SCRIPT

Good morning everyone may name is Paul Angelo C. Burlat and this is my research partner
Glenn B. Malon.

Our research Topic is The study on how the change from modular to face to face has affected
the students.

First is the Statement of the problem

Number 1. what is the respondent’s profile in terms of Gender, age and grade level.

Number 2 . The rate of the respondents regarding face-to-face learning

And number 3. The rate of the respondents regarding modular learning

That is the statement of the problem

The next one is the Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

First, The theoretical framework

The theoretical framework states that

● The transition from modular to face-to-face classes can have a significant impact on student
performance, engagement, and retention.

● A key factor to consider is student characteristics. Individual student characteristics, such as

prior academic achievement, motivation, and learning style, can play a role in the effectiveness
of modular and face-to-face classes.

● Another factor to consider is teaching strategies. The use of effective teaching strategies can
enhance student learning and engagement in both modular and face-to-face classes.

● The learning environment is another factor to consider. The learning environment, including
the physical setting, social interactions, and technological infrastructure, can influence student
performance and engagement in both modular and face-to-face classes.

● Student perceptions can also play a role in the impact of the transition from modular to face-
to-face classes on student performance, engagement, and retention. Students who perceive the
transition as a positive experience may be more likely to engage in class and persist in their
studies.

Conceptual Framework

INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Next up is the materials and methods

The Research design is the quantitative research

The subjects of the study are the senior high school students in The New EL Salvador
Colleges, Where 32 grade 11 students and 20 grade 12 students responded to our survey.

The Sampling procedure we did was

Phase 1:Preparation – ask the principal of the school for permission to conduct the research
on the students.

Phase 2: Data Gathering – distribute the questionnaire for the students to answer.
And The Final Phase: Post Data Gathering – Organizing and finalizing the data with the use of
Slovin’s method.

The research instrument we used is this

Hehehe

Then we proceed to the data analysis

This research paper uses a slovin method because it allows the researchers to sample the N
population with a desired degree of accuracy. Slovin’s formula is written as n= N/(1+Ne^2 ),
where n is the number of sample, N is the total population, and e is the error tolerance or the
margin error. Since it is an educational study, the researchers view 10% as the margin error
with the confidence level of 90%.

This is the sampling frame for our research paper

Now the results

gender

Interpretation: As shown in Table 1, there were 24 male and 17 female with the total population
of 41 respondents of senior high school students. This implies that the majority of the
respondents are male.
Age g11
Interpretation: As shown in table 2.1, there were 10 out of 24 respondents aged 16 years old, 12
out 24 respondents aged 17 years old, 1 out of 24 respondents aged 18 years old, 0 out of 24
respondents aged 19 years old, 1 respondent out of 24 aged 20 years old in grade 11.

Age g12

Interpretation: As shown in table 2.2, there were 5 out of 17 respondents aged 17 years old, 9
out of 17 respondents aged 18 years old, 2 out of 17 respondents aged 19 years old, 1 out of 17
respondents aged 20 years old in Grade 12.

Number of students in terms of grade level

Interpretation: As shown in table 3, there were 32 students in grade 11 and 20 students from
grade 12, a total population of 52 students. While using slovin’s method, 24 students were
selected from grade 11 and 17 students were selected from grade 12, a total of 41 respondents.

Interpretation: As shown in table 4.1, there are 3 (7%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 8 (20%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 23 (56%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 7 (17%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement “I have learned
a lot in face-to-face classes"

Interpretation: As shown in table 4.2, there are 5 (12%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 8 (20%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 15 (37%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 13 (32%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement “face-to-face
classes has improved my academic performance”

Interpretation: As shown in table 4.3, there are 5 (12%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 27 (66%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 5 (12%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 4 (10%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement “I’m having a
hard time learning in face-to-face classes”

4
Interpretation: As shown in table 4.4, there are 7 (17%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 7 (17%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 16 (39%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 11 (27%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement ”I enjoy face-
to-face classes”

Interpretation: As shown in table 4.5, there are 18 (44%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 10 (24%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 6 (15%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 7 (17%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement ”I do not enjoy
face-to-face classes”

Interpretation: As shown in table 5.1, there are 4 (10%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 15 (37%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 14 (34%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 8 (20%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement “I have learned
a lot answering modules.”

Interpretation: As shown in table 5.2, there are 4 (10%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 25 (61%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 7 (17%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 5 (12%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement “Doing
modules has greatly improved my academic performance.”

Interpretation: As shown in table 5.3, there are 7 (17%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 22 (54%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 6 (15%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 6 (15%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement “I didn’t learn
anything from answering my modules”

Interpretation: As shown in table 5.4, there are 5 (12%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 4 (10%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 27 (66%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 5 (12%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement “I enjoy
answering my modules”

Interpretation: As shown in table 5.5, there are 3 (7%) out of the 41 respondents strongly
disagreed, 23 (56%) out of the 41 respondents disagreed, 7 (17%) out of the 41 respondents
agreed, and 6 (15%) out of the 41 respondents strongly agreed to the statement “I did not enjoy
answering my modules”

Conclusion

In conclusion, it appears that the change from modular to face-to-face classes has had a
positive impact on the academic performance and enjoyment of senior high school students at
The New El Salvador Colleges, Incorporated. The majority of respondents reported that they
learned a lot in face-to-face classes, and that their academic performance improved as a result
of these classes. They also reported enjoying face-to-face classes more than modular classes

Implications

The change from modular to face-to-face classes has important implications for the academic
performance and enjoyment of senior high school students at The New El Salvador Colleges,
Incorporated. The results of this study suggest that face-to-face classes may be more effective
for improving student learning and engagement compared to modular classes. This finding has
significant implications for education policy and practice, as it suggests that face-to-face
instruction may be a more effective mode of delivery for certain students or subject areas.
Recommendations

1. Consider the effectiveness of different modes of instruction when making decisions about
how to deliver education

2. Explore the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of different modes of instruction.
Further research could examine the role of student characteristics, teaching strategies, and the
learning environment in determining the effectiveness of modular and face-to-face classes.

3. Consider the perspectives and experiences of students when evaluating the impact of
different modes of instruction.

4. Use the findings of this study to inform decisions about the mode of instruction that is most
effective for your students or institution.