Chap 1-4 Final

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably caused so many changes in
various aspect of society and the educational aspect was not an exception. In
fact, it shifted from traditional to blended learning. Allen & Seaman (2010),
mentioned that blended learning (BL) is popularly defined as a learning
system combining online and face-to-face delivery. The Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) also referred it as a type of flexible learning that
incorporates online and offline modes (CHED, 2020; Magsambol, 2022),
which is technically categorized as a type of e-learning as well (Panes, 2019).
BL is widely adopted across higher education and referred to as the “new
normal” in course delivery (Norberg et al., 2011). However, compared to other
countries and universities, BL modality is considered new in the Philippines,
especially at Biliran Province State University (BIPSU). Thus, there is a need
to conduct studies that would provide benchmark data on the effectiveness of
BL as a teaching-learning modality.
Students’ satisfaction played a crucial role in measuring the quality and
effectiveness of blended learning which is also affected by various factors
(Naaj et al., 2012; Chen & Yao, 2016). Rahman et al. (2015) discussed that it
is influenced by students’ perceived ease of use, perceived value, learning
climate, and student-instructor interaction. Panes (2019) also mentioned that
a number of social and technical factors affect e-learning effectiveness, and

2
these factors include learner’s perspective, instructor attitudes, content
quality, system quality, service quality, and other supporting issues. Small et
al. (2012) also revealed that self-motivation, peer interaction, course structure,
instructor feedback, and facilitation influenced students’ satisfaction.
Moreover, Naaj et al. (2012) provided that interaction, instruction, instructor
facilitation, course management, and technology significantly affect students’
satisfaction in the blended learning environment.
Moreover, previous studies analyzed the relationship between teaching
presence with student satisfaction (Mohd & Quick, 2016), and student
engagement with student satisfaction (Gray & DiLoreto, 2016) however, these
studies were purely conducted in an online learning environment and not in a
blended learning environment. Also, Martin et al. (2022) found out that
teacher presence has a strong correlation with student satisfaction, however,
student satisfaction in the previous study was only measured with several
questions and not with other dimensions. In comparison, the present study will
measure student satisfaction utilizing the factors identified by Naaj et al
(2012). As stated above, these factors include interaction, instruction,
instructor facilitation, course management, and technology. Naaj et al (2012)
found out that these factors have a strong confidence interval for blended
learning satisfaction which rated 95% and the mean of each factor ranges
from 3.14 to 3.45 which is higher than the accepted average mean for student
satisfaction which is 2.5. Moreover, this model is designed for blended
learning relevant to the kind of blended learning context of the study which is
a blend of in-person and online modes of learning. Therefore, utilizing the

3
model will be essential for comprehensive bench marking of data about
student satisfaction.
In this context, the present study aimed to determine the level of
student satisfaction, teaching presence, and student engagement and analyze
the relationship of these variables in the teacher education department of a
state university in an eastern province of the Philippines. This study is
essential for the university to gain better understanding and increase
adaptability about the current trend in educational system because it is
relevant for the improvement of the course design, course management,
teaching delivery, and instruction.

4
Objective of the Study
The present study generally sought to analyze the relationship of teacher
presence and student engagement with students’ satisfaction in BiPSU’s
blended learning environment particularly in the School of Teacher Education,
Main Campus. Specifically, it sought to achieve the following:
1. Determine the demographic profile of the students in terms of:
1.1 Age;
1.2 Gender; and
1.3 Program.
2. Determine the level of teacher presence in terms of:
2.1. Instructional Design and Organization,
2.2. Facilitating Discourse, and
2.3. Direct Instruction.
3. Determine the level of student engagement in terms of:
3.1. Behavioral Engagement,
3.2. Cognitive Engagement, and
3.3. Emotional Engagement.
4. Determine the level of student satisfaction in terms of:
4.1. Interaction,
4.2. Instruction,
4.3. Instructor,
4.4. Course Management, and
4.5. Technology.
5
5. Analyze the relationship of student satisfaction, teaching presence, and
student engagement in a blended learning environment.
6. Craft an intervention plan for improved blended learning
implementation.
6
Framework of the Study
Theoretical Framework
The present study is supported by the theoretical model of Community of
Inquiry (COI) proposed by Garrison et al. (2000). This model was primarily
designed to describe the educational experience in computer-mediated
communication (CMC), but many studies have adopted this model to describe
(explore), predict (explain) outcomes, and serves as a guide in developing
(designing) blended learning environments (Picciano et al., 2021). The model
is composed of three key components—cognitive presence, social presence,
and teacher presence—that interact to create learning inside the community.
It is focused on the teacher and the students which are the key participants in
the educational process. Its relevance to the study boils out due to the
involvement of teacher presence and social presence that explains how
important these are in developing educationally worthwhile learning
environment which then leads to increase student satisfaction. Teacher
presence is considered the binding element in creating a community of inquiry
for educational purposes (Garrison et al. 2000), which therefore, played a
crucial role in fostering social presence. Social presence pertains to the ability
of the students to engage socially and affectively in the classroom community
which directly emphasizes student engagement (Garrison et al., 2000).
Moreover, COI explains that the harmonious integration of social, cognitive
and teacher presence in a way that it supports critical discourse and
reflection, will result to student satisfaction and attainment of more learning
outcome. In summary, COI provide a useful lens for understanding the

7
relationship between teacher presence, student engagement, and student
satisfaction.
8
Conceptual Framework
The present study undergone Input-Process-Output (IPO) model. In the
input part, includes the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of
age, gender, and program. In the next part, the process, the study determined
the level of teacher presence in terms of instructional design and organization,
facilitating discourse, and direct instruction; student engagement in terms of
behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement;
and student satisfaction in terms of interaction, instruction, instructor, course
management, and technology. Then, analyzed the relationship of these
variables. Lastly, the data and inferences being drawn from the research is
crucial for the output formulation for it will serve as basis for intervention
program. Intervention program which includes activities, workshop, and
training in the part of the teachers and students will be imperative in order to
increase understanding and adaptability towards the blended mode of
learning.
Students’
Proposed
Demographics: Teacher Presence
interventions for
Age;
Student Engagement improved blended
Gender;
Student Satisfaction learning
Program.
implementation
Blended Learning Environment
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

9
Significance of the Study
The researchers believe that the findings of this study are significant to
the following:
Students. Since the research will focus on the experiences in view of the
students, it will benefit them in return because the data and
intervention to be provided will serve valuable in
understanding more about the blended learning and most
especially in improving the quality of teaching. In the long
run, students will eventually acquire the benefit of an
improved process of teaching and learning in the blended
learning environment.
Teachers. With the data and intervention being provided, they would
also gain better understanding to the mode of learning most
appropriately to their role on the development of the students
and help them adjust and develop new and alternative
strategies in teaching especially in facilitating learning to the
students in the blended learning.
Administrators. The findings will serve as a guide and basis for
administrative policy and decision-making, especially on the
proper implementation of blended learning.
Curriculum developers. The findings of the study will serve as a basis
that is essential for the enhancement of the curriculum

10
design and further improve the teaching and learning
process.
Parents. This will enable parents to understand deeply about blended
learning, and as well, understand their roles as parents in
supporting their children as to what adjustment do they need
to develop in the blended learning modality.
Future Researchers. The findings of this study are essential in enriching
the body of knowledge pertaining to the blended learning
environment, specifically in identifying the factors of
satisfaction toward the blended learning environment. Thus,
it will serve as a reference for the future researcher that
wishes to conduct a similar study with other variables not
identified in this research. Therefore, this will give substantial
evidence to support their study.

11
Scope and Delimitation of the study
The researcher’s content was focused on analyzing the relationship of
teacher presence and student engagement with students’ satisfaction in the
blended learning environment. The study determined the level of teaching
presence, student engagement, and student satisfaction. The level of student
satisfaction was evaluated according to the factors identified by Naaj et al.
(2012), in terms of interaction, instruction, instructor facilitation, course
management, and technology. This was conducted at Biliran Province State
University, Main Campus, Philippines, among the students across all
programs in the School of Teacher Education (STED) only. The research was
conducted in the second semester of the school year 2022-2023, which is
about 5 months.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined in this study.
Demographic Profile. It refers to the specific personal information of the
respondents that are needed to categorize the population
according to the purpose of the study.
Age. Refers to how old the respondents are at the time they have
responded the study.
Gender. Refers to the identity of the respondents as to how they define
themselves.
Program. It refers to the course of specialization offered by the School of
Teacher Education in BiPSU which was taken by the
respondents.
12
Blended Learning. Defined as a course offering a combination of online
and face-to-face delivery (Allen & Seaman, 2010). CHED also
referred it as a type of flexible learning that incorporates online
and offline modes (CHED, 2020; Magsambol, 2022), which is
technically categorized as a type of E-learning as well (Panes,
2019). Operationally, blended learning is a modality combining
in-person and online classes.
Student Satisfaction. It refers to students’ attitudes resulting from an
assessment of students’ educational experience, services, and
facilities provided by the institution (Kanwaar & Sanjeeva, 2022).
Operationally, it pertains to the affective aspect of the students
indicating positive feeling and attitudes towards the quality of
learning and the learning environment.
Teaching Presence. Is a necessary factor influencing social and cognitive
processes that enable meaningful and educationally
worthwhile learning results, which primarily consist of three
roles which are design, facilitation, and direction(Anderson et
al., 2001).Operationally, it refers to the instructor’s capacity to
foster and stimulate learning and active learning environment
through facilitation and engagement with students, both in
person and online.
Student Engagement. It refers to the attitude particularly the energy and
participation that students exhibited in learning instruction
(Burop et al., 2020). Operationally, it pertains to the level of

13
active involvement interaction shown by students in both in-
person and online learning.

