This guide explains how to write a completed action research report in the format the Department of Education (DepEd) requires. The format is set by Annex 6 of the Research Management Guidelines, DepEd Order (DO) No. 16, s. 2017, and it still applies: the 2022 order on DepEd’s research portal states that completed reports funded by the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF) “shall continue to follow the outline provided in Annex 6 of DO 16, s. 2017”. DepEd’s Action Research Toolkit (2019) adds detailed advice on each part.

It is written for teachers finishing an action research, for school heads who review reports before they go to the division, and for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH). The guide ends with a sample report that continues the sample in DepEd Action Research Proposal Format, With a Sample, with invented results to show how findings are written up.

Key points

  • The report builds on the proposal. It keeps the context and rationale, the intervention, the research questions and the methods, rewritten in the past tense, and adds the abstract, the results, the reflection, the action plan and the financial report.
  • Results are organized by research question. The toolkit asks that findings be “presented in relation to the research question/s, not according to items in the instrument/s used”.
  • The reflection is unique to action research. It is “a narrative account of what the researcher has learned from the outcome/s of the study”.
  • The financial report liquidates the grant. Items must match the approved cost estimates; the final report releases the last tranche of a BERF grant.
  • Submit the data too. “For accountability and reproducibility of research”, DO 16 asks researchers to submit an executive data set in an accessible format such as a Microsoft Excel file.
  • Accepted BERF reports go to E-Saliksik. Consent forms, agreements and photos are left out of the uploaded version.

The parts of an action research report

DO 16, s. 2017 lists the minimum parts of a completed action research in Annex 6.B. The toolkit groups them into preliminary parts, parts carried over from the proposal, and closing parts.

Part Group What it contains
Title page Preliminary The title, the authors, their school and division, and the date of completion
Abstract Preliminary A summary of the study, its methods and its results in 200 to 250 words
Acknowledgment Preliminary Thanks to the people and offices that helped, in one page
Table of contents Preliminary (toolkit) The parts and their pages, with lists of tables, figures and appendices
Context and Rationale From the proposal The problem, its importance, related studies and the purpose of the study
Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy From the proposal What was actually done, with dates and any changes
Action Research Questions From the proposal The main and secondary questions
Action Research Methods From the proposal The design, participants and other sources of data, data gathering methods and data analysis
Discussion of Results and Reflection Closing The findings for each question, their meaning, and what the researcher learned
Action Plan Closing The next steps for using the results
References Closing Every source cited
Financial Report Closing The use of the grant, matched to the approved cost estimates

The basic research report (Annex 6.A) differs: it has a literature review and a scope and limitation section of its own, a “Discussion of Results and Recommendations” instead of a reflection, and a dissemination and advocacy plan instead of an action plan.

How to write each part

Title page

The toolkit asks for the authors’ full names, their schools division, the title and the date of completion. The title “should be in capital letters and should not exceed 16 words that can fit in an inverted pyramid form”. Keep the title of the approved proposal unless the research committee approved a change.

Abstract

The abstract is the “research-in-miniature”: 200 to 250 words, at most a page and a half in single spacing. It summarizes the sampling, data collection and analysis methods and the final results, and it guides readers to the parts they want to read. Write it last.

Acknowledgment

One page of thanks to the people and offices that contributed, in “concise statements without using strong emotive language”. Acknowledge the funding source: DO 16 requires BERF grantees to acknowledge it whenever the study is presented or published.

Context and Rationale

Carry this over from the proposal and update it. The toolkit adds that the report’s version “gives explanation for how the Action Research answered the problem or issue” and summarizes the activities undertaken.

Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy

Describe what was actually done, with dates, including “changes in procedures to adjust to certain conditions or situations”. Say who did what among the researchers, and put the materials used in the appendices.

Action Research Questions

State the main and secondary questions as approved, with a short introduction so the reader can appreciate them.

Action Research Methods

Cover the four procedures the toolkit names: research design, participants or sources of data, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques. Describe each instrument’s format, number of items, pilot testing, reliability and validity, and refer to the instruments in the appendices.

Discussion of Results and Reflection

Present the results question by question, “not according to items in the instrument/s used”. The toolkit’s rules for tables and figures:

  • explain and interpret the results in the text before the table or figure;
  • number tables and figures in sequence, with table labels on top and figure labels at the bottom;
  • give readable headings; and
  • discuss implications and probable causes of the findings.

