Title : Empowering Food Processing Students with Sequestered Learning and Technological

Innovations"

In recent years, the use of technology has revolutionized the field of education, enabling
educators to offer students a more immersive and engaging learning experience. The food
processing industry has benefited from technological innovations, with new tools and equipment
making it easier for students to learn the skills necessary to succeed in the field. One such
innovation is the use of headphones or headsets in sequestered learning environments, which can
offer several benefits for food processing students.

Headphones or headsets can provide a more immersive and engaging learning experience for
food processing students in sequestered learning environments. These learning environments are
designed to provide a focused and uninterrupted space for students to learn, often using
specialized equipment and materials. The use of headphones or headsets can further enhance this
experience by blocking out external distractions, allowing students to concentrate fully on the
material being presented.

In a laboratory environment, for example, students may be required to work with loud or
potentially dangerous machinery. Headphones or headsets can provide a protective barrier,
blocking out the noise and ensuring that students can hear important safety instructions or
guidance from their instructors. This can improve safety, reduce distractions, and promote a
more focused learning experience.

Moreover, the use of headphones or headsets can also promote better communication between
instructors and students. In a sequestered learning environment, instructors may need to provide
verbal instructions or feedback to students. The use of headphones or headsets can ensure that
these instructions are heard clearly, reducing the need for instructors to repeat themselves or
shout over external noise. This can promote a more efficient and effective learning experience.

In addition, the use of headphones or headsets can also promote better collaboration between
students. In a laboratory environment, students may be required to work in teams to solve
problems or complete tasks. Headphones or headsets can promote clear communication between
team members, ensuring that all ideas and suggestions are heard and considered. This can lead to
improved collaboration, increased engagement, and a more comprehensive understanding of the
material.

The use of headphones or headsets can also be beneficial for students who may have hearing
difficulties or other sensory issues that can affect their learning experience. By providing a more
personalized and inclusive learning environment, all students can participate and engage fully in
their studies. This can promote a more supportive and welcoming learning environment for all
students.

Furthermore, the use of headphones or headsets can also promote better concentration and
retention of information. In a sequestered learning environment, where students are already
isolated from distractions, headphones or headsets can further block out any remaining external
noise and interruptions, allowing students to concentrate more fully on the material being
presented. This can lead to improved learning outcomes and skill development, particularly in
laboratory-based activities that require a high level of focus and attention to detail.

To further Support the claims of its potential benefits to the food processing students, several
studies have been conducted on the use of headphones or headsets in sequestered learning
environments. For example, a study by Yu et al. (2016) explored the impact of noise-cancelling
headphones on students' learning outcomes in a biology laboratory environment. The study
found that students who used noise-cancelling headphones during laboratory activities showed
improved performance and retention of knowledge compared to those who did not use the
headphones. This was attributed to the headphones' ability to block out distracting noise,
allowing students to focus more effectively on the laboratory activities and instructions.

Another study by Chow et al. (2018) examined the use of noise-cancelling headphones in a
chemistry laboratory environment. The study found that the use of headphones improved
students' concentration and reduced anxiety levels, resulting in improved learning outcomes and
a more positive attitude towards the laboratory activities.

In addition, a study by Huang et al. (2019) investigated the use of head-mounted displays
(HMDs) in a virtual reality (VR) learning environment. The study found that the use of HMDs
improved students' sense of immersion and engagement in the learning experience, resulting in
improved knowledge acquisition and retention.

These studies demonstrate the potential benefits of using headphones or headsets in sequestered
learning environments. By promoting a more focused and immersive learning experience,
enhancing communication and collaboration, and offering a more inclusive learning
environment, headphones or headsets can enable students to acquire the knowledge and skills
necessary to succeed in their studies and in their future careers.

It is worth noting, however, that the effectiveness of headphones or headsets in sequestered

learning environments may depend on a variety of factors, including the specific context and
learning objectives, the quality and type of headphones or headsets used, and individual
differences in learning preferences and needs. Therefore, further research is needed to explore
the potential benefits and limitations of using headphones or headsets in sequestered learning
environments, and to identify best practices and guidelines for their effective use.

In conclusion, the use of headphones or headsets in a sequestered learning environment can offer
several benefits for food processing students. By promoting a more immersive and engaging
learning experience, enhancing communication, promoting better collaboration, and offering a
more inclusive learning environment, headphones or headsets can enable students to acquire the
knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the food processing industry. Moreover, by
promoting better concentration and retention of information, headphones or headsets can help
students to become more effective and skilled food processing professionals.
II. Action Research Questions

The main purpose of the study is to enhance grading performance of the Grade 11 Food

Processing of Mayor Anunciacion R. Tuazon National School of Fisheries with the use of

Sequestered Learning Technology using (Headphones/Headset, Shortrange Transmitter Radio,

and Self-made Mobile Application.

Specifically, the study aims to answer the following questions:

1. What is the students’ grading performance in their pretest and posttest results using:

1.1 Conventional Teaching Strategy; and

1.2 Sequestered Learning Technique

2. Is there a significant difference on the performance of the students exposed to

Conventional Teaching Strategy and Sequestered Learning Technique in the:

2.1. pretest-posttest using Conventional Teaching Strategy.

2.2. pretest-posttest using Sequestered Learning Technique; and

2.3. mean gain difference from pretest-posttest using

Conventional Teaching Strategy and Sequestered Learning Technique?

3. What action plan could be proposed based on the result of the study?
III. Proposed Innovation, Intervention and Strategy

After analyzing the survey and submitted grades of subject teachers, it has become
evident that there was a significant drop in the grades of Grade 11 Food Processing Students
during the previous semester. This situation requires immediate attention and intervention in
order to improve the academic performance of the students.

Thus, the present study aims to propose a sustainable innovation, intervention, and
strategy that can effectively address the challenges identified in the previous semester. The
objective of the proposed intervention is to identify the root cause of the decrease in
performance, develop and implement innovative strategies, and continuously monitor and
evaluate their effectiveness to ensure long-term improvement in the academic performance of the
Grade 11 Food Processing Students.

This proposed sustainable innovation, intervention, and strategy will not only address the
current challenge but also pave the way for a more effective and sustainable learning
environment for the students. By implementing this approach, students will have access to better
resources and support that can enhance their learning experience and academic performance.

Pre-Implementation

Before implementing sequestered learning with headset technology in a school setting,

there are several key considerations that should be addressed. Here are some steps to take during
the pre-implementation phase:

1. Define the learning objectives: Clearly define the learning objectives that the sequestered
learning program is intended to achieve. This will help ensure that the program is
designed to meet specific educational needs and goals.
2. Identify the target audience: Determine the specific target audience for the sequestered
learning program, such as students in a specific grade level or academic program.
3. Choose appropriate headset technology: Select the appropriate headset technology that
will be used for the sequestered learning program. Consider factors such as sound quality,
compatibility with other devices, and ease of use.
 4. Develop instructional materials: Develop high-quality instructional materials that align
with the identified learning objectives. This may include videos, interactive simulations,
and other resources that can be accessed using the headset technology.
5. Establish technical requirements: Determine the technical requirements necessary for the
successful implementation of the sequestered learning program, such as internet speed
and bandwidth, device compatibility, and software requirements.
6. Provide training and support: Provide adequate training and support for teachers and
facilitators who will be implementing the sequestered learning program. This may
include training on the use of the headset technology and instructional materials, as well
as guidance on how to monitor and evaluate the program's effectiveness.
7. Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan: Develop a plan to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of the sequestered learning program. This may include regular feedback
from students and teachers, as well as formal assessments to measure academic progress
and achievement.

By addressing these key considerations during the pre-implementation phase, schools can ensure
that the sequestered learning program is well-designed, effectively implemented, and able to
achieve its intended educational goals.

