1
CONTENTS
Research Advisories / Instructors
2
Technical Panel
2
Research Ethics
4
Undergraduate Research Flow
4
Rules in the Conduct of Research Defenses
6
Grading System
7
Grading System Policy
8
Criteria for Research Verdicts
8
Criteria in Evaluating Research Proposals
8
Procedures in Accomplishing the Final Manuscripts
9
2
Research Advisories / Instructors
1. Selected teachers are trained for thesis advising and are given certification that they are
deputized as advisers. A contract shall be executed for this purpose.
2. A faculty is qualified to be an adviser or a research instructor if he/she possess the
following requirements:
a. A full-time Instructor;
b. A full-fledged Master’s degree or at least with units in Master’s degree;
c. Expert of his/her field of expertise based on the discipline handled;
d. Conducted Institutional or a faculty research within two (2) years;
e. At least published one (1) research article and has significant exposure to research
presentation and/or forum;
f. At least three (3) years teaching experience;
g. Undergone research ethics seminar;
h. Has attended research related trainings, and seminars.
3. Duties and responsibilities
Instructor
a. Guides the students during the preparation of the research study/thesis/capstone
project.
b. Discuss the principle of research writing, research methods, structures and
institutional format.
c. Provide relevant, timely and unique research topics which is aligned to the research
agenda of the institution.
d. Evaluate research titles prior to submission.
e. Monitors the progress of the research.
f. Prepares and Signs necessary forms.
g. Submits the grades, facilitate the compliance of the research requirements and
coordinate with the research advisors
Adviser
a. Monitors the progress of the research.
b. Guides the students in the development of their research proposal in terms of
content and format.
b. Document the proceedings of the defenses (for research advisor only).
c. Certify the readiness of the advisee to undergo research defenses.
d. Meets regularly with the advisee/students.
Technical Panel
Technical panel is referred as the Research Panel Committee (RPC). This committee
shall be responsible of reviewing research studies for Undergraduate students.
1. Research Panel Committee shall be composed of the following:
a. Title Hearing
i. CREC Member
3
ii. Internal Expert/External Expert (2)
iii. Research Instructor
b. Literature Review/Hypothesis Development
i. CREC Member
ii. Internal Expert/External Expert (2)
iii. Research Adviser
iv. Research Instructor
c. Proposal
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
CREC Member
Internal Expert/External Expert (2)
Research Adviser
Research Instructor
d. Research Ethics Review
i. Research Ethics Review Chair
ii. Members (3)
e. Final Oral Defense
i. CREC Member
ii. Internal/External Expert (2)
iii. Research Ethics Committee representative
iv. Research Adviser
v. Secretariat
2. The Research Panel Committee Chair shall be the CREC Member. A Panel Chair shall be
appointed in the absence of the latter;
3. In assigning an internal and external expert, one will be chosen by the research
instructor/program coordinator and the other will be chosen by the researchers.
4. Duties and Responsibilities of the Research Panel Committee:
a. Panel chair shall preside the conduct of the oral defenses and arguments;
b. Ensure that the research study is aligned to the Research agenda of the program
sought;
c. Evaluate the research study based on the standardized assessment tools;
d. Write recommendations, suggestions and comments after each scheduled oral
presentation;
e. Review each suggested changes, suggestions and comments during the compliance
of the research study (i.e. manuscripts for Literature review, Proposal and final
manuscript);
f. Sign pertinent documents or forms to attest the authenticity and entirety of the
recorded information;
g. Panel chair will present the decision of the RPC during the last part of the defense;
h. Endorse research proceedings to the RPC; and
i. Maintain ethical conduct and confidentiality of the proceedings.
4
Research Ethics
The City College of El Salvador Research and Extension Office shall establish a committee
that will focus on the conduct of ethical researches for both institutional and curriculum-based
research. Such that, these committee adheres to the fundamental principles of research ethics as
stipulated in the Belmont Report of 1979 of which it summarizes ethical principles and guidelines
for research particularly involving human subjects.
The committee shall be the CCE Research Ethics Committee that will embody and
regulate all research activities of the institution as far as the ethical standards of research is
concerned. CCE REC shall uphold the three core principles which are; respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice. Of which these can be complied thru the presence of informed consent,
assessment of risks and benefits, and selection of subjects.
The primary objective of the CCE REC is to ensure that all research or research – related
undertakings of all academic levels and non-academic areas be it departmental/curriculum-based
or institutional research manifest good research practice. REC shall review all study conducted by
students and faculties.
Members of the CCE REC shall undergo training and accreditation by the Philippine
Health Research Ethics Board and presence of the PHREB approved Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) shall supplement this policy.
The ethics review shall be conducted after the research proposal defense to ensure
compliance of the ethical standards. And CCE REC re-evaluate the compliance during the Final
Oral defense.
