Senior High School Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Toward the Dynamic Learning Program Implementation at St. Paul University Surigao

 

Senior High School Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Toward the Dynamic Learning Program Implementation at St. Paul University Surigao

 

1Bernah Rizza May A. Galvez, ² Rona May L. Agan, ³Emelyn S. Digal, ⁴Joan L. Frias 5 Reubenjoy P. Budejas

12345Faculty, St. Paul University Surigao

1ORCID: 0000-0002-3855-3255

2ORCID: 0009-0007-2912-8269

3ORCID: 0000-0002-2908-7408

4ORCID: 0009-0000-0394-9674

5ORCID: 0000-0001-7895-5438

 

Abstract

This study assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practices of Senior High School teachers toward the implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) at St. Paul University Surigao for the School Year 2025–2026. A descriptive-quantitative research design was employed involving eleven purposively selected teachers. Data were collected using a validated researcher-made questionnaire and analyzed through frequency count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. The Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis H test were utilized to determine significant differences when grouped according to demographic variables. Findings revealed that teachers were generally very knowledgeable, exhibited a favorable attitude, and highly practiced DLP principles in their classroom instruction. No significant differences were found in knowledge and practices across demographic profiles, while significant differences in attitude were observed based on sex and teaching experience. The study concludes that the DLP is effectively implemented and recommends sustained professional development and enhanced orientation on specific program components to ensure its continued success.

Keywords: Dynamic Learning Program, Knowledge, Attitude, Practices, Senior High School Teachers, Philippines

 

INTRODUCTION

Innovative teaching frameworks play a crucial role in addressing diverse learning needs and improving student outcomes. One such innovation is the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP), an instructional approach that promotes learner independence, critical thinking, and mastery of concepts through activity-based and self-paced learning while minimizing lecture time. Grounded in constructivist principles, DLP encourages students to actively construct knowledge and take responsibility for their learning (Dilts & Epstein, 1995; Manatad, 2020).

 

Internationally, dynamic learning environments have been shown to enhance student engagement and academic achievement. Zengin (2019) reported that such environments improve mathematical connection skills, while Fussell and Truong (2023) highlighted that the integration of innovative technologies further strengthens learner engagement and perceived usefulness of dynamic instructional approaches. In the Philippine context, the DLP, developed by Drs. Christopher and Ma. Victoria Carpio-Bernido under the Central Visayan Institute Foundation, has demonstrated positive outcomes in fostering learner autonomy and strengthening teacher–learner rapport (Delos Reyes & Torio, 2021). These findings support the relevance of DLP as a learner-centered strategy aligned with national educational goals.

Regionally and locally, educational institutions continue to adopt innovative pedagogies to enhance instructional effectiveness. At St. Paul University Surigao, the implementation of DLP reflects the institution’s commitment to quality and learner-centered education. However, the success and sustainability of the program largely depend on teachers, who serve as the primary agents of implementation. Their knowledge of DLP principles, attitudes toward the program, and classroom practices significantly influence its effectiveness.

Despite the growing body of literature on DLP, existing studies primarily focus on student outcomes, with limited attention to teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices, particularly within private educational institutions in the Caraga Region. Addressing this gap, the present study assumes that teachers with adequate knowledge and positive attitudes toward DLP are more likely to demonstrate effective instructional practices.

Thus, this study aims to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices of Senior High School teachers toward the implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program at St. Paul University Surigao for the School Year 2025–2026. The findings will provide a basis for enhancing teacher training, improving instructional delivery, and ensuring the sustainability of the program.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices of Senior High School teachers toward the implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) at St. Paul University Surigao for the School Year 2025–2026. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions: (1) What is the profile of the respondents in terms of sex, age, teaching experience, and subject handled?; (2) What is the level of knowledge of Senior High School teachers regarding the principles and implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program?; (3) What is the attitude of Senior High School teachers toward the DLP as an instructional framework?; (4) What are the teaching practices of Senior High School teachers in implementing the DLP?; (5) Are there significant differences in the knowledge, attitude, and practices of teachers when grouped according to demographic profile?; and (6) What recommendations may be proposed to enhance the implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program at St. Paul University Surigao?.

Hypothesis

At a 0.05 level of significance, it is hypothesized that there is no significant difference in the knowledge, attitude, and practices of Senior High School teachers toward the Dynamic Learning Program when grouped according to profile variables such as sex, age, teaching experience, and subject handled.

RESEARCH METHODS

This study employed a descriptive-quantitative research design to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices of Senior High School teachers toward the implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program at St. Paul University Surigao during the School Year 2025–2026. The descriptive method was used to present the demographic profile and describe teachers’ levels of knowledge, attitude, and practices. The respondents of the study were the purposively selected 11 Senior High School teachers from St. Paul University Surigao who were directly involved in the implementation of DLP. Data were collected through a validated researcher-made survey questionnaire, which consisted of four parts: (1) demographic profile, (2) knowledge of DLP principles, (3) attitude toward DLP, and (4) DLP-related teaching practices. The gathered data were analyzed using frequency count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation to determine the general trends, while Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used to identify significant differences in responses based on the teachers’ profiles in terms of age, teaching experience, and subject handled and Whitney U Test for in terms of sex. The results served as the basis for formulating recommendations to improve the implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program in the Senior High School department.

 

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The results of data analysis are presented in their respective sections according to the statement of the problem.

 

Table 1. Profile of Respondents

Profile	f (11)	%
Sex
Male	3	27
Female	8	73
Age
24 – 28 years old	8	73
29 - 33 years old	2	18
34 - 38 years old	1	9
Teaching Experience
Less than 1 year	1	9
1 - 5 years	6	55
6 years and above	4	36
Subject Handled
Filipino	3	27
English	3	27
Christian Living / Values Education	1	9
Life and Career Skills	2	18
Mathematics	1	9
Technology and Livelihood Education	1	9

 

Table 1 presents the profile of the respondents in terms of sex, age, teaching experience, and subject handled. As to sex, most of the participants are female with 8 (73%) teachers, while only 3 (27%) are male.

