Engagement Comparison of Grade 12 Students Towards Online Class and Traditional Learning Group 2 Final Manuscript

ENGAGEMENT COMPARISON OF GRADE 12 STUDENTS TOWARDS ONLINE
CLASS AND TRADITIONAL LEARNING
ENGAGEMENT COMPARISON OF GRADE 12 STUDENTS TOWARDS ONLINE

CLASS AND TRADITIONAL LEARNING
A Thesis Presented to the

Senior High School Department
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Subject

Inquiries, Investigation and Immersion
Khail Arman H. Batac

Alexandra Tjem R. Cruz
Lilibeth Ann D. Diwa
Jemma Rose V. Isip
Jona Marela S. Magcalas
Joyce Ann C. Pagtalunan
Christian Dave E. Pineda
Jeorgia Micalane R. Salazar
China Mae L. Santos
ii
ENGAGEMENT TOWARDS ONLINE CLASS AND TRADITIONAL LEARNING
April 2021
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled, Engagement Comparison of Grade 12 Students Towards

Online Class and Traditional Learning prepared and submitted by Khail Arman H.
Batac, Alexandra Tjem R. Cruz, Lilibeth Ann D. Diwa, Jemma Rose V. Isip, Jona
Marela S. Magcalas, Joyce Ann C. Pagtalunan, Christian Dave E. Pineda, Jeorgia
Micalane R. Salazar and China Mae L. Santos in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the subject Inquiries, Investigation and Immersion has been examined and is recommended
for acceptance and approval for Oral Examination.
Rosalie P. Cayabyab, LPT, MAEd

Thesis Adviser
Committee on Oral Examination
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the subject
Inquiries, Investigation and Immersion.
Kim Kenneth T. Ayroso, LPT, MAEd

Chairman
Kevin Russel D. Batara, MA, RGC Elizer S. Sampang, LPT

Panel Member Panel Member
Approved by
Ma. Socorro M. Sunglao, CPA, MBA

Strand Coordinator
Rosalie P. Cayabyab, LPT, MAEd

Principal, Senior High School Department
iii
Michael B. Lapid, MBE, MAT

President
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The researchers would like to express their greatest appreciation to those who
encouraged them in conducting this study.
To the teachers and principals who enabled and assisted them in conducting their
research in the locale.
To their thesis adviser, Mrs. Rosalie Cayabyab, for her unwavering encouragement,
inspiration, and assistance in the completion of this research. In addition, for her patience,
kindness, and empathy in leading them to the completion of this study.
To the registrar office of the locale that helped and allowed them to have accurate data
with the respondents.
To research teacher Mr. Kim Kenneth Ayroso, who guided them all throughout the
process to make this study possible. For sharing his great thoughts, ideas, expertise, skills,
suggestions, recommendations, and advice that aided the researchers in the completion and
success of this report.
To the statistician of the research, Mr. Erese Ayson, who helped them to have an
accurate study.
To the respondents who gave their precious time and cooperation in answering the
researcher’s questionnaire.
To the families of the researchers, for their generous help in doing this work, for their
devoted love and support, and for giving up so much of their time to continue this research.
To their friends and classmates, who have always been there to support and help them.
v
More than anything, the researchers express their gratitude to God Almighty for
providing them with the power, intelligence, wisdom, and courage they needed. This research
would not be possible without his inspiration and grace.
The researchers would not be able to complete this study without their support. Thank
you very much, and all glory to God!
- Khail Arman H. Batac
- Alexandra Tjem R. Cruz
- Lilibeth Ann D. Diwa
- Jemma Rose V. Isip
- Jona Marela S. Magcalas
- Joyce Ann C. Pagtalunan
- Christian Dave E. Pineda
- Jeorgia Micalane R. Salazar
- China Mae L. Santos

vi
DEDICATION
The researchers sincerely dedicate this study to Almighty God for providing them the
power, experience, wisdom, opportunity, and courage to conduct this research. To their
families, who have loved and supported them unconditionally since the beginning of their
journey. To their teachers, who have inspired and aided them in completing this study. To the
students who participated as the respondents and willingly took time to answer the survey.
To their friends and classmates, who never fails to encourage them.
- Khail Arman H. Batac
- Alexandra Tjem R. Cruz
- Lilibeth Ann D. Diwa
- Jemma Rose V. Isip
- Jona Marela S. Magcalas
- Joyce Ann C. Pagtalunan
- Christian Dave E. Pineda
- Jeorgia Micalane R. Salazar
- China Mae L. Santos

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
Title Page …………………………………………… i
Approval Sheet …………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgment …………………………………………… iii
Dedication …………………………………………… v
Table of Contents …………………………………………… vi
List of Tables …………………………………………… vii
List of Figures …………………………………………… viii
Abstract …………………………………………… 1
Introduction …………………………………………… 2
Method …………………………………………… 16
Results …………………………………………… 21
Discussion …………………………………………… 26
References …………………………………………… 33
Appendices …………………………………………… 40
Curriculum Vitae …………………………………………… 63

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Assessment of the Respondents towards their
Engagement in Online Class 24
Table 2 Assessment of the Respondents towards
their Engagement in Traditional Learning 25
Table 3 Comparison between Students’ Engagement
in Online Class and Traditional Learning Using
Dependent Samples T-test 27

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 11

1
Abstract
In traditional learning, students may communicate directly with other learners and
instructors but during the pandemic, interaction differed, just as the schools' learning
methods shifted. Accordingly, the researchers sought to unveil if there was a significant
difference in engagement between online and traditional learning among Grade 12 students
of Mary the Queen College Pampanga Inc. This was a quantitative study with a descriptive
and a comparative design. A total of 248 students were sampled and responded to the Likert
scaled survey questionnaire. Using percentages and frequencies distribution, the data
collected was organized, inputted, and counted. A Dependent Samples t-test was used to
determine if there was significant difference in students' engagement in the two learning
methods. This research revealed that the two-learning method has a slight gap in student
engagement, indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the respondents'
engagement. Thereby, the researchers claimed that respondents were more engaged in online
class and teachers were recommended to employ teaching techniques to maintain it. Since the
use of digital technology was found successful, maximizing its utilization was suggested as
well as combining the two learning platforms to enhance students’ engagement.
Keywords: Online class, Traditional learning, Face-to-Face learning, Student Engagement

