Enhancing Students’ Research Competencies through

Socio-Political Documentary Filmmaking

Alexander P. Gonzales

History and Social Science Department

ABSTRACT

Research, being one of the functions of any higher educational institution, must

be promoted. In order to develop the research skills of students, other techniques

should be explored to catch their interest. For the purpose of this experimental action

research, the researcher encouraged his students to create a film documentary about

social and political issues. This study proved that socio-political documentary

filmmaking can enhance the research competencies of student and can be used as an

effective tool or activity in class. The potential of this format is promising and as multi-

media and digital technology progresses the more that educational institutions should

look into the usefulness of this pedagogy.

Keywords: research, technology, documentaries, filmmaking, pedagogy, skills,

competencies.

As an Academic institution, all colleges and universities aspire to be recognized

as a center of excellence (COE). These are institutions that demonstrate the highest

1
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
levels of standards in instruction, research and extension services (CHED, 2012).

Research, being one of the functions of any higher educational institution, must be

promoted.

Developing a research culture, not just among the faculty but including its

students, is one of the aims of Jose Rizal University. In the researcher’s experience,

students are almost always hesitant to engage in any research task because it is

difficult and boring. This perception is shared by almost all who are about to undergo a

research project. As a faculty, it is the researcher’s task to encourage students to do

research and develop their skills on this aspect.

In order to develop the research skills of students, other technique should be

explored to catch their interest. For the purpose of this experimental action research,

the researcher encouraged his students to create a film documentary about social and

political issues. Documentary film is a broad facet of visual expression that is based on

an attempt to document reality and educate audiences. (Atkinson, 2010)

Technology is constantly changing the landscape of the whole educational

system. The twentieth century was the century of film; the twenty first will be the

century of digital video. The twentieth saw major innovations in recording and

filmmaking, many applicable to ethnography. Current video technology offers a

spectacular methodological promise, making it first choice for ethnographers of the

future. (Shrum & Duque, 2008). Techniques that seemed impossible and costly before

2
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
are now available and affordable to the students. In previous decades, you would need

a rich producer or benefactor before you could create a film production. But at present,

anyone can make a documentary film with a cellphone and a laptop. The use of video

has also been expanded by increased access through the low cost of video cameras

high quality video facilities on mobile phones, cheap webcams and free easy to use

computer applications for editing (Jewitt, 2012).

Teenager’s inquisitive nature places them at the forefront of new technologies,

pushes their boundaries, facilitating self-exploration and the freedom that these social

and media platforms bring (Jaishankar, 2011; Agustina, 2012). When the researcher

told his students about their up-coming task, they received it with excitement. After all,

who would not want to be given a chance to be a star in your own show? People

reported having fun when taking photos or videos of their friends’ behaviour, and then

viewing them collectively in-situ (Stelmaszewska, Fields & Blandford, 2006).

The researcher believed that all of us have a drive to document social event

which was in part a research activity. Personal photography has been a part of the lives

of many people for a long time. Photos not only present a documentary of someone’s

life, but are also of great sentimental value. People use photography to capture feelings,

events and personal experiences, and to communicate with others (ibid). Students

recognized the value of technology but still need guidance when it comes to better using

it for academic purposes. In a research conducted by Dahlstrom, Walker and Dziuban

3
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
(2013), students value the way in which technology helps them achieve their academic

goals and prepares them for their future academic and workplace activity.

The researcher believed that by harnessing the natural drive of students to

document and gather visual evidences, the researcher will be able to enhance their

research skills.

The conceptual framework, as presented in figure 1, presents a pretest-posttest

design experimental action research. A pre-test will be conducted to determine the

students’ research skills before intervention. An intervention will be administered. In this

study, a socio-political documentary filmmaking will be the intervention under the

guidance of the researcher. A post-test will be conducted to identify the students’

research skills after intervention. Both pre-test and post-test result shall produce

quantitative data which will be analyzed using the single factor analysis of variance

(ANOVA). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models used in

order to analyze the differences between group means and their associated procedures

(such as "variation" among and between groups), developed by R. A. Fisher

([Link]). Narrative anecdotal statements will be solicited to determine the

leaning outcome which shall produce qualitative data and shall be analyzed through

coding. Results from this study will determine if the socio-political documentary

filmmaking can be included as a learning activity in the course syllabus for the subjects

Introduction to Sociology and Philippine Government and Constitution.