In terms of age, the majority belong to the 24–28 age bracket, with 8 (73%), followed by 2 (18%) in the 29–33 age group, while only 1 (9%) belongs to the 34–38 age bracket.

Moreover, when it comes to teaching experience, most of the participants have been teaching for 1–5 years, with 6 (55%), followed by those who have been teaching for 6 years and above, with 4 (36%), while only 1 (9%) has been teaching for less than a year.

Regarding subject handled, most of the participants teach English and Filipino, with 3 (27%) each. This is followed by those teaching Life and Career Skills, with 2 (18%). Meanwhile, there is only 1 (9%) participant each for Christian Living/Values Education, Mathematics, and Technology and Livelihood Education.

 

Table 2. Level of Knowledge of Senior High School Teachers on the Principles and Implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP)

Indicators	f(11)	%	I
1.     The main goal of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) is to develop independent learners through self-paced activities.	11	100	VK
2.     The Dynamic Learning Program was conceptualized and developed by Drs. Christopher and Ma. Victoria Carpio-Bernido.	8	73	MK
3.     The main instructional material used in the implementation of the DLP is the Learning Activity Sheet (LAS).	10	91	VK
4.     The primary teaching strategy emphasized by the DLP is activity-based and self-directed learning.	11	100	VK
5.     In the DLP framework, the teacher primarily acts as a facilitator of learning.	10	91	VK
6.     The DLP structure follows a specific sequence of activities consisting of Activity, Feedback, and Reinforcement.	9	82	VK
7.     The “Parallel Classes” feature of the DLP involves students of different subjects working simultaneously on separate Learning Activity Sheets.	3	27	SK
8.     The DLP strongly aims to develop the values of discipline and responsibility in learning among students.	11	100	VK
9.     The DLP minimizes direct instruction primarily to encourage students to construct knowledge independently.	10	91	VK
10.  The DLP is aligned with the educational philosophy of Constructivism.	9	82	VK

Interval	Interpretation
9 – 11	Very Knowledgeable (VK)
6 – 8	Moderately Knowledgeable (MK)
3 – 5	Slightly Knowledgeable (SK)
0 – 2	Less to Not Knowledgeable at All (NK)

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2 presents the level of knowledge of Senior High School teachers regarding the principles and implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). As shown in the table, three indicators got the highest frequency (𝑛=11, 100%) which is interpreted as Very Knowledgeable. First is indicator 1, The main goal of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) is to develop independent learners through self-paced activities. The result implies that the respondents understand the primary goal of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP), particularly its emphasis on developing independent learners through self-paced activities. This indicates that the objectives of the program are well understood, which may support more effective implementation in instructional practice. When objectives are properly understood, it enables teachers to better align instructional strategies and classroom practices with its intended outcomes. This idea is supported by Yassin (2026), who emphasized that clearly defined and well-understood objectives serve as the foundation of constructive alignment, ensuring that instructional strategies and assessment practices are effectively directed toward intended learning outcomes. Similarly, Hristov et al. (2023) found that when objectives are clearly established and understood, teachers are better able to align teaching activities and assessments, resulting in more coherent and effective instructional implementation.

   The second indicator that got the highest frequency is indicator 4, The primary teaching strategy emphasized by the DLP is activity-based and self-directed learning.  This indicates that all respondents fully agree or are aware of this aspect of the program. The unanimous response further shows that the respondents have a clear and consistent understanding of the instructional approach used in DLP. This is a good indication because according to the study of Hristov et al. (2023), it was emphasized that effective instructional implementation depends on constructive alignment, where clearly defined and well-understood learning objectives guide the selection of teaching strategies and assessment methods. Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2023) found that when learning objectives are clearly established and understood, teachers are better able to align instructional activities and assessments with curriculum standards, resulting in more coherent and effective classroom implementation.

   The third one is indicator 8, The DLP strongly aims to develop the values of discipline and responsibility in learning among students. This suggests that the respondents clearly recognize that beyond academic learning, the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) also prioritizes character formation, particularly fostering self-discipline, responsibility, and accountability in learning tasks. This indicates that the program is not only focused on cognitive development but also on shaping learners into independent and responsible individuals who take ownership of their learning. This is supported by Karlen et al. (2024), who found that teachers’ understanding of self-regulated learning and instructional goals is closely linked to how effectively they align their assessment practices and classroom instruction with intended learning outcomes. This is further supported by Anyichie (2025) who emphasized that when teachers clearly understand instructional objectives within self-regulated learning frameworks, they are better able to implement strategies that promote learner autonomy, responsibility, and alignment between teaching practices and desired competencies.

   Meanwhile, indicator 7, The “Parallel Classes” feature of the DLP involves students of different subjects working simultaneously on separate Learning Activity Sheets got the lowest frequency (𝑛=3, 27%) which is interpreted as Slightly Knowledgeable. This suggests that only a limited number of respondents are familiar with this specific instructional feature, indicating a relatively low level of awareness or exposure compared to other components of the DLP. It may also imply that this aspect of the program is less emphasized or less frequently implemented in actual classroom practice, leading to weaker retention or understanding among teachers. According to Karlen et al. (2024), the teacher’s understanding of specific instructional structures is closely linked to their exposure and consistent practice of such approaches in the classroom. Thus, if they rarely use it, their understanding tends to be lower. Similarly, Anyichie (2025) noted that when instructional strategies are not regularly implemented or clearly reinforced, teachers tend to demonstrate lower familiarity and weaker conceptual understanding of those practices, affecting overall knowledge of program components.

 

Table 3. Summary Level of Knowledge of Senior High School Teachers on the Principles and Implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP)

Indicators	f(11)	%
Very Knowledgeable (8.26 – 10.00)	6	55
Moderately Knowledgeable (5.51 – 8.25)	5	45

Table 3 presents the summary level of knowledge of senior high school teachers on the principles and implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). As shown in the table, most of the senior high school teachers are Very Knowledgeable (𝑛=6, 55%) about the principles and implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). This means that more than half of the respondents have a strong and sufficient understanding of the DLP, indicating that they are well-versed in its guiding principles and implementation processes. Their level of knowledge suggests that they are capable of appropriately applying the program’s strategies in classroom instruction, particularly its emphasis on independent, activity-based, and self-directed learning. This finding is supported by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2023), which emphasized that teachers’ strong understanding of instructional programs contributes to more effective and consistent implementation, as knowledgeable teachers are better able to align classroom practices with intended learning outcomes. Similarly, Darling-Hammond et al. (2020) highlighted that when teachers possess a clear understanding of instructional principles, they are more capable of applying appropriate teaching strategies that promote meaningful learning and improved classroom effectiveness.

