THESIS Format Template JCFC

JOSE C.
FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION i
THESIS FORMAT TEMPLATE
7
201
6-
201
AY
E
EG
LL
CO
O
IAN
LIC
FE
C.
SE
JO
OF
Y
LT
CU
FA
E
TH
OF
ITY
BIL
PA
CA
CH
AR
SE RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE
RE
JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION ii
Sample Rib Title
2
0
1
7
RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE
JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION iii
RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE
C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION DURING
THE SCHOOL YEAR 2016-2017
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

JON ERICSON D. SINGIAN
ACCOUNTANCY, BUSINESS AND JOLINA FAJARDO
MANAGEMENT MARINEL P. CABALANG
JASPER IAN S. CORTEZ
JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE CLYDE VINCE M. CAJALNE
FOUNDATION AARON JAMES A. JARIN
CONSTANTINO O. RINGOR, JR.
APRIL 2017

Imaginary page number i
JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION i
e Page 3 line spaces from the margin
RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C.

Writing the title should
FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION DURING
Set page layout margins: be in inverted pyramid
THE SCHOOL YEAR 2016-2017
style
Top: 1” Bottom: 1”
Left: 1.5” Right: 1”

_____________________________________________
Use Font: Times New
Roman A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the
size 12 pt.
Senior High School Department
Jose C. Feliciano College Foundation
Dau, Mabalacat City, Pampanga
Observe single line
Observefor
spacing single
Titleline
Page
spacing
and for Title
Approval Page
Sheet ____________________________________________
and Approval Sheet
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Senior High School Program
Accountancy, Business and Management
_____________________________________________
by
Jon Ericson D. Singian

Jolina Mae Fajardo
Marinel P. Cabalang
Clyde Vince M. Cajalne
Jasper Ian G. Cortez
Aaron James A. Jarin
Constantino O. Ringor, Jr.
March 2018

Top margin: 1”
JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION ii

The abstract is in block form, no indention, 1 1 line space from the margin before
paragraph, 1 page only. first heading level
ABSTRACT
4 line spaces
Include 3 to 5 keywords at the bottom.
The study is focused on assessing the research capability of the college faculty and the
existing research support programs of the Jose C. Feliciano College during the Academic
Year 2015-2016. It described the profile of the faculty in terms of employment status,
educational attainment, faculty rank and length of teaching service at JCFC. It also
covered the status of the faculty’s research capability and perceptions on professional
support, research facilities, and rewards system. It posited that there is no significant
differences between the profile and research capability of the respondents. The study
Right margin:
utilized two descriptive research designs – the descriptive survey and the descriptive
Left margin:
1”
1.5” correlational designs. It was participated by forty (40) college faculty members. Findings
revealed that generally, the faculty have a low level research competency, there was an
adequacy of support services in terms of professional support and guidance on research
but there were inadequate research facilities and resources, and research policies and
guidelines. Further, the study found out that employment status and faculty rank were
not determinants of research competency. On the other hand, educational attainment and
length of relevant teaching service were determinants of research competency.
Recommendations include the consideration of educational attainment and teaching
experience in faculty recruitment, keep performing faculty for longer period and
encouraged them to further their studies. Moreover, JCFC should institutionalize a
research capability program, and review and reformulate research policies.
Keywords: research capability, research competency, faculty research, academic research
RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTYBottom

OF JOSEmargin: 1”
C. FELICIANO COLLEGE
JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION iii
Observe proper indentions in all

paragraphs, except Abstract. APPROVAL SHEET
Indention: 0.5”
The hereto attached thesis entitled “Research Capability of Faculty of Jose C.

Feliciano College for the School Year 2016-2017” presented and submitted by Jon
Ericson D. Singian, Jolina Fajardo, Marinel P. Cabalang, Clyde Vince M. Cajalne
and Jasper Ian S. Cortez, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Senior High
School program Accountancy, Business and Management is hereby recommended for
acceptance and approval.
HOGEL M. MONTEMAYOR, Ph.D.

Adviser
Date Signed: _____________
PANEL OF EXAMINERS

Chairman
Date Signed: _____________
CLARENCE A. SIGUA, MBA MICHELL B. DIWA, MBA

Member Member
Date Signed: _____________ Date Signed: _____________
APPROVED and accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Accountancy, Business and Management leading to the graduation in the Senior High
School program.
RICHARD JOHN W. HERNANDEZ, MAEd., LPT

Coordinator, Senior High School Program
Date Signed: _____________
CHIRSTIAN ALLAN C. CAGANO, MAEd., LPT

Principal, Basic Education Department
Date Signed: _____________

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to convey their sincere and profound thanks to the following
persons who had contributed in making this thesis a reality:
Dr. Hogel M. Montemayor, for his guidance and sharing of his wisdom in shaping
and reshaping this piece of work;
The members of the panel of examiners, namely…

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION v
DEDICATION
This piece of work
is wholeheartedly dedicated
to our parents
and
siblings.

