SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

ASSESSMENT OF PUPILS PERFORMANCE BASED ON THEIR MULTIPLE

INTELLIGENCES

A Completed Action Research

Submitted to the

Schools Division Research Committee

Division of Zamboanga del Sur

Submitted by

FARHAJID LIDASAN ANGAR

Locuban Elementary School
Dinas 1 District
Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur

June 2022

Completed Basic Research 2022 l1

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

ASSESSMENT OF PUPILS PERFORMANCE BASED ON THEIR MULTIPLE

INTELLIGENCES

FARHAJID LIDASAN ANGAR

orcid.org/0000-0001-5413-4109
farhajid.angar001@deped.gov.ph
Locuban Elementary School, Dinas 1 District, Z.D.S

Abstract

This study assessed the performance of the pupils based on their Multiple

Intelligences of Dinas District, Division of Zamboanga Del Sur, Region 9, Philippines

using adapted tool in determining the prevalent Multiple Intelligences of the pupils

and by statistics. The gathered data were analyzed based on interpretation of MPS of

the result of the quiz given to the pupils. Results revealed pupils performed best when

an authentic assessment will be used. The study concluded that assessed the prevalent

Multiple Intelligences of the pupils to assessed them properly.

Key words

Multiple Intelligences, Prevalent

Acknowledgement

The researcher is wholeheartedly expresses his appreciation and gratitude to those

contributed their countless support and cooperation in the completion of this paper:
Mrs. Lyn Antipuesto-Lora, my school head, who encourages the researcher to carry
out and fulfill this paper;
Mrs. Alma Ermac and Mrs. Jean Marie Quipit-Anig, the Dinas 1 Research
Coordinators for their undying support, unwavering guidance, invaluable suggestions
and for her painstaking effort in editing this work to come up with what it is right
now;
Dr. Majarani M. Jacinto, School Division Superintendent of Zamboanga Del Sur and
Dr. Jomar Tina Anig, Dinas 1 Principal-In Charge of the District for signing the
permit to conduct the study;

Completed Basic Research 2022 l2

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

Nobody had been important to the writer in the pursuit of this research that the
members of his family. Thank you Lidasan and Angar family! Thank you Mang and
Pang!
Above all, the creator ALLAH (S.W.T) who undyingly provided me His grace and
continuously gave His strength to do every endeavor of life including this piece of
work. Allahu Akbar!

IV. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

‘’Anything that is worth teaching can be presented in many different ways.

These multiple ways can make use of our multiple intelligences’’

-Dr. Howard Gardner 1983

Multiple intelligences are a psychological theory about the mind. It's a critique of the

notion that there's a single intelligence which we're born with, which can't be changed, and which

psychologists can measure. It's based on a lot of scientific research in fields ranging from

psychology to anthropology to biology. It's not based upon based on test correlations, which

most other intelligence theories are based on. The claim is that there are at least eight different

human intelligences. Most intelligence tests look at language or logic or both - those are just two

of the intelligences. The other six are musical, spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal,

intrapersonal, and naturalist. I make two claims. The first claim is that all human beings have all

of these intelligences. The second claim is that, both because of our genetics and our

environment, no two people have exactly the same profile of intelligences, not even identical

twins, because their experiences are different.

On a more practical level, Gardner (1983) was disturbed by the nearly exclusive stress in

school on two forms of symbol use: linguistic symbolization and logical-mathematical

symbolization. Although these two forms are obviously important in a scholastic setting, other

varieties of symbol use also figure prominently in human cognitive activity within and especially

outside of school. Moreover, the emphasis on linguistic and logical capacities was

Completed Basic Research 2022 l3

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

overwhelming in the construction of items on intelligence, aptitude, and achievement tests. If

different kinds of items were used, or different kinds of assessment instruments devised, a quite

different view of the human intellect might issue forth. 

These and other factors led Gardner to a conceptualization of human intellect that was

more capacious. This took into account a wide variety of human cognitive capacities, entailed

many kinds of symbol systems, and incorporated as well the skills valued in a variety of cultural

and historical settings. Realizing that he was stretching the word intelligence beyond its

customary application in educational psychology, Gardner proposed the existence of a number of

relatively autonomous human intelligences.  He defined intelligence as the capacity to solve

problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural settings, and detailed a set

of criteria for what counts as a human intelligence. 

