Level of Satisfaction of JBLFMU-A (SHS) Instructors Towards Student Engagement in Distance Learning

JOHN B. LACSON FOUNDATION MARITIME UNIVERSITY (AREVALO), INC.
Sto. Niño Sur, Arevalo, Iloilo City
Level of Satisfaction of JBLFMU-A (SHS) Instructors towards
Student Engagement in Distance Learning
Chapter 1
Introduction to the Study
Chapter One is divided into five parts: Background of the Study, Statement of the
Problem, Significance of the Study, Definition of Terms, and Delimitation of the Study.
Part One, Background and Introduction to the Study, presents the introduction of
the study and discusses the rationale of selecting the problem.
Part Two, Statement of the Problem, states the objectives of the study and the
specific questions of the study attempts to resolve.
Part Three, Significance of the Study, discusses the benefits that may be derived
from the results of the study and the persons who would benefit from them.
Part Four, Definition of Terms, deals with the conceptual and operational
definitions of the important terms used in the study.
Part Five, Delimitation of the Study, specifies the scope and the coverage of the
study.
Background of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a major decline in the global economic
status and disrupted the normal system of education of every country in the world. Due to
the demand for social distancing as a way of preventing community transmission,

2
campuses have been forced to prohibit face-to-face classes and shift to distance learning
systems instead (Rashid and Yadav, 2020).
Magsambol (2020) defines distance learning as a modality where education takes
place between the teacher and the learners who are geographically remote from each
other during instruction. This means that classes will be delivered outside the face-to-face
set-up. Moreover, this modality has three types, namely: Modular Distance Learning,
Online Distance Learning, and Television/Radio-Based Instruction in which each can be
conducted in either synchronous or asynchronous learning.
However, conducting synchronous and asynchronous learning has its pros and
cons. In a synchronous set-up where learning takes place in-real time with groups of
learners, high interaction and immediate feedback is guaranteed (Lawless, 2020). But
Lawless (2020) herself also says that this type of learning demands that students have to
be online at a certain time, and given the 25.77 MB average internet speed of the
Philippines (Ookla, 2021), this may imply connectivity issues. Moreover, Paschal and
Makulu (2020) also agreed that a good internet performance is one of the main factors
affecting the success of this type of learning.
Meanwhile, in an asynchronous set-up, even though it has a more learner-centered
approach, its nature will be the death of itself. It being learner-centered demands self-
discipline and focus to be successful (Lawless, 2020). In addition, achieving self-
discipline can be very challenging for our students as they were shifted from classrooms
(that were designed to support education) to kitchens and bedrooms wherein distractions
are abundant and professional aid is not always on hand (Best, 2020).
3
On top of that, Vonderwell and Zachariah (2015) found out that distance learning
participation is also influenced by factors such as technology and interface
characteristics, content-area experience, student roles and tasks, and information
overload. All these claims could explain why some Filipino students are having a really
hard time in complying with their assigned requirements during the pandemic.
Although it may seem settled, it is possible that factors such as procrastination,
lack of self-discipline, and laziness can be the reasons behind this attitude of academic
incompetence that will then be disguised as ad misericordiams such as sudden brown
outs, lack of data, or medical emergencies.
So, with all of this information, the conceptualization of this study will be based
on the following reasons: First, students may fake reasons for not complying or
participating on tasks assigned. Second, are teachers able to tell which reasons are fake
and which reasons are acceptable? And lastly, are the students able to reciprocate the
same effort for their performance as the teachers did for them?
These are why the researchers want to obtain the statements of the senior high
school instructors of John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University – Arevalo as one
way of determining if the mentioned factors affect student engagement in distance
learning and translate it using a quantitative method.

4
Statement of the Problem
Generally, this study seeks to quantify the information to be obtained from
JBLFMU-A SHS instructors regarding their level of satisfaction towards student
engagement in distance learning.
Specifically, this study aims to answer the following questions:
1. What is the level of satisfaction of the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors towards
student engagement?
student engagement categorized by:
a. Homogeneous sectioning?
b. Heterogeneous sectioning?
3. Is there a significant difference in the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors’ level of
satisfaction between the homogeneous and heterogeneous sections towards
student engagement?
Paradigm of the Study
Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Homogeneous
Level of Satisfaction of Sections
Student Engagement
JBLFMU-A SHS
Instructors Heterogeneous
Sections
Figure 1. The relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable.
5
Significance of the Study
COVID-19 changed the educational system of JBLFMU-A through the utilization
of distance learning modalities in response of the demand for social distancing to prevent
any community transmission. With this, it is also possible that the engagement of the
students also changed. If there really is a change, it would be noticeable by the teachers
themselves. So, the results to be obtained from this study will generalize how JBLFMU-
A SHS instructors are satisfied with the engagement of their students during a pandemic.
Moreover, this study will greatly benefit the following:
This study seeks to enlighten the current JBLFMU-A SHS instructors about the
factors affecting student engagement, and the advantages and disadvantages to consider
of both synchronous and asynchronous learning. This would explain to them as to why
their students are either performing good or bad.
This study will also reflect how effective distance learning is for students. In
addition, this study will also serve as a feedback from their teachers that could motivate
them to improve how they perform in online classes.
This study will also serve as a guide where institutions can base on if they aim to
apply necessary programs in order to improve the performance of their students.
This study will also notify the parents on how the teachers of their children are
satisfied with their engagement in school. With this, they will be able to supervise and
keep an eye on their children for them to improve.