14
Review of Literature
This section presents the review of literature, related readings, and
related studies relevant to the current conduct of the study.
Blended Learning
Picciano et al. (2021)mentioned three fundamental terms in
understanding BL which are media, method, and modality, also known as the
3M’s. Media pertains to the Physical tools or technology used in delivering
and mediating instruction which includes digital - computers, mobile devices,
the learning management system (LMS), software, etc.; and non-digital tools
-- books, paper, pencils, whiteboards, etc. The method encompasses the
teaching strategies and practices utilized by the teacher in delivering
instruction which includes general -- case studies, class discussion,
simulations, lectures, group work, etc.; and specific methods -- writer’s
workshop, primary source, documentary creation, scientific inquiry, etc. Lastly,
modality entails a physical instructional setting or environment and this
includes an online environment, an in-person classroom environment, and a
mix or blend of online and in-person learning (Picciano et al., 2021). Overall,
BL entails a “blend” or “mix” of various theories, pedagogies, and technologies
with the aim of improving the quality of teaching (Panes, 2019).
BL is widely adopted across higher education and referred to as the “new
normal” in course delivery (Norberg et al., 2011). As such, Dziuban et al.
(2018) mentioned that BL modality has been examined pervasively in
research as to how it is impacting the teaching and learning environment. In
the context of this study, the nature of blended learning is a mix of in-person
15
and online classes. Also, BL in this university is novel, thus evaluating its
effectiveness is imperative and crucial in order to increase adaptability
towards the BL modality.
Student Satisfaction
Students’ satisfaction played a crucial role in measuring the quality and
effectiveness of blended learning (Naaj et al., 2012; Chen & Yao, 2016). Naaj
et al. (2012) concluded that student satisfaction in BL is important because it
can impact motivation, and eventually, student success and completion rates.
It is also valuable for the institution because it can be employed to evaluate
courses and programs to a certain degree and to predict student attrition rates
(Naaj et al., 2012).
Wu et al. (2010) described student satisfaction as the degree to which
students feel positive about all of the benefits of blended learning
environments. It refers to students’ attitudes resulting from an assessment of
students’ educational experience, services, and facilities provided by the
institution (Kanwaar & Sanjeeva, 2022). However, Taghizadeh et al. (2020)
stated that student satisfaction is affected by various factors. In their research,
they found out that students’ attitudes, interaction patterns, and quality of
teaching positively correlate to student satisfaction, but the quality of teaching
was seen to be the most contributor to BL learning (Taghizadeh &
Hajhosseini, 2020). Rahman et al. (2015) discussed that it is influenced by
students’ perceived ease of use, perceived value, learning climate, and
student-instructor interaction, wherein the perceived value is found to be the
highest contributor to learner satisfaction in BL. This implies that the value of
16
learning satisfaction increases when students perceived that learning is
relevant, interesting, and enjoyable, thus making blended learning more
useful (Rahman et al., 2015).
Small et al. (2012) also revealed that self-motivation, peer interaction,
course structure, instructor feedback, and facilitation influenced students’
satisfaction. The findings indicate that students place greater value on and are
more satisfied with tools that allow instructors and students to communicate
with one another than they do with tools that allow students to interact with
one another (Small et al., 2012).
Panes (2019), added that a number of social and technical factors affect
e-learning effectiveness and these factors include learner’s perspective,
instructor attitudes, content quality, system quality, service quality, and other
supporting issues. Moreover, the study revealed that all the socio-technical
dimensions mentioned were highly significant and implied that students were
highly satisfied with blended learning as an alternative mode of instruction.
However, the study also concluded that BL does not follow a “one-size-fits-all,
thus, higher education institutions are suggested to redesign their learning
environments according to the various prevailing factors therein (Panes,
2019).
Lastly, Naaj et al. (2012) developed a comprehensive instrument out of
the factors affecting student satisfaction in blended learning which will be
utilized in this study. These are interaction, instruction, instructor facilitation,
course management, and technology. Interaction-related factor refers to the
communication that occurs between and among students, teachers, and

17
content. Instruction-related factor means that student satisfaction is positively
related to students’ performance and positively associated with program
completion rates and grade achievement. Instructor Facilitation-related factor
means that student satisfaction is highly correlated with the performance of
the instructor, particularly with his or her availability and response time.
Course Management related factor refers to an educational approach that
combines place-based classroom techniques with online educational
resources and opportunities for interaction. Technology-related factor refers
to students being able to access technology effortlessly, having familiarity
with various technology and resources, and adequate technical support to
students (Naaj et al., 2012). Moreover, this model is designed for blended
learning relevant to the context of the study which is a blend of in-person and
online modes of learning.
Student Engagement and Student Satisfaction
Student engagement refers to the attitude particularly the energy and
participation that students exhibited in learning instruction which was divided
into three dimensions which are student behavioral engagement (SBE),
student emotional engagement (SEE), and student cognitive engagement
(SCE) (Burop et al., 2020). SBE pertains to the physical engagement of the
students in the course or subject, SEE is about the emotional development of
students (such as optimism, interest, confidence, and enjoyment), and SCE
encompasses the cognitive efforts of the students enabled by mastering
complex knowledge in the course (Burop et al., 2020). de Brito Lima et al.
(2021) revealed that students showed a high level of engagement in blended

18
learning. Meanwhile, SE is influenced by various factors. Chiu (2021)
discussed that SCE and SBE is positively influenced if students have strong
digital support, but not SEE. To improve SE, Serrano et al. (2019) suggested
incorporating an audience response system, self- and peer-assessment, and
lecture recordings as it enhances teaching quality, and eventually SE.
Heilporn et al. (2021) suggested presenting a clear, continuous, and unified
course structure, designing interactive teaching and learning activities, and
explaining course organization, objectives, and expectations to the students is
important. Moreover, SE has affected if students are involved in (Su et al.,
2023), yet, students’ perceived importance of the activity increases SE
(Manwaring et al., 2017).
Teacher Presence and Student Satisfaction
Teacher presence (TP) is one of the three dimensions – along with the
social presence and cognitive presence - of the theoretical model of
Community of Inquiry proposed by Garrison et al. (2000). TP is a necessary
factor influencing social and cognitive processes that enable meaningful and
educationally worthwhile learning results, which primarily consist of three roles
which are design, facilitation, and direction (Anderson et al., 2001). The
design suggests that teachers must know the importance of up-front course
design in online learning. Facilitation indicates the importance of feedback
and monitoring of instructors to students as it can foster their interest,
motivation, and engagement. Direction means that teachers share their
subject area knowledge with students and provide intellectual and scholarly
leadership (Anderson et al., 2001).

19
Su et al. (2023) discussed in their paper the existing studies pertaining to
TP and revealed that TP is crucial to online learning and teaching sessions
and students had different attitudes toward TP in online and blended learning.
Meanwhile, Gregory & Salmon (2012) indicated that students felt disengaged,
self-taught, and dissatisfied when instructors are unprepared to teach web-
based courses or employ technology in new ways. Ondrey (2017) stated that
teaching presence needs to be demonstrated by deliberate action. It is crucial
to have a firm understanding of the factors that influence student satisfaction
with online learning. Such information can give professors crucial knowledge
on how to prepare for and teach in an online environment while making the
greatest use of their time and resources (Ondrey, 2017).
Teacher Presence, Student Engagement, and Student Satisfaction
As shown in the literature, several studies have investigated the
relationship between TP and student satisfaction, SE and student satisfaction,
and TP, SE, and student satisfaction. Relatively, the studies of Ondrey (2017;
Mohd et al., 2016; Ladyshewsky, 2013) investigated the relationship between
TP and student satisfaction, however, these were conducted on a purely
online learning modality and not in a blended one. The same with the study by
Gray and DiLoreto (2016) pertaining to the relationship between SE and
student satisfaction was also conducted in online learning. Similarly, Park et
al. (2020) studied the perception of instructor presence and its effect on
students’ learning experience specifically on student engagement and
satisfaction in online learning.

20
However, Nortvig et al. (2018) conducted a literature review on the factors
influencing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcomes,
student satisfaction, and engagement, and found out that educator presence
has a significant influence on student learning in professional programs
offered through blended or online formats. Martin et al. (2022) also discovered
that teacher presence has a strong correlation with student satisfaction in
blended learning. Further, student satisfaction from the previous studies were
measured not on dimensions but through several questions. In comparison,
student satisfaction in the present study will be measured using the
comprehensive model developed by Naaj et al. (2012), which was developed
for student satisfaction in the blended learning environment.

21
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This quantitative research utilized a descriptive-correlational research
design. The descriptive approach was used to summarize the level of teacher
presence and student engagement and students’ satisfaction in the blended
learning environment. On one hand, the correlational approach analyzes the
relationships among the said variables. The research design was useful in
describing how one variable is related to another, where the researcher has
no control over the independent variables, the variables that are believed to
cause or influence the dependent variable (Lappe, 2000).
Research Locale
This study was conducted at Biliran Province State University (BiPSU)
particularly in the School of Teacher Education (STED), located in the
municipality of Naval, Biliran, Philippines. BIPSU’s STED–Naval Campus is
committed in providing a high-quality education for future educators who will
be capable of promoting quality education in the country. The school offers
program in various fields such as Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED),
Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED), Bachelor of Early Childhood
Education (BECED), Bachelor of Special Needs Education (BSNED), and
Bachelor of Physical Education (BPED).
Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the university has adopted the blended
learning system and has been implementing it as part of its teaching and
22
learning strategies. The university’s BL environment comprises of two (2)
weeks face-to-face and two (2) weeks online synchronous and asynchronous
classes, enabling students to learn through a combination of traditional
classroom instruction and online learning activities. The university’s blended
learning environment provides an ideal setting for the study of teacher
presence and student engagement’s relationship with student satisfaction.
Research Respondents and Sampling
The targeted respondents of this study were 419 bonafide students
from the School of Teacher Education (STED) of BiPSU- Naval Campus, with
a 95% confidence interval and a 0.35% margin of error. Stratified random
sampling technique was used to determine the sample size and utilized
fishbowl method determine the respondents. This probability sampling
technique allowed everyone from the target population to have equal chances
to be selected in the study, and thus increase the applicability of the study’s
findings to other population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Table 1. Respondents and Sample Size

Program Sample Size
Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) 55
Bachelor of Early Childhood Education (BECED) 33
Bachelor of Special Needs Education (BSNED) 32
Bachelor of Physical Education (BPED) 51
Bachelor of Technology and Livelihood Education (BTLED) 25
Bachelor of Secondary Education-English (BSED - English) 53
Bachelor of Secondary Education-Math (BSED - Math) 40
Bachelor of Secondary Education-Filipino (BSED - Filipino) 41
Bachelor of Secondary Education-Science (BSED - Science) 50
Bachelor of Secondary Education-Social Studies (BSED - SOC.
39
STUD.)
TOTAL 419
23
Research Instrument
The study adopted three(3) research questionnaires to gather the data
needed on teacher presence, student engagement and student satisfaction.
These adopted questionnaires were consulted to three experts for content
validation. Pilot testing was also conducted to determine the level of reliability
of the instruments. The teacher presence questionnaire contained 17 items to
assess instructional design and organization (6 items), facilitation of discourse
(6 items), and direct instruction (5 items) which was developed by (Shea, Li,
Swan, & Pickett, 2019). The 17 items were evaluated using a five-point Likert
scale with 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 =
strongly disagree. The reliability coefficients of the teaching presence scale
and its components was 0.87, respectively showing that the instrument is
highly reliable.
A 25-Likert scale items (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 =
disagree, 1 = strongly disagree) is being used to get the students engagement
developed by Elmaadaway (2017) and was divided into three sections
pertaining to behavioral (10 items), cognitive (7 items), and emotional
engagement (8 items). The validity of the student engagement questionnaire
shows the Cronbach’s alpha values for all items exceeded 1.04, indicating
their reliability.
The questionnaire on student satisfaction consisted of 35 items and
was classified into five parts: interaction (9 items), instruction (12 items),
instructor (5 items), technology (6 items), and course management (3 items)
and was developed by Naaj et al. (2012). The questionnaire is a five-point

