SPUP Thesis - Dissertation Format (AY 2022 - 2023) Sample

St.
Paul University Philippines

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500
1
2
3
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS THROUGH PROBLEM SOLVING
OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS: BASIS FOR A
PROPOSED MATHEMATICS TEACHING-
LEARNING INTERVENTION PLAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
A Dissertation Presented
to the Graduate School
St. Paul University Philippines
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
1
2
3
4
5
6
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION
Major in Educational Management
1
2
3
4
5
6
By
1
JUAN B. CRUZ
June 2022
SPUP Graduate School

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 ii
APPROVAL SHEET
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree, DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN
EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT (PHDEM), this dissertation titled,
“CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS THROUGH PROBLEM SOLVING OF SENIOR
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS: BASIS FOR A PROPOSED MATHEMATICS
TEACHING-LEARNING INTERVENTION PLAN”, has been prepared and
submitted by JUAN B. CRUZ, who is hereby recommended for
Oral Examination.
JOHN T. CORPUZ, PhD

Adviser
JOHN T. CORPUZ, DME

Data Consultant
JOHN T. CORPUZ, PhD

Language Editor
Approved by the Panel for Oral Examination with a

grade of PASSED.
PANEL OF EXAMINERS
AGRIPINA B. MARIBBAY, PhD

Chairperson
INICIA C. BANSIG, PhD MANUEL A. BELANGO, DME

Member Member
JESUS B. PIZARRO, DPA FE S. MASIGAN, DME

Member Member
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree, DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN EDUCATION MAJOR IN EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT.
INICIA C. BANSIG, PhD

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 iii
Dean, Graduate School
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick
brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps
over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy
dog.
~ Juan B. Cruz
Note. The first to be acknowledged are the defense-

panel members, adviser, data consultant, and language
editor.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 iv
DEDICATION
This research work is humbly dedicated to:
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

~ Juan B. Cruz

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
TITLE PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. i
APPROVAL SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. iii
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. v
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. vii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. viii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ix
Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Review of Related Literature and Studies . . 10
Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . 85
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Scope and Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . .. 89
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91
Chapter 2 METHODOLOGY
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96
Participants of the Study . . . . . . . . .. 96
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98
Data-Gathering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 104
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108
Chapter 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 vi
Profile of the Participants . . . . . . . .. 110
Extent of Instructional Exposure of Students

to Critical Thinking Through Problem
Solving. 123
Comparative Analysis of the Extent of

Exposure of Students to Instructional
Activities that Promote Critical Thinking
and Problem Solving when Grouped According
to Teachers’ Profile . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. 128
Students’ Level of Critical-Thinking and

Problem-Solving Skills . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Comparative Analysis of the Students’ Level

of Critical-Thinking and Problem-Solving
Skills when Grouped by Profile Variables . . 138
Analysis of Correlation Between Students’

Instructional Exposure and Level of
Critical-Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
. . . .. 141
Difficulties Encountered by the Students and

the Teachers in the Specific Learning Areas
in Mathematics Instruction as Regards the
Integration of Critical-Thinking and
Problem-Solving Skills . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 156
Proposed Teaching Plan to Enhance the

Integration of Critical Thinking and Problem
Solving in the Mathematics Classroom . . . . 180
Chapter 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . .. 204
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 212
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 213

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 vii
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Letters to Gatekeepers for the Pilot

Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 227
Appendix B. Letters to Gatekeepers for the Final

Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 228
Appendix C. Informed Consent Form . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Appendix D. Critical-Thinking and Problem-Solving

Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 231
Appendix E. Instructional Exposure Questionnaire . .. 234
Appendix F. Problem-Solving Rubrics . . . . . . . . . 235
Appendix G. Focus Group Discussion Guide (FGD) for

Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 237
Appendix H. Focus Group Discussion Guide (FGD) for

Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 238
Appendix I. Curriculum Vitae . . . . . . . . . . . .. 239

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 viii

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page

No. No.
1 Basis for Identifying the Participants’
Performance Level Group . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2 Basis for Interpreting the Content Validity

Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3 Schedule and Time Frame for the

Administration of the Questionnaires and
Problem-Solving Test 105
4 Rubrics for Assessing Problem-Solving

Skills . 105
5 Scale for Interpreting Students’ Extent of

Instructional Exposure to Activities that
Promote Critical Thinking Through Problem
Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 108
6 Scale for Interpreting Students’ Critical-

Thinking Scores Through Problem Solving . . . 108
7 Students’ Instructional Exposure to Content

that Promotes Critical Thinking Through
Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
8 Students’ Instructional Exposure to

Strategies that Promote Critical Thinking
Through Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 115
9 Students’ Instructional Exposure to Polya’s

Problem-Solving Process . . . . . . . . . . . 118
10 Summary of Students’ Instructional Exposure

to Strategies that Promote Critical Thinking
Through Problem
Solving . . . . . . . . . . .. 123

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 x

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page

No. No.
1 Problem-Solving
Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2 P21 Framework for 21st-Century Learning . . .. 62
3 K-12 Mathematics
Framework . . . . . . . . . . 68
4 Core Skills for Critical Thinking . . . . . . 72
5 Polya’s Plan of
Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6 Problem-Solving Strategies
. . . . . . . . . . 76
7 The Paradigm of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 82

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 xii
ABSTRACT
This descriptive research aimed to assess students’

level of critical-thinking skills through problem solving.
As its participants, six students were purposively sampled
from each of the 25 sections of Grade-12 students to
represent three level groups, namely, advanced, proficient,
and below proficient. Results showed that students have
‘great extent’ of exposure to instruction that promotes
critical thinking while they have ‘proficient’ level of
critical thinking. Inferential tests revealed that students’
exposure along content, strategies, assessment, and
instructional materials correlates with their level of
critical thinking. Notable teaching practices include the
establishment of meaningful connections between and among
mathematics concepts and logical organization of lessons. In
addition, the integration of problem solving to train
students for critical thinking, the modelling of the Polya’s
problem-solving plan, problem-solving strategies, and
problem posing were also commended. Individual and group
assessments, critiquing students’ solutions, and use of
rubrics were noted as best assessment practices. Along
instructional materials, the use of print and online
materials, manipulatives and mathematics software,
calculators, worksheets, and activity sheets were commonly
practiced. Among the students’ difficulties were on
visualization of mathematics concepts, recall of formulas,
properties and algorithms, connecting mathematics with
problem situation, understanding mathematics language,
dealing with unsupervised group problem-solving assessment,
and too long problems which require adequate time. Teachers’
difficulty is related to nature of mathematics content,
varied students’ exposure to problem solving, students’ poor
calculator skills, limited time for deepening activities,
and dearth of instructional materials. As an offshoot of the
study, a proposed mathematics teaching-learning intervention
plan was crafted to promote students’ acquisition of
critical-thinking skills through their exposure to problem-
solving activities.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 xiii
Keywords: 21st century skills, critical thinking, higher-

order thinking skills, metacognitive skills, problem
solving [list 5 key terms](alphabetically arranged)

