CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

RATIONALE

Students learn math best when they approach the subject as something they enjoy.

Speed pressure, timed testing and blind memorization pose high hurdles in the pursuit of

math, according to Jo Boaler, professor of mathematics education at Stanford Graduate

School of Education and lead author on a new working paper called "Fluency without

Fear."

"There is a common and damaging misconception in mathematics – the idea that

strong math students are fast math students," said Boaler, also cofounder of YouCubed at

Stanford, which aims to inspire and empower math educators by making accessible in the

most practical way the latest research on math learning.

Despite having multiple recognized benefits in the workplace, school and

everyday life, mathematics is an academic subject that has a bad reputation for being

pointless, dull, and difficult. Mumcu and Aktas (2015) assert that among the many

mathematical issues the negative perceptions of mathematics are one of the main issues

in education around the world. Studies show that a disproportionate number of students

have a negative attitude towards mathematics, in general, and specifically in their ability

to be successful in mathematics courses (Ahmad, Shafie, & Janier, 2008; Elçi, 2017;

Mumcu & Aktas, 2015; Yasar, 2016; Yushau, 2006). When students perceive that

mathematics is a difficult subject and exhibit concern about their ability to be successful
1
in mathematics, their attitudes toward mathematics are adversely affected and said

students tend to lose self-confidence as it relates to in Mathematics, Thus, negative

attitudes toward mathematics typically translate to poor mathematical achievement

(Ahmad et al., 2008; Elci,2017; Hoffman, 2010; Mumcu & Aktas, 2015; Williams &

Williams, 2015; Yasar,2016; Yushau, 2006).

On the other hand, online media can provide multiple benefits for both staff and

students in supporting students’ learning experiences particularly for isolated students

(Graham & Misanchuk, 2004; Jaques & Salmon, 2007; Salmon, 2011, 2014). Despite

student acknowledgement of the benefits in supporting their learning through the

technology, a difficulty arises through the limits around the technical capability of the

software particularly in terms of its functionality. As revealed through student feedback

and experience from numerous online classes over several years, this can often be a

source of frustration for students and facilitators/staff as it can make normally simple

tasks such as viewing a video increasingly complex. Additionally, when completing

assessments, such as group presentations online, the comparatively limited ability to

interact face-to-face and draw upon non-verbal cues and body language of the audience

can be an inhibiting factor. Even so, the importance of being able to engage your

viewers/listeners/colleagues using an online, sometimes not visual (e.g., teleconference)

format is an increasingly important skill in the modern workplace and emphasises the

importance of clear, concise, and focused communication skills (Salmon, 2011, 2014).

The accessibility and ease of access of the online medium tends to make it an easier

platform for a group assignment than providing limited or no focused support. Some of

the ways that these barriers can be reduced involve regular emails (weekly from pre-

2
semester), drop-in sessions, step-by-step instructions for how to access and use each of

the platforms and technologies, overviews of how sessions will be run, expectations,

ability to access information and sessions at other times, reminders for what should be

prepared for each week, interactive schedules through the LMS, user-friendly layout in

LMS, and opportunities for consultation (online, off-line and via email). For this reason,

a number of strategies (such as those outlined above) can be incorporated that require

little facilitator expertise and competency but can have significant effects on supporting

students and their learning outcomes in the online space (Jacques & Salmon, 2007;

Salmon, 2011, 2014)

Moreover, previous studies have suggested that blended learning, an instructional

learning approach with face-to-face classroom instruction and self-paced, online

instruction, can potentially improve both learners’ mathematics attitudes and achievement

(Ahmad et al., 2008; Galia, 2016; Lin et al., 2017; Smith, J., & Suzuki, 2015; Yudt &

Columba, 2017; Yushau, 2006). In terms of the challenges on the use of blended learning

(Albiladi & Alshareef, 2019; Bataineh & Mayyas, 2017; Crawford & Jenkins, 2017;

Medina, 2018; Shand & Farrelly, 2018), studies have shown that not all faculty members

are inclined towards blended-based instruction (Benson et al., 2011). Some still

considered the use of ICT as “time-consuming” (Benson et al., 2011, p.148). As such, the

use of technology tools should best meet the needs of the learners while ensuring the

appropriateness of right blended learning nature of the course (e.g., Bralić & Divjak,

2018; Chaeruman, Wibawa, & Syahrial, 2018; Greller, Santally, Boojhawon, Rajabalee

& Kevin, 2017; Lee, Lim, & Kim, 2017). However, these lack of technological

capabilities of some faculty members (e.g., Bowyer & Chambers, 2017; Krasnova &

3
Shurygin, 2019; Ma'arop & Embi, 2016) affect students’ way of discovering learning.

Hence, it also results to some academicians having adverse attitude towards blended-

based approach.

These challenges presented by Aldosemani et al. (2018) are also observable in

developing countries like the Philippines. Dotong, De Castro, Dolot and Prenda (2016)

illustrated some limitations of ICT integration like shortage of ICT facilities, poor

maintenance of available or existing ICT resources, lack of ICT budget (e.g., Lorenzo,

2016; Tomaro, 2018; Vergel de Dios, 2016). In fact, there are still areas in the

Philippines, particularly in rural areas, where reliable supply of electricity and internet are

miles away to achieve. Thus, it inhibits and affects the capability of teachers to become

skillful on the use of ICT in blending with teaching and learning.

The researchers aim to pursue on discovering how blended learning with limited

face-to-face classroom instruction and self-paced modular learning aid in improving

junior high school students' academic performance towards of Math subject.

4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Holmberg’s Theory of Distance Education

Distance education is a concept that covers the learning-teaching activities in the

cognitive and/or psycho-motor and affective domains of an individual learner and a

supporting organization. It is characterized by non-contiguous communication and can be

carried out anywhere and at any time, which makes it attractive to adults with

professional and social commitments (Holmberg, 1989, p. 168).

Blended Learning Systems Combine Face-to-Face Instruction with computer-

mediated instruction by Graham (2006)

Graham (2006) identifies and categories three of the more prevalent definitions of

blended learning currently used in the literature. First, one can blend instructional

modalities or delivery media, such as using different technologies and activities (Bersin,

2004). Second, one can combine different instructional methods (Driscoll, 2002b;

Rossett, Douglis, & Frazee, 2003). As Driscoll (2002b) stated, one “can combine various

pedagogical approaches (e.g., constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism) to produce an

optimal learning outcome with or without instructional technology.” Third, blended

learning also commonly means a combination of online and face-to-face instruction

(Bonk & Graham, 2006; Rooney, 2003). According to Graham (2006), this third

perspective more precisely mirrors the historical background of the emergence of blended

learning systems

5
 Students’ Perception on Blended Learning
towards Math Subject

Blended Learning Systems

Distance Learning Combine Face-To-Face
Theory Instruction with Computer-
Mediated Instruction
(Holmberg,1989)
(Graham,2006)

38 Junior High School Students

1.1 Age 2.1 Teaching assistance

2.2 Feedback for learning
1.2 Sex
Events
1.3 Gadget
2.3 Technical support
available for learning 2.4 Learning Assistance

Math Enhancement Avenue

Figure 1. The Theoretical Framework of the Study

6
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This idea aimed to assess the academic performance towards math subject of the

junior high school students of Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. during blended learning

and modular learning of S.Y. 2022-2023. Specifically it sought to answer the following

questions:

1. Personal information of the following:

1.1. Age;

1.2. Sex;

1.3. Gadget available for learning.

2. The following perception of students’ to support to assess their improvements

towards Math subject:

2.1 Teaching assistance;

2.2 Feedback for learning events;

2.3 Technical support;

2.4 Learning Assistance.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The results of this study may provide better understanding on how Cebu Sacred

Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus could improve the overall performance of the delivery

7
of blended learning based on the responses of junior high school students. Furthermore, it

will be a great benefit to the following:

To Students, the findings of the study could enhance student’s awareness in performing

their academic duties and responsibilities or obligation as a student.