6
This study will also help future researchers obtain new ideas and knowledge that
they can use for the betterment of their respective studies and acquire assets by gaining
valuable insights from the results to be obtained from the study.
Definition of Terms
Distance learning--refers to a formalized teaching and learning system
specifically designed to be carried out remotely using electronic communication
(Whatis.com, 2005).
In this study, “distance learning” refers to the current remote learning system
being used by JBLFMU-A in conducting classes.
Instructors--refer to a person or people whose occupation is teaching
(Vocabulary.com, 2021).
In this study, “instructors” refer to the teachers currently working at JBLFMU-A
in the SHS department.
Level of satisfaction--refers to the perceived level of pleasure and contentment
derived from individual performance (Brown et al., 2000).
In this study, “level of satisfaction” refers to the quantitative results of the
collective feedback of JBLFMU-A SHS instructors to be obtained through survey.
Student Engagement--refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest,
optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or being taught, which
extends to the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education
(Glossary of Education Reform, 2016).
In this study, “student engagement” will also use the same definition.
7
Students--refer to a person studying at a school, college, or university (Cambridge
University Press, 2021).
In this study, “students” refer to those who are officially enrolled and currently
studying at JBLFMU-A during the first semester of A.Y. 2020-2021.
Delimitation of the Study
The overall aim of the study is to measure the level of satisfaction of the current
John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University – Arevalo, Inc. Senior High School
instructors regarding student engagement in a remote learning setting. Specifically, a
quantitative research will be conducted where the researchers will collect data using a
survey. On top of that, the respondents will be selected through purposive sampling since
this study requires teachers who teach both homogeneous and heterogeneous sections
during the first semester of A.Y. 2020-2021.
Next, the survey will be conducted online through Google Forms since an in-
person dissemination of survey materials is not considered for safety purposes. The
credibility of the questionnaire to be used in the survey will be evaluated by the research
advisers.
All of the responses to be obtained will remain confidential and will be
undisclosed from the public. This study will not go any further into studying the personal
life of the participants and other matters unrelated to the study. Lastly, this study will
only cover JBLFMU-A, therefore, generalizations that include other institutions will not
be made.
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
Chapter Two presents literatures such as: Digital Learning Adjustments, Learning
Motivations and Distractions, Types of Teachers, and Digital Teaching Approaches.
Part One, Digital Learning Adjustments, presents factors that affect how students
and instructors adjust to the shift in the learning system from traditional to digital.
Part Two, Learning Motivations and Distractions, emphasizes the different factors
that could motivate or distract students from learning digitally.
Part Three, Types of Teachers, elaborates teaching personalities that students like
or dislike.
Part Four, Digital Teaching Approaches, highlights the ideal teaching approaches
that benefits both instructors and students during online classes.
Digital Learning Adjustments
A. Emotion
Scholars have already identified the importance of emotions to understand
learning through face to face and distance educational settings (Artino, 2012; D’Errico,
Paciello & Cerniglia, 2016; Feidakis, Daradoumis, Caballé, & Conesa, 2014; Parlangeli,
Marchigiani, Guidi & Mesh, 2012). Within traditional academic contexts, Pekrun and
colleagues (2011) explored ‘academic emotions’, demonstrating that positive emotions
can predict creative thinking and reflecting, thereby fostering good academic outcomes,
whereas negative emotions are more likely associated with lower grades.
9
More specifically, positive emotions such as enjoyment, hope and pride have been
positively associated with effort, self-regulation and more sophisticated learning
strategies, whereas anger, frustration, shame, anxiety and boredom have been associated
with lower performances and external regulation (Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld &
Perry, 2011).
Similarly, in the e-learning domain, previous studies (D’Errico, Paciello &
Cerniglia, 2016) demonstrated that positive emotions across different e-learning activities
were higher than negative emotions, particularly during synchronous activities with a
teacher and also with peers. It was also found that experiencing positive emotions during
exam preparation was strongly correlated with the behavioral and affective dimensions of
engagement. Feeling positive during the different phases of e-learning processes helped
students to enact constructive behaviors, achieve positive results, and to experience
“affective relevance” in relation to acquired content. This emotional positivity during
engagement, could also serve to increase students’ sense of mastery during exam
preparation. (D’Errico, Paciello & Cerniglia, 2016) further suggest however, that
particular attention needs to be paid to the negative emotions reported during
chat/interactions with teachers, as these could be an early warning sign of poor/flawed
preparation and engagement on the part of the student. Recognition of cognitive factors
that characterize each learner's beliefs, expectations and goals (Miceli & Castelfranchi
2014) are of importance as they underpin how individuals approach learning and content
delivery. The learner’s mental state can thus be described in terms of the appraisal
process which compares incoming information with beliefs and prior knowledge. It is this
10
appraisal which contributes to excitement at learning something new; or frustration and
confusion at not understanding something. Seen in this light, cognitive emotions are a
very important part of the appraisal of and response to the learning process. Exploring the
role of cognitive emotions in e-leaning contexts, and considering their associations with
dimensions of self-efficacy and academic adjustment will contribute to further
understanding of online learning contexts and how to improve delivery of content to
support student outcomes.
In the specific case of e-learning settings, academic self-efficacy has been
operationalized as a perceived capability to strategically use digital tools to learn and
carry out study activities, relevant to the peculiarities of distance learning contexts (Di
Mele, D’Errico, Cerniglia, Cersosimo & Paciello, 2015). With respect to performance,
academic e-efficacy promotes academic engagement (D’Errico, Paciello & Cerniglia,
2016) and achievement (Di Mele et al., 2015). Moreover, D'Errico et al. (2016) found
that academic self-efficacy was positively associated with the experience of positive
emotions during e-learning activities, and negatively associated with negative emotions.
The more students felt positive emotions during e-learning activities, the more they
perceived themselves as able to interact constructively with other students and teachers
through the learning platform, and the more they engaged affectively and behaviorally
during learning activities. By contrast, the more negative emotions experienced during e-
learning activities, the less students perceived themselves as able to use learning tools and
to regulate their learning, and the less they were organized, motivated to learn and able to
do well on the tests they take.

11
B. Engagement
Student engagement is a major area of interest in the field of educational sciences
and its roots are driven by the desire to enhance students’ learning (Reschly &
Christenson, 2012). Researchers in the e-learning field have interpreted the concept of
student engagement from various perspectives. According to an explanation of the term
close to e-learning context, student engagement is defined as the active involvement of
students in a learning activity and any interaction with instructors, other students, or the
learning content through the use of digital technology (Christenson, Reschly & Wylie,
2012; Henrie, Halverson & Graham, 2015). Student engagement is considered as a
multifaceted term including distinct components. There are various different models in
the literature regarding student engagement. One of the most well-known and cited
student engagement model is conceptualized by Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris (2004).
They provide three engagement types such as behavioral engagement, cognitive
engagement, and emotional engagement. Behavioral engagement refers to observable
behaviors and participation necessary to learning performance (Kokoç, Ilgaz & Altun,
2020). Cognitive engagement refers to effort and investment, which is needed for
understanding what is being taught. Emotional engagement includes the feelings and
emotions of students towards components of learning process such as other students,
instructors, and the school, which all affect their tendency to study (Fredricks,
Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004).
The current study focuses on behavioral engagement which concerns observable
behaviors, participation in learning activities, and interest in learning tasks (Nguyen,

12
Cannata & Miller, 2016; Schindler, Burkholder, Morad & Marsh, 2017), since online
learning behaviors of students indicate and fit to behavioral engagement in the context of
e-learning theoretically (Li, Yu, Hu & Zhong, 2016; Pardo, Han & Ellis, 2017).
Behavioral engagement is easier to measure based on students’ actions through Learning
Management Systems (LMS) contrary to cognitive engagement and affective engagement
(Wang, 2017). Furthermore, behavioral engagement of learners is fundamental to
maintenance of successful online learning experiences. There is a growing body of
literature that recognizes the importance of behavioral engagement in e-learning context
(Meyer, 2014; Wang, 2019).
The key issue of how to keep students engaged in e-learning plays an essential
role in the effective learning design process (Kokoç, Ilgaz & Altun, 2020). Moreover,
finding ways for online students to stay engaged in online courses is so important for
higher education institutions (Meyer, 2014). It should be noted that deeper understanding
how to employ technologies to engage students in effective learning experiences is a vital
aspect of current research trends in e-learning (Henrie, Halverson & Graham, 2015). In
this regard, flexibility can be considered as one of key elements of making students more
engaged into online learning process. E-learning technologies and online learning
environment provide flexible learning opportunities for students to enhance quality of
their learning experiences and outcomes in terms of time, place and pace of learning
(Means, Toyama, Murphy & Bakia, 2013). Also, successful flexible learning results in
effective learner-centered activities and facilitates building effective online learning
experiences as indicators of behavioral engagement (Soffer, Kahan & Nachmias, 2019;