Undergraduate Research Flow
a. Research 1: Phase 1 – TITLE HEARING
Undergraduate students shall submit three (3) titles to be presented to the Research
Panel Committee (RPC) which includes:
i.
Accomplished Title Hearing form with three (3) Research Titles as
attachment using the Research Title Justification Form
ii.
Accomplished Students and Teacher Assessment of Proposed
Titles (STAPT)
Scheduled four (4) weeks after the 1st day classes.
b. Research 1: Phase 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW / HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT/
Presentation of the Literature review and Hypothesis development to the RPC
for review. Accomplish Literature Review Student Assessment form and proof of
payment.
Scheduled four (4) weeks after the 1st day of the Title Hearing
c. Research 1: Phase 3 – RESEARCH PROPOSAL DEFENSE & ETHICS REVIEW
During the research proposal, the researchers shall prepare the following for
presentation to the RPC:
5
i.
Cover Page with the approved Title;
ii.
Introduction;
iii.
Approved Literature & Hypothesis;
iv.
Objectives of the Study; and
v.
Methodology
Scheduled four (4) weeks after the 1st day of the Literature Review.
Requirements of Research Proposal Defense before and after the proceeding.
i.
Thesis Advising form
ii.
Proof of Payment
iii.
Certificate of Technology-Based Quality Assurance
iv.
Research Adviser’s Certificate of Endorsement
v.
Certification from the Statistician on the correctness of sampling
design, sample size, quantification of variables, determination of
statistical test, reliability and item analysis for quantitative research.
vi.
Printed manuscript (Chapter 1-3)
Approved Research Proposals will then be scheduled for an Ethics review which
will be reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee. OCRE shall submit the
approved Proposed Research Study to the committee.
d. Research 1: Phase 4 – SUBMISSION OF THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
Note: Revised proposal must use past tense in the methodology to prepare for the
Final Manuscript
The following shall be submitted to the Program Coordinator:
i.
Revised Proposal
ii.
Clearance from the Research Ethics Committee
iii.
Permit for Data Collection & Certificate of Appearance
iv.
Student Evaluation of the Research Process & the Role of the
Adviser
v.
Gantt Chart of Research 2
Submission of the required documents are only given ten (10) working days upon
approval of the final manuscript.
e. Research 2: Phase 1 - CONDUCT OF RESEARCH PROPER / SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
Conduct data mining, field survey, system development, FGD or experiment with the
guidance of the Research Adviser (RA). Secure and accomplish Student Monitoring
Form from the OCRE.
f. Research 2: Phase 2 – FINAL RESEARCH QUALITY ASSURANCE
Prior to the Final Oral Defense (FOD),
i.
Stakeholder’s validation and recommendation
ii.
Review by identified external experts
6
g. Research 2: Phase 3 – FINAL ORAL DEFENSE
i.
Submission of ring bound hardcopies (number of copies shall be
according to the total number of RPC) of the full manuscript
contents.
ii.
Accomplish Final Oral Defense (FOD) Form
iii.
Presentation of the formatted publishable paper to the RPC.
iv.
Accomplished compliance form
v.
Technology-Based Quality Assurance test (plagiarism, grammar,
readability test, content validity, and reliability test)
vi.
Proof of payment
Schedule of Final Oral Defenses are based on the submitted approved Gantt Chart.
h. Research 2: Phase 4 – SUBMISSION OF FINAL MANUSCRIPT
Researcher(s) shall be able to comply the following and shall be submitted ten (10)
working days after the final oral defense proceedings.
i. Accomplish the Approval sheet;
ii. Submit final revision as approved by the RPC to the Research Ethics
Committee (REC) for compliance;
iii. Submit final research publication format to the OCRE for final
layouting as a publishable research journal format; and
iv. Two (2) Hardbound copies of the final manuscript;
Upon submission of the above-mentioned requirements, students are required to
participate in the Collegiate Research Colloquium.
Rules in the Conduct of Research Defenses
1. Student researchers who failed during the first appearance of the defense be it Title
Hearing, Proposal Defense and Final Defense shall only be given a Re-Defense
ONCE.
2. Re-Defenses shall be scheduled three (3) days after the day of the defense.
3. Student researchers who pass the Title Hearing shall be provided with a Research
Adviser aligned to the research discipline. Student shall accomplish the Thesis Advising
Form and submit to the Dean’s Office.
4. Student researchers who pass the Proposal Defense shall accomplish be given ten (10)
working days to submit the approved manuscript and accomplish the Final Proposal
Approval Form. For Final Defense, the students shall be given fifteen (15) working days
to submit the hardbound, softcopy of the journal format, and video documentation to the
Dean’s Office.
7
Grading System
Research classes shall follow the grading system for Undergraduate students. Students are
graded based on the substance/outcomes, compliance of student research activities and class
performance.