On the other hand, there 5 (45%) who are Moderately Knowledgeable. This indicates that a considerable proportion of the teachers have a fair but not fully developed understanding of the principles and implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). It suggests that while they are familiar with the program’s key concepts, there are still areas where their knowledge may be limited, which could affect the consistency and depth of implementation in classroom practice. This finding is supported by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2023), which emphasized that variations in teachers’ professional knowledge often result in differences in the depth and consistency of instructional implementation, particularly when understanding of program principles is only partial. Moreover, Zhao et al. (2023) explained that when teachers have only a moderate understanding of instructional frameworks, there may be challenges in fully aligning classroom strategies with intended learning outcomes, which can lead to less consistent application of program-based teaching approaches.

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Attitude of Senior High School Teachers Toward the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) as an Instructional Framework

Indicator	M	SD	VR	I
1.     I believe the DLP improves students’ academic performance.	3.18	0.98	MA	F
2.     I am confident that the DLP promotes learner independence.	3.09	0.94	MA	F
3.     I feel motivated to use DLP strategies in my teaching.	2.91	0.83	MA	F
4.     I find the DLP framework aligned with the school’s vision.	3.45	0.69	SA	VF
5.     I believe DLP reduces teacher stress by minimizing lecture time.	2.82	0.87	MA	F
6.     I think students become more responsible for their own learning under DLP.	3.00	1.00	MA	F
7.     I view DLP as an effective strategy for differentiated learning.	3.18	0.98	MA	F
8.     I am open to further training and workshops about DLP.	3.45	0.69	SA	VF
9.     I feel that DLP promotes holistic student development.	3.18	0.98	MA	F
10.  I believe DLP should be sustained and improved at SPUS.	2.91	0.83	MA	F
Overall	3.12	0.88	MA	F

Scale	Interval	Verbal Response	Interpretation
4	3.25-4.00	Strongly Agree (SA)	Very Favorable (VF)
3	2.50-3.24	Moderately Agree (MA)	Favorable (F)
2	1.75-2.49	Slightly Agree (SlA)	Slightly Favorable (SF)
1	1.00-1.74	Disagree (D)	Unfavorable (U)

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 presents the attitude of Senior High School teachers toward the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) as an instructional framework. Among all the indicators, two indicators got the highest mean. The first one is indicator 4, I find the DLP framework aligned with the school’s vision, which obtained a mean (M=3.45, SD=0.69) that can be verbally responded as Strongly Agree and interpreted as Very Favorable. This implies that the respondents perceive the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) framework as highly consistent with the school’s vision, indicating strong institutional alignment and acceptance of the program. It further suggests that the DLP is viewed positively by the teachers, which may contribute to stronger commitment and more effective implementation of its principles in classroom practice. This is supported by Huang et al. (2026), who found that teachers’ positive perception of educational innovations is strongly associated with increased innovative work behavior and greater willingness to implement instructional changes effectively in the classroom. Similarly, Tuang and Quintos (2025) emphasized that teachers’ positive perceptions of school programs are linked to higher levels of work commitment, which contributes to more consistent and effective implementation of instructional practices and reforms.

The second indicator that got the highest mean is indicator 8, I am open to further training and workshops about DLP which obtained a mean (M=3.45, SD=0.69) that can be verbally responded as Strongly Agree and interpreted as Very Favorable. This implies that the respondents demonstrate a strong willingness to engage in continuous professional development related to the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP), reflecting their openness to enhancing their knowledge and instructional competencies. Such a positive disposition toward training may contribute to improved implementation of the program, as teachers who are receptive to professional learning opportunities are more likely to refine their practices and adopt effective instructional strategies. This finding is supported by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2023), which emphasized that teachers’ willingness to participate in professional development is essential in improving instructional quality and ensuring effective implementation of educational programs. This is important because according to König et al. (2023), professional development plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between instructional knowledge and classroom practice, suggesting that teachers who are open to training are more likely to translate learned strategies into effective implementation.

Conversely, indicator 5, I believe DLP reduces teacher stress by minimizing lecture time got the lowest mean (M=2.82, SD=0.87) which can be verbally responded to as Moderately Agree and interpreted as Favorable. This implies that while the respondents generally have a positive perception of the DLP’s potential to reduce teacher stress, their agreement is not as strong compared to other indicators. It suggests that some teachers may still experience challenges or may not fully perceive reduced lecture time as a significant factor in lowering their workload or stress levels. This aligns with Nwoko et al. (2023), who identified that teacher stress is influenced by multiple factors such as workload, professional demands, and interpersonal dynamics, rather than a single instructional strategy. Similarly, Maguate (2024) found that major sources of teacher stress include workload, paperwork, class size, and lack of support, indicating that minimizing lecture time alone may not significantly reduce overall teacher stress.

Furthermore, two indicators got the second lowest mean. First is indicator 3, I feel motivated to use DLP strategies in my teaching which got a mean (M=2.91, SD=0.83) that can be verbally responded to as Moderately Agree and interpreted as Favorable. This implies that the respondents generally exhibit a positive but not strongly elevated level of motivation in using DLP strategies in their teaching practices. It suggests that while teachers are inclined to apply the program’s strategies, their motivation may still be influenced by certain constraints or challenges in implementation, resulting in only moderate enthusiasm. This can be further explained through the study done by Johnson et al. (2018), who emphasized that teacher motivation to adopt instructional strategies is strongly influenced by the level of autonomy support and perceived relevance of the practices in their teaching environment. Similarly, Kraft & Papay (2014) found that teacher motivation and engagement in instructional practices improve when supported by conducive professional environments, suggesting that moderate motivation may reflect contextual or implementation-related constraints within the school setting. Thus, the moderate level of motivation among respondents may indicate the need for enhanced support systems, such as training, resources, and administrative encouragement, to strengthen teachers’ willingness and capacity to effectively utilize DLP strategies in their teaching.