13
Veletsianos & Houlden, 2019). Moreover, a previous review study revealed that most of
computer-based technologies had a positive influence on multiple indicators of student
engagement (Schindler et al., 2017). To enhance behavioural engagement of students,
there are various efforts to implement dimensions and features of flexible learning to
online course and learning design through e-learning technologies (Li & Wong, 2018;
Soffer, Kahan & Nachmias, 2019; Wang, 2017).
From a broader perspective, student engagement into learning is recognized as a
powerful indicator of successful classroom instruction (Yang, Lavonen & Niemi, 2018)
and as an important influence of learning performance (Kahu, 2013). Student engagement
is related to students putting time, energy, thought and effort into learning process
(Dixson, 2015). Hence, student engagement aims for improving learning performance,
positive behaviors and willingness to participate in learning activities (Kokoç, Ilgaz &
Altun, 2020). Yang, Lavonen and Niemi (2018) emphasize that students are willing to
make more effort and to have the potential for sense of commitment, when engaged into
online learning process. Kuh et al. (2008) found that student engagement had a positive
effect on grades and persistence of students significantly. In another study, lack of
engagement is a significant reason for lower completion rates in online courses (Kizilcec,
Piech & Schneider, 2013). These studies find a clear link among effective online learning
experiences, learning performance and student engagement as a broad phenomenon.
Considering specific to behavioral engagement, it seems the same relationship in the
literature as explained above (Henrie, Halverson & Graham, 2015). As summarized by
Schindler et al. (2017), the main indicators of behavioral engagement are participation in
14
learning activities and interaction with others. As students make a reasonable time and
effort to participate in online learning activities and tasks actively, they build effective
online learning experiences that improve their learning performances (Goh et al., 2017;
Morris, Finnegan & Wu, 2005). Students with lower behavioral engagement can exhibit
negative behaviors in learning environment and have lower learning performance
(Nguyen, Cannata & Miller, 2018). Furthermore, it is important to note that interaction
with others and learning resources plays a critical role in terms of behavioral engagement.
Interaction data extracted from LMS logs have been accepted as essential indicators of
behavioral engagement in e-learning context (Henrie, Halverson & Graham, 2015; Pardo,
Han & Ellis, 2017). Learning analytics studies have revealed a significant association
between interaction patterns of learners with LMS and learning performances (Cerezo,
Sánchez-Santillán, Paule-Ruiz & Núñez, 2016; You, 2016). The studies presented thus
far provide evidence that indicators of behavioral engagement were identified as
predictors of online learning performances. To sum up, previous studies have confirmed a
positive association between behavioral engagement in e-learning environment and
learning performances of students (Li et al., 2016; Pardo, Han & Ellis, 2017; Wang,
2017). Hence, it is expected that the students with higher behavioral engagement in e-
learning environment will demonstrate improved academic performance.
C. Technology
A lack of technology skills is cited as the main reason why many educators do not
offer technology-based courses, even while learning these skills is given as one of the
primary benefits. According to The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life
15
Project (2010), only 74% of all American adults surveyed reported using the internet,
with lower usage reported along socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic lines: 70% of blacks,
64% of Hispanics, 60% in households earning less than $30,000/yr., and 63% who
possess only a high school diploma. The Pew researchers conclude that "there has been
little significant growth in the overall internet user population since 2006" (Rainie, 2010,
Internet Users section).
Despite their labels as members of the Digital Generation or digital natives
(Prensky, 2001) and their high self-reported comfort level with certain technologies,
college students often lack knowledge of applications used in educational settings. For
example, in her survey of first-year education students. Lei (2009) discovered that
although this demographic was very proficient with easy-to-use technologies, such as
email and social networking sites, they lacked the ability to work with more advanced
technologies, such as wikis, blogs, podcasts, audio files, and videos (p. 91). Further, they
"lacked experiences and expertise in using classroom technologies such as interactive
whiteboards, idea processors, content related technology, and assistive technologies"
(Lei, 2009, p. 91 ). Likewise, many developmental and first-year writing students often
struggle with technology due to poor typing skills (Pavia, 2004), and educators often
report such basic problems as students not knowing how to change fonts or double-space
in a word processing program (T. Maddox, personal communication, Jan. 30, 2010).
Developmental instructors often assert their students lack the skills necessary to succeed
in an online-only course (Maffet, 2007; Stine, 2004). There is little doubt that by the time
students complete technology-based courses, they will know how to perform a few,
16
clearly defined tasks, such as creating and saving files or retrieving and posting files to
online course management platforms. What is not known, however, is whether or not a
lack of technology skills at the beginning of the course will result in student failure rather
than success (Harrington, 2010).
D. Instructor Role
A large majority (92.4%) of teachers indicated that they had never taught online
before the emergency transition, and very few had received any meaningful training from
their school or school district. As one teacher explained, “All of my pedagogical training
assumed that teaching would take place in a face-to-face environment.” Teachers shared
that most of what they learned was from each other and from their own individual
research. This complements the findings of Cavanaugh and DeWeese (2020), who found
that views for online educator support sites for the chat and video platform Microsoft
Teams increased more than sixfold between February and March 2020. Despite their
inexperience and lack of formal training, however, almost half (49%) of teachers
surveyed felt at least somewhat prepared to deliver instruction remotely. Teachers were
asked to rate several aspects of their professional work (including lesson planning,
assessing student learning, engaging with parents, and differentiating instruction) on a
six-point scale, from (1) much more challenging during face-to-face instruction to (6)
much more challenging during remote instruction. Respondents rated all of the job
functions included in the survey to be more challenging remotely. A pair of open-ended
items asked teachers to describe barriers they experienced providing instruction to their
students, as well as barriers to receiving instruction that they believed their students to be
17
experiencing. Overall, teachers responded that they had difficulty providing quality
instruction with an appropriate amount of rigor during the pandemic. They said they
lacked adequate time to do the job well and in some cases lacked access to many of their
pedagogical materials that were still at school. The most common response from teachers
was that they lacked the ability to hold students accountable. Many school systems
changed grading procedures so that students could not earn a lower grade than they had
before the pandemic (Sawchuk, 2020), and while this policy was meant to address
concerns related to equity of access, it also removed an extrinsic motivator for students
who did have the means to complete assignments successfully. A 5th-grade suburban
elementary school teacher wrote: “I cannot hold students accountable for submitting their
work. I cannot give grades . . . I cannot meet with students via video conferencing unless
they request it. . . . I cannot teach anything new.” Another teacher noted that only nine of
her 109 students attended her synchronous Zoom lessons, yet everyone would receive an
A for the course. Limited technology services also made it more difficult for teachers to
provide meaningful feedback and interact directly with their students. Noting that her
school made it possible to provide only asynchronous lessons, an elementary school
teacher from New York pointed out that “Students are not able to ask me direct questions
because my lessons are videotaped and [they] watch them at their convenience.” Several
other teachers shared similar sentiments, noting that the inability to have real-time
interactions hindered their ability to teach. Teachers of music, art, and physical education
faced special challenges. In some cases, they were asked not to assign any homework, so
as “to let students focus on their ‘core’ classes” (English, math, science, and social
18
studies). A teacher from Indiana explained, “It’s very difficult to teach primary (K-2)
students engaging music lessons without being physically together, and they’re missing
the fundamentals of music education.” Several art teachers told us that even when their
students had access to technology, the internet, and other supplies like pencils, they often
lacked the art supplies necessary to participate in the types of instructional activities they
would typically assign. For many teachers, the lack of real-time communication made it
difficult to keep students motivated, especially younger students. An elementary special
education teacher said that “it’s difficult to motivate [my students] online when each is
motivated differently.” An elementary art teacher from Virginia echoed these sentiments,
noting the importance of spending time with students to motivate them to learn: “It is
difficult to communicate with students when we have no classroom time with them.”
Teachers found it especially difficult to meet the needs of English language learners and
students with special needs.
According to Marshall et al. (2020) many teachers noted also that their personal
circumstances made it even more difficult to shift from in-person to online instruction.
Having children at home required teachers to juggle their own work and their children’s
educational and technological needs. Several teachers, particularly those in rural areas,
shared that they did not have reliable internet access at home. Both teachers and students
faced challenges on multiple fronts throughout this volatile period. In many cases,
students had other needs (such as food security) that took priority over school, if they
could access online instruction at all. A 1st-grade teacher from Alabama told us that only
5 of her 20 students were using online instruction, a fact she attributed to a lack of
19
internet access at home. Unfortunately, her experience was not unusual. Indeed, more
than half of the teachers surveyed (57.2%) indicated that at least one-fourth of their
students lacked access to broadband internet outside school. And many students who had
access to the internet had to compete with multiple siblings to use their internet-enabled
devices for schoolwork.
Learning Motivations and Distractions
Several studies were done in order to understand the rationales behind students’
success in distance learning. Student perceptions of a rigorous curriculum, or having clear
definitions of goals and learning outcomes, provide the motivations for success. Studies
also reveal that an instructor should consider different methods than those used in
traditional settings in order to engage students in online learning. Students’ motivation
increases in a class when they have an opportunity to interact with peers, as well as the
instructor, and gain exposure to other perspectives (Duncan, Range, & Hvidston, 2013).
Instructors who actively engage and interact with their students gain their trust and
confidence which further drives their enthusiasm in online learning. Student motivation
rises when students can conceptualize and construct relative knowledge and demonstrate
what they have learned in the set-up. Thus, student motivations towards online learning
are enhanced with clear organization, communication, interaction and presence of the
instructor (Brocato, Bonanno, & Ulbig, 2015).
On the other hand, a high level of frustration arises when a course is organized
poorly and learners spend much of their time searching for necessary information.
Unclear expectations or inconsistent learning goals during the class discussion

