Technology-Enhanced Action Research Training for Science Teachers: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Needs Assessment
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study aimed to determine the training needs of science teachers in conducting action research and to examine the relationship between their prior research experience and confidence in performing research-related tasks.
Methodology: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used. Data were collected through a validated online survey of 24 science teachers in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, followed by semi-structured interviews with eight participants. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Spearman’s rho correlation, and thematic analysis to examine teachers’ perceptions of digital tools and technology-enabled support in enhancing action research competence.
Main Findings: Teachers showed high confidence in identifying research problems but low confidence in technical areas such as data analysis and research writing stages where digital tools could offer substantial support. Prior research experience significantly correlated with confidence in data analysis (ρ = 0.439, p < 0.05). Qualitative findings highlighted barriers such as limited mentoring, time constraints, and lack of institutional structures to support technology based research training. Teachers expressed strong interest in technology enhanced mentoring, online analytics workshops, and digital writing support tools.
Novelty/Originality of this study: This study contributes a novel sequential explanatory framework for diagnosing science teachers’ research competencies while integrating technological considerations into professional development design. Unlike prior assessments relying solely on traditional surveys, this study foregrounds how digital platforms, online mentoring, and technology enhanced training models can address persistent skill gaps. The findings offer actionable insights for designing innovative, technology supported research capacity-building programs for science teachers.
References
I. Laudonia, R. Mamlok-Naaman, S. Abels, and I. Eilks, “Action research in science education—an analytical review of the literature,” Educ. Action Res., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 480–495, May 2018, doi: 10.1080/09650792.2017.1358198.
J. P. Marsh and D. Deibert, “Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (book review),” Impacting Educ.: J. Transform. Prof. Pract., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 49–50, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.5195/ie.2022.239.
M. P. E. Morales, “Participatory action research (PAR) cum action research (AR) in teacher professional development: A literature review,” Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 156, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.21890/ijres.01395.
S. Tan Cortes, “Needs assessment on action research competencies of teacher-researchers in Surigao del Sur, Philippines,” J. Educ. Innov., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1–19, 2019.
S. Kemmis, R. McTaggart, and R. Nixon, The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2.
A. Oancea, N. Fancourt, J. Robson, I. Thompson, A. Childs, and N. Nuseibeh, “Research capacity-building in teacher education,” Oxf. Rev. Educ., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 98–119, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/03054985.2020.1842184.
Department of Education, “Basic education enrollment and teacher profile statistics 2023,” DepEd Education Management Information System (EMIS). Accessed: Nov. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.deped.gov.ph/resources/statistics/
M. P. E. Morales, E. L. R. Abulon, P. Roxas-Soriano, A. P. David, M. V. C. Hermosisima, and M. G. Gerundio, “Examining teachers’ conception of and needs on action research,” Issues Educ. Res., vol. 26, no. 3, 2016.
M. Jr. Nicolas, S. S. Ignacio, and R. G. Bautista, “Action research attitude of teacher-researchers in a schools-district in Quirino Province, Philippines,” Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 106–117, 2023.
S. Shaik-Abdullah, S. K. Suppiah Shanmugam, and M. Chinnappan, “Action research as continuous professional development in Southeast Asia,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, 2020, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.699.
J. J. A. Idul et al., “The LUNTIAN project: strengthening collaboration and sustainability mindset in the academic community through green chemistry integration,” J. Chem. Educ., Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01380.
E. Wenger, “Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity,” Syst. Thinker, vol. 9, 1998, doi: 10.2277/0521663636.
D. A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2017, doi: 10.4324/9781315237473.
C. M. D. Toquero, “‘Real-world’: Preservice teachers’ research competence and research difficulties in action research,” J. Appl. Res. High. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 126–148, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1108/JARHE-03-2019-0060.
W. A. Setiawan and P. Kuswandono, “Review of teachers’ professional development research studies in Southeast Asia,” Int. J. Pedagogy Teach. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.20961/ijpte.v4i1.33686.
S. Tan Cortes and M. Jr. S. Reyes, “Challenges in conducting action research: experiences from biology teachers of a province in Mindanao, Philippines,” J. Pendidik. Progresif, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 151–164, 2021.
J. J. A. Idul and A. M. P. Walag, “Integrating green chemistry and sustainability principles to a secondary science curriculum: A mixed-methods needs assessment,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 101, no. 7, pp. 2765–2778, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00341.