Gardner's definition and his criteria deviated significantly from established practices in

the field of intelligence. Most definitions of intelligence focus on the capacities that are

important for success in school. Problem solving is recognized as a crucial component, but the

ability to fashion a product write a symphony, execute a painting, stage a play, build up and

manage an organization, carry out an experiment is not included, presumably because the

aforementioned capacities cannot be probed adequately in short-answer tests. Moreover, on the

canonical account, intelligence is presumed to be a universal, probably innate, capacity, and so

the diverse kinds of roles valued in different cultures are not considered germane to a study of

"raw intellect."

Completed Basic Research 2022 l4

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

To arrive at his list of intelligences, Gardner and his colleagues examined the literature in

several areas: the development of cognitive capacities in normal individuals; the breakdown of

cognitive capacities under various kinds of organic pathology; the existence of abilities in

"special populations," such as prodigies, autistic individuals, idiots savants, and learning-

disabled children; forms of intellect that exist in different species; forms of intellect valued in

different cultures; the evolution of cognition across the millennia; and two forms of

psychological evidence the results of factor-analytic studies of human cognitive capacities and

the outcome of studies of transfer and generalization. Candidate capacities that turned up

repeatedly in these disparate literatures made up a provisional list of human intelligences,

whereas abilities that appeared only once or twice or were reconfigured differently in diverse

sources were abandoned from consideration.

Learning is a process that should ideally involve both the teacher and the students, all of

them interacting closely to ensure that the best possible outcome is reached. According to the

Gronlund (2017), it's important to move beyond only focusing on the material the students learn

and how they perform on tests or assignments. Instead, teachers should be involved in assessing

whether the learning is effective and find ways to improve the process.

Assessment of pupils learning is a process of gathering and discussing information about

what students should know, understand and can do with their knowledge as a result of their

educational experiences. It plays a vital role in instruction and that the main goal of assessment

is to improve learning (Gronlund, 2017). Good assessment is that which closely reflects desired

learning outcomes and in which the process of assessment has a direct influence on the learning

process.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l5

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

For this reason, the researcher was prompted to investigate if there is a significant

relationship between the use of multiple intelligences in assessing pupils performance vs

traditional assessment type in selected Grade VI pupils of Dinas 1 District this school year 2020-

2021. These observations could provide insights as a basis for the investigation that was

conducted.

V. INNOVATION, INTERVENTION AND STRATEGY

The following intervention was formulated;

1. There is a need for the teachers to create learning environment that foster the

development of all eight intelligences. Balanced instructional presentation that

addresses Multiple Intelligences (MI’s) benefit all learners and strengthen their

underutilized intelligences.

2. Teachers of diverse students with special needs should recognized that not all learners

excel in the linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. Multiple Intelligences

provides a framework for teachers so that they can understand how their students learn.

3. By approaching students with a model that targets their successful learning in a

particular intelligences instead of a standard approach that limits learning, teachers

should provide students opportunity to experience success in school.

4. Schools should provide pupils learning environment where they can associate with a

positive experience, for example, because they painted a notable piece of arts, they are

likely to work and improve in areas where they haven’t had as much success (i.e.,

writing and mathematics)

5. Teachers should identify student multiple intelligences to suit their type of assessment

for a better outcome.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l6

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

6. Parents should be informed of their children’s prevalent intelligences to ensure

cooperation and support.

7. Other researcher encouraged to conduct similar research in another environment and

other subjects to confirm the reliability of the result generated in this study.

VI. ACTION RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What intelligences do the selected learners of all Grade VI pupils of Dinas 1 District

possess:

1.1 Verbal/ Linguistic,

1.2 Musical/ Rhythmic,

1.3 Logical/ Mathematical,

1.4 Spatial/ Visual,

1.5 Bodily kinesthetic,

1.6 Interpersonal,

1.7 Intrapersonal, and

1.8 Naturalistic?

2. What level is the performance of the pupils’ using the traditional and authentic

assessments in the first demo run?

3. Is there a significant difference on pupils’ performance between traditional and authentic

assessment in the first demo run?

4. To what level is the performance of the pupils’ using the traditional and authentic

assessments in the second demo run?

5. Is there a significant difference on pupils’ performance between traditional and authentic

assessment in the second demo run?

Completed Basic Research 2022 l7

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

6. Based on the result of the study, what are the possible intervention program can be

formulated?