4
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
Figure 1.
Conceptual Framework

Research Objectives

The main objective of this research is to enhance the students’ research

competencies through Socio-Political Documentary Filmmaking. Specifically the study

aims to answer the following:

1. What is the level of the student’s research competency?

2. How would socio-political documentary filmmaking affect the research

competencies of students?

5
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
3. What learning outcome is generated through socio-political documentary

filmmaking?

METHODS

This study utilized an experimental action research design, which incorporated

both quantitative survey method and qualitative narrative analysis method. Action

research is a collaborative approach to research that provides people with the means to

take systematic action in an effort to resolve specific problems (Gonzales, 2014; Berg,

2009). This study explores the effectiveness of using socio-political documentary

filmmaking as a means of enhancing the research skills of students.

The respondents of this study were students enrolled in the subjects Introduction

to Sociology and Politic and Governance in the 2nd semester of school year 2014-2015.

Four sections were chosen to participate in the socio-political documentary film making

with a total of 187 students. The researcher used the Slovin’s formula to get the sample

size, which is written as n = N / (1 + Ne2); where n = Number of samples, N = Total

population and e = Error tolerance. The sample size that was derived was from the

population of 187 was 127 at 0.05 error tolerance (See Appendix A). Upon determining

the sample size, I used the lottery or fish bowl method. The lottery technique in statistics

is sometimes called the fishbowl technique where names are drawn out of a bowl. You

can do this while maintaining probability by returning the names to the bowl, or with

6
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
changing probability by keeping the names out after they are drawn

([Link]).

The demographic compositions of the respondents were:

 Age Average (in years) : 18.61

 Male : 67

 Female : 60

 Public High School : 68

 Private High School : 59

All for the respondents were requested to fill up a consent form to determine their

willingness to participate in this research.

The type of action research employed by the researcher involved a pretest-

intervention-posttest analysis. The researcher developed a survey questionnaire (see

Appendix B) to assess the research skills of the students before and after the socio-

political documentary film making. The researcher used a 5 point likert scale responses

in the questionnaire with the following interpretation:

5 - Excellent; I have mastered this skill

4 - Good; I have done it more than once confidently (or without

assistance/guide)

3 - Average; I have done it, but with difficulty (or with assistance/guide)

7
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
2 - Fair; I know what it is, but have not done it yet

1 - Poor; I have no idea

The questionnaire was validated in forms and substance by competent peers,

namely: Prof. Romarico Barrientos; Dr. Darwin Bonifacio; and Dr. Lorna Adalid. The

researcher conducted a dry-run of the questionnaire to ten (10) students, which were

not part of the respondents of this research, at 1 week interval to test its reliability.

Using Pearson’s r Correlation, the Test-Retest Reliability produced a +0.981 result

which was interpreted as very strong positive relationship (See Appendix A). With the

aforementioned procedure, the survey questionnaire was both valid and reliable.

Qualitative responses were also needed to confirm the quantitative result of this study.

The researcher asked the leader of every group who undertook the socio-political

documentary film making to provide a written narrative report of their experiences.

Through this anecdotal data, the researcher was able to identify the learning outcome of

the activity.

The pre-test was conducted by the researcher on November 17, 2014 to test the

initial skills of the respondents on the area of research and filmmaking prior to

instruction and socio-political documentary film making. The responses were sorted

and tallied (See Appendix C). Under the researcher’s guidance, the respondents were

given two months to accomplish their task. A rubric (Appendix D) for the activity was

also provided to guide the respondents on the expected outcome. There initial outputs

were submitted on January 22, 2015. The post-test was conducted by the researcher

8
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
on January 26, 2015. Likewise, the responses were sorted and tallied (See Appendix

E).

Initially the researcher intended to use t-test to analyze the difference between

the pretest and posttest result. T-test was ideal only with 30 or less respondents and

because of the large sample size in this study, the researcher decided to use single

factor or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Typically, however, the one-way

ANOVA is used to test for differences among at least three groups, since the two-group

case can be covered by a t-test ([Link] 2014; Gosset, 1908). When

there are only two means to compare, the t-test and the F-test are equivalent; the

relation between ANOVA and t is given by F = t2.

For the purpose of this research, the following hypotheses were used:

Where H0 means that there is no difference between the mean score of pretest

and posttest. While the alternate hypothesis (H1) suggests that there is difference

between the mean score of pretest and posttest.

In computing ANOVA, the researcher used Microsoft Excel 2010 Data Analysis

Software which provided the result for this study.

