action research, faculty development, professional development, teacher development, teacher training, researchers


Anchored on Evans’ professional development (PD) model, this study aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate a professional development program on designing participatory action research (PAR) projects for basic education teachers. The teachers are from Junior and Senior High School teaching English, Mathematics, and Science. The PD program consisted of ten in-person training sessions and virtual consultations which happened in between training on AR problem conceptualization and methodology for a 14-week period. Using the mixed-methods sequential explanatory (QUAN à qual) design, the study started with a professional needs assessment participated by 18 teachers from a secondary school as a basis for the planned PD program. The teachers underwent training sessions to develop a group or participatory AR proposal as evidence of their professional growth and program outcome. At the end of the program, the English, Mathematics, and Science teachers, respectively, developed and presented their AR proposals on the (a) design and evaluation of a gamified-based instruction towards improving vocabulary skill, (b) video-based instruction in teaching basic concepts of probability, and (c) investigating the effect of contextualized learning materials in developing students’ conceptual understanding of atoms. The post-assessment results, supported by interviews, revealed that the teachers displayed behavioural, attitudinal, and intellectual developments in AR. Based on the Department of Education’s criteria for evaluating PAR proposals, all three proposals were rated acceptable for implementation by a panel of evaluators. In conclusion, the PD design and evaluation framework were important factors that enabled the participating teachers to transform their AR competencies toward developing PAR proposals for improving teaching and research in their schools.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Hedeliza Pineda, Cebu Technological University

PhD, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Pure Sciences

Anne Lorca, Cebu Technological University

MAEd, Instructor, Dept. of Pure Sciences

Sylvester Cortes, Cebu Technological University

PhD, Assist. Prof., Dept. of Pure Sciences

Sunliegh Gador

PhD, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of English and Literary Studies

Rowanne Marie Mangompit, Cebu Technological University

PhD, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of English and Literary Studies

