Chapter 1 5 Revised 18 June 19 2023

Students’ Perceptions in Learning During the Three Transitional
Phases – Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic, and New-Normal
An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to the Education Department
Faculty of the Bicol University Tabaco
Tabaco City
In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the course

SCI ED 21: RESEARCH IN SCIENCE II
RUBIE JOY BARIAS

RIZZA BROSA
CLARISE CAÑA
IRICA MAE CIERVO
CZARINE KAY PAMA
March 2023
Abstract
The emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift in educational
approaches, prompting the adoption of computer-based learning in the Philippines. While
previous studies have explored students’ perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, no
study has specifically focused on the three transitional phases. This research study aimed
to investigate students’ perceptions of their learning experience across three transitional
phases of learning approaches: pre-pandemic (traditional), pandemic (online), and new
normal (blended) at Bicol University Tabaco (BU-T). The sample consisted of 84
respondents, determined using Slovin’s formula. Statistical tools, including frequency
distribution, Kruskal-Wallis, and post-hoc analysis, were utilized to compare the face-to-
face, online, and blended learning groups and explore students’ learning perceptions
irrespective of the course delivery method and online environment. The findings revealed
that students perceived face-to-face learning more favorably in terms of content quality,
accessibility, and flexibility. However, some students expressed high comfort levels with
online and blended learning due to the opportunities they provided for innovation through
computer-based technology. There were no significant differences in accessibility and
flexibility among the departments for all three learning approaches. The study also
highlighted the challenges faced by students during different transitional phases, such as
unstable internet connectivity during online learning and physical distractions in blended
learning. These results offer valuable insights for educational institutions, teachers, and
ii
learners, informing the development of strategies to enhance instruction and improve
learning styles during various learning phases. The study’s outcomes contribute to the
existing body of knowledge on effective instructional approaches and hold implications
for educators and students alike, fostering collaboration in optimizing the learning
experience. The research highlights the need for strategies to enhance instruction and
improve learning styles during various transitional phases, addressing content quality
variations and improving accessibility and flexibility in online and blended learning.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENT PAGE
TITLE PAGE i
ABSTRACT ii
RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL DEFENSE __
EDITOR’S CERTIFICATION __
APPROVAL SHEET __
DEDICATION __
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT __
TABLE OF CONTENTS __
BIBLIOGRAPHY __
APPENDICES __
CHAPTERS
I. THE PROBLEM
Introduction 1
Objectives 3
Hypothesis 4
Scope and Delimitation 5
Significance of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 9
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Related Literature 13
Related Studies 25
Synthesis of the State-of-the Art 31
Gap Bridged by the Study 32
iv
Theoretical Framework 33
Conceptual Framework 37
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Design 45
Sources of Data 46
Respondents 47
Research Instrument 48
Data Gathering Procedures 51
Statistical Tools 54
IV. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Results 55
GEC Courses 58
Students’ Perception on Content Quality 63
During Pre-Pandemic (FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING)

During Pandemic (ONLINE LEARNING)

During New Normal (BLENDED LEARNING)
Students’ Perception on Accessibility During 83

Pre-pandemic, Pandemic and New Normal
Students’ Perception on Flexibility During 89

Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic and New Normal
Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content 94

Quality During Pre-Pandemic
Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content 96

Quality During Pandemic
v
Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Content 98
Quality During New Normal
Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Accessibility 100

During Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic and New Normal
Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Flexibility 102

Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on Content 104

Quality During Traditional (Face-to-face), Online,
and Blended Learning Approach
Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on 113

Accessibility During the Traditional (Face-to-face),
Online, and Blended Learning Approach
Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on Flexibility 123

During the Traditional (Face-to-face), Online, and
Blended Learning Approach
Students Perception on the Problems They Faced 133

Discussion 139
Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During 140

the Pre-Pandemic (Traditional) Learning Approach
Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During the 141

Pandemic (Online) Learning Approach
Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During 143

the New Normal (Blended) Learning Approach
Accessibility: Students’ Perceptions During the 145

Pre-Pandemic (Traditional) Learning Approach
vi

New Normal (Blended) Learning Approach
Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the Pre- 149

Pandemic (Traditional) Learning Approach
Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the 150

Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the 150

New Normal (Blended) Learning Approach
Students’ Problems During the Traditional 152

(Face-to-face) Learning Approach
Students’ Problems During the Online Learning 154

