A finished action research is supposed to change something: a teacher’s practice, a school’s plan, a division’s program. Too often it ends as a bound copy on a shelf. DepEd itself says so: when it set up its research portal, it noted that “archiving, dissemination, and utilization of research largely remain confined to the governance level from which they originated” (DO 14, s. 2022). This guide covers both halves of the last step: sharing results with the people who can use them, and using them, through the action plan, LAC sessions and the School Improvement Plan (SIP). It ends with two practice items for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH).

It is written for teachers finishing an action research, and for school heads, who decide what happens to it next.

Key points

  • Share at every level the results matter to: colleagues in a LAC session, the school planning team, parents, the district and division, and DepEd’s research portal.
  • DepEd provides the venues. The Research Management Guidelines (DO 16, s. 2017) let regions and divisions hold research conferences, research forums and policy forums, and publish research journals and bulletins.
  • E-Saliksik is DepEd’s research archive. It holds completed BERF-funded research and, with the authors’ consent, other studies by DepEd personnel. Regional and central research staff upload; teachers submit through them.
  • Protect participants in every format: codes instead of names, no learners’ photos, consent forms kept out of uploaded reports, and abstracts only for sensitive topics.
  • Use the results through the SIP. An action research is exactly what the SIP’s Act phase asks for: testing a solution on a small group before rolling it out.
  • Share what did not work too. An intervention that made no difference is a finding that saves colleagues time.

Who needs the results, and in what form

Audience Format Where
Teachers in the same grade or subject A 10-minute presentation and a one-page summary A LAC session (how)
The school head and the School-Community Planning Team The one-page summary, with a recommendation An SIP or AIP planning meeting
Parents A short, plain summary in the language they use at home A parent-teacher meeting or homeroom meeting
District and division A presentation or poster, and the full report A district or division research forum or conference
Region, other divisions and the public A research bulletin or journal article, and the archived report Regional research conferences, DepEd research journals and bulletins, E-Saliksik

The research bulletin. DO 14, s. 2022 defines it as “an abridged version of research for public dissemination”, with four parts: introduction, discussion of results or findings, conclusion and recommendations, and references. For the invented study in our sample action research, it could read:

Introduction. At Basey I Central Elementary School, 32 Grade 3 learners in two sections read below grade level in Filipino. We tested ten minutes of daily repeated reading for eight weeks.

Results. Mean fluency rose from 41.3 to 55.8 words correct per minute (t(31) = 6.12, p < 0.001). Learners who started lowest gained the most, partly a sign of regression to the mean. Learners and parents described growing confidence and little reading practice at home.

Conclusion and recommendations. Daily repeated reading is a low-cost routine worth extending, with weekly take-home passages; a study with comparison sections should confirm its effect.

References. (The report’s main sources.)

(The study is invented; see Sample Action Research in DepEd Format: A Complete Example.)

A 10-minute presentation for a LAC session or forum: the problem, with your data (1 minute); the intervention (2 minutes); the design and participants (1 minute); the results, with one chart and one table (3 minutes); the limits (1 minute); and what you will do next (2 minutes).

Research forums and conferences

DO 16 directs research managers to “provide a venue to actively disseminate results”, and states that “the region and division may organize research conferences, research forums, and policy forums to gather education research ideas, and discuss policy options based on research results”. Research managers “may also publish research journals and bulletins for wider dissemination”. Part of each region’s research fund, 25% of its BERF allocation, supports research-related expenses such as dissemination activities and “representation fees for research conferences”.

Watch your division’s and region’s memoranda for calls to present. Two rules from DO 16 apply when you do:

  • Acknowledge the funding. For BERF studies, researchers “must duly acknowledge the funding source/s for the study” in presentations and publications.
  • Indigenous communities’ permission. For research with Indigenous Peoples learners and communities, the permission of the community, through its recognized representatives or elders, is needed before presenting or publishing, and a copy of the study and publications goes to them.