2
Engagement Comparison of Grade 12 Students Towards Online Class and Traditional
Learning
Education is a treasure that nobody can steal. This is what everyone thought and used
to achieve the peak of success. It is like a bridge between people who wanted to reach the
other side of themselves. This is not impossible nowadays, especially in today's generation,
embracing the technology. Just like how people embraced technology, education also did. In
the digital world of information and communication technology, newly enrolled students
have grown up and are central to how they learn. U.S. school systems, as well as those in
other developed countries, have not only required but promoted the use of technology in the
classroom from an early age to promote notetaking, interactive polling, timely testing, paper
submissions and test-taking (Crittenden et.al, 2018). As time passed by, education is no
longer about going to schools or universities to have proctors and teach you, it is done every
time, anywhere, and by self, currently. People choose how they want to learn as long as they
find it engaging for themselves.
The Covid-19 pandemic forced everything in the world to deal with numerous
adjustments in order to move forward. This has included the field of education wherein
centuries-old traditional learning method is forbidden. Physical educational institutions
changed into virtual classrooms and home to school travels have been substituted by facing
the internet with the use of electronic gadgets. This has been an enormous problem and a
millstone, especially to unfortunate families with limited resources, resulted in their struggles
to cope up with the new normal. The new normal challenges students to adapt different
3
setting and resources. Aligned with this, Bao and Hasan (2020) empirical study confirmed
that students suffered from psychological distress due to ineffective e-Learning systems and
fear of academic year loss. However, Nur Agung, et.al. (2020) said that the result of students’
participation shows most students were actively involved in online learning. Since there was
a change in the students’ learning environment, the researchers yearn to compare their
engagement between the two schooling methods. Nevertheless, Dixson (2015) said that
students find it more engaging in using the online platform.
Traditional learning was people's nature in education. Classroom teaching was a
well-established instructional medium in which teaching style and structure have been
refined over several centuries (Jaggars and Xu, 2016). In the classroom, traditional teaching
offered face-to-face training in real time and sparks imaginative questions that also enabled
immediate teacher reaction and much more efficient delivery of information. Somewise, the
other way was the timely online-learning which slowly became the standard in the institution.
Online learning was the usage of the internet of things to learn. Unlike traditional learning,
online learning can be used to teach multiple kinds of subjects to different populations in
diverse institutional settings (Bowen, et al. 2013). Students have different perspective in
learning, and that may be either of the two, traditional and online learning. From students’
viewpoint, their engagement in both learning environment can have a difference in each
other. Being engaged was somehow being interested, actively involved or showed attention
and effort into something. On the other hand, an engaged student is prepared to commit and
can also challenge his learning ability. Usually, these learners are active, participative, and
4
expressed interest in the class. Bedenlier and Bond (2019) claimed that the more students are
engaged, the more they are likely to be motivated to do their assignments and get actively
engaged in the class, the more student involvement was a critical factor for motivation. As
their interest is enhanced, as well as their commitment, cooperation, and attitude, this
contributed to good student success. Thus, engagement in education then had a significant
role in students’ school life and success either it could be in online learning or traditional
learning.
Moreover, the recent study of Paul and Jefferson (2019) did a comparative analysis in
the online and face-to-face or traditional learning with their respondents’ academic
performance. With their results, Paul and Jefferson (2019) claimed that there is no
statistically significant difference between traditional or face-to-face and online learning in
terms of their respondents’ performance scores. They accepted their null hypothesis and
rejected the alternative hypothesis. The study also claimed that the course satisfaction data
and feedback suggest several posits for effective online learning in the specific course. A
significant difference was found in terms of students’ perceived ability of collaboration
between internet-based and traditional learning but it was of only small effect size (Lee &
Tsai, 2011). This study that was somehow related to the researchers’ study shown that even
the students are in different learning platform, face-to-face or online learning, it did not affect
their engagement in their studies.
Traditional and online learning platforms had their advantages and disadvantages. In
the study of Stern (2016), results are either equally effective or slightly different depending
5
on the variable used. It said that either of the platforms that are used are effective when they
are well designed. The research showed no significant difference in the students’ academic
performance between traditional and online learning platforms. On the other hand, Anitha
(2012) concluded that hybrid learning or combining the two platforms were said to be the
most effective out of it. Traditional learning cannot be that effective without using web-based
activities and vice-versa. Students mostly preferred this kind of platform instead of having
traditional learning or online learning only.
Researchers used to compare these two learning platforms a lot. As the result of the
study by Faidley (2018), students significantly perform higher in traditional learning than
online learning. Females scored higher than males on either of the two platforms. Age was
not a significant predictor of the results. Correspondingly, students from this generation are
still traditional learners. (Elfaki et al., 2019) The study shows that learners are bounded to
traditional learning despite being born into a generation with new technologies. These results
filled the gap between the older students mixed with the younger learners in the same class.
In the previous study of Alsaaty, F. et. al (2016), it indicates that schools need to
address the demand of their students for more versatile, technology-oriented educational
platforms and make better efforts to eradicate barriers that could impede the smooth use of
these technologies. However, in the study of Ponnampalam, P. et. al (2019), claimed that it
was more convenient to combine the two-teaching method, such as the mixing of the learning
process and executing that in an appropriate place as it could give higher efficiency. While
there were lots of comparative study spread across the field, there was no particular research
6
comparing the level of student engagement in particular of the online class and the traditional
learning. The researcher filled the gap in this particular field which compared students’
engagement levels towards the online class and traditional learning.
Online education was not a new concept. Even before the pandemic, online classes
already exist but it was only used back then as one’s own preference. It was only after
CoVid-19 pandemic left students and institutions with no choice but to adapt the modern
distant schooling for education still has to continue. In lined with this, Khalil et. al (2020)
have stated that educational activities all over the world were prohibited due to the ongoing
CoVid-19 pandemic, resulted in an unplanned shift from traditional learning to a setup that
solely involved digital teaching. Being engaged was also motivated wherein, motivation is a
powerful tool that will help students to strive harder to reach their goals and be successful in
life. The studies provided show results on where are students engaged more in learning. The
different factors that the researchers got shows that students’ engagement may vary or may
not with their learning platform. In the study of Ary and Brune (2011), their respondents’
learning outcomes are higher in doing the traditional learning or face-to-face than doing
online classes. This showed that the student engaged in traditional learning, activities,
problems or queries in learning will not matter and students have a positive outcome. These
students preferred learning one-on-one or in-person due to the productivity and they showed
improved levels interaction with teachers. Students must have liked the classroom's typical
teaching atmosphere that improved their engagement and offered a welcoming environment
for the fellow to learn. These students could also have liked to facilitate greater competition
7
among other students. These students were engaged in learning using the traditional platform.
Nevertheless, the study of Wang, et.al. (2019) claimed that students were more actively
participating in online learning than in traditional learning. Thus, these students were more
likely to find online learning more engaging than the traditional one. With the studies
provided, the researchers desired to unveil and dig deeper into the engagement of the
students regarding their learning. The researchers sought to provide findings that would
resolve the issue concerned in which learning platform does the students engaged more. This
research was able to know if the students are more likely to be engaged in learning using
either of the two-learning platform, traditional or online learning.
Before the CoVid-19 pandemic starts, and the students are still in traditional or face-
to-face learning, they did not know that their learning platform would change like a snap of a
finger. Likewise, with their engagement in learning, it cannot be avoided that it may also
increase or decrease their engagement due to the sudden change of learning platform and
environment. Kumar (2018) said that in online learning, maintaining the learner’s motivation
may have faced difficulties due to social separation and technical issues that caused more
frustration to the online learners compared to the students in traditional face-to-face classes.
Therefore, there’s a possibility that the respondents may and may not also experienced these
kinds of scenarios while learning. As part of this study, the researchers searched for data that
could be used to determine in which learning platform does the students engaged more. The
researchers compared the engagement of the students in using the two-learning platform,
traditional and online, and provided differences or similarities that they may or already
8
encountered. They also provided findings that could differentiate the engagement of the
respondents between the two contexts that could resolve the problem and issues on what do
the students prefer and where they are satisfied to be more engaged.
In this time of crisis, students also wanted to share and voice out their experiences
and perspective while doing online classes. The students’ engagement in doing the new
normal learning platform made a difference in their engagement in doing the traditional
learning. This online education was an entirely new set-up for the students and it was
necessary to track factors such as student engagement that have a significant impact on their
learning. Student engagement was the enthusiasm and devotion of learners in education, and
how motivated and engaged they were in class participation. The research focused on where
the students would be more engaged in learning between their previous learning platform,
traditional face-to-face classes, and the new learning platform, online classes. The research
provided findings that could help students know more about themselves engaging. In this
crisis, this was also a foundation that allowed teachers to look or do different teaching
methods to stimulate the involvement of students and help them improve their
encouragement. This addressed the issue of disaffection and lack of interest, leading to low
academic performance of the students realizing that they have more problem other than
finding their source of virtual research motivation. The researchers wanted to address
concerns that contribute to the students’ engagement regarding their perspective and
preferred learning platform.
Statement of the Problem

