AGE

- Table 1 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of profile of the respondents as to age
with 50 or 100% of population. As interpreted, thirty five (35) to forty (40) years old and forty one (41)
to fifty (50) years old both got 11 or 22%, fifty one (51) to sixty years (60) old got 20 or 40%, and sixty
one (61) years old and above got 8 or 16%. Therefore, the majority of the respondents are fifty one (51)
to sixty years (60) old. The age groups of thirty-five (35) to forty (40) years old and forty-one (41) to fifty
(50) years old came in second and third, respectively, with the same number of respondents and
percentage. As a result, the age group with the lowest frequency and percentage is sixty one (61) years
old and up. Furthermore, some of the respondents have been teaching at the University of Caloocan
City for years, if not decades.

GENDER

-Table 2 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of profile of the respondents as to gender
with 50 or 100% of population. As interpreted, thirty one (31) or 62% were female, and nineteen (19) or
38% are male. Therefore, the majority of the respondents are female. Furthermore, prior to the
pandemic, we noticed that the majority of Professors at the University of Caloocan City are female.

Employment (Occupation)

- Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of profile of the respondents as to
Employment (Occupation) with 50 or 100% of population. As interpreted, Professor got 32 or 64%, the
Instructor got 5 or 10%, Teacher got 9 or 18% and others got 4 or 8%. Therefore, the majority of the
respondents are Professors. The majority of employees at the University of Caloocan City are professors,
with 64 percent, and we agree on this result because we noticed it before the pandemic, followed by
teachers, with 18 percent. The second-to-last position is held by the instructor, who has 10%, and the
last position is held by the others, who have 8%.

Table 4.

Table 4 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the profile of respondents in terms of civil
status with 50 or 100% of the population. Based on the findings of the online survey conducted by the
researchers, forty two (42) or 84% of them are married and eight (8) or 16% are single. Therefore, the
overall data obtained revealed the majority of the professors in University of Caloocan City are married.

Table 5.

Table 5 presents the Respondents Profile as to Highest Education Attainmen, 84% respondents possess
Masteral degree, and nineteen (19) respondents or 38% having a Doctoral degree. However, four (4)
respondents or 8% are having a Bachelor’s degree. Therefore, the majority of the respondents obtained
a Masteral degree based on the table 4, the percentage of the respondents based to civil status is 50 or
100% of the population. Most of the instructors /professors attained a masteral degree.
 Table 6 Effect of alternative learning to the selected instructors and professors with their
students at University of Caloocan City as to Teaching Performance

INDICATOR Weighted Mean Descriptive Rating

1. Effectiveness of delivering the topic 2.8 Good
through online class.

2. Online dis 2.18 Bad

ruptions to your teaching skills during
online class
3. It is easy to discuss the topic in an online 2.4 Bad
class.
4. Your students learned to your online 2.9 Good
class discussion.
5. Satisfaction with the way you delivered 2.6 Good
your discussion through the use of online
classes.
General Weighted Mean 2.58 Good

Legend:

Scale Range Descriptive Rating

1 1.00 - 1.75 Very Bad (VB)

2 1.76 - 2.50 Bad (B)

3 2.51 – 3.25 Good (G)

4 3.26 - 4.00 Very Good (VG)

Table 6 showed above the Effect of alternative learning to the selected instructors and professors
with their students at University of Caloocan City in Teaching Performance ,among the 100%
Respondents, there are 2.8 weighted mean that answer good on how can effectively delivered the topic
through online class and 2.18 answered bad, were during the online class there's no disruption in terms
of their teaching,2.4 weighted mean answered bad, means it is not easy to discuss the topic during the
online class, 2.9 of them that students are satisfied in learning in the online discussion. And 2.6 of the
respondents answered good means they are satisfied in the way of how instructors and professor's
delivered their topic discussion during online class. It means that all Respondents are agreed that online
class has a good effect to instructors, professors and Students in teaching.
 Table 7 Effect of alternative learning to the selected instructors and professors
with their students at University of Caloocan City as to Communication
effectiveness between instructors/ professors and students

Weighted Descriptive
INDICATORS
Mean Rating
1. Interaction between instructors and professors
2.76 Good
and students as a result of connectivity.
2. Online communication provides easy contact
2.92 Good
with students.
3. Technological literacy sufficiency to your
2.86 Good
communication
4. Quick response to student’s questions or
2.9 Good
problems through an online platform.
5. Quality of your connection to lost interaction to
3.42 Very Bad
your students.
General Weighted Mean 2.97 Good

Self Analysis: Table 7 shows the Effect of alternative learning to the selected instructors and
professors with their students at University of Caloocan City as to Communication effectiveness
between instructors/ professors and students. According to table 7 the profesors/instructors has
no enough quality of internet connection that lost interact to their students 3.42 of them
answered very bad connection. And 2.97 general weighted mean is good that base at the table 7
most instructors and professors can provide enough communication to their students in
alternative learning system. That due to lost of connection the communication between
instructors/professors are affected.Base on the table 7 most of the respondents cannot
communicate well to their students due to weak connectivity.

Table 8 Hindrances encountered by the selected instructors and professors at

University of Caloocan City during e-learning.

Weighte Descriptive
INDICATORS
d Mean Rating
 1. Lack of understanding of the concept of
2.88 Serious
implementing e-learning.
2. Interruption in online class due to connectivity
3.2 Serious
issues.
3. Untrained instructors and professors teach
2.74 Serious
using online class.
4. Time management at home and school works. 3.06 Serious
5. Lack of gadgets and equipment for online
3.22 Serious
platform.
General Weighted Mean 3.02 Serious
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating
1 1.00 - 1.75 Not Serious (NS)
2 1.76 - 2.50 Slightly Serious (MS)
3 2.51 – 3.25 Serious (S)
4 3.26 - 4.00 Very Serious (VS)

Table 8 presents the problem that Instructors and professors are encountering during e-

learning. Obtain general weighted mean of 3.02 as serious in response. Lack of gadgets

and equipment for online platform got the highest weighted mean with 3.22 or serious

followed by interruption in online class due to connectivity issues with the weighted mean of

3.2 or serious, time management at home and school works got 3.06 or serious, lack of

understanding of the concept of implementing e-learning got 2.88 or serious and the last is

Untrained instructors and professors teach using online class with the weighted mean of

2.74 or serious.