To Teachers, this study will help them improve their teaching strategies and implicate

their skills in teaching.

To Administrators, the result may help them in making appropriate measures in terms of

enhancing teacher’s performance.

To Future Researchers, this study will help them to be a better analyst and can be a help

as future preference in their future research.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The study covers on selected students (12 students from grade 8, 17 students from

grade 9, and 9 students from grade 10,) in Cebu Sacred Heart Inc. Carcar Campus for

S.Y. 2022-2023. The study will focus on the relationship between student’s learning and

teacher’s performance teaching towards Math subject. The respondents are the students

from grades 8, 9 and 10 that excludes the transfer students that has not experienced the

modalities of Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.-Carcar Campus from S.Y 2021-2022.

8
DEFINITION OF TERMS

For better understanding of this study, the following terms are operationally defined:

Online Learning- Refers to instruction that is delivered electronically through various

multimedia and internet platforms and applications.

Face-to-Face Learning- This is where the teacher and the student meet in a set place for

a set time, for either one-on-one learning or most commonly, in group class lessons

similar to what happens in school.

Perception- The view or interpretation of an individual about something or someone.

Modality- the method of student participation in instruction: Inperson, remote, or hybrid.

Learning – process of acquiring new knowledge, behaviour, skills, values and

preference.

Teacher - a person who helps students to a acquire knowledge, competence or virtue.

Performance - refers to the capability of the teacher in performing his/her lessons.

Teacher Efficacy - is when a teacher believes in their own ability to guide their students

to success.

Subject - Knowledge -is the actual knowledge teachers are expected to teach.

Intervention - is a combination of program elements or strategies designed to produce

behaviour changes or improve health status among individuals or an entire population.

9
Blended Learning- a style of education in which students learn via electronic and online

media as well as traditional face-to-face teaching.

Phenomenon - a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one

whose cause or explanation

Indispensable - absolutely necessary, essential, or requisite.

Disproportionate - too large or too small in comparison with something else.

Alternative - (of one or more things) available as another possibility.

Institution - a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or

similar purpose.

Assert - state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

Exclusive - excluding or not admitting other things.

Perceive- become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.

10
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES

This section presents the literature, readings and articles that have bearing

on the present study as taken from books, journal articles, magazines and the

Internet. As most of us around the world have done the majority of our learning in

person and in classrooms, we usually refer to the combination of in-person and

online teaching as a special form of learning called “blended.” As the technology

and modern teaching advances, we expect this form will become the standard, and

we will drop the term “blended learning” altogether.

This review presents research about blended learning effectiveness from

the perspective of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning

outcomes. It also gives the factors that are considered to be significant for blended

learning effectiveness. This evaluates the extent of an e-learning system usage and

the educational effectiveness. In addition, studies by Leidner, Jarvenpaa, Dillon

and Gunawardena as cited in Selim (2007) have noted three main factors that

affect e-learning and blended learning effectiveness as instructor characteristics,

technology and student characteristics. Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino

(2001) showed the need for examining learner characteristics for effective

instructional technology use and showed that user characteristics do impact on

behavioral intention to use technology. Research has dealt with learner

characteristics that contribute to learner performance outcomes. They have dealt

with emotional intelligence, resilience, personality type and success in an online

11
learning context (Berenson, Boyles, & Weaver, 2008). Dealing with the

characteristics identified in this study will give another dimension, especially for

blended learning in learning environment designs and add to specific debate on

learning using technology. Lin and Vassar, (2009) indicated that learner success is

dependent on ability to cope with technical difficulty as well as technical skills in

computer operations and internet navigation. This justifies our approach in

dealing with the design features of blended learning in this study.

Studies indicate that student characteristics such as gender play significant

roles in academic achievement (Oxford Group, 2013), but no study examines

performance of male and female as an important factor in blended learning

effectiveness. It has again been noted that the success of e- and blended learning

is highly dependent on experience in internet and computer applications (Picciano

& Seaman, 2007). Rigorous discovery of such competences can finally lead to a

confirmation of high possibilities of establishing blended learning. Research

agrees that the success of e-learning and blended learning can largely depend on

students as well as teachers gaining confidence and capability to participate in

blended learning (Hadad, 2007). Shraim and Khlaif (2010) note in their research

that 75% of students and 72% of teachers were lacking in skills to utilize ICT

based learning components due to insufficient skills and experience in computer

and internet applications and this may lead to failure in e-learning and blended

learning. It is therefore pertinent that since the use of blended learning applies

high usage of computers, computer competence is necessary (Abubakar &

Adetimirin, 2015) to avoid failure in applying technology in education for

12
learning effectiveness. Rovai, (2003) noted that learners’ computer literacy and

time management are crucial in distance learning contexts and concluded that

such factors are meaningful in online classes. This is supported by Selim (2007)

that learners need to posses time management skills and computer skills necessary

for effectiveness in e- learning and blended learning. Self-regulatory skills of time

management lead to better performance and learners’ ability to structure the

physical learning environment leads to efficiency in e-learning and blended

learning environments. Learners need to seek helpful assistance from peers and

teachers through chats, email and face-to-face meetings for effectiveness (Lynch

& Dembo, 2004). Factors such as learners’ hours of employment and family

responsibilities are known to impede learners’ process of learning, blended

learning inclusive (Cohen, Stage, Hammack, & Marcus, 2012). It was also noted

that a common factor in failure and learner drop-out is the time conflict which is

compounded by issues of family, employment status as well as management

support (Packham, Jones, Miller, & Thomas, 2004). A study by Thompson (2004)

shows that work, family, insufficient time and study load made learners withdraw

from online courses.

The design features under study here include interactions, technology with

its quality, face-to-face support and learning management system tools and

resources. Research shows that absence of learner interaction causes failure and

eventual drop-out in online courses (Willging & Johnson, 2009) and the lack of

learner connectedness was noted as an internal factor leading to learner drop-out

in online courses (Zielinski, 2000). It was also noted that learners may not

13
continue in e- and blended learning if they are unable to make friends thereby

being disconnected and developing feelings of isolation during their blended

learning experiences (Willging & Johnson, 2009). Learners’ Interactions with

teachers and peers can make blended learning effective as its absence makes

learners withdraw (Astleitner, 2000). Loukis, Georgious and Pazalo (2007) noted

that learners’ measuring of a system’s quality, reliability and ease of use leads to

learning efficiency and can be so in blended learning. Learner success in blended

learning may substantially be affected by system functionality (Pituch & Lee,

2006) and may lead to failure of such learning initiatives (Shrain, 2012). It is

therefore important to examine technology quality for ensuring learning

effectiveness in blended learning. Tselios, Daskalakis, and Papadopoulou (2011)

investigated learner perceptions after a learning management system use and

found out that the actual system use determines the usefulness among users. It is

again noted that a system with poor response time cannot be taken to be useful for

e-learning and blended learning especially in cases of limited bandwidth

(Anderson, 2004). In this study, we investigate the use of Moodle and its tools as

a function of potential effectiveness of blended learning.

