ii

ACTION RESEARCH COMPETENCE OF MASTER TEACHERS AND SCHOOL

HEADS; ITS EFFECT ON TEACHER’S EFFICACY

A Title Proposal

Presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate School
Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University
Zamboanga City

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree in

Master of Arts in Education (MAEd) major in
Educational Administration and Supervision

AYKINAR S. SALA
August 2021
 i

APPROVAL SHEET
 ii

DEDICATION
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 iv

ABSTRACT
 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE PAGE

APPROVAL SHEET……………………………………………………………….……….. i

DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT……………………………………………………………………... iii

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………….. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………. v

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………… vi

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………. vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION

Background of the study 1

Statement of the Problem 7

Significance of the Study 9

Scope and Limitation of the Study 10

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Legal Basis 13

Related Literature 15

Related Studies 22

Theoretical Framework of the Study 24

Conceptual Framework of the Study 29

 vi

Hypothesis 31

Operational Definition of Key Variables and Other Terms 31

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design 34

Research Locale 37

Population and Respondents of the Study 38

Sampling Design 40

Research Instrument 40

Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument 43

Data Gathering Procedure 44

Statistical Tools 46

BIBLIOGRAPHY 48
7
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

By engaging in action research, it is commonplace for teachers to design

and experiment with “iterations of activities by cycling back and forth between

identifying a problem, trying a solution, reflecting on learning, and trying new

solutions” (Creswell, 2014). AR is defined as “a form of research that is

conducted by practitioners to improve practices in educational settings” (Glanz,

1998). Therefore, endemic to this method of inquiry is the role of master teacher

(Basilio & Bueno, 2019) and school heads as middle managers.

Now, Basilio & Bueno (2019) clarified that research is the systematic

process of collecting and analyzing information to increase a human

understanding of the phenomenon under study. Meaning, research is a process

consists of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and assessment procedures

conducted in an organized manner in order to find solutions to a problem. At the

school level, teachers are the one who conduct research. This is primarily as an

offshoot of education process and need to submit research for effective teaching.

Accordingly, master teachers play an important role in research process.

In a school setting, it cannot be denied that master teachers and school

heads are self-directed learners who aim to enhance their own knowledge in
 2

order to provide excellent instruction to their students and peers. The National

Institute for Excellence in Teaching (2013) pointed that the core component of

master teacher is to deliver high-quality instructional competence to their

students and also professional development to career teachers. Professional

growth is an expectation for the master teacher, not only providing it to others but

also searching out opportunities for themselves.

Recently, education is usually broken down into four components, namely

teaching, research, service and production. The first component is teaching

which deals with the delivery of knowledge and skills to the students. The second

component is research which is the systematic process for the development of

theories and practices to support the school and the society. Service to the

community is the third component which plans to achieve full development of the

community. Lastly, production services are now also considered in school where

teachers pursue revenue generations to augment resources of the school.

Due to our rapidly changing society, it is now essential for schools to have

effective school heads and master teachers as leaders. As leaders, school heads

and master teachers face the challenge of improving teaching and learning

(Herrera, 2010), to radically alter the conceptions of teaching, to ensure

academic success for all students (Cooper-Twamley, 2009 & Herrera, 2010).

According to Lashway (2003), the role of the principal (school head) is rapidly
 3

changing from simply encouraging teachers' efforts to leading teachers to

produce tangible results, this to include action research.

Some decades ago, considerable researches are interested on the

construct of self-efficacy with respect to action research (Seider, & Lemma, 2004;

Cooper-Twamley, 2009) as a result of its implications for teaching effectiveness,

instructional practices, and for students’ academic achievement (Klassen et al.,

2009; Klassen and Tze, 2014). In summary, research self-efficacy refers to one’s

capabilities to execute particular tasks in research domain. Research self-

efficacy has been found to predict students‟ interest in conducting research and

is related to research productivity among students (Kahn, 2001). Research has

shown that low research self-efficacy can interfere with research training and

their willingness to conduct research (Love et al. 2007). Research has also

shown that high research self-efficacy is an important factor related to

successfully conducting research and pursuing research beyond graduate study

(Forester et al. 2004).

With respect to research, the Department of Education (DepEd) was

mandated by Republic Act 9155 or the Governance of Basic Education Act of

2001 (Chapter 1, Section 7 (5), RA 9155) as it provides Deped to “undertake

[national] educational research and studies” which can become part of the basis

for necessary reforms and policy inputs. In order to carry out its mandates,

DepEd issued DepEd Order 43, s. 2015 or Revised Guidelines for the Basic
 4

Education Research Fund (BERF). This order emphasizes for evidence-based

policy development through the institution of reforms that strengthen

transparency and accountability (DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2015). Moreover,

DepEd also started providing funding facility for research under DepEd Order No.

24, s. 2010. This fund was not only intended for internal but was also made

accessible to external practitioners that meet the minimum eligibility

requirements. DepEd also promulgated DO No. 39, s. 2016 and indicated the

Basic Education Research Agenda, which makes known the research priorities of

the Department across four themes (Teaching and Learning, Child Protection,

Human Resource Development, and Governance) and three cross-cutting

themes (Gender and Development, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management,

and Inclusive Education). Implementation of the said policies brought about a

renewed vigor in the conduct of research, solidifying the Department’s thrust

towards evidence-informed policies and programs. While there are marked

changes in the perception of research, implementation challenges also surfaced

from regular feedback and the conduct of policy review of the BERF Guidelines.

Apart from issues arising from availing of and implementing the BERF, concerns

primarily centered on improving research management at every governance

level.

As we strengthen the culture of research in the Department, this policy

seeks to build on the gains from the abovementioned reforms by establishing a

framework for the management of research initiatives at all levels of governance.

 5

The said framework intends to improve the grants management process for

BERF and other possible fund sources, and reinforces the link of research to

education processes through research dissemination, utilization and advocacy.

Furthermore, in support of the Agency towards objective school policies

such as research initiatives, the DepEd No 16 s. 2017 or The Research

Management Guidelines (RMG) was issued to promote the development

process, research agenda, and policy program development and implementation

to strengthen the research culture in Basic Education.

Research alone is a challenging task. This task follows a systematic

process of collecting and analyzing information in pursuit of understanding an

existing phenomenon under study. Meaning, research being a process is

comprise of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and assessment procedures

conducted following in accordance with predetermine procedure to determine

solution to a problem. To accomplish, teachers are expected to face challenges

which may hamper teachers-researchers from engaging in research. In school,

teachers are the one who conduct research, in order to improve teaching or find

solutions to an existing issue relevant to education process. In this aspect,

master teachers play an important role in research process.