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500 1
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Education is critical in the development of any nation.
The more educated the people are, the more successful their
nation becomes. Education promotes the understanding of the
world, aspects of life, social norms, and multi-culture,
which help people to adjust to the rapid changes in society.
Note. The introduction must be around six (6) pages in

length and do the following: (1) state the research problem,
(2) review studies that have addressed the problem, (3)
indicate deficiencies in the studies, (4) advance the
significance of the study for particular audiences, and (5)
state the purpose statement (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p.
164)
Review of Related Literature and Studies
The study explored concepts, articles, and studies that
are related to the present investigation to establish
clarity of terms, to present what has been known about the
variables, and to determine the gap in terms of knowledge
which led to the conceptualization of this research. The

review is presented in four common themes, each of which
consists of subthemes . . .
Critical Thinking
Definition of Critical Thinking
The following presents varied definitions of authors on
critical thinking:
Johnson (2000) and Facione (2011) define critical thinking
as processing information through organizing, analyzing and
evaluating. Moreover, Beyer (2007) argued that critical
thinking is to investigate the information for its trueness
and conciseness, and it values beliefs, arguments, and
hypotheses (Beyer, 2007) . . .
Characteristics of Critical Thinking
Authors characterize critical thinking in various ways.
These are presented as follows:
Ennis (2000) present five key concepts and
characteristics defining critical thinking: practical,
reflective, moderate, belief and action resulting in a
working definition: “Critical thinking is reasonable

reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to
believe or do” . . .
Problem Solving
Definition of Problem Solving
Problem Solving involves three words “method,”
“answer,” and “solution.” “Method” is a means used to get an
answer. This will involve one or more problem-solving
strategies. “Answer” means a number, quantity, or some
other entity that the problem is asking for. Finally, a
“solution” is the whole process of solving a problem,
including the method of obtaining an answer and the answer
itself (NZ maths, n.d.) . . .
Synthesis

Conceptual Framework
This study emerged from the conglomeration of the
following theories, concepts, and frameworks:
Figure 1. Framework for 21st-Century Learning
To help teachers integrate skills in teaching, the
Partnership for 21st-Century Learning (P21) has developed a
unified, collective vision for learning known as the
Framework for 21st-Century Learning (Bates, 2009) . . .

Core Subjects and the 21st-Century Themes
It is expected that students must have mastered the
core subjects and21st-century themes. Core subjects include
English, reading or language arts, world languages, arts,
mathematics, economics, science, geography, history and
government, and civics. In addition to these subjects,
schools must move to include not only a focus on mastery of
Figure 2. K-12 Mathematics Framework
Mathematics is one subject that pervades life at any
age and in any circumstance. Thus, its value goes beyond the
classroom and the school . . .

Paradigm of the Study
The paradigm in Figure 7 shows how the theories
presented are translated into the study context.
Figure 3. The Paradigm of the Study
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
 K-12 Mathematics
Framework  Analysis of the stu-
 Relevant theories on dents’ extent of in-  Baseline data on
critical thinking and structional exposure students’ extent of
problem solving and level of critical- exposure to in-
 K-12 Curriculum and thinking skills struction that pro-
Dynamic Instruc- through problem motes critical
tional Plans (DIPs) of solving thinking through
senior high school  Documentation of the problem-solving
Mathematics teaching practices of activities and their
 Students’ assessment Mathematics teach- level of critical
of their exposure to ers, difficulties en- thinking skills
critical thinking countered by students  Proposed Interven-
through problem- and teachers on the tion Plan on pro-
solving activities integration of critical moting critical-
 Participants’ re- thinking through thinking skills
sponses to the survey problem solving in through problem
questionnaire and fo- Mathematics instruc- solving
cus group discussions tion
(FGDs), and their so-
lutions to the problem
set
Feedback

As reflected in the paradigm, for the attainment of the
objectives of the study, it considered the following inputs:
the K-12 mathematics framework; relevant theories on
critical thinking and problem-solving skills; K-12
mathematics curriculum, and Dynamic Instructional Plans in
all senior high school mathematics subjects; participants’
FGD responses; and students’ scores in the Problem-Solving
Test . . .
Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to assess instructional exposure, and
the level of Critical Thinking and problem-solving skills of
G11 Senior High School Students of St. Paul University
Philippines for the academic year 2017-2018. The study
further documented the difficulties encountered and
suggestions offered by teachers and students to enhance the
integration of these skills in mathematics instruction.
Furthermore, a proposed teaching-learning plan for
mathematics subjects was developed based.
Specifically, the study sought to answer the following
questions:
1. What is the participants’ profile in terms of the fol-
lowing?

1.1 Teacher Participants
1.1.1 Strand Handled
1.1.2 Year Level Handled
1.1.3 Years in Teaching Mathematics
1.2 Student Participants
1.2.1 Strand
1.2.2 Year Level
2. What is the students’ extent of exposure to instruc-
tional activities that promote critical thinking and
problem solving along the following areas as observed
by the subject experts?
2.1 Content
2.2 Process of Learning and Strategies
2.2.1 Process of Learning
2.2.1.1 Asking and Developing Questions
2.2.1.2 Making Connections
2.2.1.3 Sharing and Collaborating
2.2.1.4 Analyzing
2.2.2 Strategies
2.3 Assessment Techniques
3. Is there a significant difference in the students’ ex-
tent of exposure to instructional activities that pro-
mote critical thinking and problem solving along the

identified areas when they are grouped according to
teachers’ profile variables?
4. What is the students’ level of critical-thinking and
problem-solving skills?
5. Is there a significant difference in the students’
level of critical-thinking and problem-solving skills
when they are grouped according to profile variables?
6. Is there a significant correlation between students’
extent of instructional exposure and their skills level
with regard to critical thinking and problem solving?
7. What were the learning difficulties encountered by the
students and the teachers in the specific learning ar-
eas in mathematics instruction as regards the integra-
tion of critical-thinking and problem-solving skills?
8. What instructional enhancement do the teachers and the
students suggest to facilitate the integration of crit-
ical-thinking and problem-solving skills in mathematics
instruction?
9. What teaching-learning plan can be implemented for
mathematics instruction to strengthen students’ acqui-
sition of critical-thinking and problem-solving skills
Hypotheses

