DepEd Action Research Proposal Format, With a Sample

This guide explains how to write an action research proposal in the format the Department of Education (DepEd) requires, and how research committees score it. The format is set by Annex 2 of the Research Management Guidelines, DepEd Order (DO) No. 16, s. 2017, and the scoring guide by its Annex 4.b. DepEd’s Action Research Toolkit (2019) adds advice on writing each part. The guide ends with a complete sample proposal on a Grade 1 reading problem and a check of the sample against the scoring guide.

It is written for teachers preparing a proposal for the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF) or for their division, for school heads who review and endorse proposals, and for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH). Regions issue their own templates each year; use your region’s template for the current call, and use this guide for what goes in each part.

Key points

• Eight parts. DO 16, s. 2017 sets the minimum parts of an action research proposal: context and rationale; action research questions; proposed innovation, intervention and strategy; action research methods; work plan and timelines; cost estimates; plans for dissemination and utilization; and references.
• Scored out of 100, passed at 70. The research committee gives 30 points to the rationale, 30 to the research questions, 30 to the methods, 5 to the work plan and 5 to the cost estimates. A proposal needs at least 70% to be approved.
• The question carries the most weight. The research questions alone are worth 30 points; full marks go to questions that proceed from the context, relate to the problem and convey “the desired change or improvement”.
• Keep the rationale short. The toolkit limits the context and rationale to 500 words, and allows at most three secondary research questions.
• Write in the present or future tense. A proposal describes what you will do; the report, written later, uses the past tense.
• Submit it with two other documents. The application form with your supervisor’s endorsement, and the declarations of anti-plagiarism and absence of conflict of interest.

The parts of an action research proposal

DO 16, s. 2017 lists the minimum requirements in Annex 2.B. The table shows each part, what it contains, and the points the scoring guide in Annex 4.b gives it.

The toolkit presents the intervention before the research questions; the order in DO 16 puts the questions first. Both cover the same content, and your region’s template decides the order.

How to write each part

I. Context and Rationale (15 points)

The toolkit describes this part as the place that “provides the context of and argues for the importance of the research area”, in no more than 500 words. Write it in five moves:

1. Name the problem in your setting. State the class, grade and subject, and what you have observed.
2. Show its size with data. Use your own records, such as test results or reading assessment levels, and compare them with division or national figures.
3. Cite what is known. Summarize related studies, theories, DepEd policies or laws that support your reading of the problem, and name the gap your study addresses.
4. Explain why action research. Say why a change in your practice is the right response, and what you hope to achieve.
5. Keep it plain. “Use clear and simple words. Be concise and straight to the point.”

For full points, the scoring guide looks for a proposal in which “the nature, extent and salience of the identified problem or issue are comprehensively discussed” and “different aspects of the action research setting are elaborated showing in depth and critical analysis of the situation”. A proposal that only gives “a general description of the problem” earns 8 of the 15 points.

II. Action Research Questions (30 points)

Write one main question and, if needed, up to three secondary questions in logical order. The toolkit asks that the main question “must mention the intervention you will use and the outcome in terms of change or improvement”. The scoring guide gives:

• 15 points for a stated aim or general question;
• 25 points when the question “specifies the action research variable(s) or the focus of inquiry” and its key elements are reflected in the title; and
• 30 points when the question “logically proceeds from the context of the inquiry”, “clearly relates to the identified problem or issue, and conveys the desired change or improvement”.

A weak question: What is the reading level of my Grade 1 learners? It describes, but names no intervention or change. A strong one: Does a daily letter-sound routine move more Grade 1 Low Emerging readers to a higher reading level than regular lessons? Quantitative questions come with a null and a research hypothesis, as the toolkit explains.

III. Proposed Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy (15 points)

Describe what you will do, in enough detail that a colleague could repeat it: the activities, how often and how long, the materials, who does what, and where and when it happens. Give the reason it should work, drawn from theory or studies, and state its limits. The scoring guide’s full marks go to a proposal in which “the rationale, extent and limitation of the intervention, innovation or strategy are explained in detail” and “its plausibility as a way to address the problem or issue is given support”. If you work with colleagues, name them and their roles.

IV. Action Research Methods (30 points)

The methods part has three subparts, each worth 10 points.