The researcher being a classroom teacher is also often engage in action

research without even realizing it. Typically, the process began from reflection
 6

as prompted by identifying issues in the classroom which requires to be

addressed. Usually, the issue involved due to pedagogical changes or brought

about by adjustments to curriculum. In a less formal way, it was observed that

action research naturally emerged due to a desire to have successful teaching-

learning process by creating new essential learning modality. In a given year,

the researcher realized and admittedly able to determine that Senior High- level

Science students were not engaging resulting to a lack of motivations and poor

performance for quite sometimes. Thus, this is action research. To this, the

researcher as a teacher made some inquiry with other researches and utilized

the information at hand as catalyst for the current study. The researcher

attempted to read several researches as bases for alternative methods but all are

appropriate for middle school classroom. Alas, on a large scale, an action

research considered could had been with good place in the broad spectrum of

educational context as it provided information to an existing issue, as an

accessible solution to classroom teachers. At a small scale, this meant that other

teachers in the department the researcher also works could benefit from the

design established which filled the void and lack of resources existed in the area

for sometimes. Surely, this demonstrates the value of the classroom teachers

turned researchers as to their discovery of solutions to their perplexing situations.

Now, in some instance, researchers are often criticized to be doing too far

and altered the classroom practice as they precisely the right person who really

know the teachers need. At this context, the teacher – researcher had the
 7

opportunity to be their own guide as well as able to influence other teachers to

adopt the new practice and practical ways.

Unfortunately, there is little study about master teachers and school heads

competence and research self-efficacy particularly in the Schools Division of

Zamboanga City. Understanding the main antecedents of self-efficacy or

teacher’s efficacy may have important payoffs in working for teachers’ well-being

and student learning. This knowledge enables us to better understand and

minimize elements that could impede or interfere with the research process.

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the MTs and SHs

personal and professional characteristics, action research competence and its

effect on teacher’s efficacy towards research. In other words, this study shall

attempt to determine if action research as a form of professional development is

effective in improving teacher efficacy.

Statement of the Problem

The study aims to determine the action research competence of master

teacher and/or school heads and evaluate its effects on teachers’ efficacy. More

specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the MTs, SHs and Teachers terms of:

1.1 age

1.2 sex
 8

1.3 educational attainment

1.4 number of years in teaching

1.5. number of years as school head or master teacher

1.6 number relevant training attended

1.7 number of action research conducted

2. What is the action research competence of the MTs and SHs in terms
of:

2.1 formulating research question

2.2 defining a research plan

2.3 methodology

2.4 processing analysis data

2.5 drawing conclusions

as immediate and long term effects on their students?

3. Is there a significant difference in the teacher’s efficacy level between

those who are exposing and not expose to master teachers and school

heads mentoring on action research, in terms of the following?

3.1 lesson presenting

3.2. art questioning

3.3. classroom management behaviors?

4. What relationships, if any, exists between the level of action research

competence and the three sub-scales of the Teacher’s Efficacy –

lesson presenting, art questioning and classroom management

behaviors?
 9

5. Which of the MTs and SHs respondents’ profile influence the relationship

between action research competencies and teachers’ efficacy?

Significance of the Study

This study would be beneficial to the following:

DepEd Officials of Zamboanga City Schools Division. The DepEd

Officials of Zamboanga City Schools Division will benefit from this study. The

results of the study will serve as their basis in designing and implementing a

division-wide professional development program on action research that would

cater to the enhancement of the professional strengths of the master teachers,

school heads and teachers and the improvement of the professional needs of

teachers. It is a way of improving the performance of master teachers and school

heads will surely affect the teachers in the teaching-learning process in

Zamboanga City that will eventually lead to the improvement of the academic

performance of the students

School Administrators. This study can provide motivations to all master

teachers and school heads as to serves as catalyst to attend graduate studies

and push them to do more action research in the future.

The Master Teachers and School Heads. The master teachers and

school heads will benefit from this study. They will be able to identify and assess

their professional strengths and needs based on the action research

competencies. The implementation of a MT/SH development program which will

be the output of this study will help them enhance their professional strengths
 10

which can be emulated by their co-teachers and strengthen their professional

needs which will in turn improve their teaching competences that will likewise

help them become more effective in the learning environment for the students.

Teachers. This study will grant teachers the baseline data as regards to

the effect of master teachers and school heads action research competencies

toward teacher’s efficacy which may stimulate teachers to understand the

importance of action research in the field of teachings.

Students. This study will provide insights to students that DepEd

programs or initiatives are set with the end view for an improved instructional

practice, exemplary classroom management and pedagogical enhancement in

order to support students learning.

Researchers. The results of this study may provide baseline data to

future researchers pertaining to action research competencies among master

teachers and school heads and teacher’s efficacy. This may serve as recent

literature for further study.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

The study will be conducted to determine the action research

competence of the master teachers and school heads and its effect on teachers’

efficacy of Zamboanga City. It may also include all the variables indicated in the

research problem.
 11

It will be delimited to the respondents profile in terms of age, sex,

educational attainment, number of years in teaching and number of trainings

attended shall also be considered in the study. The action research competence

of the respondents in terms of formulating research question, defining a research

plan, correct research, methodology, processing data and drawing conclusion

and teachers’ efficacy in terms of lesson presenting, art of questioning and

classroom management behaviors will also be determined.

The respondents of the study will be the master teachers and school

heads of the two districts in Zamboanga City who are considered as school

leaders and middle level managers. Selected high schools will be identified as

locale of the study; this shall include 9 High Schools. These schools will be

coded as School A, B, C, D,…, and I, randomly. Only the researcher and panel

members, or the Schools Division Superintendent, will have the access to the

original name of each school for confidentiality. The study will be conducted

during the school year 2021-2022. The following schools shall be included in the

study:

WEST COAST

1. Sinunuc National High School

2. Ayala National High School

3. Don Ramon Enriques National High School

CENTRAL CITY

1. WEST National High School

 12

2. TETUAN National High School

3. TALON-TALON National High School

EAST COAST

1. MARIA CLARA LOBREGAT National High School

2. CULIANAN National High School

3. VITALI National High School.

There shall be about 30 teachers per school to be surveyed or a total of

270 teachers and purposely be included in the study voluntarily. Generally, a

minimum of 30 respondents shall be needed for use of the central limit theorem.