The reflection is “a unique part of the Action Research report”. The toolkit offers four guide questions:

  1. What have you learned from the outcome of the action research?
  2. What have been your learning experiences as a researcher in conducting the study?
  3. What aspects of the study contributed to its success?
  4. What aspects of the study should be changed or improved in future implementation of the intervention?

Action Plan

The action plan “lays out the researcher’s next steps on how to apply the results”. It can be a narrative, a table, or both; the toolkit’s template has four columns: objectives, activities or strategies, persons involved, and time frame.

References

List every source cited, alphabetically by the first author’s last name, in one consistent style; the toolkit uses the American Psychological Association (APA) style.

Financial Report

The financial report shows how the grant was used, with a summary of expenses and supporting documents. Its items “should conform with the approved Cost Estimates provided in the proposal”. The toolkit’s template lists the eligible items from DO 16, s. 2017: supplies and materials; domestic travel; communication; reproduction, printing and binding; food during data collection; and research dissemination.

Writing rules

  • Past tense. “The completed Action Research report is written in past tense.”
  • One point of view. First person is acceptable; keep it consistent.
  • Acronyms spelled out at first use.
  • Plain language and brief sentences.
  • Citations for every borrowed idea; the plagiarism declaration you signed covers the final report too, and some regions require a plagiarism checker report with it.
  • AI disclosure. Under DO 003, s. 2026, AI may help only with support tasks, any AI tool must be declared, and reports generated by AI “without significant human contribution and proper disclosure” are forbidden.

Submitting the report and what happens next

Under DO 16, s. 2017, the completed research goes to the research committee’s secretariat, which checks whether it is acceptable. Reports needing revisions are returned, and revisions are “outside the research work plan”, so leave time for them. Researchers also submit an executive data set, such as an Excel file, and give the final approved output in PDF and in print.

For a school-level BERF grant, the final report, with the certificate of acceptance from the research committee and a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, releases the last 20% of the grant. A grantee who does not submit the deliverables must return the whole grant. Regions add their own requirements; the National Capital Region’s 2026 call, for example, asks for the final output in its template, in PDF and Word, with a free plagiarism checker report.

Accepted BERF studies are archived in E-Saliksik, the DepEd research portal set up by DO 14, s. 2022. The portal follows these rules:

  • supporting documents such as consent forms, agreements and photos submitted as proof are excluded from the uploaded report;
  • accepted studies are generally posted in full for the public, but for studies on sensitive matters, such as sexual behavior, illegal activities, discrimination, trauma or violence, or “experiences of being part of any of the potentially vulnerable populations”, only the abstract of a BERF study is posted; and
  • the portal “shall not count as a publication”, and from FY 2022 an archived BERF study is equivalent to one accepted by the research committee.

The Research Management Guidelines then expect the results to be shared where the study was done, “preferably attended by the respondents”, and used through the Learning Action Cell, the School Governing Council, the School Improvement Plan and the School Report Card.

A sample report (ours)

The sample below continues the sample proposal. The school, the learners and every result are invented, to show how findings are reported; they are not real data. Only the main parts after the preliminary pages are shown.

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

Abstract

This action research tested whether a daily fifteen-minute letter-sound routine improved the letter-sound knowledge of Grade 1 learners at the Low Emerging level of the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) in Mother Tongue reading. All Low Emerging learners in two Grade 1 sections of Sample Elementary School took part: 11 received the routine for ten weeks, and 10 in the other section received regular lessons. Both groups took a 26-item letter-sound test and a 20-word decoding test before and after the intervention, and parents of the routine group joined a focus group. The two groups did not differ at the start. Both improved, but the routine group gained 11.6 points on the letter-sound test against 5.9 for the comparison group, a difference that an independent t-test found unlikely to be due to chance (t(19) = 3.84, p = 0.001), with a large effect size (d = 1.68). Parents reported that the take-home cards helped them practice with their children. The routine will be offered to all Grade 1 sections next school year and monitored with the CRLA. Because the groups were small and taught by different teachers, the results should be confirmed with more classes.

Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy

The routine ran for ten weeks, from late June to the end of August, during the independent work period. Sessions followed the three planned steps: review, one new sound, and blending. Two weeks were shortened by class suspensions during typhoons; missed sessions were made up on the following Mondays. The co-proponent gave all tests in both sections.