20
demotivates students and causes confusion about course objectives (Duncan, Range, &
Hvidston, 2013). Furthermore, real time communication between students and an
instructor is strengthened in an online environment by many features such as text-chat,
application sharing, instant polling, emoticons, and breakout rooms. However, there are
no suggestions for implementing the whole array of functions available in educational
tools in order to make a virtual class engaging for students. When given access to
synchronous communication tools with a variety of functions, students will have the
chance to exploit the array of features, and when technical problems occur, they can
easily go beyond the limits of what an instructor can troubleshoot (Warden, Stanworth,
Ren, & Warden, 2013).
According to the study of Vonderwell and Zachariah (2005) entitled “Factors that
Influence Participation in Online Learning”, findings indicated that online learner
participation and patterns of participation are influenced by the following factors:
technology and interface characteristics, content-area experience, student roles and tasks,
and information overload. Technology, the course interface, the behavior of the group,
and the personas that students may take in an online learning course can influence
participation and learning outcomes. Meticulous construction of online roles and tasks,
and insight into how groups and learning communities change, becomes crucial. It was
stated that the students who were assigned specific roles and responsibilities maintained
online presence throughout the discussions and participated more frequently than the rest
of the class. Student tasks and assessment criteria for the discussion influenced their
participation. Criteria for evaluating and assessing online discussions, the written nature
21
of online discussions, course design and instructor interventions, and learner background
knowledge influence participation.
Moreover, information overload and heavy workload overwhelm the students as
they are time consuming and stressful. Results showed that one third of Group A students
attempted to negotiate with the instructor to decrease the number of the assignments and
discussions (Vonderwell & Zachariah, 2005). Students’ experiences of disorientation and
confusion with the discussion board indicated that interface design may result in
information overload as well as cognitive overload. Following and remembering the
discussion postings, then responding using appropriate writing conventions require
concentration and time in order to entertain online information simultaneously. Hence,
students need to be prepared for technology, learning management, pedagogical practice,
and the social roles required for online learning. Effective online learning requires
interdependence for a shared understanding of learning goals in a learning community.
Monitoring student participation and patterns of participation closely can help instructors
identify student needs and scaffold learning accordingly (Bullen, 1998).
Types of Teachers
A good teacher-student relationship can impact student behaviors positively in the
classroom. The learning environment plays a significant role in developing a student’s
motivation to learn, and positive relationships can help maintain student interest and
active engagement in learning (Maulana et al., 2013, as cited in Varga, 2017). A good
relationship with teachers allows the students to pay more attention to the class-
22
participate and cooperate more and becomes more committed to comply to the necessary
activities, performance tasks, and assignments that the teachers requires them to submit.
Great personality, attitude, and good characteristic makes an effective teacher,
and an effective teacher is able to properly form a relationship with students which bridge
ignorance to compliance among the students. Orlando enumerated nine characteristics,
attitudes and personalities (2013) that fits an effective teacher: (1) Respects students.
Students will feel safe to express their feelings and learn to respect and listen to others. A
teacher who respects students creates a welcoming learning environment for all students;
(2) Creates a sense of community and belonging in the classroom. In this teacher’s
classroom, mutual respect fosters a welcoming, collaborative atmosphere. There are rules
to follow and jobs to complete in this small community, and each student knows that he
or she is a significant, integral part of the group. An effective teacher tells students that
they can rely on not only her, but the entire class as well; (3) Warm, accessible,
enthusiastic and caring. This is a kind of person that is approachable to everyone on
campus, not just students. This is the teacher to whom students know they can go with
any problems or questions, or even to tell a joke. Effective teachers are good listeners
who take time out of their already full schedules to support those who need it. No one
knows if this teacher is having a rough day because he or she leaves personal belongings
outside the school doors; (4) Sets high expectations for all students, This teacher
recognizes that her standards for her students have a direct effect on their performance;
she understands that students usually give teachers as much or as little as is required of
them; (5) Has his own love of learning and inspires students with his passion for
education and for the course material. On his mission to provide students with the best
23
education possible, he continually renews himself as a professional. This teacher seems to
have no aversion to learning new teaching techniques or integrating new technology into
classes, and he is often the first to share what he has learned with his colleagues; (6)
Skilled leader. Effective teachers, unlike administrative leaders, put an emphasis on joint
decision-making and collaboration, as well as community building. This teacher instills
in his students a sense of leadership by allowing them to take on leadership positions; (7)
Can “shift-gears” and is flexible when a lesson isn’t working. This teacher reviews his
teaching during the lesson and comes up with new ways to introduce material so that
every student grasps the essential concepts; (8) Collaborates with colleagues on an
ongoing basis. Rather than seeing herself as incompetent for seeking advice or assistance,
this teacher sees cooperation as an opportunity to learn from a colleague. A great teacher
embraces constructive feedback and advice as a way to improve as a teacher; (9)
Maintains professionalism in all areas—from personal appearance to organizational skills
and preparedness for each day. If she’s dealing with an executive, a pupil, or a colleague,
her communication skills are exceptional. Those in her immediate vicinity can see her
with respect and admiration for her professionalism.
Teachers make a difference in student learning, decades of research made it clear
(McKnight, Graybel, Yarbro, & Graybel, 2016). In fact, the difference from a good and a
bad teacher can be a full level of achievement in a single school year. Given the
significance of these findings, countries all over the world have realized that in order to
enhance educational quality and equity, they must concentrate on teacher effectiveness
(Hanushek, 1992, as cited in McKnight et al., 2016). Effective teachers have an impact to
every student. Brook (2021) noted that this impact involves not only on the teaching of
24
specific academic skills, but also on the growth of student’s self-esteem. Self-esteem
reinforcement in the classroom has been linked to improved motivation and learning as
well as improved participation and compliance of the students.
In contrast, research shows that students are least likely to cooperate nor comply
to teachers that they hate or they find incompetent which severs a possible good teacher-
student relationship. The defects of a teacher-student relationship and a failure to
cooperate may cause teacher-student conflicts. There are lots of cases that made the
students hate their teachers “such as personality traits of students and teachers in the
educational organizations, differences between their values, beliefs and attitudes,
crowded classes, lack of quality educational teach-in processes, misunderstanding of the
communication process, inadequate tools and equipments and sharing of limited
resources which cause conflict to be experienced, in class or school level” (Argon, 2009,
as cited in Özgan, 2015).
Recent survey shows why students hate teachers, and the findings about the
complaints about teachers fall along a few common tracks. Common answers gathered by
Rottmann (2014) from the respondents are: (1) Egocentrism- The student thinks the
teacher's lecturing style as self-centered. (2) Gives low grades and get mad at students for
getting bad grades. (3) Teachers teach something really boring/The class is exciting but
the teacher teach in a really boring way. (4) The Teacher is incompetent. (5) The teacher
does not interact with students. (6) Plays favoritism. Students hate it that some teachers
have favorites who receive special treatment which makes the class unfair.
Whether true or not, the most important thing for teachers to do is to resolve these issues
correctly and efficiently without jeopardizing relationships, sacrificing student