In order to keep the scope of the study manageable, research shall be

limited to nine school heads from nine schools, which was a fairly small sample

size. The schools shall be chosen using a purposeful sampling (Gay, Mills, &

Airasian, 2006) to determine the initial school or district based on administrator

and teacher willingness to participate in the research.

 13

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES

This chapter presents review of related literature and studies as well as

the legal basis that shall be used in this study. The purpose of this discussion is

to set the theories, research report, and review concerning with action research,

action research competence, master teachers and school heads as well as

teacher’s efficacy.

Legal Basis

The 1987 Philippine Constitution declares the policy of the State to

“establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system

of education relevant to the needs of the people, the country and society-at-

large.” A strong basic education is the key to this State policy.

To better serve its stakeholders, DepEd continuously improves itself. With

this mandate, DepEd strengthened research among its members. As the biggest

government agency in the country, there are numerous topics to probe in the

education sector, the Department’s research thrusts are geared towards

supporting its mission “to protect and promote the right of every Filipino to

quality, equitable, culture-based, and complete basic education.” With the

implementation of the Research Agenda, DepEd employees, from teachers to

administrators, are encouraged to do an action research.

 14

Teachers, then, play an integral role in ensuring that this policy is carried

out. Cognizant of this, the government institutionalized mechanisms in order to

“promote and improve the social and economic status of public school

teachers, their living and working conditions, their terms of employment and

career prospects in order that they may compare favorably with existing

opportunities in other walks of life, attract and retain in the teaching profession

more people with the proper qualifications” (Magna Carta for Public School

Teachers).

The conduct of educational research especially in basic education is

reinforced in Republic Act 9155 or the Governance of Basic Education Act of

2001 (Chapter 1, Section 7 (5), RA 9155) as it mandates Department of

Education (Deped) to “undertake [national] educational research and studies”

which can become part of the basis for necessary reforms and policy inputs.

Deped Order 43, s. 2015 or Revised Guidelines for the Basic Education

Research Fund (BERF) further emphasizes this as it called for evidence-based

policy development through the institution of reforms that strengthen

transparency and accountability (DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2015). On top of this

policy, DepEd started to provide funding facility for research through the Basic

Education Research Fund (BERF) under DepEd Order No. 24, s. 2010. The said

fund was made available to internal and external research practitioners that meet

the minimum eligibility requirements. To date, DepEd Order No. 43, s. 2015

revitalized this initiative with the revised guidelines for BERF.

 15

In order for the conduct of action research to put it into actionable

mechanism, it is already made part of the Individual Performance Commitment

and Review Form of Master Teachers. In the first Key Result Area (KRA), which

is Content Knowledge and Pedagogy, the second objective states that a Master

Teacher must have “Collaborated with colleagues in the conduct and application

of research to enrich knowledge of content and pedagogy.” Hence, they are

required to conduct and complete an Action Research and present the study to

the Division Research Committee and a Research Congress.

Related Literature

The term “action research” was coined in the 1940s by Kurt Lewin, a

German-American social psychologist who is widely considered to be the founder

of his field. The basic principles of action research that were described by Lewin

are still in use to this day.

A half century ago, there really is not a set methodology for conducting

action research that is accepted by all researchers and authors in action

research. As with the characteristics of action research, however, common

elements emerge from the literature.

Taba and Noel (1957) offered an archetypal model of the process of

action research by organizing it into six steps, specifically:

1. Identifying the problems;

 16

2. analyzing problems and determining some pertinent causal factor;

3. formulating tentative ideas about the crucial factors;

4. gathering and interpreting data to sharpen these ideas and to develop

action hypotheses;

5. formulating action; and,

6. evaluating the results of action.

Mills (2010) explained action research as a systematic investigation

conducted by teacher researchers to gather data about the effectiveness of

teaching and learning in their classrooms. The intention is for them to become

more enlightened about their practice and, ultimately, improve student outcomes.

To this, Ferrance (2000) clarified that action research is a process in which

participants examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully,

using the techniques of research. He implicitly provides that action research is

the idea that teachers will begin a cycle of posing questions, gathering data,

reflection, and deciding on a course of action. Additionally, Wallace (2000)

described this research design as being focused on practice, while Fullan

(2000a, 2000b) noted that action researchers demonstrated readiness to change.

Moreover, Sagor (2011) asserted that an action research project is particularly

worthwhile when the researcher (a) is focused on professional action; (b) has a

significant level of control over the work; and (c) has the promise of improved

practice.
 17

Furthermore, Riel (2010) affirmed that action research is different from

other research designs in that “there is less concern for universality of findings

and more value is placed on the relevance of the findings to the researcher.”

Fortunately, academic freedom is firmly supported in the school setting, and

given the objective of this study, as well as the likelihood that this research may

further enhance instruction and promote student learning, the researcher should

feel confident in this attempt.

Figure 1
Activity versus time in conducting research
 18

Similarly, the Alberta’s Teacher Association (2000) states that action

research process can generally be described as a series of four steps: planning,

action, observing and reflecting on the results of the action. The action research

processes provide itself to a spiral of cycles, with the researcher reflecting on

each stage of the process. Each reflective phase gives in more information

about the issue and increases the researcher’s understanding. Thus,

reflection is the most important part of conducting action research. The diagram

below illustrates the notion that the action research process is a series of steps

or actions, propelled by reflection (The Alberta’s Teacher Association, 2000). As

shown in Figure 1, action research is affected by the factor of time.

Figure 2
The Action Research Cycle
 19

Action research is a cycle of inquiry and reflection. During the process,

you will determine 1) where you are, 2) where you want to be, and 3) how you

are going to get there. In general terms, the cycle follows these steps:

1. Identify the problem and envision success

2. Develop a plan of action

3. Collect data

4. Analyze data and form conclusions

5. Modify your theory and repeat the cycle

6. Report the results

As shown in Figure 2, the process begins when you identify a question or

problem you want to address. Thereafter, develop a plan that shows how you

will implement your solution and how your behavior, management style, and

instruction will address each of the variables. Create a plan for data collection

and follow it as you perform your research. The next step in the process is to

analyze your data and form conclusions. Take note that action research is an

iterative process. The data you collect and your analysis of it will affect how you

approach the problem and implement your action plan during the next cycle. In

light of your findings, there is a need to adjust theory or made it more specific.

Modify the plan of action, begin collecting data again, or begin asking new

questions. It is true that ultimate goal of action research is to promote effective

change in the classroom or schools do not underestimate the value of sharing

the findings with others. Sharing the results helps further reflect on the process
 20

and problem, and it allows others to use the results to help them in their own

endeavors to improve the education of their students.