The second one is indicator 10, I believe DLP should be sustained and improved at SPUS, which got a mean (M=2.91, SD=0.83) that can be verbally responded to as Moderately Agree and interpreted as Favorable. This implies that the respondents generally support the continuation and enhancement of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP), although their level of agreement is not strongly pronounced. It suggests that while teachers recognize the value of the program, there may still be areas for improvement that influence their level of support for its long-term implementation. According to Guskey (2020), teachers are more likely to support the continuation and improvement of instructional programs when they observe positive outcomes and receive adequate support, suggesting that moderate agreement may reflect the need for further refinement and reinforcement of the DLP in practice.  Moreover, as stated above with the other second lowest, found that teacher motivation and engagement in instructional practices improve when supported by conducive professional environments, suggesting that moderate motivation may reflect contextual or implementation-related constraints within the school setting. Thus, the moderate level of motivation among respondents may indicate the need for enhanced support systems, such as training, resources, and administrative encouragement, to strengthen teachers’ willingness and capacity to effectively utilize DLP strategies in their teaching (Kraft & Papay, 2014).

Overall, the attitude of senior high school teachers toward the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) as an instructional framework got a mean average (M=3.12, SD=0.88) that can be verbally responded to as Moderately Agree and interpreted as Favorable. This suggests that teachers generally hold a positive attitude toward the DLP, indicating acceptance and recognition of its value as an instructional framework. However, the moderate level of agreement also suggests that their positive disposition is not yet strongly pronounced, possibly reflecting areas that still need strengthening to fully enhance teacher endorsement and engagement with the program. This is supported by Johnson et al. (2018), who emphasized that teachers’ attitudes toward instructional innovations are significantly shaped by the level of autonomy support and perceived relevance of the practices within their teaching environment. Similarly, Kraft and Papay (2014) found that teachers demonstrate more positive attitudes and stronger engagement when working in supportive professional environments that provide adequate resources, collaboration, and institutional encouragement, suggesting that favorable but moderate attitudes may reflect the need for continued support and improvement in implementation conditions.

Table 5. Teaching Practices of Senior High School Teachers in Implementing the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP)

Indicator	M	SD	VR	I
1.     I prepare and use Learning Activity Sheets (LAS) regularly.	3.18	0.41	O	MP
2.     I implement student-centered activities following DLP guidelines.	3.45	0.52	A	HP
3.     I minimize lecturing time and allow learners to work independently.	3.45	0.52	A	HP
4.     I give immediate feedback on completed LAS.	3.45	0.52	A	HP
5.     I monitor students’ progress through performance tasks.	3.55	0.52	A	HP
6.     I coordinate with co-teachers to ensure parallel class implementation.	3.64	0.51	A	HP
7.     I integrate values formation and reflection within DLP activities.	3.73	0.47	A	HP
8.     I encourage students to manage their own learning pace.	3.55	0.52	A	HP
9.     I document and evaluate the effectiveness of DLP activities.	3.45	0.52	A	HP
10.  I adapt my teaching style to meet DLP principles consistently.	3.45	0.52	A	HP
Overall	3.49	0.50	A	HP

Scale	Interval	Verbal Response	Interpretation
4	3.25-4.00	Always (A)	Highly Practiced (HP)
3	2.50-3.24	Often (O)	Moderately Practiced (MP)
2	1.75-2.49	Sometimes (S)	Slightly Practiced
1	1.00-1.74	Never (N)	Not Practiced (NP)

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 presents the teaching practices of Senior High School teachers in implementing the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). As presented, indicator 7, I integrate values formation and reflection within DLP activities got the highest mean (M=3.73, SD=0.47) which can be verbally responded to as Always and interpreted as Highly Practiced. This shows that teachers consistently incorporate values formation and reflection in their instructional practices, aligning with one of the school’s core missions not only to provide quality education but also to impart values that develop morally upright, responsible, and socially aware learners. The result suggests that the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) is being implemented in a way that goes beyond cognitive development and actively supports character formation among students. According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2019), which emphasizes that effective education systems should integrate academic learning with values education to develop well-rounded learners who are capable of responsible decision-making and ethical participation in society. Relatedly, Lovat et al. (2020) also highlighted that embedding values education within classroom instruction enhances students’ moral development and supports holistic learning outcomes, reinforcing the importance of integrating values formation in teaching practices such as those reflected in the DLP.

The second highest indicator, indicator 6, I coordinate with co-teachers to ensure parallel class implementation got a mean (M=3.64, SD=0.51) that can be verbally responded to as Always and interpreted as Highly Practiced. This implies that teachers consistently engage in collaboration with their colleagues to ensure the proper and organized implementation of parallel classes under the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). It suggests a strong culture of teamwork and professional cooperation among teachers, which is essential in maintaining the smooth delivery of instructional tasks and ensuring consistency in classroom implementation. The result is also a positive indication of effective instructional coordination within the school, which supports the overall goals of the program. This finding is supported by Gamboa (2023), who found that teacher collaboration significantly enhances instructional effectiveness, as coordinated efforts among teachers improve planning, delivery, and classroom management. Likewise, Pozas & Letzel-Alt (2023) emphasized that collaborative practices among teachers promote more effective instructional implementation, particularly through the exchange of ideas, co-construction of teaching strategies, and synchronization of classroom activities, which ultimately strengthen program delivery in schools.

Meanwhile, indicator 1, I prepare and use Learning Activity Sheets (LAS) regularly got the lowest mean (M=3.18, SD=0.41) which can be verbally responded to as Often and interpreted as Moderately Practiced. This insinuates that while teachers regularly utilize LAS in their instructional delivery, the practice is not yet at a level compared to other indicators. It suggests that there may be occasional constraints such as time pressure, workload, or resource preparation that affect the regularity and consistency of LAS development and use in the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). This finding is supported by Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), who emphasized that teachers’ consistent use of instructional materials and learning resources is often influenced by time allocation, workload demands, and access to adequate support, which can affect the regularity of classroom implementation practices. Similarly, UNESCO (2021) highlighted that effective teaching implementation depends on sufficient institutional support and manageable workload conditions, suggesting that variations in the consistent use of instructional tools such as Learning Activity Sheets may reflect practical constraints in teachers’ daily responsibilities.