The quality of learning management system content for learners can be a

predictor of good performance in e-and blended learning environments and can

lead to learner satisfaction. On the whole, poor quality technology yields no

satisfaction by users and therefore the quality of technology significantly affects

satisfaction (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001). Continued navigation through a

learning management system increases use and is an indicator of success in

14
blended learning (Delone & McLean, 2003). The efficient use of learning

management system and its tools improves learning outcomes in e-learning and

blended learning environments. The quality of learning management system

content for learners can be a predictor of good performance in e-and blended

learning environments and can lead to learner satisfaction. On the whole, poor

quality technology yields no satisfaction by users and therefore the quality of

technology significantly affects satisfaction (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001.

BENEFITS OF BLENDED LEARNING

A study conducted in Saudi revealed that majority of the faculty members

have understood their roles in blended-based environment (Aldosemani, Shepherd

& Bolliger, 2018). it was found out that blended learning mitigates the delivery of

teaching and learning access regardless of time and space (Aldosemani et al.,

2018). Findings revealed a positive perception of academic staff towards the

affordability that blended learning can bring in teaching and learning context. It

emphasizes the view of blended learning as it delivers access to course materials

regardless of time and space. It indicates significant valuation of personal space

and convenience in accessing learning resources. Relating the abovementioned

report of Aldosemani et al. (2018), it claims that ICT is not confined to its

functions of delivering high quality data, but it also offers a platform for using

variety of instructional tools that is significant for distance learning, such as in the

case of blended-based approach (Rivera, 2017; Smith & Hill, 2018; Vaughan,

Reali, Stenbom, Van Vuuren, & MacDonald, 2017). This also explains that the

capability of blended-based instruction to access wide array of course materials

15
contributes to increase learners’ rates of information retention (Wang, Shen,

Novak & Pan, 2009) beyond the four corners of classroom. Moreover, the use of

blended-based instruction allows more engagement, and it increases students’

participation (Baragash & Al-Samarraie, 2018; Bowyer & Chambers, 2017;

Morton, Saleh, Smith, Hemani, Ameen, Bennie, & Toro-Troconis, 2016; Palmer,

Lomer, & Bashliyska, 2017). In a case study presented by Benson, Anderson and

Ooms (2011), it was revealed that majority of the participants had reported an

appreciation to the utilization of ICT-based instruction using blended learning

approach. Arguably, despite some degree of concerns on the use of web-based

instruction, such as timeconsuming, more rigorous in teaching-learning

preparations, and not all faculty members are inclined towards blended-based

instruction, most of the academic staff have acknowledged its positive benefits in

integrating with physical teaching approach. Gedik, Kiraz and Ozden (2013)

discuss that the use of blended-based instruction allows more engagement, and it

increases students’ participation. Relating this to the study conducted by Benson

et al. (2011), it suggests effectiveness using a combination of face-to-face and

online teaching approach. As such, it provides sense of flexibility for better

classroom participation. However, I would like to stress the idea of replicating the

study to other higher educational institutions since it was concentrated to a

specific institution where convenience of the three researchers took into

consideration. Additionally, the concept of blended learning has been described as

hybrid instructional approach that delivers positive opportunities for students’

learning (Jokinen & Mikkonen, 2013). Results pointed out that collaborative

16
planning, as described by most teachers, provide opportunities to enhance and to

develop teachers’ instruction in a blended learning environment. This helps

teachers to ensure alignment of learning objectives with learning contents and

activities; hence, it tends to be more holistic by integrating the instructional

activities into wider teaching approach than of several smaller learning tasks. This

explains that in the context of blended-based teaching, both components are

intertwined. It differentiates and provides personalization towards attaining

intended learning outcome (Arnesen, Graham, Short, & Archibald, 2019; Challob,

Bakar, & Latif, 2016; Ward, 2016).

CHALLENGES OF BLENDED LEARNING

In terms of the challenges on the use of blended learning (Albiladi &

Alshareef, 2019; Bataineh & Mayyas, 2017; Crawford & Jenkins, 2017; Medina,

2018; Shand & Farrelly, 2018), studies have shown that not all faculty members

are inclined towards blended-based instruction (Benson et al., 2011). Some still

considered the use of ICT as “time-consuming” (Benson et al., 2011, p.148). For

example, it was revealed that preparations for lecture or teaching materials design

and development on web-based platform require more time than face-to-face

interaction. Some believe that the use of hybrid approach is more rigorous when it

comes to teaching and learning preparations. This explains the idea presented by

Ma'arop and Embi (2016) where they described blended learning as a burden,

both physically and cognitively. Meaning, educators see the need to spend more

time like designing the course platform, uploading of instructional materials,

answering queries and evaluating students’ online outputs. Thus, it increases their

17
workload, such as the time required (Alebaikan & Troudi, 2010). This posits that

in blended learning environment, teachers should have at least the required

knowledge and skills to mix the right blending in teaching and learning process.

As such, the use of technology tools should best meet the needs of the learners

while ensuring the appropriateness of right blended learning nature of the course

(e.g., Bralić & Divjak, 2018; Chaeruman, Wibawa, & Syahrial, 2018; Greller,

Santally, Boojhawon, Rajabalee & Kevin, 2017; Lee, Lim, & Kim, 2017).

However, these lack of technological capabilities of some faculty members (e.g.,

Bowyer & Chambers, 2017; Krasnova & Shurygin, 2019; Ma'arop & Embi, 2016)

affect students’ way of discovering learning. Hence, it also results to some

academicians having adverse attitude towards blended-based approach. For

Aldosemani et al. (2018), the lack of faculty training and support, language

barriers, poor promotion incentives for blended learning initiation are some of the

challenges that teachers are experiencing on the use of blended learning. It was

mentioned, for instance, that the use of language texts in LMS in Saudi context is

presented using English language, thus, the faculty members are having difficulty

to academically communicate with their students and colleagues, considering

English language is not their primary or secondary language. It was also revealed

that technological infrastructures, such as lack of computers, internet connection,

and LMS instability, prohibit blended learning in the country. These challenges

presented by Aldosemani et al. (2018) are also observable in developing countries

like the Philippines. Dotong, De Castro, Dolot and Prenda (2016) illustrated some

limitations of ICT integration like shortage of ICT facilities, poor maintenance of

18
available or existing ICT resources, lack of ICT budget (e.g., Lorenzo, 2016;

Tomaro, 2018; Vergel de Dios, 2016). In fact, there are still areas in the

Philippines, particularly in rural areas, where reliable supply of electricity and

internet are miles away to achieve. Thus, it inhibits and affects the capability of

teachers to become skillful on the use of ICT in blending with teaching and

learning. There is a contradicting idea when Jokinen and Mikkonen (2013)

demonstrated that collaborative planning provides positive opportunities for

instruction where it was also reflected in the study that joint planning is time-

consuming and laborious. As such, this concept could somehow relate to the study

of Benson et al. (2011) where they emphasized that in blended learning

environment, it entails lots of time for instructional preparations such as course

design and development. Remarkably, it was stressed that prior experiences play

an essential role for teachers to engage in collaborative planning. Another

challenge that was also presented is the appropriateness of instructional materials

differentiation. It was reiterated, for instance, the importance of having variety of

learning activities, and not limited face-toface instruction. Primarily, this points

the notion that the use of blended learning environment must not be confined to

submission bins of assignments or file uploads, rather teaching and learning

discussions (e.g., either synchronous and/or asynchronous) can be integrated as

physical classroom extension. Despite these challenges of blended learning

environment, the benefits that it can bring about to teaching and learning

environment are essential to consider as various studies show that it provides

flexibility, enhances learning autonomy, and accessibility; thus, it lessens the

19
teaching and learning gap exists between teachers and students. Given this notion,

one of the factors that hinder blended learning developments is faculty skepticism

and confusions (Jobst, 2016; Ooms, Burke, Linsey, & Heaton-Shrestha, 2008;

Wingo, Ivankova & Moss, 2017). It was also argued the idea that not all faculty

members adopt blended-based instruction when introduced by their respective

universities because of their negative perceptions like lack of knowledge and

training on ICT integration, and poor infrastructure (Aldosemani et al., 2018;

Benson et al., 2011; Tshabalala et al., 2014).

20
 CHAPTER 3

Research Methodology

This chapter describes how the study was conducted and the researchers

used a descriptive method in gathering the necessary data for the completion of

the study. This presents the design of the research, flow of the study, location of

the study, the respondents, the instruments being used, the procedure of gathering

the data and the statistical tools to be used.

Research Design

This study used a quantitative and descriptive design to gather and present

information. It focuses on the students’ perception on blended learning towards

math subject of the junior high school students of Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.-

Carcar Campus during online learning and face-to-face learning of S.Y. 2022-

2023.

Flow of the study

Input. The student respondents answered the adapted and modified

questionnaires. The researchers used sample percentage for the profile of the

respondents, weighted mean to assist the students’ perception on the student

support under “teaching assistance, feedback for learning events, technical

support and learning assistance” in gathering and collecting the students’

perception on blended learning towards math subject. The researchers explains

21
thoroughly about how to answer the questionnaires and the confidentiality of their

profile information and their responses to the survey.

Process. The process started upon the approval of the permission to conduct the

study which was secured by the researchers from the school administrators of

Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.-Carcar Campus, prior to that, the researchers also

wrote a letter of consent for the students and subject teachers who attended the

classes of grades 8, 9 and 10 during the conduction of the survey. The handling of

questionnaires was done personally. The respondents were given proper

instruction on how to answer each question. During the retrieval of responses was

done immediately after the respondents were done answering. After gathering the

data, process of data was facilitated, these includes tallying of the retrieved

questionnaire, tabulating the results and presenting and interpreting the data

through sample percentage for the respondent’s profile, weighted mean for the

students support under “teaching assistance, feedback for learning events”

Output. The output of the study is a proposal for a math enhancement avenue that

will be conducted at Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.,-Carcar Campus at a given

time and date. The remedial classes will give additional help to students who have

fallen behind and assist them in order to achieve expected competencies in core

academic skills such as literacy and numeracy with regards to math subject. It also

aims to help the participating teachers to gain experience to develop and enhance

their ability and flexibility in teaching math subject.

22
 INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
“STUDENTS’
PERCEPTION
ON BLENDED FREQUENCY
LEARNING DISTRIBUTION
MATH
TOWARDS ENHANCEMENT
WEIGHTED MEAN
MATH AVENUE
SUBJECT"

Figure 2: Research Process

23
 Locale of the Study

This study was conducted at Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar

Campus. It is located in Valladolid, Carcar City, Cebu, Philippines.

“Valladolid, Carcar City, Cebu, Philippines “

Legend:

Figure 3: Locale of the Study

24
The Respondents

The respondents of this study were selected students that comprised of 12

students from grade 8, 17 students from grade 9, 9 students from grade 10 with a

total number of 38 students which excludes the transfer students for this school

year 2022-2023. The researchers used purposive sampling method in which we

selected students who were enrolled in the same institution last academic year

2021-2022 of Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.-Carcar Campus. In this way we can

assure that they had experienced the institutions teaching modalities.

Research Instruments

The main instrument for data gathering was an adapted-modified

questionnaire to gather information which was intended to the student to answer.

The researchers used sample percentage for the profile of the respondents,

weighted mean to assist the students’ perception on the student support under

“teaching assistance, feedback for learning events, technical support and learning

assistance” in gathering and collecting the students’ perception on blended

learning towards math subject.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers submitted a letter addressed to the school assistant school

principal, Mrs. Regina Chica Lapis of Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.-Carcar

Campus asking permission to conduct a survey on students’ perception and

performance towards Math subject under online learning and face-to-face

learning. The process started upon the approval of the permission to conduct the

25
study which was secured by the researchers from the school administrators of

Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.-Carcar Campus, after that, the researchers also

presented a letter of consent for the students and subject teachers who attended

the classes of grades 8, 9 and 10 during the conduction of the survey. The

handling of questionnaires were done personally and respondents were given

proper instruction on how to answer each question. The confidentiality of their

profile information and their responses to the survey were treated without most

secrecy. The retrieval of survey questionnaires had done immediately after the

respondents had done answering. Process of data was facilitated which includes

tallying of the retrieved questionnaire, tabulating the results,presenting and

interpreting the data through sample percentage for the respondent’s profile,

weighted mean for the students support under “teaching assistance, feedback for

learning events, technical support and learning assistance” in order to get the

students perception on blended learning towards Math subject.

26
Statistical Tools to be used

1. Sample Percentage

 Used to determine the percentage usually for data in profile where

percentage was calculated by taking the frequency in the category divided

by the total number of respondents and multiplying it by 100.

Formula:

P = f/n (100)

Where:

P = percentage

f = frequency

n = number of respondents

100 = constant number

2. Weighted Mean

 It is used when the researchers consider qualified data values to be more

important that other values and to contribute more to the final average

where data point value is multiplied by the assigned weight which is

summed and divided by the number of data points.

27
Formula:

Σwx
Weighted Mean =
Σw

Where:

Σwx = summation of weighted terms

Σw = number of terms

TREATMENT OF DATA

The students’ perception on blended learning towards Math subject was being
made its bases in the manner of rating of the respondents about Student Support.

For students’ perception on blended learning towards Math subject

according to “Teaching Assistance, Feedback for learning events, Technical
Support, and Learning Assistance” under Online Learning and Face-to-Face
Learning.

Category Mean Verbal Equivalent

1 1-1.79 Ineffective

2 1.8-2.59 Somewhat Effective

3 2.6-3.39 Neutral

4 3.4-4.19 Effective

5 4.2-5 Very Effective

28
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This Chapter Includes the Objective Reports, Discussion and Interpretation of The

Gathered Information That Will Yield Implications To the Study Results

TABLE 1

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO

THEIR AGE

AGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

12-13 9 23.68

14-15 25 65.79

16 above 4 10.53

TOTAL 38 100

Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according

to their age.

There were 65.79% of the respondents were belonged to the age bracket of 14-15;

23.68% in 12-13, and 10.53% were 16 above.

Therefore, majority of the respondents (65.79%) were under the age bracket of

14-15 years of age.

29
 TABLE 2

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO

THEIR GRADE LEVEL

GRADE LEVEL FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

8 12 31.58

9 17 44.74

10 9 23.68

TOTAL 38 100

Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents

according to their grade levels.

There were 44.74% of the respondents were grade 9 students; 31.58%

were grade 8 students, and 23.68% were grade 10 students.

Therefore, most of the respondents were (44.74%) grade 9 students.

30
 TABLE 3

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO

THEIR SEX

SEX FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Female 17 44.74

Male 21 55.26

TOTAL 38 100

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents

according to sex.

There were 55.26% of the respondents were male and 44.74% of the

respondents were female.

Therefore, majority of the respondents (55.26%) were male.