Action research studies may vary in length, complexity, and in the actual

procedures used to conduct such a study. Nevertheless, Johnson (2011) stated

that this method of inquiry was usually preplanned, structured, and progressed

systematically, which fostered observation of one’s practice and provided easy-

to-share findings. Additionally, Johnson (2011) categorized action research as a

“series of quick looks taken at different times in a variety of ways”. He concluded

that essentially, action researchers followed these five steps: (a) refine the area

of study; (b) select the data collection method; (c) collect and analyze data; (d)

determine the way the findings can be used and applied; and (e) share findings

and develop an action plan with others. Although Sagor (2011) acknowledged

that there was no routine process to conduct action research, he proposed a

four-stage process with the researcher “clarifying vision and targets, articulating

theory, implementing action and collecting data, and reflecting on data and

planning informed action”.

Accordingly, Johnson (2011) asserted that action research may include a

review of the literature in addition to an opportunity to connect educational

research with practice, and added that the process of grounding action research

in theory may occur before or after the study. He noted that researchers could

begin the study by conducting a preliminary review of the related literature or wait
 21

until the data is collected and then compare their findings to the conclusions

drawn by other researchers. It is noted that the review of literature may occurred

at several junctures in the study—initially, to provide a context for lesson design,

at the onset of the study to determine data collection procedures, and later, to

deepen the meaning of the results and support, at times also to provide

contraction to the findings at hand. In terms of data source, Ferrance (2000)

reported that in action research, various data sources are used to better

understand the complete scope of school and classroom occurrences. Moore

(2004) added that teachers modify instructional approaches substantiated by

authentic evidence, such as class assignments, students’ performance, and

observation of students’ work. Just like any type of research, action research also

utilize triangulation, the manner of viewing a subject from several vantage points,

in order to enhance “accuracy and credibility” of the researcher’s findings and “is

achieved by collecting different types of data, using different data sources,

collecting data at different times, in addition to having other people review your

data to check for accuracy and adjust your findings” (Johnson, 2011).

Furthermore, Ferrance (2000) recommended the use of at least three data

sources and that researchers compile and present data in an organized fashion,

which allows for the identification of trends and themes.

Accordingly, teachers who recognized that, in order for action research to

influence educational reform in the complex and dynamic environment of

schools, they would require strong leadership and would prefer collaborative
 22

teacher teams configured into on-site support groups (Sagor, 1991). Now, in

order for school change to occur, Liston & Zeichner (1990) contend that teacher

action researchers need a supportive context for the shared inquiry of a group

involved in documenting and reflecting on the effects of strategic actions over a

period of time. Until such time that schools are structured as such, it is unlikely

that teachers will view action research as part of their daily teaching practices.

On this, master teachers and school heads play significant role.

Indeed, action Research (AR) is a way to engage in discipline inquiry in

order to improve the quality of an organization and its performance (Calhoun,

1993) by addressing practical issues and expanding the body of scientific

knowledge (Wagaba, et. al., 2016).

Related Studies

In 2019, Cortes conducted a study and his study reveals that there are five

major competencies that teachers have to develop when conducting AR, namely:

data management, problem conceptualization and resolution planning,

appropriate use of data collection tools, application of technology, and research

ethics.

Recently, Caingcoy (2020) pointed that research capability has received

an overwhelming and remarkable interest among academics and practitioners.

This is because, the Department of Education had institutionalized research and

 23

encouraged teachers to engage in it to support evidence-based practice,

decision-making, policy, and program development. His study was carried out to

assess the research capability of public teachers in Malaybalay City, determine

its correlates and determinants. Notably, the research capability of teachers had

a low, negative but significant relationship with their age and accumulated years

of service. Thus, this capability deteriorates as they age and accumulate years of

service. The motivation to write research, the number of studies completed, and

age were the determinants of research capability. It was concluded that research

capability can be determined and predicted by how motivated teachers are to

write research, how productive they are in research, and how young they are

when they engage in this rigorous endeavor.

Moreover, teachers who completed their action research projects

indicated that they perceived a great effect on their teaching practices and their

efficacy as professionals (Lemma & Ferrara, 1997). There was evidence that

teachers who engaged in action research graduated with appreciation of the

effects of the action research process had on their teaching and on student

achievement. But, as the time increases from the initial implementation of the

action research project, it was not clear whether teachers sustaining the ‘inquiry

mindset’ that might contribute to their on-going development as professionals,

that is, first, by implementing specific processes of action research and, second,

by proposing new action research projects that would lead to new instructional

changes in subsequent years of teaching. Also not evident were the long-term
 24

effects on their professional efficacy and the long-term value that they associated

with conducting action research as part of their Master’s program, nor the extent

to which school climate or environment factored into successfully completing and

sharing action research projects (Seider & Lemma, 2004). They concluded that

action research can be a positive step toward building conceptual frameworks for

identifying specific focal areas and creating effective solutions based on sound

educational research that may over time, contribute to teachers’ professional

efficacy.

Recently, Enerio (2020) conducted a qualitative research at Tangub City,

Misamis Occidental, Philippines where he concluded that master teachers have

good understanding of action research, and they are capable of identifying

classroom problems and its solutions. However, some master teachers are

unable to do action research because they are preoccupied with tasks, and doing

action research is an additional burden for them. But they are willing to do it if

someone guides them through the process from beginning to end.

Theoretical Framework of the Study

This study shall anchor on Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy. In 1997,

Bandura defined self-efficacy as the belief an individual holds about their ability

to successfully carry out a task that requires specific knowledge and cognition.

To this, Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy comprises two expectancies: self-

efficacy and outcome efficacy. Self-efficacy expectancy allows a teacher to

 25

determine if he or she is capable of engaging in a given activity based on his/her

abilities. Outcome expectancy enables a teacher to decide if he or she has

completed a task to the level desired (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 1998).

Positive self-efficacy evaluations positively influence students’ learning, which, in

turn, are vital to teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teacher commitment is essential in

the teaching profession; teachers who are committed make not only their

students, but also the employer and their society at large proud when their

students do well at school. Teachers who desire to impact student learning tend

to show commitment to their work. Research in educational psychology shows

that teachers who are highly efficacious believe they have control or have an

impact on students’ accomplishments as well as motivating them (Tschannen–

Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 1998). In this study, Master teachers and School

principal’s action research competencies will be evaluated as to its effect on

teacher’s efficacy. Master teachers and/or school supervisors action research

competencies indicate their capability to engage in conducting action research in

terms of formulating research question, defining a research plan, identifying

appropriate methodology, processing analysis data and drawing conclusions as

immediate and long term effects on their students.