A. M. P. Walag, M. T. M. Fajardo, P. G. Bacarrisas, and F. M. Guimary, “A canonical correlation analysis of Filipino science teachers’ scientific literacy and science teaching efficacy,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 249–266, 2022.
J. J. A. Idul et al., “Green modules: integrating green and sustainable chemistry principles to secondary chemistry modules through process-oriented guided inquiry learning,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 1104–1116, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01360.
C. Teddlie and F. Yu, “Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples,” J. Mix. Methods Res., vol. 1, no. 1, 2007, doi: 10.1177/2345678906292430.
T. H. Morris, “Experiential learning—a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model,” Int. J. Educ. Res., 2020, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279.
D. Akella, “Learning together: Kolb’s experiential theory and its application,” J. Manage. Organ., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 100–112, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.5172/jmo.16.1.100.
M. Abdulwahed and Z. K. Nagy, “Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for laboratory education,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 283–294, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01025.x.
A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY, USA: W. H. Freeman, 1997.
A. M. P. Walag, M. T. M. Fajardo, F. M. Guimary, and P. G. Bacarrisas, “Science teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching different K–12 science subjects: the case of Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines,” Science Int., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 587–592, 2020.
J. S. Sulonen, “Digital habitats: stewarding technology for communities,” J. Community Informatics, vol. 9, no. 3, 2013, doi: 10.15353/joci.v9i3.3152.
J. W. Creswell and V. L. Plano Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE, 2017.
M. D. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE, 2019.
N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.id/books/about/The_SAGE_Handbook_of_Qualitative_Researc.html?id=k2LgDQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y.
J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 1988. doi: 10.4324/9780203771587.
D. G. Bonett and T. A. Wright, “Sample size requirements for estimating Pearson, Kendall and Spearman correlations,” Psychometrika, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 23–28, Mar. 2000, doi: 10.1007/BF02294183.
J. Hauke and T. Kossowski, “Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data,” Quaest. Geogr., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 87–93, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1.
S. Tan Cortes, H. A. Pineda, and I. J. R. Geverola, “Examining competence in action research of basic education teachers in Cebu City, Philippines,” J. Nusantara Stud., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 202–230, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.24200/jonus.vol6iss2pp202-230.
J. K. Welch and M. Q. Patton, “Qualitative evaluation and research methods,” Mod. Lang. J., vol. 76, pp. 179–186, 1992, doi: 10.2307/330063.
U. Sekaran and R. Bougie, Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=Ko6bCgAAQBAJ.
M. Kendrach, “Biostatistics: the bare essentials,” Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm., vol. 54, no. 2, 1997, doi: 10.1093/ajhp/54.2.223.
V. Braun and V. Clarke, “One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 18, no. 3, 2021, doi: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.
I. Laudonia and I. Eilks, “Reflections on a three-year-long teacher-centered, participatory action research experience on teaching chemical bonding in a Swiss vocational school,” Educ. Sci., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 141–156, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.3390/educsci8030141.
N. Behnamnia and S. Hayati, “Enhancing teacher confidence and competence: A case study of digital research skills training,” E-Learn. Digit. Media, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1177/20427530251331085.
M. Wyatt, “Towards a re-conceptualization of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: tackling enduring problems with the quantitative research and moving on,” Int. J. Res. Method Educ., vol. 37, no. 2, 2014, doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2012.742050.
M. A. Flores, “Learning to be a teacher: Mentoring, collaboration and professional practice,” J. Educ. Teach., 2019, doi: 10.1080/02619768.2019.1680207.
F. Patrick, D. Elliot, M. Hulme, and A. McPhee, “The importance of collegiality and reciprocal learning in the professional development of beginning teachers,” J. Educ. Teach., vol. 36, no. 3, 2010, doi: 10.1080/02607476.2010.497373.
M. Grangeat and P. Gray, “Factors influencing teachers’ professional competence development,” J. Vocat. Educ. Train., vol. 59, no. 4, 2007, doi: 10.1080/13636820701650943.
S. Gordon, “Integrating the experiential learning cycle with educational supervision,” J. Educ. Supervision, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1–34, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.31045/jes.5.3.1.
Copyright (c) 2025 Angelo Mark P Walag, Jason M Madronero, Alyana Grace Q Tapay, Glea Mae G Sales, Naurah M Malawi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Journal of Educational Technology and Learning Creativity is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