Discussion of Results and Reflection

Research question 1: What were the scores before and after? Both groups started at similar levels and both improved, as Table 1 shows.

Table 1. Letter-sound test scores (out of 26) before and after the intervention

Group Learners Pretest mean (SD) Posttest mean (SD) Mean gain (SD)
Routine 11 6.2 (2.9) 17.8 (4.1) 11.6 (3.2)
Comparison 10 6.5 (3.1) 12.4 (4.4) 5.9 (3.6)

At the start, the two groups’ mean scores did not differ (t(19) = −0.23, p = 0.82). Within each group, the posttest was higher than the pretest (routine: t(10) = 12.02, p < 0.001; comparison: t(9) = 5.18, p < 0.001).

Research question 2: Was there a difference in gains? The routine group gained 5.7 points more than the comparison group. An independent t-test on the gains gave t(19) = 3.84, p = 0.001, and the effect size was d = 1.68. The comparison group’s gain shows that learners improve with regular teaching; the difference between the groups is the part attributable to the routine, under this design.

Research question 3: How did learners and parents describe the routine? In the focus group, parents said the weekly cards showed them which sounds to practice, and several said their children began to read signs at home. Two parents said evening practice was hard on days they worked late.

Reflection. I learned that my Low Emerging learners needed more practice than whole-class lessons gave, not a different curriculum. As a researcher, I learned to plan for lost school days and to have a colleague give the tests. The daily schedule and the parents’ cards helped the study succeed. Next time, I would include more classes, so that the result does not depend on one teacher, and follow the learners to the end-of-year CRLA.

Action Plan

Objectives Activities or strategies Persons involved Time frame
Share the results Present in the Grade 1 to 3 Learning Action Cell and to the School Governing Council Proponents, school head October
Extend the routine Train all Grade 1 teachers; prepare flashcards in the Mother Tongue Proponents, master teacher Before the next school year
Monitor its use Include the routine in the Annual Implementation Plan; compare start- and end-of-year CRLA results School head, Grade 1 teachers Next school year

Financial Report

Eligible item (DO 16, s. 2017) Particulars Quantity Unit cost Total cost
Supplies and materials Bond paper, reams; card stock 2; 3 packs PhP 300; PhP 250 PhP 1,350
Reproduction, printing and binding Test copies and take-home cards 400 pages PhP 2 PhP 800
Food during data collection Snacks for the parent focus group 12 people PhP 70 PhP 840
Research dissemination Printed summaries 30 copies PhP 20 PhP 600
Grand total PhP 3,590

Checking a report before you submit it

  • The title is in capital letters, within 16 words, and matches the approved proposal.
  • The abstract is 200 to 250 words and states the design, participants, methods and main result.
  • Every research question has its own results section, in the order of the questions.
  • Each table and figure is introduced in the text, numbered, and labeled correctly.
  • The report states what was done differently from the plan, and why.
  • The results say what the study cannot show, such as the effect of small or unequal groups.
  • The reflection answers the toolkit’s four questions.
  • The action plan names people and dates.
  • The financial report matches the approved cost estimates, item by item.
  • The data set is ready in an accessible file, without learners’ names.
  • Any AI tool used is declared.

What the school head does

  • Read the report before it goes to the division. Check that the results answer the research questions and that learners’ identities are protected.
  • Help meet the deadline. The final report releases the last tranche; an unfinished study must be paid back.
  • Turn the action plan into school action. Put the next steps into the Annual Implementation Plan and the LAC schedule.
  • Report the results. Interventions that came from action research may be reported in the School Report Card.

Common mistakes

  • Results by test item. Organize findings by research question.
  • Tables with no explanation. Interpret first, then show the table.
  • Claiming too much. A gain in one group does not prove that the intervention caused it; report the comparison, the effect size and the limits.
  • A reflection that repeats the results. The reflection is about what you learned as a teacher and researcher.
  • A financial report that does not match the budget. Items and amounts must conform to the approved cost estimates.
  • Uploading consent forms and photos of learners. They are supporting documents, not part of the report to be archived.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

Expect situational items in which a school head reviews a teacher’s completed research. The options differ in whether they keep the findings honest, protect learners and lead to action. 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 1.4.2, Research and innovation. Career Stage 2, Situational, Moderate.