9
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
RESULTS

The result of the level of students’ research competencies, documentary

filmmaking competencies and combined competencies, as well as, the effect of socio-

political documentary film making in the aforementioned competencies were presented

in this segment of the research.

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Pretest 127 313 2.464567 0.353576
Posttest 127 422.3 3.325197 0.280789

ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between 3.9E-
Groups 47.03343 1 47.03343 148.2852 27 3.878624
Within
Groups 79.92992 252 0.317182

Total 126.9633 253

Table 1.
ANOVA Result for Research Skills

Table 1 presented the pretest-posttest ANOVA result for the research skills of the

respondent. The mean score for the pretest was 2.46 while the mean score for the

posttest was 3.33. There was an increase in posttest result compared to the pretest,

implying that there was an increase in the research skills of the respondents. Variability

in the pretest was 0.35 while in the posttest it was 0.28. The variability in the posttest

was smaller; indicating that the respondents were moving towards homogeneity as far

as their research skills were concern. The mean square (MS) result between groups
10
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
was 47.03 while the MS within groups was 0.32; indicating that the MS between groups

was larger than the MS within groups. Since the MS between group was large than the

MS within groups, this result indicated that the H0 was rejected; there was a change in

the research skills of the respondents.

Table 1 also showed the F value of 148.29 and F critical value of 3.88; indicating

that the F value is significantly larger than the F critical value, suggesting that H 0 was

rejected; there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest result on the

respondents’ research skills.

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Pretest 127 276.2 2.174803 0.775868
Posttest 127 416.6 3.280315 0.416673

ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between 1.4E-
Groups 77.60693 1 77.60693 130.1539 24 3.878624
Within
Groups 150.2602 252 0.59627

Total 227.8671 253

Table 2.
ANOVA Result for Filmmaking Skills

Table 2 presented the pretest-posttest ANOVA result for the filmmaking skills of

the respondent. The mean score for the pretest was 2.17 while the mean score for the

posttest was 3.28. There was an increase in posttest result compared to the pretest,

11
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
implying that there was an increase in the filmmaking skills of the respondents.

Variability in the pretest was 0.78 while in the posttest it was 0.41. The variability in the

posttest was smaller; indicating that the respondents were moving towards homogeneity

as far as their filmmaking skills were concern. The mean square (MS) result between

groups was 77.61 while the MS within groups was 0.60; indicating that the MS between

groups was larger than the MS within groups. Since the MS between group was large

than the MS within groups, this result indicated that the H 0 was rejected; there was a

change in the filmmaking skills of the respondents.

Table 2 also showed the F value of 130.15 and F critical value of 3.88; indicating

that the F value is significantly larger than the F critical value, suggesting that H 0 was

rejected; there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest result on the

respondents’ filmmaking skills.

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Pretest 127 300.75 2.36811 0.342425
Posttest 127 420.38 3.310079 0.249466

ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F value F crit
1.22E-
Between Groups 56.34385 1 56.34385 190.3859 32 3.878624
Within Groups 74.57825 252 0.295945

Total 130.9221 253

Table 3.
ANOVA Result for Combined Skills

12
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
Table 3 presented the pretest-posttest ANOVA result for the combined skills of

the respondent. The mean score for the pretest was 2.37 while the mean score for the

posttest was 3.31. There was an increase in posttest result compared to the pretest,

implying that there was an increase in the combined skills of the respondents.

Variability in the pretest was 0.34 while in the posttest it was 0.25. The variability in the

posttest was smaller; indicating that the respondents were moving towards homogeneity

as far as their combined skills were concern. The mean square (MS) result between

groups was 56.34 while the MS within groups was 0.30; indicating that the MS between

groups was larger than the MS within groups. Since the MS between group was large

than the MS within groups, this result indicated that the H0 was rejected; there was a

change in the combined skills of the respondents.

Table 3 also showed the F value of 190.39 and F critical value of 3.88; indicating

that the F value is significantly larger than the F critical value, suggesting that H0 was

rejected; there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest result on the

respondents’ combined skills.