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
APPROVAL SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iv
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
CHAPTER
1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Scope and Delimitation of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

General Principles on Higher Education Research . . . . . . . . . 15
Budget for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Acceptability of Research Function to Teaching Faculty . . . . . 21
Research Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Factors Affecting Research Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Research Competency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 METHODOLOGY
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Locale of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Respondents of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Data Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Statistical Treatment of Data . . . . . . 31
4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF

DATA
Profile of the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION vii
Page
Profile of the Faculty Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Level of the Research Competency of the Faculty . . . . . . . . . . 44
Research Productivity of the Faculty Respondents . . . . . . . . . . 47
Adequacy of the Research Support Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Relationship Between the Profile of the Respondents and
50
Level of Competency on Research Proposal Writing. . . . . .
Comments and Suggestions of the Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to

Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Schematic diagram of the conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION x
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title
A Questionnaire.
B Validation Letter
C Validator’s critiqued questionnaire
D Sample pilot tested questionnaire
E Letter Request to Conduct the Study

Top margin: 1”
JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION 1

1 line space from the margin before
first level heading
Set line spacing: double space CHAPTER 1
Double space or 2 line spaces
Paragraph spacing: Before: 0 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
After: 0 4 line spaces between main heading and
subsection
Introduction Double space or 2 line spaces
Research is a systematic, controlled, empirical and critical investigation of
hypothetical propositions on relations involving natural phenomena (Kerlinger, 1973, as
cited by Alicay, 2014). This definition contains some of the important characteristics of
research as mentioned by Ariola (2006). Research is systematic, meaning it follows an
orderly and sequential procedure that leads to the discovery of the truth. It is controlled,
meaning all variables, except those that are tested or being experimented upon, are kept
constant. It is empirical, analytical and critical which means that it is undertaken through
a careful observation, recording, analyzing and interpretation of data. The products are
new discoveries and inventions that enable human societies to have quality of life.
Through research, many of the global challenges in the near future are expected to be
Double space or 2 line spaces, similar to double space line
given with solutions (Ajai-Ajagbe, 2014).
within paragraph
Faculty of higher education institutions (HEIs) of developed countries set a strong
research culture as a way of life. This kind of research culture persistently supports their
advancement in technological and economic development. In contrast, HEIs of
developing countries have retained a strong teaching function and weak research function
(Sanyal & Varghese, 2006 as cited by Salazar-Clemeña&Almonte-Acosta, 2007). Aware
of the important contribution of research in the development of a nation, many
developing countries in the recent decades have started pouring investments in research
and development.

Believing that research and development would still be the vehicle that will propel
the country towards social and economic development, the Philippines began to highlight
again research in the trifocal functions of the higher education system along with
instruction and extension being the two other major functions of a HEI. In fact, the
National Higher Education Research Agenda for 1998-2008 came into being and it was
followed by another National Higher Education Research Agenda – 2 (NHERA-2) for
2009-2018, with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) as the prime mover.
This is in line with the commission’s functions as stipulated in the Higher Education Act
of 1994 (RA 7722) to direct or redirect purposive research by institutions of higher
learning to meet the needs of agro-industrialization and development and as restated in
the Manual of Regulation for Private Higher Education (MORPHE) of 2008. The
MORPHE affirms the objective of the higher education to advance the frontiers of
knowledge through research work, and apply the technology gained for improving the
quality of human life and responding effectively to changing societal needs and
conditions (MORPHE, 2008 p 9). CHED is now doing everything to push the function of
research to HEIs as evidenced by ensuing policies and monitoring standards. For
example, the manual of regulations requires HEI’s for university hood to maintain a track
record of at least three years of high research standards as evidenced by a research
program funded by an adequate budgetary allocation and manned by qualified faculty.
The results of these researches must be published in a refereed journal.
Colleges or HEIs are established primarily for the intent of “instruction” rather
than “research” function. In other words, instructors and professors usually focus on
“instruction” or teaching the students with existing knowledge. The term “research” is

commonly understood as searching for existing knowledge rather than discovering new
knowledge. Similarly, academic personnel come to school with the teaching profession
in mind and not for the research function. Eventually, the focus of HEIs and their
academic personnel is on instruction.
Recently CHED noted in its performance monitoring and of accrediting bodies’
evaluations the lack of research in private HEIs which always registers as one of the main
deficiencies (Casiple, 2014).
Relative to the resulting evaluation of low research productivity among private
HEIs, this study attempts to assess the research capability of the faculty in order to come
up with some basis for developing measures to increase research productivity.

3 line spaces between subsections
Theoretical Framework
The …
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 presents the schematic diagram of the Study using the Input-Process-
Output (IPO) Model. The Input contains the profile of the faculty in terms of status of
employment, highest educational attainment, faculty rank, number of years of relevant
teaching experience, and research output; research competency, faculty’s perceptions on
professional support, research facilities and rewards system, and faculty’s comments and
suggestions. The Process employs descriptive survey of the respondents through the use
of the questionnaires. Likewise, it includes the analysis of data through the use of
appropriate statistical tools. The output reflects the proposed measures to foster research
culture in the College to increase research productivity.

Research Capability of the Faculty Members
Input Process Output

Profile of the Faculty Descriptive Survey Proposed measure to
 Status of employment foster research culture
Formulate within the institution
 Educational attainment
questionnaire
 Faculty rank
 Length of service of Identify respondents
the faculty at JCFC
Administer
 Research Output
Questionnaire
Research Competency Tabulate data
Faculty’s perceptions on Analyze data

professional support,
research facilities, and
rewards system
Comments and suggestions

of the faculty




This study aims to assess the research capability of the faculty members of Jose
C. Feliciano College during the Academic Year 2016-2017
Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the faculty respondents in terms of the following:

1.1 Employment status,
1.2 Educational attainment,
1.3 Faculty rank, and
1.4 Number of years of relevant teaching experience?
2. What is the research competency of the faculty as perceived by them in terms of the
following:
2.1. Making research proposal, and
2.2. Conducting research and packaging the research report?
3. What is perception of the faculty in terms of the following
3.1. Professional support and guidance,
3.2. Research facilities and resources in the conduct of research, and
3.3. Research policies and guidelines?
4. Are there significant differences on the research competencies of the faculty
respondents when grouped according to their profile?