9
This study aimed to determine the differences of the students' engagement level
towards online learning and traditional learning, that was conducted during the second
semester of the school year 2020-2021.
Specifically, this study quested to answer the following:
1. How may the respondents assess their engagement in online classes?
2. How may the respondents assess their engagement in traditional learning?
3. Is there a significant difference between online learning and traditional face-to-face
learning to the engagement of the students?
Hypothesis
H0 There is no significant difference between the engagement of the students towards
online class and traditional learning method.
Theoretical Framework
Student engagement has been defined as the “emotional, cognitive and behavioral
relation of a student to their study,” (Kahu, Stephens, Zepke, & Leach, 2014). In Kahu's
(2013) framework, University institutional factors including learning and performance have a
recognized effect on student engagement. Structural influences in school may be the
curriculum or assessment that school give to its students. In Kahu's (2013) study, the
background of the students, family and support differed their influence from others. It was a
system of unequal power that pushed students away or a mechanism of hierarchical and
tolerating judgement which had an effect to the engagement of student. Another influence
that had an effect to the engagement of students was psychosocial influences which dealt
with the relationship of the school and the student. In this relationship, the schools caused the
10
motivation, skills and self-efficacy of the student which had an impact to their engagement in
learning.
Just like in Kahu’s framework, Structural Influences seemed like the learning
platform of the respondents. The curriculum and assessment that the school gave to the
students before from traditional face-to-face class to now in online class were used to
compare their engagement to the both learning method. However, unlike in the study of Kahu
(2013) that they differed every student base to their background, family and support, this
study did not adapt that scenarios since the target locale is a Catholic school. Another
excluded influence is the Psychosocial Influences that could be the respondents’ relationship
with others. In conclusion, Kahu’s framework showed that Student Engagement was affected
in structural influences which was also like what the researchers wanted to find about the
respondents’ engagement in different learning platform.
Conceptual Framework
Grade 12 SHS Students
Engagement in Online Engagement in Traditional

Classes Learning
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
The subsequent figure illustrated the comparative model which was utilized as the
conceptual framework of the study. The centered frame represented the subject of the study
11
which were the MQCPI Grade 12 students in all strands: Accountancy, Business and
Management (ABM), General Academic Strand (GAS), Home Economics (HE), Humanities
and Social Sciences (HUMSS), and Information and Communications Technology (ICT).
On the other hand, the two frames below represented the two learning platforms that affected
the respondents’ engagement – the online class which was the universal medium nowadays
due to the pandemic and the traditional learning that is centuries-old schooling method before
the crisis aroused.
The upper frame was arrowed-down to the two lower frames for the reason that their
engagement in both learning platform, the online and traditional, was assessed. Every strand
in MQCPI were evaluated considering that they all experienced the both said platforms.
While, the connecting line between the two frames below was applied to compare the
engagement variable in terms of the Grade 12 students’ two learning methodology, online
and traditional. Thus, it was examined on how the said academic medium were identical or
different.
Significance of the Study
This study aimed to establish an understanding to the engagement of students in
MQCPI. Moreover, the outcome of the study was a great benefit to the different sectors as
follows:
Students. This study helped to provide data on the difference between traditional and
online learning. It demonstrated proactive preparation for students to avoid issues with their
studies. Students had prior knowledge about the struggles of their fellow students about their
12
engagement in studies. This study indicated to students how to increase their engagement by
improving their performance, either traditional or online learning.
Teachers. This study helped the instructors know how they would help students in
their academic performance on different platforms. The teacher could have assessed their
selves if they were an effective teacher in online and traditional learning. As a basis for
teachers, it also led to how they addressed the struggles of their students that varied across
various learning platforms.
Guidance. This research provided advice on the role of the students in their schooling
with various perspectives. In both learning platforms, it allowed them to have a better
understanding of the student's interests. Consequently, they were able to adequately guide
students on how to deal with a higher level of engagement with their education system.
School Administrator. This study enabled school leaders truly understood the
perspectives of both students and teachers and learn about potential interventions,
resolutions, or programs that were appropriate for all. They were also able to address the
issues faced by students who needed more outstanding supervision. The study data was also
useful and retained the strong reputation of the school, as it would act as a basis for
administrators and provided a perspective for future improvements.
Parents. This research gave parents the knowledge to understood the condition of
their child with regards to the participation of students in their learning. The study therefore
encouraged them to assist the actions of their child in face-to-face learning and online
13
classes. It was beneficial to them because they provided important guides for students to
found the suitable techniques to online learning and remained accountable for their study.
Future Researchers. This analysis provided baseline data needed by future
researchers to prepare and perform any related studies. This research acted as a cross-
reference between the comparative study of online learning and conventional learning,
providing them with a context or an outline.
Scope and Delimitation
This quantitative study mainly focused on the comparison of student’s engagement
towards the online class and traditional learning platforms of Grade 12 students in Mary the
Queen College of Pampanga, Inc. (MQCPI) located at Jose Abad Santos Avenue, San
Matias, Guagua, Pampanga. Given the researchers' capabilities, the study was be delimited
only to 248 randomly selected students in which the transferees are excluded, that was
conducted during the second semester of the academic year 2020-2021.
The primary data gathering method was through questionnaires and online surveys
since students could only interact virtually amidst the pandemic, coping with the new normal.
This report focused only on online and traditional learning as the main influencing factors
that led to the students’ engagement. Thereby, it did not cover further variables such as
14
student’s mental health, financial, and other factors that could affect their engagement level.
However, there was a possible constraint relating to respondents' ability to cooperate and
provide truthful answers to the online survey.
Definition of Terms
The researchers intentionally described the vocabulary for the analysis by
conceptually and operationally specifying the specific words and terms to precisely defined
each one.
Online Class. This word was defined as a learning involvement that used devices with
connection to the internet. It was divided into two: synchronous or asynchronous classes
(Dhawan, 2020). Thus, in this research, it was used as a learning platform operated using a
device that was connected to the internet or data. Moreover, it was applied as an alternative
learning method due to the current situation.
Perspective. This referred to an individual's point of view or outlook. Students'
learning about perspective provided them with a simple clarification and elaboration and
extent their study with enjoyable activities like mini theater-play that took another's view
point (Kjesbo, R., 2011). In this study, perspective was used as the different students'
perceptions, such as on the quality of engagement towards the online class and traditional
learning that affected their decision-making in choosing between the said learning platforms.
Student engagement. This term was used as the measurement of the student's efforts
for their studies. It was known to be the students' devotion to the learning activities that
influenced their preferred outcomes (Ashwin & McVitty, 2015). Either way, it was used for
15
this study as the level of students' commitment to their schooling in traditional and online
learning.
Traditional learning. This word meant students were learning in-person facilitated by
the instructors. It was a learning platform that had a fixed schedule and involved gathering in
a physical classroom (Ciccarelli, 2020). Under this study, it was an educational forum that
prevailed before the pandemic occurred and used as an instructional method where course
contents were taught in person.

