Main Article Content



This study assesses needs of teacher-researchers (n=247) in Surigao del Sur, Philippines which employs cross-sectional, descriptive research design. The preliminary phases of this study were the development and validation of an instrument which examines their competence on action research (AR), and clustering them based on the similarity of their responses through Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. The factor analysis in instrument development yields five competencies in conducting AR, namely: (a) problem identification, (b) data collection, interpretation, action, and reflection, (c) appropriate use of data collection tools, (d) application of technology, and (e) research ethics which total percentage of variance explained is 77.52. Meanwhile, the Cluster Analysis created two clusters of teacher-researchers. Cluster 1 (n=113) perceived themselves proficient in all five competencies while teachers in cluster 2 (n=99) rated themselves proficient in three competencies except in the application of technology and research ethics where they consider themselves advanced. However, these levels still indicate recalibration of competencies to both clusters. In this regard, this study suggests that the capacity building programs on AR organized by their division research office need an alignment with the competencies specified per factor. Further, mass training of teachers should be refrained because they are not of the same level of competence or eventual needs in doing AR.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Research Articles


1. Akyürek, E., & Afacan, Ö. (2018). Problems encountered during the scientific research process in graduate education: The institute of educational sciences. Higher Education Studies, 8(2), 48-57.
2. Auer, C., & Follack, M. (2002). Using action research for gaining competitive advantage out of the internet,s impact on existing business models. BLED 2002 Proceeding, 45, 767-784.
3. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research - what's in it for teachers and institutions? International House Journal of Education and Development, 29, 3-6.
4. Burns, H. L. (2016). Learning sustainabilit y leadership: An action research study of a graduate leadership course. International Journal for the Scholarship of T eaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-11.
5. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1992). Communities for teacher research: Fringe or forefront. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 298-324.
6. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London: Routledge.
8. Cortes, S. T. (2018). Profiling and isolating management practices of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Philippines Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Philippines. Journal of Educational and Human Resource Development, 2018, 94-106.
9. de Borja, J. M. (2018). Teacher action research: Its difficulties and implications. Humanities & Social Science Reviews, 6(1), 29-35.
10. Dedumo, M.B. (2017). Annual accomplishment report. Tandag City, Philippines: Department of Education-Surigao del Sur Division
11. Donnelly, C., Simmons, G., Armstrong, G., & Fearne, A. (2012). The role of action research in the study of small business marketing and retailer loyalty card data. Irish Academy of Management, 1-32.
12. Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2013). Action research in education: A practical guide. New York: The Guilford Press.
13. Eszergár-Kiss, D., & Caesar, B. (2017). Definition of user groups applying Ward’s method. 19th EURO Working Group on Transportation Meeting. XXII, pp. 25-34. Istanbul, Turkey: Transportation Research Procedia.
14. Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, Rhode Island: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
15. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265-275.
16. Han, L. (2017). Analysis of the problems in language teachers’ action research. International Education Studies, 10 (11), 123-128.
17. Hahs-Vaughn, D., & Yanowitz, K. L. (2009). Who is conducting teacher research? Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 415-424.
18. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.
19. Hine, G. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163.
20. Javali, S. B., Gudaganavar, N. V., & Raj, S. M. (2011). Effect of varying sample size in estimation of coefficients of internal consistency. WebmedCentral BIOSTATISTICS, 2(2), 1-8.
21. Kardash, C. A., & Wallace, M. L. (2001). The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 199-210.
22. Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving practice: A practical guide. London EC1Y 1SP: Paul Chapman Publishing.
23. Lapan, S. D., & Quartaroli, M. T. (2009). Research essentials: An introduction to designs and practices. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
24. Leys, C., Klein, O., Dominicy, Y., & Ley, C. (2018). Detecting multivariate outliers: Use a robust variant of the Mahalanobis distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 150-156.
25. Li, B., Millwater, J., & Hudson, P. (2008). Building research capacity: Changing roles of universities and academics. AARE Annual Conference (pp. 1-13). Brisbane, Australia.
26. Lytle, S. (2000). Teacher research in the contact zone. Handbook of reading research, 3, 691-718.
27. Meerah, T. S., & Osman, K. (2013). What is ‘action’ in action research: A Malaysian exposure. Asian Social Science, 9(16), 148-153.
28. Mills, G. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
29. 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.
30. Nugent, G., Malik, S., & Hollingsworth, S. (2012). A practical guide to action research for literacy educators. Washington, DC 2001, USA: International Reading Association; Nokia Corporation; Pearson Foundation.
31. Peersman, G. (2014). Overview: Data collection and analysis methods in impact evaluation. UNICEF. Retrieved from Data_collection_and_Analysis_ENG.pdf
32. Piedmont, R. L. (2014). Inter-item correlations. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 3303–3304.
33. Pine, G. J. (2009). Teacher action research: Building knowledge democracies. SAGE.
34. Pollard, A. (2007). Challenges facing educational research Educational Review Guest Lecture 2005. Educational Review, 58(3), 251-267.
35. Russo, D. (2016). Competency measurement model. European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics, 1-29.
36. Sankaran, S., & Ranjan, M. (2010). Implementing organizational change using action research in two Asian cultures. PMI® Research Conference: Defining the Future of Project Management, Washington, DC. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
37. Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
38. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.
39. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Ulla, M. B., Barrera, K. I., & Acompanado, M. M. (2017). Philippine Classroom Teachers as researchers: Teachers’ perceptions, motivations, and challenges. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(11), 52-64.
41. Unlu, Z. K., Dokme, I., & Tufekci, A. (2015). An action research on teaching science through technology supported inquiry - based learning: a pilot study. 5th World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership, WCLTA 2014. 186, pp. 46-52. Social and Behavioral Sciences.
42. Vogelzang, J., & Admiraal, W. F. (2017). Classroom action research on formative assessment in a context-based chemistry course. Educational Action Research, 25(1), 155-166.
43. Vogrinc, J., & Zuljan, M. V. (2009). Action research in schools – an important factor in teachers’ professional development. Educational Studies, 35(1), 53-63.
44. Wagaba, F., Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegara, A. L., & Won, M. (2016). An action research in science: Providing metacognitive support to year 9 students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(12), 5376-5395.
45. Wals, A. (1994). Action research and community problem-solving: Environmental education in an inner-city. Educational Action Research, 2(2), 163-182.
46. Wang, C. K. J., & Biddle, S. J. (2001). Young people’s motivational profiles in physical activity: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, XXIII, 1–22.
47. Westat, J. F. (2002). The 2002 user friendly handbook for project evaluation. Arlington, Virginia, USA: The National Science Foundation.
48. Yim, O., & Ramdeen, K. T. (2015). Hierarchical cluster analysis: Comparison of three linkage measures and application to psychological data. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 11(1), 8-21.
49. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79-94.
50. Zeni, J. (1998). A guide to ethical issues and action research. Educational Action Research, 6(1), 9-19.
51. Zhou, J. (2012). Problems teachers face when doing action research and finding possible solutions. Chinese Education & Society, 45(4), 68-80.