5. What are the comments and suggestions of the faculty for the improvement of the
JCFC’s research and development program?

6. Based on the result of the study, what measures can be recommended to promote
research culture towards research productivity?
Hypothesis
In reference to sub-problem 4, the following null hypotheses were formulated:
1. There is no significant difference on the faculty’s competency on research
proposal making when grouped according to their profile.

2. There is no significant difference on the faculty’s competency on conducting
research and packaging research report when grouped according to their profile.

Importance of the Study
The Philippines through its higher education system is tirelessly exerting effort to
foster research culture, productivity and utilization. But as has been mentioned earlier,
CHED monitoring on private HEIs have found a common deficiency of lack of research
outputs wherein HEIs are not engaging in research activities (Casiple, 2014). It is
imperative for HEIs to support the national research agenda by ensuring a functional
research and development unit. Likewise, research managers should ensure the optimal
research productivity of the teams they lead.
Therefore, the result of this study will benefit the following:
The policy-makers and school administrators. Result of this study would
provide an insight for a deeper understanding on the status of the research capability of
the faculty which could serve as a basis for planning, organizing and designing research
programs for higher educational institutions.
Research managers. As this study will provide insights on the status of the
research capability of the faculty and their perceptions to the professional and facility
support, it can give ideas to research managers on how to design professional
development program needed for long-term success and means on how can they
effectively inspire, support and equip researchers in pursuing meaningful research
endeavors.
Faculty. The output of this study is expected to boost awareness of the faculty on
the importance of their research function vis-à-vis their instruction function for the
advancement of education.

Other researchers. The result of this study will serve as frame of reference for
other researchers who wish to conduct related researches in a wider scope or to validate
the findings of this study.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This study about the research capability of the faculty was conducted at Jose C.
Feliciano College during the academic year 2015-2016. The respondents included both
the part time and fulltime faculty. The study considered the profile of the faculty
respondents in terms of employment status, educational attainment, faculty rank, length
of relevant teaching experience, relevant trainings and seminars, and research
productivity. It is focused on the research competency in terms of making research
proposal, and conducting research and packaging the research report; and the perceptions
of the faculty in terms of professional support and guidance, research facilities and
resources in the conduct of research, and research policies and guidelines. Further, the
assessments include the differences on the research competencies of the faculty
respondents when grouped according to their profile.
Definition of Terms
The following terms as used in the study were operationally defined for a better
understanding.
Assessment. This refers to the process of gathering and analyzing evidences of
what the faculty knows on their research productivity and competency, their perceptions
on various research factors and evaluation of relationships of various research variables.

Faculty. It refers to the college faculty, whether part-time or full time who are
expected to be the producers of research in the College.
Research. This refers to the one of the three major functions of a higher
education institution, instruction and extension, being the other two. Research function is
responsible for the discovery of new knowledge or deepening existing knowledge which
makes higher level of education possible.
Research competency. This refers to the level of knowledge and skills in the
different aspects of conceptualizing and undertaking a research.
Research culture. This refers to the set of shared values, principles, traditions
and ways that the members of a HEI hold about research and that determines how they
perceive, think about, and behave with respect to research activities.
Research productivity. This is defined as output divided by years of service
wherein researcher’s output is the sum of the number of finished research reports, number
of published research reports, and number of utilized research report.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents major concepts, facts, principles, theories, findings,
conclusions and arguments lifted from reviewed literature and studies that have
significant bearings on the problems under study. These literature and related studies
gave direction to the present study and provided background information for the
discussion and consideration of the findings on the problems raised.
The National Higher Education Research Agenda
The National Higher Education Research Agenda – 2 or NHERA-2 (CHED,
2009) states that analysts of the knowledge society or knowledge-based economy
characterize the university not just as a generator of knowledge, an educator of young
minds and a transmitter of culture but also as a major agent of economic growth. It is
both a Research and Development laboratory and a mechanism through which the nation
builds its human capital to enable it to actively participate in the global economy. Further
citation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century
acknowledges that “knowledge creation’, along with transmission and application are the
lifeblood of knowledge-based economy. NHERA-2 declares that higher education
research shall be guided by the following general principles:

1. Research is the ultimate expression of an individual’s innovative and creative
powers. The higher education sector shall ensure that the academic
environment nurtures and supports Filipino research talents;

2. Research thrives in an environment characterized by free flow of
information, honest and analytical exchange of ideas, and supportive policy
and administrative structures. Higher education policies shall enhance the
institution’s and the individual’s capacity to conduct independent,
collaborative and productive research; and,

3. Research is one of the main functions of the higher education sector.
Universities in particular, are expected to lead in the conduct of discipline-
based, policy-oriented, technology-directed and innovative/creative
researches that are locally responsive and globally competitive.
Status of Research among HEIs
Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a crucial role in generating new ideas,
and in accumulating and transmitting knowledge, yet they have remained peripheral to
development concerns. Although no longer the sole generators of knowledge needed for
development, through their research and teaching they help to produce expertise, manage
development, engineer social transformation, and preserve social values and cultural
ethos. In all modern societies, universities are considered the ‘knowledge factories’ and
the longevity of a university is associated with its knowledge production processes
(Williams, 2014). However, results of monitoring of CHED showed research ranked No.
3 among the nine areas of program evaluation in terms of the number of deficiencies.
Common deficiencies noted were the lack of functional research and development

program, lack of research outputs, and HEIs are not engaging in research activities
(Casiple, 2014).
Faculty Research
Doing and publishing scholarly research is ...

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research method, sources of data, instrumentation, data
collection and tools for data analysis.
Research Design
The study will use two descriptive research designs in gathering the needed data.
The descriptive survey will be used because the study attempts to describe the present
profile, research competency, professional support and guidance, research facilities and
resources, and policies and guidelines. The descriptive correlational design will also used
because the researchers wants more than simply describing a particular situation of the
respondents profile and competency but also relationships of the variables under study.
Locale of the Study
The study will be conducted at Jose C. Feliciano College Foundation (JCFC)
located in Dau, Mabalacat City, Pampanga. JCFC is a higher education institution which
offers degree programs in B.S. in Marine Transportation (BSMT), B.S. in Business
Administration (BSBA), B.S. in Accountancy (BSA), B.S. in Hotel and Restaurant
Management (BSHRM), B.S. in Tourism (BST). B.S. in Criminology (BSCrim), and B.S.
in Education (BSEd). It has about 1,000 enrolled students in the tertiary level.

Respondents of the Study
Population. There were 40 faculty members coming from the different institutes
who were reporting to school either on a part-time or on full-time basis.
Sample and Sampling Procedure. The study will include the entire population
of the study but it will be subject to the availability and willingness of the subject faculty
to answer the questionnaire.
Research Instrument
Data collection instrument. The survey questionnaire (Appendix A) was used as
the main data-gathering instrument for this study. The questionnaire is divided into four
sections: profile, research competency, perceptions on research support, and comments
and suggestions. The profile contains the employment status, educational attainment,
faculty rank, length of relevant teaching experience, relevant trainings and seminars, and
research productivity. The competency contains 13 statement about research proposal
making and seven statements about conducting research and packaging the research
report. The research support contains five statements about professional support and
guidance, five statements about research facilities and resources in the conduct of
research, and seven statements about research policies and guidelines. The comments
and suggestions part is in open-ended form where respondents can freely write their
ideas.
The scale below was used to interpret the responses of the respondents for every
survey question by computing the weighted mean.
Scale of Values Scale Range Qualitative Description

5 4.21-5.00 Strongly Agree

4 3.41-4.20 Agree
3 2.61-3.40 No opinion or Uncertain
2 1.81-2.60 Disagree
1 1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree
Validation of the questionnaire. There were two methods undertaken in the
validation of the questionnaire. First, three people who are experts or understand the
topic, were approached to review and critique the questionnaire. A letter of request
(Appendix B) with a draft questionnaire was handed to each reviewer. The critiqued
questionnaires (Appendix C) were collected upon availability. Comments and suggestions
were incorporated in the improvement of the questionnaire.
Another method undertaken was a pilot testing wherein a small sample of
respondents was asked to fill out the questionnaire. The accomplished questionnaires
(Appendix D: sample pilot tested questionnaire) were reviewed. This led to the
reconstruction of some of the questions and dropping few which were found to be
irrelevant.
Data Collection
The researchers prepared a request for permission to conduct the study (Appendix
E) and it was forwarded to the office of the president. Upon approval, questionnaires
were personally distributed …

Statistical Treatment of Data
The data obtained from the questionnaire were tallied, tabulated and interpreted
using the following formula:
Frequency and percentage distribution. This statistical tool was used for sub-
problem 1 that is for the profiling of respondents. Frequency distribution shows the
organization of the data by magnitude and numerical value of observation. On the other
hand, Percentage Distribution can be acquired by dividing the frequency of different
values to total number of variables, and then multiply the quotient by 100. The following
formula illustrates the computation for percentage.
f where: P = percentage
P= N X 100
f = frequency
N = number of respondents
Weighted arithmetic mean. This statistical tool was used to treat sub-problems 2
and 3. The formula is:
Σfx where: WAM = Weighted Mean

Σ = the sum of (in other
WAM = Σf X 100 words…add them up!).
f = frequency.
x = the value/ numerical
weights
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This tool was used to treat sub-problem 5 to
find out if there are significant differences between the research competencies when
grouped according to profile. The ANOVA was performed with the aid of Mi crosoft Excel
Data Analysis Tool.

CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the summary of the acquired data from the survey which
were analyzed through the use of statistical tools mentioned in Chapter 3 and were
interpreted with emphasis on the variables mentioned in Chapter 1.
Profile of the Respondents
Table 1 presents the profile of the faculty respondents according to their profile.
Employment status. Under the employment status section, it shows that most of
the respondents were part-time faculty with 19 or 47.50 percent, followed by full-time
probationary or full time contractual with 15 or 37.50 percent. The least were the full-
time regular with six or 15.00 percent. As can be gleaned from the table, majority were
employed on a full-time basis but only very few of them were on regular status. The few
number of the faculty employed on regular basis suggests that most faculty do not stay
long. In other words, there exist a frequent faculty turn-over.
Highest educational attainment. Most of the respondents with 13 or 32.50
percent were college graduates with thesis, followed by master’s graduate with thesis.
College, master’s and doctorate graduates with thesis totals to 27 or 67.50 percent. This
implies that majority of the faculty have background on conducting research during their
scholastic years.
Faculty rank. Majority of the respondents with 28 or 70.00 percent were at
instructor level only. This conforms with the above findings that most of the faculty were
employed on a part-time basis and most have not yet completed their master’s degree.