16
Method
This chapter presented the research design, respondents, instrument, procedures, data
analysis, and ethical considerations.
Research Design
The researchers used quantitative research design in finding solutions for the given
issues by signifying the engagement level of the Grade 12 students of MQCPI in online
classes and traditional learning. As stated by Bhandari (2020), quantitative research was used
to find patterns and averages, render projections, test casual relationships, and generalized
outcomes to larger populations. More so, this design mainly focused on gathering and
analyzing numerical data through performing statistical, mathematical or computational
techniques.
In this study, descriptive and comparative design were used. This study applied
descriptive research design to describe the engagement level of the respondents in
accordance to the two learning methods. To be supported by McCombes (2020), descriptive
research aimed at describing a population, circumstance or phenomenon accurately and
systematically. Withal, it could answer questions about what, where, when and how, but not
questions about why.
Furthermore, the researchers utilized comparative research design as this study aimed
to compare and contrast the two learning platforms individually with regards to the
engagement of the students. Aligned with this, the researchers yearn to know if there is a
17
significant difference between the two-learning method in terms of the engagement of the
students. In line with Bukhari (2011), the studies that indicated the ability to analyze,
compare and contrast topics or concepts were comparative researches. Moreover,
comparative analysis illustrated how two subjects were identical or how they were different.
In order to unveil if the engagement of the students in the locale have a significant difference
between online class and traditional learning, the researchers used comparative study that can
compare and contrast topics. The researchers also sought to determine if the two learning
methods can have similarities or differences in the engagement of the students.
Respondents
The respondents of the study were the Grade 12 Senior High School students of Mary
the Queen College (Pampanga), Inc. (MQCPI). In this study, the researchers had 693 total
population gathered from the registrar of the school, however, it was still needed to identify
the sample size. The researchers used 95% as the confidence level and the computed sample
size was 248 respondents. To justify the sample size applied, the researchers used the Raosoft
Sample Size Calculator with 5% margin of error.
In this study, there were 15 respondents in the sections of Isiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel, Amos and 12 respondents in Hosea under Accountancy, Business and Management
strand. On the other hand, in the strand oh Humanities and Social Science, there were 15
respondents in sections Jonah and Malachi, 12 respondents in the sections of David and
Elisha, 17 respondents in Micah and 8 respondents in the section of Jacob. Moreover, in the
18
General Academic Strand, Zephaniah and Haggai had 12 respondents and 11 in the section of
Joel. There were 15 respondents in Nahum and 12 respondents in Habakkuk under the Home
Economics and lastly under the Information and Communication Technology, there were 12
respondents in Zechariah and 8 respondents in Elijah which gave a total number of 248
Senior High School students.
Furthermore, the stratified random sampling was utilized. Deauna (2011) defined
stratified random sampling as a method where a population was first divided into groups
called strata such that the elements in each stratum shared common characteristics. Sample
was chosen at random from each stratum and the sample size should be proportional to the
size of the stratum in the population. In this research the total population of 248 was divided
into nineteen (19) groups or sections. The sample size per group was computed by
multiplying each percentage by the total number of sample size (n) which is 248.
Instruments
The researchers adapted survey questionnaire that used Likert scale to measure and
analyze the respondent’s preferences. The instrument was used to measure and know the
student engagement of MQCPI senior high school students during face-to-face learning and
online class. Likert scales were common methodological data collection instrument used in
various domains of quantitative or blended strategy approaches (Pescaroli, G. et al., 2020).
Two standardized questionnaires were adopted by the researchers: the online class and the
19
traditional learning scale. The Cronbach’s alpha of the both standardized questionnaires
were, 0.91 (for the Online Class) and 0.869 (for the Traditional Learning) which signified
that it was valid and reliable to be utilized. There were two standardized questionnaires and
they both had five-point Likert scale. The standardized questionnaire for traditional that had a
range from “Never (1) to All of the time (5)” and “None (1) to A lot (5)” was a 19-itemed
questionnaire. Moreover, the questionnaire for the online learning had a range from “Not at
all characteristics of me (1) to Very characteristics of me (5)” was also a 19-itemed
questionnaire which gave a total of 38-itemed questionnaire that represented the students-
respondents engagement.
Procedures
For this study to be feasible, the researchers used the following procedures
accordingly to acquire the requisite data: (1) Determined the population size, the researchers
sent an email to the registrar's office, signed by the instructor and thesis adviser, requesting
for the total number of grade 12 students, including the name list of the transferees. (2) The
population decreased into smaller number of respondents called sample, using the Raosoft
calculator. (3) The sample has been confirmed, the researchers submitted a communication
letter to the principal, which was signed by the instructor and thesis advisor, seeking
permission to perform the data collection. (4) After the reassurance, the data were gathered.
(5) The analysts began by preparing the survey questions from the standardized questionnaire
wherein Google Form was used. (6) Prior to handing over the questionnaire, the researchers
inquired the respondents’ approval and ensured confidentiality, by collaborating with them
20
through group conversations or private messages on social media since face-to-face was
prohibited. (7) Following authorization, the researchers collected name lists from the
classroom mentor or class president in each section and clarified to them that the respondents
were selected at random using an online roulette system, excluding the transferees, to prevent
subjectivity. (8) The instructions, including the prerequisite screenshot as proof of their
response, were thoroughly explained in the group chat. (9) The online survey questionnaires
were dispersed via same group chatroom, and if there were any concerns, they were
tackled by the analysts. (10) After the respondents have cooperated, the researchers relayed
gratitude and appreciation to the respondents for the completion of the survey and informed
them to leave the group chat. (11) The researchers gathered and inspected the feedback to
ensure that the information was sufficient and complete. (12) Finally, the researchers used
statistical tools in interpreting and evaluating the results.
Data Analysis
Throughout the data collection that occurred, the information that were collected from
the respondents were analyzed. The data obtained from the questionnaire were arranged,
inputted and counted using percentages and frequencies distribution. The study used
weighted means and standard deviations to measure the average perceptions to the
standardized questionnaire given to identify the students' engagement in online and
traditional learning. The researchers used t-test to compare the calculated means of the two
learning platforms and were able to compare and contrast the engagement of students
between online and traditional classes. T-test was a type of statistical technique that was used
21
to assess if there was a substantial difference between the two-group means that could be
attributed to certain characteristics (Kenton, 2020). Aligned with this, t-test were used to
determine and compare the engagement of the students in the two-learning platform, Online
and Traditional Face-to-Face class. It was anticipated that the information which were
analyzed, provided findings that contributed to the field of research using these statistical
treatments.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical guidelines ensured the respondents' anonymity. The researchers took good
care of the respondents against any distress resulted from their participation in the research
process. Moreover, the response of the students participated in the study were concealed.
Since the respondents had revealed such details, such as their engagement in learning, it was
therefore, the right of the respondents that the information they provided were treated
confidentially. In addition, it was also important to had a trustworthy relationship with the
respondents, therefore, their answers were not leaked to others as they had the authority to
not be coerced to participate in the report. They had the free will to be part or not be included
in the study.
Results
The findings, explanations, and interpretations of the various data obtained from the
respondents were presented in this segment of the research study. The findings were
presented in tables in order to present them in a systematic and interpretable manner.
Table 1
Assessment of the Respondents towards their Engagement in Online Class
Online Classes Mean SD Verbal Interpretation
1. Making sure to study on a regular basis 3.81 0.88 Characteristic of me
22
2. Putting forth effort 4.09 0.81 Characteristic of me

