# Review of Related Literature for DepEd Action Research

How to find, judge and write the review of related literature for DepEd action research: free sources, E-Saliksik, a synthesis matrix, and AR vs thesis length.

This is the Markdown copy of [Review of Related Literature for DepEd Action Research](https://nash.com.ph/blog/review-of-related-literature-action-research), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 28, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: Action research, School leadership. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

The review of related literature is where an action research shows it knows what others have tried. DepEd's Action Research Toolkit gives it a larger role than most teachers expect: it helps the researcher "in all stages of the Action Research framework", from the question to the report. Yet the action research template in DepEd's Research Management Guidelines has no separate literature review section, and the toolkit limits the context and rationale, where the review goes, to 500 words. The sections below cover how much literature an action research needs, where to find it for free, how to judge a source, and how to turn reading into a short, useful synthesis.

It is written for teachers writing action research and BERF proposals, for graduate students, and for school heads and research committees reviewing them.

## Key points

- **The literature guides every step**, not only the introduction: the question, the intervention, the design, the number of participants, the instruments, the analysis and the report.
- **Action research needs a focused review.** The toolkit caps the context and rationale at 500 words, including related studies; a thesis has a full chapter.
- **Search free sources first**: DepEd's E-Saliksik portal for DepEd studies, ERIC and Google Scholar for education research, Philippine E-Journals for local journals, and evidence summaries such as the What Works Clearinghouse.
- **Judge each source**: who wrote it, where it was published, how strong its evidence is, and whether its learners and setting resemble yours.
- **Synthesize, do not summarize.** Group studies by what they found, and end with the gap your study fills.
- **AI can help you search, but it cannot be your source.** DO 003, s. 2026 allows AI to "support the search for relevant references", not to replace human validation; check that every reference exists.

## What the literature does in an action research

The toolkit's session on defining action research describes four uses, one for each stage after assessing the situation:

| Stage of the framework | What the literature gives you |
|:--|:--|
| Ask a question | A clearer research question and hypothesis |
| Act to seek answers | A suitable intervention for your learners, and an applicable research design |
| Acquire information | Ideas on how many participants to include and which data collection techniques fit, sometimes with sample instruments |
| Analyze and reflect | The statistical or qualitative analyses that answer similar questions, ideas for writing the report, and studies to compare your findings with |

The toolkit concludes that the review "has many uses for the Action Researcher other than giving a 'background' on the study". In practice: read before you choose the intervention, not after you have written the proposal.

## How much literature: action research, basic research and thesis

| | Action research (DepEd template) | Basic research (DepEd template) | Thesis |
|:--|:--|:--|:--|
| Where the literature goes | Inside the context and rationale | A separate literature review section | Usually a full chapter |
| Length | The toolkit caps the whole context and rationale at 500 words | Set by the call and the committee | Set by the university |
| What reviewers look for | Data or research on the problem, the gap your study addresses, and theory, DepEd policies or laws that support the intervention | Theories and previous studies, properly acknowledged and consistently cited, and the gaps the study addresses | Coverage of the field and a theoretical or conceptual framework |

The toolkit's guidelines for the proposal ask you to "cite any data or current research on the area of your study and highlight the *gap* that will be addressed", to summarize the literature you reviewed or what colleagues told you about previous interventions, and to "include any theory, DepEd policies, or government laws" that strengthen your claims. Its checklist asks: "Does the literature review relate to your reflection and the focus of your study?" and "Are the sources you included relevant to the purpose of your study?" A four-page review inside an action research proposal is a common reason for low scores: the space belongs to the problem and the intervention ([proposal format](https://nash.com.ph/blog/action-research-proposal-format)).

Many Philippine graduate schools divide the thesis chapter into "related literature" (books, policies, articles) and "related studies" (research reports). Follow your university's format for a thesis; for a DepEd action research, follow DO 16's template.

## Where to search, for free

| Source | What it has | Good for |
|:--|:--|:--|
| [E-Saliksik](https://e-saliksik.deped.gov.ph), DepEd's research portal | Completed BERF-funded research and other studies archived under [DO 14, s. 2022](https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/DO_s2022_014.pdf) | What DepEd teachers have already tried, in Philippine schools |
| [ERIC](https://eric.ed.gov) | The largest free index of education research, with a "peer reviewed only" filter and many full texts | International studies on an intervention or problem |
| [Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com) | Articles, theses and books across fields, with "Cited by" links | Finding the most cited studies and newer studies that cite them |
| [Philippine E-Journals](https://ejournals.ph) | Philippine academic journals | Local studies and settings |
| [DOAJ](https://doaj.org) | Open-access journals that meet DOAJ's criteria | Free full texts, and checking whether a journal is legitimate |
| [What Works Clearinghouse](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/) | Reviews of the evidence on specific programs and practices | How strong the evidence for an intervention is |
| [EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit](https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit) | Plain-language summaries of research on common approaches, such as feedback or peer tutoring | A quick overview before you choose an intervention |
| [PIDS](https://pids.gov.ph) | Philippine policy research, including education | Context on Philippine education problems and programs |
| DepEd orders and public data | The policies and numbers behind your problem | The "DepEd policies" and "data" the toolkit asks for |

**Searching well:**

- **Build keywords from your question**: the intervention, the outcome and the learners. For a repeated reading study: *repeated reading*, *oral reading fluency*, *elementary* or *Grade 3*.
- **Use synonyms and quotation marks**: "repeated reading" OR "rereading"; "reading fluency" OR "reading speed".
- **Filter**: peer-reviewed, the last 10 to 15 years for most topics, and full text where available.
- **Follow the citations**: read the references of a good study, and use "Cited by" to find newer ones.
- **Keep a log** of where and what you searched, so that you can describe it and repeat it.

## How to judge a source

| Ask | Stronger | Weaker |
|:--|:--|:--|
| Who wrote it? | Researchers or agencies with relevant expertise, named | No author, or an author with something to sell |
| Where was it published? | A peer-reviewed journal, a government or research agency, a university press | A website, a blog, a journal that publishes anything for a fee within days |
| How strong is the evidence? | Reviews of many studies (meta-analyses); experiments with comparison groups | One class without a comparison group; opinion; testimonials |
| Is it relevant to you? | Similar learners, grade, language and setting | A very different context, unless nothing closer exists |
| Is it current? | Recent, or a classic that is still cited | Old and superseded by newer findings |
| Can you check it? | The data and methods are described; a DOI or official link | Claims without methods or sources |

**Be careful with:**

- **Predatory journals**, which charge authors to publish with little or no peer review. Check whether the journal is listed in DOAJ or indexed in ERIC, and whether its articles show real reviewing.
- **Sample thesis websites and essay mills.** Their content is often copied; citing them weakens a study, and copying from them is plagiarism.
- **Secondary summaries, including ours.** Cite the original DepEd order, dataset or study, not a blog post about it.
- **AI-generated references.** AI tools can produce citations to articles that do not exist. Under [DO 003, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/02/20/february-20-2026-do-003-s-2026-foundational-guidelines-on-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-basic-education/), AI may "support the search for relevant references and sources" and help with "citation verification", but must not be "a substitute for human production and validation"; research papers produced by AI "without significant human contribution and proper disclosure" are forbidden. Open every source and check it before you cite it.

## From reading to writing: the synthesis matrix

The toolkit suggests writing notes and references "on index cards so that it would be easy to organize them according to themes or topics". A spreadsheet does the same job: one row per source, one column per question.

| Source | Learners and setting | What was done | Design | Main finding | Use in my study |
|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|
| Samuels (1979) | Elementary learners with reading difficulties | Rereading a short passage until a target speed, then moving to a new one | Description of the method, with classroom results | Speed rose and errors fell with rereading, and new passages started at higher speed | Origin and procedure of the method |
| National Reading Panel (2000) | Review of studies across grades | Guided repeated oral reading | Review and meta-analysis | Positive effects on word recognition, fluency and comprehension | Strength of the evidence |
| Therrien (2004) | Studies of learners with and without disabilities | Repeated reading | Meta-analysis | Gains in fluency and, to a lesser extent, comprehension | Expected size of gains; features that help |
| Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006) | Large samples of U.S. learners | Oral reading fluency norms | Descriptive | Typical words-correct-per-minute ranges by grade | How to measure fluency; norms are for English and U.S. learners |

Read across the columns, not down the rows: what do the studies agree on, where do they differ, and what is missing for learners like yours? If you find few studies with Filipino-speaking learners or with your grade, that is the gap your study can name.

### Summary versus synthesis

**Summary (weak):**

> Samuels (1979) studied repeated reading. The National Reading Panel (2000) reviewed reading studies. Therrien (2004) did a meta-analysis on repeated reading.

**Synthesis (stronger):**

> Rereading a short passage several times is one of the longest-studied ways to build reading fluency (Samuels, 1979). Reviews of many studies have found positive effects on fluency and word recognition, with smaller gains in comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Therrien, 2004). Most of this evidence comes from English-speaking learners; whether the routine works as well with Filipino passages in a Grade 3 class of a public school is less well documented, which this study addresses.

The synthesis groups the studies by what they show, says how strong the evidence is, and ends with the gap. In an action research, a paragraph or two like this, inside the 500-word context and rationale, is enough. [Sample Action Research in DepEd Format: A Complete Example](https://nash.com.ph/blog/sample-action-research-deped) shows the literature in a complete rationale.

### Writing rules

- **Paraphrase and cite**; quote only when the exact words matter, with the page number.
- **Cite consistently in one style**, as DO 16's scoring guide expects; APA 7 is the usual choice ([how to cite DepEd orders](https://nash.com.ph/blog/cite-deped-order-apa-7)).
- **Every in-text citation has a reference entry**, and every reference is cited.
- **Sign the anti-plagiarism declaration honestly.** DO 16 requires it for research proposals, and copying from another study, a thesis or a website is plagiarism.

## Common mistakes

- **Reviewing after the study is designed**, so that the literature only decorates the proposal.
- **A list of summaries**, one paragraph per study, with no synthesis or gap.
- **Pages of definitions and textbook background** in a 500-word rationale.
- **Old or irrelevant sources**, chosen because they were easy to find.
- **References that do not exist**, copied from AI output or other papers without checking.
- **Citing secondary sources** instead of the original.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does a DepEd action research need a review of related literature?

Yes, but not a separate chapter. DO 16's action research template folds the literature into the context and rationale, and the toolkit limits that part to 500 words. The review should cite research on the problem and the intervention, DepEd policies, and the gap the study fills.

### Where can I find DepEd research studies?

On E-Saliksik (e-saliksik.deped.gov.ph), DepEd's research portal, which archives completed BERF-funded research and other studies under DO 14, s. 2022. Division and regional research units may also keep their own collections.

### How many sources should an action research cite?

There is no fixed number in DepEd's guidelines. As a rough guide, a focused action research proposal might cite 5 to 15 sources: a few strong studies on the intervention, the relevant DepEd policies, and the data on the problem. Quality and relevance matter more than the count.

### What is the difference between related literature and related studies?

In many Philippine theses, "related literature" means books, articles and policies, and "related studies" means research reports. DepEd's action research template does not separate them.

### Can I use AI to write my review of related literature?

You may use AI to support your search and to check citations, under DO 003, s. 2026, and you must declare it. The review itself must be your own work, and every source must be checked: AI tools can invent references.

## More on DepEd research

- Start here: [DepEd Action Research Guide: From Topic to Report](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-action-research-guide)
- [DepEd Action Research Proposal Format, With a Sample](https://nash.com.ph/blog/action-research-proposal-format)
- [How to Cite DepEd Orders in APA 7 and Write the Abstract](https://nash.com.ph/blog/cite-deped-order-apa-7)
- [Action Research Questions and Hypotheses, With Examples](https://nash.com.ph/blog/action-research-questions-hypotheses)
- [Action Research vs Basic Research vs Thesis: Differences](https://nash.com.ph/blog/action-research-vs-basic-research-thesis)
- [Sample Action Research in DepEd Format: A Complete Example](https://nash.com.ph/blog/sample-action-research-deped)
- [Action Research Dissemination and Utilization in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/action-research-dissemination-utilization)

## Sources

- Department of Education and the Basic Education Sector Transformation (BEST) Program. (2019). *Action Research Toolkit: Teacher's Guide* and *Facilitator's Guide*, sessions 1.0 (action research defined) and 6.1 (preparing the proposal), with support from the Australian Government.
- [DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017, Research Management Guidelines](https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/DO_s2017_016.pdf), Annexes 2, 3 and 4
- [DepEd Order No. 014, s. 2022, Adoption of E-Saliksik: The DepEd Research Portal](https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/DO_s2022_014.pdf)
- [DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026, Foundational Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence in Basic Education](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/02/20/february-20-2026-do-003-s-2026-foundational-guidelines-on-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-basic-education/), section 3.1 and the guidelines on data and research
- Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. *The Reading Teacher, 59*(7), 636–644. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.7.3
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). *Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read* (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). U.S. Government Printing Office.
- Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. *The Reading Teacher, 32*(4), 403–408.
- Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. *Remedial and Special Education, 25*(4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. NASH Reviewer is not affiliated with DepEd.*

---

© 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. All rights reserved. You may quote up to 100 words from this article with the author's name, its title and a link. In research, cite it as: Llego, M. A. (2026, October 28). *Review of Related Literature for DepEd Action Research*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/review-of-related-literature-action-research. Any other reuse of the article, its charts or its data needs written permission: email support@nash.com.ph. Terms of Service: https://nash.com.ph/terms#website-content-and-data