Normally, the academic preparation of a research faculty should consist of a master’s
degree in the field of specialization to be professionally qualified.
Table 1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Faculty Respondents as to Profile
Profile Frequency Percentage

Employment Status
Part-time 19 47.50
Full-time Probationary/Contractual 15 37.50
Full-time Regular 6 15.00
Highest Educational Attainment
College Graduate with no Thesis 3 7.50
College Graduate with Thesis 13 32.50
Master’s Graduate with no Thesis 8 20.00
Master’s Graduate with Thesis 9 22.50
Doctorate Graduate with no Thesis 0 0.00
Doctorate Graduate with Thesis 5 12.50
No Answer 2 5.00
Faculty Rank
Instructor 28 70.00
Assistant Professor 2 5.00
Associate Professor 3 7.50
Professor 5 12.50
No Answer 2 5.00
No. of Years of Teaching Experience at JCFC
Less than 3 years 8 20.00
3 to 5 years 9 22.50
6 to 8 years 11 27.50
9 to 12 years 2 5.00
More than 12 years 10 25.00
Total 40 100.00
Length of Relevant Teaching Experience. As to relevant teaching experience,
most of the respondents with 11 or 27.50 percent were at 3 to 5 years in teaching service,
followed by those with more than 12 years in service with 10 or 25.00 percent. Next were
those with 3 to 5 years of service with nine or 22.50 percent, and then followed by those
with less than three years of service with eight or 20.00 percent. It can be gleaned from

the table that generally the teaching force is not too young but not old in their teaching
profession.
Level of Research Competency of the Faculty
Table 2 shows the level of research competency of the faculty in writing
research proposal, and in conducting research and packaging the research report.
Competence of the faculty in writing research proposal. As can be seen
on Table 2, on the aspects of developing the conceptual framework (mean = 3.35),
constructing the research design (mean = 3.40), designing the tools for data
collection (mean = 3.38), preparing research workplan (mean =3.40), knowledge
about funding agencies (mean = 3.13), and preparing research budget (mean =
3.08), the respondents were generally at neutral stance (or unsure if they have the
competence. On the other hand, on aspects of identifying and defining research
problem (3.55), conceptualizing and organizing the essay for the
introduction/background of the study/rationale (3.65), formulation of Research
Objectives (3.53), formulating testable hypothesis and defining basic concepts
and variables (3.50), justifying the significance of the research/Identification of
end-users and target beneficiaries of the research result (mean = 3.65), organizing,
integrating and synthesizing the literature review (3.65), organizing and
formatting the research document (3.63), the respondents generally agreed that
they have competence although at low level. With a composite mean of 3.44, the
respondents generally agreed that they have competence on research proposal
writing although at low level only.
Table 2

Level of Competency of the Faculty as Perceived by the Faculty
1. Research proposal making Mean Interpretation
a. identifying and defining research problem 3.55 Agree

b. Conceptualizing and Organizing the essay for the
introduction/background of the study/rationale 3.65 Agree
c. Developing the conceptual framework 3.35 Neutral/Unsure
d. Formulation of Research Objectives 3.53 Agree

e. Formulating testable hypothesis and defining basic concepts
and variables 3.50 Agree
f. Justifying the significance of the research/Identification of end-
users and target beneficiaries of the research result s 3.65 Agree
g. Organizing, integrating and synthesizing the literature review 3.65 Agree
h. Constructing the research design 3.40 Neutral/Unsure
i. Designing the tools for data collection. 3.38 Neutral/Unsure
j. Organizing and formatting the research document. 3.63 Agree

k. Preparing research workplan (in Gantt Chart form consisting
of activities and time schedule). 3.40 Neutral/Unsure
l. Knowledge about external funding agencies. 3.13 Neutral/Unsure

m. Preparing research budget (personnel services, MOOE,
equipment outlay, administrative cost). 3.08 Neutral/Unsure
Composite Mean 3.45 Agree
2. Conducting Research and Packaging the Research Report
a. Collecting, Gathering and processing of data . 3.50 Agree
b. Presenting, interpreting and analyzing data. 3.58 Agree
c. Synthesizing results . 3.45 Agree
d. Expressing additional value or importance to the existing facts. 3.38 Neutral/Unsure

e. Formulating recommendation to address the research problem
and concerns found in the study. 3.40 Neutral/Unsure
f. Writing the abstract . 3.40 Neutral/Unsure
g. Organizing and formatting the research document . 3.40 Neutral/Unsure
Composite Mean 3.44 Agree
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Equivalent
4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree
3.41 – 4.20 Agree

2.61 – 3.40 Neutral/Unsure

1.81 – 2.60 Disagree
1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree
Source: Dumayas-Matira, Myrna (2014). Do-it-yourself Statistics for Thesis Writers. Page 42. St.
Andrew Publishing House.Plaridel Bulacan.
Competence of the faculty in conducting research and packaging the
research report. As can be seen on Table 2, generally, the faculty have a neutral
stance or unsure if they have the competence on the aspects of expressing
additional value or importance to the existing facts (mean = 3.38), in formulating
recommendation to address the research problem and concerns found in the study
(mean = 3.40), in writing the abstract (mean = 3.40), and in organizing and
formatting the research document (mean = 3.40). On the other hand, the table
shows that the respondents agreed that, they have competence in collecting,
gathering and processing of data (mean =3.50), in presenting, interpreting and
analyzing data (mean = 3.58), and in synthesizing results (mean = 3.45). With a
composite mean of 3.44, the respondents generally agreed that they have
competence on conducting research and packaging the research report writing
although at low level only.
The study of Formeloza and Pateña (2013) about research capability of
maritime faculty agrees that faculty have moderate competence in research
proposal making. The study also supports the findings that faculty are also
moderately competent
A study on research capability of faculty members of a state university
also found out that generally, the faculty were competent on research proposal
writing. They were competent in using identified statistical measures, in sampling

technique, hypothesis testing, central tendency, measure of dispersion, simple
linear correlation and regression, analysis of variance and covariance, probability
distribution, and point versus interval distribution; were moderately competent in
multiple and partial correlation and regression, experimental design, and sampling
distribution; and “highly competent” in using frequency distribution and graphic
presentation (Salom. 2013).
Adequacy of the Research Support Program
Table 3 presents the level of adequacy of support programs in terms of
professional support and guidance …

