DepEd Research Management Guidelines: DO 16, s. 2017

This guide explains how research is managed in the Department of Education (DepEd), from a teacher’s action research proposal to its use in the school plan. The governing policy is DepEd Order (DO) No. 16, s. 2017, the Research Management Guidelines (RMG), as amended by DO 26, s. 2021. The RMG replaced the earlier rules on the Basic Education Research Fund: it repeals DO 43, s. 2015 and DO 4, s. 2016. Regional calls for proposals in 2026 still cite DO 16 and DO 26 as their basis.

It is written for teachers who plan to do action research, for school heads who endorse and supervise it, and for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH, formerly the NQESH). The topic maps to strand 1.4, Research and innovation, of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH). The post ends with two practice items.

Key points

• The RMG covers every level. It sets how research is managed in the Central Office, regions, schools divisions and schools, and how eligible DepEd employees apply for research funds.
• Action research is defined in the order. It is “a process of systematic, reflective inquiry to improve educational practices or resolve problems in any operating unit (i.e. school, classroom, office)”.
• Three research committees decide. The National Research Committee (NRC), the Regional Research Committee (RRC) and the Schools Division Research Committee (SDRC) call for proposals, evaluate them and approve funding. School proposals go to the SDRC, which endorses them to the region for confirmation and release of funds.
• Proposals are scored, and 70% passes. Committees use the scoring guides in Annex 4; “to qualify for approval, the proponent must have a minimum score of 70%”.
• BERF grants have ceilings by scope. A school or classroom action research may receive up to PhP 30,000 for at most six months; division and regional studies up to PhP 150,000, and national studies up to PhP 500,000, for at most a year.
• Results must be used, not only filed. Teachers share results through Learning Action Cells (LAC), in-service training, the School Governing Council, the School Improvement Plan (SIP) and the School Report Card, with the school head’s support.

What the Research Management Guidelines cover

DO 16, s. 2017 sets up a framework for managing research “in the national, regional, schools division, and school levels” and for improving the support around it: funding, partnerships and capacity building. Its scope includes “instructions for eligible DepEd employees in availing of research funds”. It applies to research funded by the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF) and to research funded from other sources, which follow the same procedures for evaluation and approval.

The order defines the terms a researcher meets in every call for proposals:

Where the RMG came from

DepEd first made BERF grants available under DO 24, s. 2010, but the facility was little used until DO 43, s. 2015, amended by DO 4, s. 2016, set out clear guidelines and created the national and regional research committees. In 2016, DO 39, s. 2016 adopted the Basic Education Research Agenda, which names DepEd’s research priorities. The RMG, issued on 20 March 2017, built on these and replaced the two BERF orders with one framework for every level and fund source.

DO 16, s. 2017 today: the 2021 amendment and later orders

The RMG is still in force. Later orders amended one part of it and added rules around it.

• DO 26, s. 2021 amended the RMG after the COVID-19 pandemic, effective from SY 2020-2021. It allows calls for proposals, committee evaluation, monitoring and dissemination to be held virtually; it gives priority at initial screening to proposals that gather data online or remotely; it clarifies that the remaining 25% of a region’s allocation “may be used as additional fund for research proposals and other research-related activities”; it counts mobile phone and internet costs as communication expenses; and it allows digital signatures on agreements, with courier costs eligible under the grant. “All other provisions stated in DO 16 s. 2017 shall remain enforced.”
• DO 14, s. 2022 set up E-Saliksik, the DepEd research portal at e-saliksik.deped.gov.ph. BERF-funded research must be archived there, and completed reports “shall continue to follow the outline provided in Annex 6 of DO 16, s. 2017”. From FY 2022, an archived BERF study is equivalent to one accepted by the research committee.
• DO 24, s. 2022, the Basic Education Development Plan (BEDP) 2030, describes the BERF as allocating “around P2 million to each region” and commits to simplifying access to it. It encourages teachers to do small-scale research on their own teaching with a mentor-colleague, which it calls “paired research”.
• DO 003, s. 2026, the guidelines on artificial intelligence (AI), limit AI in research to support tasks such as analyzing processed data, refining grammar and checking citations. It prohibits entering personal and sensitive information into AI tools, requires personnel to declare the AI tools they used, and forbids submitting research generated by AI “without significant human contribution and proper disclosure”.
• DO 16, s. 2024 sets interim guidelines for research funded by the Teacher Education Council’s Teacher Quality Development Program. It applies to teacher education institutions, not to school-based action research, which stays under the RMG.