25
cooperation, or disrupting the instructional process. The primary goal of teaching is to
win and keep students’ cooperation. The school or individual classroom cannot work
without this cooperation (Cothran & Ennis, 1997, as cited in Özgan, 2015), and when
students cooperates, they comply and participate in classes.
On top of those, ability grouping is considered a factor when switching to
teachers’ point of view. Ability grouping is the practice of dividing students for
instruction on the basis of their perceived capacities for learning. It is the practice of
placing students of similar academic level within the same group for instruction (Adodo
& Agbayewa, 2011). Teachers believe that the practice of ability grouping is
indispensable and allows them to manage the variances of ability and achievement in
their classrooms (Ansalone, 2010; Lewis, 2019). Ansalone (2010) asserted that teachers
support ability grouping because it provides the chance to enrich or remediate the
curriculum based on the ability of the group. Park and Datnow (2017) found in their
study of 27 teachers, principals, and other key personnel that teachers find it to be more
effective because it minimizes the diverse range of abilities within a classroom.
According to Lewis (2019) Teachers prefer to work in a homogeneous group or be part of
a homogeneous classroom because they see an educational advantage and students feel
more comfortable working with peers of similar ability. Similarly, in a study by Collins
and Gan (2013), they found that high- and low-achieving students do better academically
when homogeneously grouped versus when heterogeneously grouped.
Digital Teaching Approaches

26
Communication is an imperative part of any educational endeavor. Students need
to collaborate and participate with their instructor and their peers in order to be successful
in an academic course (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009). One of the primary and
essential features of an online set-up is the absence of a physical environment, which
would more naturally encourage more online communication. An online course provides
students with unique opportunities for building communities, in which students can ask
questions, challenge each other and also construct new knowledge (Bryant & Bates,
2015), which is imperative for a constructivist approach to learning.
Thus, the course instructor is responsible for determining the collaborative tools
that can be used as an effective teaching method suitable for distance learning. In this
section of the literature review, distinct challenges to determining the best teaching
approaches in an online course are discussed, and possible solutions are explored.
Online teaching can occur synchronously or asynchronously. Synchronous
communication is taking place in real time, as would be found in a traditional, face-to-
face classroom. Methods of accomplishing similar communication in an online course
would require videoconferencing or virtual sessions. In contrast, asynchronous
communication happens when there is a time delay between initiated communication and
subsequent responses between an instructor and students or between students themselves
(Knott, 2020). Generally, both synchronous and asynchronous activities allow students to
exchange ideas with other students and with the instructor, which is why better
understanding of the barriers every student faces specifically related to communication
and collaboration is significant.

27
A. Synchronous
When given access to synchronous learning, many features are offered with a
variety of functions. One of these is videoconferencing, which can be successful as it
provides a platform for students and instructors to communicate with body language and
nonverbal communication cues in addition to words and other traditional teaching
techniques such as demonstrations, screen sharing, and presentations online (Wang &
Reeves, 2007).
Although learners are knowledgeable enough in watching videos on demand and
playing immersive video games, they lack experience in formal synchronous learning set-
ups (Warden, 2013). Thus, care must be employed because students easily become
distracted or confused in a virtual environment. Instructor intervention is desired to offer
students with technical support or instructions on receiving support elsewhere. Instructors
and students benefit from understanding what to do if audio or video are not working
properly (Martin, Parker, & Allred, 2013). While technical issues are linked to a greater
extent with synchronous learning because of bandwidth requirements and frequent poor
audio quality, additional tools can be used, like instant messaging and instructional power
point presentations, to maintain student focus, encourage collaboration, and allow for
alternative means of communication (Warden, 2013).
B. Asynchronous
Participation in discussion boards, blogs, and learners’ materials is associated
with a huge variety of cognitive and social activities (Gao, Zhang, & Franklin, 2013).
Therefore, most online courses utilize asynchronous communication tools. Meaningful
participation in a learning environment requires students to comprehend and ensue to

28
build knowledge and understanding, critique ideas, construct knowledge, and share.
When any of these components are missing, students are restricted in sharing their ideas,
and this environment can quickly become superficial. The purpose of asynchronous
learning is to promote peer interaction and collaboration and enable the sharing of ideas
and expertise among a group of learners. Producing online communities where learners
work together to accomplish common academic goals and work towards the course
objectives is the purpose of online teaching (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006).
Additionally, numerous tools are needed to keep students motivated in
collaboration with other students. When using collaborative tools as a form of
measurement of participation, one tool can likely be too limiting. Most students currently
use social networking sites for fun or consumption purposes, not for engaging in
communal learning behavior with other students Therefore, instructors should create a
space and activities for students to elaborate, evaluate and create content through any
communication tool being utilized (Gao, Zhang, & Franklin, 2013).