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presentS the summary of the research work undertaken, the
conclusions drawn and the recommendations to be made as an offshoot of this study.
Summary
This study aimed to assess the research capability of the faculty members of the
Jose C. Feliciano College Foundation during the Academic Year 2015-2016. Specifically,
it sought to determine: the profile of the faculty respondents in terms employment status,
educational attainment, faculty rank, and length of relevant teaching experience; research
competency of the faculty as perceived by them in terms of making research proposal,
and conducting research and packaging the research report; the perceptions of the faculty
on research support program, specifically in terms of professional support and guidance,
research facilities and resources in the conduct of research, and research policies and
guidelines. Further, the study aimed to test significant differences on the research
competencies of the faculty respondents when grouped according to their profile. The
study also attempted to solicit comments and suggestions of the faculty for the
improvement of the JCFC research and development program. Based on the research, the
study identifies measures that can be recommended to promote research culture towards
research productivity.

The study used two descriptive research designs in gathering the needed data:
descriptive survey and descriptive correlational designs. The study was conducted at Jose
C. Feliciano College Foundation (JCFC) located in Dau, Mabalacat City, Pampanga. It
attempted to include the entire population of the study but it was subjected to availability
and willingness of the subject faculty to answer the questionnaire. Total respondents were
40 faculty members coming from the different institutes who were reporting to school
either on a part-time or full-time basis.
For the treatment of data, statistical tools used were (1) frequency and percentage
distribution, (2) Weighted Arithmetic Mean, and (4) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
Summary of findings
Profile of the respondents. Most of the respondents were part-time faculty with
19 or 47.50 percent, followed by full-time probationary or full time contractual with 15 or
37.50 percent. Most of the respondents with 13 or 32.50 percent were college graduates
with thesis, followed by master’s graduate with thesis. College, master’s and doctorate
graduates with thesis totals to 27 or 67.50 percent. Majority of the respondents with 28 or
70.00 percent were at instructor level only. As to relevant teaching experience, most of
the respondents with 11 or 27.50 percent were at 3 to 5 years in teaching service,
followed by those with more than 12 years in service with 10 or 25.00 percent. Next were
those with 3 to 5 years of service with nine or 22.50 percent, and then followed by those
with less than three years of service with eight or 20.00 percent.
Level of the research competency of the faculty. With a composite mean
of 3.44, the respondents generally agreed that they have competence on research
proposal writing although at low level only.

With a composite mean of 3.44, the respondents generally agreed that
they have competence on conducting research and packaging the research report
writing although at low level only.
Adequacy of the research support program. With a composite mean of
3.52 interpreted as “Agree”, the respondents perceived that …
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
Based on the profile, it can be deduced that generally the faculty have research
competency although at low level.

Based on the faculty’s perceptions also, they have research competency although
at low level.
While there was an adequacy of support services in terms of professional support
and guidance on research, there were inadequate research facilities and resources, and
inadequate research policies and guidelines.

Employment status and faculty rank were not determinants of research
competency both in writing research proposal and in conducting research and writing
report. On the other hand, educational attainment and length of relevant tech service were
determinants of research competency both in writing research proposal and in conducting
research and writing report.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are offered for
consideration to foster research culture towards research productivity:
JCFC should give significant weights on educational attainment and relevant
teaching experience in the recruitment of faculty. It should also consider motivational

strategies to keep performing faculty for longer period of time, and encourage them to
further their studies.

The school should institute a research capability program to enhance and update
the research competency of the faculty.

JCFC should review the adequacy of research facilities and resources, and
reformulate research policies and guidelines in response to the research needs of the
faculty. The school should allocate budget for research such as in mobilizing the research
activities and providing incentives to researchers to boost their morale.

REFERENCES
Alicay, C. B. (2014). Research Methods and Techniques. 2014 ed. Great Books
Publishing. Paltok, West Ave. Quezon City, Philippines.
Bay, B.E. & Clerigo, ME.C. (2013). Factors associated with research productivity among
oral healthcare educators in an Asian university. Lyceum of the Philippines
University – Batangas, Philippines. International Education Studies. Retrieved
from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/view/29331.
Casiple, R. (2014). Lack of research in higher education. The Daily Guardian. Retrieved
September 10, 2014 from http://www.thedailyguardian.net
ListingCommission
of references on
should be flushed
Higher left, hanging
Education. (1994). Higher education act of 1994 (RA No. 7722).
indented, and listed in alphabetical order.
Commission on Higher Education. (2009). National higher education research agenda –
Use double space between entries and single space
2 (2009-2018).
within entry. All entries should end with a period.
Commission on Higher Education. (2013). Policies, standards and guidelines for the
bachelor of science in marine transportation program.
Formeloza, R. & Pateña A. (2013). Research capability of the maritime faculty members
and senior students in Lyceum International Maritime Academy. International
Journal of Physical and Social Sciences. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/5024586/Research_Capability_of_the_Maritime_Facul
ty_Members_and_Senior_Students_in_Lyceum_International_Maritime_Academ
y.
Mallorca, R. (2008). The Development of research culture in La Salle University.