24
Likert Scale which ranged from 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2
=and, 1 = strongly disagree. The alpha reliability coefficient of the satisfaction
scale is 0.07, indicating that the instrument is highly reliable.
Data Gathering Procedure
In gathering the data, the researchers had presented their research
proposal to the panel for approval of the study. After being approved, the
researchers crafted a letter through a direct contact with school administrators
asking for consent to carry out the study. After getting the consent being
approved, the researchers then distributed the survey questionnaires through
Google forms and printed materials. The respondents were guaranteed on the
anonymity and confidentiality of the data provided which will be used for
academic purposes. This involved gathering information collected from the
respondents and was collected after the respondents had finished answering
the survey questions.
Data Scoring
To determine the level of teaching presence, student engagement, and
student satisfaction in blended learning, the following data scoring was used.
Point Values Statistical Limit Descriptive Interpretation

5 4.20 - 5.00 Very High
4 3.40 - 4.19 High
3 2.60 - 3.39 Moderate
2 1.80 - 2.59 Low
1 1.00 - 1.79 Very Low
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistics was used to organize and summarize data (Kaur et al.,
25
2018) which is essential for describing the demographic data being collected.
Descriptive statistical tools to be used includes the measure of mean,
frequency and percentage, and measures of variability particularly the range
and standard deviation. Moreover, inferential statistics describe the many
ways in which statistics derived from observations on samples from study
populations can be used to deduce whether or not those populations are truly
different (Hill, 2006) which is helpful in analyzing the relationship of the
variables of the study. Pearson correlation coefficient will be used in
examining the relationships of the variables. Correlation designs is a powerful
tool for examining the relationship between variables.
Ethical Consideration
The researchers considered ethical aspect of all respondents involved
in the conduct of the study. Consents, approval, integrity and confidentiality
were the most common consideration in making this research. Anent to the
Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act is a law
that seeks to protect all forms of information, be it private, personal, or
sensitive. It is meant to cover both natural and juridical persons involved in the
processing of personal information. With this, the researchers made sure that
the identities of the respondents were protected by not disclosing them to
other persons. Consent and approval from the respondents were considered
prior to the conduct of survey. The researchers also explained to the
respondents the process and purpose of the said survey and made sure that
the survey were participated voluntarily by the said respondents.

26
27
CHAPTER III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the analysis and findings of the study conducted.
The results of the study are presented based on the objectives. The data are
shown in tabular format, followed by the results’ analysis, interpretation, and
implication.
Socio - Demographic Profile of the Respondents
The following tables shows the socio-demographic profile of the
respondents. Table 2.0 pertains to the age of the respondents while table 2.1
pertains to the gender and program of specialization of the respondents.
Table 2.0. Respondents’ Age

Variable N Mean
Age 419 21.0
Table 2.1. Respondents’ Gender and Program of Specialization

Variables f %
Gender
Female 315 75.17
Male 93 22.20
Others 11 2.63
Total 419 100
Program
BEED 55 13.13
BCED 33 7.88
BSNED 32 7.64
BPED 51 12.17
BTLED 25 5.97
BSED- English 53 12.65
BSED- Math 40 9.55
BSED- Filipino 41 9.78
BSED-Science 50 11.93
BSED-Social 39 9.30
Studies
Total 419 100
28
Table 2.0 shows the results of the socio-demographic profile of the
respondents in terms of age. As regards to the age of the respondents, out of
the 419 respondents it had a mean of 21.0. This means that the most frequent
age that responded ages 21 years old.
Table 2.1 shows the results of the socio-demographic profile of the
respondents in terms of gender and program of specialization. As to the
gender of the respondents, it can be seen that the majority, of the
respondents were females (f=315, 75.17%), followed by males (f=93,
22.20%), and lastly other gender (11, 2.63%). This implies that the study is
dominated by female respondents.
As to the program taken by the respondents, it can be gleaned that BEED
(f=55, 13.13 %) is the highest represented program of the study, followed
closely by BSED-English (f=53, 12.65), BPED (f=51, 12.17%), and BSED-
Science (f=50, 11.93%). Meanwhile, BTLED (25, 5.97%) program has the
least number of respondents. This implies that BEED outnumbered the rest of
the programs.
Level of Teacher Presence in a blended learning
The following tables shows the level of teacher presence in a blended
learning as well as its sub-factors. Tables 3.0 to 3.2 illustrates the level of
each indicators per sub-factor: instructional design and organization,
facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. While, table 3.3 shows the overall
level of teacher presence in a blended learning.

29
Table 3.0. Level of Instructional Design and Organization

Indicators Mean SD Interpretation
1. The instructor clearly communicated
4.14 0.738 High
important course topics.
4.14 0.699 High
important course goals.
3. The instructor provided clear
instructions on how to participate 4.18 0.749 High
learning activities.
important due dates and time frames 4.13 0.738 High
for learning activities.
5. The instructor helped me take
advantage of the online environment 3.97 0.803 High
in a way that assisted my learning.
6. The instructor helped students
understand and practice the kinds of
4.08 0.785 High
behaviors acceptable in online
learning environment.
As a whole 4.11 0.619 High
Table 3.0 shows the level of instructional design and organization
demonstrated by teachers in the blended learning. As seen, there is a high
level of instructional design and organization (M=4.11, SD=0.619) in the
blended learning and all indicators had attained high mean ranging from 3.97
to 4.18. The statement “The instructor provided clear instructions on how to
participate learning activities” (M=4.18, SD=0.749), obtained the highest
mean. While the indicator, “The instructor helped me take advantage of the
online environment in a way that assisted my learning” (M=3.97, SD=0.803)
has the least mean. The data can be inferred that teachers in the blended
learning were fulfilling their role as primary course designer and administrator
of students’ learning experience despite the sudden shift in the learning
modality. In the study of Su et al. (2023) have also found high level of
instructional design and organization particularly on how to effectively give

30
proper instructions for the learning activities.. Zhao and Sullivan (2017)
discussed that instructors need to have a course preparation in order to
become competent teachers.
Table 3.1. Level of Facilitating Discourse

7. The instructor was helpful in
identifying areas of agreement and
4.02 0.764 High
disagreement on course topics that
helped me to learn.
8. The instructor was helpful in guiding
the class towards understanding
4.12 0.734 High
course topics in a way that helped me
clarify my thinking.
9. The instructor helped to keep course
participants engaged and participating 4.04 0.731 High
in productive dialog.
10. The instructor helped keep course
participants on task in a way that 4.10 0.759 High
helped me to learn.
11. The instructor encouraged course
4.16 0.781 High
participants to explore new concepts.
12. Instructor actions reinforced the
development of a sense of community 4.04 0.718 High
among course participants.
Table 3.1 presents the level of facilitating discourse demonstrated by
teachers in the blended learning. As shown, the level of facilitating discourse
(M=4.08, SD=0.640) is high and all indicators obtained high mean as well,
ranging from 4.02 to 4.16. Among all indicators, the statement “The instructor
encouraged course participants to explore new concepts” (M=4.16,
SD=0.781) obtained the highest mean, while the statement “The
instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on
course topics that helped me to learn” (M=4.02, SD=0.764) has the least
mean. With the data being drawn, it can be implied that instructors had
31
essentially promote positive learning community in the blended learning
wherein students can actively participate in productive discourse in the class.
Zhao and Sullivan (2017: Anderson et al., 2001) explained that facilitating is
the use of effective discourse such as providing clear explanation and proper
guidance to the students through giving assignments, sharing authentic
experiences, identifying agreements or disagreements, encouraging students
to contribute, promoting discussions. Su et al.(2023) highlight the the
importance of facilitation in the blended learning as it can effectively create
positive learning community.
Table 3.2. Level of Direct Instruction

13. The instructor provided useful
illustrations that helped make the
4.12 0.760 High
course content more understandable
to me.
14. The instructor presented helpful
examples that allowed me to better 4.18 0.758 High
understand the content of the course.
15. The instructor provided explanations
or demonstrations to help me better 4.23 0.736 Very High
understand the content of the course.
16. The instructor provided feedback to
the class during the discussions or 4.13 0.792 High
other activities that helped us learn.
17. The instructor asked for feedback on
4.02 0.837 High
how a subject could be improved.
Table 3.2 reveals the level of direct instruction demonstrated by
teachers in the blended learning. It indicates that the level of direct instruction
(M=4.14, SD=0.641) is high. Also, it can be seen that most of the indicators
achieved a relatively high mean except for one indicator, which states that
“The instructor provided explanations or demonstrations to help me better

32
understand the content of the course” (M=4.23, SD=0.736), wherein it
obtained a very high mean. On the other hand, the indicator, “The instructor
asked for feedback on how a subject could be improved” (M=4.02,
SD=0.837), has the least mean.
With such data, it can be inferred that teachers demonstrated intellectual
and scholarly leadership and shared their subject matter with mastery of
knowledge with the students. These results relate to the findings of Su et al.
(2023), wherein students feel disengaged when the discussion forum is
unorganized. With this, they highlight the importance of checking students’
posts, organization of content, asking personalized feedback from the
students (Su et al., 2023). This was proved by Karaoglan Yilmaz and Yilmaz
(2022) who revealed that students who received feedback had a higher
engagement in class than who did not especially in online setting.
Table 3.4. Level of Teacher Presence in Blended Learning

Factors Mean SD Interpretation
Instructional Design and 4.11 0.619 High
Organization
Facilitating Discourse 4.08 0.640 High
Direct Instruction 4.14 0.641 High
Table 3.4 presents the overall level of teacher presence in the blended
mode of learning. Based on the result, the level of teacher presence (M=4.09,
SD=0.600) in the blended learning is high, as well as across all the sub-
factors. It can also be noted that among the three dimensions, direct
instruction (M=4.14, SD=0.641) obtained the highest mean, and is closely

33
followed by instructional design and organization (M=4.11, SD=0.619), and
facilitating discourse (M=4.08, SD=0.640).
The data means that despite the shift in the educational mode of learning
to the blended mode of learning, students still had meaningful and
educationally worthwhile learning experience brought by their teachers.
The same result is relative to the study of Su et al. (2023), wherein direct
instruction also holds the highest mean (M=4.31), followed by facilitating
discourse (M=4.28), and instructional design and organization (M=4.22).
However, the mean obtained by the study was very high than the current
study. With direct instruction being the highest, it can be inferred that teachers
demonstrate intellectual and scholarly leadership and share their subject
matter with mastery of knowledge with the students. The responsibilities of the
teacher as course designer and organizer, technology facilitator, and
discussion facilitator were evaluated as having the most value by students in
online and blended learning environments (Hung and Chou, 2015). Su et al.
(2023), provides that students perceived high level of TP also indicating that
teachers have successfully assisted students by communicating clearly and
effectively providing them with instructions for activities which then improve
student engagement. Moreover, TP is very important in various learning
modality both online and face-to-face modes, which then suggests that
teachers must consider all the aspect in teacher presence - facilitating
discourse, instructional design and organization, and direct instruction (Su et
al. 2023; Anderson et al., 2001).