Chapter 3
Methodology
Chapter Three includes five parts: Purpose of the Study and Research Design,
Respondents, Instrument, Data Collection, and Data Analysis.
Part One, Purpose of the Study and Research Design, presents the rationales on
why and how the study is conducted.
Part Two, Respondents, presents the participants of the study and how they were
selected.
Part Three, Instrument, describes the number of items and structure of questions.
Part Four, Data Collection, presents procedures or steps in gathering the essential
data for the study.
Part Five, Data Analysis, describes the method used to analyze and interpret the
obtained data in the study.
Purpose of the Study and Research Design
This study aimed to quantify the information obtained from JBLFMU-A
SHS instructors regarding their level of satisfaction towards student engagement in
distance learning.
Specifically, this study aims to answer the following questions:
student engagement?
student engagement categorized by:

30
a. Homogeneous sectioning?
b. Heterogeneous sectioning?
3. Is there a significant difference in the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors’ level of
satisfaction between the homogeneous and heterogeneous sections towards
student engagement?
This research study is a descriptive research design that utilizes a quantitative
approach in order to determine the level of satisfaction of JBLFMU-A SHS instructors
towards student engagement amidst the pandemic. To specify, a cross-sectional survey
method conducted online is used in order to collect data from the respondents. A cross-
sectional survey method allows the researchers to collect data to make meaningful
conclusions about a population of interest at one point in time (Lavrakas, 2008). This
methodology is ideal for the study as the study mainly aims to determine the satisfactory
level of the instructors towards student engagement only during the first semester of
academic year 2020-2021.
Respondents
The respondents of this study are the 16 senior high school instructors of John B.
Lacson Foundation Maritime University – Arevalo who were teaching in both
homogeneous and heterogeneous sections of the first semester of A.Y. 2020-2021.
Instrument
Data will be collected using a questionnaire that utilizes a Likert Scale. The
questionnaire will contain statements related to student engagement.

31
The questionnaire is divided into two classifications and each classification is
divided into two groups. There are 10 statements for each classification thus, totaling to
twenty (20) statements overall. Each classification has three main columns; the statement
and the groups namely: Homogeneous Sections and Heterogeneous Sections, and under
each group will have five sub columns with the numbers 1 to 4.
Respondents will put a check on the boxes below the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 for
every statement with 4 being strongly agree, 3 agree, 2 being disagree, and 1 being
strongly disagree. The data is then gathered and tallied for statistical computations.
Data Collection
The questionnaire will be converted to a Google Form for easy dissemination in a
distanced set-up. The questionnaire link from Google Forms is managed by the
researchers. Upon the permission of the respondents, the researchers will give them the
link to obtain their responses. The researchers will then cross-examine their responses
about student engagement related situations. The respondents are assisted and given
proper directions and instructions as to how the survey will be answered. They are also
assured that their responses will remain undisclosed.
The reclamation and conclusion of their survey is analyzed and interpreted for
wrapping up the data. The study will not go further into studying the personal lives of the
respondents and other things unrelated.

32
Data Analysis
After surveying the respondents, their responses are gathered and tallied
thoroughly for the collection of data. Data are put into respective tables for each
statistical tool. Statistical tools that were used for Descriptive Data Analysis were: Mean,
Standard Deviation. Meanwhile, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) is
used for Inferential Data Analysis. The data are tested for the significant difference
between the two groups using the Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks test. The data gathered were
analyzed and interpreted by the researchers with the help of a statistician for the
conclusion of the study.

Chapter 4
Results
Chapter 4 presents the Descriptive Data Analysis and Inferential Data Analysis.
Part One, Descriptive Data Analysis, describes the results of the study using the
sample size, mean, and standard deviation.
Part Two, Inferential Data Analysis, tests if there is a significant difference
between two groups of variables.
Descriptive Data Analysis
Table 1 presents the scale used to determine the level of satisfaction of the
respondents. The scale used the numbers 1.00 – 1.50 to describe unsatisfied, 1.51 – 2.50
to describe slightly satisfied, 2.51 – 3.50 to describe moderately satisfied, and 3.51 – 4.00
to describe extremely satisfied.
Table 1
Scale used to determine result description.
Scale Description
3.51 – 4.00 Extremely Satisfied
2.51 – 3.50 Moderately Satisfied
1.51 – 2.50 Slightly Satisfied
1.00 – 1.50 Unsatisfied

Table 2 shows the level of satisfaction of the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors towards
student engagement with the mean (µ), standard deviation (σ), and its corresponding
description. Results showed that the respondents are moderately satisfied with the
homogeneous sections (µ = 3.17, σ = 0.65), slightly satisfied with the heterogeneous
sections (µ = 2.44, σ = 0.35), and moderately satisfied with the entire group (µ = 2.80,
σ = 0.63).
Table 2
Level of Satisfaction of the JBLFMU-A SHS Instructors towards Student Engagement
n µ σ Description
Homogeneous sections 16 3.17 0.65 Moderately Satisfied
Heterogeneous sections 16 2.44 0.35 Slightly Satisfied
Entire Group 16 2.80 0.63 Moderately Satisfied
Inferential Data Analysis
Using Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks test, the researchers found out that there is a
significant difference in the JBLFMU-A instructors’ level of satisfaction between the
homogeneous and heterogeneous sections towards student engagement, Z = -3.042 and p
= 0.002. This means that the instructors are significantly more satisfied with the student
engagement of those in the homogeneous sections.