Frances Jay Pacaldo, Cebu Technological University

MAEd, Instr., Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics

Elven Lorca, Cebu Technological University

MAEd, Instructor, Dept. of Human Kinesthetics


  1. Arnove, R. F. (2005). To what ends: educational reform around the world. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1).
  2. Arthur Jr., W., Bennett Jr., W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234–245.
  3. Bongco, R. T., & David, A. P. (2020). Filipino teachers’ experiences as curriculum policy implementers in the evolving K to 12 landscape. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 19-34.
  4. Canlas, I. P., & Karpudewan, M. (2020). Blending the principles of participatory action research approach and elements of grounded theory in a disaster risk reduction education case study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13.
  5. Commission on Higher Education. (2012). CHED Memorandum Order No. 46: Policies-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA and Guidelines for Graduate Programs. Commission on Higher Education.
  6. Commission on Higher Education. (2017). CHED Memorandum Order No. 74: Policies, Standards and Guidelines for Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd). Commission on Higher Education.
  7. Commission on Higher Education. (2017). CHED Memorandum Order No. 75: Policies, Standards and Guidelines for Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd). Commission on Higher Education.
  8. Cortes, S. (2019). Needs assessment on action research competencies of teacher-researchers in Surigao del Sur, Philippines. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 21(4), 1-19.
  9. Cortes, S. (2020). Flexible learning as an instructional modality in environmental science course during COVID-19. Aquademia, 4(2).
  10. Cortes, S. T., & Reyes Jr., M. S. (2021). Challenges in conducting action research: Experiences from Biology teachers of a Province in Mindanao, Philippines. Journal of Progressive Education, 11(2), 151-164.
  11. Cortes, S., Pineda, H., & Geverola, I. J. (2020). Development and validation of a scale on Teacher’s Competence in Action Research. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 9(6), 77-85.
  12. Cortes, S. T., Pineda, H. A., & Geverola, I. J. (2021a). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Teacher's Competence in Action Research (TCAR) Questionnaire. Advanced Education, 19, 103-113.
  13. Cortes, S., Pineda, H. A., Lorca, A., Gador, S., Mangompit, R. M., & Pacaldo, F. J. (2021). Examining perception on action research of basic education teachers. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences (MOJES), 9(2), 1-11.
  14. Cortes, S., Pineda, H., & Geverola, I. J. (2021b). Examining competence in action research of basic education teachers in Cebu City, Philippines. Journal Of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 6(2), 202-230.
  15. Craig, D. V. (2009). Action Research Essentials (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
  16. Cullen, T. A., Akerson, V. L., & Hanson, D. L. (2010). Using action research to engage K-6 teachers in nature of science inquiry as professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(8), 971-992.
  17. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
  18. Department of Education (2016). DepEd Order No. 4: Revised Guidelines for the Basic Education Research Fund. Pasig City: Retrieved from
  19. Engin, M. (2014). Macro-Scaffolding: Contextual Support for Teacher Learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 26-40.
  20. Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20-38.
  21. Evans, L. (2014). Leadership for professional development and learning: enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(2), 179–198.
  22. Gaffney, M. (2008). Participatory action research: an overview. Kairaranga, 9, 9-15.
  23. Garcés, A. Y., & Granada, L. M. (2016). The role of collaborative action research in teachers’ professional development. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 18(1), 39-54.
  24. Ghaith, G. M., & Awada, G. M. (2022). Scaffolding Understanding of Scholarly Educational Research Through Teacher/Student Conferencing and Differentiated Instruction. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 10.
  25. Gravani, M. N. (2012). Adult learning principles in designing learning activities for teacher development. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(4), 419–432.
  26. Hathorn, C., & Dillon, A. M. (2018). Action research as professional development: Its role in education reform in the United Arab Emirates. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1), 99-119.
  27. Hine, G. S. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163.
  28. Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher Learning for Educational Change: A Systems Thinking Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  29. Hong, C. E., & Lawrence, S. A. (2011). Action research in teacher education: classroom inquiry, reflection, and data-driven decision making. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 4(2), 1-17.
  30. Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2011). Collaborative action research approaches promoting professional development for elementary school teachers. Educational Action Research, 19(11), 59-72.
  31. Jugar, R., & Cortes, S. (2022). Embedding action research in Philippine teacher education. In M. S. Khine, & Y. Liu, Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 703–719). Singapore: Springer.
  32. Kennedy, A. (2014a). Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for analysis. Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 336-351.
  33. Kennedy, A. (2014b). Understanding continuing professional development: the need for theory to impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 688-697.
  34. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University, Australia: Deakin University Press.
  35. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-607). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  36. Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
  37. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
  38. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Understanding and Evaluating Educational Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  39. Manfra, M. M. (2019). Action research and systematic, intentional change in teaching practice. Review of Research in Education, 43, 163–196.
  40. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using Instructional Discourse Analysis to Study the Scaffolding of Student Self-Regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 17-25.
  41. Mirasol, J. M., Necosia, J. V., Bicar, B. B., & Garcia, H. P. (2021). Statutory policy analysis on access to Philippine quality basic education. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2.
  42. Moran, M. J. (2007). Collaborative action research and project work: Promising practices for developing collaborative inquiry among early childhood preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, Teaching and Teacher Education.
  43. Morales, M. P., Abulon, E. L., Soriano, P. R., David, A. P., Hermosisima, M. V., & Gerundio, M. G. (2016). Examining teachers’ conception of and needs on action research. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 464-489.
  44. Oracion, C., Naidu, V. L., Ng, J., & Reyes Jr., V. (2020). Advancing the K-12 Reform from the ground: A case study in the Philippines. Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank and The HEAD Foundation.
  45. Paredes-Chi, A. A., & Castillo-Burguete, M. T. (2018). Is Participatory Action Research an innovative pedagogical alternative for training teachers as researchers? The training plan and evaluation for normal schools. Evaluation and Program Planning, 176-184.
  46. Piliouras, P., Lathouris, D., Plakitsi, K., & Stylianou, L. (2015). Collaborative action research in the context of Developmental Work Research: A methodological approach for science teachers’ professional development. World Journal of Education, 5(6), 74-80.
  47. Rahman, B., Abdurrahman, A., Kadaryanto, B., & Rusminto, N. E. (2015). Teacher-Based Scaffolding as a Teacher Professional Development Program in Indonesia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(11), 67-78.
  48. Smit, J., Van Eerde, H. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834.
  49. Tirol, S., Cortes, S., Tinapay, A., & Samillano, J. (2022). A teacher training program on designing participatory educational action research proposal. Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science - Social Sciences, 12(1), 23-40.
  50. Tripp, D. (2005). Action research: a methodological introduction. Educação e Pesquisa, 31(3).
  51. Ulla, M. B. (2018). Benefits and challenges of doing research: Experiences from Philippine public-school teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 797-810.
  52. Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2011). All You Need to Know about Action Research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.




How to Cite