Furthermore, multiple indicators got the second lowest mean (M=3.45, SD=0.52) which can all be verbally responded to as Always and interpreted as Highly Practiced. The following are indicator 2, I implement student-centered activities following DLP guidelines; indicator 3, I minimize lecturing time and allow learners to work independently; indicator 4, I give immediate feedback on completed LAS; indicator 9, I document and evaluate the effectiveness of DLP activities; and indicator 10, I adapt my teaching style to meet DLP principles consistently. This implies that these core components of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) are consistently and effectively practiced by the teachers, reflecting strong adherence to learner-centered instructional strategies. It also suggests that teachers are highly aligned with the program’s principles in terms of classroom delivery, feedback practices, and instructional adaptation, which are essential in sustaining effective implementation of the DLP. This finding is supported by Darling-Hammond et al. (2017), who emphasized that the consistent implementation of learner-centered instruction, feedback, and instructional adaptation is strongly influenced by sustained professional development and teachers’ mastery of instructional strategies. Similarly, Guskey (2002) explained that meaningful teacher change and consistent classroom practice occur when teachers continuously refine their instructional approaches through experience, feedback, and professional learning, suggesting that highly practiced instructional behaviors reflect developed competence and sustained application in classroom settings.

   On average, teaching practices of senior high school teachers in implementing the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) got a mean (3.49, SD=0.50)  that can be can verbally responded to as Always and interpreted as Highly Practiced. This result shows that teachers consistently apply the core principles and strategies of the DLP in their classroom instruction. It reflects a strong level of adherence to learner-centered practices such as independent learning, structured activities, feedback provision, and instructional adaptation, indicating that the program is effectively integrated into their daily teaching practices. This is supported by McChesney and Cross (2023), who emphasized that teachers’ consistent classroom practices are strongly influenced by their engagement in professional development and the supportive school environment in which implementation occurs, leading to more stable and sustained instructional performance. Likewise, Amemasor et al. (2025) found that teacher professional development significantly enhances the consistent application of instructional strategies, as sustained training and institutional support improve teachers’ confidence and ability to integrate learned practices into daily classroom instruction, resulting in highly practiced teaching behaviors.

 

Table 6. Significant Differences in the Knowledge of Teachers when grouped according to Demographic Profile

Profile	DV	C	p	Decision	Interpretation
Sex	Knowledge	10	0.746	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant
Age		3.227	0.199	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant
Teaching Experience		0.587	0.746	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant
Subject Handled		2.38	0.882	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant

             P-value < 0.05 = Reject Ho

 

Table 6 presents the significant differences in the knowledge of teachers when grouped according to demographic profile. As reflected, knowledge, when grouped according to sex (p=0.746), age (p=0.199), teaching experience (p=0.746),and subject handled (p=0.882) all have p-values that are greater than 0.05 which leads to the null hypothesis not being rejected. This means that the teachers’ demographic profiles do not influence or affect their level of knowledge about the DLP, suggesting that they generally share a similar level of understanding regardless of their personal or professional characteristics. It also implies that the dissemination of information, training, and implementation guidelines for the program may have been consistently delivered across all groups, resulting in a shared level of knowledge among the respondents. This contrasts with the study done by Viberg et al. (2023) which reported that teacher characteristics can be associated with differences in beliefs and attitudes toward instructional tools and innovations in education, suggesting that demographic variables may still play a role in shaping professional knowledge and practice in some settings. Moreover, Gore et al. (2023) also does not support this because in their study found that teaching quality and instructional effectiveness may vary according to experience, indicating that professional growth is not always uniform across demographic groups.

However, Villareal & Homillano ‘s (2024) study found that teacher knowledge is more strongly influenced by exposure to training and professional development rather than demographic characteristics. This aligns with the current study, which revealed no significant differences in teachers’ knowledge of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) when grouped according to demographic profile, indicating that uniform training and standardized implementation may contribute to equal levels of understanding among teachers.

 

Table 7. Significant Differences in the Attitude of Teachers when grouped according to Demographic Profile

Profile	DV	C	p	Decision	Interpretation
Sex	Attitude	2	0.050	Reject Ho	Significant
Age		0.131	0.937	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant
Teaching Experience		6.83	0.033	Reject Ho	Significant
Subject Handled		7.02	0.319	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant

             P-value < 0.05 = Reject Ho

 

Table 7 presents the significant differences in the attitude of teachers when grouped according to demographic profile. As shown, attitude, when grouped according to age (p=0.937), and subject handled (p=0.319) all have p-values that are greater than 0.05 which leads to the non-rejection of the null hypothesis. This implies that teachers’ attitudes toward the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) are not significantly influenced by their age and subject specialization. It suggests that regardless of these demographic factors, teachers generally share a similar level of attitude toward the implementation of the DLP, indicating a relatively uniform disposition across groups. This finding is supported by Villareal and Homillano (2024), who highlighted that teachers’ professional attitudes toward instructional practices are generally not shaped by demographic characteristics but are instead influenced by shared professional experiences and exposure to common instructional frameworks. In addition, Alieto et al. (2024) emphasized that teacher attitudes toward instructional approaches are more strongly associated with belief systems and pedagogical orientations rather than personal variables such as age or subject area. This suggests that even when teachers differ in demographic background, their attitudes toward programs like the DLP tend to converge when they operate within the same institutional expectations and teaching environment.

Meanwhile, attitude, when grouped according to sex (p=0.050), and teaching experience (p=0.033) all have p-values that are less than 0.050 thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. This indicates that these demographic variables influence how teachers perceive and respond to the program, implying that differences in gender and length of teaching service may shape variations in their level of acceptance, engagement, or openness toward the implementation of the DLP. One possible assumption is that teachers with longer teaching experience may have developed stronger familiarity and confidence in instructional approaches, which could result in more critical or more adaptive attitudes toward new programs like the DLP, while less experienced teachers may exhibit different levels of openness depending on their exposure and training. This aligns with OECD (2019) which reported that teaching experience shapes teachers’ professional perspectives, where more experienced educators often demonstrate more refined judgment and adaptive attitudes toward new instructional reforms, while less experienced teachers tend to show different levels of openness depending on their exposure to professional training and classroom experience.

