Home⇛WVSU Research Journal⇛vol. 14 no. 2 (2025)

Development and Evaluation of Integrative Contextualized Assessment Tasks in Secondary Mathematics

Rodney O. Benios

Discipline: health studies

 

Abstract:

This mixed-method developmental study used the ADDIE model and GRASPS framework to design and evaluate Integrative Contextualized Assessment Tasks (ICATs) that integrated mathematics with other subjects. Purposively selected Grade 10 teachers and students participated in task design, pilot implementation, and evaluation in a Philippine public high school. Three tasks integrated Most Essential Learning Competencies (MELCs): (1) permutation, combining Mathematics (M10SP-IIIa-1), Science (reproductive systems, S10LT-IIIa-33), English (argumentative writing, EN10WC-IIa-13), and Values Education (ethical reflections, EsP10PK-IIa-1); (2) combination, linking Mathematics (M10SP-IIIb-1), Music (musical analysis, MU10CM-IIa-2), and English (persuasive writing, EN10WC-IIb-14); and (3) probability of A ∪ B, integrating Mathematics (M10SP-IIId-1), Science (biodiversity, S10LT-IIId-37), and Values Education (resource ethics, EsP10PK-IIb-3). Pilot testing showed high student satisfaction, enhancing engagement and interdisciplinary understanding. Experts rated the tasks highly acceptable for their curriculum alignment and pedagogical rigor. ICATs reduced assessment workload while highlighting mathematics’ real-world relevance, offering a replicable model for interdisciplinary education in resource-constrained settings globally, pending further validation. The study recommends adopting ICATs while ensuring alignment with curriculum standards to support holistic learning and curriculum integration.



References:

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  2. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. Teachers College Press.
  3. Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
  4. Boaler, J. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative mathematics. Jossey-Bass.
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2021). Restoring education: Reimagining learning for equity and excellence. Teachers College Press.
  8. Department of Education (DepEd). (2020a). K to 12 curriculum review report. Department of Education, Philippines.
  9. Department of Education (DepEd). (2020b). Most Essential Learning Competencies (MELCs). https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/MELCs.pdf
  10. Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  11. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  12. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
  14. Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420508
  15. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). PISA 2021 results: Mathematics performance. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/xxxxxxx
  16. Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18
  17. Tan, M. C., & Lee, S. K. (2023). Interdisciplinary assessments for critical thinking. Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(4), 67–82.
  18. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report: Technology in education. UNESCO Publishing.
  19. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  20. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. Jossey-Bass.
  21. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic