TL;DR: DepEd defines action research as systematic, reflective inquiry to improve educational practices or resolve problems in a school, classroom or office, and its Research Management Guidelines (DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017, as amended by DepEd Order No. 26, s. 2021) prescribe an eight-part proposal template: context and rationale; action research questions; proposed innovation, intervention and strategy; methods; work plan and timelines; cost estimates; dissemination and utilisation plans; and references. Classroom or school-level action research funded through the Basic Education Research Fund is capped at 30,000 pesos and six months. The proposal must align with one of the four themes of the Basic Education Research Agenda, and the single feature that separates action research from every other kind is that you must actually intervene, not only observe.
Most guides to action research explain the concept and stop. This one works through DepEd's own template, part by part, with an illustrative proposal filled in and the reasoning behind each section spelled out. If you have never located the underlying orders yourself, our guide on how to find DepEd orders shows where they live.
Which Issuances Actually Govern This?
Four documents do the work, and knowing which is which saves you from following advice built on a repealed order.
| Issuance | Year | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| DO 39, s. 2016 | 2016 | Adopts the Basic Education Research Agenda, setting the priority themes proposals must align with |
| DO 16, s. 2017 | 2017 | The Research Management Guidelines: definitions, committees, templates, funding rules. Repealed DO 43, s. 2015 and DO 4, s. 2016 |
| DO 26, s. 2021 | 2021 | Amends the Research Management Guidelines. Allows virtual conduct of research activities, prioritises online or remote data gathering, defines communication expenses, and permits digital signatures on the memorandum of agreement |
| DO 13, s. 2015 | 2015 | Establishes the policy development process the research feeds into |
DO 26, s. 2021 is an amendment, not a replacement. It states plainly that all other provisions of DO 16, s. 2017 remain in force unless repealed or amended by other issuances, so the templates, caps and eligibility rules below still come from the 2017 order.
Action Research vs Basic Research: Two Different Templates
The Research Management Guidelines set out both templates in the same annex, and picking the wrong one is a common reason a proposal is returned before it reaches evaluation.
| Basic research proposal | Action research proposal |
|---|---|
| Introduction and Rationale | Context and Rationale |
| Literature Review | Action Research Questions |
| Research Questions | Proposed Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy |
| Scope and Limitation | Action Research Methods (participants and data sources, data gathering methods, data analysis plan) |
| Research Methodology (sampling, data collection, ethical issues, plan for data analysis) | Action Research Work Plan and Timelines |
| Timetable / Gantt Chart | Cost Estimates |
| Cost Estimates | Plans for Dissemination and Utilization |
| Plans for Dissemination and Advocacy | References |
| References |
Three differences are worth noticing. Action research has no separate literature review section, because the justification lives inside the context and rationale. It has an entire section basic research does not have, the proposed innovation, intervention and strategy, which is the thing being tested. And it has no separate sampling section, because the participants are normally whoever is already in your operating unit rather than a drawn sample.
The Funding Rules, in One Table
The Basic Education Research Fund is the grant mechanism. The guidelines set maximum amounts by scope, not by seniority.
| Scope | Coverage | Maximum grant | Maximum duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | Nationwide, or covering at least two regions | 500,000 pesos | 1 year |
| Region | Region-wide, or covering at least two divisions | 150,000 pesos | 1 year |
| Division | Division-wide, district-wide, or at least two schools | 150,000 pesos | 1 year |
| Schools / CLCs | Action research that is classroom-based or school-wide or CLC-wide | 30,000 pesos | 6 months |
Eligibility is equally specific. Proponents must be regular or permanent teaching, teaching-related or non-teaching DepEd personnel, must have no pending administrative case, must not have already availed of the grant for that year, and group proposals are limited to three team members with one lead proponent.
Release is output-based. For school and CLC-level research, 80 percent is released on submission of the work plan, the certificate of acceptance and a copy of the memorandum of agreement, and the remaining 20 percent on the final report and its certificate of acceptance. Tranches only apply to proposals costing 5,000 pesos and above; below that, the full approved amount is released once the work plan and the memorandum of agreement are in. The research must commence within five working days of the memorandum of agreement being signed.
Disclaimer: call-for-proposal windows, forms and review steps are administered at division and regional level and vary in practice. Confirm deadlines and local requirements with your Schools Division Office before drafting. The rules above are the national policy, not your division's calendar.
A Worked Example, Annotated
The proposal below is illustrative. No such study was conducted, no data exist for it, and no results are reported. It is written out so you can see what belongs in each section and why. Do not submit it.
Illustrative title: Reducing recurring sign errors in solving linear equations among Grade 8 learners through a weekly error-analysis journal
I. Context and Rationale
Across three quarters of teaching Grade 8 Mathematics in this school, the same category of error has recurred in learners' written work on solving linear equations: the sign of a term is not changed when the term is transposed across the equality. The error is not random. It survives re-teaching, and it reappears in summative assessments after learners have answered similar items correctly during guided practice. This suggests a gap in how learners check their own work rather than a gap in initial instruction. This study is aligned with the Teaching and Learning theme of the Basic Education Research Agenda.
Why this section is written this way. It names one specific, observable problem inside the proponent's own operating unit, gives the evidence for believing it is real and persistent, and offers a diagnosis that the proposed intervention will act on. It also states which research agenda theme it aligns with, because the application form requires the proponent to tick exactly one main theme, from Teaching and Learning, Child Protection, Human Resource Development and Governance, and at most one cross-cutting theme, from Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, Gender and Development, and Inclusive Education.
II. Action Research Questions
- What types and frequencies of errors do Grade 8 learners commit in solving linear equations before the intervention?
- How is the weekly error-analysis journal implemented across the intervention period, and what difficulties arise in its implementation?
- What change, if any, occurs in the frequency of sign errors after the intervention period?
Why three, and why these three. Question 1 establishes a baseline, without which any later claim of improvement is unmeasurable. Question 2 documents the intervention as actually delivered, which is what allows another teacher to repeat it. Question 3 asks about change and is deliberately worded "what change, if any", because a question phrased to assume improvement invites a report written to confirm it. Action research questions differ from thesis sub-problems in that at least one of them must be about the intervention itself.
III. Proposed Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy
Learners will keep a weekly error-analysis journal. Each Friday, learners select two incorrect items from their own week's work, rewrite the full solution, mark the exact line where the error occurred, and write one sentence naming the rule that was broken. The teacher reviews the journals weekly and records the error categories observed. The intervention runs for ten school weeks within the same quarter.
Why the detail. A reviewer has to be able to picture the intervention happening. What the learner does, what the teacher does, how often, and for how long are the minimum. Vague intervention descriptions, such as "the teacher will use varied strategies", are the most common reason an action research proposal is sent back, because nothing about them can be evaluated or repeated.
IV. Action Research Methods
Participants and other sources of data. One intact Grade 8 section handled by the proponent. No sampling is performed; the whole class participates as part of normal instruction. Parental consent and school head approval are secured before the intervention begins, following the DepEd Child Protection Policy referenced in the Research Management Guidelines.
Data gathering methods. A short teacher-made diagnostic on the same competency administered before and after the intervention period; the learners' error-analysis journals; the teacher's weekly observation log.
Data analysis plan. Errors are coded into categories and reported as frequencies and percentages. Pre and post frequencies of sign errors are compared. Journal entries and observation notes are read thematically for recurring difficulties in implementation.
Why it is organised in exactly these three sub-parts. Because the template says so: participants and other sources of data, data gathering methods, data analysis plan. Following the annex headings is not pedantry; evaluators score against them. Note also that the analysis plan is modest. School-level action research does not require inferential statistics, and proposing a test you cannot run is worse than proposing frequencies you can.
V. Action Research Work Plan and Timelines
Because school-level action research is capped at six months, the work plan has to fit inside that window with room for the report. A workable shape is: preparation and approvals, baseline diagnostic, ten weeks of intervention, post-intervention diagnostic, analysis, then writing and submission. Put it in a table with a row per activity and a column per month, and make sure the last row ends before the sixth month closes.
VI. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate is where proposals most often fail on a technicality rather than on merit, because several items teachers expect to charge are excluded.
| Eligible under the guidelines | Not eligible |
|---|---|
| Supplies and materials | Equipment |
| Domestic travel expenses | Software |
| Communication expenses, including postpaid plans, prepaid load, electronic reloading and internet subscription fees | Salary, overtime pay or honorarium for resource persons, statisticians and other service providers |
| Reproduction, printing and binding | Utilities |
| Food and other expenses incurred during surveys and focus group discussions | Office rental |
| Expenses related to research dissemination | Overseas travel, and anything not in the approved proposal |
Amounts are set by the proponent against the applicable ceiling. Two practical consequences of the exclusion list: you cannot pay a statistician out of the grant, so choose an analysis you can perform yourself, and you cannot buy a laptop or a licence with it.
VII. Plans for Dissemination and Utilization
Findings will be presented in a school Learning Action Cell session, submitted to the Schools Division Office for consideration in the division research congress, and used to inform the mathematics department's remediation plan for the following school year.
Why this section is not a formality. The Research Management Guidelines explicitly contemplate research results being incorporated into the Enhanced School Improvement Plan and the Annual Implementation Plan, and interventions arising from action research being included in the School Report Card. Naming a real destination for the findings is what separates action research from a paper that is filed and forgotten.
VIII. References
Standard citation list. Referencing is defined in the guidelines as citing the authors or documents used in the proposal and the report, and proponents sign a declaration of anti-plagiarism and a declaration of absence of conflict of interest as part of the application. Plagiarism or fraud carries blacklisting from any DepEd research grant mechanism, so this section is not the place to be casual.
Five Mistakes That Get Proposals Returned
- A problem that is not yours to solve. Action research is bounded to your own operating unit. National policy is not a valid target for a classroom-based proposal.
- No intervention. A proposal that only measures and describes is basic research wearing an action research heading, and it will be redirected to the other template.
- An intervention that cannot finish in six months. The cap is in the guidelines. Design backwards from it.
- An analysis plan requiring paid help. Statistician honoraria are non-eligible expenditure.
- Questions that assume the answer. "How effective is the intervention" presumes effectiveness. "What change, if any, occurs" does not.
How This Differs From a Thesis
If you have written a graduate thesis, the habits transfer imperfectly. A thesis usually needs a representative sample; action research normally uses an intact class. A thesis chapter structure is set by your university; this structure is set by a DepEd annex. A thesis can end in a recommendation; action research is expected to end in a change of practice you have already begun. Our thesis chapters guide covers the academic format for comparison, and our statement of the problem guide is useful for phrasing research questions that a reviewer can actually check. If your action research question turns out to need measurement rather than description, our quantitative research designs guide covers what that commits you to.
For teachers weighing whether to take this on, note that research output sits alongside the other requirements in DepEd's ranking and promotion processes; confirm with your division how research is credited in the current cycle rather than relying on a general claim.
Ready to find the right school? Browse schools or compare programmes, tuition and reviews across hundreds of Philippine schools on SchoolFinderPH.
Sources
- DepEd — DO 16, s. 2017, Research Management Guidelines (enclosure PDF)
- DepEd — DO 026, s. 2021, Amendment to DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2017 (official)
- DepEd — DO 39, s. 2016, Adoption of the Basic Education Research Agenda (official PDF)
- DepEd Policy Research and Development Division — legal bases for research management
- SchoolFinderPH — How to Find DepEd Orders