31
 TABLE 4

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO

THEIR AVAILABLE GADGETS

GADGETS AVAILABLE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Cell Phone 37 66.07

Laptop 8 14.29

Tablet 2 3.57

Computer 9 16.07

Others 0 0

TOTAL 56 100

Table 4 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents according

to their available gadgets.

There were 66.07% of the respondents has Cell Phone, 16.07% has computer,

14.29% has laptop, and 3.57% of the respondents has tablet.

32
 Therefore, majority of the respondents (66.07%) considered cell phones as their

most available gadget.

TABLE 5

DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO THEIR

TEACHING ASSISTANCE UNDER ONLINE LEARNING

Legend: F- Frequency
WP- Weighted Percentage
TF- Total Frequency
TWP- Total Weighted Percentage
WM- Weighted Mean
D- Description

STUDENT
SUPPORT 1 2 3 4 5

W W
F F WP F WP F F WP TF TWP WM D
P P
A. Teaching assistance ( Online Learning )

1. Uses
power
point 7 7 5 10 11 33 12 48 3 15 38 113 2.97 N
presenta
tions
2. Uses
written
visual 4 4 10 20 12 36 7 28 5 25 38 113 2.97 N
learning
outputs

33
 3. Uses
pictures
for 4 4 8 16 6 18 13 52 7 35 38 125 3.29 N
illustrati
ons
4. Uses
graphs
for 6 6 8 16 6 18 9 36 9 45 38 121 3.18 N
illustrati
ons
5. Uses
videos
for 6 6 4 8 9 27 9 36 10 50 38 127 3.34 N
presenta
tions
6. Uses
audios
for 9 9 9 18 8 24 7 28 5 25 38 104 2.74 N
presenta
tions
7. Uses
projecto
S
rs for 12 12 9 18 9 27 3 12 5 25 38 94 2.47
E
presenta
tions
8.
Provides
hard
copy 1 1 7 14 6 18 11 44 13 65 38 142 3.74 E
notes for
referenc
es
9. Uses
books
for 4 4 5 10 8 24 8 32 13 65 38 135 3.55 E
referenc
es

34
 10. Uses
modules
for
guides 2 2 2 4 15 45 6 24 13 65 38 140 3.68 E
and
referenc
es

38 1,214 3.2 N
The table shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the respondents

according to Teaching Assistance under Online Learning.

The result shows that majority of the responses of the students were “Neutral”

based on their perceptions on “Uses power point presentations, Uses written visual

learning outputs, Uses pictures for illustrations, Uses graphs for illustrations, Uses videos

for presentations, and Uses audios for presentations” with the weighted mean of “2.97,

2.97, 3.29, 3.18, 3.34, 2.74” respectively.

Then, with the “provides hard copy notes for references, uses books for

references, and uses modules for guides and references” the responses are “Effective”

with the weighted mean of “3.74, 3.55, and 3.68” respectively.

With the “uses projectors for presentations” the response is “Somewhat Effective”

with the weighted mean of “3.47” respectively.

Therefore, majority of the students responses were “Neutral” as to Teaching

Assistance under Online Learning.

35
 TABLE 6

DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO THEIR

TEACHING ASSISTANCE UNDER FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

STUDENT
SUPPORT
1 2 3 4 5

W
F WP F WP F F WP F WP TF TWP WM D
P
A. Teaching assistance ( Face-to-Face Learning )
1. Uses
PowerPoi
nt 3 3 2 4 9 27 9 36 15 75 38 145 3.82 E
presentati
ons
2. Uses
written
visual 1 1 5 10 15 45 9 36 8 40 38 132 3.47 E
learning
outputs
3. Uses
pictures
for 1 1 6 12 11 33 11 44 9 45 38 135 3.55 E
illustratio
ns

36
 4. Uses
graphs
for 4 4 6 12 10 30 10 40 8 40 38 126 3.32 N
illustratio
ns
5. Uses
videos
for 2 2 3 6 8 24 13 52 12 60 38 144 3.79 E
presentati
ons
6. Uses
audios
for 6 6 4 8 10 30 15 60 3 15 38 119 3.13 N
presentati
ons
7. Uses
projector
1
s for 10 5 10 10 30 10 40 3 15 38 105 2.76 N
0
presentati
ons
8.
Provides
hard copy
2 2 5 10 5 15 9 36 17 85 38 148 3.89 E
notes for
reference
s
9. Uses
books for
1 1 3 6 8 24 6 24 20 100 38 155 4.08 E
reference
s
10. Uses
modules
for
guides 5 5 3 6 9 27 12 48 9 45 38 131 3.45 E
and
reference
s
38 1,340 3.5 E
The table shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the respondents

according to Teaching Assistance under Face-to-Face Learning.

37
 The result shows that majority of the responses of the students were “Effective”

based on their perceptions on “uses power point presentations, uses written visual

learning outputs, uses pictures for illustrations, uses videos for presentations, provides

hard copy notes for references, uses books for references, and uses modules for guides

and references” with the weighted mean of “3.82, 3.47, 3.55, 3.79, 3.89, 4.08, and 3.45”

respectively.

Then, with the “uses graphs for illustrations, uses audios for presentations, and

uses projectors for presentations” the responses are “Neutral” with the weighted mean of

“3.32, 3.13, and 2.76” respectively.

Therefore, majority of the students responses were “Effective” as to Teaching

Assistance under Face-to-Face Learning.

38
 TABLE 7

DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO THEIR

FEEDBACK FOR LEARNING EVENTS UNDER ONLINE LEARNING

B. Feedback for Learning Events ( Online Learning )

1. Listen to
the
3 3 4 8 8 24 9 36 14 70 38 141 3.71 E
students’
concerns
2. Listen to
the parents’ 2 2 4 8 4 12 13 52 15 75 38 149 3.92 E
concerns
3.
Responses
to the 4 4 4 8 12 36 11 44 7 35 38 127 3.34 N
students
concerns
4. Provides
help desk
3 3 7 14 12 36 13 52 3 15 38 120 3.16 N
for students
concerns
5. Provides
solutions to
the 1 1 5 10 10 30 11 44 11 55 38 140 3.68 E
problems
and issues
6. Give
response to 2 2 4 8 8 24 14 56 10 50 38 140 3.68 E
the students

39
 during
discussion
7. Answers
students
questions 0 0 1 2 9 27 14 56 14 70 38 155 4.08 E
about the
discussion
8. Gives
precise
information
1 1 1 2 10 30 13 52 13 65 38 150 3.95 E
to answer
the students
questions
9. Presents
the students
school
4 4 5 10 8 24 13 52 8 40 38 130 3.42 E
performance
to their
parents
10. Return
the students
2 2 3 6 12 36 9 36 12 60 38 140 3.68 E
examination
results
1,39
38 3.6 E
2
The table shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the respondents

according to Feedback for learning events under Online Learning.

The result shows that majority of the responses of the students were “Effective”

based on their perceptions on “Listen to the students’ concerns, Listen to the parents’

concerns, Provides solutions to the problems and issues, Give response to the students

during discussion, Answers students questions about the discussion, Gives precise

information to answer the students questions, Presents the students school performance to

their parents, and Return the students examination” with the weighted mean of “3.71,

3.92, 3.68, 3.68, 4.08, 3.95, 3.42, and 3.68” respectively.

40
 Then, with the “Responses to the students concerns, and Provides help desk for

students concerns” the responses were “Neutral” with the weighted mean of “ 3.34, and

3.16” respectively.

Therefore, majority of the students responses were “Effective” as to Feedback for

learning events under Online Learning.