Retrieved October 11, 2014 from
http://local.lsu.edu.ph/institutional_research_office/publications/TheDevelopment
OfResearchCulture/main.html.
Matira M.D. (2014). Do-it-yoursef Statistics for Thesis Writers. St. Andrew Publishing
House. Plaridel Bulacan.
Robbins, S.P. & Coulter, M. (2013). Management. 11 th ed. Pearson Education Limited.
Edinberg Gate, Harlow Essex CM20 2JE, England.
Salazar-Clemeña, R. & Almonte-Acosta, M. (2007). Developing research culture in

Philippine higher educations: Perspective of university faculty. De La Salle
University, Manila, Philippines. Research Gate. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242158541_Developing_Research_Cult
ure_in_Philippine_Higher_Education_Institutions_Perspectives_of_University_F
aculty.

Salom, M.D. (2013). Research capability of faculty members of DMMSU MID La Union
Campus. San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines. International Scientific
Research Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.eisrjc.com/documents/Research_Capability_of_the_Faculty_Members
_of_DMMMSU_MID_La_Union_Campus_1369731618.pdf.
Teehankee, Benito (2012). Building research culture in philippine higher education: A

systems action research approach. De La Salle University. Retrieved from
http://www.eisrjc.com/documents/Research_Capability_of_the_Faculty_Members
_of_DMMMSU_MID_La_Union_Campus_1369731618.pdf.
Williams, G. (2007). Euerek-European universities for entrepreneurship and their role in

the Europe of Knowledge. IIEP Newsletter. Vol.XXV, N1 January-March 2007.
International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved on November 11,
2014 from http://www.iiep.unesco.org.

APPENDICES

Dear Respondent,
This study aims to determine the faculty competency in

various aspects of conducting and writing research to serve as
basis in planning for the research enhancement program of the
Jose C. Feliciano College. Your responses will be kept
RESEARCH CAPABILITY We
confidential. OF FACULTY OF JOSE C.highly
therefore FELICIANO appreciate
COLLEGE if you could
complete the following questionnaire and return to us at your
earliest convenience.
__College Graduate with no Thesis

__College Graduate with Thesis
__Master’s Graduate with no Thesis
__ Master’s Graduate with Thesis
__Doctorate Graduate with no Thesis
__ Doctorate Graduate with Thesis
3. Faculty Rank:
__Instructor
__Assistant Professor
__Associate Professor
__Professor
4. No. of Years of Relevant Teaching Experience:

__ Less than 3 years
__ 3 to 5 years
__ 6 to 8 years
__ 9 to 12 years
__ More than 12 years
5. No. of attended trainings and seminars relevant to research and development

a. In-house: __0 __1 __2-5 __5-10 __>10
b. Outside the school: __0 __1 __2-5 __5-10 __>10
6. Research Conducted:
a. Number of research/es completed? ________
o How many were authored by you alone? ____
o How many were co-authored and you are the main author?
__________
o How many were co-authored but you are not the main author?
__________
PART II. RESEARCH COMPETENCY
Direction. Please encircle your answer using the following scoring system:
Highly competent (HC) = 5

Competent (C) = 4
Uncertain (U) = 3
Somewhat Competent (SC) = 2
Not Competent (NC) = 1
1. How do you rate yourself with the following aspects of research proposal
making?

COMPETENCY H C U SC NC
C
a. Identifying and defining research problem 5 4 3 2 1
b. Conceptualizing and Organizing the essay for the
5 4 3 2 1
introduction/background of the study/rationale/
c. Developing the conceptual framework 5 4 3 2 1
d. Formulation of Research Objectives 5 4 3 2 1
e. Formulating testable hypothesis and defining basic
5 4 3 2 1
concepts and variables
f. Justifying the significance of the research/Identification
of end-users and target beneficiaries of the research 5 4 3 2 1
result
g. Organizing, integrating and synthesizing the literature
review 5 4 3 2 1
h. Constructing the research design 5 4 3 2 1

i. Designing the tools for data collection. 5 4 3 2 1
j. Organizing and formatting the research document 5 4 3 2 1
k. Preparing research workplan (in Gantt Chart form
5 4 3 2 1
consisting of activities and time schedule)
l. Knowledge about external funding agencies 5 4 3 2 1
m. Preparing research budget (personnel services, MOOE,
5 4 3 2 1
equipment outlay, administrative cost)
2. How do you rate yourself in conducting the research and packaging the research
report?
COMPETENCY H C U SC NC
C
a. Collecting, Gathering and processing of data 5 4 3 2 1
b. Presenting, interpreting and analyzing data 5 4 3 2 1
c. Synthesizing results 5 4 3 2 1
d. Expressing additional value or importance to the
5 4 3 2 1
existing facts
e. Formulating recommendation to address the research
5 4 3 2 1
problem and concerns found in the study
f. Writing the abstract 5 4 3 2 1
g. Organizing and formatting the research document 5 4 3 2 1
PART III. PERCEPTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT, RESEARCH

FACILITIES, POLICIES AND REWARDS SYSTEM

Direction. Please encircle your answer using the following scoring system:
Strongly Agree (SA) = 5

Agree (A) = 4
No opinion or Uncertain (NO/U) = 3
Disagree (DA) = 2
Strongly Diagree (SDA) = 1
1. Professional Support and Guidance on Research. To what extent do you agree

or disagree that the school provides adequate professional support and guidance in
terms of the following?
PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE SA A NO DA SD

