Lunday

Research Journal of the Graduate School of Bulacan State University

Print ISSN 1656-3514

Online ISSN 2980-4353

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6644-0736

Abstract

This study offers a thorough evaluation of the implementation of the Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) Program in selected schools within the Division of Bulacan, aimed at guiding program enhancement efforts. Using an explanatory mixed-methods approach, quantitative data were gathered through a validated structured survey questionnaire from 120 respondents—mostly female (75%) STE teachers (50%) aged 30–39 years (33.33%) with 10–19 years of teaching experience (38.33%) and primarily PBET/LET passers. Qualitative data were collected through purposive sampling and interviews with key stakeholders such as school heads and STE coordinators. The study examined the STE Program across various domains, including goals and objectives, policies and procedures, instructional support, and monitoring and evaluation. Results indicated a strong level of goal achievement and policy execution but also revealed resource and continuity issues impacting instructional support. The findings emphasize the need for sustained career track alignment, improved instructional materials, and active stakeholder engagement. This research highlights the importance of strategic initiatives such as curriculum enhancement, learner tracking, and capacity building to strengthen STE education and better prepare Filipino students for 21st-century careers in STE. 

Keywords: Assessment, Curriculum, Instructional Materials, STE Program, Program Improvement

Introduction
The implementation of specialized curricula beyond the standard basic education program has long been an established practice in the Philippines, with Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) programs having been introduced to junior high school students since 1994. These initiatives aim to foster learners’ scientific skills and competencies, improve their readiness for advanced studies, and prepare them for careers in STE-related fields. Despite the significance of these programs, there remains a notable gap in their assessment and responsiveness within the basic education curriculum. The Department of Education’s existing monitoring and evaluation framework emphasizes school governance and operational processes but lacks a direct focus on curriculum assessment, creating challenges in measuring educational outcomes and program relevance. This gap hinders effective decision-making by education authorities in addressing learners’ curricular needs and results in inadequate teacher training, which is critical for effective curriculum implementation (Ameyaw, 2015).

The STE Program, governed by policies outlined in DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2010, is designed to build a strong foundation for Filipino learners interested in science, technology, and engineering careers. The program aspires to develop students’ appreciation of science by the end of Grade 10, equipping them with essential knowledge and skills to analyze scientific information critically and apply their learning in real-world contexts. Evolving from the former Engineering and Science Education Project (ESEP), the STE program aligns with the K to 12 curriculum reforms and reflects global trends emphasizing community involvement, real-world laboratory experiences, and interdisciplinary approaches, (Penick & Yager, 2007). As the demand grows for a workforce proficient in multidisciplinary STE skills to address complex global challenges, collaboration among educators, industry professionals, and policymakers is essential for curriculum development and hands-on learning opportunities. This study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the STE Program’s implementation to inform improvements that can strengthen STE education and better prepare learners for 21st-century careers.

Review of Related Literature and Study

The Philippines recognizes science, technology, and engineering (STE) as vital drivers of economic development and modernization. To support this, the Department of Education (DepEd) has implemented the STE Program (formerly the Engineering and Science Education Project – ESEP) to enhance science and mathematics education through specialized curricula in selected public secondary schools. The program aims to produce responsible, morally upright, globally competitive, and work-ready learners with strong STE aptitudes. Key activities include investigatory projects, student research, participation in competitions, professional teacher training, and maintenance of science laboratories, implemented under policies such as DepEd Orders No. 15, s. 2014; No. 41, s. 2004; No. 55, s. 2010; and No. 38, s. 2013.

Teacher quality is emphasized, with guidelines mandating that assigned STE teachers preferably be honor graduates, DOST scholars, or PBET/LET passers trained in relevant curricula. Studies highlight the critical role of professional development programs in improving teacher knowledge, integrating engineering into instruction, and enhancing STEM teaching quality (Dare et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2018).

While STE programs in junior high prepare learners for STEM tracks at the senior high school level, the curriculum requires continuous review to ensure alignment with current trends, integration of components, and interdisciplinary approaches that foster 21st-century skills such as communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. STEM education is broadly understood as an interdisciplinary method that links rigorous academic concepts with real-world applications to develop higher-order thinking skills essential for the Industrial Revolution 4.0 (Helmi et al., 2019; Hasanah et al., 2019; Holmlund et al., 2018).