The study tested the following hypotheses at 0.05 level
of significance:
1. There is no significant difference in the students’
extent of exposure to instructional activities that
promote critical thinking and problem solving along the
identified areas when they are grouped according to
teachers’ profile variables.
2. There is no significant difference in the students’
level of critical-thinking and problem-solving skills
when they are grouped according to profile variables.
3. There is no significant correlation between students’
extent of instructional exposure and their skills level
with regard to critical thinking and problem solving.
Scope and Limitations
This study focused on the assessment of the students’
extent of exposure to mathematics instruction that promotes
critical thinking through problem solving with areas of
content, strategies, assessment, and instructional materials
. . .
Significance of the Study

The results of the study are significant to the
following: [hierarchical order]
Senior High School Students. The senior high school
students may be made appreciative of the instructional
practices of their teachers. Their awareness of their skill
level regarding critical thinking through problem-solving
may help them plan for self-regulated activities that aid in
the learning of the mathematics concepts.
Researcher. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy
dog.
Future Researchers. The quick brown fox jumps over the
lazy dog.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were defined operationally in this
study for clearer understanding of the variables under
investigation: [alphabetical order]
Assessment. This is an aspect of instruction which aims
at measuring students’ learning outcomes. In this phase,
teachers may explore various assessment methods to obtain
accurate information on the amount of learning that took
place after instruction.

Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methods and procedures that
were used in the study. It includes the research design,
participants of the study, instrumentation, data-gathering
procedure, and data-analysis tools.
Research Design
This investigation utilized the mixed research
approach. The quantitative approach, particularly using the
descriptive-correlational research design, was intended to
assess and correlate instructional exposure and level of
students’ critical-thinking skills through problem solving.
Through the qualitative approach, the teaching practices of
teachers were documented, the difficulties encountered, and
the suggestions offered by both teachers and students in the
integration or acquisition of critical-thinking skills
through problem solving were obtained . . .
Participants of the Study
Two groups of participants were involved in the study,
namely, the student participants and the teacher
participants from the senior high school level at St. Paul

University Philippines during the second semester, academic
year 2017-2018.
The teacher participants include the population of
mathematics teachers handling senior mathematics subjects
for the first and second semesters. There were seven (7)
teachers who were involved in the study.
Six (6) student participants were randomly selected
from each of the 25 sections of senior high school students.
The six student participants taken per section were
purposively sampled to ensure representatives from the
following level groups: above average, average, and below
average in terms of performance. The mathematics subject
teachers assisted the researcher in obtaining the samples.
The following grade range which was adopted from the MS K-12
Grading System (DepEd, 2016) was used in identifying the
student participants to ensure that the three performance
levels are represented.
Table 1. Basis for Identifying the Participants’

Performance Level Group
Level Group Grade Range
Advanced 90 and above
Proficient 85 – 89.99
Developing to Approaching
Below 85
Proficiency

The student participants were asked to rate their
extent of exposure to instruction that promotes critical
thinking through problem solving. Moreover, the student
participants were tasked to answer 10 problems. The result
of the test served as basis in assessing their level of
critical thinking.
Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to
teachers as well as to students to obtain and clarify
information on their teaching practices, difficulties, and
suggestions in promoting critical thinking through problem
solving in mathematics instruction.
The table below shows the summary of the participants
of the study.
Table 2. Participants of the Study

Participants Frequency Percentage
Teachers 10 6.25
Students 150 93.75
Total 160 100.00
Instrumentation
The study utilized the following data gathering tools:
Instructional Exposure Questionnaire. This was
administered to the student participants to assess their
exposure to instruction that integrates critical thinking
through problem-solving skills. This questionnaire has four

sub-categories: content, strategies, practices, and
instructional materials.
Content. This involves 10 items intended to assess the
extent to which the students were exposed to mathematics
content that promotes the development of critical thinking
through problem solving.
Strategies. This involves 31 items which aimed to
assess students’ extent of exposure to the strategies that
promote critical thinking through problem solving. The set
of indicators include 13 items for general strategies in
problem solving, 4 items related to Polya’s four steps in
problem solving, and 14 items that involve problem-solving
strategies.
Practices. This involves 14 items which aimed to assess
the extent of exposure of students to assessment that
promotes critical thinking through problem solving.
Instructional Materials. This involves 10 items which
aimed to assess students’ extent of exposure to
instructional materials that promote the acquisition of
critical thinking through problem-solving skills.
The Instructional Exposure Questionnaire was subjected
to content validation following the given procedure:

1. The original set of items that were formulated was
subjected for content review by five (5) mathematics
teachers. This process intended to elicit reviewers’
suggestions to improve the content of the
questionnaire. This was also done to ensure the
appropriateness and adequacy of the items in measuring
students’ exposure to instruction that promotes
critical thinking through problem solving.
2. The results of the preliminary review of the tool were
used as basis for improving its content. Specifically,
the comments and suggestions of the five reviewers were
taken into consideration in refining the tool.
3. The refined version of the tool was subjected to
validation. The five mathematics experts assessed the
degree of relevance of each item in a scale of 1 to 4,
with 1 as having no relevance and 4 as very relevant.
4. The ratings of the experts on each item indicator were
analyzed using the Content Validation Index (CVI)
method (Lynn,1986). The experts’ ratings were recorded
such that those items with ratings of ‘relevant’ and
‘very relevant’ were considered ‘relevant’ items. Items
with ‘somewhat relevant’ and ‘irrelevant’ ratings were
recorded as ‘irrelevant’ items. From the recoded

ratings, the I-CVI and S-CVI were computed. The I-CVI
stands for the CVI for the individual item while the S-
CVI reflects the overall CVI of the tool. These were
computed as:
The I-CVI was used for identifying the items to be
retained, revised, and rejected based on the scale below.
Table 3. Basis for Interpreting the Content Validity

Indices
I-CVI/S-CVI Decision
0.80 and above Accept
0.60 - 0.79 Revise
Below 0.60 Discard
Before obtaining the S-CVI, the revised items were re-
rated whose final I-CVIs were considered for S-CVI
computation. The content validity of the tool was based on
the computed S-CVI which should be at least 0.80 (Polit &
Beck, 2004).
5. The results of the I-CVI and S-CVI analysis for the
tool are as follows:
Based on the I-CVIs, of the 65 item indicators, 43 were
accepted and 22 were revised. I-CVIs of the revised items
that were re-rated indicate that the items are within
acceptable levels. The obtained S-CVI of the tool is 0.93.