3. Staying up on the readings 3.49 0.94 Characteristic of me
4. Looking over class notes between getting
3.85 0.95 Characteristic of me
online to make sure I understand the material
5. Being organized 4.00 0.92 Characteristic of me
6.Taking good notes over readings,
PowerPoints, or video lectures
7. Listening/reading carefully 4.05 0.83 Characteristic of me
8. Finding ways to make the course material
relevant to my life
9. Applying course material to my life 3.88 0.85 Characteristic of me
10. Finding ways to make the course
interesting to me
11. Really desiring to learn the material 4.07 0.81 Characteristic of me
12. Having fun in online chats, discussions or
via email with the instructor or other students
13. Participating actively in small-group
discussion forums
14. Helping fellow students 4.15 0.86 Characteristic of me
15. Getting a good grade 4.17 0.78 Characteristic of me
16. Doing well on the tests/quizzes 4.07 0.82 Characteristic of me
17. Engaging in conversations online (chat,
discussions, email)
Moderately characteristic
18. Posting in the discussion forum regularly 3.42 0.97
of me
19. Getting to know other students in the
class
Overall Mean 3.89 0.23 Characteristic of me
23
Table 1 presented the assessment of the respondents on their engagement in online
classes. Mean and standard deviation were used to measure and interpret responses of the
respondents. The statement “Getting a good grade” received the highest mean (M = 4.17, SD
= .78), followed by the statement “Helping fellow students” (M = 4.15, SD = .86) and third
was the “Putting forth effort” with 4.09 mean and 0.81 standard deviation which all
interpreted as “characteristics of me”. On the other hand, the statement “Posting in the
discussion forum regularly” received the lowest mean (M=3.42, SD=.97), interpreted as
“moderately characteristic of me”. The statement “Staying up on the readings” received the
second lowest mean (M=3.49, SD=.94) and “Having fun in online chats, discussions or via
email with the instructor or other students” statement had the third lowest mean (M=3.57,
SD=1.00) that were both interpreted as “characteristic of me”.
Table 2
Assessment of the Respondents towards their Engagement in Traditional Learning
Verbal
Traditional Learning Mean SD
Interpretation
1. Asked questions during your class 2.88 0.99 Sometimes
2. Contributed to a class discussion that occurred during your

3.43 0.91 Often
class
3. Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment in your
3.34 0.88 Sometimes
class
4. Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions,
3.48 1.05 Often
genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class
5. Went to your class without having completed readings or
3.11 1.07 Sometimes
assignments
6. Worked with other students on projects during your class 3.53 1.10 Often
7. Worked with classmates outside of your class to prepare class
3.30 1.15 Sometimes
assignments
8. Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when
3.71 0.91 Often
completing assignments
9. Tutored or taught other students in your class 3.15 1.07 Sometimes
24
10. Used an electronic medium (list- serv, chat group, Internet,

3.97 0.96 Often
instant messaging, etc.)
11. Used email to communicate with the instructor of your class 3.46 1.03 Often
12. Discussed grades or assignments with the instructor of your
3.19 1.03 Sometimes
class
13. Discussed ideas from your class with others outside of class 3.18 1.10 Sometimes
14. Made a class presentation 3.81 0.91 Often
15. Participated in a community -based project 3.29 1.10 Sometimes
16. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with your

3.00 1.17 Sometimes
instructor outside of class
17. Received prompt written or oral feedback on your academic
3.37 0.91 Sometimes
performance from your instructor
18. Worked harder than you thought you could to meet your
3.77 0.82 Often
instructor's standards or expectations
19. How would you rate the overall classroom level of
3.85 0.84 Quite a bit
engagement?
Overall 3.39 0.29 Sometimes
Table 2 showed the assessment of the respondents towards their engagement in
traditional learning. Descriptive statistics were used to measure their engagement, on a scale
from 1 to 5, where higher scores were corresponded to higher engagement in traditional
learning. As gleaned in the table, the statement “Used an electronic medium (list- serv, chat
group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.)” received the highest mean (M=3.97, SD=.96)
followed by “Made a class presentation” (M=3.81, SD=.91) and “Worked harder than you
25
thought you could to meet your instructor's standards or expectations” (M=3.77, SD=.82)
was the third statement which got the highest mean and they were all interpreted as “often”.
However, the statement “Asked questions during your class”, had the lowest mean (M=2.88,
SD=.99) and “Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with your instructor outside of
class” statement received the second with the lowest mean (M=3.00, SD=1.17) and both
were interpreted as “sometimes”. “Went to your class without having completed readings or
assignments” statement got the third lowest mean with 3.11 mean and 1.07 standard
deviation which was also interpreted as “sometimes”. However, the statement “How would
you rate the overall classroom level of engagement?” was excluded within the overall
assessment of the traditional learning method because of its different interpretation. The
respondents rated their overall classroom level of engagement (M=3.85, SD=.84) as “Quite a
bit”.
Table 3
Comparison between Students’ Engagement in Online Class and Traditional Face-to-face
Learning Using Dependent Samples T-test
Mode of Learning
Traditional Face-to-
Online Class t df
Face Learning
Students’ 3.89 3.41

-13.718** 247
Engagement (.59) (.55)
Note. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01. Standard Deviations appear in parentheses below means
26
A Dependent Samples t-test was carried out to determine the significant difference
between students’ engagement in online class and traditional face-to-face learning, is
presented in Table 3. Due to the means of students’ engagement in online class (M = 3.89,
SD =.59) and traditional face-to-face learning (M=3.41, S =.55), it was concluded that there
was a statistically significant difference between their engagement (t (247) = -13.718,
p=0.000).
Discussion
This chapter discussed the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the

researchers.
Based on the gathered data from the respondents of Senior High School students from
Mary the Queen College, Pampanga, Inc., their engagement between Online Learning and
Traditional Face-to-Face Learning was interpreted. The two-learning method showed a
slightly gap from the engagement of the students which can be concluded that there was a
statistically significant difference between their engagement. Align with this, by using an
appropriate statistical tool, researchers’ hypothesis was rejected.
Aligned with the results, senior high school students of MQCPI assessment in online
learning were interpreted as follows: Students who did online classes made sure to study on a
regular basis. They have put effort in what they were doing, they were organized and read
their notes and other learning materials. They listen or read carefully and found ways to make
their course material relevant into their lives. They were having fun in their class, discussions
27
with other students and to their instructor. They helped students who’s in need while doing
well on their quizzes and participated actively in their discussion forums. The assessment of
the students in online learning method was interpreted as in overall, it was in their
characteristics.
According to the findings in the engagement of the students in online learning, the
statement “Getting a good grade” received the highest mean. According to Delfino (2019),
students who worked hard to get good grades did so by concentrating and staying alert
throughout class. These students who obtained to get high grades were more likely to attend
school regularly and have high engagement (Havik & Westergard, 2020). However, in the
assessment obtained in the engagement of the students in online learning, the statement
“Posting in the discussion forum regularly” received the lowest mean. Havik & Westergard
(2020), also stated that students in forums that were engaged continue to talk, ask each other
and their teacher’s questions, listen objectively to each other, and disagree with examples
from their own lives and prior experience. In this study, the statement “Posting in the
discussion forum regularly” obtained a mean of 3.42 which was interpreted as “Moderately
characteristics of me” which researchers concluded that these students were still part of being
engaged.
Moreover, the outcome in assessing the engagement of the students in traditional
face-to-face learning method were interpreted as like the following: Sometimes, the students
asked questions during their classes and prepared two or more drafts of paper or assignments
in their class. Students often contributed to their class discussions during class hours. They
28
also, sometimes experienced going to class without having completed their readings and
assignments but often included diverse perspective like different races, religions, genders,
political beliefs, and etc. in their class. They often worked with other students and put ideas
or concepts together when completing assignments but sometimes worked outside to prepare.
They sometimes taught or tutored other student in their class and often made presentations.
Sometimes, they discussed their grades or assignments with the instructor, discussed ideas
from their class with others outside of their class, and discussed ideas from their readings or
classes with instructor outside of their class. They also sometimes received prompt written or
oral feedback to their academic performance from their instructor and sometimes worked
hard than they thought to meet their instructor’s standard or expectations. By obtaining an
overall mean of 3.39, traditional face-to-face learning method came in second after the online
learning method with an overall mean of 3.89.
Based on the statistical output in assessing the engagement of the students in
traditional face-to-face learning, the statement “Used an electronic medium (list- serv, chat
group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.)” received the highest mean and the statement “Asked
questions during your class”, had the lowest mean. Contrastingly, Perrin, D., et al. (2015)
stated that students who used and learned through the use of an electronic medium, they
experienced boredom, exclusion, and lack of contact or relationship. Chipchase, et al. (2017)
claimed that students who were described as disowning course demands, stubborn, and bored
with academic interests were disengaged. They also stated that disengagement took several
forms, from a lack of interest in their academic studies to a lack of participation in social
29
activities such as clubs, boards, and social events. Students that were disengaged were
defined by what they did not do, such as not studying for class, reading assigned material, or
engaging in class just like what Khaskheli, et al. (2021) said in their study that active learning
necessitates a high degree of student engagement in the learning process, which involves not
only reading and listening to knowledge, but also involvement in school meetings,
discussions, and supporting real-life experiences and other activities.
Additionally, respondents rated their overall classroom level of engagement in
traditional face-to-face learning method with a mean of 3.85 interpreted as “Quite a bit” or
scale 4 out of 5. Researchers could claim that students were also engaged in using the
traditional face-to-face learning method.
Lastly, using a dependent sample t-test, researchers determined the significant
difference between students’ engagement in online class and traditional face-to-face learning
and therefore, the researcher’s hypothesis was rejected. The senior high school students were
more engaged in doing Online learning with a mean of 3.89 than in Traditional Face-to-Face
learning with 3.41 just like what Mahendra, et al. (2020) concluded in their study and said
that Virtual engagement of students was better than normal classroom or traditional face-to-
face class. Meyer (2014) also claimed that the reduction of engagement was linked to
students who connected one-on-one with instructors or receive social and academic support,
rather than the online environment. Hidayah, et al. (2021) said that students’ engagement
have an essential role in every learning process. The researchers can claim that, that role can
still be done well in online learning.