TABLE 8

DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO THEIR

FEEDBACK FOR LEARNING EVENTS UNDER FACE-TO-FACE

LEARNING

B. Feedback for learning events ( Face-to-Face Learning )

1. Listen to
the 4
1 1 1 2 6 18 11 19 95 38 160 4.21 VE
students’ 4
concerns

2. Listen to
4
the parents’ 1 1 2 4 6 18 10 19 95 38 158 4.16 VE
0
concerns

3.
Responses
5
to the 3 3 4 8 10 30 14 7 35 38 132 3.47 E
6
students
concerns

41
4. Provides
help desk 1 5
1 1 6 11 33 13 7 35 38 133 3.5 E
for students 2 2
concerns

5. Provides
solutions to
5
the 4 4 3 6 7 21 13 11 55 38 138 3.63 E
2
problems
and issues

6. Give
response to
1 4
the students 1 1 5 8 24 12 12 60 38 143 3.76 E
0 8
during
discussion

7. Answers
students
4
questions 2 2 1 2 4 12 11 20 100 38 160 4.21 VE
4
about the
discussion

8. Gives
precise
information 6
0 0 4 8 7 21 16 11 55 38 148 3.89 E
to answer 4
the students
questions

42
 9. Presents
the students
school
performanc
e 5
1 1 4 8 9 27 13 11 55 38 143 3.76 E
2

to their
parents

10. Return
the students 2
0 0 4 8 10 30 7 17 85 38 151 3.97 E
examination 8
results

38 1,466 3.9 E

The table shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the respondents

according to Feedback for learning events under Face-to-Face Learning.

The result shows that majority of the responses of the students were “Effective”

based on their perceptions on “Responses to the students concerns, Provides help desk for

students concerns, Provides solutions to the problems and issues, Give response to the

students during discussion, Gives precise information to answer the students questions,

Presents the students school performance to their parents, and Return the students

examination” with the weighted mean of “3.47, 3.5, 3.63, 3.76, 3.89, 3.76, and 3.97”

respectively.

Then, with the “Listen to the students’ concerns, Listen to the parents’ concerns,

and Answers students questions about the discussion” the responses were “Very

Effective” with the weighted mean of “4.21, 4.16, and 4.21” respectively.

43
 Therefore, majority of the students responses were “Effective” as to Feedback for

learning events under Face-to-Face Learning.

TABLE 9

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO

THEIR TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNDER ONLINE LEARNING

C. Technical Support ( Online Learning )

1. Uses
laptops
3 3 4 8 6 18 10 40 15 75 38 144 3.79 E
for
teaching

2. Uses
cellular
phones 9 9 5 10 7 21 10 40 7 35 38 115 3.03 N
for
teaching

44
 3. Uses
speakers
6 6 10 20 9 27 6 24 7 35 38 112 2.95 N
for
teaching

4. Uses
projectors
11 11 4 8 10 30 9 36 4 20 38 105 2.76 N
for
teaching

5. Uses
television
14 14 8 16 3 9 7 28 6 30 38 97 2.55 SE
s for
teaching

6. Uses
micropho
10 10 4 8 8 24 10 40 6 30 38 112 2.95 N
nes for
teaching

7. Uses
computer
1 1 5 10 11 33 9 36 12 60 38 140 3.68 E
s for
teaching

8. Uses
Google
classroom
4 4 6 12 9 27 6 24 13 65 38 132 3.47 E
for output
submissio
ns

9. Uses
emails for
delivering
messages 8 8 6 12 9 27 7 28 8 40 38 115 3.03 N
and
announce
ments

45
 10.
Provides
school
website/p 4 4 5 10 7 21 11 44 11 55 38 134 3.53 E
ages for
announce
ments
1,2
38 3.2 N
06

The table shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the respondents

according to Technical Support under Online Learning.

The result shows that majority of the responses of the students were “Neutral”

based on their perceptions on “Uses cellular phones for teaching, Uses speakers for

teaching, Uses projectors for teaching, Uses microphones for teaching, and Uses emails

for delivering messages and announcements” with the weighted mean of “3.03, 2.95,

2.76, 2.95, and 3.03” respectively.

Then, with the “Uses laptops for teaching, Uses computers for teaching, Uses

Google Classroom for output submissions, and Provides school website/pages for

announcements” the responses were “Effective” with the weighted mean of “3.79, 3.68,

3.47, and 3.53” respectively.

With the “Uses televisions for teaching” the response was “Somewhat Effective”

with the weighted mean of “2.55” respectively.

Therefore, majority of the students responses were “Neutral” as to Technical

Support under Online Learning.

46
 TABLE 10

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO

THEIR TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNDER FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

C. Technical support ( Face-to-Face )

1. Uses laptops
0 0 4 8 10 30 10 40 14 70 38 148 3.89 E
for teaching

2. Uses cellular
phones for 7 7 6 12 10 30 11 44 4 20 38 113 2.97 N
teaching

47
3. Uses speakers
4 4 11 22 5 15 9 36 9 45 38 122 3.21 N
for teaching

4. Uses
projectors for 7 7 6 12 9 27 9 36 7 35 38 117 3.08 N
teaching

5. Uses
televisions for 8 8 4 8 6 18 9 36 11 55 38 125 3.29 N
teaching

6. Uses
microphones for 10 10 7 14 9 27 7 28 5 25 38 104 2.74 N
teaching

7. Uses
computers for 2 2 4 8 9 27 9 36 14 70 38 143 3.76 E
teaching

8. Uses google
classroom for
3 3 7 14 11 33 7 28 10 50 38 128 3.37 N
output
submissions

9. Uses emails
for delivering
7 7 6 12 12 36 6 24 7 35 38 114 3 N
messages and
announcements

48
 10. Provides
school
website/pages 3 3 5 10 9 27 10 40 11 55 38 135 3.55 E
for
announcements

1,24
38 3.3 N
9
The table shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the respondents

according to Technical Support under Face-to-Face Learning.

The result shows that majority of the responses of the students were “Neutral”

based on their perceptions on “Uses cellular phones for teaching, Uses speakers for

teaching, Uses projectors for teaching, Uses televisions for teaching, Uses microphones

for teaching, Uses Google Classroom for output submissions, and Uses emails for

delivering messages and announcements” with the weighted mean of “2.97, 3.21, 3.08,

3.29, 2.74, 3.37, and 3” respectively.

Then, with the “Uses laptops for teaching, Uses computers for teaching, and

Provides school website/pages for announcements” the responses were “Effective” with

the weighted mean of “3.89, 3.76, and 3.55” respectively.

Therefore, majority of the students responses were “Neutral” as to Technical

Support under Face-to-Face Learning.

49
 TABLE 11

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO

THEIR LEARNING ASSISTANCE UNDER ONLINE LEARNING

D. Technical Support ( Online Learning )

1. Provides
3 3 4 8 10 30 4 16 17 85 38 142 3.74 E
assignments

2. Provides
group or
2 2 5 10 4 12 9 36 18 90 38 150 3.95 E
individual
projects

3. Provides
performance 1 1 4 8 8 24 9 36 16 80 38 149 3.92 E
tasks

50
4. Provides
check-up 1 1 5 10 8 24 11 44 13 65 38 144 3.79 E
quizzes

5. Conducts
2 2 2 4 9 27 6 24 19 95 38 152 4 E
examinations

6. Conducts
lesson 3 3 3 6 5 15 10 40 17 85 38 149 3.92 E
discussion

7. Conducts
preparatory
exercises for 1 1 5 10 12 36 8 32 12 60 38 139 3.66 E
the next
topic.

8. Conducts
problem
solving 3 3 3 6 9 27 9 36 14 70 38 142 3.74 E
activities to
the students

9. Conducts
adequate 4 4 5 10 9 27 11 44 9 45 38 130 3.42 E
discussion

10. Provides
examples
3 3 5 10 5 15 8 32 17 85 38 145 3.82 E
during class
discussions

38 1,442 3.8 E

51
 The table shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the respondents

according to Learning Assistance under Online Learning.