This study also anchors on Glasser’s choice theory as it related to

master’s teachers or school principal’s action research competencies and effects

to teacher’s efficacy. Glasser (1998), in the choice theory, posited that an

individual’s primary function is their behavior; most behaviors are chosen, and
 26

people are driven by their need for survival, love/belonging, power, freedom, and

fun (Glasser, 1998). Glasser asserted that people’s behavior is dictated by their

efforts to fulfill one or more of these five influences called “basic needs.”

Glasser’s five basic needs are prewired in each person, and satisfying those

needs is a process of bridging the space between what individuals want and

whether or not they are actually receiving it (Lujan, 2015). These forces are so

strong that they can be linked to individuals’ reasons for everything that they do.

Wubbolding (2015) considered Glasser’s (1998) choice theory to be a road map

from an undesired to a preferred life. Wubbolding held that people’s behaviors

are a reflection of the constant battle to meet their needs. Wubbolding (2015)

alleged that Glasser’s five principles supported choice theory as an inclusive

justification of human inspiration, conduct, and view. Glasser (1998) stated that

only a person is capable of satisfying their own needs. Blance (2004) proposed

that Glasser’s choice theory outlines the blueprint to help teachers create an

environment that guarantees that students find what they need in school. When

teachers implement the seven caring habits as a regular part of their professional

behavior, they are able to model for students a caring attitude and a nurturing

environment (William Glasser Institute–US, 2010). By engaging their teachers or

co-teachers, getting to know them better, and building relationships teachers

ensure that they maintain a classroom environment that endorses learning and

dissuades undesirable behaviors thru the conduct of action research.

 27

The concept of caring habits was appropriate for this study because this

idea is embedded in how master teachers or school principals effectively manage

co-teachers or teachers in their pursuit of providing quality teaching and learning

experiences via the conduct of action research. Many teachers were unaware of

strategies that could reduce or eliminate undesirable behaviors that prevented

them from teaching their students. As a result, it was beneficial to investigate

teachers’ knowledge of effective strategies to manage classrooms, their

capability in lesson presenting as well as their art in questioning. In addition, it

shall be helpful to explore the training teachers have received in effective

classroom management strategies, art in questioning and lesson presenting.

Finally, teachers were able to provide insight into elements of professional

development that could redound to student achievements.

By discovering the connection between Glasser’s caring habits and

master teachers or school principal training to in the conduct of action research,

valuable experiences that could be incorporated into teacher training programs

may be identified.

Another theory that this study shall anchor as it relates to the rationale of

the study is the Constructivism Theory of Jerome Bruner (1966) which sees

learning as a dynamic process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts

in their current or past knowledge and in response to the instructional situation.

In this study, the learners are the teachers themselves, such that as teacher-
 28

researcher selects and transform information, construct hypotheses and make

decisions. This provided a framework for thinking about and analyzing the role of

master teachers and school heads as instructional leaders in their respective

schools in Zamboanga City Schools Division.

Bruner’s Constructivist Theory is a general framework for instruction

based upon the study of cognition. In this theory, important outcomes of learning

include not just the concepts, categories and problem-solving procedures

invented previously by the culture, but also the ability to “invent” these things for

oneself. Cognitive growth involves an interaction between basic human

capabilities and “culturally invented technologies that serve as amplifiers of these

capabilities.”

In Constructivism, the learners do not passively absorb information but

rather construct it themselves. So, the resources of master teachers geared

toward encouraging, aiding and allowing the teachers and students to uncover

the main principles by themselves. Most often, master teachers primarily work

with delivering effective classroom instruction, analyzing student data obtained

through their performance, conducting an action research, give technical

assistance, mentoring fellow teachers through INSETs and helping the

implementation of the curriculum in their respective schools are the main

functions and duties which is stipulated in their Individual Performance and

Commitment Review Form (IPCRF) (Laude, Ralar & Arcenal, 2018).

 29

Conceptual Framework of the Study

The conceptual framework of the study as shown in Figure 1 displays how

the variables interplay in the study. Moreover, it also portrays the implication of

the study.

Independent Variables Dependent Variables Implication

Master Teachers/
School Heads’ Action
Research
Competencies
formulating research Teacher’s Efficacy
lesson presenting Implication to an
question
art questioning immediate and long term
defining a research effects on their students
classroom management
plan behaviors
methodology
processing analysis
data
drawing conclusions

Master Teachers/ School

Heads’ Profiles
Age
Sex
Educational attainment
Number of years in teaching
Number of years as school head
and master teacher
Number relevant training attended
Number of action research
conducted

Figure 3
The Conceptual Paradigm of the Study
 30

Figure 3 reveals the conceptual paradigm of the study depicts the

relationship of the variables of the study.

The independent frame houses the independent variables of the study

which is the master’s teachers or school heads action research competencies. In

this study, the action research competencies are classified into formulating

research question, defining a research plan, methodology, processing analysis

data and drawing conclusions. The profile of the respondents which includes

age, sex, educational attainment, number of years in teaching, number of years

as school head and master teacher, number relevant training attended or number

of action research conducted shall be utilized as moderating variable on the

effect to teacher’s efficacy.

The dependent frame indicates the dependent variable of the study which

is the effects on teacher’s efficacy. Teacher’s efficacy shall be consisted on

teacher’s capability belief in terms of lesson presenting, art questioning or

classroom management behaviors.

The results of the study shall be utilized for implication to the immediate

and long term effect on students. In other words, this study shall try to provide

explanations based on available literatures and studies as to effect of master

teachers or school heads action research competencies and teacher’s efficacy

on students.
 31

Hypothesis

In order to provide guidance in the conduct of the study as well as in data

analysis, the following hypotheses are herewith forwarded for this study.

1. There is a no significant difference in the teacher’s efficacy level

between those who are exposing and not expose to master teachers

and school heads mentoring on action research, in terms of the

following?

1.1. lesson presenting

1.2. art questioning

1.3. classroom management behaviors?

2. There is no relationship exists between the level of action research

competence and the three sub-scales of the Teacher’s Efficacy –

lesson presenting, art questioning and classroom management

behaviors.

3. None of the MTs and SHs respondents’ profile interplay/influence the

relationship between action research competencies and teachers’

efficacy.

Operational Definition of Key Variables and Other Terms

For better understanding of the study, the following terms shall be

operationally defined as it shall be used in this study.