Problem Solving Test. There were ten(10) problems that
were constructed, five problems deal with General
Mathematics concepts and five problems were on Statistics
and Probability. For each problem, students were asked to
present an organized solution. In the test, the students
were asked to present a detailed solution for each problem
using the Polya’s Plan of Attack, particularly stressing on
the following phases:
See Phase. In this phase, the students were assessed in
terms of their ability to identify given information and to
determine what the problem asks for.
Plan Phase. In this phase, the students were assessed
in terms of their ability to present an appropriate plan to
solve the problem. This plan can be a sketch, a model, an
equation or any approach to attack the problem.
Implementation Phase. In this phase, the students were
assessed in terms of their ability to implement their plans
in obtaining the solution to the problem. The accuracy of
each step in the implementation process was considered in
the assessment.
Check Phase. In this phase, the students were assessed
in terms of their ability to determine the accuracy and
reasonableness of the final answer. Students' level of

critical thinking was assessed based on their solutions to
the specific problems from the ‘see’ to the ‘check’ phase.
The problem-solving rubrics prescribed by the
Department of Education for assessing students’ performance
tasks which can be accessed through DepEd Tambayan Website.
This was used in rating students’ solutions to problems. The
rubrics include 4 performance indicators which correspond to
each of the problem-solving phases. These indicators
include students’ ability to:
1. identify the given information and what the problem
asks for;
2. use the given information appropriately in planning for
the solution;
3. apply the planned solution accurately; and
4. determine the most reasonable solution to the problem.
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Guide. This was used to
elicit information on the teaching practices of teachers,
and difficulties encountered by both teachers and students
in mathematics instruction that affect the integration or
acquisition of the critical thinking through problem-
solving. Teacher' and students’ suggestions for
instructional enhancements to promote the acquisition of

these 21st-century mathematics skills were likewise obtained
through this data gathering method.
Data-Gathering Procedure
To obtain the data needed for the investigation, the
following procedures were undertaken by the researcher.
1. The researcher obtained clearance from the Research
Ethics Committee (REC) of St. Paul University
Philippines to ensure the ethical soundness of the
research.
2. The researcher obtained endorsement from the
dissertation adviser and the dean of the Graduate
School for data gathering.
3. The researcher sought permission from the [identify
gatekeepers] for conduct of the study.
4. Before the data collection, the validity of the
research tools was established, and identification of
the study participants was undertaken. Informed consent
from these participants was likewise sought to ensure
that the study conforms to the ethical norms of
research.
5. Upon approval by the [state gatekeeper], the researcher
conferred with [identify the person with whom to

coordinate] on the schedule of the data gathering. The
following are the details of the processes involved in
obtaining the specific data: (state the details of data
gathering, example is given below.)
5.1Administration of the Instructional Exposure
Questionnaire and Problem Solving Test. The
researcher in coordination with the SHS
coordinators agreed on a specific schedule to
administer the questionnaire and test. There were
three schedules that were set. The following table
provides a summary of the schedule and the time
frame for these data collection activities.
Table 4. Schedule and Time Frame for the Administration of

the Questionnaires and Problem-Solving Test
Tool Administered Day Number of Hours
Instructional Exposure
1 45 mins to 1 hour
Questionnaire
Problem Set A
2 1.5 hours
(General Mathematics)
Problem Set B
(Probability and 3 1.5 hours
Statistics)
The data gathering schedule were all set in the
morning. During the administration of the problem solving
test, the use of calculators was allowed. Prior to the

conduct of the test, the researcher discussed the direction
to ensure that students would show a detailed solution to
the problems.
5.2Conduct of the Focus Group Discussion (FGD). The
researcher formed four groups for the student-
participants and two groups for teacher-
participants for the Focus Group Discussions. Six
separate groups of FGDs were conducted, four (4)
for the students and two (2) for teachers. One
student-representative was taken per section for
the FGDs. There were twenty-five (25) sections in
G11, thus, one FGD group involved about six to
seven students . . .
Data Analysis
The data collected were tallied and treated using the
following analytic tools:
Frequency and Percentage. These were used to describe
the profile of the participants.
Mean. This was used to determine the students’ extent
of instructional exposure to problem-solving activities that
promote critical thinking along content, strategies,
assessment, and instructional materials. It was also used to

determine the students’ level of critical-thinking and
problem-solving skills. To interpret the means, the
following scale was used:
Table 5. Scale for Interpreting the Means

Level of Critical-
Extent of
Mean Range Thinking and Problem-
Exposure
Solving Skills
3.25 - 4.00 Very Great Very High
2.50 - 3.24 Great High
1.75 - 2.49 Low Low
1.00 - 1.74 Very Low Very Low
END OF PAPER
Proposal – uses future tense of verb
Full paper – uses past tense of verb

Chapter 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the results of the data analysis
and their corresponding discussion. The presentation follows
the sequence of the research questions as stipulated in the
statement of the problem.
1. Participants’ Profile [numbering follows that of the
Statement of the Problem]
1.1Teacher Participants’ Profile
Table 6. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the

Teacher Participants in Terms of Year Level Handled [table
numbers are continuous, no decimal points]
Grade Level Frequency Percentage
Grade 11 4 40.00
Grade 12 6 60.00
Total 10 100.00
dog. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick
brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.


Teacher Participants in Terms of Years in Teaching
Mathematics
Curriculum Type Frequency Percentage
10 years and below 4 40.00
11 - 20 3 30.00
21 and above 3 30.00
Total 10 100.00
1.2Student Participants’ Profile

Student Participants in Terms of Strand
Strand Frequency Percentage
ABM 29 12.50
STEM 161 69.40
HUMSS 42 18.10
Total 232 100.00

2. Extent of Instructional Exposure of Students to Critical
Thinking Through Problem Solving
2.1Content
Table 9. Students’ Extent of Instructional Exposure to

Content that Promotes Critical Thinking Through Problem
Solving as Assessed by the Teachers and the Students
Themselves
Students Teachers Overall Mean
Indicators
Mean DI Mean DI Mean DI
1. Cover the desired
3.93 VGE 3.54 VGE 3.74 VGE
learning content
2. Consider problem-solv-
ing as its integral 2.92 GE 2.91 GE 2.92 GE
component
3. Involve interesting
and challenging prob- 2.82 GE 2.85 GE 2.84 GE
lems
4. Show a connection be-
tween past and current 2.97 GE 2.98 GE 2.98 GE
topics
5. Show the relationship
between current con-
2.96 GE 2.98 GE 2.97 GE
tent and other mathe-
matics topics
6. Integrate current con-
tent with other disci- 2.81 GE 2.87 GE 2.84 GE
plines
7. Are organized from
simple to complex 3.92 VGE 3.82 VGE 3.87 VGE
level of difficulty
8. Reflect same topics
across levels but of
increasing level of 3.13 GE 3.23 GE 3.18 GE
difficulty (spiral
approach)
9. Focus on deriving and
understanding the 3.06 GE 3.16 GE 3.11 GE
mathematical concepts
10. Are centered on the
acquisition of higher 2.82 GE 2.72 GE 2.77 GE
order thinking skills
Category Mean 2.93 GE 2.83 GE 2.88 GE