34
Level of Student Engagement in a blended learning
The following tables shows the level of student engagement in a
blended learning as well as its sub-factors. Tables 4.0 to 4.2 illustrates the
level of each indicators per sub-factor: behavioral engagement, emotional
engagement, and cognitive engagement. While, table 4.3 indicates the overall
level of student engagement in blended learning.
Table 4.0. Level of Behavioral Engagement

1. I listen carefully to everything that is
4.08 0.701 High
said in class.
2. I ask questions about what I do not
3.86 0.747 High
know.
3. I interact with my peers during class. 4.02 0.782 High
4. I strive to understand lessons during
4.17 0.714 High
class.
5. I am alert during class. 3.84 0.788 High
6. I always participate in discussions with
3.79 0.761 High
my teacher.
7. I am always eager to attend class. 4.15 0.836 High
8. I always complete my assignments. 4.07 0.854 High
9. I prefer to complete activities and
assignments during class with my 3.87 1.01 High
instructor and peers.
10. Enough time is provided during class
3.88 0.854 High
for practice activities and discussions.
Table 4.0 presents the level of behavioral engagement of students in
the blended learning. As depicted, the level of behavioral engagement
(M=3.7, SD=0.564) is high in a blended learning. Similar level was obtained
across all indicators of behavioral engagement ranging from 3.79 to 4.17.
Among the indicators, the statement “I strive to understand lessons during
class” (M=4.17, SD=0.714) achieved the highest mean, followed closely by
the statement “I am always eager to attend class” (M=4.15, SD=0.836).

35
Meanwhile, the statement “I always participate in discussions with my
teacher” (M=3.79, SD=0.761) has the least mean.
These results being shown implied that students in the blended learning
have displayed physical engagement, energy, and behavior which is
associated with accomplishing the course and learning activities. In similar
studies, students in higher education institutions exhibit significant levels of
behavioral engagement in blended learning activities(Adams, et. al,
(2020).Relatively, Janosz (2012) argued that individuals must deliberately
mobilize and invest some of their physical energy to develop new abilities and
gain new knowledge.
Table 4.1. Level of Cognitive Engagement

11. I always ask the instructor about
difficult content. 3.80 0.821 High
12. I attempt to apply things that I learned
3.98 0.702 High
during class.
13. I relate to my peers and discuss with
3.84 0.778 High
them what I learned at home.
14. I strive to acquire new knowledge
4.12 0.698 High
about the course.
15. Being familiar with the content prior to
attending class motivates me and 4.15 0.732 High
increases my engagement.
16. Preparing for lessons enables me to
communicate better with my peers and 4.07 0.643 High
the instructor.
17. Familiarizing myself with content prior
to attending a lecture enables me to
4.01 0.742 High
share what I learned with others
during class.
Table 4.1 provides the level of cognitive engagement of students in the
blended learning. It can be noted that all indicators of cognitive engagement
obtained high scores ranging from 3.80 to 4.15. In turn, cognitive engagement
36
(M=4.00, SD=0.559) attained high score as a whole. The indicator with the
highest mean is the statement, “Being familiar with the content prior to
attending class motivates me and increases my engagement”
(M=4.15,SD=0.732), which had nearly the same mean with the statement, “I
strive to acquire new knowledge about the course.” (M=4.12,SD=0.698). On
the other hand, the indicator with the least mean among others is the
statement, “I always ask the instructor about difficult content.”
(M=3.80,SD=0.821). This could mean that students might be hesitant in
asking questions to the instructor due to instructor-factor reasons or some
other reasons. Either way, students might have comprehended the lessons or
difficult content which in turn does not need clarifications from the instructors.
Despite that, it can still be implied, based from the result, that students
exerted cognitive efforts that enables acquisition and mastery of content and
complex knowledge. In a study of Su et al. (2023), there is also a significant
high level of cognitive engagement in the blended learning but relatively lower
than those in online learning. In relation to the result, self-regulation which
includes discipline, self-direction, and the ability to stay motivated correlates
with cognitive engagement in order to attain knowledge (Meyer, 2014).
Additionally, Halverson, et al. (2019: Esteban-Millat et al., (2014), blended
learning itself has the potential to increase cognitive engagement because it
can diversify learning pathways such that it increases flexibility and
individualization, which in turn encourage curiosity, absorption, and attention.

37
Table 4.2. Level of Emotional Engagement

18. I enjoy class. 4.02 0.772 High
19. The teaching method practiced by the
3.90 0.803 High
instructor is enjoyable
20. I enjoy the practice activities
3.99 0.766 High
conducted during class
21. I enjoy studying content at home. 3.88 0.847 High
22. I like it when the instructor asks me
3.68 0.906 High
questions.
23. I am optimistic when I go to class with
4.01 0.709 High
an understanding of the content
24. Participating in class discussions
4.05 0.787 High
boosts my confidence.
25. Solving and sharing problems during
3.93 0.814 High
class in enjoyable
Table 4.2 pertains to the level of emotional engagement of students in
the blended learning. The level of emotional engagement (M=3.93,SD=0.593),
as seen in the table is high, and all the indicators were also high ranging from
3.68 to 4.05. The statement “Participating in class discussions boosts my
confidence.” (M=4.05,SD=0.787) has the highest mean, while the statement “I
like it when the instructor asks me questions.” (M=3.68, SD=0.906) has the
opposite. It can be noticed that though students like to participate in class for
it can boost their confidence however, student engagement when it comes to
instructor asking questions, seem contradicting. This can be implied that
participating in class indeed can boost confidence but only when the content
is fully acquired or comprehended or if the student displayed enough
confidence. But since least indicator indicates that students don’t want to get
ask by instructor implied that students could have deficiency of knowledge

38
that might hamper confidence, or on the other hand, they still have a sense of
hesitation or lack of confidence.
But all in all, based from the result, it is considered to implicate that
students exhibited emotional energy such as optimism, confidence, enjoyment
or interest in the blended learning. Based on the result of the study of Su et al.
(2023) there is also a high level of emotional engagement in blended learning.
Yet, in their study, they discussed that blended learning allow students to
experience self-paced learning and provide flexibility in learning, which
improves emotional engagement. Moreover, El-Sayad et al. (2021) mentioned
that emotional engagement was influenced by self-efficacy or personal belief
towards one’s capacity to execute behaviors needed to develop particular
performance attainments.
Pekrun (2011), on the other hand, argued that emotions influence “a
broad variety of cognitive processes that contribute to learning, such as
perception, attention, memory, decision making, and cognitive problem
solving.”, and Skinner and Pitzer (2012) mentioned that emotion serves as the
fuel towards behavioral and cognitive engagement that bring about quality
learning. Human–computer interaction research on cognitive-affective states
(D’Mello & Graesser, 2014) further acknowledges the intertwining of mental
and emotional energy.
Table 4.3. Level of Student Engagement in Blended Learning

Behavioral Engagement 3.97 0.564 High
Cognitive Engagement 4.00 0.559 High
Emotional Engagement 3.93 0.593 High
39
The data in Table 4.3 indicates the level of student engagement in the
blended mode of learning. The result shows that the level of student
engagement in the blended learning as a whole is high (M=3.97, SD=0.524).
It also shows, that among the three dimensions cognitive engagement
(M=4.00, SD=0.559) is the highest, followed by behavioral engagement
(M=3.97, SD=0.564), and emotional engagement (M=3.93, SD=0.593).
The result implies that students exhibit considerable attitude particularly
energy and participation during the teaching and learning experience on a
blended learning modality. Similarly, de Brito Lima et al. (2021), revealed the
same finding where students usually showed high level of student
engagement in the blended learning context.
Almost the same mean and result was achieved in the study conducted by
Su et al. (2023) wherein cognitive engagement revealed the highest level
(M=4.00), followed by emotional engagement (M=3.91), and lastly behavioral
engagement (M=3.81). With cognitive engagement being the highest
manifests that students in blended learning exhibit cognitive efforts which then
enabled mastery of complex knowledge. However, Chiu (2021), reported
higher behavioral engagement and cognitive engagement but lower emotional
engagement in blended learning environment when there is high digital
support. Researchers may infer internal processes from external behaviors,
and while those behaviors are not trivial, they still can be recognized as the
outward displays of the mental and emotional energies that fuel learning
(Kizilcec et al., 2013).

40
Level of Student Satisfaction in a blended learning
The following tables presents the level of student satisfaction in a
blended learning as well as its sub-factors. Tables 5.0 to 5.4 illustrates the
level of each indicators per sub-factor: interaction, instruction, instructor,
course management, and technology. While, table 5.5 shows the overall level
of student satisfaction in blended learning.
Table 5.0. Level of Interaction-Related Factor

1. A blended learning session keeps me
3.55 0.869 High
always alert and focused.
2. Interaction is adequately maintained
with the lecturer when he/she is on the
3.71 0.740 High
other side of the blended learning
classroom.
3. Having students from the opposite
gender on the other side of the
blended learning classroom listening 3.35 0.987 Moderate
to what I say might restrict my
participation.
4. A blended learning course makes it
more important for students to visit the 3.72 0.746 High
lecturer during office-hours.
5. I cannot interrupt the lecturer to ask a
question when he/she is on the other 3.69 0.838 High
side of the blended learning classroom
6. I am satisfied with the quality
interaction between all involved 3.70 0.831 High
parties.
7. I am dissatisfied with the process of
collaboration activities during the 3.33 0.994 Moderate
course.
8. I am satisfied with the way I interact
3.90 0.759 High
with other student.
9. I am satisfied with my participation in
3.81 0.784 High
the class.
Table 5.0 shows the level of student satisfaction in terms of interaction-
related factor in the blended learning. As observed, interaction-related factor

41
(M=3.64, SD=0.591) is high and most of the indicators have high scores as
well, but some are in moderate level. The indicator having the highest mean
was the statement “I am satisfied with the way I interact with other
student.”(M=3.90, SD=0.759). The statements “Having students from the
opposite gender on the other side of the blended learning classroom listening
to what I say might restrict my participation.” (M=3.35, SD=0.987) and “I am
dissatisfied with the process of collaboration activities during the course.”
(M=3.33, SD=0.994) are the two indicators having moderate level. However,
its level is somehow comforting because the way the statements were
constructed have negative connotations in it.
On the first one, based on the result, it could mean that gender
moderately affect student participation in class, but for what reason is not
mentioned. Results on disparities between genders in online learning
outcomes are sometimes contradictory and inconsistent. Online female
students exhibit greater determination and engagement than male students
(Richardson and Woodley, 2010), although males are more likely to have
consistent favorable opinions regarding online learning. The findings could
have counteracted gender preferences in online education, which might
explain why there were no significant gender disparities in the outcomes of
online education (Yu, 2021).
On the latter, it implies that students are moderately satisfied on the
process of collaboration activities in the course. This maybe due to the lack of
collaboration activities or students don’t find interest on the collaboration
activities prepared by teachers in the blended learning. To collaborate

42
effectively, the students need particular and extensive teaching, practice, and
growth both with and without blended learning (Monteiro and Morrison, 2015).
All in all, with the result being shown, it can still be noted that students are
satisfied with the processes of interaction in the blended learning.
Table 5.1. Level of Instruction-Related Factor

10. The use of blended learning
technology in this course encourages 3.93 0.774 High
me to learn independently.
11. My understanding is improved
compared to similar courses I studied 3.80 0.821 High
before.
12. My performance in exam is improved
compared to similar courses I studied 3.71 0.827 High
before.
13. I am satisfied with the level of effort
3.86 0.778 High
this course required.
14. I am dissatisfied with my performance
3.21 1.01 Moderate
in this course
15. I believe I will be satisfied with my final
3.73 0.782 High
grade in the course
16. I am satisfied with how I am able to
apply what I have learned in this 3.90 0.733 High
course.
17. If I had known this was going to be a
blended learning class, I would not 2.89 1.13 Moderate
have taken it.
18. I am willing to take another course
using the blended learning delivery 3.23 1.04 Moderate
mode.
19. I am satisfied enough with this course
3.76 0.827 High
to recommend it to others.
20. Compared to face-to-face course
settings, I am less satisfied with this 3.61 0.912 High
learning experience.
21. I enjoy working on assignments by
3.84 0.837 High
myself.
Table 5.1 presents the level of student satisfaction in terms of
instruction-related factor in the blended learning. Based from the table, the
43
level of student satisfaction in terms of instruction-related factor (M=3.62,
SD=0.561) is high, but there were some areas that students were moderately
satisfied. When asked if “I am dissatisfied with my performance in this course”
the level is moderate at 3.21 (SD=1.01). When asked if “I am willing to take
another course using the blended learning delivery mode.” the level is
moderate at 3.23 (SD=1.04) and when asked “If I had known this was going to
be a blended learning class, I would not have taken it.” the level is moderate
at 2.89 (SD=1.13). However, when students were asked “I am satisfied
enough with this course to recommend it to others.” showed high level at 3.76
(SD=0.827), same goes when asked “Compared to face-to-face course
settings, I am less satisfied with this learning experience.” (M=3.61,
SD=0.912).
Taken from these results, students’ response were not consistent as to
how willing and eager they are to the kind of instruction in a blended learning.
But with the overall level, it can still be considered that students were highly
satisfied to the kind of instruction in a blended learning. A study by Awamleh
(2020) the level to which students satisfaction in the blended learning was
highly influenced by the lecture quality, which included factors like lecture’s
expertise and the instructional tactics he or she utilized to encourage the
students learning.
Table 5.2. Level of Instructor-Related Factor

22. The instructor makes me feel that I am
3.93 0.791 High
a true member of the class.
23. I am dissatisfied with the accessibility
3.24 1.03 Moderate
and availability of the instructor.
24. The instructor uses blended learning 3.90 0.772 High
44
technology appropriately
25. Class assignments were clearly
3.85 0.715 High
communicated to me.
26. Feedback on evaluation of tests and
other assignments was given in a 3.82 0.769 High
timely manner.
instructor-related factor in the blended learning. As seen, students were highly
satisfied with instructors (M=3.75, SD=0.561) in the blended learning in
general. Except for one indicator, which was “I am dissatisfied with the
accessibility and availability of the instructor.” (M=3.24, SD=1.03). This means
that students were moderately satisfied with the accessibility and availability
of the instructor beyond class hours wherein students can’t connect to them
for clarification or other queries. However, it can still be noted that students
where satisfied with their instructors in the blended learning. The performance
of the teacher, particularly in terms of availability and reaction time, is closely
connected to student satisfaction Lazibat et al.(2014). The teacher not only
develops into both a learning facilitator and a student motivator. Most of the
input comes from the teacher. Feedbacks on assignments must be offered
promptly to keep students engaged and motivated.
Table 5.3. Level of Course Management-Related Factor

27. Discipline is highly observed when the
lecturer is on the other side of the 4.01 0.748 High
blended learning classroom.
28. The lecturer, supervisor always takes
4.03 0.765 High
attendance.
29. I attend videoconferencing classes the
same way I attend face-to-face 3.90 0.831 High
classes.
45
Table 5.3 presents the level of student satisfaction in terms of course
management-related factor in the blended learning. In general, as shown from
the table, students were highly satisfied with the course management
(M=3.98, SD=0.625) in the blended learning. The indicator with highest mean
is the statement “The lecturer, supervisor always takes attendance.” (M=4.03,
SD=0.765). While the one with the least is the statement “I attend
videoconferencing classes the same way I attend face-to-face classes.”
(M=3.90, SD=0.81). Students who were engaged and motivated in the
blended learning course were more likely to show positive attitudes and
greater satisfaction with the course (Svanum and Aigner, 2011).
Table 5.4. Level of Technology-Related Factor

30. The instructor’s voice is audible. 3.89 0.774 High
31. Course content shown or displayed on
3.89 0.706 High
the smart board is clear.
32. The microphone is in good working
3.84 0.772 High
condition.
33. The video image is clear and
comprehensive when the lecturer is
3.82 0.809 High
on the other side of the blended
learning classroom.
34. Technical problems are not frequent
and they do not adversely affect my 3.58 0.971 High
understanding of the course.
35. The technology used for blended
3.90 0.790 High
teaching is reliable.
technology-related factor in the blended learning. As revealed, there is a high
level of satisfaction in term of technology (M=.82, SD=0.662) in the blended

46
learning. The highest indicator is the statement “The technology used for
blended teaching is reliable.” (M=3.90, SD=0.790) and the least one is the
statement “Technical problems are not frequent and they do not adversely
affect my understanding of the course.” (M=3.58, SD=0.971). Although high, it
can never be overlooked because the result is nearly moderate which in turn
requires improvement in order to and secure students understanding of the
course, ans as well, student satisfaction. The learning experience may be
improved by using technologies in online and blended learning circumstances,
which can go beyond what is possible with face-to-face instruction or other
methods. Students need to have accessibility to reliable tools and students
with restricted access have a significant disadvantage compared to students
who have unlimited access Dziuban et al (2018).
Table 5.5. Level of Student Satisfaction in Blended Learning

Interaction 3.64 0.591 High
Instruction 3.62 0.561 High
Instructor 3.75 0.561 High
Course Management 3.98 0.625 High
Technology 3.82 0.662 High
Table 5.5 depicts the level of student satisfaction in the blended mode
of learning. As manifested, the level of student satisfaction on the blended
mode of learning as a whole is high (M=3.76, SD=0.512). It can also be noted
that the course management factor (M=3.98, SD=0.625) obtained the highest
result, while instruction (M=3.62, SD=0.561) has the lowest result.
This can be inferred that students in a blended learning environment feel
positive and exhibit positive attitude about the interactivity in the learning
47
environment, students’ performance, completion rate, and grade
achievement, the performance and way of facilitation of the instructor, how the
course and the class being managed, and the convenience and efficiency in
accessing technology. These findings are in line with those of Kintu and Zhu
(2016) and Kintu et al. (2017) who found that learners’ positive attitudes to
blended learning could create a high level of satisfaction. However, negative
attitudes to blended learning caused by slow internet connectivity, lack of
instructors’ feedback to students’ emails, and lack of face-to-face interaction
affect satisfaction (Ja’ashan, 2015). A study by Awamleh (2019) showed that
students satisfaction with online learning environment and blended program;
83.4% of respondents reported excellent levels of satisfaction. Additionally,
the quality of the teaching received the highest satisfaction lever where
interaction significantly affected self-study.
In the study conducted by Naaj et al. (2012), exposed the same findings
wherein students find satisfaction in the blended learning environment with a
total mean of M=3.44. In contrast, it is the instructor-related factor (M=3.80,
SD=1.18) that gained the highest level, while instruction (M=3.0, SD=1.23)
was the lowest. With the course management being the highest, signify that
students were satisfied of the educational approach being demonstrated as it
provide opportunities for interaction, learning, and discipline.
Though the results of both studies found out that students find satisfaction
in the blended learning environment, however, it is still not high enough which
probably denotes that there are other factors affecting it.