A teacher’s final action research report shows that her class’s mean score rose from 18 to 31 after a new strategy, and concludes that “the strategy is effective and should be adopted by all teachers in the division”. She had no comparison group. She asks you to sign the report before it goes to the division. What is the most appropriate action?

  • A. Sign the report, since the rise of 13 points is large and the committee will decide whether the conclusion is justified.
  • B. Ask her to revise the conclusion to what the design can support, note that learners’ scores rise over time without the strategy, and propose a study with a comparison group next.
  • C. Ask her to remove the pretest results so that the report focuses on the high posttest mean and reads as a success.
  • D. Ask her to add more tables of the item-by-item results, so that the committee sees how much each item improved.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (1 point, Unistructural). It moves the report along, but a school head who signs off on an overstated conclusion passes the problem to the committee.
  • B (3 points, Relational). It keeps the findings honest, explains why a one-group gain cannot prove the strategy caused it, and turns the limit into the school’s next study.
  • C (0 points, Prestructural). Removing data to make a study look successful breaks the integrity that DepEd’s research principles require.
  • D (2 points, Multistructural). More detail is not wrong, but results belong under the research questions, and the conclusion stays overstated.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.4.2 asks the school head to use research findings “from reliable sources”. The research agenda’s principle of integrity requires “honesty and accuracy” in reporting. The Action Research Toolkit classes a one-group pretest and posttest as a pre-experiment, without a control group, so a rise in scores alone cannot rule out ordinary growth.

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 Order No. 39, s. 2016; DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017; DepEd Action Research Toolkit (2019); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

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

A teacher’s completed BERF study on learners who experienced bullying is ready for submission. Her draft includes, in the appendices, the signed parental consent forms, photos of the learners during interviews, and a table of each learner’s answers with their names. What is the most appropriate action?

  • A. Keep everything in the appendices, since the committee needs proof that consent was obtained and that the interviews took place.
  • B. Replace the learners’ names with codes, keep consent forms and photos as separate supporting documents for the committee, and remove them from the version to be archived.
  • C. Remove the appendices entirely and submit only the main report, so that no personal information leaves the school in any form.
  • D. Blur the learners’ faces in the photos and keep the rest of the appendices as they are, since the names alone do not identify the learners.
Answer and explanation

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

  • A (0 points, Prestructural). It exposes vulnerable learners’ identities in a report that will circulate and be archived.
  • B (3 points, Relational). It protects the learners, keeps the proof the committee may need separate, and follows the portal’s rule to exclude consent forms, agreements and photos from the archived report.
  • C (1 point, Unistructural). It protects privacy, but drops the instruments and other appendices the report needs, and leaves no record of consent for the committee.
  • D (2 points, Multistructural). It reduces one risk, but names linked to answers about bullying 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. DO 16, s. 2017 requires “confidentiality in handling data of respondents”, and the toolkit’s protocols require that participants’ identities not be divulged. DO 14, s. 2022 excludes consent forms, agreements and photos from reports uploaded to E-Saliksik and limits studies on vulnerable groups to their abstracts.

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. 14, s. 2022; DepEd Action Research Toolkit (2019); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is the format of a completed action research report in DepEd?

Under Annex 6.B of DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017: title page; abstract; acknowledgment; context and rationale; innovation, intervention and strategy; action research questions; action research methods; discussion of results and reflection; action plan; references; and financial report. The Action Research Toolkit adds a table of contents and appendices.

How long should the abstract of an action research be?

The toolkit sets 200 to 250 words, at most a page and a half in single spacing, covering the sampling, data collection and analysis methods and the final results.

What tense is used in an action research report?

The past tense, because the report describes what was done. The proposal uses the present or future tense.

What is the reflection in an action research report?

A narrative of what the researcher learned from the study’s outcomes and experiences: what the results taught, what helped the study succeed, and what should change next time. It is the part that sets action research apart from other research reports.

Where are completed DepEd action research reports published?

Accepted BERF-funded studies are archived in E-Saliksik, the DepEd research portal, under DO 14, s. 2022. Archiving there does not count as a publication; presenting or publishing a BERF study elsewhere needs the research committee’s written permission.

More on DepEd research

Sources

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017 (Research Management Guidelines) and its Annex 6; DepEd Orders No. 14, s. 2022, 003, s. 2026, 39, s. 2016 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.