Misalignment of Assessment Practices with Performance Standards in Senior High School Research: A Call for Alignment and Clarity
Oral defense and revising the research paper based on panelists’ feedback, and submitting full-blown research report are ONLY required in Inquiries, Investigation, and Immersion (3Is), not in Practical Research 1 and 2.
In the senior high school (SHS) curriculum, the requirement for an oral defense—a formal presentation where students justify their research findings and methodology before a panel—is specified in the subject Inquiries, Investigations, and Immersion (3Is). According to the Department of Education's curriculum guide, students in this subject are expected to "conduct oral defense of learner’s work" as part of their learning activities.
Practical Research 1 and 2 are designed to teach students the fundamentals of research—identifying research problems, reviewing literature, selecting methodologies, gathering data, and analyzing results. While presenting findings is part of the competencies, nowhere in the MELCs does it state that students must undergo a formal oral defense or revise their work based on a panel’s critique. These rigorous steps are only included in 3Is, which is the proper subject for conducting and defending a full research study.
Encouraging students to present their research informally can be beneficial, but misrepresenting an oral defense as a required standard in Practical Research 1 and 2 contradicts the actual competencies set by DepEd.
Based on experience—both mine and that of others who have completed their master’s and doctoral studies—final research defense and submission of a full-blown completed research paper were only required during thesis or dissertation writing - NEVER IN RESEARCH subjects. In every course, research subjects focused on learning methodologies, analyzing studies, and drafting research proposals, but a final oral defense and panel revisions were never required until the actual thesis writing stage.
In Senior High School, the equivalent of thesis writing is Inquiries, Investigation, and Immersion (3Is). This is where students are required to conduct a full-blown research study, defend it before a panel, and revise their paper based on feedback. Practical Research 1 and 2 are preparatory subjects, meant to develop foundational research skills—not to impose final defense requirements.
Misaligning activities with the curriculum can mislead students and cause unnecessary stress. While guided discussions or presentations can enhance learning, requiring an oral defense in Practical Research 1 and 2 misrepresents DepEd’s actual competencies and should not be enforced as if it were a standard requirement.
It’s important for teachers to align their activities with the curriculum rather than imposing unnecessary requirements that may add undue pressure and expenses on students.
---
Any claim, regardless of how it is phrased, is invalid without proper citation; without evidence, it remains merely an opinion. In education, we teach based on the curriculum, not personal preferences.
Teachers are implementers, not curriculum changers. Wait till you become.
PS
Kahit gaano man kaganda ang mga output ng mga mag-aaral, kung hindi ito naaayon sa tamang content standards, hindi masasabing tunay nilang naabot ang inaasahang learning outcomes—lalo na kung nagdulot lang ito ng labis na stress at gastos sa kanila.
See attachment as proof of our claim.
------
Misalignment of Assessment Practices with Performance Standards in Senior High School Research: A Call for Alignment and Clarity
The senior high school (SHS) curriculum in the Philippines aims to equip students with essential research skills through subjects like Practical Research 1 and 2, culminating in Inquiries, Investigations, and Immersion (3Is). However, a growing concern arises from the misalignment of assessment practices with the actual performance standards outlined in the Department of Education (DepEd) curriculum guides. This misalignment, particularly in the context of oral defense and research paper revisions, can lead to unnecessary stress, confusion, and ultimately, hinder students' learning outcomes.
The Misalignment: Oral Defense in Practical Research
The DepEd curriculum guide for 3Is explicitly states that students are expected to "conduct oral defense of learner’s work" as part of their learning activities. This requirement aligns with the nature of 3Is, which focuses on conducting full-blown research studies. However, the curriculum guides for Practical Research 1 and 2, which are designed to teach foundational research skills, do not include any mention of formal oral defenses or revisions based on panel feedback.
The Problem: Unnecessary Pressure and Misrepresentation
Requiring oral defenses in Practical Research 1 and 2 misrepresents the actual competencies set by DepEd and creates unnecessary pressure on students. These subjects are meant to develop foundational research skills, not to impose final defense requirements. Furthermore, the practice of requiring students to revise their research papers based on panel feedback in Practical Research 1 and 2 can be detrimental, as it may lead to students feeling overwhelmed and discouraged.
The Solution: Aligning Assessment Practices with Curriculum Standards
To address this misalignment, teachers must prioritize aligning their assessment practices with the curriculum standards outlined by DepEd. While guided discussions or informal presentations can be valuable learning experiences, requiring formal oral defenses in Practical Research 1 and 2 goes beyond the scope of the curriculum and can be detrimental to student learning.
The Importance of Clarity and Consistency
This misalignment can lead to confusion and frustration among both students and teachers. Students may feel pressured to meet expectations that are not clearly defined in the curriculum, while teachers may struggle to implement assessments that are aligned with the intended learning outcomes.
Moving Forward: A Call for Collaboration and Open Dialogue
Addressing this issue requires a collaborative effort between teachers, curriculum developers, and educational leaders. Open dialogue and clear communication are essential to ensure that assessment practices are aligned with the curriculum and support student learning.
Conclusion: Fostering a Positive and Supportive Learning Environment
The goal of education is to empower students, not to overwhelm them with unnecessary requirements. By aligning assessment practices with curriculum standards, we can create a more positive and supportive learning environment that fosters student growth and success.
Remember: Any claim, regardless of how it is phrased, is invalid without proper citation; without evidence, it remains merely an opinion. In education, we teach based on the curriculum, not personal preferences. Teachers are implementers, not curriculum changers.
This article aims to raise awareness about the misalignment of assessment practices with performance standards in senior high school research. It is a call for educators to prioritize alignment and clarity to ensure that students are assessed fairly and effectively.