 32

Action Research Competence. In this study, it refers to the ability to

conduct an action research successfully or efficiently, in terms of formulating

research question; defining a research plan; developing methodology, processing

data analysis and drawing conclusions.

Age. In this study, it shall refer to the chronological age in years at the

time the survey instrument was given to the respondents.

Educational Attainment. In this study, it shall refer to the highest

educational qualification achieve by the respondent as to degree program,

master’s degree or doctoral degree program.

Number of Years in Teaching. In this study, it shall refer to the length of

teaching service to be indicated in years.

Number of Years as School Head or Master Teacher. In this study, this

refer to the length of time from the time a teacher is appointed as either school

head or master teacher which shall be reported in years.

Number of relevant training. In this study, it shall refer to attendance or

active involvement in conference, training, seminar, seminar-workshop, webinar

or the like with the topic focus on action research or relevant topics, within the

last three years.

Number of action research conducted. In this study, it refers to the

actual counts of action research conducted while in service or out service, within

the last three years.

Sex. In this study, it shall refer to the biological sex orientation of the

respondent as male or female.

 33

Teacher’s Efficacy. In this study, it shall refer to the extent to which the

teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance, even

those who may be difficult or unmotivated thru lesson presenting, art questioning

and employing classroom management behaviors.

 34

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research methodology of the study that includes

the research design, locale of the study, population and sampling design, the

data gathering tools, validity and reliability, data collection procedures and

statistical tools that shall be used in the study.

Research Design

This study shall utilize a descriptive design as it seeks to describe the

current status of variable under study or phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). In the

definition of Castillo (2014) and Burns (2008), descriptive design is define as a

method of research that describes something out there such as the status,

condition or confirming a hypothesis because it is basically aims to describe

“what is.” According to Calderon and Gonzales (2006), there are three

techniques under the descriptive method of research: (1) the survey, (2) the case

study, and (3) content analysis. In this study, survey shall be considered.

Survey, otherwise known as normative survey, is a fact-finding study with

adequate and accurate interpretation. It is used to collect demographic data

about people’s behavior, practices, intentions, beliefs, attitudes, opinions,

judgments, interests, perceptions, and the like and then such data are analyzed,

organized, and interpreted (Calderon & Gonzales, 2006).

 35

This study is also quantitative as the researcher shall conduct statistical

analysis from the numerical data to be acquired. Consequently, the study shall

emphasize objective facts which can be interpreted, scientifically. The utilization

of descriptive – quantitative research design is most appropriate in this study as it

attempts to explain the direction and degree of the interaction between various

variables of the study. A correlation research design shall be utilized for this

study where the level of action research competence among master teachers

and school heads shall be assessed in relation to the level of effects on teacher’s

efficacy. This design enables the researcher to observe two or more variables at

the point in time and was useful for describing a relationship between two or

more variables (Breakwell, Hammond & Fife- Schaw, 1995). The short coming of

this type of design was that results that may be obtained from this kind of

analysis do not allow for strong findings to be made concerning a cause and

effect relationship between variables. In educational research, it is particularly

significant, for instance, in a management behavior study whereby education

policies can effectively develop if reasons for behaviors are clearly understood

when observed or investigated using Quantitative methods (Halloway, 2005).

The researcher is investigating the relationship rather than the effect of variables

on each other.

However, the study will also consider a Static Group Comparison design.

Much research in education today conforms to a design in which a single group

is studied only once, subsequent to some agent or treatment presumed to cause

 36

change. Such studies might be diagramed as follows (Campbell & Stanley,

1963):

X O2

O2

_______________________

Key: X = Treatment

O2 = Postest

In this study, the teachers – respondents will be requested to indicate their

actual exposure to master teachers and school heads as to their coaching and

expertise sharing relevant to the conduct of action research and how it affects

their teacher’s efficacy. Those teachers who will indicate no exposure shall be

the other group in the study. Thus, this design attempts to make up for the lack of

a control group but falls short in relation to showing if a change has occurred. In

the static group comparison study, two groups are chosen, one of which receives

the treatment and the other does not. A posttest score is then determined to

measure the difference, after treatment, between the two groups. As you can

see, this study does not include any pre-testing and therefore any difference

between the two groups prior to the study is unknown. Pre-experimental designs

are called such because they often happen before a true experiment is

conducted. Thus, this study is a mixed method design, involving descriptive

design and pre-experimental research design.

 37

Research Locale

This study shall be conducted in Zamboanga City Schools Division which

includes 9 National High Schools. About 3 National High School per cluster will

be taken, so 3 West Coast, 3 Central City and 3 East Coast. Zamboanga City is

located at the southernmost tip of the Zamboanga Peninsula, Zamboanga City is

approximately 460 nautical miles south of Manila, 365 nautical miles northeast of

Kota Kinabalu (Malaysia), 345 nautical miles northeast of Menado (Indonesia),

bounded to the West by Sulu Sea, on the east by the Moro Gulf, and on the

south by the Basilan Strait and Celebes Sea.

Figure 4

Zamboanga City Map (with High Schools)

 38

Population and Respondents of the Study

Respondents of the study are those who are in their master teacher

appointment or school heads at the time this study shall be conducted this

School Year 2021 – 2022, for approximately about 100 master teachers and 9

school heads. This study comes up with a sample size of 86 respondents by

utilizing Slovin’s formula to obtain quality results. To compute the sample size by

using manual calculation using this formula, whereas; n = N / (1+Ne2).

n = no. of samples

N = total population

e = error margin / margin of error

Classification Population Sample Population Size 106

Size
Master Teachers 100 77 Margin of Error 5%
School Head 9 9 Confidence Level 95%
Estimated Response 50%
Rate
Total 109 86 Sample Size 86*
Table 1 Respondents Profile
*http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

As illustrated in the table above, the respondents shall compose of 86 from

109 total population, which classified into two (2) categories, such as master

teachers which compose of 100 population and school heads with 9

respondents. To derive the population with percentage equivalence, there is a

need to divide the total number of respondents per category by 109 (as the total

population) and multiplied by 100. However, since the school heads population is
 39

too small, total enumeration shall be considered.

However, if there is a need to recheck the sample size's accuracy, the

online calculator would be best option. The data should be available such as the

total population, a margin of error, and a confidence level to come up with the

sample size. This equation is applied in every category presented with a table in

the study above.

Inclusion criteria: Zamboanga City Schools Division middle school managers

such as master teachers and school heads who directly provide management

services to teachers and students.

Exclusion criteria:  Those on probational period and taking their annual

vacation during the survey dissemination are excluded from the study.