Each region runs its own call for proposals under these orders. In 2026, for example, the National Capital Region’s call (Regional Memorandum No. 059, s. 2026) cites DO 16, s. 2017 and DO 26, s. 2021, and allows each division up to two action research proposals and one basic research proposal. How to Get Action Research Funded Through BERF walks through that cycle.

Research committees at each level

The RMG sets up a research committee at each governance level. Each committee steers research toward the national and local research agenda, evaluates and approves proposals, forges partnerships and recommends the release of funds. A secretariat at each level screens proposals, helps the committee score them, gives technical assistance to researchers and monitors their progress.

The RRC also includes the chiefs of the regional curriculum, education support, human resource development, quality assurance, field technical assistance and finance divisions. The SDRC includes the Senior Education Program Specialist for Planning and Research, CID representatives and a finance representative. Members may name permanent alternates.

The RMG does not create a committee in each school. It asks school heads and division Alternative Learning System (ALS) coordinators to track approved research in their schools and CLCs. Some divisions add a school-level step: NCR’s 2026 call, for example, has a School Research Committee evaluate proposals before the division uploads them.

The research management cycle, step by step

The RMG lays out the cycle from the call for proposals to archival. The flowchart in its Annex 8 shows the same steps at each level.

Call for proposals

The NRC and RRCs call for proposals “at least once a year, or as deemed necessary”. The SDRC helps spread the call to schools, and the secretariats run training on writing proposals. Proponents have one month after the call to submit three documents:

1. The research proposal application form, with the endorsement of the immediate supervisor (Annex 1). The supervisor certifies that the proponent “has/have the capacity to implement a research study without compromising his/her office functions”.
2. The research proposal, following the minimum requirements in Annex 2. DepEd Action Research Proposal Format, With a Sample explains each part.
3. The declarations of anti-plagiarism and absence of conflict of interest (Annex 3).

Initial screening

The secretariat returns a proposal, with technical comments, if it has any of six problems:

1. incomplete documents;
2. a conflict of interest, personal or professional, of the proponent or the research manager;
3. non-conformance to research ethics;
4. a cost above the maximum grant, with no cost-sharing;
5. a topic not aligned with the national or local Basic Education Research Agenda; or
6. cost estimates outside accounting and auditing rules.

For research involving Indigenous Peoples (IP) learners, Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) or their knowledge systems and learning systems, the secretariat discusses the proposal with recognized community representatives or elders to check that it meets the ethical requirements.

Committee evaluation and notification

The committee scores the proposal with the guide in Annex 4: Annex 4.a for basic research and Annex 4.b for action research. The action research guide 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, and the committee may add comments to address before the research starts. An RRC may endorse a proposal to the NRC if it covers more than one region and is relevant to national policy.

The secretariat sends a letter of approval or disapproval (Annex 5). Approved proponents attend an orientation and sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Disapproved proponents “are encouraged to resubmit” after addressing the comments.

Monitoring, changes and extensions

The secretariat tracks each study against its approved work plan, and the committees may visit research sites. Any change to an approved study must be reported to the secretariat; changes to the design need a letter to the committee, and changes that raise the cost are not funded by DepEd. The sample MOA adds that the approved research topic “cannot be changed by the GRANTEE at any point during the study”.

A grantee may ask for one extension, with a written justification such as illness, a disaster or other extenuating circumstances. It is granted only at no additional cost to DepEd and may not exceed one year. If a study must stop, the grantee writes to the committee with the reasons and supporting documents.