Implementation

Implementing sequestered learning using headset requires careful planning and consideration
of several factors to ensure its effectiveness. Here are some steps to consider when implementing
this approach:

1. Determine learning objectives: First, it is essential to identify the learning objectives and
outcomes that need to be achieved. This will help to guide the development of the
sequestered learning program and ensure that it aligns with the goals of the course or
curriculum.
2. Identify target student population: It is important to identify the target student population
and consider their unique needs and preferences. For example, some students may have
 hearing impairments that require the use of specific types of headsets or other
accommodations.
3. Choose appropriate headset technology: The selection of appropriate headset technology
is essential for ensuring the effectiveness of sequestered learning. Factors to consider
include audio quality, noise cancellation features, comfort, and compatibility with other
technological tools such as virtual and augmented reality applications.
4. Develop instructional materials: Instructional materials should be designed to take
advantage of the capabilities of the headset technology. For example, the use of 3D audio
and binaural sound can create a more immersive learning experience.
5. Implement sequestered learning program: The sequestered learning program should be
implemented in a dedicated learning environment, such as a classroom or lab, to
minimize distractions and provide a quiet and focused learning environment. Teachers or
facilitators should provide guidance and support to students throughout the program to
ensure that they stay engaged and on track.
6. Monitor and evaluate effectiveness: Finally, it is important to continuously monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of the sequestered learning program. This can be achieved
through assessments, surveys, and other feedback mechanisms to identify areas for
improvement and ensure that the program is meeting its learning objectives.

By following these steps, it is possible to implement sequestered learning using headset

technology in a way that enhances the learning experience and improves academic outcomes for
food processing students.

Post- Implementation

After implementing sequestered learning using headset technology, it is important to evaluate the
program's effectiveness to identify its impact on the academic performance of the food
processing students. Here are some steps to consider for post-implementation evaluation:

1. Collect feedback from students: One of the most important sources of feedback is the
students themselves. It is important to gather their feedback on the sequestered learning
 program, the headset technology, and the overall learning experience. This feedback can
be collected through surveys or focus group discussions.
2. Analyze academic performance: The academic performance of students should be
analyzed to determine the impact of the sequestered learning program on their grades, test
scores, and overall academic performance. Comparing academic performance before and
after the implementation of the program can provide valuable insights.
3. Review teacher feedback: Teachers or facilitators who implemented the sequestered
learning program should also provide feedback on its effectiveness. They can provide
insights on the strengths and weaknesses of the program and suggest areas for
improvement.
4. Adjust and refine the program: Based on the feedback collected, the sequestered learning
program can be adjusted and refined to improve its effectiveness. For example,
adjustments can be made to the instructional materials or the headset technology.
5. Continuously monitor and evaluate: Post-implementation evaluation should not be a one-
time process. It is important to continuously monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the
program to ensure that it remains relevant and effective in meeting the needs of food
processing students.

By following these steps, food processing schools can evaluate the effectiveness of sequestered
learning using headset technology, and make adjustments to ensure that the program continues to
provide a high-quality learning experience for their students.

ADAPTABILITY:

Sequestered learning with headset technology can be adapted to other schools and subject
areas, not just limited to food processing programs. Here are some considerations for adapting
this approach to other schools and subject areas:

1. Identify subject-specific learning objectives: For each subject area, identify the specific
learning objectives and competencies that need to be achieved through the sequestered
learning program. This will help ensure that the program is tailored to the unique needs of
the subject area.
 2. Choose appropriate instructional materials: The instructional materials used for
sequestered learning should be appropriate for the subject area and should align with the
identified learning objectives. This may include textbooks, video lectures, interactive
simulations, and other resources that can be accessed using the headset technology.
3. Provide training and support: Teachers and facilitators should receive adequate training
and support to effectively implement the sequestered learning program. This includes
training on the use of the headset technology, as well as guidance on how to create
effective instructional materials and how to monitor and evaluate the program's
effectiveness.
4. Consider technical requirements: Different subject areas may have different technical
requirements for the sequestered learning program. For example, subjects that require
more visual or interactive content may need higher-quality headset technology, while
subjects that focus more on reading or writing may not require as advanced of a headset.
5. Evaluate effectiveness: After implementing the sequestered learning program in a
different school or subject area, it is important to evaluate its effectiveness to determine if
it is meeting the identified learning objectives and competencies. Feedback should be
collected from students, teachers, and facilitators, and adjustments should be made as
needed to improve the program's effectiveness.

By adapting sequestered learning with headset technology to other schools and subject areas, it
can provide a more engaging and effective learning experience for students, improving academic
performance and preparing them for future success.

IV. Action Research Methods

a. Participants and/or other Sources of Data and Information

The study will be conducted in Mayor Anunciacion R. Tuazon National School of

Fisheries, Calape District, Bohol Division. The pre-implementation of the research started in

January 2023, Quarter 2, SY 2022-2023. The respondents include twenty (111) Grade eleven

students, five (4) teachers with the total of forty-five (115).

b. Data Gathering Methods

In order to assess the effectiveness of sequestered learning with headset technology in

improving academic performance among food processing students, several data gathering
methods can be used. Some possible methods that researcher will includes are the following

The researcher conducted a survey to gather feedback from students, teachers, and other
stakeholders on the implementation of the sequestered learning program. The surveys can is
administered in person.

The researcher also uses student academic records, such as grades and test scores, that can be
analyzed to determine if there is any improvement in academic performance as a result of the
sequestered learning program.

The researcher made an observations of students and teachers during the sequestered
learning sessions can be used to assess the quality of instruction, engagement, and participation.

A Focus group discussion has been also to gather in-depth feedback from students and
teachers on their experiences with the sequestered learning program. This can provide valuable
insights into what is working well and where improvements can be made.

One-on-one interviews with students and teachers has also been used to gather more
detailed feedback on the sequestered learning program, as well as to identify any challenges or
obstacles that need to be addressed.

The researcher will implement a variety of data gathering methods in order to obtain a
comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of the sequestered learning program. By using
multiple methods, the school can gather both quantitative and qualitative data, as well as data
from different perspectives, in order to get a more complete picture of the program's impact on
student academic performance.

Upon approval of the proposal, the research proponents will personally

administer the questionnaire to the respondents and explain clearly the purpose of the study.
After the students’ pretest-posttest survey, results will be collected for tabulation and

interpretation to determine the impact of sequestered learning technique to Grade 11 Food

Processing Students.

c. Data Analysis Plan

After data has been gathered from various sources, the next step is to analyze it to determine the
effectiveness of the sequestered learning program using headset technology. Some possible data
analysis methods include:

A descriptive statistic will be used to analyze quantitative data, such as student grades
and test scores. Measures such as mean, median, and standard deviation can be used to describe
the distribution of scores, and changes in these measures can be used to assess the impact of the
sequestered learning program.

The researcher will also administer a content analysis: Qualitative data gathered from
surveys, focus groups, and interviews will be analyzed using content analysis. This involves
identifying key themes and patterns in the data and using these to draw conclusions about the
effectiveness of the program.

The researcher will also do Inferential statistics that will determine the statistical significance of
any changes in student performance as a result of the sequestered learning program. This will
involve conducting t-tests to determine if the changes are statistically significant.

To establish the acceptability level of using self-directed assessments, the weighted mean

will also be used.

The researchers attached the Annexes 1-3 of DepEd Order No. 16, series 2017, Research

Management Guidelines stating the purpose.

V. Action Research Work Plan and Timelines

 Action plan is made to adapt key learning or insights to other teachers in school as well

as to other learning institution. The implementation of the action research, with more activities

and services offered by the active teachers, parents, and students of Mayor Anunciacion R.

Tuazon National School of fisheries is expected to be implemented after the table discussion of

the research proponents with the co-teachers, District AR Coordinator School Head and PSDS in

the third quarter of SY 2023.

Communication and endorsement of action research proposal will be done ahead of the

implementation of the study.

Objectives:

After the 6-month duration of the study, the research team expects the following outcomes:

1. The research results can be disseminated and utilized in district-level forums to encourage
discussions and potential improvements in policies.
2. Sequestered Learning Technique can be introduced to colleagues through LAC (Learning
Action Cell) sessions or small group discussions.
3. Both our school and other schools within the Division of Bohol are set to begin implementing and
adopting the sequestered learning technique.
Proposed Work Plan and Timelines
Total duration: 34 weeks (approximately 8 months)

Note: The timeline and activities provided are tentative and subject to change, depending on the
actual needs and circumstances of the study. The resources and persons involved may vary
depending on the specific requirements of the activities.