VII. ACTION RESEARCH METHODS

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

The researcher applied a purposive sampling technique in selecting the respondents of the

study. There are sixteen (16) elementary schools of Dinas 1 district. They are the targeted

respondents of this research by using a sampling technique procedure in research

B. Data Gathering Methods

This study employed the descriptive method of research with the questionnaire as the

means of gathering the necessary data to assess the multiple intelligences of the pupils. Frankel

and Wallen (2018) stressed that when the task of the research is to determine the present

condition of the variable being studied and, when questionnaire is used, the descriptive method is

recommended. Additionally, descriptive research explains and interprets what it is. It is

concerned with conditions of the relationships that exist, practices that prevails, beliefs and

processes that are going on, effects that are being felt or trends that are developing. Right after

knowing the intelligence of the pupil, there was a demo conducted and the two types of

assessment to were used to establish if there is a difference between the use of traditional and

authentic assessment. The data were carefully analyzed and interpreted.

Aside from the demo-run, the researcher also employed interview session to the previous

advisers of the pupils to affirmed the prevalent Multiple Intelligences of the pupils. The

researcher observed the consistency of their answers.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l8

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

VIII. Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

Multiple Intelligences (MI’s)

The multiple intelligences of the pupils were classified into eight (8) types such as

verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial/visual, musical/rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic,

interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligences. The prevalent intelligences of the

respondents are shown in Table 2.

The highest present Grade VI is Spatial/Visual with 64.71 percent and verbal linguistic,

logical/mathematical, naturalistic, and intrapersonal got zero percent.

Accepting Gardner’s theory of MI’s emphasizes that there are eight (8) intelligences in the

classroom involving a collection of abilities working together (Romero & Kemp,2017).

The MI’s theory suggest that it may be more instructive to consider “how people are intelligent”

rather than “how much intelligent” they have (Collins & Cook,2018). In other words, the MI’s

theory serves as a framework for thinking amount the students the teachers, how they teach them

and help them learn reflectively and creatively.

It is also a framework that provides springboard for developing their intellectual proclivities to

develop techniques into ways of making pedagogical choices and articulating instructional

objectives.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l9

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

Table 2

Types of Multiple Grade VI

Intelligences (MI’s) (N=16)

Freq. Percent

1. Verbal/ - 0
Linguistic
2. Logical - 0
/Mathematical
3. Spatial 3 25
/Visual
4. Musical 6 33.3
/Rhythmic
5. Bodily/Kinesthetic - 0
6. Interpersonal 7 41.7
7. Intrapersonal - 0
8. Naturalistic - 0
Total 16 100

Identified Multiple Intelligences of Pupils Using the Multiple Intelligences Questionnaires

The pupils performance was assessed by the use of traditional and authentic assessment in the

first demo run. The traditional assessment used paper and pencil test while the authentic

assessment was designed based on the prevalent multiple intelligences of the learners. The result

of the demo are shown in the Table 3.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 10

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

Table 3

Performance of Pupils’ Using Traditional and Authentic Assessment in the First Demo Run

Types of Assessment Mean Percentage Score Descriptive Equivalent

(MI’s)
1. Traditional 42.6 Very Poor
2. Authentic 90.3 Excellent

Hypothetical Mean Range:

90.0-100 – Excellent 60.0-69 – Fair

80.0-89.9 – Very Good 50.0-59.9 – Poor
70.0-79.9 – Good Below 50 – Very Poor(Failed)

As reflected in the table 3, the Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of assessment using authentic tool

exhibited 90.3 with a descriptive equivalent as excellent. Meanwhile, the traditional assessment

demonstrates very poor in descriptive equivalent with the MPS of 42.6.

The first demo run takes place August. The lesson was the “Inner Planet” in Science subject. At

the application part of the lesson, the researchers grouped the class based on their multiple

intelligences. The Spatial/Visual draws the planet. Musical/Rhythmic composed a song and the

Interpersonal does a shared to the reporter his/her understanding of the lesson. As far as what the

researchers had observed, each pupil’s enjoyed the said activity. They are given enough time to

finish it. The researcher used a rubric as a guide to grade the pupils’ performance.

For the traditional type, the researcher gave paper and pencil test.

The result that the respondents perform best when the authentic assessment is being used. For

such, the MI’s based activity increases student confidence, enthusiasm for learning, can improve

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 11

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

academic achievement and changes teacher’s perception of their pupils learning abilities

(Fierros,2017). The performance of Grade VI pupils in first demo run is shown in table 3.