Learning Outcome Generated through Socio-Political Documentary Filmmaking

The researcher inquired on the applicability of research practices in socio-

political documentary filmmaking to the leader of each group and found out that doing a

documentary film utilized the same process as a written research. In making their film

documentary, the respondents followed the following stages:

13
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
A. Identifying the Research Problem

B. Looking for Related Literatures and Studies

C. Creating Guide Questions or Questionnaire

D. Searching for Informants and Field Experts

E. Immersing in the Research Area to Gather Data

F. Conducting an Interview or Survey

G. Analyzing and Interpreting Research Data

H. Formulating Conclusion and Recommendation

The respondents described identifying the research problem to be difficult,

“identifying the research problem was a hard task because even though we would just

create the question out of the given topic, it consumed us a lot of time because we want

our problem to be uncommon and easily understood.” Others also perceived it to be

exciting, “excited kami noong una, kung paano namin sisimulan, Paano namin gagawan

ng story.”

The respondents found looking for related literatures and studies to be easy, “We

don’t encounter any difficulties in looking for related literatures since this study has been

made known to the public and has been viewed on television already so news affiliated

with the topic can be seen through internet;” “I think was the easiest task because we

14
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
would just search for the most akin stories, documentaries and films, local and foreign in

the internet.”

The respondents were careful in creating interview questions, “We’ve also

decided to keep our questions sensitive so that it may not offend the interviewees;”

“were trying to be as simple as possible because we don’t want to complicate things.”

They also collaborated in contributing ideas for the questions, “We all contributed in this

section since I ask each of them to write at least three (3) questions regarding a certain

topic.”

The respondents found searching for informants very challenging, “We planned

to interview a lay minister and a parish priest for a deeper explanation what is heaven

and what are the things after life;” “what I’ve heared from them is that finding an

interviewee needs to be planned ahead of time because as the officials or experts are

concern having an appointment with them takes time and it a long process to be able to

talk to them.”

The respondents experiences different reactions while conducting an interview,

“May time na napapagalitan kami, Kasi bakit daw kailangan namin silang kausapin,

bakit pa sila ay kailangan pa naming isturbuhin o idamay sa mga kalukuhan daw

namin;” “the interview part was an easy task because the interviewees cooperated with

15
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
us, fortunately;” “nahihirapan na kami kung sino ang kakausapin, kasi mostly sa mga

napuntahan naming ayaw nilang magpa interview.”

The respondents identified analyzing and interpreting research data difficult but

fulfilling, “this is really challenging of all, Yes, we gather enough data/information but to

interpret it and analyze it is something that makes our task harder than we thought;” “I

realize that I can’t put into actions those things I wanted to do but then we talk all over

again trying to think what are those remedies and adjustments we can do and happily

we were able to make it.”

The respondents collaborated in formulating the conclusion and recommending,

“Every member tried to share their ideas and opinions in concluding, summarizing and

generalizing the problem;” “We were not that sure of what to recommend for we don’t

know the feeling of being homeless. But of course, we tried our best to think of some

ways in order to help our informants in our own little ways.”

Through the experiences of the respondents, the learning outcome of Socio-

Political Documentary Filmmaking in relation to research skills became evident. The

similarity of the process of Documentary Filmmaking and research was unmistakable

and the best part is that the respondents had a feeling of accomplishment, “burnt much

time than we expected but in the end everything falls right into place and our output

seems great because our hard work has paid off;” “the best thing I’ve learned is that we

16
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
can explore everything, we can learn anything we want, it is just a matter of time and

dedication nothing is impossible. If you have courage and passion to be able to make

and finish a documentary, it is also a stepping stone, an achievement;” “I may not be

able to fully narrate our experiences but I know within myself that I’ve learned and

matured in this activity.”

DISCUSSION

The effectiveness of documentary filmmaking as a method for research was not

a new concept. Documentary filmmaking has a long history of portraying everyday life in

ways that leave the erratic, elusive fabric of the everyday intact (Raijmakers, Gaver, &

Bishay, 2006). Video and film have featured in the development of social research

within sociology, anthropology, education and psychology (Jewitt, 2012). Documentary

films were becoming more and more essential in our search for truth and meaning.

Traditionally, documentaries strove to represent reality as faithfully as possible. The

films relied on the assumption that they were providing a window on the world by

disguising the conventions of filmmaking. Conversely, more recent documentaries

provide a notion of documentary “truth” that acknowledges the construction and

artificiality of even the non-fiction film (Jewitt, 2012).