Table 3
Difference in the JBLFMU-A SHS Instructors’ Level of Satisfaction towards Student
Engagement between Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Sections.
Z p
Level of Satisfaction towards Student Engagement -3.042* 0.002
*p < 0.05, significant
This result is supported when Lewis (2019) concluded that teachers prefer to work
in a homogeneous group or be part of a homogeneous classroom because they see an
educational advantage and students feel more comfortable working with peers of similar
ability. Park and Datnow (2017) also approves when they found out in their study of 27
teachers, principals, and other key personnel that teachers find it to be more effective
because it minimizes the diverse range of abilities within a classroom.
Lastly, in a study by Collins and Gan (2013), they found that high- and low-
achieving students do better academically when homogeneously grouped versus when
heterogeneously grouped.
Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Chapter Five includes the Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the
study.
Part One, Summary, itemizes the answers to the specific questions.
Part Two, Conclusions, presents the general concept or result of the study.
Part Three, Recommendations, enumerates the things to be done for future
improvement of the study.
Summary
Based on the results of the study, the following summary was formulated:
1. The level of satisfaction of the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors towards student
engagement is 2.80.
2. The level of satisfaction of the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors toward student
engagement categorized by:
a. Homogeneous sectioning is 3.17.
b. Heterogeneous sectioning is 2.44.
3. The results of the Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks test revealed that there is a
significant difference in the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors’ level of satisfaction
between the homogeneous and heterogeneous sections towards student
engagement as p = 0.002 and 0.002 < 0.05.

37
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. In general, the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors are moderately satisfied towards
student engagement of the entire group.
2. The JBLFMU-A SHS instructors are moderately satisfied towards the
homogeneous sections’ student engagement. Meanwhile, they are slightly
satisfied towards the heterogeneous sections’ student engagement.
3. Based on the results of the Wilcoxon-Signed Ranks test, the JBLFMU-A
instructors are significantly more satisfied with the student engagement of
those in the homogeneous sections than those in the heterogeneous sections.
Recommendations
The researchers further recommend that:
1. Future researchers should expand the study to a full academic year instead of
only a semester to provide more conclusive results.
2. Future researchers should add more situations and scenarios in the instrument
to further strengthen the credibility of the results.
3. Future researchers should expand the study concerning the significant
difference between the difficulties of different subject areas.

38

Level of Satisfaction of JBLFMU-A (SHS) Instructors Towards Student Engagement in Distance Learning

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

Level of Satisfaction of JBLFMU-A (SHS) Instructors Towards Student Engagement in Distance Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOHN B. LACSON FOUNDATION MARITIME UNIVERSITY (AREVALO), INC.

Sto. Niño Sur, Arevalo, Iloilo City

Level of Satisfaction of JBLFMU-A (SHS) Instructors towards

Student Engagement in Distance Learning

Introduction to the Study

the study and discusses the rationale of selecting the problem.

specific questions of the study attempts to resolve.

definitions of the important terms used in the study.

Background of the Study

the demand for social distancing as a way of preventing community transmission,

systems instead (Rashid and Yadav, 2020).

Magsambol (2020) defines distance learning as a modality where education takes

Online Distance Learning, and Television/Radio-Based Instruction in which each can be

conducted in either synchronous or asynchronous learning.

affecting the success of this type of learning.

Meanwhile, in an asynchronous set-up, even though it has a more learner-centered

discipline and focus to be successful (Lawless, 2020). In addition, achieving self-

participation is also influenced by factors such as technology and interface

characteristics, content-area experience, student roles and tasks, and information

Although it may seem settled, it is possible that factors such as procrastination,

incompetence that will then be disguised as ad misericordiams such as sudden brown

outs, lack of data, or medical emergencies.

school instructors of John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University – Arevalo as one

way of determining if the mentioned factors affect student engagement in distance

learning and translate it using a quantitative method.

Statement of the Problem

Generally, this study seeks to quantify the information to be obtained from

JBLFMU-A SHS instructors regarding their level of satisfaction towards student

engagement in distance learning.

Specifically, this study aims to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of satisfaction of the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors towards

2. What is the level of satisfaction of the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors towards

student engagement categorized by:

3. Is there a significant difference in the JBLFMU-A SHS instructors’ level of

satisfaction between the homogeneous and heterogeneous sections towards

Paradigm of the Study

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Significance of the Study

COVID-19 changed the educational system of JBLFMU-A through the utilization

Moreover, this study will greatly benefit the following:

their students are either performing good or bad.

them to improve how they perform in online classes.

apply necessary programs in order to improve the performance of their students.

keep an eye on their children for them to improve.

valuable insights from the results to be obtained from the study.

Distance learning--refers to a formalized teaching and learning system

specifically designed to be carried out remotely using electronic communication

being used by JBLFMU-A in conducting classes.

Instructors--refer to a person or people whose occupation is teaching

In this study, “instructors” refer to the teachers currently working at JBLFMU-A

in the SHS department.

Level of satisfaction--refers to the perceived level of pleasure and contentment

derived from individual performance (Brown et al., 2000).

In this study, “level of satisfaction” refers to the quantitative results of the

collective feedback of JBLFMU-A SHS instructors to be obtained through survey.

Student Engagement--refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest,

(Glossary of Education Reform, 2016).

Students--refer to a person studying at a school, college, or university (Cambridge

University Press, 2021).

studying at JBLFMU-A during the first semester of A.Y. 2020-2021.

Delimitation of the Study

instructors regarding student engagement in a remote learning setting. Specifically, a

during the first semester of A.Y. 2020-2021.