Title: Enhancing the Knowledge-Based Level on Action Research of Teacher-

Evaluators through Dynamic Session

Group: Research Bloomers

ABSTRACT
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of dynamic in enhancing the
knowledge-based level on action research of teacher-evaluators. The study made use
the quasi-experimental design utilizing the pre-test and post test. Results revealed that
there is a significant difference between the Knowledge-Based Level on Action
Research of Teacher-Evaluators through Dynamic Session.
Keywords: knowledge-based, dynamic session, Davao region, Philippines

I. Context and Rationale

Research productivity has been a growing concern to many academic

institutions. Primarily, the concern highlights the conduct of educational action
research. Action research, as a disciplined process of inquiry conducted to
assist researchers in improving course of actions or situations, is considered
as a very vital undertaking in improving the quality of education (Sagor,
2019).

In fact, Park (2018) asserted that action research is a valuable tool for
teachers to improve teaching- learning process. However, teachers and other
educators appeared to be apprehensive in indulging oneself in its conduct. As
reported by Tindowen, Macanang, and Guzman (2019), teachers have
difficulties in the conduct of action research especially literature search,
presentation and publication of results, and data collection.

In education, many teachers are not willing to conduct action research.

One of the reasons is that they lack the knowledge and skills in doing so
(Nor’Azah, 2007; Shamsahhimi, 2007). Teachers do not have ample time to
prepare for it and the busy schedule were among the reasons why they are
unable to conduct action research (Jun Zhou, 2013; Nor’Azah, 2007; Othman,
2011).

Indeed, in Australia, action researches were done to mechanize in the

school improvement through the teacher’s ability to reflect on to their
practices which in turn results into positive school changes. However, it was
argued that in the implementation of action research, it should not be solely
dependent on the methodology, but rather recognize also the participation of
teachers in decision- making. This makes them more responsible in their
action to bring about change (Grundy, 1994; Stenhouse, 1976).

Action research has bloomed as an answer to the problems encountered

by many teachers every day. This has prompted the department to release
 guidelines in order to put in place the implementation of action researches
through the DepEd Order No. 24 series of 2010 or the Basic Education
Research Fund, DepEd Order No. 13 series of 2013 or the Establishment of a
Policy Development Process at the Department of Education, DepEd Order
No. 13 series of 2015 or the Revised Guidelines for the Basic Education
Research Fund, DepEd Order No. 4 series of 2016 or the Amendment to
DepEd Order No. 43 series of 2015, and DepEd Order No. 39 series of 2016
or the Adoption of the Basic Education Research Agenda (Tindowen, 2019).

However, despite the institutionalization of research in the department

through the different initiatives and programs, still a great number of teachers
are unable to produce such (Vinluan, 2011; Mapa, 2017). In fact, teachers
stressed that they are still adjusting to the culture of doing action researches
as part of their function as curriculum implementers (Salazar-Clemena, 2006;
Hirsch, 2005; Tindowen, 2019).

This circumstance has been felt in Region XI as well. Different public

schools, especially department of education officials and teachers have been
experiencing difficulties in the conduct of action research. Moreso, this bleak
scenario is worsen due to the conflict regarding the knowledge on the conduct
and format of action research. For instance, in Region XI, teachers remained
hesitant in pursuing their action research because of the overlapping standard
format of action research. The knowledge of research evaluators has further
worsen this scenario.

With these realities in the field, the researchers had developed interest to
explore this phenomenon. And with that, this study was conceived.

II. Proposed Intervention, Innovation, Strategy

The proposed intervention is called Dynamic Session.

Rationale: Dynamic Session as intervention aims at addressing the issues,

concerns and misconceptions on evaluating action researches. This
intervention is geared towards providing knowledge-based to teacher-
evaluators who are in the frontline of providing research capability building
and research evaluations to the teacher-researchers.

Dynamic sessions as a strategy is seen to ease this bleak scenario. The

term "dynamic" refers to the session dates, specifically, any course that
follows non-standard critical enrollment dates and may include courses taught
on campus, online or a combination of both (Erikka, 2019). The most
important characteristics of this approach are the active involvement of
audience in the entire learning cycle, the self-direction and active learning,
and the development of self-regulatory knowledge and skills.
 Extent: This dynamic session is a 2-day session for teacher-evaluators.
There will be series of activities which all aim at improving skills in evaluating
action researches. Video presentations, video critiquing, group discussion,
group presentations, research paper making, statistical analysis of results
were utilized throughout the implementation of the intervention. Competition
among groups was the motivating factor to show off the potentials and ignite
critical thinking skills among teacher- evaluators.