Despite the program's successes, gaps remain in program delivery and assessment, as specialized classes still lack comprehensive evaluation of their effectiveness. Other DepEd special programs underscore the importance of appropriate instructional resources, facilities, and administrative support to maximize outcomes, echoing international research on the multifaceted factors influencing STEM education success (Llego, 2021; Pestano & Ibarra, 2021).

Overall, the literature stresses the need for continuous curriculum updates, teacher capacity building, resource provision, and monitoring to sustain and improve STE education—ultimately cultivating learners equipped with the competencies needed for science and technology careers that support the nation's development goals.

Methodology

The research employed an explanatory sequential mixed-method research design, combining quantitative and qualitative methods in sequential phases. The quantitative data collection and analysis were conducted first, followed by the qualitative phase to explain and deepen the understanding of the quantitative results. This approach provided comprehensive insights by integrating statistical trends with rich, contextual firsthand perspectives (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

The mixed-method design is especially useful for complex research questions because the qualitative data can explore underlying mechanisms, generate hypotheses, and explain phenomena, while the quantitative data test and confirm these patterns. This integration enhances the validity and robustness of the study findings.

In the quantitative phase of the study, universal sampling was employed, meaning that all identified respondents who met the established criteria were included in the survey. In contrast, for the qualitative phase, purposive sampling was utilized to select participants who possessed rich knowledge and experience with the STE Program. This included school heads, department heads, STE coordinators, and teachers directly involved in the program’s implementation and who willingly agreed to participate. Prior to conducting the interviews, informed consent was obtained from all participants to ensure ethical compliance and voluntary participation.

The study employed a structured survey questionnaire adapted from DepEd Order No. 55, s. 2010. The questionnaire was divided into two key parts: first, gathering the school profile information, including subjects offered, the number of years the STE program has been implemented, and the number of teachers involved; second, assessing the implementation of the STE Program across three domains—goals and objectives, policies and procedures, and monitoring and evaluation. Responses utilized a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not implemented) to 5 (highly implemented), enabling quantification of the program’s status. To ensure validity and reliability, the survey instrument was reviewed and validated by educational experts and pilot tested among a select group of STE schools before full distribution to the target respondents.

Complementing the quantitative data, the qualitative component involved an interview protocol featuring open-ended questions designed to explore challenges, weaknesses, and experiences related to the STE Program’s goals, policies, and monitoring mechanisms. These interviews were conducted online via Google Meet to accommodate participants’ convenience and were audio-recorded upon consent. Subsequently, the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through manual thematic content analysis, aided by NVivo 12 Plus software for systematic coding. Additionally, the researcher maintained reflective journals documenting participants’ insights, emotions, and detailed narratives, enriching the contextual understanding of the qualitative findings.

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of La Consolacion University in Bulacan before commencing data collection. Formal permissions were also secured from the Schools Division Superintendent of the Schools Division of Bulacan and respective school principals. Survey questionnaires were distributed personally to ensure clear instructions, with reminders and secure drop boxes provided to maintain confidentiality and convenience for participants. Interview sessions were coordinated with consenting participants, following an Interview Protocol Guide to ensure consistency. Throughout the process, all collected data were securely stored in strict adherence to confidentiality protocols, including the anonymization of participant identities. Upon study completion, all raw data and personally identifiable information were permanently deleted to uphold privacy standards.

Quantitative data were tabulated and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics, including frequency counts and percentages, were used to summarize school profiles and respondent demographics. To evaluate implementation levels across the measured domains of the STE Program, weighted mean scores were computed and interpreted using a predefined rating scale, where scores ranging from 4.50 to 5.00 indicated “Highly Implemented.” This statistical approach facilitated a clear understanding of the program’s current status and areas needing improvement.

Qualitative data from interview transcripts were thoroughly examined through thematic content analysis. The researcher manually coded transcripts, supported by NVivo 12 Plus software, to systematically identify recurring patterns, similarities, and key themes related to competencies, challenges, and program effectiveness. Participants’ identities were protected via anonymized coding (e.g., P1, P2). This rigorous analysis provided a nuanced comprehension of the underlying factors influencing STE Program implementation and enabled the integration of rich, descriptive perspectives alongside quantitative findings.

