Development and evaluation of a professional development program on designing participatory action research projects for basic education teachers

Table 5. Teacher's knowledge structure of AR before and after the professional development program

It can be observed that most of the teachers already achieved proficient to expert knowledge levels across all five AR knowledge dimensions prior to their participation in the training program, meaning only a few were categorized in knowledge levels between limited to basic. Hence, the post-assessment should reflect the movement of the remaining few teachers from a lower category to higher knowledge levels to indicate training effectiveness. Results reveal that there is a positive progression of teachers from lower knowledge levels. For instance, in terms of knowledge on the nature of AR, the three teachers whose scores obtained in pre-assessment were categorized in the limited and basic levels reached the higher knowledge levels, either proficient or advanced. Similarly, the lone teacher with a limited knowledge level in the four AR knowledge dimensions (i.e., planning of AR, collecting and analyzing AR data, developing action plan, and writing and presenting AR report) moved to higher knowledge levels. This left no teachers at the lowest knowledge level.

These results indicate that the professional development program adopted a model that fits the transfer of essential knowledge from faculty trainers to teacher participants. When Kennedy (2014a) identified nine models of PD program and categorized them into purpose, the categorization indicates three according to increasing teacher autonomy: transmissive, transitional, and transformative. The categorization does not mean a wholesale move towards the transformative category, which is thought to be teacher-centred and context-specific models of CPD; rather, it indicates a better balance between models (Hoban, 2002). This aligns with the suggestion that not all CPD experiences should be transformative in nature, but rather have a transformative purpose. Some skills may be best learned or refreshed through more transmissive approaches to learning (Kennedy, 2014b). One of the approaches or PD model within the transmissive category is training (Kennedy, 2014a). In this regard, one reason this professional development program adopted the training model is to transmit AR skills or knowledge. Apparently, this model worked for the teacher participants as evidenced by the progression of their knowledge levels across all AR dimensions. Some teachers also described their experiences with training as the PD model in relation to developing their AR knowledge as "intensive”, "responsive to needs”, and "facilitative.”

3.4. Qualities of Proposed PAR Projects

The mean scores of each proposal in all criteria as a basis for evaluating the quality of teachers' proposed action research project are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Quality of Teachers' Proposed Action Research Project

There were three invited experts who gave their individual rating per criterion. Their ratings were eventually consolidated and presented as mean per criterion to obtain the overall rating per proposal. The intent is not to determine which proposal got the highest score per criterion but to provide a reference as to which criteria or skills set need to be improved among teachers doing AR. Each group of teachers finished one proposal. The titles of the PAR proposals for English, Mathematics, and Science teachers are the following: (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. It is apparent that each proposal is graded with an overall mean above the 70-point passing score, meaning all proposals are evaluated as acceptable and approved for application for funding and implementation. This further indicates that teachers' competences in writing the AR rationale until proposing the budgetary requirements are beyond acceptable, as evidenced by the scores given by the reviewers. The reviewers may have posed several suggestions, but those were doable and does not entail major revisions. The suggestions common to all include the following: (a) addition of literature cited, (b) comprehensive discussion of the proposed action plan or intervention to the problem that researchers intend to resolve, and (c) explicit discussion of the data analysis plan.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed that teachers' varied behavioural, attitudinal, and intellectual development needs in AR were addressed by the professional development program through teacher training. The teachers' level of AR competence and knowledge improved and their perceptions towards AR as to its purposes were also clarified. There is still a need to improve their perceptions of AR as to its process. The culminating outcome for the teachers to develop PAR proposals collaboratively was also achieved. However, to achieve these intended improvements and outcomes, the PD program should be designed taking account of the following: (a) providing constant scaffolding to teacher-participants from expert mentors, and (b) giving teachers ample time to develop their PAR proposals which are grounded in the realities of their schools. In conclusion, the PD design and evaluation framework were important factors that enabled the teacher-participants to transform their AR competencies toward developing PAR proposals in improving their teaching and research in their schools.

REFERENCES

1. Arnove, R. F. (2005). To what ends: educational reform around the world. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.2979/gls.2005.12.179 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234

2. 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. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.085730319385430

3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920958964 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. Commission on Higher Education. (2017). CHED Memorandum Order No. 74: Policies, Standards and Guidelines for Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd). Commission on Higher Education. Commission on Higher Education. (2017). CHED Memorandum Order No. 75: Policies, Standards and Guidelines for Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd). Commission on Higher Education. 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. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/edujournal_nu/article/view/192512 Cortes, S. (2020). Flexible learning as an instructional modality in environmental science course during COVID-19. Aquademia, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8444 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. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v11.i2.202102 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. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2020.5041

a. 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. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.241148

b. 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. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1294901 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. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss2pp202-230 Craig, D. V. (2009). Action Research Essentials (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9218-8 Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

c. Department of Education (2016). DepEd Order No. 4: Revised Guidelines for the Basic Education Research Fund. Pasig City: www.deped.gov.ph. Retrieved from https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/DO_s2016_04. pdf

d. Engin, M. (2014). Macro-Scaffolding: Contextual Support for Teacher Learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n5.6 Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00392.x

e. Evans, L. (2014). Leadership for professional development and learning: enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(2),179-198.

f. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.860083

g. Gaffney, M. (2008). Participatory action research: an overview. Kairaranga, 9, 9-15.

h. Garces, A. Y., & Granada, L. M. (2016). The role of collaborative action research in teachers' professional development. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 18(1), 3954. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n1.49148

i. 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. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.8

j. Gravani, M. N. (2012). Adult learning principles in designing learning activities for teacher development. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31 (4),419-432.

k. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.663804

l. 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.

m. Hine, G. S. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163. https://www.iier.org.au/iier23/hine.html

n. Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher Learning for Educational Change: A Systems Thinking Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.

o. 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.

p. Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2011). Collaborative action research approaches promoting professional development for elementary school teachers. Educational Action Research, 19(11), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2011.547688

q. 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. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981 -16-9785-2_35

r. Kennedy, A. (2014a). Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for analysis. ProfessionalDevelopmentinEducation,40(3),336-351.

s. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.929293

t. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.955122

u. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University, Australia: Deakin University Press.

v. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2^nd ed., pp. 567-607). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

w. Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

x. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

y. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Understanding and Evaluating Educational Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

z. Manfra, M. M. (2019). Action research and systematic, intentional change in teaching practice. Review of Research in Education, 43, 163-196. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821132

aa. 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.

bb. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_3

cc. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100093

dd. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.008 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. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1112304 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. https://doi.org/10.22617/WPS200105 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.

ee. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.03.007

ff. 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. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v5n6p74 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. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n114 Smit, J., Van Eerde, H. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817-834. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3007 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. https://doi.org/10.46223/hcmcoujs.soci.en.12.12214.2022 Tripp, D. (2005). Action research: a methodological introduction. Educagao e Pesquisa, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-97022005000300009

gg. Ulla, M. B. (2018). Benefits and challenges of doing research: Experiences from Philippine public-school teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 797-810. http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/ulla.pdf Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2011). All You Need to Know about Action Research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

Размещено на Allbest.ru