The pupils’ performance was assessed by the use of the traditional and authentic assessment in

the second demo run. The traditional assessment used paper and pencil test while the authentic

assessment was designed based on the prevalent multiple intelligences of the learners. The result

of the demo are shown in the Table 4.

Table 4

Performance of Pupils’ Using Traditional and Authentic Assessment in the Second Demo Run.

Types of Assessment Mean Percentage Descriptive Equivalent

Score

(MPS)
1. Traditional 42.0 Very Poor
2. Authentic 74.2 Good

Hypothetical Mean Range:

90.0-100 – Excellent 60.0-69.9 – Fair
80.0-89.9 – Very Good 50.0-59.9 – Poor
70.0-79.9 – Good Below 50 – Very Poor (Failed)

The same story took to the second demo run. The authentic assessment got 74.2 MPS with

descriptive equivalent of good and traditional assessment got 42.0 MPS with a descriptive

equivalent of very poor.

In this time, the pupils are asked to make a finish product individually and the lesson is the

Jovian Planets. The Spatial/Visual are asked to sketch a thing that the Jovian Planet can appears.

The Musical/Rhythmic insert the planet in the lyrics of their favorite song using the concepts

learned and the interpersonal makes story about the planet and discussed it within the group. The

researcher and other faculty members used a rubric as a guide to grade the pupils

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 12

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

work/performance. After, the researcher gave a paper and pencil test to get the result using the

traditional assessment.

Recent trends in classroom assessment have emerged. Heavy objectives testing (Traditional) at

the end of the instruction is being replaced by authentic assessment (Reganit, Elicay, & Laguerta

2019). Traditional assessment provides little help to student in learning how to capitalize on

strengths and compensate for nor correct weakness however authentic assessment can help

student see where they have mastery and where they need improve (Ikiz & Cakar, 2019)

The summary of the data gathered in the two assessment type are shown in the Table 5.

TABLE 5

Summary of the Performance of the pupils

Types of Mean Descriptive Mean Descriptive

Assessment Percentage Equivalent Percentage Equivalent
Score (MPS) Score (MPS)
Traditional 42.6 (1st Demo) Very Poor 42.0 (2nd Demo) Very Poor
Authentic 90.3 (1st Demo) Excellent 74.2 (2nd Demo) Good

Interpretation Pupils’ that were assessed according to their multiple intelligences

shows higher performance

Hypothetical Mean Range:

90. 0- 100- Excellent 60. 0- 69.9- Fair

80. 0- 87.9- Very good 50.0-59.9- Poor
70.0- 79.9 Good Below 50- Very Poor (Failed)

Table 5 shows the summary of the data gathered in the two assessment types. The over-

all average of the authentic assessment is 82.25 with very good descriptive equivalent while the

traditional assessment got the overall average of 42.30 with the descriptive equivalent of very

poor.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 13

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences believes that the assessment of the student

learning should be fair to all. The educators must seek to assess the student learning needs in

ways which will give provide a clear picture of their strengths and weakness.

Traditional test requires students to demonstrate their knowledge in a predetermined

manner. The MI’s theory claims that a better approach to assess student is to see an assessment

tool that could assessed the different intelligences. Authentic which can lead to increase

academic performance.

Research Reflection and Conclusion

Based on the findings, the researcher reflected that schools must acknowledge the different

Multiple Intelligences of the learners by providing theoretical foundations or recognizing them.

The schools must have an appropriate way in assessing and approaching these intelligences so

that a wide range of successful teaching and learning in classroom will occur.

Also, all teachers must integrate techniques in developing Multiple Intelligences (MI’s) in their

day-to-day teaching to address the student’s different intelligences. This will also be a key to

provide quality and situated learning experiences that can lead to better performance for students

and teachers.

Furthermore, an appropriate assessment type that caters individual differences in terms of their

Multiple Intelligences will yield a better result as reflected in the result of their investigation.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 14

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

Recommendations

The following recommendations were formulated based on the result of the study.

1. There is a need for the teachers to create learning environment that foster the

development of all eight intelligences. Balanced instructional presentation that

addresses Multiple Intelligences (MI’s) benefit all learners and strengthen their

underutilized intelligences.

2. Teachers of diverse students with special needs should recognized that not all learners

excel in the linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. Multiple Intelligences

provides a framework for teachers so that they can understand how their students learn.

3. By approaching students with a model that targets their successful learning in a

particular intelligences instead of a standard approach that limits learning, teachers

should provide students opportunity to experience success in school.