• Participants and other sources of data. State who takes part and why: the number, their characteristics and how they were chosen. Full marks need “a clear rationale for their inclusion in the study”. Sources may also be documents, teachers’ records or learners’ products.
• Data gathering methods. Name the design (for example, a quasi-experiment with a comparison section), then each instrument: what it measures, its format and length, when it is given and by whom. The scoring guide mentions “pretest and posttest scores” as an example of the detail it expects, and full marks go to methods “aligned with the research question(s)”.
• Data analysis plan. Say how each kind of data will be analyzed: for scores, the toolkit teaches the paired t-test for one group measured twice and the independent t-test for two groups; for interviews and observations, coding into themes. Name the tools, such as a spreadsheet. Full marks go to analysis “shown to be appropriate to the nature of the data / information to be gathered and for addressing the research question(s)”.

V. Work Plan and Timelines (5 points)

Give a timetable or Gantt chart from writing the proposal to presenting the results. The toolkit’s example timetable has five columns: objectives, activities, responsible persons, time allotment, and desired outcomes. Fit it to your region’s research period; in the National Capital Region’s 2026 call, action research ran from May to October only, and a school-level BERF study may last at most six months.

VI. Cost Estimates (5 points)

List each eligible item with its quantity, unit cost and total. Under DO 16, s. 2017, the BERF may pay for supplies and materials, domestic travel, communication, printing, food during data collection, and dissemination. It may not pay for equipment, software, honoraria for resource persons or statisticians, utilities, office rent, or overseas travel. A school-level action research may receive up to PhP 30,000. BERF: How to Get DepEd Action Research Funded has the full rules and a sample budget.

VII. Plans for Dissemination and Utilization

Say how you will share the results (a Learning Action Cell session, the School Governing Council, a division research forum) and how they could be used in your school and others. The Research Management Guidelines expect results to be presented where the study was done, “preferably attended by the respondents”, and used in the School Improvement Plan and Annual Implementation Plan.

VIII. References

List every source you cite, and only those, in one style. The toolkit uses the American Psychological Association (APA) style: (McNiff, 2013) for one author, (Herr & Anderson, 2014) for two, and “et al.” after the first citation for three to five authors. Arrange entries alphabetically by the first author’s last name.

Writing rules from the toolkit

• Tense. “The Action Research proposal is written in present and/or future tense while the completed Action Research report is written in past tense.”
• Person. First person (I, we) is acceptable; whatever point of view you choose, keep it consistent.
• Acronyms. Spell out each acronym the first time it appears.
• Paragraphs. “Use plain and simple language as well as short words and brief sentences.”
• Citations. Cite every borrowed idea; the declaration of anti-plagiarism you sign attests that the proposal is original.
• Artificial intelligence. Under DO 003, s. 2026, AI may help only with support tasks such as grammar and citation checks; you must declare any AI tool you used, and research generated by AI “without significant human contribution and proper disclosure” is forbidden.

Action research and basic research proposals compared

DO 16, s. 2017 has a separate template for basic research (Annex 2.A): introduction and rationale; literature review; research questions; scope and limitation; research methodology (sampling, data collection, ethical issues, plan for data analysis); timetable or Gantt chart; cost estimates; plans for dissemination and advocacy; and references. Basic research has a separate literature review and its own section on ethical issues; action research builds the literature into the rationale and centers on an intervention. In DO 16’s table of grants, the school and community learning center row is for action research; regions may also fund basic research at the school level, as NCR’s 2026 call does.

A sample action research proposal (ours)

The sample below is a model, not a real study: the school, class sizes and dates are invented. The national figures come from the end-of-year Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) for SY 2025-26. It follows the order of DO 16, s. 2017 and is about 1,500 words, within the page limits regions set.