VI. Cost Estimates

First Tranche – P24,000.00 Estimate Cost

(80% of the maximum allocation of P30,000.00)
Activities Resources/Materials

Action research planning in school level Snacks 1 researcher, 6 P 1,950.00

Teachers; 58 Pupils total of 65 X
P 30.00 each

Validation of the Action Research Snacks 1 researcher, X P 30.00 x 3 P 150.00

Proposal to the Secretariat of the days
Schools Division Research Committee
(SDRC), Bohol Division Photocopy of Tools P 100.00

Orientation of the participants (school level) Snacks of 1 researcher, 6 P 1,950.00

– nature of research, scope of participation, Teachers; 58 Pupils total of
ethics and time line 65 X P30.00 each

Profiling of the participants (1 researcher, 6 Office Supplies (Folders, P 9,680.00

Teachers; 58 Pupils in Envelopes, sign pens, ball pens, pencil,
Gr.4-6 of Tambangan ES, Loay stapler/wire, bond papers, construction
District, Bohol Division) paper, clips, paper cutter, etc.)

Printer’s Ink (Php 200 per bottle P 800.00

X 4 Colors)

Answering and retrieval of the research tool Photocopy of Tools of 58 students & 6 P 320.00
on the extent of implementation (58 pupils teachers total of 64 pax
and 6 teachers, separately)

Snacks of 58 pupils & 6 teachers, 1 P 1,950.00

researcher total of 65 X P30 pesos/pax

Transportation Allowance From planning to validation P 1,500.00

SDRC (Gas allowance)

Tallying of results and treatment of data. 1 researcher & 6 teachers P 5,600.00

Writing of the Initial Findings 2 Snacks (Php 30.00 each) and 1
lunch (Php 50.00/pax) x 10 days

P24,000.00
TOTAL FIRST TRANCHE

Second Tranche – P6,000.00 Estimate Cost

(20% of the maximum allocation of P30,000.00)

Activities Resources/Materials

Writing of the summary of findings, 1 researcher- 2 Snacks Php 1,800.00

conclusions and recommendations Php 30.00 x2 x 30 days
Writing of the Proposed Action
Plan/Improvements
Editing, Proof Reading & Binding
Communication and Endorsement (School, Snacks of 1 researcher x P100.00 each Php 200.00
Division & Regional) 2 days
Presentation and Feed Backing of Results Snacks of 58 pupils & 6 teachers, 1 Php 1,950.00
(School-respondent)- Forum researcher total of 65 X P30 pesos

Presentation and Feed Backing of Snacks, an estimate of 15 participants Php 450.00

Results (School level with the PTA Officers @ Php 30/each
& BLGU)- Forum
Table Discussion of 6 teachers with 1 Snacks, an estimate of 10 participants Php 300.00
researcher, 1 SPG Pres., cluster head & @ Php 30/each
PSDS, for policy improvement
Transportation Allowance (Gas Allowance) Php 100.00
Binding Fee/Photocopy/Printing 10 hard bound copies @ Php Php 1,200.00
120each

TOTAL SECOND TRANCHE Php 6,000.00

TOTAL AMOUNT Php 30,000.00

Prepared by:

Research Proponent
VII. Plans for Dissemination and Utilization

Mechanics of Implementation

On Date Here, the action research proposal will be submitted in both hard and electronic
copy to the Secretariat of the Schools Division Research Committee (SDRC), Bohol Division for
further refinement. The proposal will then be presented orally the next day to a panel of division
teams for evaluation and feedback.

Schedule of Implementation

The action research implementation is expected to take place during the Third to Fourth

Quarter (March 2023 to July 2023) of School Year 2023-2024, with active participation from

teachers, parents, and pupils of Mayor Anunciacion R. Tuazon National School of Fisheries.

This will involve offering a range of additional activities and services to enhance the learning

experience.

Evaluative Measures

A pre- and post-assessment of students' grades and academic performance to measure

any improvements achieved through the sequestered learning approach., Teacher and student
feedback and surveys to assess the effectiveness and satisfaction of the sequestered learning
approach. Classroom observations by researchers and/or supervisors to monitor the
implementation of the sequestered learning approach and identify areas for improvement.
Analysis of student attendance and participation to measure the engagement and involvement of
students in the sequestered learning approach, and lastly the cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the
financial implications of the sequestered learning approach and determine its sustainability.
 By using a combination of these evaluative measures, the research team can determine
the impact and effectiveness of the proposed action research project and use the findings to make
necessary adjustments to enhance the project's outcomes.

VIII. References

DepEd Order
DepEd Order No. 16,s. 2017, Research Management Guidelines

Internet Resources
Chow, K. H., So, W. W., & Wan, T. (2018). The use of noise-cancelling headphones in a
chemistry laboratory environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(6), 986-992.

Yu, K., Chen, J., & Ding, L. (2016). The impact of noise-cancelling headphones on learning
outcomes of students in a biology laboratory environment. Journal of Biological Education,
50(1), 36-46.

Huang, H.-M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.-S. (2019). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward the use
of head-mounted displays in a virtual reality learning environment. Interactive Learning
Environments, 27(6), 791-804. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1533928

E-linkages

https://chat.openai.com/chat/b72a9f77-4441-47f9-ac82-498ebee7560f
ANNEX 1: Research Proposal Application Form and Endorsement of Immediate Supervisor

RESEARCH INFORMATION

RESEARCH TITLE: Title 1: Transforming the Learning Experience: Sequestered Learning for Enhanced
Grading Performance in Food Processing

Title 2: Empowering Food Processing Students with Sequestered Learning and Technological Innovations

SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH:

This study aims to enhance the academic performance of food processing students through sequestered learning and
technological innovations, particularly the use of headphones or headsets. The study aims to identify the challenges faced
by food processing students and develop a sustainable innovation, intervention, and strategy to address them. Data
gathering methods may include surveys, interviews, and document analysis. The study will also employ a data analysis
plan to analyze the data collected. The proposed work plan and timelines include various activities, such as research
proposal submission, implementation of the action research, and dissemination of the study findings. The evaluative
measures will help determine the success of the implementation. The study may draw upon various references, such as
studies on the use of noise-cancelling headphones in laboratory environments and head-mounted displays in virtual
reality learning environments. Overall, this study aims to contribute to the improvement of food processing students'
academic performance through the integration of sequestered learning and technological innovations.

RESEARCH CATEGORY (check RESEARCH AGENDA CATEGORY (check one main research
only one) theme)
o Teaching and Learning
o National o Child Protection
o Region o Human Resource Development
o Schools Division o Governance
o District o (check up to one cross-cutting theme, if applicable)
o School o DRRM
o Classroom-Based o Gender and Development
o Inclusive Education
o Other ( please specify) ___________
FUND SOURCE ( e.g. BERF, SEF, others) AMOUNT
BERF P50,000.00

TOTAL AMOUNT P50,000.00

Indicate also if proponent will use personal funds
B. PROPONENT INFORMATION

LEAD PROPONENT/ INDIVIDUAL PROPONENT

LAST NAME: FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME

LUNGAY HANNA ROSE MILAGROSA

SAMIJON DEBIE MARIE NICANOR
BOLOFER CALIN MAR YONGCO

BIRTH DATE SEX: POSITION/DESIGNATION

(MM/DD/YYYY)

03/26/197 MALE MASTER TEACHER II

REGION / DIVISION : VII / BOHOL

CONTACT NUMBER1: CONTRACT NUMBER 2: EMAIL ADDRESS:

09168824824 09393866550 Calinmar.bolofer@deped.gov.ph

EDUCATIONAL TITLE OF THESIS/RELATED RESEARCH PROJECT

ATTAINMENT
(Degree TITLE)
Enumerate from bachelor’s PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM OF BOHOL ISLAND STATE
degree up to doctorate UNIVERSITY CALAPE CAMPUS: A PROPOSED UNIFIED PHYSICAL
degree EDUACTION PROGRAM IN BISU SYSTEM

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY(ICT)

COMPETENCYLEVEL AMONG INSTRUCTORS OF BOHOL ISLAND
STATEUNIVERSITY (BISU) CALAPE AND CLARIN CAMPUSES

BACHELOR IN
SECONDARY
EDUCATION MAJOR IN
PEHM
MASTER OF ARTS IN
TEACHING PHYSICAL
EDUCATION
DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY MAJOR IN
EDUCATIONAL
MANAGEMENT
SIGNATURE OF PROPONENT:
 IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR’S CONFIRME

I hereby endorse the attached research proposal. I certify that the proponent/s has /he the capacity to
implement a research study without comprising his/her/ office functions.

FELIX A. COSAP SR. PhD

Name and Signature of Immediate Supervisor
Position/Designation: Public Schools District Supervisor
Date: FEB 24, 2023

B. PROPONENT INFORMATION

LEAD PROPONENT/ INDIVIDUAL PROPONENT

LAST NAME: FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME

LAWAGON EDSIL CANTAROS

BIRTH DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) SEX: POSITION/DESIGNATION

05/22/1990 MALE TEACHER III

REGION / DIVISION : VII / BOHOL

CONTACT NUMBER1: CONTRACT EMAIL ADDRESS:

09219351765
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(Degree TITLE)
Enumerate from bachelor’s degree
up to doctorate degree
NUMBER 2:
edsil.lawagon@deped.gov.ph
NONE
TITLE OF THESIS/RELATED RESEARCH PROJECT
ENHANCING LEARNING THROUGH SELF-ASSESSMENT

BACHELOR IN ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION (BEED)
MASTER OF ARTS MAJOR IN
EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT
(MEEM)
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
MAJOR IN EDUCATIONAL
MANAGEMENT (EDDEM) -
 CAR
SIGNATURE OF PROPONENT:

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR’S CONFIRME

I hereby endorse the attached research proposal. I certify that the proponent/s has /he the capacity to
implement a research study without comprising his/her/ office functions.

CLEMENTE P. INTONG, JR., PhD

Name and Signature of Immediate Supervisor
Position/Designation:Public Schools District Supervisor
Date: March 15, 2021

ANNEX 2: Minimum Requirements of an Action Research Proposal

ACTION RESEARCH TEMPLATE

I. Context and Rationale

II. Action Research Questions

III. Proposed Innovation, Intervention, and Strategy

IV. Action Research Methods

a. Participants and/or other Sources of Data and Information

b. Data Gathering Methods

c. Data Analysis Plan

V. Action Research Plans and Timelines

VI. Cost Estimates

VII. Plans for Dissemination and Utilization

 VIII. References

ANNEX 3: Declaration of Anti-Plagiarism and Absence of Conflict of Interest

DECLARATION OF ANTI-PLAGIARISM

1. I, HANNA ROSE M. LUNGAY/DEBIE MARIE SAMIJON/CALIN MAR Y.

BOLOFER, understand that plagiarism is the act of taking and using another’s ideas and
works and passing them off as one’s own. This includes explicitly copying the whole
work of another person/or using some parts of their work without proper
acknowledgement and referencing.
2. I hereby attest to the originality of this research proposal and has cited properly all the
references used. I further commit that all deliverables and the final research study
emanating from this proposal shall be of original content. I shall use appropriate citations
in referencing other works from various sources.
3. I understand that violation from this declaration and commitment shall be subject to
consequences and shall be dealt with accordingly by the Department of Education and
(insert grant mechanism)

PROPONENTS: HANNA ROSE M. LUNGAY SIGNATURE:

______________________
DEBBIE MARIE N. SAMIJON SIGNATURE:
______________________
CALIN MAR Y. BOLOFER SIGNATURE:
______________________

DATE: _ FEB 24, 2023______

 DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

1. I, _ HANNA ROSE M. LUNGAY/DEBIE MARIE SAMIJON/CALIN MAR Y.

BOLOFER, understand that conflict of interest refers to situations in which financial or
other personal considerations may compromise my judgement in evaluating, conducting,
or reporting research.

2. I hereby declare that I do not have any personal conflict of interest that may arise from
my application and submission of my research proposal may be returned to me if found
out that there is conflict of interest during the initial screening as per (insert RMG
provision).

3. Further, in case of any form of conflict of interest (possible or actual) which may
inadvertently emerge during the conduct of my research, I will duly report it to the
research committee for immediate action.

4. I understand that I may be held accountable by the Department of Education and (insert
grant mechanism) for any conflict of interest which I have intentionally concealed.

PROPONENTS: HANNA ROSE M. LUNGAY SIGNATURE:

______________________
DEBBIE MARIE N. SAMIJON SIGNATURE:
______________________
CALIN MAR Y. BOLOFER SIGNATURE:
______________________

DATE: _ FEB 24, 2023______