E-Saliksik: DepEd’s research portal

E-Saliksik (“Edukasyon Saliksik”) is DepEd’s central research repository under DO 14, s. 2022:

  • What it holds. Completed research funded by the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF), which must be archived there. With the consent of the authors or owners, it can also hold research by DepEd offices, teachers and personnel funded by other grants, by non-DepEd sources such as the Special Education Fund, or otherwise conducted by DepEd personnel, as well as research done with partners and by external researchers.
  • Who uploads. Only assigned staff of the Regional Office’s Policy, Planning and Research Division and the Central Office’s Policy Research and Development Division have uploader accounts. Teachers submit through their division and region.
  • Quality review first. Completed research is reviewed against minimum standards before it is archived; studies with quality concerns are returned for revision.
  • Two tiers of disclosure. General public disclosure puts the full report online. Limited public disclosure covers research on sexual behavior, illegal or ethically questionable activities, experiences of discrimination, grief, trauma or violence, and experiences of potentially vulnerable populations, among others; for BERF studies in this tier, only the abstract is posted. For studies not funded by BERF, the order provides for archiving the abstract on the portal and the full version through other mechanisms.
  • What stays out. BERF reports keep the outline of Annex 6 of DO 16, but “consent forms, Memoranda of Agreement, pictures submitted as means of verification” are excluded from the uploaded report.

Using the results

The action plan

The completed action research ends with an action plan (DO 16, Annex 6): what will be done next, by whom, when, with what resources, and with what expected output. A good action plan does one of three things with the intervention: continue it, revise and test it again, or drop it, and says why.

The School Improvement Plan

The SIP process under DO 44, s. 2015 already has a step for this. In its Act phase, project teams test each solution “on a small group”, compare data before and after, and only then roll it out through the people who run the process (SIP guide). An action research on a Priority Improvement Area is that test. Its results belong in:

  • The Project Work Plan and Budget Matrix, as the evidence for a project and its activities, outputs, dates, persons responsible and budget.
  • The Annual Implementation Plan (AIP), when the project is rolled out.
  • The School Report Card, in plain words, when parents are told what the school did about a problem.

For the sample study, the AIP entry might read:

Field Entry
Priority Improvement Area Reading fluency of Grade 2 and Grade 3 learners below grade level
Project Daily repeated reading (Basa Ulit) in all Grade 3 sections, with weekly take-home passages
Evidence The school’s action research, SY 2025–2026: mean gain of 14.5 words correct per minute in eight weeks (one group; no comparison)
Activities LAC session to train advisers; printing of weekly passages; parent orientation; monthly fluency checks
Persons responsible Grade 3 advisers, reading coordinator, school head
Budget and source Printing and supplies, school MOOE
Success indicator Share of Grade 3 learners at grade level in Filipino in the end-of-year CRLA, compared with the previous year

Beyond the school

When several teachers in different schools find the same intervention effective, a district or division can test it more widely, with comparison groups, before adopting it as a program. The toolkit makes the same point: consistent results from several action research projects can lead to applied or basic research that establishes an intervention for a wider group (action research vs basic research).

Common mistakes

  • Sharing only “successful” studies. Results that show no effect are evidence too.
  • Presentations with learners’ photos, names or class records.
  • Recommending division-wide adoption from one class. Recommend the next test instead.
  • An action plan with no persons responsible or dates.
  • A report that never reaches the SIP or AIP.
  • Forgetting to acknowledge BERF funding in presentations and publications.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

Question 1

Indicator 1.4.3, Research and innovation. Career Stage 3, Situational, Moderate.

A teacher’s BERF-funded action research on bullying prevention has been accepted for presentation at the division research forum. The draft slides include photographs of the learners during the sessions, a scanned page of the class’s attendance record, and quotes from interviews with the learners’ names. What should the school head advise?

  • A. Present the slides as they are, since the photographs and records show that the study was really conducted.
  • B. Replace names with codes, remove the photographs and records, acknowledge the BERF funding, and expect only the abstract to be posted on E-Saliksik because of the study’s sensitive topic.
  • C. Withdraw from the forum, since studies on bullying should not be shared outside the school.
  • D. Keep the photographs but blur the learners’ faces, and keep the names in the quotes so that the audience understands the context.
Answer and explanation

Best answer: B. Points: A = 0, B = 3, C = 1, D = 2.