Furthermore, the teachers’ sex may have differing perceptions and responses to instructional programs such as the DLP. This align with Farago et al. (2022), who found that teachers’ gender-role attitudes are significantly associated with their instructional practices and classroom perceptions, indicating that gender can influence how teachers interpret and respond to educational environments. The study suggests that male and female teachers may differ in their underlying beliefs and attitudes toward teaching practices, which can affect their openness and responsiveness to instructional innovations.

 

 

Table 8. Significant Differences in the Practices of Teachers when grouped according to Demographic Profile

Profile	DV	C	p	Decision	Interpretation
Sex	Practices	3	0.079	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant
Age		1.026	0.599	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant
Teaching Experience		4.64	0.098	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant
Subject Handled		6.36	0.384	Do not reject Ho	Not Significant

             P-value < 0.05 = Reject Ho

 

Table 8 presents the significant differences in the practices of teachers when grouped according to demographic profile. As reflected, practices, when grouped according to sex (p=0.079), age (p=0.599), teaching experience (p=0.098),and subject handled (p=0.384) all have p-values that are greater than 0.05 which leads to the null hypothesis not being rejected. This implies that teachers’ instructional practices in implementing the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) are not significantly influenced by their demographic characteristics. It suggests that regardless of sex, age, teaching experience, or subject specialization, teachers demonstrate relatively similar levels of practice in applying the DLP, indicating a consistent implementation across different groups.

This finding is supported by Gore et al. (2023), who found that teaching quality and instructional practices do not significantly differ across varying levels of teaching experience, suggesting that classroom practice is more strongly shaped by professional learning opportunities and shared instructional standards than by demographic characteristics. This is further supported by Romińska et al. (2020) who highlighted that differences in instructional practices are more strongly associated with teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom contextual factors rather than demographic characteristics such as age and teaching experience. Their findings suggest that variations in how teachers deliver and manage instructional strategies are better explained by confidence in teaching and the demands of the learning environment than by personal or professional profile variables. This implies that even if demographic differences exist, they do not necessarily translate into differences in instructional practice, as effectiveness in classroom implementation is more closely linked to psychological readiness and contextual support.

 

Finding of the Research

Based on the results of the study, the following findings were summarized.

1.     As to sex, most of the participants are female with 8 (73%) teachers, while only 3 (27%) are male. In terms of age, the majority belong to the 24–28 age bracket, with 8 (73%), followed by 2 (18%) in the 29–33 age group, while only 1 (9%) belongs to the 34–38 age bracket. Moreover, when it comes to teaching experience, most of the participants have been teaching for 1–5 years, with 6 (55%), followed by those who have been teaching for 6 years and above, with 4 (36%), while only 1 (9%) has been teaching for less than a year. Regarding subject handled, most of the participants teach English and Filipino, with 3 (27%) each. This is followed by those teaching Life and Career Skills, with 2 (18%). Meanwhile, there is only 1 (9%) participant each for Christian Living/Values Education, Mathematics, and Technology and Livelihood Education.

2.     With regards to the level of knowledge of Senior High School teachers regarding the principles and implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP), three indicators got the highest frequency (𝑛=11, 100%) which is interpreted as Very Knowledgeable. First is indicator 1, The main goal of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) is to develop independent learners through self-paced activities. The second indicator that got the highest frequency is indicator 4, The primary teaching strategy emphasized by the DLP is activity-based and self-directed learning.  The third one is indicator 8, The DLP strongly aims to develop the values of discipline and responsibility in learning among students. Meanwhile, indicator 7, The “Parallel Classes” feature of the DLP involves students of different subjects working simultaneously on separate Learning Activity Sheets got the lowest frequency (𝑛=3, 27%) which is interpreted as Slightly Knowledgeable. To summarize, most of the senior high school teachers are Very Knowledgeable (𝑛=6, 55%) about the principles and implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP).

3.     In terms of attitude of Senior High School teachers toward the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) as an instructional framework, among all the indicators, two indicators got the highest mean. The first one is indicator 4, I find the DLP framework aligned with the school’s vision, which obtained a mean (M=3.45, SD=0.69) that can be verbally responded as Strongly Agree and interpreted as Very Favorable. The second indicator that got the highest mean is indicator 8, I am open to further training and workshops about DLP which obtained a mean (M=3.45, SD=0.69) that can be verbally responded as Strongly Agree and interpreted as Very Favorable. Conversely, indicator 5, I believe DLP reduces teacher stress by minimizing lecture time got the lowest mean (M=2.82, SD=0.87) which can be verbally responded to as Moderately Agree and interpreted as Favorable. Furthermore, two indicators got the second lowest mean. First is indicator 3, I feel motivated to use DLP strategies in my teaching which got a mean (M=2.91, SD=0.83) that can be verbally responded to as Moderately Agree and interpreted as Favorable. The second one is indicator 10, I believe DLP should be sustained and improved at SPUS, which got a mean (M=2.91, SD=0.83) that can be verbally responded to as Moderately Agree and interpreted as Favorable. Overall, the attitude of senior high school teachers toward the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) as an instructional framework got a mean average (M=3.12, SD=0.88) that can be verbally responded to as Moderately Agree and interpreted as Favorable.