Limitation: This dynamic session considered the capacity of the speaker to

provide quality materials and resources, to ignite the participants and facilitate
the conduct of the session whereby optimizing each teacher-evaluator’s
ability to enhance prior learning.

III. Action Research Questions

1. What is the knowledge-based level in action research of the teacher-
evaluators before and after the dynamic session?
2. Is there a significant difference between the knowledge-based level in
action research of the teacher- evaluators before and after the dynamic
session?

Null Hypothesis:
The null hypothesis that was tested at 0.05 level of significance stated that
there is no significant difference between the knowledge-based level in action
research of the teacher- evaluators before and after the dynamic session.

IV. Action Research Methods

This study made use of quantitative research design employing the quasi-
experimental method. A quasi- experiment is an empirical interventional study
used to estimate the causal impact of an intervention on target population
without random assignment (Dinardo, 2008; Rossi, 2004).

Participants: Two participants were selected purposively by the SEPS in

research and planning of different schools division in Region XI. Also, all
SEPS were part of the study. The total number of participants was ____
consisting of both male and female. Teacher-evaluators must have basic
knowledge in research and in the issuances of the department relative to the
conduct of action research.

Data Gathering Methods: To collect the data in the study, survey

questionnaire was utilized. It contains questions relative to the ability of the
participants to evaluate including other things related to the conduct of action
research. Survey questionnaire was utilized to describe the knowledge-based
level in action research of teacher-evaluators. These exploratory questions
served as the pre-test and post-test to gauge the level of increase in
knowledge-based level in action research of the teacher-evaluators before
and after the dynamic session.
 The rating was based on the 3-point scale:
1.0- 1.6 Unsatisfactory
1.7- 2.3 Fairly Satisfactory
2.4- 3.0 Highly Satisfactory

Pre- Experimentation:
Orientation of the utilization of the intervention and the different
activities that were conducted. Preparation of the materials was done also
including all the necessities prior to the conduct of the study. Furthermore,
the researcher administered the pre-test.

During Experimentation:
The implementation of the intervention was done.

After Experimentation:
The administration of the post-test was done.

V. Data Analysis
The statistical tools that were used in this study were:
a. Mean- It was utilized to determine the knowledge-based level on action
research of teacher-evaluators before and after the dynamic session.
b. t-test- It was used to determine the significant difference between the
knowledge-based level on action research of teacher-evaluators before
and after the dynamic session.

I. Results and Discussion

This presents the results of the gathered data from the research
conducted and the analysis of the findings based on the statistical tests
used in the study
A. The level of the Knowledge-based on Action Research of Teacher
Evaluators Before and After the Dynamic Sessions

Table 1
Mean SD

Before the Dynamic Session

1.82 0.53

After the Dynamic Session

2.94 0.13
 The table 1 shows that level of the knowledge-based on action
research of teacher evaluators on pretest and posttest. For the level of the
knowledge-based on action research before the dynamic sessions, it
exhibits that the overall mean is 1.82 with a description of fairly
satisfactory, which means that teacher evaluators manifest an average
level of knowledge on action research and their responses are varied at
standard deviation of 0.53. Specifically, the results also show that
teachers knowledge in the item “downloading AR from SOPHIA Website”
has a mean score of 1.27 or very unsatisfactorily which means teacher
evaluators very low knowledge about the website. On the other hand, the
item “context and rationale, and Proposed innovation as part of AR” have
means scores of 2.11 or very satisfactory, which means teacher
evaluators have a rich knowledge on these items.
Furthermore, the level of the knowledge-based on action research
after the dynamic sessions is 2.94 with a description of very satisfactory
which means that the teacher evaluator manifest an excellent level of
knowledge on action research and their responses are homogeneous with
a standard deviation of 0.13. Specifically, the item “downloading AR from
SOPHIA Website” has a mean score of 2.58 , still remained the lowest
item but now is Very satisfactory. Also, all of the remaining items garnered
mean scores above 2.40 which means all items are very satisfactory.