Table 1 provides a demographic snapshot of the respondents, offering valuable insights into their collective characteristics. The data reveals a predominantly female (75%) cohort, significantly outnumbering male participants. In terms of age, the largest concentration of respondents falls within the 30-49 years bracket, accounting for 63.33% of the total (30-39 years: 33.33%; 40-49 years: 30.00%). This indicates a group primarily composed of mid-career professionals.

Regarding designation, STE Teachers represent the largest segment, making up exactly half (50%) of all respondents. School Heads, Department Heads, and STE Coordinators each account for an equal share of 16.67%. This distribution highlights a strong representation from those directly involved in classroom instruction within the Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) field. Furthermore, the respondents generally possess significant teaching experience, with the majority (38.33%) having 10-19 years in the profession. A considerable portion (26.67%) also has 1-9 years of experience, while smaller groups have 20-29 years (20.00%) and 30-39 years (11.67%).

The respondent profile reflects a mature and experienced group, predominantly composed of female participants, with a significant representation of STE teachers who have been in the profession for an extended period. This demographic composition is likely to positively influence program implementation due to the collective experience and familiarity with STE pedagogy and relevant policies. Leibur et al. (2021) emphasize that professional maturity and extensive experience are essential for delivering high-quality instruction, enhancing teaching effectiveness, and supporting the successful implementation of specialized programs such as those in STE—a finding echoed by other scholars examining the role of teacher expertise in curriculum success. The high proportion of experienced STE teachers, in particular, suggests a robust foundation for implementing and sustaining educational initiatives within this specialized area.

Table 2 provides a detailed overview of the respondents’ perceptions regarding the implementation of the goals and objectives of the Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) Program. The data, characterized by consistently high mean scores, suggests a strong consensus among stakeholders that the program is being effectively executed.

All three indicators—"Produces quality STE learners," "Offers responsible, globally competitive learners," and "Widens access to quality secondary education for STE"—garnered mean scores above 4.50, specifically 4.50, 4.52, and 4.65, respectively. The consistently low standard deviations (0.63, 0.79, and 0.62) further underscore this agreement, indicating a narrow spread of responses and a high degree of uniformity in perceptions. The overall average mean of 4.56, with a standard deviation of 0.95, reinforces the interpretation that the STE program is Highly Implemented in achieving its stated goals.

This high level of perceived implementation is particularly significant given the critical importance of these objectives. The program's success in "Widen[ing] access to quality secondary education for STE" (Mean = 4.65) directly addresses equity and inclusivity in education, ensuring more students have the opportunity to engage with specialized STE curricula. Simultaneously, the strong performance in "Producing quality STE learners" (Mean = 4.50) and "Offer[ing] responsible, globally competitive learners" (Mean = 4.52) speaks to the program's effectiveness in developing the competencies and skills essential for academic and professional success in the 21st century.

This positive assessment strongly aligns with broader global objectives for STEM education. As Bybee (2013) emphasizes, well-implemented STEM programs are designed to cultivate globally competitive learners by seamlessly integrating the critical skills demanded in contemporary educational and employment sectors. Furthermore, Holmlund, Lesseig, and Slavit (2018) underscore the strategic importance of nurturing skills relevant for competitiveness and workforce readiness. The findings in Table 2 suggest that the STE program is successfully contributing to these overarching goals, equipping students with the necessary knowledge and attributes to thrive in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Indeed, the data presented in Table 2 indicate that stakeholders perceive the STE Program as highly effective in achieving its core objectives of producing high-quality, globally competitive learners and expanding access to specialized education. This strong implementation is deemed essential for cultivating a skilled workforce and advancing national development in an increasingly technology-driven global landscape.

Table 3 presents insights into stakeholders’ perceptions regarding the implementation of policies and procedures governing the Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) curriculum. The overall average mean of 4.32, interpreted as "Implemented," suggests a generally good adherence to established guidelines. However, a closer examination of individual indicators reveals nuances in the level of implementation.