4.     4. As to the teaching practices of Senior High School teachers in implementing the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP), indicator 7, I integrate values formation and reflection within DLP activities got the highest mean (M=3.73, SD=0.47) which can be verbally responded to as Always and interpreted as Highly Practiced. The second highest indicator, indicator 6, I coordinate with co-teachers to ensure parallel class implementation got a mean (M=3.64, SD=0.51) that can be verbally responded to as Always and interpreted as Highly Practiced. Meanwhile, indicator 1, I prepare and use Learning Activity Sheets (LAS) regularly got the lowest mean (M=3.18, SD=0.41) which can be verbally responded to as Often and interpreted as Moderately Practiced. Furthermore, multiple indicators got the second lowest mean (M=3.45, SD=0.52) which can all be verbally responded to as Always and interpreted as Highly Practiced. The following are indicator 2, I implement student-centered activities following DLP guidelines; indicator 3, I minimize lecturing time and allow learners to work independently; indicator 4, I give immediate feedback on completed LAS; indicator 9, I document and evaluate the effectiveness of DLP activities; and indicator 10, I adapt my teaching style to meet DLP principles consistently. On average, teaching practices of senior high school teachers in implementing the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) got a mean (3.49, SD=0.50) that can be can verbally responded to as Always and interpreted as Highly Practiced.

5.     In terms of significant differences in the knowledge of teachers when grouped according to demographic profile, knowledge, when grouped according to sex (p=0.746), age (p=0.199), teaching experience (p=0.746),and subject handled (p=0.882) all have p-values that are greater than 0.05 which leads to the null hypothesis not being rejected.

Moreover, attitude, when grouped according to age (p=0.937), and subject handled (p=0.319) all have p-values that are greater than 0.05 which leads to the non-rejection of the null hypothesis. Meanwhile, attitude, when grouped according to sex (p=0.050), and teaching experience (p=0.033) all have p-values that are less than 0.050 thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Lastly, practices, when grouped according to sex (p=0.079), age (p=0.599), teaching experience (p=0.098),and subject handled (p=0.384) all have p-values that are greater than 0.05 which leads to the null hypothesis not being rejected.

 

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that the Senior High School teachers of St. Paul University Surigao demonstrate a generally high level of knowledge, a positive attitude, and highly practiced instructional implementation of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). In terms of attitude, teachers show a favorable disposition toward the program, suggesting openness, acceptance, and recognition of its value in improving teaching and learning processes. Their positive attitude further supports the consistent application of DLP strategies in the classroom, as teachers are generally willing to adopt and sustain its implementation. With regard to practices, the results indicate that teachers regularly and effectively implement key components of the DLP, including student-centered activities, independent learning strategies, feedback mechanisms, and instructional adaptation. Overall, the findings indicate that teachers have a strong understanding of the program’s principles and are able to translate this understanding into consistent classroom practices aligned with its learner-centered and activity-based approach. This reflects that the DLP is well integrated into instructional delivery and is largely accepted as part of the school’s teaching framework.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Alieto, E. O., Abequibel-Encarnacion, B., Estigoy, E., Balasa, K., Eijansantos, A., & Torres-

 

Toukoumidis, A. (2024). Teaching inside a digital classroom: A quantitative analysis of attitude, technological competence and access among teachers across subject disciplines. Heliyon,10(2),e24282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24282

 

Amemasor, S. K., Oppong, S. O., Ghansah, B., & Benuwa, B.-B. (2025). A systematic review on the impact of teacher professional development on digital instructional integration and teaching practices. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1541031. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1541031

 

Anyichie, A. C. (2025). Developing and implementing a culturally responsive self-regulated learning framework: Empowering learners in inclusive classrooms. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251367830

Bernido, C., & Bernido, M. V. (2014). The Dynamic Learning Program: Enhancing learning efficiency and effectiveness. Central Visayan Institute Foundation.

 

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

 

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

 

Delos Reyes, R. D. G., & Torio, V. A. G. (2021). The relationship of expert teacher–learner rapport and learner autonomy in the CVIF-dynamic learning program. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(5), 471-481.

Department of Science and Technology – Science Education Institute (DOST-SEI). (2015). Best practices in science and mathematics teaching: The Dynamic Learning Program (DLP). Department of Science and Technology.

 

Dilts, R., & Epstein, T. (1995). Dynamic learning (Vol. 426). Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.

 

Farago, F., Martin, C. L., Granger, K. L., Miller, C. F., Santos, C. E., & Miller, C. F. (2022). Teachers’ gender-role attitudes and gendered classroom practices. Sex Roles, 87, 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01331-z

 

Fussell, S. G., & Truong, D. (2023). Accepting virtual reality for dynamic learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5442-5459.

 

Gamboa, R. (2023). Teacher collaboration: Its effect on the instructional teaching effectiveness of faculty members. AIDE Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 3(1), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.56648/aide-irj.v3i1.66

 

Gore, J., Rosser, B., Jaremus, F., & Miller, A. (2023). Fresh evidence on the relationship between years of experience and teaching quality. The Australian Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00612-0

 

Guskey, T. R. (2020). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers College Press.

 

Hristov, S., Nakov, D. D., & Miocinović, J. (2023). Constructive alignment between objectives, teaching and learning activities, student competencies and assessment methods in higher education. Journal of Agriculture and Plant Sciences, 21(2), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.46763/JAPS23212021h

 

Huang, M., Mansor, A. N., & Kamaruzaman, F. M. (2026). The role of innovative work behavior and teacher self-efficacy in shaping educational innovation: A systematic literature review. Discover Education, 5, 160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-01265-8

 

Johnson, R. E., Lin, S.-H. (J.), Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., King, D. D., & Esformes, E. (2018). Consequences of regulatory focus congruence in leader–follower relationships. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 229–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12176

 

Karlen, Y., Bäuerlein, K., & Brunner, S. (2024). Teachers’ assessment of self-regulated learning: Linking professional competences, assessment practices, and judgment accuracy. Social Psychology of Education, 27, 461–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09845-4

 

König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2023). Effective professional development in implementation processes – The teachers’ view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 134, 104329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104329

 

Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713519496

 

Lovat, T., Toomey, R., Clement, N., & Crotty, R. (2020). Values education and quality teaching: The moral dimension of teaching and learning. Springer.

 

Maguate, G. (2024). Exploring stressors among teachers: A factor analysis approach. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4873096

 

Manatad, J. P. (2020). Dynamic Learning Program for Millennial Learners. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD, 4(5).