Submission, acceptance and archival

The completed research follows the minimum requirements in Annex 6; DepEd Action Research Report Format, With a Sample covers them. The secretariat checks whether the output is acceptable and returns it for revision if needed. “For accountability and reproducibility of research”, researchers also submit an executive data set “in an accessible file format (i.e. Microsoft Excel file)”, and final outputs go to the secretariat in PDF and print. The Central Office, regions and SGODs archive completed studies with their data sets; since 2022, BERF studies are archived in E-Saliksik.

Dissemination and utilization

The RMG treats the use of results as part of the research, not an afterthought. Researchers present their results where the study was done, “preferably attended by the respondents”. Regions and divisions may hold research conferences and forums and publish journals and bulletins, and they are told to use the evidence in policies, plans, training programs and instructional materials.

For teachers, the order lists the venues, “with full support of school heads”:

• Learning Action Cells (LAC). Sharing the results of ongoing and completed research in LAC sessions as input to other teachers’ strategies.
• In-service training (INSET). Training designs may include research results and how to use them.
• School Governing Council (SGC). Results and proposed actions presented during school planning and monitoring.
• School Improvement Plan and Annual Implementation Plan. Research results “may be incorporated in the SIP”, and school planning may bring forth research topics, which may be plotted as research initiatives in the SIP and AIP.
• School Report Card (SRC). Interventions made as a result of action research may be reported in the SRC.

Funding: the BERF and other sources

The BERF funds approved proposals of DepEd employees, as well as capacity building, dissemination, policy development, technical support and monitoring. Each region receives an allocation managed by its PPRD. Seventy-five percent of it funds research proposals from the region, divisions and schools; the rest goes to research-related activities and, since DO 26, s. 2021, may also fund proposals. Regions that have used 80% of their initial allocation may receive more, depending on available funds.

Regular or permanent teaching, teaching-related and non-teaching personnel are eligible if they have no pending administrative case, have not yet received a grant that year, and work in teams of at most three. The grant pays for supplies, domestic travel, communication, printing and food during data collection, and for dissemination. It does not pay for equipment, software, salaries or honoraria for resource persons and statisticians, utilities, office rent, overseas travel, or anything not in the approved proposal.

School and CLC grants are released in two tranches: 80% on submission of the work plan and the signed MOA, and 20% on acceptance of the final report. Grants below PhP 5,000 are released in full on the work plan and MOA. The research must start within five working days of signing the MOA, and a grantee who does not finish must return the whole grant.

Other fund sources, such as local funds and the Special Education Fund (SEF), follow the same procedures for evaluation and approval, and the usual government accounting and auditing rules. How to Get Action Research Funded Through BERF covers the application, the budget and a regional call in detail.

Ethics, plagiarism and ownership

The RMG asks researchers to “observe the highest ethical standards”, including confidentiality in handling respondents’ data and consent forms where necessary. Anyone found to have violated research ethics, or to have committed plagiarism, “will be blacklisted from availing of any other research grant mechanism in the Department”.

• Learners. Until a DepEd Research Ethics Committee and policy are in place, researchers refer to the DepEd Child Protection Policy (DO 40, s. 2012) when interacting with learners.
• Indigenous Peoples. Research involving IP learners and communities follows the rights-based approach of the National IPEd Policy Framework (DO 62, s. 2011) and the principles of free, prior and informed consent in Annex 9. A community whose knowledge is the focus of a study is recognized as its co-author and co-owner.
• Ownership. The grantee is the sole author, but a BERF-funded study is co-owned by the author and DepEd. Presenting it at a conference or publishing it in a journal needs written permission from the NRC or RRC, and the funding source must be acknowledged.

Research Ethics for DepEd Action Research explains consent, assent and data protection for teacher researchers.

Research partnerships

The research committees may partner with state universities and colleges, development partners, non-government and civil society organizations, other government agencies and local government units, and Indigenous Cultural Communities. Partnerships may cover capacity building, resource sharing, research grants and joint research. Each partnership is set out in a MOA signed by the Secretary, the Regional Director or the Schools Division Superintendent, with the head of the partner institution.