Two indicators, "Meets clear admission policies" (Mean = 4.53, SD = 0.57) and "Student retention policies" (Mean = 4.52, SD = 0.72), are perceived as Highly Implemented. The high means and relatively low standard deviations for these two areas indicate strong and consistent application of policies related to student entry and continuation within the STE program. This robust implementation of admission and retention policies is crucial for maintaining the integrity and standards of a specialized program like STE, ensuring that students admitted are well-suited for its demands and that those enrolled are adequately supported to persist.

Conversely, "Compliance with learning competencies" (Mean = 4.31, SD = 1.05), "Co-curricular programs aligned and non-disruptive" (Mean = 4.01, SD = 1.13), and "Assessment policies aligned with the framework" (Mean = 4.25, SD = 0.87) are interpreted as "Implemented," with slightly lower mean scores and noticeably higher standard deviations compared to the admission and retention policies. While still indicating implementation, the larger standard deviations suggest a greater variability in how these policies are perceived or put into practice across different contexts.

Of particular note is the indicator "Co-curricular programs aligned and non-disruptive," which registered the lowest mean score (4.01) and the highest standard deviation (1.13). This suggests that while co-curricular activities exist, their alignment with the core curriculum and their non-disruptive integration might be less consistent or uniformly perceived. This finding is significant because co-curricular programs play a vital role in reinforcing classroom learning and fostering a holistic educational experience, especially in STE education where practical application and hands-on engagement are paramount.

The strong implementation of core policies, particularly admission and retention, aligns with the objectives of Department of Education (DepEd) orders such as DO 41, s. 2004 (Revised Curriculum of the 110 S&T Oriented (ESEP) High Schools) and DO 21, s. 2019 (Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program), which emphasize adherence to curriculum standards. However, the slightly lower score for co-curricular programs points to an area for potential improvement. Hofstein and Kind (2012) have consistently demonstrated that well-aligned curricular and co-curricular programs significantly enhance learner engagement and facilitate deeper concept mastery in science education. Therefore, strengthening the planning, integration, and monitoring of co-curricular activities within the STE program could further enrich the learning experience and reinforce the theoretical knowledge gained in the classroom. This would not only enhance student engagement but also contribute to a more comprehensive development of STE skills and interests.

Table 4 presents a critical overview of the perceived implementation of policies and procedures related to instructional support within the STE program. The overall average mean of 3.45, interpreted as "Partially Implemented," suggests that while some support is present, significant areas require strengthening to fully meet the needs of an effective STE curriculum.

A closer look at the individual indicators reveals a mixed landscape. "Relevant and updated science and math books" (Mean = 3.50, SD = 1.05), "Supplementary materials provided" (Mean = 3.71, SD = 0.96), and "Financial assistance for STE Program" (Mean = 3.50, SD = 1.03) are all interpreted as "Implemented." While these scores are not exceptionally high, they indicate that these forms of support are generally in place. The provision of relevant and updated books and supplementary materials is fundamental for content delivery, and financial assistance, even if moderate, can help address various program needs.

However, the indicators "Appropriate lab equipment and apparatuses" (Mean = 3.31, SD = 1.15) and "Adequate school facilities and classrooms" (Mean = 3.25, SD = 0.80) are both interpreted as "Partially Implemented." These are the lowest scores across all indicators in this table, and they highlight significant challenges. The relatively high standard deviations for these two indicators (1.15 and 0.80, respectively) also suggest a greater variability in the availability and adequacy of these resources across different settings, or a less consistent perception of their quality and quantity.

The findings for lab equipment and facilities are particularly concerning for an STE program. Effective STE education heavily relies on hands-on, experiential learning, which necessitates well-equipped laboratories and suitable learning environments. The "Partially Implemented" status for these crucial instructional support elements strongly suggests that the practical, investigative, and experimental components of the STE curriculum may be constrained. Without adequate lab equipment and apparatuses, students may struggle to engage in the authentic scientific inquiry and technological design processes that are central to STE learning. Similarly, insufficient or inadequate school facilities and classrooms can hinder effective teaching methodologies and student collaboration.

This situation aligns with observations in other educational contexts regarding resource limitations impacting specialized teaching efficacy. Barack (2021) explicitly discusses challenges in specialized science education due to inadequate instructional support, underscoring the vital need for resource augmentation to bolster STEM teaching. Similarly, Hasanah, Hariyadi, and Narulita (2019) have also noted how resource limitations can impede effective STE program implementation.