30
Conclusions
The following are the researcher's generalizations based on the study's findings:
1. This research concluded that getting good grades were the most characteristics of
Grade 12 students of Mary the Queen College and it was figured out that this was
the highest concern of the students in online class. Posting in the discussion forum
regularly, on the other hand, was their least characteristics and therefore, it was their
lowest concern. Aligned with the results, respondents’ engagement in online
learning were assessed and classified as their characteristics.
2. Grade 12 students of Mary the Queen College in traditional learning often used an
electronic medium (list- serv, chat group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.) Thus, the
use of digital technology led the students to be participative. However, they only
asked questions during class sometimes, which reckoned instructors and students
did not have good verbal communication. Aligned with the results, respondents’
engagement in traditional learning were assessed and classified that sometimes, they
are engaged.
3. There was a statistically significant difference between the engagement of Grade 12
students of Mary the Queen College in online class and traditional learning. With
the overall ratings of Grade 12 students of MQC, it was evident that online classes
increased learner’s involvement compared to the traditional learning medium.

31
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study as reflected by the above-cited conclusions, in line
with the survey of engagement comparison of Grade 12 students towards online class and
traditional learning, the researchers offered the following recommendations:
1. The essence of the school has a significant impact upon how learners accomplish
their learning objectives. Teachers should be aware of their students’ distinct
perspectives to manage and recognize the students’ level of engagement for them to
employ some teaching techniques during their class sessions to make it more
engaging for the students. Learners and instructors must help each other to lessen the
burden and stress they both feel. Thus, it keeps the students on track and increases
their engagement in class. Students must be engaged to the instructor, fellow students
in the class, and the study materials then vice versa.
2. The use of electric medium on a traditional learning platform was found effective in
terms of student engagement. Thus, the importance of digital platforms during class
must be maximizing to enhance and improve the quality of education system on the
particular learning environment. Electronic gadgets aid and expand learner-centered
learning by offering extra features that encourage students to participate actively in
the classroom. Furthermore, teachers must be interactive and communicative to
increase the level of engagement of the students as it can provide meaningful
discussions in the class.

32
3. Parents, school administrators, and teachers should pay attention with the engagement
of the learners. During the pandemic, they must work hand in hand to give the
students better experience regarding their schooling. However, it is also essential that
students themselves should be responsible and disciplined with their engagement on
either of the said learning platforms. Thus, it is advised that blending the two-learning
medium will likely maximize the students’ learning capability classroom and
engagement.
4. Since the engagement of the students in MQC may differ from other students, it is
advisable for the future researchers to perform an analysis on different locale and
have larger number of respondents if they want to find out more. Additionally, they
may try and compare it on different respondents such as college students, junior high
school students and more. The researchers also recommend to expand the topic by
covering more variable and factors that this paper did not include.
References
33
Anitha, S., (2012). A Comparative Study between E-Learning and Traditional Learning in
Management Education. EXCEL International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Management Studies. http://zenithresearch.org.in/
Alsaaty, F., et al. (2016). Traditional Versus Online Learning in Institutions of Higher
Education: Minority Business Students’ Perceptions. Business and Management
Research 5(2). DOI: 10.5430/bmr.v5n2p31
Ary, E., & Brune, C. (2011). A Comparison of Student Learning Outcomes in Traditional
and Online Personal Finance Courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching
Ashwin, P., & Mcvitty, D. (2015). The Meanings of Student Engagement: Implications for
Policies and Practices. The European Higher Education Area (pp.343-359). DOI:
10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_23
Bao, Y., & Hasan, N. (2020) Impact of “e-Learning crack-up” perception on psychological
distress among college students during COVID-19 pandemic: A mediating role of
“fear of academic year loss”. Child Youth Serv Rev doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105355
Bedenlier, S., & Bond, M. (2019). Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational
Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework. United Kingdom. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528

34
Bhandari, P. (2020). An introduction to quantitative research.
SCRIBBR.https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-research/
Bowen, William G., et al. (2013). Online learning in higher education: randomized trial
compares hybrid learning to traditional course. Education Next, vol. 13. Retrieved
from:https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA323351286&sid=googleSch
olar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=15399664&p=AONE&sw=w
Buheji, M., & Sisk, F. C. (2020). You and the New Normal: Jobs, Pandemics, Relationship,
Climate Change, Success, Poverty, Leadership and Belief in the Emerging New
World. USA: AuthorHouse. ISBN-10: 1728353394; ISBN-13: 978-1728353395
Bukhari, H. (2011). What is Comparative Study. SSRN. Retrieved from:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1962328
Chipchase, L., et al. (2017). Conceptualising and Measuring Student Disengagement in
Higher Education: A Synthesis of the Literature. International Journal of Higher
Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134689.pdf
Ciccarelli, D. (2020). Online Learning vs. Traditional Learning: Considerations for
Educators and Students. Retrieved from: https://www.voices.com/blog/online-
learning-vs-traditional-learning/
Crittenden, W., et al. (2018) Embracing Digitalization: Student Learning and New
Technologies. Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318820895
Deauna, M. (2011). Applied educational statistics. C &E Publishing, Inc., Quezon City
35
Delfino, A., (2019). Student Engagement and Academic Performance of Students of
Partido State University. Faculty of Education, Partido State University, Philippines
Desai, S., & Reimers, S. (2018). Comparing the use of open and closed questions for Web-
based measures of the continued-influence effect. Behav Res 51, 1426–1440
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1066-z
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems. Research Article Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
Dixson, M., (2015) Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online
Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning, v19 n4. Retrieved from:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1079585
Elfaki, N., et al. (2019). Impact of E-Learning vs Traditional Learning on Student’s
Performance and Attitude. International Journal of Medical Research & Health
Sciences. Retrieved from: https://www.ijmrhs.com/medical-research/impact-of-
elearning-vs-traditional-learning-on-students-performance-and-attitude.pdf
Faidley, J., (2018). Comparison of Learning Outcomes from Online and Face-to-Face
Accounting Courses. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3434. Retrieved
from: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3434/
36
Havik & Westergard (2020). Do Teachers Matter? Students’ Perceptions of Classroom
Interactions and Student Engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research 64:4, 488-507, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2019.1577754
Hidayah, I., et al. (2021) The students’ cognitive engagement in online mathematics learning
in the pandemic Covid-19 era. Department of Mathematics, Universitas Negeri
Malang, Jl. Semarang 5 Malang, Indonesia.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/5.0043567
Jaggars, S. S., Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student
performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131516300203
Kahu, E., et al. (2014). Linking academic emotions and student engagement: mature-aged
distance students’ transition to university. Journal of Further and Higher Education.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.895305
Kahu, E. (2013). Framing Student Engagement in Higher Education. Studies in Higher
Education https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kenton, W. (2020). Fundamental Analysis: Tools for Fundamental Analysis -T-Test.
Ivestopedia. Retrieved from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t-
test.asp#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways,A%20t%2Dtest%20is%20a%20type%20of%20i
nferential%20statistic%20used,of%20hypothesis%20testing%20in%20statistics
Khalil, R. et. al (2020). The Sudden Transition to Synchronized Online Learning During the
COVID-19 Pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A Qualitative Study Exploring Medical