Moreover, for purpose of the quasi-experimental part of the study, about

270 teachers – respondents will be randomly selected from the 9 schools, or

about 30 teachers will be considered as respondents per school. In case, the

school population of teachers will be less than 30, all will be considered

respondents, provided they shall voluntarily participate in completing the survey

instrument. Considering, there are 7 variable predictors, there shall be a

minimum of 15 participants per school, in order to complete the minimum 105

total respondents involving the 7 variables predictor. According to Pallant (2010),

the sample size for a regression should be about 15 participants per predictor.
 40

Thus, with the target of 270 teachers or 135 teachers with exposure and 135

teachers without exposure to master teachers and school heads mentoring on

action research, is an appropriate size, will be purposely be considered.

Sampling Design

The study shall utilize 77 master teachers and 9 school heads as

respondents. In line with the recommendations that all school heads shall form

part of the respondents and only those master teachers among selected high

schools in the Schools Division of Zamboanga City shall be included in the study.

Moreover, about 270 teachers shall be considered as teachers-respondents, on

which 30 teachers-respondents per school will be targeted. Therefore, the study

employs a purposeful sampling technique for non-probability sampling (Patton,

1990).

Research Instrument

The research instrument to be utilized in this study is a questionnaire –

likert scale. Questionnaire – Likert scale is a primary instrument to be used in

data gathering. According to Tullis & Albert (2013), this type of research

instrument may be employed in order to come up with the perception of the

respondents regarding the subject matter. Thus, this study shall utilize a five-

point rating scale indicating the action research competence of the master

teachers and school heads. The items of the research instruments shall be
 41

patterned from Cortes (2019) study on “Needs Assessment on Action Research

Competencies of Teacher-Researchers in Surigao del Sur, Philippines.” Cortes

(2019) identified that there are five (5) major competencies that teachers have to

develop when conducting AR, namely: data management, problem

conceptualization and resolution planning, appropriate use of data collection

tools, application of technology, and research ethics. In this study, the action

research competence follows the implicit definition provided by Ferrance (2000),

which includes posing questions, gathering data, reflection, and deciding on a

course of action, yet the current study proposed the action research competence

shall adapt that of Cortes (2019). About 66 items shall be adapted. Each item

shall be rated on a five (5) point scale representing the following levels of

classification: “1” Limited; “2” Basic; “3” Proficient; “4” Advanced; and, “5” Expert

(Russo, 2016).

With respect to teacher’s efficacy, a number of other instruments were

developed in the early 1980s to measure teacher efficacy. In this study, teacher’s

efficacy shall be patterned from Tshcannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001)

found three subscales of teacher efficacy accounting for a majority of the

variance in the scale—efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional

strategies, and efficacy in classroom management, named as Teacher Sense

Efficacy Scale. Ross and Bruce (2007) note that the TSES is becoming the

standard instrument in the field of teacher efficacy because of its reliability and

validity.
 42

Teachers-Participants shall be request to complete the Teachers’ Sense

of Efficacy Scale (TSES), Long Form (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)

(see Appendix B). This instrument, developed at the Ohio State University, is a

validated, reliable instrument measuring teacher’s efficacy quantitatively using 24

items on the long form. The instrument follows a Likert scale model wherein

respondents rank a series of statements on a scale from one, meaning nothing,

to five, meaning a great deal. This instrument has established reliability and

validity with an alpha of 0.94, which indicates “the degree to which the items or

tasks in the assessment measure similar characteristics” (Linn & Gronlund,

2000). During their validation of the testing instrument, Tschannen-Moran and

Woolfolk Hoy (2001) established that the questions loaded on three factors:

student engagement (SE), instructional practices (IP), and classroom

management (CM) using a scree analysis and factor analysis with a varimax

rotation. Specifically, it was determined that questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, and

22 loaded on the factor of student engagement; questions 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20,

23, and 24 loaded on instructional practices; and questions 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16,

19, and 21 loaded on classroom management. In this study, the researcher shall

attempt to revise the instrument to meet the dimensions of teacher’s efficacy as

set in the problem of the study. Thereby, an attempt to regroup the items into the

dimensions such as lesson presenting (questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 22),

art questioning (questions 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 24) and classroom

management behaviors (questions 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 21 ) as set in this
 43

study shall be undertaken. However this teacher-made- instrument shall be

submitted to panel of expert for validation.

Validity and Reliability of the Research Instruments

As the study attempts to adopt research instruments that had been

previously utilized by researchers where the validity and reliability of the

instruments are already known, yet the researcher will still subject the survey

instrument for validity to suit the current study.

The researcher shall attempts to redesign the adopted research

instruments both for action research competence for master teachers and

schools heads as well as the teacher’s efficacy questionnaire. Both research

instruments shall be presented to panel of experts for their review and

appropriate content and face validity. Thus, the comments and suggestions to

be given by the experts shall be given utmost weight in the finalization of the

survey instruments. Further, both instruments shall also be pilot-tested for

reliability testing.

Accordingly, the reliability testing shall be determined using the

Cronbach’s alpha. In 2012, Mukaka reported that the acceptable Cronbach’s

alpha coefficient should be at least .70 for the research instrument be

classified as reliable.
 44

Data Gathering Procedure

In order to commence the study after the approval of the panel secured.

Letter permission is forwarded to the Schools Division Superintendent Office for

his approval and recommendation to the 9 schools for the smooth conduct of the

study.

The list of schools and teachers, master teachers and school heads and

their corresponding contact numbers shall be obtained from the Human

Resource Management Officer of the Department of Education, Schools Division

of Zamboanga City.

A Questionnaire Checklist shall be developed and be validated by three

(3) professors in Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University,

Zamboanga City, three (3) school heads and three (3) master teachers from non-

participating national schools of Zamboanga City. Suggestions of the evaluators

shall be considered in the revision of the Survey Instrument or Checklist. The

checklist shall be pilot tested to Six (6) teachers in Talon-Talon National High

Schools. Comments and suggestions of the respondents in the pilot testing shall

be considered in the revision and finalization of the survey instrument/checklist.

The questionnaire consisting of a checklist and rating scale shall be

distributed to the actual number of respondents through email due to the current

pandemic. The questionnaire shall form the main part of this study's analysis,
 45

which may be answered through a tick box. It shall serve and test the analytical

model directly or, more specifically, to test the relation between variables of the

study. Due to the pandemic, the researcher may be deprived of personal

interviews; thus there shall be no interviews to be made but assessment

participation through a shared link to the respondents shall be undertaken. In

order to further be clarified of the activities to be undertaken by the researcher,

the research flow chart provides the step-by-step process, as presented in Figure

5.