2.2Process of Learning and Strategies
Table 10. Title of Table

Overall
Students Teachers
Mean
Indicators
Mea Mea Mea
DI DI DI
n n n
1.The quick brown
3.9 3.5 3.7
fox jumps over VGE VGE VGE
3 4 4
the lazy dog.
2.The quick brown
2.9 2.9 2.9
fox jumps over GE GE GE
2 1 2
the lazy dog.
3.The quick brown
2.8 2.8 2.8
fox jumps over GE GE GE
2 5 4
the lazy dog.
2.9 2.9 2.9
Category Mean GE GE GE
2 1 2

Table 11. Summary of the Students’ Extent of Instructional

Exposure to Critical Thinking Through Problem Solving
Category Descriptive
Approaches to RITE
Mean Interpretation
A. First Dimension 3.19 Great Extent
B. Second Dimension 3.00 Great Extent
C. Third Dimension 2.81 Great Extent
D. Fourth Dimension 3.05 Great Extent
Overall Mean 3.01 Great Extent
3. Test for Significant Difference in the Participants’
Assessment on the Extent of Exposure of Students to
Instructional Activities that Promote Critical Thinking
and Problem Solving when Grouped According to Teachers’
Profile
3.1Strand Handled
Table 12. Test for Significant Difference in the

Participants’ Assessment on the Extent of Exposure of
Students to Instructional Activities that Promote Critical
Thinking and Problem Solving when Grouped According to
Teachers’ Strand Handled
F- p- Decision at
Dimension Strand Mean SD
value value α = 0.05
A. First ABM 3.55 .606 4.049 0.008 Reject H0
Dimension STEM 3.19 .679

HUMSS 3.36 .531

Total 3.07 .568
ABM 3.57 .575
B. Second STEM 3.23 .690
4.594 0.004 Reject H0
Dimension HUMSS 3.42 .524
Total 3.04 .648
ABM 3.52 .658
C. Third STEM 3.14 .703
6.094 0.001 Reject H0
Total 2.89 .724
ABM 3.57 .604
D. Fourth STEM 3.26 .618
6.136 0.001 Reject H0
Total 2.95 .611
Table 13. Pairwise Comparison on the Students’ Exposure to

Instructional Activities that Promote Critical Thinking and
Problem Solving when Grouped According to Teachers’ Strand
Handled
ABM STEM HUMSS
(x̄=3.55) (x̄=3.19) (x̄=3.36)
ABM
- 0.046* 0.028*
(x̄=3.55)
STEM
0.046* - 0.896
(x̄=3.19)
HUMSS
0.028* 0.896 -
(x̄=3.36)
*Significant at 0.05 level


3.2Year Level Handled
Table 14. Test for Significant Difference in the

Participants’ Assessment on the Extent of Exposure of
Students to Instructional Activities that Promote Critical
Thinking and Problem Solving when Grouped According to
Teachers’ Year Level Handled
t-
p- Decision
test
Dimension Strand Mean SD valu at
valu
e α = 0.05
e
Grade 11 3.55 .606
A. First 1.54 0.12
Grade 12 3.19 .679 Accept H0
Dimension 8 4
Total 3.07 .568
Grade 11 3.57 .575
B. Second 1.10 0.27
Dimension 2 2
Total 3.04 .648
Table 14 (continued). [this is how to label the continuation

of a cut table]
C. Third Grade 11 3.52 .658 1.15 0.25 Accept H0

Grade 12 3.14 .703

Dimension 5 0
Total 2.89 .724
Grade 11 3.57 .604
D. Fourth 1.06 0.29
Dimension 3 0
Total 2.95 .611
4. Level of Students’ Critical-Thinking and Problem-Solving
Skills
Table 15. Students’ Level of Critical-Thinking and Problem-

Solving Skills
Descriptive
Indicators Mean
Interpretation
1. The quick brown fox jumps over
3.08 GE
the head of the lazy dog.
3.33 VGE
3.58 VGE
Category Mean 3.08 GE

5. Comparative Analysis of the Students’ Level of Critical-
Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills when Grouped by
Profile Variables
Table 16. Chi-Square Analysis of the Students’ Level of

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving when Grouped by
Profile Variables
Chi-Square Decision at
Profile p
Value α = 0.05
Strand 34.36 0.07 Accept Ho
Grade Level 78.23 0.04 Reject Ho
Table 17. Contingency Table on the Students’ Level of

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving when Grouped by Grade
Level
Chi- p- Decision
Grade Grade Grade
Square valu at
Level 11 12
Value e α = 0.05
F 10 19 78.23 0.04 Reject Ho
Very High
% 12.50 27.14
F 25 18
High
% 31.25 25.71
Low F 40 29

% 50.00 41.43
F 5 4
Very Low
% 6.25 5.71
F 80 70
Total
% 100.00 100.00
6. Test for Significant Relationship Between Students’
Instructional Exposure and Level of Critical-Thinking and
Problem-Solving Skills
Table 18. Pearson r Test Results on the Relationship

Between Students’ Instructional Exposure and Level of
Critical-Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
Level of Critical Thinking
Extent of Exposure p- Decision at α =
r
value 0.05
Content 0.47 0.23 Accept Ho
Process of Learning and
0.89 0.04 Reject Ho
Strategies
Assessment 0.98 0.03 Reject Ho

7. Difficulties Encountered by the Students and the Teachers
in the Specific Learning Areas in Mathematics Instruction
as Regards the Integration of Critical-Thinking and
Problem-Solving Skills
7.1Difficulties Encountered by the Students
Table 19. Thematic Map of the Difficulties Encountered by

the Students in the Integration of Critical Thinking and
Problem Solving
Themes Sub-Themes
 Brown fox
Information Overload  Green fox
 Yellow fox
 Quick fox
Fast-Paced Teaching  Nimble fox
 Agile fox
Information Overload. The quick brown fox jumps over
the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick brown
fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps over
the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
7.2Difficulties Encountered by the Teachers