1. Research 1
Prelim Period
Semi-Final Period
a. Class attendance and
10%
a. Adviser’s Rating
30%
behavior
b. Final Proposal
70%
b. Written Exam
20%
TOTAL
100%
c. Performance Tasks
30%
d. Title Hearing compliance
40%
TOTAL
100%
Midterm Period
Final Period
a. Class attendance and
10%
a. Adviser’s Rating
30%
behavior
b. Ethics Review Compliance
70%
b. Written works
20%
c. Adviser’s Rating
20%
TOTAL
100%
d. Literature Review and
50%
Hypothesis Review
compliance
TOTAL
100%
2. Research 2
Prelim Period
a. Adviser’s Rating
b. Compliance to
scheduled research study
targets
TOTAL
Midterm Period
a. Adviser’s Rating
b. Compliance to
scheduled research study
targets
c. Final research quality
assurance result
TOTAL
Semi-Final Period
30%
a. Final Oral Defense
- Substantiality of the study
70%
- Performance of the research
study presentation (i.e.
Audio-video presentation,
100%
expertise, etc.)
- Publishability
TOTAL
Final Period
30%
a. Implementation/Presentation of
40%
Research outputs to public
forum (i.e. collegial research
colloquium)
30%
TOTAL
100%
30%
50%
20%
100%
100%
100%
8
Grading System Policy
1. Research Instructors. Criteria with no asterisks means the Instructor will provide the
grade. And shall consolidate the grades from other sources.
2. Adviser’s Rating. Shall be provided by the research adviser based on individual
performance of the student using the Student Research Monitoring instrument.
3. *Grades are based on the score sheet / assessment form of which the Research Instructor
will consolidate from the Technical Panel duly approved by the Technical Panel
Chairman ratings.
4. **Grade will be provided by the Research Ethics Committee using the score
sheet/assessment form.
5. ***OCRE will provide the grade
NOTE: Computation of grades shall be followed: number of YES divided by number of items
times 50 plus 50. Submission of grades to the Research Instructors shall be five (5) working days
after the scheduled proceedings.
Criteria for Research Verdicts
1. Accept, without revisions. This means that the research study is accepted and a verdict
of PASSED.
2. Accept, after minor revisions suggested in this review. This means that the research
study is accepted but upon the compliance of all suggested and recommended by the
technical panel. The revised manuscript shall only be routed among the technical panel for
verification and double checking of the compliance based on the Minutes of the
Proceedings form. And the verdict of this level is PASSED.
3. Accept, after major revisions suggested in this review. This means that the research
study partially meets the expectation of the study. Of which, major technical works are
needed. A scheduled re-defense shall be provided to the student researchers to present
again the research study. No verdict shall be announced as of this proceeding.
4. Reject, not fit for thesis. This means that the research study is not substantial and is not
accepted. The student researcher will be given a Verdict of FAILED and shall re-enroll
the research subject in the next semester.
Criteria in Evaluating Research Proposals
1. The problem and hypothesis are well stated and appropriate for the study.
2. The related literature is not only pertinent to the particular study but is the basis of the
theoretical framework.
3. The research instrument is valid and reliable.
4. The scientific procedure is used in data gathering.
5. The research design is appropriate.
6. The method for data processing and analysis is appropriate.
9
Procedures in Accomplishing the Final Manuscripts
1. During the submission of the final copy of Title Proposal manuscript, the procedures
shall be followed:
a. The revised manuscript shall be evaluated first by the Research Adviser and shall
be revised immediately. Once the revisions are complied, the Research Adviser
will sign the Final Manuscript Approval Form.
b. Once approved and signed by the Research Adviser, the manuscript (one copy
only) will be routed to the first member of the Technical Panel, then the unedited printed hardcopy with corrections will be forwarded to the second member
of the Panel for corrections.
c. Once done, the manuscript then forwarded to the Research Ethics Committee
representative for final evaluation of the compliance.
d. Manuscript shall then be Revised based on the corrections from the Technical
Panels.
e. Then the manuscript will undergo the Technology-based Quality Assurance Test
which includes Grammar, Plagiarism and Readability Test thru the OCRE.
f. The TQA Test result then presented to the school Grammarian together with the
softcopy of the result. Once revised, second round of test will follow and repeat
procedure “d”.
g. Once done, the manuscript shall be check by the school Statistician and confirm
the validity of the statistical treatments, and test instruments (if any). The
Statistician will Certification once the test instrument is valid and reliable.
h. Once complied, the manuscript then forwarded to the Research Editor for the
final checking of references, citations, formats, etc.
i. Once the Research Editor approves the manuscript, a Certification will be
issued.
j. Final manuscript shall then be routed for the signature of the panel member.
k. Then the Chairman of the RPC will sign the Final Manuscript Assessment
(FMA) form for Approval.
2. Note that panel members, grammarians, statistician, and librarians. MUST NOT SIGN
the compliance form if all the suggested revisions are Not Complied.
3. Certifications are required for the following:
a. Research Editor
b. Grammarian
c. Statistician
d. Technology-based Quality Assurance Tests