 

McChesney, K., & Cross, J. (2023). How school culture affects teachers’ classroom implementation of learning from professional development. Learning Environments Research, 26, 785–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-023-09454-0

 

Nwoko, J. C., Emeto, T. I., Malau-Aduli, A. E. O., & Malau-Aduli, B. S. (2023). A systematic review of the factors that influence teachers’ occupational wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(12), 6070. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20126070

 

OECD. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: Conceptual learning framework. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/

 

OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en

 

OECD. (2023). Teachers for the future: Professional knowledge and instructional quality in education systems. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/

 

Pozas, M., & Letzel-Alt, V. (2023). Teacher collaboration, inclusive education and differentiated instruction: A matter of exchange, co-construction, or synchronization? Cogent Education, 10(2), 2240941. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2240941

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization – Regional Center for Educational Innovation and Technology (SEAMEO INNOTECH). (2017). Case study on innovative teaching approaches in the Philippines. SEAMEO INNOTECH Regional Center.

 

Tuang, J. F., & Quintos, S. B. (2025). Innovative leadership of school principals and the teachers’ work behavior and level of commitment. American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation, 4(6), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v4i6.5950

 

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707

 

Viberg, O., Cukurova, M., Feldman-Maggor, Y., Alexandron, G., Shirai, S., Kanemune, S., Wasson, B., Tømte, C., Spikol, D., Milrad, M., Coelho, R., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2023). What explains teachers’ trust of AI in education across six countries? arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.01627

 

Yassin, A. (2026). Learning outcomes as the foundation of constructive alignment. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1014591

 

Zengin, Y. (2019). Development of mathematical connection skills in a dynamic learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2175-2194.

 

Zhao, L., Zhao, B., & Li, C. (2023). Alignment analysis of teaching–learning–assessment within the classroom: How teachers implement project-based learning under curriculum standards. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00078-1

 

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Assessing Senior High School Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Toward the Dynamic Learning Program Implementation at St. Paul University Surigao

 

By responding to this survey, you willingly agree to participate in this research and to the terms of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). All information gathered from you will be treated with utmost confidentiality, kept secure, and used solely for academic purposes by authorized individuals within a specified period.

This questionnaire aims to gather information on teachers’ knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) regarding the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) at St. Paul University Surigao for the School Year 2025–2026. Your honest responses will significantly contribute to understanding the implementation of DLP among Senior High School teachers. Please read each item carefully and answer all questions sincerely.

 

Part I. Respondents’ Profile

Please fill in the blanks or check the boxes where appropriate.

Name (Optional): _________________________

Sex: ☐ Male ☐ Female

Age: ______years old

Teaching Experience (in years): ________

Subject Handled: _________________________

Part II. Knowledge on the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP)

Directions: Read each question carefully and encircle the letter of the correct answer.

1. What is the main goal of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP)?

A. To promote teacher-led instruction

B. To develop independent learners through self-paced activities

C. To extend classroom hours

D. To increase lecture frequency

 

2. Who conceptualized and developed the Dynamic Learning Program?

A. Drs. Christopher and Ma. Victoria Carpio-Bernido

B. Dr. Fe del Mundo and Dr. Jose P. Rizal

C. Dr. Ramon Paje and Dr. Josette Biyo

D. Dr. Florentino Hornedo and Dr. Gregorio Brillantes

 

3. What is the main instructional material used in the implementation of DLP?

A. Teacher’s Manual

B. Learning Activity Sheet (LAS)

C. Student Portfolio

D. Textbook

 

4. What is the primary teaching strategy emphasized by DLP?

A. Continuous lecturing

B. Activity-based and self-directed learning

C. Memorization drills

D. Group recitations

 

5. In DLP, the teacher primarily acts as:

A. A lecturer

B. A facilitator of learning

C. A grader

D. A supervisor only

 

6. The DLP structure follows which sequence of activities?

A. Activity – Feedback – Reinforcement

B. Lecture – Discussion – Quiz

C. Assignment – Lecture – Test

D. Demonstration – Discussion – Lecture

 

7. Which of the following best describes the “Parallel Classes” feature of DLP?

A. Multiple teachers handle the same group at once

B. Students of different subjects work simultaneously on separate LAS

C. Teachers rotate between sections giving lectures

D. All students take the same test at the same time

 

8. Which value does the DLP strongly aim to develop among learners?

A. Dependence on teachers

B. Discipline and responsibility in learning

C. Competition among peers

D. Memorization skills

 

9. The DLP minimizes direct instruction mainly to:

A. Lessen teacher workload

B. Encourage students to construct knowledge independently

C. Allow longer testing time

D. Focus on assessments

 

10. The DLP is aligned with which educational philosophy?

A. Constructivism

B. Behaviorism

C. Essentialism

D. Idealism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part III. Attitude Toward the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP)

Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement by encircling the number that best describes your opinion.

 

Scale:   4 – Strongly Agree 3 – Moderately Agree   2 – Slightly Agree  1 –Disagree

 

Statement	4	3	2	1
11.   I believe the DLP improves students’ academic performance.
12.   I am confident that the DLP promotes learner independence.
13.   I feel motivated to use DLP strategies in my teaching.
14.   I find the DLP framework aligned with the school’s vision.
15.   I believe DLP reduces teacher stress by minimizing lecture time.
16.   I think students become more responsible for their own learning under DLP.
17.   I view DLP as an effective strategy for differentiated learning.
18.   I am open to further training and workshops about DLP.
19.   I feel that DLP promotes holistic student development.
20.   I believe DLP should be sustained and improved at SPUS.

 

Part IV. Teaching Practices in Implementing the DLP

Directions: Encircle the number that best corresponds to how often you apply the following practices.

 

Scale:               4 – Always  3 – Often  2 – Sometimes  1 – Never

 

Statement	4	3	2	1
11.   I prepare and use Learning Activity Sheets (LAS) regularly.
12.   I implement student-centered activities following DLP guidelines.
13.   I minimize lecturing time and allow learners to work independently.
14.   I give immediate feedback on completed LAS.
15.   I monitor students’ progress through performance tasks.
16.   I coordinate with co-teachers to ensure parallel class implementation.
17.   I integrate values formation and reflection within DLP activities.
18.   I encourage students to manage their own learning pace.
19.   I document and evaluate the effectiveness of DLP activities.
20.   I adapt my teaching style to meet DLP principles consistently.