Table 20. Thematic Map of the Difficulties Encountered by

the Teachers in the Integration of Critical Thinking and
Problem Solving
Themes Sub-Themes
 Brown fox
Limited Time  Green fox
 Yellow fox
Difficulty in  Quick fox
Assessing Individual  Nimble fox
Outputs  Agile fox
Limited Time. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy
dog. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
8. Proposed Teaching Plan to Enhance the Integration of
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving in the Mathematics
Classroom
Title: Teaching Plan to Enhance the Integration of Critical
Thinking and Problem Solving
Rationale [based on the findings]

General Objectives
1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog;
2. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog;
3. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog; and
4. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Table 21. Teaching Plan to Enhance the Integration of Critical Thinking and Problem Solving [sample
matrix only]
Focus Strategies/ Persons Expected
Objectives Resources Timeframe Budget
Area Activities Involved Output
Researc  To raise Seminar and  English  Laptops  Septemb Php  English
h- English Training Teachers  LCD er to 100,000. teachers’
Tutored teachers’ Workshop on:  Language projectors October 00 raised
Teachin awareness 1. Facilitat Students  Printer of 1st awareness
g of and deepen ing  Language-  Bond paper Semeste and
English their students’ Departmen  Ink r deepened
appreciati small group t Heads  Sample appreciati
on of the discussions  Research language or on of the
different of research Program research different
strategies findings Coordinat articles for  Februar strategies
for related to or for facilitating y to for
Research- language Social small group March Research-
Tutored lessons Sciences discussions, of 2nd Tutored
Teaching 2. Criticall and authentic Semeste Teaching
of English y Humanitie tasks, r of English
 To enhance discussing s academic  English
English language  Research paper teachers’
teachers’ research Office writing enhanced
competenci with Staff  Sample competenci
es on students  Resource corresponden es on
Research- for them to Persons ces between Research-
Tutored learn more language Tutored
Teaching about students and Teaching
of English language language of English
 To raise lessons researchers  Language
language 3. Providing students’
 Sample video
students’ students raised
clips of
with

awareness authentic language- awareness

and deepen tasks research and
their wherein presentation deepened
appreciati they in an online appreciati
on of the critically internationa on of the
different integrate l community different
learning language- learning
experience research experience
s in findings to s in
Research- enrich Research-
Tutored their Tutored
Teaching outputs Teaching
of English 4. Teaching of English
students
how to
substantiat
e their
individual
and
collaborati
ve papers
with
relevant
language-
research
findings
5. Organizin
g and
conducting
school-
based
seminars or

fora where
students
discuss
their
research-
based
essays or
language-
research
findings
6. Facilitat
ing
students’
dialogue
with
language
researchers
through
email and
other
online
modalities
to learn
more about
language
lessons

Chapter 4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of findings, the
conclusions drawn from the results, and the recommendations
forwarded by the researcher based on the findings and
conclusions.
Summary of Findings
The results of the study are summarized as follows:
1. Profile of the Participants
1.1Teacher Participants
brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox
jumps over the lazy dog.
1.2Student Participants
2. Extent of Instructional Exposure of Students to Critical
Thinking Through Problem Solving
2.1Content

2.2Process of Learning and Strategies
brown fox jumps over
Conclusions
Based on the findings, the researcher drew the
following conclusions:
Recommendations
Based on the findings presented and the conclusions
drawn, the researcher recommends the following:
1. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. The quick

jumps over the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps over
the lazy dog. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy

REFERENCES
Blackmore, P., & Cousin, G. (2003). Linking teaching and

research through research-based learning. Educational
Developments, 4(4), 24–7.
Blanchard, A., DiPardo, A., Fleischer, C., Mayher, J.,

McCracken, N., Miller, J., Stock, P. L., Johnson, T.
S., Whitney, A. E., Don Zancanella, D., & Zuidema, L.
(2005). Understanding the relationship between research
and teaching. National Council of Teachers of English.
https://ncte.org/statement/researchandteaching/
Bomberg, E. (2016, February 18). It’s time to focus on

teaching-research synergies. In Teaching Matters blog:
Promoting, discussing and celebrating teaching at The
University of Edinburgh. https://www.teaching-matters-
blog.ed.ac.uk/its-time-to-focus-on-teaching-research-
synergies/
Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of

research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 358-388.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp007
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and Research: New relationships

and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and
learning in higher education. Higher Education
Research & Development, 22(1), 3-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000056571
Cader, H. A. (2008). The evolution of the knowledge economy.

Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 38(2), 117-
129.
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/132351/2/08-2-
3.pdf
Chang, H. (2007). UCL in the News: Enrich yourself, and the

world. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2007/nov/ucl-news-
enrich-yourself-and-world
Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as a

phenomenologist views it. In R. S. Valle & M. King

(Eds.), Existential-phenomenological alternatives for

psychology (pp. 48-71). Oxford University Press.
Congress of the Philippines. (1994). Republic Act No. 7722:

An act creating the Commission on Higher Education.
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/1994/05may/
19940518-RA-07722-FVR.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design:

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

Appendix A
LETTER SEEKING PERMISSION TO CONDUCT THE STUDY

Appendix B
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
This informed consent form is for the junior-high-school

(JHS), senior-high-school (SHS), and college students, as
well as for the English teachers and the language-department
heads at St. Paul University Philippines (SPUP) whom I am
inviting to participate in the research titled “Research-
Informed Teaching of English (RITE): Basis for an English-
Language-Teaching (ELT) Training Program.”
Name of Principal Investigator : Juan B. Cruz

Name of Organization : St. Paul University
Philippines
Name of Project and Version : Doctoral Dissertation
This Informed Consent Form has two parts:

Part 1: Information Sheet (to share information about
the study with you)
Part 2: Certificate of Consent (for signatures if you
choose to participate)
You will be given a copy of the full Informed Consent Form.
PART 1: INFORMATION SHEET
Introduction
I am Juan B. Cruz, a student taking up Doctor of Philosophy

in Rhetoric and Linguistics (PhD RL) at St. Paul University
Philippines (SPUP). I am conducting a study on research-
informed teaching of English (RITE). I am going to give you
information and invite you to be part of this research. You
do not have to decide today whether you will participate in
the research or not. Before you decide, you can talk to
anyone you feel comfortable with about the research, or you
can ask me further questions about the study. Moreover, this
consent form may contain words that you do not understand.
Please feel free to ask me about any part that is unclear,
and I will take time to explain.