/U A
a. consultation services of research adviser (dean,
5 4 3 2 1
research council, research staff)
b. services of reader/referee/peer reviewer 5 4 3 2 1
c. Editor/grammarian 5 4 3 2 1
d. Statistical services 5 4 3 2 1
e. Research committee – research monitoring body
that screens the types of research conducted and
5 4 3 2 1
looks into ethical dillemas involved, especially in
sensitive fields
2. Research Facilities and Resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree that
the school provides adequate research facilities in terms of the following?
RESEARCH FACILITIES AND RESOURCES SA A NO DA SD

/U A
a. Conducive office space or facilities for 5 4 3 2 1
conducting a research paper
b. Reliable internet access for conducting a research 5 4 3 2 1
paper
c. Access to online journals 5 4 3 2 1
d. Journals, publications and other library facilities 5 4 3 2 1
and resources
e. Laboratory facilities, equipment and supplies 5 4 3 2 1
3. Research Policies and Guidelines. To what extent do you agree or disagree that
the school provides adequate and satisfactory policies and guidelines in terms of
the following?

RESEARCH PROGRAMS AND POLICIES SA A NO DA SD

/U A
a. Institutional Research policies and agenda 5 4 3 2 1
b. Research Funding – enough budget for conducting
5 4 3 2 1
research
c. Research Incentives – competitive pay or
5 4 3 2 1
honorarium
d. Recognition for individuals who conduct research
5 4 3 2 1
paper
e. Support to dissemination: presentation &
publication (travel, registration, accommodation 5 4 3 2 1
and cash incentives)
f. Support/cash incentives/recognition for utilization
of research outputs (technologies for income
generating projects, new knowledge for 5 4 3 2 1
improvement of policies and the implementation
and administration.
g. In-house and outside trainings to enhance research
5 4 3 2 1
competencies
PART IV. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS. Please write your comments and
suggestions for the improvement of the JCFC research and development
program.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thank you very much for your precious time and cooperation. May God keep you
always safe.
Student Researchers:
Jon Ericson D. Singian,

Jolina Fajardo,
Marinel P. Cabalang,
Jasper Ian S. Cortez

APPENDIX B
VALIDATION LETTER
JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION

Dau. Mabalacat City, Pampanga
January 18, 2017
DR. VILMA V. ESPARRAGO

Professor
Jose C. Feliciano College Foundation
Dau, Mabalacat City, Pampanga
Madam:
A pleasant day!
We are senior high school students in Accountancy, Business and Management

strand, presently undertaking a thesis entitled “Research capability of the Faculty of
the Jose C. Feliciano College for the School Year 2016-2017”. The study aims to
assess the research capability of the faculty members of Jose C. Feliciano College during
the Academic Year 2016-2017 in order to come up with measures that would promote
research culture towards research productivity of the faculty. In this connection, we are
sincerely requesting your expertise for the validation of the herein attached questionaire
for your assistance.
Thank you very much and we highly appreciate your invaluable contribution to
our academic endeavor.
Sincerely yours,
Student Researchers:
Jon Ericson D. Singian
Jolina Fajardo,
Marinel P. Cabalang,
Jasper Ian S. Cortez
Aaron Jame A. Jarin
Constantino O. Ringor, Jr.
NOTED:

Adviser

THESIS Format Template JCFC

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THESIS Format Template JCFC

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

JOSE C.

FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION i

THESIS FORMAT TEMPLATE

Sample Rib Title

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION i

e Page 3 line spaces from the margin

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C.

Left: 1.5” Right: 1”

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Jon Ericson D. Singian

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION ii

adequacy of support services in terms of professional support and guidance on research

length of relevant teaching service were determinants of research competency.

Recommendations include the consideration of educational attainment and teaching

encouraged them to further their studies. Moreover, JCFC should institutionalize a

research capability program, and review and reformulate research policies.

Keywords: research capability, research competency, faculty research, academic research

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTYBottom

Observe proper indentions in all

The hereto attached thesis entitled “Research Capability of Faculty of Jose C.

HOGEL M. MONTEMAYOR, Ph.D.

HOGEL M. MONTEMAYOR, Ph.D.

CLARENCE A. SIGUA, MBA MICHELL B. DIWA, MBA

APPROVED and accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

RICHARD JOHN W. HERNANDEZ, MAEd., LPT

CHIRSTIAN ALLAN C. CAGANO, MAEd., LPT

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

persons who had contributed in making this thesis a reality:

and reshaping this piece of work;

The members of the panel of examiners, namely…

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

This piece of work

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

Table Title Page

1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents as to

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

Figure Title Page

1 Schematic diagram of the conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE FOUNDATION 1

Research is a systematic, controlled, empirical and critical investigation of

hypothetical propositions on relations involving natural phenomena (Kerlinger, 1973, as

research as mentioned by Ariola (2006). Research is systematic, meaning it follows an

advancement in technological and economic development. In contrast, HEIs of

(Sanyal & Varghese, 2006 as cited by Salazar-Clemeña&Almonte-Acosta, 2007). Aware

of the important contribution of research in the development of a nation, many

RESEARCH CAPABILITY OF FACULTY OF JOSE C. FELICIANO COLLEGE

followed by another National Higher Education Research Agenda – 2 (NHERA-2) for

of 1994 (RA 7722) to direct or redirect purposive research by institutions of higher

learning to meet the needs of agro-industrialization and development and as restated in

research to HEIs as evidenced by ensuing policies and monitoring standards. For

record of at least three years of high research standards as evidenced by a research

program funded by an adequate budgetary allocation and manned by qualified faculty.