48
Relationship of Variables
Table 6 reveals the relationship of teacher presence, student
engagement, and student satisfaction in the blended learning environment.
Based on the preliminary results of the data the Kurtosis and Skweness value
ranged which implies that all measures have relatively normal distribution,
thus, the researchers used parametric tests.
Table 6. Relationship of of teacher presence, student engagement, and

student satisfaction
1 2 3
1.Teaching
-
Presence
-
-
2.Student 0.610*** -
Engagement 417 -
< .001 -
3.Student 0.675*** 0.787*** -

Satisfaction 417 417 -
< .001 < .001 -
Skewness -1.31 -1.12 -0.654

Kurtosis 4.38 5.32 3.42
Note: *p < 0.5, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Table 6, revealed the relationships of teacher presence, student
engagement, and student satisfaction in the blended mode of learning using
the Pearson correlation coefficient. Particularly, teaching presence to student
engagement (r=.610, p<.001), teaching presence to student satisfaction
(r=.675, p<.001), and student engagement to student satisfaction (r=.787,
p<.001), in which all significantly shows strong positive correlation between
each other. In the Pearson correlation coefficient explains that when the
49
Pearson’s r value is between 0 and 1 implies a positive correlation which
means that when one variable changes, the other variable changes in the
same direction (Turney, 2022). In addition, when the r value is greater than
0.5 it is strongly positive (Turney, 2022), hence the degree of correlation
between variables. Moreover, these results suggest that all study measures
had relatively normal distribution. Hair et al. (2010) and Bryne (2010) argued
that data is normal if skewness is between -2 to +2 and kurtosis is between -7
to +7.
Given these findings, it can be inferred that each variables are associated
with each other. In the study conducted by Halverson et al.(2019) learner
engagement correlates with fundamental learning outcomes which includes
academic achievement and satisfaction. Similarly, Martin et al.(2022)provided
that teacher presence has a strong correlation with student satisfaction in
blended learning. Su et al. (2023) also found out that students were highly
engaged while there perceived a strong teacher presence.
These findings also supports the findings revealed by Gray and DiLoreto
(2016), wherein teacher presence and student engagement impacted student
satisfaction. They also added that high level of instructor presence
significantly lead to students’ high engagement and finally improving their
perceived learning and satisfaction. Yang et al. (2022; Heilporn et al., 2021;
Su et al., 2023), concluded that teaching presence influences student
engagement which further affects students’ learning achievement, and as well
satisfaction.
50
However, high teacher presence does not guarantee high student
engagement because student engagement needs combined effort and
complex interconnectedness among all dimensions of student engagement,
as well as with the learning activities and learning environments (Cho & Cho,
2014). Zhao and Sullivan (2017) also added that high level of teacher
presence reduced student engagement because it would decrease student
independence, autonomy and active participation. Su et al. (2023) suggest
that teachers need to balance self-paced learning with the instruction. This in
turn impose in depth and to look on other factors that affect and influence
students engagement and most importantly, student satisfaction.
Intervention Plan
Table 7 is about the suggested intervention plan drawn out from the
findings of the study which can be essential in developing quality education
utilizing the blended learning modality.
Table 7: Intervention Plan Matrix

Responsible
Intervention Description Timeline
Party
Develop and deliver training
sessions, seminars and
Training, workshops to equip teachers Educational
seminars, and with effective strategies for 2 months
Institutions
workshop blended learning course
management.
Review and revise the
curriculum to align with
Curriculum blended learning, focusing on Curriculum
design and creating instructional Development 5 months
adaptation materials and resources team
suitable for both online and
offline components.
Multimedia Provide guidelines and Educational

Ongoing
integration resources for integrating Institutions
51
multimedia elements into the

curriculum, enhancing student
engagement.
Support teachers in creating

Interactive Professional
interactive activities that
activities development 5 months
leverage online and face-to-
development team
face learning promoting active
student participation.
Assist teachers in designing
assessments that align with
the blended learning Professional
Assessments
environment, utilizing both development 5 months
Alignment
online and offline assessment team
methods.
Offer ongoing training

Continuous programs to support teachers
Educational
Professional in developing their digital Ongoing
Institutions
development pedagogical skills and staying
updated on blended learning
strategies and technologies.
Conduct research studies to

explore additional factors
affecting student satisfaction
and overall teaching in
10
Research and blended learning Research
months
Evaluation environments. Conduct a Team
or more
triangulation process,
specifically an interview to
implore with the experiences
of both teachers and
students.
52
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION
This chapter presents the conclusion being drawn from the findings of
the study and recommendations to offer.
Conclusion
The current study sought to analyze the relationship of teacher
presence and student engagement with student satisfaction in the blended
learning environment. The findings revealed that there is a strong positive
correlation among variables which means that when one variable changes the
other does as well in the same direction. As such, when the level of teacher
presence increases, the level of student engagement and student satisfaction
will increase respectively. It is noteworthy that all variables, namely teacher
presence, student engagement, and student satisfaction, exhibited high levels
within the blended learning environment. This highlights their significance and
importance in the context of blended learning. In conclusion, teacher
presence and student engagement significantly play a vital role in student
satisfaction in the blended learning environment, which therefore, serves as
significant contributors to providing quality education while implementing the
blended learning modality.
Recommendation
In light of the findings and conclusions drawn from the study, several
recommendations can be suggested to enhance teacher presence, student
engagement, and student satisfaction in a blended learning environment.

53
Firstly, educational institutions should develop interventions such as training,
seminars, or workshops to equip teachers with the necessary teaching
strategies and approaches required to effectively carry out instruction and
manage courses in a blended learning setting. This intervention can also be
extended to other faculty, staff, and stakeholders as student satisfaction relies
on multifaceted support from the entire school community.
Secondly, curriculum design and adaptation should be considered to align
with blended learning. The development or adaptation of the curriculum
should focus on creating instructional materials and resources specifically
tailored for both online and offline components. Incorporating multimedia
elements, interactive activities, and assessments that leverage the
advantages of both online and face-to-face learning can enhance student
engagement and learning outcomes.
Furthermore, continuous professional development opportunities should
be provided to support teachers in developing their digital pedagogical skills.
Ongoing training on effective blended learning strategies, technology
integration, and online facilitation techniques will help teachers become well-
prepared and confident in creating a positive learning environment for their
students.
Lastly, conducting further research is crucial to explore additional factors
that may impact student satisfaction and the overall quality of teaching and
instruction in blended learning environments. This research can also delve
into other aspects of blended learning implementation to improve the overall
teaching and learning experience.

54
55
References
Adams, D., Joo, M. T., Sumintono, B., & Pei, O. S. (2020). Blended learning
engagement in higher education institutions: A differential item
functioning analysis of students’ backgrounds. Malaysian Journal of
Learning and Instruction (MJLI) Vol. 17, No.1 Jan. 2020, 17(Number 1),
133–158. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2020.17.1.6
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Classroom Differences: Online Education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529952.pdf
Anderson, L., Liam, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing
teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. JALN.
https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/handle/2149/725/assess?
sequence=1
Awamleh, A. A. (2020). Students Satisfaction on Blended Learning in the
School of Sport Science. Annal of Applied Sport Science.
doi:10.29252/aassjournal.803
Burop, J., Graham, C. R., West, R. E., Archambault, L., & Spring, K. J. (2020).
Academic communities of engagement: An expansive lens for
examining support structures in blended and online learning.
Educational Technology Research and Development.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09744-x
Commission on Higher Education. (2020). CMO, NO.4, S. 2020. ched.gov.ph.
https://ched.gov.ph/2022-ched-memorandum-orders/
56
Chen, W., & Yao, A. (2016). An empirical evaluation of critical factors
influencing learner satisfaction in blended learning: A pilot study.
Universal Journal College of Educational Research.
http://www.sciepub.com/reference/303578
Chiu, T. K. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning
based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
Cho, M. -H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Instructor scaffolding for interaction and
students' academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of
perceived online class goal and structures. The Internet and Higher
Education, https://doi.org/10/1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publication.
https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/510378/mod_resource/content/
1/creswell.pdf
de Brito Lima, F., Lautert, S. L., & Gomes, A. S. (2021). Contrasting levels of
student engagement in blended and non-blended learning scenarios.
Computers and Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104241
D’Mello, S. K., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can
be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153–170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., & Moskal, P. D. (2018). Blended Learning: The
New Normal and Emerging Technologies. International Journal

57
Education Technology High Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-
017-0087-5
Elisa Monteiro, Keith Morrison. (2015). The study found that the students
needed specific and intensive instruction, practice, and development
in how to collaborate, both with and without blended learning. Taylor
and Francis Online.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.997126
El-Sayad, G., Saad, N.H.M., & Thurasamy, R. (2021). How higher education
students in Egypt perceived online learning engagement and
satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Computers in
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00191-y
Elmaadaway, M. A. (2017). The Effects of a Flipped Classroom Approach on
Class Engagement and Skill Performance in a Blackboard Course.
British Journal of Educational Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12553
Esteban-Millat, I. et. al, (2014). Modelling students' flow experiences in an
online learning environment. Computers and Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.2012
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-
based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-
7516(00)00016-6
Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016, May 1). The effects of student engagement,
student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning

58
environment. Eric.ed.gov.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103654.pdf
Gregory, J., & Salmon , G. (2012, October 31). Professional Development for
Online University teaching. Taylor & Francis.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01587919.2013.835771
Halverson, L.R., & Graham, C.R. (2019). Learner engagment in blended
learningenvironments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning. 23(2),
145-178. doi:10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481
Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., & Belisle, M. (2021). An examination of Teacher's
strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher
education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3
Hill, S. A. (2006). Inferential Statistics. Science Direct.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/inferential
-statistics#:~:text=Inferential%20statistics%20describe%20the
%20many,those%20populations%20are%20truly%20different.
Hung, M.-L., & Chou, C. (2015). Students’ perceptions of instructors’ roles in
blended and online learning environments: A comparative
study. Computers & Education, 81, 315–
325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.022
Ja’ashan, N. H. (2015). Perceptions and attitudes towards blended learning
for english courses: A case study of students at university of
Bisha. English Language Teaching, 8(9), 40–50.

59
Janosz, M. (2012)Part IV commentary:Outcomes of engagement and
engagemnt as an outcome: Some concensus, divergences, and
unanswered questions. In S.L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie
(Eds), Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
John T. E. Richardson, Alan Woodley. (2010). nother Look at the Role of Age,
Gender and Subject as Predictors of Academic Attainment in Higher
Education. Taylor and Francis Online.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122305
Kanwaar, A., & Sanjeeva, M. (2022). Student Satisfaction survey: A key for
Quality improvement in the Higher Education Institution. J Innov
Entrep. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00196-6
Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. & Yilmaz, R. (2022b). Learning analytics intervention
improves students' engagement in online learning. Technology,
Knowledge, and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09547-
Kaur, P., Stoltzfus, J., & Yellapu, V. (2018). Descriptive Statistics. Intenational
Journal of Academic Medicine. doi:10.4103/IJAM_7_18
Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes
in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan
University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(3), 181–195.
Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness:
The relationship between student characteristics, design features and
outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 14(7), 1–20.