What the school head does

• Build a culture of research. Make research part of how the school decides, as PPSSH strand 1.4 expects: start from the school’s data, and use the root cause analysis of the SIP to find questions worth studying. Education Data, Transparency and Research covers the gaps in Philippine education research that EDCOM II found.
• Spread the call and help teachers prepare. Share the regional call when it comes out, and give teachers time and LAC support to write proposals within the one-month window.
• Endorse proposals with care. The immediate supervisor’s conforme certifies that the teacher can do the research without compromising their functions. Read the proposal before signing: check the ethics, the consent forms, the budget and the workload.
• Track approved research. The RMG asks school heads to track the progress of approved research in their schools. Keep the work plan, and help the teacher meet the deliverables that release each tranche.
• Protect learners and their data. Make sure the study follows the Child Protection Policy and that learners’ records stay confidential.
• Use the results. Bring completed research to the LAC, the SGC, the SIP and AIP, and the School Report Card, so that what works spreads beyond one classroom.

The RMG and the PPSSH

The PPSSH defines research broadly, as “a process of systematic and reflective inquiry such as, but not limited to, action research, projects and activities found in the School Improvement Plan, Continuous Improvement Projects, and Impact Studies”. Strand 1.4, Research and innovation, rises through four career stages:

The RMG is the machinery behind these indicators: the committees, the call, the funds and the venues for using results.

Common mistakes

• Citing DO 43, s. 2015 as the current BERF rules. DO 16, s. 2017 repealed it and DO 4, s. 2016; cite DO 16 and DO 26, s. 2021.
• Signing the endorsement without reading the proposal. The supervisor’s conforme is a certification, not a formality.
• Leaving out the declarations or the consent forms. Incomplete documents and non-conformance to ethics are both grounds for return at initial screening.
• Budgeting for equipment or honoraria. Neither is eligible, and an ineligible cost can sink a proposal.
• Changing the topic midway. Changes need the committee’s approval, and the approved topic cannot be changed.
• Filing the report and stopping there. Dissemination and use in the school are part of the cycle.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

Expect situational items in which a school head must act on a research proposal or a finished study. The options differ in whether they protect learners, follow the RMG’s process and put findings to use in the school. Weaker options meet a deadline or a formality and leave the real issue in place. 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.

You are the principal of an elementary school. A Grade 3 teacher has finished a BERF-funded action research showing that graphic organizers improved the reading comprehension of her section, and the Schools Division Research Committee has accepted the report. Other Grade 3 teachers have asked about it. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Require all Grade 3 teachers to use graphic organizers in every reading lesson from next week, since the division research committee has already accepted the study.
• B. Post the full report on the school’s social media page and bulletin board so that parents and the community can see the teacher’s research achievement.
• C. Ask the teacher to present the study in a LAC session, let the Grade 3 teachers plan how to try the strategy, and add it to the AIP with a way to monitor results.
• D. Nominate the study for the regional research conference, and hold any discussion with other teachers until the conference panel has given its comments.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It uses the finding, but it treats one section’s result as proof for every class and skips the teachers’ own judgment and monitoring.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). It publicizes the study without putting it to use; and a BERF study is co-owned by DepEd, so wider publication should be cleared with the research committee first.
• C (3 points, Relational). It follows the RMG’s dissemination venues: the LAC to share results, teachers adapting the strategy, and the AIP to plan and monitor its wider use.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Regional dissemination is valid, but it delays the use of the results in the school where they matter most.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 1.4.2 asks the school head to utilize research findings in facilitating evidence-based innovations, not only to recognize them. DO 16, s. 2017 lists LAC sessions, in-service training, the SGC, the SIP and AIP, and the School Report Card as venues where teachers disseminate and use research “with full support of school heads”. A finding from one section is a strong reason to try a strategy, with monitoring, not a mandate for every class.

