deep-rooted issues beyond mere academic deficits. While most studies have focused on achievement scores and curriculum mandates, few have examined the local, lived realities that contribute to students’ non-attainment of expected mathematical competencies. To address this gap, the present study aimed to explain why students in Philippine public high schools fail to attain expected mathematics competencies by constructing a grounded, systemic-ecological model that uncovers the complex web of systemic, instructional, and affective factors contributing to mathematics learning gaps.


Methodology: The study employed a qualitative grounded theory design, following the constructivist tradition of Charmaz (2014), to capture emergent patterns in participants’ narratives. Data were gathered from 10 purposively selected individuals (students, mathematics teachers, and school administrators) from a rural public high school in the northern Philippines. Using semi-structured interviews conducted in Filipino, the study elicited insights into participants’ experiences with the curriculum, instruction, learning resources, student motivation, and assessment. Transcripts were translated and analyzed using grounded theory coding procedures: initial coding, focused coding, constant comparison, memo writing, and theoretical integration. Saturation was reached through iterative coding and cross-group analysis.


Main Results: The analysis yielded twelve interrelated thematic categories: (F1) Perceived relevance in real Life, (F2) Curriculum overload and fragmentation, (F3) Time constraints and interrupted class schedules, (F4) Foundational gaps and remedial needs, (F5) Teaching strategies and instructional clarity, (F6) Classroom engagement, (F7) Attitude toward mathematics, (F8) Student motivation, (F9) Access to traditional resources, (F10) Access to online platforms and videos, (F11) Use and misuse of technology, and (F12) Assessment formats and feedback processes. These categories were synthesized into a Systemic-Ecological Model of Mathematics Learning Gaps, which maps the interaction of factors across Bronfenbrenner’s ecological levels: microsystem (e.g., teaching strategies), mesosystem (e.g., curriculum continuity), exosystem (e.g., availability of resources), and macrosystem (e.g., educational policy and societal pressures).


Discussions: The findings demonstrate that underachievement in mathematics arises from the convergence of curricular disconnection, limited instructional time, fragmented content delivery, and students’ emotional and cognitive responses to these constraints. Rather than being attributable to student or teacher failure alone, learning gaps result from systemic incoherence and insufficient contextual adaptation. Students’ declining motivation, foundational weaknesses, and disengagement are closely tied to how math is taught, assessed, and made relevant in real life.


Conclusions: This study proposes a model that redefines mathematics learning gaps as products of ecological and systemic interactions rather than individual shortcomings. The proposed model underscores the need for coherent, inclusive, and context-sensitive reforms in curriculum, pedagogy, teacher development, and educational policy, particularly in under-resourced public schools. It contributes a localized and empirically grounded framework that can inform long-term solutions to improve mathematics achievement in the Philippine basic education system.

Article Details

Section
Research Articles

References

Abdulrahim, N. A., & Orosco, M. J. (2019). Culturally responsive mathematics teaching: A research synthesis. The Urban Review, 51(5), 744–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00509-2

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Bernardo, A. B. I., Cordel, M. O., 2nd, Lapinid, M. R. C., Teves, J. M. M., Yap, S. A., & Chua, U. C. (2022). Contrasting profiles of low-performing mathematics students in public and private schools in the Philippines: Insights from machine learning. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030061

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

Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845

Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816306400801

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press.

Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Frianeza, E. D., Maravilla, H. D., Relox, R. D., Dagaraga, S. J. S. L., Cruz, C. A. D., Solomon, E. H., & Mohammad, N. K. (2024). Challenges in the Philippine educational system and its impact towards teachers’ instruction strategies and professional growth. Journal of Pedagogy and Education Science, 3(01), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.56741/jpes.v3i01.414

Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442150

Gaddi, J. A. G. (2024). Implementation of most essential learning competencies (MELCs) in Filipino instruction at a grade level: An assessment. Scientia Technology Science and Society, 1(2), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.59324/stss.2024.1(2).03

Huinker, D., Bush, S. B., & Graham, K. J. (2020). Catalyzing change in school mathematics: Creating the opportunities our students deserve. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 113(10), 780–790. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTLT.2020.0053

İlhan, A., Aslaner, R., & Yaşaroğlu, C. (2024). Development of digital literacy skills of 21st century mathematics teachers and prospective teachers through technology-assisted education. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13283-w

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2022). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Montebon, D. R. (2024). Perceptions of select Filipino teachers on the Most Essential Learning Competencies (MELCs) of the K to 12 curriculum. Community and Social Development Journal, 25(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.57260/rcmrj.2024.264463

Mullen, C., Pettigrew, J., Cronin, A., Rylands, L., & Shearman, D. (2021). The rapid move to online mathematics support: Changes in pedagogy and social interaction. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(1), 64–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1962555

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en

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

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Future-focused mathematics curricula: Empowering learners for the 21st century. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/18036510-en

Orale, R. L., & Uy, M. E. A. (2018). When the spiral is broken: Problem analysis in the implementation of spiral progression approach in teaching mathematics. Journal of Academic Research, 3(3), 14-24.

Ojastro, N. C., Banot, V. L., Ragay, N. L., & Batucan, N. A. (2025). Academic performance and National Achievement Test (NAT) performance in science and mathematics. Science International (Lahore), 37(1), 109–117.

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027042000294682

Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Education Tech Research Dev, 68, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3

Vale, I., & Barbosa, A. (2023). Active learning strategies for an effective mathematics teaching and learning. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 573-588. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13135