37
Students’ Perspective. BMC Medical Education. Retrieved from:
https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-020-02208-z
Khaskheli, et al. (2021) Factors affecting students’ learning performance through
collaborative learning and engagement. Interactive Learning Environments,
DOI:10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886
Kjesbo, R., (2011). Teaching Students to take another’s Perspective. Handy Handouts: Free,
educational handouts for teachers and parents. Number 344. Retrieved from:
https://www.superduperinc.com/handouts/pdf/344_Perspective.pdf
Koley, T. K., & Dhole, M. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic: The Deadly Coronavirus
Outbreak. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN: 9780367558895.
Kumar, A., (2018). Optimizing student engagement in online learning environments.
Information Science Reference. University States of America by IGI Global
Lee, S., & Tsai, C. (2011). Students’ perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated learning,
and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional
learning. Computers in Human Behavior.
Mahendra, et al., (2020). COVID 19 – Lockdown: Technology Adaption, Teaching,
Learning, Students Engagement and Faculty Experience. Mukt Shabd Journal
McCombes, S. (2020). Descriptive research. SCRIBBR.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/
Meyer, K. (2014). Student Engagement in Online Learning: What Works and Why. ASHE
Higher Education Report. Volume 40, Issue 6, https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018

38
Nur Agung., et al. (2020) Students’ Perception of Online Learning during COVID-19
Pandemic: A Case Study on the English Students. Journal of Social Sciences and
Humanities. ojs.pnb.ac.id/index.php/SOSHUM/
Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019) A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online
vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016. ORIGINAL
RESEARCH ARTICLE. doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007
Perrin, D., et al. (2015). International of Journal Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning. https://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_15/Jan15.pdf
Pescaroli, G. et al., (2020). A Likert Scale-Based Model for Benchmarking Operational
Capacity, Organizational Resilience, and Disaster Risk Reduction. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Science volume 11, pages404–409.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13753-020-00276-9
Ponnampalam, P., et al. (2019). E-Learning at Home Vs Traditional Learning among Higher
Education Students: A Survey Based Analysis. Conference: International Symposium
2019 - South Eastern university of Sri Lanka. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337562947
Smith, T., (2014). Student Engagement and Academic Achievement in Technology Enhanced
and Traditional Classroom Environments. Liberty University. Retrieved from:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F
%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&httpsredir=1&article=1934&context=doctoral
Stern, B., (2016). A Comparison of Online and Face-To-Face Instruction in an

39
Undergraduate Foundations of American Education Course. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education. James Madison University. Retrieved from:
https://citejournal.org/volume-4/issue-2-04/general/a-comparison-of-online-and-face-
to-face-instruction-in-an-undergraduate-foundations-of-american-education-course/?
fbclid=IwAR3HEYUbrRJmIfn3pPZfaRaNHTMgnb1K2q3k6o9x-
RTPfi2QJckt3tkJ9Mw
Solanki, D., & Shyamlee. (2012). Use of technology in English language teaching and
learning: An analysis. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language,
Medias and Culture. IPEDR vol.33. IACSIT Press, Singapore.
Wang, C., et al. (2019). Need satisfaction and need dissatisfaction: A Comparative Study of
Online and Face-to-Face Learning contexts. Computers in Human Behavior

40
Appendix A
COMMUNICATION LETTERS
41
42
Appendix B
STANDARDIZED QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographic Profile Section:
Name (Optional) : ____________
Strand: ____________
Section: ____________
Section A: Online Student Engagement
Within that course, how well do the following behaviors describe you? Please answer using
the following scale:
1. Not at all characteristic of me
2. Not really characteristic of me
3. Moderately characteristic of me
4. Characteristic of me
5. Very characteristic of me
1. Making sure to study on a regular basis
2. Putting forth effort
3. Staying up on the readings
4. Looking over class notes between getting online to make sure I understand the material
5. Being organized
6. Taking good notes over readings, PowerPoints, or video lectures
7. Listening/reading carefully
43
8. Finding ways to make the course material relevant to my life
9. Applying course material to my life
10. Finding ways to make the course interesting to me
11. Really desiring to learn the material
12. Having fun in online chats, discussions or via email with the instructor or other students
13. Participating actively in small-group discussion forums
14. Helping fellow students
15. Getting a good grade
16. Doing well on the tests/quizzes
17. Engaging in conversations online (chat, discussions, email)
18. Posting in the discussion forum regularly
19. Getting to know other students in the class
Section B: Traditional Learning
HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU …
All of the
Never Rarely Sometimes Often time
1. Asked questions during your
class?
2. Contributed to a class
discussion that occurred during
your class?
3. Prepared two or more drafts of

a paper or assignment in your
class
44
4. Included diverse perspectives

(different races, religions,
genders, political beliefs, etc.)
in class?
5. Went to your class without

having completed readings or
assignments?
6. Worked with other students on

projects during your class?
7. Worked with classmates outside

of your class to prepare class
assignments?
8. Put together ideas or concepts

from different courses when
completing assignments?
9. Tutored or taught other students

in your class?
10. Used an electronic medium

(list- serve, chat group, Internet,
instant messaging, etc.)
11. Used email to communicate

with the instructor of your
class?
12. Discussed grades or

assignments with the instructor
of your class?
45
13. Discussed ideas from your class

with others outside of class?
14. Made a class presentation?
15. Participated in a community -

based project?
16. Discussed ideas from your

readings or classes with your
instructor outside of class?
17. Received prompt written or oral

feedback on your academic
performance from your
instructor?
18. Worked harder than you

thought you could to meet your
instructor’s standards or
expectations?
None
19. How would you rate the overall Little Some Quite a bitA Lot
classroom level of engagement?
46
Appendix C
PLAGSCAN RESULT
Acknowledgement
47
Dedication
48
Abstract
49
Introduction (paragraph 1-3)

50

51

52
Statement of the problem, Hypothesis, Theoretical Framework and Conceptual

Framework
53
Significance of the Study and Scope and Delimitation

54
Definition of terms
55
Method: Research Design and Respondents

56
Instruments and Procedures

57
Data Analysis and Ethical Considerations

58
Results
59
Discussion (paragraph 1-4)

60
Discussion (paragraph 5-7)

61
Conclusion
62
Recommendations
63
Curriculum Vitae
KHAIL ARMAN H. BATAC
San Basilio, Santa Rita Pampanga
Mobile: 09667362568
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Birthday: May 01, 2003
Birthplace: Jose B. Lingad Hospital, San Fernando, Pampanga
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Nationality: Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
Civil Status: Single
Father’s Name: Arzen V. Batac
Occupation: N/A
Mother’s Name: Catherine D. Hicban
Occupation: Sari-sari store owner
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
SECONDARY: MARY THE QUEEN COLLEGE (INC.)