---

Title: DAILY LETTER-SOUND ROUTINE FOR GRADE 1 LOW EMERGING READERS IN MOTHER TONGUE: AN ACTION RESEARCH

Proponent: Grade 1 adviser, Sample Elementary School (fictional), with a co-proponent, the other Grade 1 adviser

Research category and theme: School level; Action Research; Teaching and Learning (Learning Outcomes)

I. Context and Rationale

At Sample Elementary School, the start-of-year Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) placed 11 of the 31 learners in my Grade 1 section at Low Emerging in Mother Tongue reading. These learners do not yet recognize most letter sounds, and during reading time they wait while classmates read. The problem is not ours alone. At the end of SY 2025-26, 9.4% of Grade 1 learners in public schools were still at Low Emerging in Mother Tongue reading, and 14.4% were struggling readers, the highest share of any grade in the CRLA.

Learning to read begins with knowing that letters stand for sounds. Reviews of reading research have found that systematic phonics instruction helps beginning readers, especially those who start behind (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). My regular lessons cover letter sounds as part of whole-class reading, but my Low Emerging learners need more practice than whole-class lessons give.

This action research will test a daily fifteen-minute letter-sound routine for these learners, in place of their independent seatwork time, and compare their progress with that of similar learners in the other Grade 1 section who receive regular lessons. If it works, the routine can be used by every Grade 1 teacher in the school with no extra cost.

II. Action Research Questions

Main question: Does a daily letter-sound routine improve the letter-sound knowledge and reading level of Grade 1 Low Emerging readers more than regular lessons do?

Secondary questions:

1. What are the letter-sound and decoding scores of the learners in both groups before and after the intervention?
2. Is there a difference between the gains of the learners who received the routine and those who did not?
3. How do the learners and their parents describe the routine?

Hypotheses for question 2: Null: there is no difference between the mean gains of the two groups. Research: the mean gain of the routine group differs from that of the comparison group.

III. Proposed Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy

The routine runs for ten weeks, every school day, for fifteen minutes during the independent work period. Each session has three steps: review of three known letter sounds with picture cards; one new letter sound, said, traced and found in words; and blending two- and three-letter words with the new sound. Learners work in a small group with the teacher, using locally made flashcards in the Mother Tongue. A weekly take-home card lets parents practice the week’s sounds.

The routine follows the principles of systematic phonics: an explicit sequence, daily practice and immediate feedback. Its limits are the short period of ten weeks and the small number of learners; it does not address comprehension. The co-proponent will give the pretest and posttest in both sections, so that the teacher giving the routine does not score her own learners.

IV. Action Research Methods

a. Participants and other sources of data. The participants are the Grade 1 learners at Low Emerging in Mother Tongue reading in the start-of-year CRLA: 11 in my section (routine group) and 10 in the other Grade 1 section (comparison group). All Low Emerging learners in both sections are included, so no sampling is needed. Parents of the routine group will be invited to a short focus group at the end.

b. Data gathering methods. The design is quasi-experimental, with a pretest and posttest for both groups. Instruments:

• a researcher-made letter-sound test (all letters of the Mother Tongue alphabet, one point each), given individually in week 1 and week 10;
• a decoding test of 20 two- and three-letter words, given at the same times;
• the start-of-year and end-of-year CRLA levels from the school’s records; and
• a focus group guide of five questions for parents, and a weekly log of attendance and notes.

The tests will be checked by the school’s master teacher in reading for content and tried with three Grade 2 learners for clarity before use.

c. Data analysis plan. For each group, mean scores before and after will be compared with a paired t-test; the gains of the two groups will be compared with an independent t-test, with the effect size. The CRLA levels before and after will be shown in a table for each group. The parents’ answers and the weekly notes will be coded into themes. The analysis will use a spreadsheet.

V. Action Research Work Plan and Timelines

VI. Cost Estimates

VII. Plans for Dissemination and Utilization

The results will be presented in a Grade 1 to 3 Learning Action Cell session and to the School Governing Council, and offered to the district’s research forum. If the routine helps, the Grade 1 teachers will plan its use in all sections next year, and the school head will include it in the Annual Implementation Plan with the start- and end-of-year CRLA as its measure.

VIII. References

• Department of Education. (2017). Research management guidelines (DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017).
• Department of Education & Basic Education Sector Transformation (BEST) Program. (2019). Action research toolkit: Teacher’s guide.
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Nugent, G., Malik, S., & Hollingsworth, S. (2012). A practical guide to action research for literacy educators. International Reading Association.