B. The Significant difference between the knowledge-based level in

action research of the teacher evaluators before and after the
dynamic sessions.
Table 2
Decision@
Mean SD t-value p-value
α = 0.05

Before the
Dynamic 1.82 0.53
Session
17.239 0.000 Rejected

After the 2.94 0.13

Dynamic
Session

The table shows the significant relationship between between the

knowledge-based level in action research of the teacher evaluators before
and after the dynamic sessions. The results exhibit a significant difference
between the results on data before and after the dynamic sessions with a
p-value of 0.000, this denotes that the knowledge of teacher evaluators
before the dynamic sessions is significantly different from their knowledge
after the dynamic sessions. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.
 Findings
The following are the findings of this action research.
1. the level of the knowledge-based on action research before the dynamic
sessions has the overall mean of 1.82 and with a standard deviation of
0.53.
2. the level of the knowledge-based on action research after the dynamic
sessions is 2.94 with a standard deviation of 0.13.
3. The results exhibit a significant difference between the results on data
before and after the dynamic sessions with a p-value of 0.000.

Conclusion
Based on the findings, the following are the conclusions:
1. For the level of the knowledge-based on action research before the
dynamic sessions is fairly satisfactory, which means that teacher
evaluators manifest an average level of knowledge on action research.
2. The level of the knowledge-based on action research after the dynamic
sessions is very satisfactory which means that the teacher evaluator
manifests an excellent level of knowledge on action research.
3. The results exhibit a significant difference between the results on data
before and after the dynamic sessions, this denotes that the
knowledge of teacher evaluators before the dynamic sessions is
significantly different from their knowledge after the dynamic sessions.

Recommendation/ Reflection
Based on the findings and conclusion, the researchers recommend the use of
dynamic sessions in enhancing not only the knowledge of teacher evaluators on
action research but also in other areas concerning education development and
other undertakings.

VI. Action Research Work Plan and Timeliness

Area of Objectives Activities/ Resources Time Estimated
Focus Methods or Frame Cost
Strategies
Material To prepare and Canvass, ask ROP January 5,000.00
Preparation purchase the budget and Funds 2020
/ print materials purchase
Intervention for the
intervention
To download Download ROP January 100.00
video resources from YouTube Funds 2020
as part of the
springboard in
the intervention
Dynamic To administer Answering ROP February 30,000.00
Session the pre-test of exploratory Funds 2020
 the study questions
To conduct the Dynamic
study Session

(Room
accommodation
and food)
To administer Answering
the post-test of exploratory
the study questions
Research To present the Participating BERF October
Congress study to the and 2020
region presenting in
research
congress
and/or
research
seminars

VII. Financial Report

Unit
Tranch Deliverable Materials Amoun
Activity Qty. Pric
e s Needed t
e
a. Office
1. Work plan Draft Work plan
supplies
bond paper
 A4
2. Data 5
Draft Research  Lega
collection ream 750
Materials l
methods s
 Shor
t
Printer Ink
3. Data
Create (4 4 sets 2470
collection
First instruments/ colors/set) 30,000
instruments
Printer 1 7500
1 1TB
External 1 3500
Conduct the study
Drive
4. initial Ballpen 2 150
findings and Notepad 2 500
Meals and snacks,
analysis Voice
travel and other 1 2000
Recorder
incidental
Video
expenses 1 4130
recorder
VIII. Plans for Dissemination and Utilization
This research output will serve as a reference for other researchers who
wish to conduct similar study. The results of my research will be disseminated
on the Region XI Research Hub and the official research journal, which will
contain a page devoted to region’s researches. Additional dissemination will
occur through presentations at conferences, such as teacher education and
science education conferences, regionally and nationally, and through articles
published in peer-reviewed journals. It is suggested to conduct seminars and
trainings on the use of dynamic session.

IX. References
Grundy, S. (1994). Action research at the school level: possibilities and problems.
Educational Action Research, 2:1, 23- 37.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of
America, 102 (46), 16569- 16572.
Mapa, D. S. (2017). Research culture in the Philippines. Presented during the
National Academy of Science and Technology, Philippines (NAST PHIL).
Salazar- Clemena. R. M. (2006). Higher education research in the Philippines:
Policies, practices, and problems. In Higher Education, Research, and
Knowledge in the Asia Pacific Region (pp. 185- 200). Palgrave Macmillan US.
Stenhouse, L. (1976). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development.
London: Heinemann.
Tindowen, D. J. (2019). Teachers’ Conception and Difficulties in Doing Action
Researches. Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(8): 1787-1794.
Vinluan, L.R. (2011). Research productivity in education and psychology in the
Philippines and comparison with ASEAN countries. Scientometrics, 91 (1), 277-
294.