Disclosure
I would also like to inform you that I am the program

coordinator of the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)
Research Program under the auspices of the Center for
Planning, Research, Innovations, and New Technologies
(CPRINT), as well as the secretary of the Research Ethics
Committee (REC), both at SPUP. This study, however, is an
independent undertaking and has nothing to do with the
CPRINT and/or with the REC. My position in these units will
in no way be used to influence the research process. Hence,
I am appearing to you as a PhD RL student-researcher of
SPUP.
Purpose of the Research
Research is a key element of 21st-century teaching and

learning and a crucial driver of today’s knowledge-based
global economies and societies. It allows students space for
developing the skills of critical thinking, creativity,
collaboration, and communication – the 4Cs that are
essential to their becoming globally competitive lifelong
learners. Research-informed teaching of English (RITE) is an
underexplored area of inquiry; the role played by research
in language teaching is neither comprehensively discussed in
literature nor widely investigated in contemporary research.
The researcher, therefore, conceptualized this proposed
study to determine the extent to which English teachers
practice RITE, to explore the enablers of and barriers to
RITE, and to elicit suggestions to reinforce the enablers
and to reduce the barriers. In pursuing this research
opportunity, the researcher would advance the frontiers of
knowledge and practice in his field by providing a new
perspective on RITE and formulating a mechanism to
strengthen its use: to further foster innovative, flexible,
relevant, and effective pedagogical practices among English
teachers towards students’ holistic, high-quality language
learning.
Type of Research Intervention
This research will involve your participation in a survey

that will take about 30 minutes.

Participant Selection
You are being invited to take part in this research because

I feel that your experience as a student / English teacher /
language-department head can contribute much to my deeper
knowledge and understanding of the extent to which English
teachers practice RITE, including the enablers of and
barriers to RITE.
Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary.

It is your choice whether to participate or not. If you
choose not to participate, that is totally all right. If you
choose to participate and wish to withdraw at any time
during the survey, you may stop your participation freely.
Procedures
A. Format of the Research
I am requesting you to help me learn more about the

extent to which English teachers practice RITE as well
as the enablers of and barriers to RITE. I am inviting
you to take part in this research project. If you
accept, you will be asked to:
1. Sign the informed consent form (ICF) to indicate

your free and informed permission to be a
participant in the study, and
2. Answer all the items under each section of the

survey questionnaire with honesty.
B. Type of Questions to be Asked
You will be requested to fill out a survey

questionnaire which will be provided and collected by
me the researcher. You will answer the survey online
via Google Forms, within the comfort of your home. The
items in the questionnaire will ask for the following:

Section 1: Your profile such as grade level and

curriculum type (if you are a JHS student); your grade
level, curriculum type, and strand (if you are a SHS
student); your year level and school (if you are a
college student); your years of teaching, grade/year
level taught, and highest educational attainment (if
you are an English teacher); or your years as
administrator and highest educational attainment (if
you are a language-department head).
Section 2: Your assessment of the extent to which

English teachers practice RITE along four areas,
namely, (1) research-tutored teaching, (2) research-
based teaching, (3) research-led teaching, and (4)
research-oriented teaching.
Section 3: Your accounts of experience on the enablers

of and barriers to RITE.
Section 4: Your suggestions to reinforce the enablers

of and reduce the barriers to RITE.
You may answer the questionnaire yourself, or I can

read it to you, and you can say out loud the answer you
want me to write down. If you do not wish to answer any
of the questions included in the survey, you may skip
it and move on to the next question. Although
indicating your name on the form is optional, your
anonymity will be kept throughout the research process
and beyond. All information you will provide is
confidential, and no one else except me, Dr. Concepcion
G. Doyugan (my dissertation adviser), and Dr. Jesus B.
Pizarro (my data consultant) will have access to your
survey responses, which will be treated with utmost
privacy and for research purposes only.
Duration
This study will take about six (6) months to complete. You
will be asked to answer the survey questionnaire once only,
for about 30 minutes depending on your pace. Your
participation ends once you are done answering the survey.
Risks

There is a risk that you may share some personal or

confidential information by chance, or that you may feel
uncomfortable sharing about some information. However, I do
not wish for this to happen. You do not have to answer any
question if you feel the question is too personal or makes
you uncomfortable. Aside from this, there is no other
potential risk in your participation. All information you
share will be classified as private and confidential.
Benefits
The research findings will serve as my basis for designing

an English-language-teaching (ELT) development plan, a
mechanism that will help capacitate English teachers on
RITE. The activities that will emanate from the plan will
foster and strengthen innovative, flexible, relevant, and
effective pedagogical practice among English teachers,
towards students’ holistic, high-quality language learning.
Reimbursements
Your participation in this survey is voluntary; hence, there

is no monetary compensation involved.
Confidentiality
Your identity in this study will remain anonymous. Any

information you will share will be kept with utmost
confidentiality and treated for research purposes only. No
one except me the researcher, Dr. Concepcion G. Doyugan (my
dissertation adviser), and Dr. Jesus B. Pizarro (my data
consultant), will have access to your survey responses,
which will be protected from unauthorized use using a lock
and a key.
Sharing the Results
Any information that you will provide will be protected to

remain private and confidential. The results of this
research will be disseminated to the academic community.
Right to Refuse or Withdraw

Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to

you to decide whether to take part or not. If you decide to
take part in the research, you will be asked to sign a
consent form. After you sign, you are still free to withdraw
at any time and without giving a reason. Withdrawing from
this study will not affect the relationship you have, if
any, with the researcher and/or with your organization. If
you withdraw from the study before data collection is
completed, your data will be returned to you or destroyed.
You may decline to answer any or all questions and you may
terminate your involvement at any time if you choose.
Whom to Contact
If you have any questions about this study, you may contact
the following:
Researcher : Juan B. Cruz

Contact number : 0917 917 1757
Email address : bechanique@spup.edu.ph |
bryan.echanique@gmail.com
This proposal has been reviewed and approved by the Research

Ethics Committee (REC) of St. Paul University Philippines
(SPUP), which is a committee whose task is to make sure that
research participants are protected from harm. If you wish
to find out more about the REC, please contact (078) 377
4618 loc. 213.
PART 2: CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT
I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read

to me. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about it,
and any questions I have asked have been answered to my
satisfaction. I consent voluntarily to be a participant in
this study.
Print Name of Participant ___________________________
Signature of Participant ___________________________

Date ___________________________
Day/Month/Year

1
If illiterate
I have witnessed the accurate reading of the consent form to

the potential participant, and the individual has had the
opportunity to ask questions. I confirm that the individual
has given consent freely.
Print name of witness ___________________________

