IMPLEMENTATION OF LEARNING

ACTION CELL SESSIONS AMONG HIGH

SCHOOLS IN ZONE III, DIVISION OF
ZAMBALES: BASIS FOR POLICY
RECOMMENDATION
A BL I A N , M A R I EL LE I N N A H F.
M A ED - EA
In line with Teacher’s Continuous Professional
Development Act No. 105333 or the Enhanced
Basic Education Act of 2013, the Department of
Education issued Deped Order 35, s. 2016,
enclose the policy on Learning Action Cell (LAC)
in the K to 12 Basic Education Program School
Based Continuing Professional Strategy for the
improvement of teaching and learning.
This advocacy of the Deped implies that every
teacher should be properly guided and equipped
with the know-how of teaching and learning
process through revisiting and reviewing some
areas of concern in performing the duties and
responsibilities of an effective and efficient
teacher.
The researchers aims to evaluate the implementation
of Learning Action Cell Sessions among High Schools
in Zone III, Division of Zambales along with learner
diversity and student inclusion, lesson content and
pedagogy, assessment and reporting, and curriculum
contextualization, localization and indigenization. The
challenges encountered in the implementation of
Learning Action Cell Sessions also focused of the
study.
SCOPE AND LIMITATION
This study is limited on the evaluation of the implementation of Learning
Action Cell Sessions among High Schools in Zone III, Division of
Zambales. The respondents of the study are the high school teachers and
school heads. Their profile variables will be described. The
implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions in terms of learner
diversity and student inclusion, lesson content and pedagogy,
assessment and reporting, 21st century skills and ICT integration in
instruction and assessment, curriculum contextualization, localization and
indigenization. The challenges encountered in the implementation of
Learning Action Cell Sessions also focused of the study.
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1. What is the teacher- respondents’ profile in terms of:
◦ Sex;
◦ Age;
◦ Specialization;
◦ Position;
◦ Highest Educational Attainment; and
◦ Number of Years in Teaching?

2. What is the school head- respondents’ profile in terms of:

◦ Sex;
◦ Age;
◦ Highest Educational Attainment; and
◦ Number of Years as a School Head?
3. How do the teacher-respondents assess the implementation of Learning
Action Cell Sessions along with the following dimensions:
◦ Learner diversity and student inclusion;
◦ Lesson content and pedagogy;
◦ Assessment and reporting;
◦ 21st Century Skills and ICT Integration in Instruction and
Assessment; and
◦ Curriculum contextualization, localization and indigenization?
4. How do the school head – respondents assess the implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions among

High Schools in Zone III, Division of Zambales along with the following dimensions:

o Learner diversity and student inclusion;

o Lesson content and pedagogy;

o Assessment and reporting;

o 21st Century Skills and ICT Integration in Instruction and Assessment; and

o Curriculum contextualization, localization and indigenization?

5. What are the challenges encountered by the head - teacher in the implementation of Learning

Action Cell Sessions among High Schools in Zone III, Division of Zambales?

6. What are the challenges encountered by the school- head in the implementation of Learning

Action Cell Sessions among High Schools in Zone III, Division of Zambales?

7. Is there a significant difference in the evaluation of the teacher- respondents in the implementation

of Learning Action Cell Sessions when grouped according to profile variables as cited in problem 1?
8. Is there a significant difference in the evaluation of the school head- respondents in the

implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions when grouped according to profile

variables as cited in problem 2?

9. Is there a significant difference between the evaluation of the teacher- respondents

and school- head respondents in the implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions?
HYPOTHESIS
1. There is no significant difference in the evaluation of the teacher- respondents in the implementation of

Learning Action Cell Sessions when grouped according to profile variables as cited in problem 1.

2. There is no significant difference in the evaluation of the school head- respondents in the implementation

of Learning Action Cell Sessions when grouped according to profile variables as cited in problem 2.

3. There is no significant difference between the evaluation of the teacher- respondents and school- head

respondents in the implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions.

 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Teachers’
Teachers’Profile
Profile
Questionnaire
Sex,
Sex, Age,
Age, Civil
Civil Status,
Status, Position,
Position,
Highest
Highest Educational
Educational Attainment;
Number
Number ofof Years
Attainment; and
Years in
in Teaching
Teaching
and
 
  
 
School
School Heads’
Heads’Profile
Profile Implementation of
Sex,
Sex, Age,
Age, Civil
Civil Status,
Status, Highest
Highest   Learning Action
Educational
Educational Attainment;
Attainment; and
and Number
Number
of
of Years
Years as
as School
School Head
Head
  Cell Sessions
  
among High
Evaluation
Evaluation of
of the
the teachers
teachers and
and school
school Data Analysis Schools in Zone III,
heads
heads in
in the
the Implementation
Implementation ofof
Learning
Learning Action
Action Cell
Cell Sessions
Sessions
Frequency Division of
learner
learner diversity
diversity and
and student
student inclusion,
inclusion,
Zambales
lesson
lesson content and pedagogy,
assessment
content
assessment and
and
and reporting,
pedagogy,
reporting, 21st
21st century
century
Percentage
skills
skills and
and ICT
ICT integration
integration in
in instruction
instruction
and
and assessment
assessment and
contextualization,
and curriculum
curriculum Weighted Mean
contextualization, localization
localization and
and
indigenization
indigenization

  
F- test
Challenges
Challenges in
Learning
in the
the Implementation
Implementation of
of T- test
Learning Action Cell
Action Cell Sessions
Sessions
METHODOLOGY
 Research Design
The descriptive survey research design will be used in this
study and quantitative in analysis. The researcher will make
use of the questionnaire as the main instrument in data
gathering. The profile of the respondents will be described
and implementation and the challenges encountered on the
Learning Action Cell Sessions among High Schools in Zone
III, Division of Zambales will be evaluated by the teachers
and school heads.
Respondents and Location
The high school teachers will be the respondents of
the study. There are high school teachers and school
principal from Zone III, Division of Zambales
comprising of San Antonio District, San Narciso
District, San Felipe District and Cabangan District.
The researcher will use population of 318 high school
teachers and 13 school principals.
 Instruments
The instrument to be used will be adopted from the study of
Binauhan (2016) entitled Learning Action Cell Implementation
in the Public Elementary Schools in the Division of Cavite,
Vega (2020) entitled Investigating the Learning Action Cell
(LAC) Experiences of Science Teachers in Secondary Schools:
A Multiple Case Study and Dizon & Orge (2019) entitled
Utilization of Learning Action Cell (LAC) Session Contents:
Perceptions Among Secondary Social Studies Teachers In
Zambales, Philippines. The questionnaire will have a 2 sets.
Data Analysis

The researcher will use the SPSS in the analysis of the collected data from the respondents and utilized the

following statistical treatment:

1.Frequency and Percentage. These display the number of observations within a given interval and present in

percentage in problem 1 and 2.

2.Weighted Mean. The weighted mean will utilize in getting the average from the responses on the

implementation and challenges encountered in the implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions of the

high school teachers and school heads in problems 3,4, 5, and 6.

3. ANOVA. The ANOVA or F- test will utilize to determine the significant difference in the evaluation of the teacher-

respondents in the implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions when grouped according to profile variables and difference

in the evaluation of the school head- respondents in the implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions when grouped

according to profile variables in problems 7 and 8.

4. T- test. The T- test will utilize to determine the significant difference between the evaluation of the teacher- respondents and

school- head respondents in the implementation of Learning Action Cell Sessions in problem 9.

5. Likert Scale. A 4- likert scale will be utilize in the implementation and challenges encountered in the implementation of

Learning Action Cell Sessions of the high school teachers and school heads.