RESEARCH OUTPUT MATRIX

MPES and MAEd-TLE

Researchers Hypothesis Statistical
Statement of the Research Sampling
Group (Surname, Given Title (Null or H0) / Research Design Respondents Instrument Treatment / Data
Problem Method Technique
Name, MI) Assumption Analysis

1 Leader: Professional The study intends to H0: There is no Quantitative Descriptive Novice Simple Researcher-made Survey Descriptive
Development ascertain the significant Research Developmental MAPEH Random Questionnaire Statistics
(MPES
Needs of professional difference in the Research teachers Sampling
) -Frequency and
Members: Novice development needs professional (with 0-3 Technique
Percentage
MAPEH of novice MAPEH development years of Part I – SOP 1
(SOP 1)
Teachers: teachers among needs of novice experience
Input for an select JHS as input MAPEH ) stationed Part II – SOP 2 (based on PPST/DO
Sampling -Mean and
Intervention for an intervention teachers when among Software No. 42, s. 2017 and RA No. 10912/ Standard
Plan plan during the SY grouped public JHS / Continuing Professional Deviation (SOP
2023-2024. according to Calculator Development Act of 2016) 2)
their profile. –
It also provides
G*Power
specific answers to
or Likert Scale and Norms of Inferential
the following
Raosoft Interpretation for SOP 2 Statistics
questions:
(optional) Range
1. How may the Scale
Interval
DR / DE I -T-test (for 2
profile MAPEH groups like
Strongly Highly
teachers be 4 3.26-4.00
Agree Needed
sex) and
assessed as to: ANOVA /
3 2.51-3.25 Agree Needed
Analysis of
1.1 sex; Less Variance (for 3
2 1.76-2.50 Disagree
Needed or more
1.2 highest
Strongly Not groups like
educational 1 1.00-1.75
Disagree Needed HEA, and STA)
attainment;
and Legend:
(SOP 3)
DR – Descriptive Rating
1.3 seminars and
training DE – Descriptive Equivalent

attended? I – Interpretation

2. How may the

● Subject for validation (at least 3
professional
experts; 2 content validators and 1
 development language validator) and reliability
needs of novice test (minimum of 10
MAPEH teachers samples/respondents who are not
be assessed as to: part of the final pool of
respondents)
2.1 content
knowledge and
pedagogy;

2.2 learning
environment;

2.3 diversity of
learners;

2.4 curriculum and

planning;

2.5 assessment
and reporting;

2.6 community
linkages and
professional
engagement;

2.7 personal
growth and
professional
development?

3. Is there a
significant
difference in the
professional
development
needs of novice
MAPEH teachers
when grouped
according to their
profile?

4. Based on the
findings of the
 study, what
intervention plan
may be proposed?

2 Leader: Elephant in the The primary aim of Assumption Qualitative Phenomenological PE teachers Purposive Researcher-made Interview Guide Data Analysis
(Class)Room: the study is to Research Research in JHS/SHS Sampling
(MPES) PE teachers
Adversities of explore the or MAPEH /
encounter
Members: Physical adversities supervisors Snowball Part I – SOP 1 -Descriptive
adversities in
Education encountered by PE or MAPEH (Referral) Phenomenolog
delivering
Teachers in teachers in delivering Master Sampling ical Analysis
mandated
Delivering the mandated Teachers Technique (DPA) or
instructional ● Create at least 5 questions (with
Mandated instructional (MTs) Interpretive
approaches in
Instructional approaches in the K- follow-up questions) Phenomenolog
the K-12
Approaches in 12 curriculum. ical Analysis
curriculum,
the K-12 ● Subject for validation (at least 3 (IPA)
It also seeks answers including
Curriculum experts; 2 content validators and 1
to the following: challenges
related to language validator)
1. What are the
limited access
adversities
to sports
encountered by PE
facilities and
teachers in
equipment,
delivering the
time constraints
mandated
within the
instructional
school schedule,
approaches in the
varying student
K-12 curriculum?
fitness levels
2. What constructs and interests,
may be incurred and the need to
from the narratives align curriculum
of experiences in objectives with
the adversities state or national
encountered by PE standards.
teachers in
delivering the
mandated
instructional
approaches in the
K-12 curriculum?