---

Checking the sample against the scoring guide

The sample has weaknesses a committee might still note: the groups are small, the comparison section has a different teacher, and ten weeks is short. A proposal that names its own limits, as this one does, shows the committee that the proponent understands them.

What the school head does

• Coach before you endorse. Read drafts in the LAC with the scoring guide in hand; most lost points are in the research questions and the methods.
• Check the ethics and the budget. Proposals with ethics problems or ineligible costs are returned at screening. Make sure consent and assent forms are ready and that equipment and honoraria are not in the budget.
• Protect the comparison group. If a study uses a comparison section, plan for those learners to receive the intervention later if it works.
• Plan the use. Agree with the teacher, before the study starts, how the school will use the results in the SIP and AIP.

Common mistakes

• A research question with no intervention. Questions that only describe a situation belong to a study of the situation, not an action research proposal.
• A long literature review in the rationale. The toolkit caps the rationale at 500 words; spend the space on the problem and the intervention.
• Methods that do not match the question. If the question asks about change, the methods need a measure before and after, and ideally a comparison group.
• Vague instruments. “A test will be given” earns few points; say what the test measures, how many items, when and by whom.
• Ineligible costs. Equipment, software and honoraria are never eligible.
• The wrong template. Regions issue templates each year; some disapprove proposals in the wrong one.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

Expect situational items in which a school head helps a teacher strengthen a proposal. The options differ in whether they fix what the scoring guide rewards, the question and the methods, or only the form. For more items in this format, see the NASH practice questions with answers and the timed sets in the NASH Reviewer app.

Question 1

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

A teacher shares a draft action research proposal with the main question “What are the reading difficulties of Grade 3 learners in English?” The rationale is four pages of literature review, and the methods say “a test will be given and the results analyzed”. She asks how to improve it before the division’s deadline. What is the most appropriate advice?

• A. Expand the literature review further, since a longer review shows the committee that the proposal is grounded in research.
• B. Rewrite the question to name an intervention and the expected change, shorten the rationale to the problem and its evidence, and describe the instrument, its timing and the test of the data.
• C. Keep the question as it is, but add more secondary questions on the learners’ profiles so that the study covers more ground.
• D. Change the title so that it mentions an intervention, and leave the rest of the proposal as it is to meet the deadline.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). It adds length where the toolkit sets a 500-word limit, and leaves the weakest parts, the question and the methods, untouched.
• B (3 points, Relational). It fixes the parts that carry 60 points in the scoring guide: a question with an intervention and a change, and methods that say how the data are gathered and analyzed.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). More descriptive questions keep the proposal a study of the situation, not an action research.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). A title with an intervention helps, but the question, the methods and the rationale still do not support it.

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. Under Annex 4.b of DO 16, s. 2017, research questions are worth 30 points and full marks go to questions that convey “the desired change or improvement”; the methods are worth another 30. The toolkit limits the context and rationale to 500 words.

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, Annexes 2 and 4.b; DepEd Action Research Toolkit (2019); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

Indicator 1.4.2, Research and innovation. Career Stage 2, Situational, Moderate.

Two Grade 6 teachers want to test a peer tutoring strategy in Mathematics. One proposes to use it in her section and compare her learners’ scores before and after; the other suggests using it in one section and comparing with the other section, which keeps regular lessons. They ask which design to put in the proposal. What is the most appropriate advice?

• A. Use the one-section pretest and posttest design, because it is simpler and any rise in scores will show that peer tutoring works.
• B. Use peer tutoring in both sections at once, so that every learner benefits and the results are based on more learners.
• C. Use the two-section design with a pretest for both, compare the gains, and plan to give the comparison section peer tutoring later if it works.
• D. Skip the pretest and compare the two sections’ posttest scores only, since the sections were formed to be similar at the start of the year.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It is valid as a pre-experiment, but learners’ scores rise over a few months anyway, so a gain alone cannot show that peer tutoring caused it.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). With no comparison group and both sections taught the same way, the study cannot tell whether the strategy made a difference.
• C (3 points, Relational). A quasi-experiment with a pretest for both groups shows whether the gain is larger with peer tutoring, and offering it later keeps the comparison fair to learners.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). A comparison group helps, but without a pretest the study cannot rule out that the sections differed at the start.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.4.2 asks the school head to facilitate evidence-based innovations. The Action Research Toolkit describes pre-experiments, quasi-experiments and true experiments, and notes that pre- and quasi-experiments are most common in schools. The toolkit’s own example compares an experimental and a control group, each given a pretest, and tests the difference with an independent t-test.