Signature of witness ___________________________
Date ___________________________
Day/Month/Year Thumb
print of participant
Statement by the Researcher/Person Taking Consent
I have accurately read out the information sheet to the

potential participant, and to the best of my ability made
sure that the participant understands that the following
will be done:
1. He/she will answer completely and truthfully the items

of the questionnaire which will elicit such information
as profile variables; assessment of the extent to which
English teachers practice RITE along four areas,
namely, (1) research-tutored teaching, (2) research-
based teaching, (3) research-led teaching, and (4)
research-oriented teaching; accounts of experience on
the enablers of and barriers to RITE; and suggestions
to reinforce the enablers of and reduce the barriers to
RITE.
2. I will keep their responses with utmost confidentiality

and treat them for research purposes only.
I confirm that the participant was given an opportunity

to ask questions about the study, and all the questions
asked by the participant have been answered correctly and to
the best of my ability. I confirm that the individual has
not been coerced into giving consent, and the consent has
been given freely and voluntarily.
1
A literate witness must sign (if possible, this person should be selected by the participant and should have no
connection to the research team). Participants who are illiterate should include their thumb print as well.

A copy of this ICF has been provided to

the participant.
Print name of researcher/person taking the consent

: Juan B. Cruz
Signature of researcher/person taking the consent :

________________
2 April 2022
Date _________________________
Day/Month/Year

Appendix C
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

CURRICULUM VITAE
MA. ROSARIO C. SAPANHILA
PERSONAL DATA
Birth Date : August 17, 1971
Birth Place : Maddarulug Norte, Enrile, Cagayan
Gender : Female
Civil Status : Married
Citizenship : Filipino
Religion : Roman Catholic
Home Address : Maddarulug Norte, Enrile, Cagayan
Email Address : eiringan@spup.edu.ph
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Doctoral : Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics
Degree Education
June 2019
: Doctor of Philosophy Major in Educational

Management
March 2007
Masters : Master of Arts in Education Major in

Degree Mathematics


March 1998
Bachelor in Secondary Education
Baccalaureate :
March 1992
Secondary : Cagayan State University

March 1988
Elementary : Maddarulug Norte Elementary School

March 1984
ELIGIBILITY
Professional Board Examination for Teachers : 1992
Civil Service Career Examination : 1993
SPECIAL TRAININGS
Training/Training -Venue Inclusive Date

Profession Studies Program in Teacher : January-June 1997
Education
Queensland University of Technology
Kelvin Grove, Brisbane
National Training of Trainers for : May 19-25, 2015

Mathematics
Ateneo De Manila University
Manila
National Training of Trainers for : May 12-19, 2017

Practical Research
National Center of Teacher Training
Tagaytay City
WORK EXPERIENCES

Position Inclusive Dates
Assistant Director, Research and : 2018 to present

Publications
Assistant to the Director, : 2007 to 2017

Research and Publications
Graduate School Professor : 2004 to present
College Professor : 1995 to present
Secondary Mathematics Teacher : 1992 to 1995
RESEARCH GRANTS
Title of Research Nature of Engagement
Commissioned Research on “ Perceived : Project Leader

Effects of Adolescent Health and
Development (AHD) Interventions on
the Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior
of Adolescents”
Funding Agency: Commission on
Population
Predictors of Reproductive Health : Project Leader

Seeking Behaviors of 4Ps and Non-4Ps
Couples in Region 02
Funding Agency: Commission on
Population
Balanghai: National Research Agenda : Panel Member

for Teacher Education (2019-2023)
Funding Agency: AusAid, DepEd and
BEST
PUBLICATIONS
Title of Research Journal/Volume

Number/Date of
Publication

Balanghai: National Research Agenda : 2018

for Teacher Education (2019-2023)
Implementation of Outcomes–Based : World Journal of

Education in the Graduate School Educational Research,
Level at St. Paul University Vol. 6, No.2, 2019
Philippines
Level of Knowledge on Reproductive : International
Health and Use of Family Planning Journal of
Among Two Groups of Low-Income Humanities and
Families Social Science
(IJHSS), May 2019,
Vol.9, No. 5.

SPUP Thesis - Dissertation Format (AY 2022 - 2023) Sample

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPUP Thesis - Dissertation Format (AY 2022 - 2023) Sample

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St.

Paul University Philippines

SPUP Graduate School

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

JOHN T. CORPUZ, PhD

JOHN T. CORPUZ, DME

JOHN T. CORPUZ, PhD

Approved by the Panel for Oral Examination with a

AGRIPINA B. MARIBBAY, PhD

INICIA C. BANSIG, PhD MANUEL A. BELANGO, DME

JESUS B. PIZARRO, DPA FE S. MASIGAN, DME

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of

INICIA C. BANSIG, PhD

SPUP Graduate School

Dean, Graduate School

Note. The first to be acknowledged are the defense-

SPUP Graduate School

This research work is humbly dedicated to:

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

SPUP Graduate School

Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Chapter 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SPUP Graduate School

Profile of the Participants . . . . . . . .. 110

Extent of Instructional Exposure of Students

Comparative Analysis of the Extent of

Students’ Level of Critical-Thinking and

Comparative Analysis of the Students’ Level

Analysis of Correlation Between Students’

Difficulties Encountered by the Students and

Proposed Teaching Plan to Enhance the

Chapter 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . .. 204

SPUP Graduate School

Appendix A. Letters to Gatekeepers for the Pilot

Appendix B. Letters to Gatekeepers for the Final

Appendix C. Informed Consent Form . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix D. Critical-Thinking and Problem-Solving

Appendix E. Instructional Exposure Questionnaire . .. 234

Appendix F. Problem-Solving Rubrics . . . . . . . . . 235

Appendix G. Focus Group Discussion Guide (FGD) for

Appendix H. Focus Group Discussion Guide (FGD) for

Appendix I. Curriculum Vitae . . . . . . . . . . . .. 239

SPUP Graduate School

SPUP Graduate School

Table Title Page

2 Basis for Interpreting the Content Validity

3 Schedule and Time Frame for the

4 Rubrics for Assessing Problem-Solving

5 Scale for Interpreting Students’ Extent of

6 Scale for Interpreting Students’ Critical-

7 Students’ Instructional Exposure to Content

8 Students’ Instructional Exposure to

9 Students’ Instructional Exposure to Polya’s

10 Summary of Students’ Instructional Exposure

SPUP Graduate School

SPUP Graduate School

Figure Title Page

2 P21 Framework for 21st-Century Learning . . .. 62

4 Core Skills for Critical Thinking . . . . . . 72

7 The Paradigm of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 82

SPUP Graduate School

This descriptive research aimed to assess students’