  • A (0 points, Prestructural). It exposes learners’ identities in a study on a sensitive topic.
  • B (3 points, Relational). It protects the learners, follows DO 16’s rule on acknowledging funding, and anticipates DO 14’s limited disclosure for research on experiences of violence.
  • C (1 point, Unistructural). It protects the learners, but sensitive research can be shared responsibly, and withholding it wastes its value.
  • D (2 points, Multistructural). Blurring helps, but names in quotes still identify the learners.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 3 expectations because indicator 1.4.3 asks the school head to collaborate with school personnel in the conduct of research and the use of findings. DO 16, s. 2017 requires confidentiality and the acknowledgment of funding sources in presentations, and DO 14, s. 2022 excludes pictures and consent forms from uploaded reports and limits research on experiences of violence to limited public disclosure.

Indicator 1.4.3: Collaborate with school personnel in the conduct of research and utilization of findings in facilitating data-driven and evidence-based innovations to improve school performance.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017; DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2022; DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

Indicator 1.2.2, School planning and implementation. Career Stage 2, Situational, Difficult.

Two Grade 3 advisers completed an action research showing that a daily reading routine raised their learners’ fluency over eight weeks, in a one-group pretest-posttest design. The School-Community Planning Team is preparing next year’s Annual Implementation Plan, with reading as a Priority Improvement Area. What should the school head do with the study?

  • A. Issue a memorandum requiring every teacher from Grades 1 to 6 to use the routine, since the study proved that it works.
  • B. File the report with the school’s research records, since action research is separate from school planning.
  • C. Present the study to the planning team as the small-group test of a solution for the reading PIA, write the roll-out to all Grade 3 sections into the project work plan and AIP with persons responsible, budget and monitoring, and include a comparison of sections to check the effect.
  • D. Ask the advisers to repeat the study for one more year before the planning team considers it.
Answer and explanation

Best answer: C. Points: A = 1, B = 0, C = 3, D = 2.

  • A (1 point, Unistructural). It uses the evidence, but skips the planning process and goes far beyond what one-group results in one grade can support.
  • B (0 points, Prestructural). It cuts the study off from the plan it was meant to inform.
  • C (3 points, Relational). It links the research to the SIP’s Act phase, plans the roll-out through the AIP with monitoring, and builds in a stronger test.
  • D (2 points, Multistructural). More evidence is useful, but the planning team can act now on a promising, low-cost routine while monitoring it.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.2.2 asks the school head to develop and implement school plans with the planning team. Under DO 44, s. 2015, project teams test solutions on a small group and compare data before and after before rolling them out, and DO 16, s. 2017 expects schools to use research results to improve learning outcomes.

Indicator 1.2.2: Develop and implement with the planning team school plans aligned with institutional goals and policies.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015; DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is research dissemination in DepEd?

Sharing completed research with the people who can use it: colleagues in LAC sessions, school planning teams, parents, research forums and conferences organized by divisions and regions, research journals and bulletins, and DepEd’s research portal, E-Saliksik.

How do I upload my action research to E-Saliksik?

Teachers do not upload directly. Under DO 14, s. 2022, only assigned staff of the regional and central research offices have uploader accounts. BERF-funded research is archived after quality review; other research by DepEd personnel can be archived with the authors’ consent. Ask your division’s research coordinator.

What is a research bulletin?

DO 14, s. 2022 defines it as an abridged version of research for public dissemination, with four parts: introduction, discussion of results or findings, conclusion and recommendations, and references.

How are action research results used in the School Improvement Plan?

An action research on a Priority Improvement Area serves as the small-group test of a solution that DO 44, s. 2015 calls for before roll-out. Its results inform the project work plan, the Annual Implementation Plan, and the School Report Card.

More on DepEd research

Sources

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. The research bulletin and AIP entry describe the blog’s invented sample study; the practice items are ours. NASH Reviewer is not affiliated with DepEd.