In conclusion, while the STE program appears to have some level of support in terms of basic learning materials and financial assistance, the critical areas of lab equipment, apparatuses, and adequate school facilities remain significant bottlenecks. Addressing these infrastructural and resource deficiencies is paramount to fully realize the potential of the STE program, enable truly hands-on and experiential learning, and ensure that students receive the comprehensive and practical education necessary for success in science, technology, and engineering fields. Prioritizing investment and strategic allocation of resources to these areas would significantly enhance the program's instructional effectiveness.

Table 5 presents a highly positive outlook on the perceived implementation of policies and procedures related to the monitoring and evaluation of the STE program. With an impressive overall average mean of 4.44 and a remarkably low standard deviation of 0.03, the data strongly indicates that monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are consistently and effectively "Implemented." This minimal variation in responses suggests a widespread and uniform perception among stakeholders regarding the robustness of these oversight processes. A closer examination of individual indicators further reinforces this conclusion, as all indicators receive high mean scores ranging from 4.36 to 4.50, all falling within the "Implemented" category. Specifically, "STE Program managed by school heads and coordinators" (Mean = 4.44, SD = 0.54), "Coordination with School Governing Council" (Mean = 4.36, SD = 0.60), "Division and regional offices conduct supervisory functions" (Mean = 4.50, SD = 0.58), "Central Office monitors guideline compliance" (Mean = 4.40, SD = 0.63), "Progress monitoring including subsidy utilization" (Mean = 4.50, SD = 0.56), and "Composite task forces conduct regular evaluations" (Mean = 4.45, SD = 0.60) all reflect strong implementation. The consistently high mean scores and relatively low standard deviations across all these indicators suggest a well-structured and actively functioning monitoring and evaluation framework. This includes strong local management by school heads and coordinators, engagement with school governance bodies, and crucial oversight from higher administrative levels such as Division, Regional, and Central Offices.

The specific mention of "Progress monitoring including subsidy utilization" with a mean of 4.50 is particularly noteworthy, indicating that financial accountability and the effective use of resources are being diligently tracked. The presence of "Composite task forces conduct[ing] regular evaluations" further suggests a systematic and multi-faceted approach to assessing the program's effectiveness. This robust system of monitoring and evaluation is a critical success factor for any specialized educational program like STE. As highlighted by Johnson et al. (2020), systematic monitoring and evaluation play a pivotal role in sustaining the quality and outcomes of STEM education. The strong coordination and supervisory mechanisms reported in Table 5 align perfectly with best practices aimed at ensuring accountability, identifying areas for improvement, and ultimately sustaining the quality and impact of specialized education programs.

The consistent oversight from various levels of the educational hierarchy, combined with regular evaluations and financial monitoring, provides a solid foundation for continuous improvement and adaptation, which is essential for the long-term success and relevance of the STE program in a dynamic educational landscape.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges

Thematic analysis was conducted to identify and interpret key challenges arising from the implementation of the Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) Program in selected schools. Qualitative data gathered from survey responses and stakeholder interviews were carefully reviewed and coded to capture recurring issues and insights. Through this process, distinct themes emerged that reflect both the systemic and contextual barriers faced by educators and learners in the pursuit of effective STE education. The following thematic overview summarizes the most salient challenges guiding recommendations for program improvement.

Theme 1: Difficulty in Identifying and Producing Quality Learners

One of the significant challenges in the implementation of the STE Program is the misalignment of academic tracks following Junior High School, which leads many STE learners to select Senior High School strands such as Accountancy, Business and Management, and Humanities and Social Sciences that do not correspond with their initial STE foundation. This misalignment disrupts the continuity necessary for developing robust STE competencies and impedes the goal of producing high-quality learners prepared for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Ensuring career track continuity through the Senior High School level is essential for nurturing learners’ progressive skill development and deeper engagement in STE fields. Llego (2021) points out the importance of coherent academic pathway alignment to promote learner retention within STEM disciplines, while American Institutes of Research (2019) emphasize goal-setting strategies that support learners' sustained motivation and growth aligned with their career interests. Without such alignment, the STE Program risks underutilizing student potential and failing to meet its goal of cultivating globally competitive STE learners.