Indicator 1.4.2: Utilize relevant research findings from reliable sources in facilitating data-driven and evidence-based innovations to improve school performance.

Sources: DepEd Action Research Toolkit (2019); DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is the format of an action research proposal in DepEd?

Under Annex 2.B of DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017, the minimum parts are: context and rationale; action research questions; proposed innovation, intervention and strategy; action research methods (participants and other sources of data, data gathering methods, and data analysis plan); work plan and timelines; cost estimates; plans for dissemination and utilization; and references.

How is an action research proposal scored?

With the guide in Annex 4.b of DO 16, s. 2017: 30 points for the rationale (context and intervention), 30 for the research questions, 30 for the methods, 5 for the work plan and 5 for the cost estimates. A proposal needs at least 70% to be approved.

How long should an action research proposal be?

The toolkit limits the context and rationale to 500 words. Regions set page limits for the whole proposal; NCR’s 2026 call, for example, set a maximum of 10 to 12 pages using its template.

What tense is used in an action research proposal?

The present or future tense, because the proposal describes what you will do. The completed report is written in the past tense.

Can I use AI to write my action research proposal?

Only for support tasks such as checking grammar and citations. DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026 requires you to declare any AI tool used and forbids research generated by AI without significant human contribution and proper disclosure. Never enter learners’ personal information into an AI tool.

More on DepEd research

• Start here: DepEd Action Research Guide: From Topic to Report
• Sample Action Research in DepEd Format: A Complete Example
• DepEd Research Management Guidelines: DO 16, s. 2017
• Review of Related Literature for DepEd Action Research
• Basic Education Research Agenda (BERA): DO 39, s. 2016
• BERF: How to Get DepEd Action Research Funded
• DepEd Action Research Report Format, With a Sample
• Research Ethics for DepEd Action Research
• Methods: Paired and Independent t-Test in Excel, Pretest-Posttest Design and Regression to the Mean, Action Research Sample Size: Slovin, Power and Sampling
• More methods: Weighted Mean and Likert Scale Interpretation in Excel, Validity, Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha in Excel, Pearson Correlation in Excel for Action Research, Chi-Square Test in Excel for Action Research, Interview and FGD Guide Questions for Action Research, Thematic Analysis for Action Research: Steps and Sample, One-Way ANOVA in Excel for Action Research, Survey Research With Google Forms for Action Research, Document Analysis in Action Research Using DepEd Records, Coding Guide and Data Cleaning in Excel for Action Research
• Writing and leading: Action Research vs Basic Research vs Thesis: Differences, Action Research Titles by Subject, With Data and Scores, Action Research Questions and Hypotheses, With Examples, How to Cite DepEd Orders in APA 7 and Write the Abstract, Action Research in LAC Sessions: A School Head’s Guide
• Topics with data: Action Research and Thesis Topics on Classroom Shortage, Action Research and Thesis Topics on Reading (CRLA)

Sources

• DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017, Research Management Guidelines, Annexes 2 and 4.b
• DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2021, Amendment to DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2017
• DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026, Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence in Basic Education
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads
• Schools Division of Muntinlupa City, Division Memorandum No. 041, s. 2026, with DepEd NCR Regional Memorandum No. 059, s. 2026
• Department of Education and the Basic Education Sector Transformation (BEST) Program. (2019). Action Research Toolkit: Teacher’s Guide, sections on experimental design, quantitative analysis, the proposal and writing tips, with support from the Australian Government.
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read.
• The national CRLA figures come from the EDCOM II early-childhood dashboard data, cleaned by NASH Reviewer; see CRLA End-of-Year Results SY 2025-26.

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Orders No. 16, s. 2017 and 026, s. 2021 (Research Management Guidelines); DepEd Orders No. 003, s. 2026 and 024, s. 2020; DepEd NCR Regional Memorandum No. 059, s. 2026; the DepEd Action Research Toolkit (2019). NASH Reviewer is not affiliated with DepEd.