Senior High School
Accountancy Business and Management
San Matias, Guagua, Pampanga
(2019-2021)
SAN BASILIO HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
San Basilio, Santa Rita, Pampanga
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: SAN BASILIO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

(2009-2015)
64
Curriculum Vitae
ALEXANDRA TJEM R. CRUZ
Becuran Santa Rita, Pampanga
Mobile: 09496404263
Birthday: August 18, 2002
Birthplace: D. M. Memorial Hospital, Guagua Pampanga
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Father’s Name: Crispin C. Pangilinan
Occupation: Construction Worker
Mother’s Name: Sheryl R. Cruz
Occupation: Business Woman

Senior High School
(2019-2021)
BECURAN HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: BECURAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

(2009-2015)
65
Curriculum Vitae
LILIBETH ANN D. DIWA
Sta Cruz Lubao, Pampanga
Mobile: 09129419639
Birthday: November 13, 2002
Birthplace: Escolastica Romero Dist. Lubao, Pampanga
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Father’s Name: Ruel P. Diwa
Occupation: Dining Supervisor
Mother’s Name: Marigie D. Diwa
Occupation: N/A

Senior High School
(2019-2021)
STA CRUZ ACADEMY

Junior High School
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: STA CRUZ CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

(2009-2015)
66
Curriculum Vitae
JEMMA ROSE V. ISIP
Concepcion Lubao, Pampanga
Mobile: 09999160309
Birthday: June 28, 2002
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Father’s Name: Abondino F. Isip
Occupation: N/A
Mother’s Name: Carmelita V. Isip
Occupation: Vendor

Senior High School
(2019-2021)
SAN VICENTE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
Sta. Vicente Lubao, Pampanga
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: RIZAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Concepcion Lubao, Pampanga
(2009-2015)
67
Curriculum Vitae
JONA MARELA S. MAGCALAS
Valdez Floridablanca, Pampanga
Mobile: 09271707836
Birthday: July 23, 2003
Age: 17
Gender: Female
Father’s Name: Jonathan T. Magcalas
Occupation: Policeman
Mother’s Name: Marilou S. Magcalas
Occupation: Public Teacher

Senior High School
(2019-2021)
ST. AUGUSTINE ACADEMY OF PAMPANGA

Junior High School
Poblacion Floridablanca, Pampanga
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: ST. AUGUSTINE ACADEMY OF PAMPANGA

Poblacion Floridablanca, Pampanga
(2009-2015)
68
Curriculum Vitae
JOYCE ANN C. PAGTALUNAN
San Antonio, Sasmuan, Pampanga
Mobile: 09050244154
Birthday: October 09, 2001
Birthplace: Guagua, Pampanga
Age: 19
Gender: Female
Father’s Name: Orlando N. Pagtalunan
Occupation: Construction Worker
Mother’s Name: Ana C. Pagtalunan
Occupation: Housewife

Senior High School
(2019-2021)
STO. TOMAS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
Sto. Tomas, Sasmuan, Pampanga
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: SASMUAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Sta. Lucia, Sasmuan, Pampanga
(2009-2015)
69
Curriculum Vitae
CHRISTIAN DAVE E. PINEDA
Palcarangan, Sta. Cruz, Lubao, Pampanga
Mobile: 0961739939000
Birthplace: Guagua, Pampanga
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Father’s Name: Christopher L. Pineda
Occupation: Vendor
Mother’s Name: Davelyn E. Pineda
Occupation: Vendor

Senior High School
(2019-2021)
STA. CRUZ HIGH INTEGRATED SCHOOL

Junior High School
Bona 2, Lubao, Pampanga
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: BALANTACAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Balantacan, Sta. Cruz, Lubao, Pampanga
(2009-2015)
70
Curriculum Vitae
JEORGIA MICALANE R. SALAZAR
San Pedro, Sasmuan, Pampanga
Mobile: 093664463580
Birthplace: San Pedro, Sasmuan, Pampanga
Age: 17
Gender: Female
Father’s Name: Nestor S. Salazar
Occupation: Watch Repairer
Mother’s Name: Vanessa R. Salazar

Senior High School
(2019-2021)
STO. TOMAS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
Sto. Tomas, Sasmuan, Pampanga
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: SAN PEDRO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

San Pedro, Sasmuan, Pampanga
(2009-2015)
71
Curriculum Vitae
CHINA MAE L. SANTOS
Mobile: 09109472090
Birthday: July 01, 2003
Birthplace: Porac District Hospital, Pampanga
Age: 17
Gender: Female
Father’s Name: Carlo P. Santos
Occupation: N/A
Mother’s Name: Rocel L. Santos

Senior High School
(2019-2021)
SAN BASILIO HIGH SCHOOL

Junior High School
San Basilio Santa Rita, Pampanga
(2015-2019)
PRIMARY: SAN BASILIO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

(2009-2015)

Engagement Comparison of Grade 12 Students Towards Online Class and Traditional Learning Group 2 Final Manuscript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engagement Comparison of Grade 12 Students Towards Online Class and Traditional Learning Group 2 Final Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENGAGEMENT COMPARISON OF GRADE 12 STUDENTS TOWARDS ONLINE

CLASS AND TRADITIONAL LEARNING

ENGAGEMENT COMPARISON OF GRADE 12 STUDENTS TOWARDS ONLINE

A Thesis Presented to the

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Subject

Khail Arman H. Batac

This thesis entitled, Engagement Comparison of Grade 12 Students Towards

Rosalie P. Cayabyab, LPT, MAEd

Committee on Oral Examination

Kim Kenneth T. Ayroso, LPT, MAEd

Kevin Russel D. Batara, MA, RGC Elizer S. Sampang, LPT

Ma. Socorro M. Sunglao, CPA, MBA

Rosalie P. Cayabyab, LPT, MAEd

Michael B. Lapid, MBE, MAT

encouraged them in conducting this study.

research in the locale.

kindness, and empathy in leading them to the completion of this study.

with the respondents.

success of this report.

would not be possible without his inspiration and grace.

you very much, and all glory to God!

- Khail Arman H. Batac

- Alexandra Tjem R. Cruz

- Lilibeth Ann D. Diwa

- Jemma Rose V. Isip

- Jona Marela S. Magcalas

- Joyce Ann C. Pagtalunan

- Christian Dave E. Pineda

- Jeorgia Micalane R. Salazar

- China Mae L. Santos

To their friends and classmates, who never fails to encourage them.

- Khail Arman H. Batac

- Alexandra Tjem R. Cruz

- Lilibeth Ann D. Diwa

- Jemma Rose V. Isip

- Jona Marela S. Magcalas

- Joyce Ann C. Pagtalunan

- Christian Dave E. Pineda

- Jeorgia Micalane R. Salazar

- China Mae L. Santos

Title Page …………………………………………… i

Approval Sheet …………………………………………… ii

Acknowledgment …………………………………………… iii

Table of Contents …………………………………………… vi

List of Tables …………………………………………… vii

List of Figures …………………………………………… viii

Curriculum Vitae …………………………………………… 63

Table 1 Assessment of the Respondents towards their

Engagement in Online Class 24

Table 2 Assessment of the Respondents towards

their Engagement in Traditional Learning 25

Table 3 Comparison between Students’ Engagement

in Online Class and Traditional Learning Using

Dependent Samples T-test 27

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 11

Keywords: Online class, Traditional learning, Face-to-Face learning, Student Engagement

Engagement Comparison of Grade 12 Students Towards Online Class and Traditional

find it engaging for themselves.

centuries-old traditional learning method is forbidden. Physical educational institutions

students find it more engaging in using the online platform.

Traditional learning was people's nature in education. Classroom teaching was a

statistically significant difference between traditional or face-to-face and online learning in

significant difference was found in terms of students’ perceived ability of collaboration

their engagement in their studies.