60
Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing
disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open
online courses. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference
on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170–179). Leuven,
Belgium: ACM.
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2013). Instructor Presence in online courses and student
satisfaction. Digital Commons @ Georgia
Southern.https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070113
Lappe, J. M. (2000). Taking the Mystery out of Research: Descriptive
correlational design. Orthopedic
Nursing.https://hdl.handle.net/10504/72007
Magsambol, M. (2022, July 22). Fast Facts: CHED’s flexible learning.
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak.iq/things-to-know-ched-flexible-
learning/
Manwaring, K. C., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L.
R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning
settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling.
The Internet and Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.002
Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022, February 28). A meta-analysis on
the community of inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online
and blended learning environments. Online
Learning.https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1340511
61
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning:What works and
why. ASHE Higher Education Report.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018
Mohd, K. N., & Quick, D. (2016, February 24). Teaching presence influencing
online students' course satisfaction at an institution of Higher
Education. International Education Studies.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n3p62
Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012, January 1). Evaluating student
satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. Naaj, M. A.,
Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012, January 1). Evaluating student
satisfaction with blended learning in a
gender-segreghttps://www.learntechlib.org/p/111500/
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011, August 16). A time‐based
blended learning model. On the Horizon. Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D.,
& Moskal, P. D. (201https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913
Nortvig, A. M., Peterson, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018, February 1). A literature
review of the factors influencing e-learning and blended learning in
relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement.
Electronic Journal of e-Learning.
https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1855
Ondrey, Z. L. (2017, April 13). The Relationship between Teaching Presence
and Student Satisfaction in Online Learning. Wilkes University
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

62
https://www.proquest.com/openview/fb912f278ff7ec14cd5c7f7daceb38
97/1?cbl=18750&pq-origsite=gscholar
Panes, L. L. (2019). DIMENSIONS OF LEARNERS’ SATISFACTION IN THE
DELIVERY OF INSTRUCTION IN BLENDED LEARNING PROGRAM
IN TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS.
https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.43.865881
Park, C., & Kim, D. (2020). Perception of intructor presence and its effects on
learning experience in online classes. Journal of Information
Technology Education: Research. https://doi.org/10.28945/4611
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive
development. In R. A. Calvo & S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives
on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23–39). New York, NY:
Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-
1-4419- 9625-1_3
Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D., Graham, C., & Moskal, P. (2021, February
29). Blended learning: Research perspectives, volume 3. Taylor &
Francis.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781003037736/blen
ded-learning-anthony-picciano-charles-dziuban-charles-graham-patsy-
moskal
Rahman, N. A., Hussein, N., & Aluwi, A. H. (2015, November 25). Satisfaction
on Blended Learning in a Public Higher Education Institution: What
factors Matter? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.107
63
Serrano, D. R., Dea-Ayuela, M. A., Gonzalez-Burgos, E., Serrano-Gil, A., &
Lalatsa, A. (2019). Technology-enhanced learning in higher education:
How to enhance student engagement through blended learning.
European Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12330
Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2019). Developing learning
community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of
teaching presence. Online learning.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i4.1779
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student
engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A.
L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 21–44). New York, NY: Springer.
Small, F., Dowell, D., & Simmons, P. (2012). Teacher communication
preferred over peer interaction:Student satisfaction with different tools
in a virtual learning environment. Journal of International Education in
Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/18363261211281735
Su, F., Zou, D., & Wang, L. (2023, March 2). Student engagement and
teaching presence in blended learning and emergency remote
teaching. Journal on Computer and Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00263-1
Svanum S, Aigner C. (2011). The influences of course effort, mastery and
performance goals, grade. Br J Educ Psychol. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8279.2010.02011.x pmid: 22050312

64
Taghizadeh, M., & Hajhosseini, F. (2020, August 26). Investigagting a
blended learning environment: Contribution of Attitude, interaction, and
quality of teaching to satisfaction of gradute students of TEFL. The
Asie-Pacific Education researcher - Springerlink.
https://link.springer.com/article//10.1007/s40299-020-00531-z
Tonći Lazibat, Ines Duzevic, Tomislav Bakovic. (2014). How perceived
service quality influences students' satisfaction? Teachers' and
students' perspectives. Research Gate.
doi:10.1080/14783363.2014.916036
Turney, S. (2022, May 13 ). Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r)/ Guide and
Examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/pearson-
correlation-coefficient/
Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010, August). A study of student
satisfaction in a blended e-learning system enviornment. Science
Direct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
Yang, Y., Liu, K., Li, M., & Li, S. (2022). Students’ affective engagement,
parental involvement, and teacher support in emergency remote
teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from a cross-
sectional survey in China. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 54(sup1), S148–
S164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1922104
Yu, Z. (2021). The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on
online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Springer .

65
doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00252-3
Zhao, H., & Sullivan, K.P. (2017). Teaching presence in computer
conferencing learning environments: Effects on interaction, cognition
and learning uptake. British journal of Educational Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12383
66
Appendix A
Letter of Approval to Conduct the Study
67
Appendix B
Letter to the Respondents
68
Appendix C
Letter to the Expert
69
70
Republic of the Philippines 71
ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED
Appendix D
SURVEY INSTRUMENT VALIDATION RATING SCALE
Adapted from: Oducado (2020)
Directions: Please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement on the statements

provided below by encircling the number which corresponds to your best of your judgment.S
Rating: 5 - Excellent 4 - Very Good3 - Good 2 - Fair 1-

Poor
Area Criteria Rating
1 The items in the instrument are relevant to answer the objectives of the study.
2 The items in the instrument can obtain depth to construct being measured.
3
The instrument has an appropriate sample of items for the construct being
measured.
4
The items in their alternatives are neither too narrow nor limited in its
content.
5 The items in the instrument are stated clearly.
6 The items on the instrument can elicit responses which are stable, definite,
consistent and not conflicting.
7 The terms adapted in the scale are culturally appropriate.
8 The layout or format of the instrument is technically sound.
9 The responses on the scale show a reasonable range of variation.
10 The instrument is not too short or long enough that the participants will be able to
answer it within a given time.
Second Floor Administration Building, Main Campus, P. Inocentes St., P.I. Garcia, Naval, Biliran Province, Philippines 6560 Tel. (053) 507 0076 SUC Level III-A
(Per DBM-CHED Joint Circular #B dated June 21, 2007) Website: www.bipsu.edu.ph ‫ ן‬Email: sted@bipsu.edu.ph ‫ ן‬Facebook: School of Teacher Education –
the Victorious Bulletin
11 The instrument is interesting such that participants will be induced to

respond to it and accomplish it fully.
12 The instrument as a whole could answer the basic purpose for which it is
designed.
13 The instrument is culturally acceptable when administered in the local

setting.
Total
Mean
Comments:
Signature of the Juror/Validator
Appendix E
Informed Consent
TITLE OF STUDY:
Analyzing the Relationship of Teacher Presence, Student Engagement, and

Student Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment
PRINCIPAL RESEARCHERS:
Name:
Marcos, Shada Marie M.
Olaguer, Venson Ray F.
Pelaez, Edhen Rose B.
Solayao, Roanne A.
Department: School of Teacher Education - Bachelor of Secondary Education

Present Address: P. Innocentes St., P.I. Garcia, Naval, Biliran
Contact Number: 09058345629
Email: vensonrayolaguer@gmail.com
PURPOSE OF STUDY:
The study generally aims to analyze the relationship of teacher presence, student
engagement, and student satisfaction in a blended learning environment of Biliran
Province State University particularly in the School of Teacher Education, Main
Campus.
STUDY PROCEDURES:
1. The data collection for the study will commence after you and your parents
agree to this consent.
2. Demographic information will be collected from you through a google form
survey questionnaires divided into 4 parts, Part I is on demographics, Part II
is the Teacher presence Questionnaire, Part III is the Student Engagement
Questionnaire, and Part IV is the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire.
3. Three (3) Survey Questionnaires will be disseminated and recovered once
permit is signed.
4. The researchers assure you that the data collected from the surveys shall
solely be used for the purpose of the study.
RISKS:
5. The researcher will collect your personal information specially, your
demographic data which will be presented to the panelist.
6. You might be able to divulge sensitive information during the data collection
but rest assured that your identity will be kept confidential.
You may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate your
involvement at any time if you choose.
BENEFITS:
There will be no direct benefit to you for your response in this study.
However, we hope that the information obtained from this study may contribute to
decision formulation, and intervention formulation that is hinged on research-based

evidence, particularly in the context of teacher presence, student engagement, and
student satisfaction in the blended learning environment.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
Your responses to the survey will be anonymous. Please do not write any
identifying information in the questionnaire or mention your name during the survey
process. Moreover, for the purposes of this research study, your answers will not be
anonymous. Every effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your
confidentiality including the following:
1. Assigning code names/numbers for respondents that will be used on all

research notes and documents
2. Keeping Survey Questionnaires and any other identifying respondents’
information in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the
researcher.
3. Respondents’ data will be kept confidential except in cases where the
researcher is legally obligated to report specific incidents. These incidents
include, but may not be limited to, incidents of abuse and suicide risk.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
If you have questions at any time about this study, you may contact the
researchers whose contact information is provided on the first page.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION:
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether

or not to take part in this study. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be
asked to sign a consent form. After you sign the consent form, you are still free to
withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. Withdrawing from this study will not
affect the relationship you have, if any, with the researcher. If you withdraw from the
study before data collection is completed, your data will be returned to you or
destroyed.
CONSENT
I have read and I understand the provided information and have had the
opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that
am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I
understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take
part in this study.
_________________________________________
Respondent’s signature over printed name
Date:_________________
Appendix F
Research Instrument
PART I: STUDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Direction: Kindly provide the needed information below.
Name:____________________________________(optional) Age:_______
Gender:
Male: Female: Others:
Program:
BEED:
BECED:
BSNED:
BPED:
BTLED:
BSED - ENGLISH
BSED - MATH
BSED - FILIPINO
BSED - SCIENCE:
BSED - SOC. STUD.:
PART II: TEACHER PRESENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

(Adopted from: Hosler et al., 2013)
Directions: Below is a statement about the Teacher Presence in a Blended
learning environment. Please indicate by putting a check () on the level of
agreement.
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
Strongly Strongly
Neutral
Instructional Design Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
(3)
and Organization (1) (2) (4) (5)
1. The instructor
clearly
communicated
important course
topics.
2. The instructor
clearly
communicated
important course
goals.
3. The instructor
provided clear
instructions on
how to participate
learning activities.
4. The instructor
clearly
communicated
important due
dates and time
frames for learning
activities.
5. The instructor
helped me take
advantage of the
online environment
in a way that
assisted my
learning.
6. The instructor
helped students
understand and
practice the kinds
of behaviors
acceptable in
online learning
environment.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
Facilitating Discourse (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
7. The instructor was

helpful in
identifying areas of
agreement and
disagreement on
course topics that
helped me to
learn.
8. The instructor was
helpful in guiding
the class towards
understanding
course topics in a
way that helped
me clarify my
thinking.
9. The instructor
helped to keep
course participants
engaged and
participating in
productive dialog.
10. The instructor
helped keep
course participants
on task in a way
that helped me to
learn.
11. The instructor
encouraged
course participants
to explore new
concepts.
12. Instructor actions
reinforced the
development of a
sense of
community among
course
participants.
Strongly Strongly
Direct Instruction Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
13. The instructor

provided useful
illustrations that
helped make the
course content
more
understandable to
me.
14. The instructor
presented helpful
examples that
allowed me to
better understand
the content of the
course.
15. The instructor
provided
explanations or
demonstrations to
help me better
understand the
content of the
course.
16. The instructor
provided feedback
to the class during
the discussions or
other activities that
helped us learn.
17. The instructor
asked for feedback
on how a subject
could be improved.
PART III: STUDENT ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