Approval of the Study

Institutional Review Board Approval

Seek approval conduct the study from the SDS

Selection of Participants

Informed consent signing

Distribution of Survey forms

Collection of Survey forms

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Drawing Conclusions and Recommendations

Figure 5. Research Flow Chart

 46

As shown in Figure 5, an informed consent shall be secured to ensure

ethical considerations of the study. The researcher shall implement the quick

survey instrument by sending email to target respondents as well as the retrieval.

This research instrument took about an hour for the respondent to complete. The

researcher made the necessary arrangement with the research center as to data

collection.

Thereafter, the data shall be gathered from the completed online survey

instruments. It will be carefully tallied and coded and tabulated at SPSS and

Microsoft Excel for faster data analysis and interpretation.

Statistical Tools

The data shall be gathered from the online survey and be carefully

tabulated, classified and systematically be organized, appropriate cluster per

school shall be made for the responses of teachers-respondents to be made

onto correspondence with the master teachers and school heads action research

competence. The frequency and percentage distribution, mean or weighted

mean and Pearson correlation shall be utilized. Regression Analysis shall also be

run as it may apply. The computation of data shall be done through Statistical

program for Social Research (SPSS).

Frequency, Percentage and Mean shall be used to describe the data.

 47

Pearson Product Moment Correlation. This measure shall be used to

establish the relationship between variables that are continuous. In this study, it

shall be utilized to establish the relationship between level of action research

competence and three subscales of teacher’s efficacy.

The One-way Analysis of Variance. This measure shall be used to test

the significant difference in the teachers’ respondents’ level of teacher’s efficacy

and master teachers and school heads action research competence level (which

shall be categorized into five levels from basic to advanced). It is known in

Statistical Analysis that ANOVA is a technique that may be used to compare

means of two or more groups.

Regression Analysis. A regression analysis shall be used to evaluate

causal models by examining the relationships between a dependent variable and

two or more independent variables. By using this method, one can estimate both

the magnitude and significance of causal connections between variables. In this

study, the dependent variable is the teacher’s efficacy while the independent

variables are master teachers and school heads action research competence

and MTs/SHs’ profile.

Weighted Mean. This measure shall be utilized to display the response of

respondent-teachers on specific item in a survey instrument.

 48

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Basilio, Manolito B., & Bueno, David C. (2019). Research Skills and Attitudes of
Master Teachers in a Division towards Capability Training.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., Zellman, G. (1977). Federal
Programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII Factors affecting
implementation and continuation (Report No. R-1589/7-HEW) Santa
Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. 140 432).

Calderon, J.F. and Gonzales, E.C. (2006). Methods of research and thesis
writing. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

Caingcoy, M. (2020). Research Capability of Teachers: Its Correlates,

Determinants and Implications for Continuing Professional Development
.Journal of World Englishes and Educational Practices, 2(5), 1-11. DOI:
10.32996/jweep.2020.2.5.1.

Campbell, Donald T., & Stanley, Julian C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Research. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Retrieved from https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Campbell&Stanley-1959-
Exptl&QuasiExptlDesignsForResearch.pdf

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs

for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Pearson Education.

Cooper - Twamley, Susan M. (2009). Action Research and Its Impact on Teacher
Efficacy: A Mixed Methods Case Study. Baylor University. Retrieved at
https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2104/5364/susan_cooper-
twamley_EdD.pdf on October 3, 2021.

Enerio, Antonio Jr. T. (2020). Master Teachers' Challenges in Doing Action

Research: A Case Study. Universal Journal of Educational Research 8(7):
2990-2995, 2020.

Ferrance, E. (2000). Themes in education: Action research. Providence, RI:

Northeast and Islands. Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown
 49

University. Retrieved from

http://www.lab.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf

Fullan, M. (2000a). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (2000b). Leadership for the twenty-first century: Breaking the bonds of
dependency.

Fullan, In M. (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp.156-

163). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Forester, M (2004). Factor structures of three measures of research selfefficacy.

Journal of Career Assessment.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703257719

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research:

Competencies for analysis and applications (5th Ed). Columbus, Ohio:
Pearson, Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Herrera, Robert, "Principal Leadership and School Effectiveness: Perspectives

from Principals and Teachers" (2010). Dissertations. 568.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/568

Johnson, A. P. (2011). A short guide to action research (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Pearson.

Kahn, J. H., & Scott, N. A. (2001). Predictors of research productivity and

science related career goals among counseling psychology graduate
students. The Counseling Psychologist.

Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Har Chong, W., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y.
F., et al. (2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in
five countries. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 67–76. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.08.001

Klassen, R. M., and Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality,

and teaching effectiveness: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 12, 59–76.
doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.

Laude, T. M., Ralar, T.J. T., & Arcenal, J. T. (2018). Master Teachers as
Instructional Leaders: An Exploration of School Leadership Capacity in the
Division of Biliran. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied
Research (IJSBAR) (2018) Volume 40, No 1, pp 50-74.
 50

Lemma, P. & Ferrara, M. (1997) Action Research in Teacher Education:

comparison and contrast from two perspectives, paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 24-28 March.

Liston, D.P. & Zeichner, K.M. (1990) Reflective Teaching and Action Research in
Preservice Teacher Education, Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, pp.
235-255.

Love, K. M., Bahner, A. D., Jones, L. N., & Nilson, J. E. (2007). An investigation
of early research experience and research self-efficacy. Professional
Psychology: -Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-
7028.38.3.314.

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2013). “National institute for

excellence in teaching”. Retrieved from www.niet.org.

Mills, G. E. (2010). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.)
New York, NY: Pearson.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis
using SPSS. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).

Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publication.

Riel, M. (2010). Understanding action research. Malibu, CA: Center for

Collaborative Action Research, Pepperdine University. Retrieved from
http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html

Sagor, R. (1991) What Project LEARN Reveals about Collaborative Action

Research, Educational Leadership, 48(6), pp. 6-10.

Sagor, R. (2005). The Action Research Handbook. Thousand Oaks: Corwin

Press.

Sagor, R. (2011). The action research guidebook: A four-stage process for

educators and school teams (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Seider, Susan N. & Lemma, Paulette (2004) Perceived effects of action

research on teachers' professional efficacy, inquiry mindsets and the
support they received while conducting projects to intervene into student
learning, Educational Action Research, 12:2, 219-238, DOI:
10.1080/09650790400200246