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. 16, s. 2017; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

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

A Grade 5 teacher asks you to sign the immediate supervisor’s endorsement for her BERF action research proposal, due at the division in two days. The study will interview learners about their experiences of bullying. No consent or assent forms are attached, and the cost estimate includes a printer. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Sign the endorsement now so that the deadline is met, and remind the teacher to prepare the consent forms once the committee approves the proposal.
• B. Decline to sign, and advise the teacher that bullying is too sensitive a topic for action research at the school level and should be left to the division.
• C. Sign the endorsement and forward the proposal with a note asking the division research committee to check the ethical safeguards and the budget during evaluation.
• D. Review the proposal with the teacher before signing: add parental consent, learner assent and child protection safeguards, remove the printer, and confirm her workload allows the study.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It meets the deadline but endorses a proposal that the secretariat would return for non-conformance to research ethics.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). Bullying is a research priority under the Child Protection theme of the Basic Education Research Agenda; the issue is safeguards, not the topic.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). It flags the problems, but it passes the school head’s own responsibility to the committee and risks the proposal’s return.
• D (3 points, Relational). It fixes the ethical gap, removes an ineligible cost (equipment), and makes the conforme a real certification of the teacher’s capacity.

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 DO 16, s. 2017, proposals that do not conform to research ethics are returned at initial screening, equipment is not an eligible expense, and the supervisor certifies that the proponent can carry out the study without compromising their functions. Until DepEd issues a research ethics policy, the Child Protection Policy (DO 40, s. 2012) guides research with learners. If the gaps cannot be fixed in two days, the teacher can submit in the next call.

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. 40, s. 2012; DepEd Order No. 39, s. 2016; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017?

It is the Research Management Guidelines (RMG), the DepEd policy that sets how research is managed at the national, regional, division and school levels. It creates the research committees, the research management cycle and the rules for the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF). DO 26, s. 2021 amended parts of it.

Is DO 16, s. 2017 still in force?

Yes. DO 26, s. 2021 amended some provisions and states that all other provisions of DO 16, s. 2017 “shall remain enforced unless repealed and amended by other DepEd Issuances”. Regional calls for BERF proposals in 2026 still cite both orders.

What is the passing score for a DepEd research proposal?

A proposal needs a minimum score of 70% on the research committee’s scoring guide (Annex 4 of DO 16, s. 2017) to be approved. Regions may add their own steps, such as a division pre-evaluation, but the 70% minimum comes from the RMG.

How much can a teacher get for action research under BERF?

Under DO 16, s. 2017, a classroom-based or school-wide action research may receive up to PhP 30,000 and must be done within six months. Regions may set smaller amounts or extra rules in their calls.

Who approves a teacher’s action research proposal?

The Schools Division Research Committee (SDRC) evaluates and approves school proposals for BERF funding and endorses them to the Regional Research Committee (RRC) for confirmation and release of funds. The teacher’s immediate supervisor, usually the school head, first endorses the proposal.

More on DepEd research

• Start here: DepEd Action Research Guide: From Topic to Report
• Basic Education Research Agenda (BERA): DO 39, s. 2016
• How to Get Action Research Funded Through BERF
• DepEd Action Research Proposal Format, With a Sample
• 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
• Topics with data: Action Research and Thesis Topics on Classroom Shortage, Action Research and Thesis Topics on Reading (CRLA)
• Related: DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines: DO 35, s. 2016, DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC, How to Read DepEd Data: A Guide for Aspiring School Heads

Sources

• DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017, Research Management Guidelines, with Annexes 1 to 9
• DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2021, Amendment to DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2017 (Research Management Guidelines)
• DepEd Order No. 39, s. 2016, Adoption of the Basic Education Research Agenda
• DepEd Order No. 14, s. 2022, Adoption of E-Saliksik: The DepEd Research Portal
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2022, Adoption of the Basic Education Development Plan 2030, section 7.3
• DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026, Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence in Basic Education
• DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2024, Interim Guidelines on the Operationalization of Research Projects Funded by the Teacher Education Council-Teacher Quality Development Program
• DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, DepEd Child Protection Policy
• DepEd Order No. 62, s. 2011, Adopting the National Indigenous Peoples (IP) Education Policy Framework
• 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, Call for the Submission of 2026 Research Proposals for the Basic Education Research Fund
• Department of Education and the Basic Education Sector Transformation (BEST) Program. (2019). Action Research Toolkit: Teacher’s Guide, with support from the Australian Government.

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. 39, s. 2016, 14 and 024, s. 2022, 003, s. 2026, 016, s. 2024, 40, s. 2012, 62, s. 2011 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.