4. Schools should provide pupils learning environment where they can associate with a

positive experience, for example, because they painted a notable piece of arts, they are

likely to work and improve in areas where they haven’t had as much success (i.e.,

writing and mathematics)

5. Teachers should identify student multiple intelligences to suit their type of assessment

for a better outcome.

6. Parents should be informed of their children’s prevalent intelligences to ensure

cooperation and support.

7. Other researcher encouraged to conduct similar research in another environment and

other subjects to confirm the reliability of the result generated in this study.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 15

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

IX. ACTION PLAN

Table 1 below presents the Research Work Plan and Timelines that the researchers will

do in conducting the research. It covers the Activities (Planning and Design, Data Collection,

Data Analyses, Research Evaluation, Dissemination & Utilization) target date and person

involved throughout the study.

Table 1. Research Work Plan and Timelines

Target Persons Involved

Activities
Date
A. Planning and Design
 Drafting of Proposal July, 2021 Researcher
 Finalizing Proposal July, 2021 Researcher
 Submission of Proposal to SDO July, 2021 Researcher
thru SDRC
 Retrieval of Approved Research August, 2021 Researcher
proposal (subject for improvement)

 Working-out for the costructive August, 2021 Researcher

suggestions of the SDRC for the
enhancement of the Approved
Research Proposal
B. Data Collection
 Submission of Letter to the office August, 2021 Researcher, SDS
of the PSDS and SDS for the
conduct of the study
 Retrieval of the Approved Letter of September, 2021 Researcher, SDS, &
Permission PSDS
 Distribution of Ethical Consent and September , 2021 Researcher and
Conducting the interview to the Respondents
Respondents
C. Data Analyses
 Qualitative Analysis of Data September , 2021 Researcher
 Translate and Transcribe Data September , 2021 Researcher
D. Research Evaluation
 Research Presentation of Results to October , 2021 Researcher
SDRC
 Research Editing with Plagiarism October , 2021 Researcher
Results
 Research SDO Congress October , 2021 Researcher
Presentation of Results

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 16

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

E. Dissemination & Utilization

 Intervention Briefs November, 2021 Researcher
 Intervention Dissemination November, 2021 Researcher
 Intervention Workshops November, 2021 Researcher
 Utilization of Research Result January 2022 Researcher

X. REFERENCES

Fierros (2017). How Multiple Intelligences theory can guide teachers.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E., (2018). How to design and evaluate research in

education. Ninth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: Theory of Multiple Intelligences: New York: Basic Books

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice. Basic Books: New York

Gardner, H (1999). The disciplined mind. What all students should understand. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Gardner, H (2006b). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. New York: Basic Books

Gronlund, N.E (2017). Assessment of students achievement 7th edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Gronlund, N.E (2010). Assessment of students achievement 5th edition. Boston: Allyn&Bacon

Ikiz and Cakar (2019). The relationship between the multiple intelligences and academic
performance of second grade students.

Perkins, D. 1992. Smart Schools, New York: Free Press.

Vialle, W. . (1997). The relationship between self-esteem and academic achievement in high
ability students: Evidence from the Wollongong Youth Study. Australasian Journal of Gifted
Education, 14(2), 39 – 45.

Cost
Deliverables Particulars
Estimate
1. Encoded Proposal Encoding Cost 100
2. Proposal Reproduction Printing Cost, Photocopy 150
Expenses

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 17

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

3. Interview guide Reproduction Printing Cost, Photocopy 100

Expenses
4. Conducting Interview Transportation, Meals, Snacks, 2,000
Other Expenses
5. Interpretation and Data Analysis Encoding and Printing Cost 1,000
Result
6. Reproduction of Final Output Encoding and Printing Cost 1,000
7. Reproduction of Evaluated Output Encoding and Printing Cost 1,000
8. Conduct of webinars to the Transportation, Meals, Snacks and 5,000
teachers Supplies
9. Conduct of Policy Conferences and Transportation, Meals, Snacks and 4,000
Meetings Supplies
Total Estimated Cost P 14, 350.00

Annex 1:

Research Proposal Application Form and Endorsement of Immediate

Supervisor

A. RESEARCH INFORMATION

Research Title

ASSESSMENT OF PUPILS PERFORMANCE BASED ON THEIR

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

Short Description of the Research

This study focuses on the selected pupils of Dinas 1 District.