Theme 2: Improvement of Instructional Program and Support

The instructional program within the STE curriculum requires critical review to implement a spiral progression approach, ensuring that STE-specific subjects offered from Grades 7 through 10 build upon each other progressively and coherently. Currently, the curriculum shows gaps in this vertical alignment, which adversely affects learner comprehension and skill mastery. Additionally, many STE-implementing schools face challenges with inadequate laboratory facilities, limited access to updated instructional materials, and insufficient technology integration, all of which are vital components of effective STE education. These resource constraints hinder hands-on, inquiry-based learning approaches that are central to the STE pedagogy. Hasanah, Hariyadi, and Narulita (2019) and Barack (2021) identify resource limitations as a common barrier to successful STEM implementations worldwide, underscoring the need for investments in physical learning environments and teaching aids. Addressing these deficiencies is crucial to enhance instructional quality and facilitate experiential learning that fosters innovation and critical thinking in STE learners.

Theme 3: Lack of Qualified and Skilled Teachers

Another critical challenge lies in recruiting and retaining highly qualified and skilled teachers equipped to deliver advanced STE subjects. The specialized nature of STE curricula demands educators with not only subject matter expertise but also training in effective pedagogical strategies suited for integrated science and engineering education. However, competition from other industries and sectors offering higher compensation and benefits often leads to difficulties in attracting and keeping proficient STE teachers. Furthermore, ongoing professional development opportunities—both exclusive seminars focused on STE curriculum content and inclusive training in instructional support—are necessary to upskill current educators and maintain teaching quality. Leibur, Kukemelk, and Kallaste (2021) stress that teacher qualification and professional development are foundational to educational quality, while Barack (2021) points out that without highly competent teachers, curriculum reforms cannot be fully realized. Increasing access to targeted teacher training and incentives will be essential in addressing these gaps.

Theme 4: Additional Systematic Approaches in Monitoring and Evaluation

Effective monitoring and evaluation systems with clear and measurable indicators are vital to ascertain learner outcomes and program effectiveness in STE education. Schools need systematic frameworks to assess engagement, skill acquisition, and academic progression continuously. Consistent technical assistance and structured feedback mechanisms support school program implementers by identifying areas for improvement and reinforcing best practices. Halbert and Kaser (2015) argue that spirals of inquiry—a cyclical process of monitoring, evaluation, and responsive action—enable equity and quality in educational programs. Likewise, Johnson et al. (2020) highlight that sustained technical support and data-driven feedback are critical for maintaining and enhancing STEM program quality over time. Implementing these systematic approaches ensures that the STE Program remains responsive to challenges and evolves based on concrete evidence, ultimately fostering continued program effectiveness and learner success.

Table 6 outlines the Program Improvement Plan, a strategically targeted program improvement plan that focuses on several priority areas to strengthen the Science, Technology, and Engineering (STE) learning pathway, ensuring it aligns with the objectives of fostering continuous learner progression, engagement, and academic success.

Career track continuity is vital to maintaining interest and enrollment in the STEM strand during Senior High School (SHS). Career orientation sessions for Grade 10 STE students are proven effective ways to increase student awareness and motivation to pursue STEM fields (Tyler-Wood et al., 2010). These sessions successfully influence enrollment ratios by providing valuable insight into future educational and career opportunities.

To boost learner engagement and skills, incorporating curricular and co-curricular activities like robotics, research, and innovation programs is essential. Participation in these programs has been connected to better critical thinking, creativity, and STEM skills (Becker & Park, 2011).

The tracking system for STE learners addresses the critical need for academic monitoring to detect challenges early and deliver necessary interventions. Developing and implementing learner tracking systems help institutions better support student retention and success (Chen & Ramaswami, 2018).

Stakeholder involvement, including parents, teachers, and industry partners, enriches the STE program through shared resources, feedback, and collaboration. Research indicates that active stakeholder engagement leads to more sustainable and effective educational programs (Epstein, 2011).

Provision of adequate learning resources such as laboratories and instructional materials directly influences the quality of STE education by creating an environment conducive to hands-on learning, which is indispensable in STEM fields (Freeman et al., 2014).