3. What are the

 implications of the
findings in
upholding the
philosophy of
teaching?

3 Leader: TLE Teachers The primary goal of H0: There is no Quantitative Descriptive Survey TLE Purposive Researcher-made Survey Descriptive
as Literacy the study is to significant Research Research teachers in Sampling Questionnaire Statistics
(TLE)
and determine the difference in the basic ed /
-Mean and
Members: Numeracy practices of TLE practices of TLE (JHS & SHS) Snowball
Standard
Educators: teachers as literacy teachers as (Referral) Part I – SOP 1 (shall be based on the
Deviation (SOP
Implications and numeracy literacy and Sampling provisions of PPST/DO No. 42, s.
1 and 3)
to Integrative educators in basic numeracy Technique 2017)
Teaching education educators in the
institutions and imply JHS and SHS Part II – SOP 3
the results of when grouped Inferential
integrative teaching. according to Statistics
their profile. Likert Scale and Norms of
It provides -T-test (for 2
Interpretation for SOP 1
comprehensive groups of data
answers to the Range coming from
Scale DR / DE I
Interval
following: JHS and SHS
Strongly Highly teachers;
4 3.26-4.00
1. How may the Agree Practiced comparing the
practices of TLE responses for
3 2.51-3.25 Agree Practiced
teachers in JHS literacy and
and SHS be Less
2 1.76-2.50 Disagree
Practiced numeracy)
described in terms
of: 1 1.00-1.75
Strongly Not -(SOP 2)
Disagree Practiced

2.1 literacy; and Legend:

2.2 numeracy? DR – Descriptive Rating

DE – Descriptive Equivalent
2. Is there a
significant I – Interpretation
difference in the
practices of TLE
teachers as Likert Scale and Norms of
literacy and Interpretation for SOP 3
numeracy
Scal Range
educators in the e Interval
DR / DE I

JHS and SHS when

 grouped 4 3.26-4.00
Strongly Highly
Agree Challenged
according to their
profile? 3 2.51-3.25 Agree Challenged

Less
3. What are the 2 1.76-2.50 Disagree
Challenged
challenges
Strongly Not
encountered by 1 1.00-1.75
Disagree Challenged
TLE teachers in
performing their Legend:

roles as literacy DR – Descriptive Rating

and numeracy
DE – Descriptive Equivalent
educators?
I – Interpretation
4. What are the
implications of the
findings to
integrative
teaching?

4 Leader: The main intention of Assumption Qualitative Phenomenological TLE Purposive Researcher-made Interview Guide Data Analysis
the investigation is to Research Research teachers in Sampling
(TLE) TLE teachers
navigate the ups and JHS /
face
Members: downs of handling (Grades 7 Snowball Part I – SOP 1 -Descriptive
challenges/obst
exploratory courses and 8) or (Referral) Phenomenolog
acles or
TLE to serve as input TLE Sampling ical Analysis
“slumps” and
for a proposed supervisors Technique (DPA) or
“slopes” when ● Create at least 5 questions (with
professional or TLE Interpretive
handling
development Master follow-up questions) Phenomenolog
exploratory
enhancement. Teachers ical Analysis
courses in TLE
(MTs) ● Subject for validation (at least 3 (IPA)
It also provides a due to factors
concise response to such as the experts; 2 content validators and 1
the following: breadth of language validator)
topics to cover,
4. How may the TLE
diverse student
teachers navigate
backgrounds,
the slumps and
and varying
slopes of handling
levels of student
exploratory courses
engagement
in TLE?
and readiness.
5. What constructs
may be derived
from the narratives
of experiences in
navigating the
slumps and slopes
of handling
exploratory courses
in TLE?

6. Based on the
constructs of the
findings, what
professional
development
enhancement may
be proposed?

Prepared by:

RYAN R. PECSON, PhD

Professor