This study aims to answer the following questions:

1. What intelligences do the learners of all Grade VI pupils of Dinas 1 District possess:
1.1 Verbal/ Linguistic,
1.2 Musical/ Rhythmic,
1.3 Logical/ Mathematical,
1.4 Spatial/ Visual,
1.5 Bodily kinesthetic,
1.6 Interpersonal,
1.7 Intrapersonal, and
1.8 Naturalistic?
2. What level is the performance of the pupils’ using the traditional and authentic
assessments in the first demo run?
3. Is there a significant difference on pupils’ performance between traditional and
authentic assessment in the first demo run?
4. To what level is the performance of the pupils’ using the traditional and authentic
assessments in the second demo run

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 18

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

5. Is there a significant difference on pupils’ performance between traditional and

authentic assessment in the second demo run?
6. Based on the result of the study, what are the possible intervention program can be
formulated?

Research Category (check only Research Agenda Category

one) (check only one main research theme)
o National o Teaching and Learning
o Region o Child Protection
o Schools Division o Human Resource Development
o District o Governance
o School (check up to one cross-cutting theme, if applicable)
o DRRM
(check only one) o Gender and Development
o Action Research o Inclusive Education
o Basic Research o Others, please specify:
______________
________________________________
_

Fund Source
(e.g. BERF, SEF, others) * Amount

BERF 14,350. 00
Personal
SEF
Total Amount: 14, 350.00
*indicate also if proponent will use personal funds

B. PROPONENT INFORMATION

Lead Proponent / Individual Proponent

Last Name: First Name: Middle Name:

ANGAR FARHAJID LIDASAN
Birth Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Sex: Position/Designation:
05/30/1993 MALE TEACHER - III

Region / Division / School / District (whichever is applicable)

LOCUBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, DINAS 1 DISTRICT

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 19

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

Contact Number 1: Contact Number 2: E-mail Address (DepEd account)

09754420917 09057438922 farhajid.angar001@deped.gov.ph

Educational Attainment
(Degree Title)
Title of Thesis / Related Research Project
enumerate from bachelor’s degree
up to doctorate degree
BACHELOR IN ELEMENTARY PROBLEMS AND COPING MECHANISMS
EDUCATION RELATED TO THESIS WRITING AMONG
STUDENTS IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

MASTER OF ARTS IN ENHANCING PUPILS PERFORMANCE THROUGH

EDUCATION (MA Ed) ASSESSMENT OF PUPIL’S MULTIPLE
INTELLIGENCES

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MULTIGRADE TEACHING: A PATH TO SELF-

EDUCATION MAJOR IN TRANSFORMATION
EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND SELF-FULFILLMENT

Signature of Lead Proponent:

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR’S CONFORME

I hereby endorse the attached research proposal. I certify that the proponent/s
has/have the capacity to implement a research study without compromising his/her
office functions.
JOMAR T. ANIG, EdD
_______
Name and Signature of Immediate Supervisor
Position / Designation: Principal In-Charge of the District
District: DINAS 1 DISTRICT
24 June 2022
Date Signed: __________________

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into in the School Division Office, Dao,
Pagadian City, Philippines by and between:

FARHAJID LIDASAN ANGAR, OF DINAS 1 DISTRICT, DINAS, ZAMBOANGA DEL

SUR, hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE; And DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DIVISION
OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR with office address at Dao Complex, Dao, Pagadian City,
represented by the chairman of the Research Committee, DR. ROMEO M. DALIGDIG, OIC,
ASSISTANT SCHOOLS DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT, hereinafter referred to as DEPED,
Division of Zamboanga del Sur.

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 20

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS DEPED aims to promote an environment conducive to ideal of evidence- based
decision- making through the conduct of various research initiatives across all governance level;
WHEREAS, DEPED has instituted the Basic Education Research Fund (BERF) as a funding
facility for potential research studies to be conducted by eligible DepEd personnel;
WHEREAS, DEPED has evaluated and approved all submitted research proposals to ensure the
quality and relevance of potential research studies and has informed the research proponents of
the results of the evaluation;
WHEREAS, the research proponent, now known as the "GRANTEE", has been oriented on the
systems and processes of the BERF facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, DEPED AND the GRANTEE (collectively known as the Parties) agree as
follows:

Article 1
Scope and Duration of the Agreement

Section 1.1 All the activities in the approved research proposal to be conducted will be school in
scope. The work plan of the approved research proposal is attached as Annex 1 of this
agreement.

Section 1.2 The implementation of the research study will last based on the approved timeline as
approved.