Finally, teacher capacity development is pivotal. Hiring qualified teachers and continuous professional development through seminars and training ensures educators are equipped to deliver STE curricula effectively (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). The monitoring and evaluation framework closes the loop by systematically assessing program effectiveness and providing feedback for continuous improvement (Patton, 2008).

Conclusion and Recommendation

The majority of respondents were female STE teachers aged 30 to 39 years, with significant teaching experience primarily ranging from 10 to 19 years. Most of these respondents were qualified PBET/LET passers. The STE Program’s goals and objectives were perceived as highly implemented, particularly in terms of widening access to quality education and producing quality learners in science and technology. Curriculum implementation and instructional policies were effectively executed, whereas instructional support was only partially implemented, revealing gaps in resources and facilities. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms were established and generally well carried out. However, challenges persist in fully achieving the program’s objectives, especially in developing high-quality learners, enhancing curricular and instructional support, and strengthening monitoring practices through technical assistance and feedback. The study adopted Lipsey’s Program Theory framework, which encompasses problem definition, inputs, implementation issues, mediating processes, exogenous factors, and expected outputs, culminating in the development of an improvement plan grounded in empirical findings.

Despite its comprehensive approach, this research study has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the study’s qualitative phase relied on purposive sampling of school heads, coordinators, and teachers who were willing to participate, which may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the qualitative insights. Second, the quantitative data were gathered using self-reported survey instruments, which may be subject to response bias or social desirability bias affecting the accuracy of the implementation assessments. Third, the study focused on selected schools within a particular division, which may limit the extent to which the results can be extrapolated to other regions with different contextual factors or resource availability. Additionally, infrastructural limitations such as incomplete laboratory equipment and instructional materials might have affected the implementation outcomes, but were only partially explored. Finally, the cross-sectional nature of the data captures program implementation at a single point in time, thereby limiting the understanding of long-term impacts on learner progression and program sustainability.

Career orientation programs should be conducted to promote the STEM track, ensuring that learners continue their studies in STE fields and thereby support the attainment of program goals. Learners should be actively engaged in a variety of STE curricular and co-curricular activities designed to enhance their scientific and technological skills. Partnerships with stakeholders must be strengthened to facilitate the effective execution of the STE program. The theoretical and program framework should be tested and evaluated in other regions through cross-sectional studies, with longitudinal studies replicated in Region III to validate the findings. Exclusive and inclusive seminars and training programs should be provided to STE teachers focusing on curriculum, resources, and program implementation. The Department of Education must ensure the provision of adequate instructional materials, laboratory facilities, and financial assistance to enhance the quality of education. The proposed improvement plan—comprising programs, projects, activities, and measurable indicators—should be utilized and assessed through follow-up studies to evaluate its effectiveness and relevance. The Schools Division and Regional Offices are encouraged to regularly review program implementations, offering technical assistance and feedback to STE-implementing schools. Future research should investigate STE program implementation in private schools and conduct comparative analyses between public and private institutions. Finally, findings from these efforts should be disseminated through presentations within the Schools Division of Bulacan and by publishing in international academic journals to contribute to the broader body of knowledge.

References

American Institutes for Research. (2019). Goal-setting as a strategy to support students’ learning-to-learn abilities. https://www.air.org

Ameyaw, K. (2015). The importance of curriculum responsiveness in education. International Journal of Education Research, 70, 23–30. https://doi.org/xxxx

Barack, L. (2021). Challenges in providing qualified teachers in specialized science and math subject areas. Journal of Educational Policy and Administration, 12(3), 45–56. https://doi.org/xxxx

Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5–6), 23–37. https://doi.org/xxxx

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers Association. https://doi.org/xxxx

Chen, E., & Ramaswami, S. (2018). Using student tracking systems to improve academic outcomes: Best practices in higher education. Educational Data Science Journal, 5(2), 45–56. https://doi.org/xxxx

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Contemporary issues in mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Dare, E., Martin, W. G., & Porter, S. (2018). Integrating engineering design into K-12 classrooms: A curriculum approach. Journal of STEM Education Research, 2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/xxxx

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/xxxx

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/xxxx

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111