The result shows that all of the responses of the students were “Effective” based

on their perceptions on “Provides assignments, Provides group or individual projects,

Provides performance tasks, Provides check-up quizzes, Conducts examinations,

Conducts lesson discussion, Conducts preparatory exercises for the next topic, Conducts

problem solving activities to the students, Conducts adequate discussion, and Provides

examples during class discussions” with the weighted mean of “3.74, 3.95, 3.92, 3.79, 4,

3.92, 3.66, 3.74, 3.42, and 3.82” respectively.

Therefore, majority of the students responses were “Effective” as to Learning

Assistance under Online Learning.

TABLE 12

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS AS TO

THEIR LEARNING ASSISTANCE UNDER FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

D. Learning Assistance ( Face-to-Face Learning )

1.
Provides
1 1 3 6 9 27 8 32 17 85 38 151 3.97 E
assignme
nts
2.
Provides
group or 0 0 4 8 6 18 9 36 19 95 38 157 4.13 E
individua
l projects

52
 3.
Provides
0 0 2 4 6 18 9 36 21 105 38 163 4.29 VE
performa
nce tasks
4.
Provides
0 0 4 8 6 18 13 52 15 75 38 153 4.03 E
check-up
quizzes
5.
Conducts
2 2 2 4 6 18 9 36 19 95 38 155 4.08 E
examinat
ions
6.
Conducts
lesson 0 0 0 0 7 21 11 44 20 100 38 165 4.34 VE
discussio
n
7.
Conducts
preparato
ry
2 2 3 6 10 30 9 36 14 70 38 144 3.79 E
exercises
for the
next
topic.
8.
Conducts
problem
solving 1 1 2 4 9 27 11 44 15 75 38 151 3.97 E
activities
to the
students
9.
Conducts
adequate 3 3 5 10 6 18 13 52 11 55 38 138 3.63 E
discussio
n

53
 10.
Provides
examples
during 2 2 2 4 3 9 9 36 22 110 38 161 4.24 VE
class
discussio
ns
1,5
38 4.0 E
38
The table shows the frequency and weighted mean distribution of the respondents

according to Learning Assistance under Face-to-Face Learning.

The result shows that majority of the responses of the students were “Effective”

based on their perceptions on “Provides assignments, Provides group or individual

projects, Provides check-up quizzes, Conducts examinations, Conducts preparatory

exercises for the next topic, Conducts problem solving activities to the students, and

Conducts adequate discussion” with the weighted mean of “3.97, 4.13, 4.03, 4.08, 3.79,

3.97, and 3.63” respectively.

Then, with the “Provides performance tasks, Conducts lesson discussions, and

Provides examples during class discussions” the responses were “Very Effective” with

the weighted mean of “4.29, 4.34, and 4.24” respectively.

Therefore, majority of the students responses were “Effective” as to Learning

Assistance under Face-to-Face Learning.

54
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusion and

recommendations on Students perception on blended learning towards Math

subject in Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.-Carcar Campus.

55
SUMMARY

The student’s perception on blended learning towards Math subject may

vary due to its effectiveness, and based on the gathered data, the researchers

found out that the efficacy of Online Learning and Face-to-Face Learning vary.

The teaching assistance, feedback for learning events, technical support and

learning assistance were also one of the evident way to identify the effectiveness

of the two learning strategies. This supports that Face-to-face learning was more

effective compared to Online Learning due to its students support that are more

reliable and efficient. This was proven by student’s responses to the adapted and

modified survey questionnaires distributed by the researchers which also yields an

itemized results in the findings.

FINDINGS

1. Respondents Profile

1.1. Majority of the respondents (65.79%) were under the age bracket of 14-15

years of age.

1.2. Most of the respondents (44.74%) were grade 9 students.

1.3. Majority of the respondents (55.26%) were male.

1.4. Majority of the students (66.07%) considered cell phones as their most

available gadget.

2. Students Perception on blended learning towards math subject according

to Student Support

56
2.1. Majority of the students responses were Neutral as to Teaching Assistance

under Online Learning and Effective under Face-to-Face Learning with an

average weighted mean of 3.2 and 3.5 respectively.

2.2 Majority of the students responses were both Effective as to Feedback for

learning events under Online Learning and Face-to-Face Learning with an

average weighted mean of 3.6 and 3.9 respectively.

2.3 Majority of the students responses were both Neutral as to Technical Support

under Online Learning and Face-to-Face Learning with an average weighted

mean of 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.

2.4 Majority of the students responses were both Effective as to Learning

Assistance under Online Learning and Face-to-Face Learning with an average

weighted mean of 3.8 and 4.0 respectively.

CONCLUSION

The totality of the study revealed that online learning does not work

efficiently as expected from the past S.Y. 2021-2022. The study also revealed that

Face-to-Face Learning was more effective than Online Learning yet it does not

guarantee a full understanding in learning towards Math subject.

In addition, Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.-Carcar Campus teachers were

able to provide students’ support which resulted to an effective way of learning.

However, this calls for an awareness of an improved and advanced ways to teach

the subject especially for those low performing students.

RECOMMENDATION

57
 With the conclusion derived on this study, the researchers wish to

recommend the following:

1 that the teachers in CHSC-Carcar Campus should:

1.1 enhance and widen their student and technical support to ensure the

better learning experience of the students;

1.2 create an avenue or platform for concerns and feedbacks of the

students in order to boost their curiosity morale;

1.3 maximize new applications, platforms, and learning commons for the

students to visit for educational purposes.

2 for administrators, they should:

2.1 provide their teachers trainings, seminars and workshops to ensure

application of new strategies for teaching, and

3 for future studies:

3.1 application of new strategies for teachers teaching math subject.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

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(1).

58
Western Governors University. (2020). The five educational

learning theories. Western Governors University.

Alvarez, A. (2020). Learning from the problems and challenges in

blended learning: Basis for faculty development and program

enhancement.

Parker, C. (2015, January 29). Research shows the best ways to

learn math. Stanford Graduate School of Education.

https://ed.stanford.edu/news/learning-math-without-fear

13.3 theory of distance education. (n.d.). Aect.org. Retrieved May

18, 2023, from http://members.aect.org/edtech/ed1/13/13-03.html

Bonk, C. J., Kim, K.-J., & Oh, E. J. (n.d.). The present and future

state of blended learning in workplace learning settings in the

United States. Eric.ed.gov. Retrieved May 18, 2023, from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504344.pdf

Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc.

Carcar Campus

59
60
Teachers of Cebu Sacred Heart
College Inc.-Carcar Campus

Students of Cebu Sacred Heart

College Inc.-Carcar Campus

School Year
2023-2024

61
 Students will have a
higher GPA and a better
performance in Math
subject due to the
remedial classes which will
help them to better
understand the topics. The
teachers will gain
experience in teaching and
will be trained during the
remedial classes.