Section 1.3 Any deviation from the original and approved research proposal will be immediately
communicated to the Schools Division Research Committee (SDRC) by the GRANTEE. All
major changes

warrant the approval of the Research Committee. The approved research topic cannot be changed
by the GRANTEE at any point during the study.

Section 1.4 In the event that the GRANTEE sees the need for extension, a letter of request for the
extension with justification will be submitted to the Schools Division Research Committee.
Valid reasons for extension which will be decided by the SDRC include illness of the grantee,
calamities, disasters, and other extenuating circumstances. The request of extension will be
approved provided there will be no additional cost to DEPED. The GRANTEE will be allowed
1-month extension.

Section 1.5 In cases where unforeseen circumstances force the cessation of the implementation
of the research, the GRANTEE shall write a letter to the Research Committee with justification
and documentary support.

Article II
Obligations of the Parties

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 21

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

Section 2.1 The total cost of the approved research proposal is _______________. DEPED will
release payment to the GRANTEE in two tranches provided that the GRANTEE will submit all
the expected outputs. The table of deliverables per tranches is outline in Annex __ of this MOA.
Section 2.2 The Grantee will be responsible for the following:
a) conduct the research as approved in his/her research proposal;
b) submit all the required outputs to DEPED as per approved timeline;
c) ensure that the conduct of research will follow the highest standards of ethics
to protect our learners and the community;
d) disclose any conflict of interest (possible or actual) that may arise during the
conduct of the research;
e) ensure that all funds provided will be spent as per approved cost estimates;
f) disseminate completed research on appropriate venues.
Section 2.3 DEPED will be responsible for the following:
a) ensure the timely release of the research funds for the GRANTEE;
b) evaluate thoroughly the submitted deliverables of the GRANTEE;
c) provide technical assistance to the GRANTEE as per monitoring and
evaluation results and as requested by the GRANTEE;
d) monitor the progress of the research proposal;
e) conduct due diligence in evaluating and approving deliverables; and
f) assist in approving venues for dissemination of the completed research

Article III
Special Provisions
Section 3.1 Authorship and Ownership. The GRANTEE will be the sole author of the research.
The research funded by the BERF will be co-owned by the authors and DEPED. Written
permission from the SDRC is required when the research will be presented in research
conferences, forums, and other related events, or be published in research journals and bulletins.
Also, in these presentations or publications, the GRANTEE must duly acknowledge the funding
source/s for the study.
Setion 3.2 Plagiarism, Fraud, and Conflict of Interest. The GRANTEE will ensure that the
research proposal and final report submitted are original works. Appropriate referencing and
citation must be included in the submitted deliverables. Further, the GRANTEE will ensure that
there will be no conflict of interest during the conduct of research. The GRANTEE has submitted
declarations of anti-plagiarism and absence of conflict of interest.
Any act of fraud and plagiarism will be dealt with accordingly. Further, if the GRANTEE
committed plagiarism or any form of fraud, s/he will be blacklisted from availing any other
research grant mechanism in the Department.
In addition, this division is adopting a policy mechanism that all research proposals,
including completed action research, shall undergo plagiarism detection tool (Grammarly) to be
provided for free by the SEPS in Planning and Research in preparation for the future journal
publication (Reference: Division Memorandum No. 19 s. 2020).
Section 3.3 Failure to Complete Research Proposal. In the event that the GRANTEE failed to
complete and submit the deliverables, the research proponent will be required to return the total
amount of research fund s/he has received during the course of the implementation.
Section 3.4 Effectivity and Termination of MOA. The MOA will take effect on the date of
signature of both the GRANTEE and DEPED and will end upon the submission of all

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 22

 SDRC-ACTION RESEARCH

deliverables and release of the funds. This MOA shall also be terminated under sections 1.5, 3.2,
3.3 or any circumstances that will lead to the non- completion of the research.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have affixed their signatures on

________________________ at DepEd, Zamboanga del Sur Division Office, Dao Complex,
Dao, Pagadian City.

GRANTEE DEPED

FARHAJID LIDASAN ANGAR JERRY C. BOKINGKITO, EdD

Teacher – III OIC, Asst. Schools Division Superintendent

WITNESSED BY: WITNESSED BY:

LITO P. BAHIAN, DTE ERNESTO F. TARDO, EdD

SEPS, Planning and Research Chief CES, SGOD
Division Research Coordinator

Completed Basic Research 2022 l 23