(Adopted from: Elmaadaway, 2017)
Directions: Below is a statement about the Student Engagement in a
Blended learning environment. Please indicate by putting a check () on the
level of agreement.
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
Strongly Strongly
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. I listen
carefully to
everything that is
said in class.
Behavioral
Engagement 2. I ask questions
about what I do
not know.
3. I interact with
my peers during
class.
4. I strive to
understand
lessons during
class.
5. I am alert
during class.
6. I always
participate in
discussions with
my teacher.
7. I am always
eager to attend
class.
8. I always
complete my
assignments.
9. I prefer to
complete
activities and
assignments
during class with
my instructor and
peers.
10. Enough time
is provided during
class for practice
activities and
discussions.
11. I always ask
the instructor
about difficult
content.
Cognitive 12. I attempt to

Engagement apply things that I
learned during
class.
13. I relate to my
peers and
discuss with them
what I learned at
home.
14. I strive to
acquire new
knowledge about
the course.
15. Being familiar
with the content
prior to attending
class motivates
me and increases
my engagement.
16. Preparing for
lessons enables
me to
communicate
better with my
peers and the
instructor.
17. Familiarizing
myself with
content prior to
attending a
lecture enables
me to share what
I ;earned with
others during
class.
18. I enjoy the
class.
19. The teaching
method practiced
by the instructor
is enjoyable.
20. I enjoy the
Emotional practice activities
Engagement conducted during
class.
21. I enjoy
studying content
at home.
22. I like it when
the instructor
asks me
questions.
23. I am
optimistic when I
go to class with
an understanding
of the content.
24. Participating
in class
discussions
boosts my
confidence.
25. Solving and
sharing problems
during class in
enjoyable.
PART IV: STUDENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

(Adopted from: Naaj et al., 2012)
Directions: Below is a statement about the Student Satisfaction in a
Blended learning environment. Please indicate by putting a check () on the
level of agreement.
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
Strongly Strongly
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. A blended
learning session
keeps me always
alert and focused.
2. Interaction is
adequately
maintained with
the lecturer when
he/she is on the
Interaction other side of the
blended learning
classroom.
3. Having students
from the opposite
gender on the
other side of the
blended learning
classroom
listening to what I
say might restrict
my participation.
4. A blended
learning course
makes it more
important for
students to visit
the lecturer during
office-hours.
5. I cannot
interrupt the
lecturer to ask a
question when
he/she is on the
other side of the
blended learning
classroom
6. I am satisfied
with the quality
interaction
between all
involved parties.
7. I am dissatisfied
with the process
of collaboration
activities during
the course.
8. I am satisfied
with the way I
interact with
others student.
9. I am satisfied
with my
participation in the
class.
10. The use of
blended learning
technology in this
course
encourages me to
learn
independently.
11. My
understanding is
improved
Instruction compared to
similar courses I
studied before.
12. My
performance in
exam is improved
compared to
similar courses I
studied before.
13. I am satisfied
with the level of
effort this course
required.
14. I am
dissatisfied with
my performance in
this course
15. I believe I will
be satisfied with
my final grade in
the course
16. I am satisfied
with how I am able
to apply what I
have learned in
this course.
17. If I had known
this was going to
be a blended
learning class, I
would not have
taken it.
18. I am willing to
take another
course using the
blended learning
delivery mode.
19. I am satisfied
enough with this
course to
recommend it to
others.
20. Compared to
face-to-face
course settings, I
am less satisfied
with this learning
experience.
21. I enjoy
working on
assignments by
myself.
22. The instructor
makes me feel
that I am a true
member of the
class.
23. I am
dissatisfied with
the accessibility
and availability of
the instructor.
24. The instructor
uses blended
learning
technology
appropriately
25. Class
assignments were
Instructor clearly
communicated to
me.
26. Feedback on
evaluation of tests
and other
assignments was
given in a timely
manner.
27. Discipline is
highly observed
when the lecturer
is on the other
side of the
blended learning
Course classroom.
Management 28. The
lecturer,supervisor
always takes
attendance.
29. I attend
videoconferencing
classes the same
way I attend face-
to-face classes.
30. The
instructor’s voice
is audible.
31. Course
content shown or
displayed on the
smart board is
clear.
32. The
microphone is in
good working
condition.
33. The video
image is clear and
comprehensive
when the lecturer
is on the other
side of the
blended learning
classroom.
Technology 34. Technical

problems are not
frequent and they
do not adversely
affect my
understanding of
the course.
35. The
technology used
for blended
teaching is
reliable.
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Shada Marie M. Marcos

Date of Birth : January 23, 2002
Place of Birth : Lo-ok, Almeria, Biliran
Civil Status : Single
Citizenship : Filipino
Religion : Iglesia Filipina Independiente
Home Address : Lo-ok, Almeria, Biliran
E-Mail : shadamarcos232002@gmail.com
Mobile number : 09754773886
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Undergraduate : Bachelor of Secondary Education

Major in Social Studies
Biliran Province State University
Naval, Biliran
2020 - Present
Secondary
Senior High School : Humanities of Social Sciences
Naval, Biliran
2019 - 2020
Junior High School : Almeria National High School

Almeria, Biliran
2017 - 2018
Elementary : Lo-ok Elementary School

Lo-ok, Almeria, Biliran
2013 - 2014
89
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Venson Ray F. Olaguer

Date of Birth : June 3, 2001
Place of Birth : Talustusan, Naval, Biliran
Religion : Roman Catholic
Home Address : Talustusan, Naval, Biliran
E-Mail : vensonrayolaguer@gmail.com

Naval, Biliran
2020 - Present
Secondary
Senior High School : Humanities of Social Sciences
Naval, Biliran
2019 - 2020
90
Junior High School : Naval National High School

Larrazabal, Naval, Biliran
2017 - 2018
Elementary : Talustusan Elementary School

Talustusan, Naval , Biliran
2013 - 2014
91
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Edhen Rose B. Pelaez

Date of Birth : December 17, 2000
Place of Birth : Quezon City
Religion : Born Again (Christian)
Home Address : P.I. Garcia St. Naval, Biliran
E-Mail : justdhen19@gmail.com

Naval, Biliran
2020 - Present
Secondary
Senior High School : Accountancy, Business and
Management (ABM)
Naval School of Fisheries
Caraycaray, Naval, Biliran
2019 - 2020
92
Junior High School : Naval School of Fisheries

Caraycaray, Naval, Biliran
2017 - 2018
Elementary : Naval Central School

Naval, Biliran
2013 - 2014
93
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Roanne A. Solayao

Date of Birth : January 15, 2001
Place of Birth : San Lorenzo, Kawayan, Biliran
Religion : Roman Catholic
Home Address : San Lorenzo, Kawayan , Biliran
E-Mail : roannesolayao549@gmail.com
Naval, Biliran
2020 – Present
Secondary
Senior High School : General Academic Strand (GAS)
Bool National High School
Culaba, Biliran
2019 - 2020
94
Junior High School : Tucdao National High School

Kawayan, Biliran
2017 - 2018
Elementary : San Lorenzo Elementary School

San Lorenzo, Kawayan, Biliran
2013 - 2014

Chap 1-4 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Chap 1-4 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Background of the Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably caused so many changes in

mentioned that blended learning (BL) is popularly defined as a learning

system combining online and face-to-face delivery. The Commission on

Higher Education (CHED) also referred it as a type of flexible learning that

incorporates online and offline modes (CHED, 2020; Magsambol, 2022),

which is technically categorized as a type of e-learning as well (Panes, 2019).

BL is widely adopted across higher education and referred to as the “new

normal” in course delivery (Norberg et al., 2011). However, compared to other

countries and universities, BL modality is considered new in the Philippines,

especially at Biliran Province State University (BIPSU). Thus, there is a need

to conduct studies that would provide benchmark data on the effectiveness of

Students’ satisfaction played a crucial role in measuring the quality and

effectiveness of blended learning which is also affected by various factors

is influenced by students’ perceived ease of use, perceived value, learning

climate, and student-instructor interaction. Panes (2019) also mentioned that

a number of social and technical factors affect e-learning effectiveness, and

these factors include learner’s perspective, instructor attitudes, content

instructor feedback, and facilitation influenced students’ satisfaction.

Moreover, Naaj et al. (2012) provided that interaction, instruction, instructor

facilitation, course management, and technology significantly affect students’

satisfaction in the blended learning environment.

Moreover, previous studies analyzed the relationship between teaching

studies were purely conducted in an online learning environment and not in a

teacher presence has a strong correlation with student satisfaction, however,

measure student satisfaction utilizing the factors identified by Naaj et al

(2012). As stated above, these factors include interaction, instruction,

instructor facilitation, course management, and technology. Naaj et al (2012)

satisfaction which is 2.5. Moreover, this model is designed for blended

a blend of in-person and online modes of learning. Therefore, utilizing the

model will be essential for comprehensive bench marking of data about

In this context, the present study aimed to determine the level of

student satisfaction, teaching presence, and student engagement and analyze

the relationship of these variables in the teacher education department of a

state university in an eastern province of the Philippines. This study is

essential for the university to gain better understanding and increase

adaptability about the current trend in educational system because it is

relevant for the improvement of the course design, course management,

teaching delivery, and instruction.

Objective of the Study

The present study generally sought to analyze the relationship of teacher

presence and student engagement with students’ satisfaction in BiPSU’s

blended learning environment particularly in the School of Teacher Education,

Main Campus. Specifically, it sought to achieve the following:

1. Determine the demographic profile of the students in terms of:

1.2 Gender; and

2. Determine the level of teacher presence in terms of:

2.1. Instructional Design and Organization,

2.2. Facilitating Discourse, and

2.3. Direct Instruction.

3. Determine the level of student engagement in terms of:

3.1. Behavioral Engagement,

3.2. Cognitive Engagement, and

3.3. Emotional Engagement.

4. Determine the level of student satisfaction in terms of:

4.4. Course Management, and

5. Analyze the relationship of student satisfaction, teaching presence, and

student engagement in a blended learning environment.

6. Craft an intervention plan for improved blended learning

Framework of the Study

The present study is supported by the theoretical model of Community of

designed to describe the educational experience in computer-mediated