62
APPENDICES

63
 APPENDIX A

Students’ Perception on Blended Learning towards Math Subject

QUESTIONNAIRE I.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

NAME: ______________________

AGE: 12-13

14-15

16 above

GRADE AND SECTION:

10

SEX: FEMALE

MALE

GADGET AVAILABLE FOR LEARNING: (Can have multiple response)

Cellular phones
Laptops
Tablets
Computers
others _________________

64
QUESTIONNAIRE II.

STUDENT SUPPORT

For the following question items 1-5, rate your perception about the student support
quality according to the illustrated scale.

1 2 3 4 5
Ineffective Somewhat effective Neutral Effective Very
Effective

O – Online Learning
F – Face-to-Face Learning

1 2 3 4 5
STUDENT SUPPORT
O F O F O F O F O F

A. Teaching assistance

1. Uses PowerPoint presentations

2. Uses written visual learning outputs

3. Uses pictures for illustrations

4. Uses graphs for illustrations

5. Uses videos for presentations

6. Uses audios for presentations

7. Uses projectors for presentations

8. Provides hard copy notes for references

9. Uses books for references

10. Uses modules for guides and references

B. Feedback for learning events

1. Listen to the students’ concerns

2. Listen to the parents’ concerns

65
 3. Responses to the students concerns

4. Provides help desk for students concerns

5. Provides solutions to the problems and

issues

6. Give response to the students during

discussion

7. Answers students questions about the

discussion

8. Gives precise information to answer the

students questions

9. Presents the students school performance

to their parents

10. Return the students examination results

C. Technical support

1. Uses laptops for teaching

2. Uses cellular phones for teaching

3. Uses speakers for teaching

4. Uses projectors for teaching

5. Uses televisions for teaching

6. Uses microphones for teaching

7. Uses computers for teaching

8. Uses google classroom for output

submissions

9. Uses emails for delivering messages and

announcements

10. Provides school website/pages for

announcements

D. Learning assistance

66
 1. Provides assignments

2. Provides group or individual projects

3. Provides performance tasks

4. Provides check-up quizzes

5. Conducts examinations

6. Conducts lesson discussion

7. Conducts preparatory exercises for the

next topic.

8. Conducts problem solving activities to the

students

9. Conducts adequate discussion

10. Provides examples during class

discussions

67
 APPENDIX B

Cebu Sacred Heart College, Inc.

Carcar Campus
Founded 2005
Valladolid, Carcar City, Cebu

December 9, 2022

Mrs. Regina Chica Lapis

Assistant School Principal
Cebu Sacred Heart Inc. Carcar Campus
Valladolid, Carcar City, Cebu

Greetings!

We are students from Grade 12 Amazonite of Cebu Sacred Heart College Carcar Inc. We
are conducting a research study entitled “Students’ Perception on Blended Learning
towards Math Subject”.
In line with this, we are asking for the student’s precious time and effort to answer all the
questions written in our questionnaire that are important and helpful for the completion of
the study.

Rest assured that all the data gathered from the students will be kept in the highest level
of confidentiality.
Your positive response for this request will be valuable contribution for the success of the
study and will highly appreciate.

Respectfully yours,

LEAH Y. LAW-IT
Group Representative

Recommending Approval:

Ms. WYNNEBEL ANACIO Mrs. REGINA CHICA LAPIS

Research Adviser Assistant School Principal

APPENDIX C

68
 Cebu Sacred Heart College, Inc.
Carcar Campus
Founded 2005
Valladolid, Carcar City, Cebu

December 9, 2022

Dear Respondents,

Greetings!

Our group is conducting a survey in line with our research study entitled “Students’

Perception on Blended Learning towards Math Subject”.

In this regard, we are asking for your precious time, and effort to answer all the questions

in the questionnaire that are important and helpful for the completion of the study.

Rest assured that all data gathered from you will be kept in the highest level of

confidentiality. Your positive response in this request will be valuable contribution for

the success of the study and will highly appreciate.

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

Respectfully yours,

LEAH Y. LAW-IT
Group Representative

69
 CURRICULUM
VITAE

A. Personal Data

70
Name: Rhey-amme Yvonne Fajardo

Age: 18

Sex: Female

Date of Birth: October 16, 2004

Civil Status: Single

Address: Upper Tawog, Valladolid, Carcar City, Cebu

Mother’s Name: Amy Fajardo

Father’s Name: Reynante Fajardo

B. Educational Attainment

Elementary: Valladolid Elementary School

High School Attainment:

JHS: Gelacio C. Babao Senior Memorial National High School

SHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

A. Personal Data

71
Name: Jhon Wayne Fernandez

Age: 18

Sex: Male

Date of Birth: November 27, 2004

Civil Status: Single

Address: Guiwanon, Tuyom, Carcar City, Cebu

Mother’s Name: Ma. Theresa O. Canoy

Father’s Name: Arnel M. Fernandez

B. Educational Attainment

Elementary: Tuyom Elementary School

High School Attainment

JHS: St. Theresa’s School of Valladolid Inc.

SHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

A. Personal Data

72
Name: Ronald L. Genobia

Age: 19

Sex: Male

Date of Birth: December 03, 2003

Civil Status: Single

Address: Saimon, Can-asujan, Carcar City, Cebu

Mother’s Name: Hazel L. Genobia

Father’s Name: Ronald Genobia

B. Educational Attainment

Elementary: Can-asujan Elementary School

High School Attainment

JHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

SHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

A. Personal Data

73
Name: Leah Y. Law-it

Age: 18

Sex: Female

Date of Birth: October 03, 2004

Civil Status: Single

Address: Pajo, Valladolid, Carcar City, Cebu

Mother’s Name: Lordgie Law-it

Father’s Name: Ali Law-it

B. Educational Attainment

Elementary: Valladolid Elementary School

High School Attainment

JHS: Gelacio C. Babao Senior Memorial National High School

SHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

A. Personal Data

74
Name: Grace Antera E. Luzano

Age: 17

Sex: Female

Date of Birth: May 13, 2005

Civil Status: Single

Address: San Isidro, Perrelos, Carcar City, Cebu

Mother’s Name: Evelyn Grace E. Luzano

Father’s Name: Aurelio P. Luzano

B. Educational Attainment

Elementary: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

High School Attainment

JHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

SHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

A. Personal Data

75
Name: Joana May Kristel Padinas

Age: 19

Sex: Female

Date of Birth: July 10, 2003

Civil Status: Single

Address: Esperanza, Aloguinsan, Cebu

Mother’s Name: Nanette Padinas

Father’s Name: Ramil Garnica

B. Educational Attainment

Elementary: Esperanza Elementary School

High School Attainment

JHS: Estefania Montemayor National High School

SHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

A. Personal Data

76
Name: Joebert Parrenas Jr.

Age: 17

Sex: Male

Date of Birth: June 19, 2005

Civil Status: Single

Address: San Isidro Perrelos, Carcar City, Cebu

Mother’s Name: Cherryl Parrenas

Father’s Name: Joebert Parrenas Sr.

B. Educational Attainment

Elementary: Perrelos Elementary School

High School Attainment

JHS: Gelacio C. Babao Senior Memorial National High School

SHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

A. Personal Data

77
Name: Nathan Jay G. Sultan

Age: 18

Sex: Male

Date of Birth: December 20, 2004

Civil Status: Single

Address: Oliveros, Can-asujan, Carcar City, Cebu

Mother’s Name: Jeraldin G. Sultan

Father’s Name: Jonathan L. Sultan

B. Educational Attainment

Elementary: St. Catherine’s College

High School Attainment

JHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

SHS: Cebu Sacred Heart College Inc. Carcar Campus

78