The respondents’ research skills were enhanced because the socio-political

documentary filmmaking follows the same procedures and practices of research. A

social documentary produced in the ethnographic mode demands two sets of pedagogic

17
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
principles: supporting learners in managing a production and supporting learners in

working ethnographically. Managing a production: research and planning, logistics and

ethics, allocation of roles, group dynamics, time management, use of resources

(including equipment), storyboarding and scripting where appropriate, technical

activities – filming, lighting, sound recording, editing, uploading, tagging and online

dissemination (Costantini, 2012). Although the depth of digital data is still evolving and

tools to mine it (and make sense of it) are increasingly prolific, most promising research

tools and systems for documentary impact assessment are based on classic social

science research methods in communication studies that have been tested and used to

study media effects: surveys, experiments, content analysis, and focus groups (Chattoo

& Das, 2014). All of this skills are utilized by the respondents in the creation of their film

documentaries.

The respondents of this research found this activity both challenging and fulfilling

because they were able to capture a segment of real life situation which made them

more sensitive and observant. On film, if we see a dead body, we react immediately

with emotion, perhaps even pondering the waste of life and questioning our own

existence. However, if we were to see a dead body on a street as we drove by, our

immediate reaction may be shock, even revulsion. Emotion may enter the picture long

after the experience has ended. In real life, experiences become meaningful with

reflection in time. In reel life, they are meaningful the moment they happen (DAS, 2007).

The respondents also found it easy to search for relevant materials for this activity

because there are myriads of sources already available online. The use of existing

18
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
videos as data is increasingly common for research to be undertaken with videos that

are already available rather than video generated by researchers for research (ibid).

There are many examples of research ‘re-purposing’ videos for research including

‘home-made’ domestic video, broadcast media (ibid; Chouliaraki, 2006), automated

CCTV recordings (ibid; Goodwin,1994), and YouTube videos (ibid; Adami, 2010).

A couple of findings in a research conducted by Andrew Moore (2009) presented

the following (1) Documentary film presents the opportunity to provide the audience with

an in-depth analytical ‘story’ of a topic. (2) Documentary film can be used a political tool

for gaining credibility on a specific topic, cause or issue. It means that the potential of

documentary filmmaking as a research format is promising and it has a wider and

immediate social impact.

CONCLUSION

This study proved that socio-political documentary filmmaking can enhance the

research competencies of student and can be used as an effective tool or activity in

class not just in sociology and political science but in any social science subjects. The

potential of this format is promising and as multi-media and digital technology

progresses the more that educational institutions should look into the usefulness of this

pedagogy.

19
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
REFERENCES

Agustina, J.R. (2012) Book Review of Cyber Criminology: Exploring Internet Crimes and

Criminal Behavior (K. Jaishankar, 2011, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group).

International Journal of Cyber Criminology, Vol 6 (2): 1044–1048

Atkinson, C. (2010) DOCS FOR SCHOOLS: VIEWING AND TEACHING GUIDE.

[Link]

Chattoo, C. & Das, A. (2014) Assessing the Social Impact of Issues-Focused

Documentaries: Research methods & Future Considerations. The Center for

Media & Social Impact. [Link]

Constanini, R. (2012). Social Documentary as a Pedagogic Tool: the Experience of the

Project Europa 2111. Conference Preceedings, International Conference ‘The

Future of Education’ 2nd Edition, 7-8 June 2012, Florence Italy.

Dahlstrom, E., J.D. Walker, and C. Dziuban, with a foreword by G. Morgan. ECAR

Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013 (Research

Report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research,

September 2013, available from [Link]

Das, T. (2007),How to Write a Documentary Script. Public Service Broadcasting Trust

Gonzales, A. P. (2014). Perceptions of the National Service Training Program – Civic

Welfare Training Service by Jose Rizal University Faculty. Jose Rizal University

Research Digest, Vol. 2 Issue No. 1. Research Office Jose Rizal University.

[Link] 2/14/2015

[Link] 2/14/2015

20
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales
[Link]

2/13/2015

Jewitt, C. (2012) An Introduction to Using Video for Research. NCRM Working paper

03/12. Online

Moore, A. (2009), Documentaries and Humanities. Thesis. Copenhagen Business

School.

Raijmakers, B., Gaver, W. & Bishay, J. (2006) Design Documentaries: Inspiring Design

Research Through Documentary Film. University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.

Shrum, W., & Duque, R. (2008). Film and video in qualitative research. In L. Given

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. (pp. 349-351).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:

[Link]

STELMASZEWSKA, H., FIELDS, B. & BLANDFORD, A. (2006) Camera Phone Use in

Social Context. In Proc. HCI 2006 (Vol. 2)

21
GRes 3: Alexander P. Gonzales