Approach
Students’ Problems During the Blended Learning 156

Approach
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary 159
Findings 161
Conclusions 162
Recommendations 163
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Target Respondents 48
2.0. Rating Scale and Interval in Content Quality 50
2.1. Rating Scale and Interval in Accessibility 50
2.2. Rating Scale and Interval in Flexibility 51
4.1.3. Distribution of Selected Demographic Characteristics 55
4.2.1. GEC Courses During Pre-Pandemic 58
4.2.2. GEC Courses During Pandemic 60
4.2.3. GEC Courses During New Normal 61
4.3.1. Content Quality (Pre-Pandemic) 63
4.4.1. Content Quality (Pandemic) 70
4.5.1. Content Quality (New Normal) 77
4.6.1. Accessibility During Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic, 83
and New Normal
4.7.1. Flexibility During Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic, 89

and New Normal
4.8 Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content Quality 94

During Pre-Pandemic
4.9. Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content Quality 96

During Pandemic
4.10. Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Content Quality 98

During New Normal
4.11. Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Accessibility 100

4.12. Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Flexibility During 102

viii
Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic and New Normal
4.13.1. Content Quality (Traditional Learning Approach) 104
4.13.2. Content Quality (Online Learning Approach) 106
4.13.3. Content Quality (Blended Learning Approach) 110
4.14.1. Accessibility (Traditional Learning Approach) 113
4.14.2. Accessibility (Online Learning Approach) 117
4.14.3. Accessibility (Blended Learning Approach) 120
4.15.1 Flexibility (Traditional Learning Approach) 123
4.15.2. Flexibility (Online Learning Approach) 127
4.15.3. Flexibility (Blended Learning Approach) 130
4.16.1 Students’ Perceptions on Problems (Pre-Pandemic) 134
4.16.2. Students’ Perceptions on Problems (Pandemic) 136
4.16.3. Students’ Perceptions on Problems (New Normal) 138
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Theoretical Paradigm 36
Conceptual Paradigm 40
ix
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The traditional mode of learning has been the pioneering classroom setup over the
past decades, where the teaching-learning process is established through face-to-face
interaction. Discussions and learning take place in the four corners of the classroom,
making students more engaged and active in class because they see their teacher
discussing live in front of them. This traditional classroom setup, however, has been
called into question by an unprecedented event that has alarmed states all over the world.
The spread of Covid-19 disease to various states prompted the World Health
Organization (WHO) to declare a global pandemic (WHO, 2020). This was followed by
the Philippines declaring a state of calamity under Presidential Proclamation No. 929, s.
2020. The Philippine Government declared the start of Enhanced Community Quarantine
in March 2020, prohibiting institutions from conducting face-to-face classes. This gave
rise to a new learning modality known as distance learning, in which students and
teachers must meet virtually. The abrupt transition to online learning has been stressful
for instructors, professors, and, most importantly, students who prefer in-person
instruction. Online learning is frequently stigmatized as a weaker option that provides a
lower quality education than in-person face-to-face learning (Hodges et al., 2020).
Indeed, a fully online course that lacks active learning activities such as peer interaction
1
will feel more like an interactive book than a classroom (Sutterlin, 2018). The lockdown
caused by the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic appears to have generally had a
severe impact on the learning of higher education students, as they were in the middle of
their semesters, and this lockdown imposed on them led to a shift in their learning
methods. These students were unable to learn one on one with their educators, as the
pandemic initiated an immediate and complete closedown of all educational institutions
in the country. The transition from traditional classroom learning to computer-based
learning became one of the most significant academic alternatives that students had to
deal with.
Students have undergone a virtual mode of learning for almost two years where
purely virtual discussion and online submission of activities and performances were made
to continue education in the country. After two years of the pandemic, there is a sudden
shift in the educational approach in the Philippines — distance learning now becomes
blended learning or the combination of onsite classes and virtual learning since we are
now living in the “new normal.” In this new normal educational approach, the institutions
are allowed to conduct limited onsite classes to primary, secondary, and tertiary
institutions only if they are ready to conduct in-person classes and if their schools and
campuses adhere to the minimum health protocols set by the government. In this sudden
transition of phases in the educational approach, students are expected to have different
perceptions about this as they will interact with a new normal classroom setup.
2
Therefore, this paper ascertains and analyzes students’ perceptions in a higher
education institution of Bicol University Tabaco (BUT) and compares the difference in
the perceptions of the 4th year students in Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic, and New Normal
approach of education using the software applications for descriptive and analytical
statistics, i.e., medium, minimum, maximum, and correlation. This study was conducted
to better understand students' perceptions of the three transitional phases of the
educational approach: The Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic, and New Normal associated with
the Covid-19 problem at higher education institutions inflicting a problem for fourth-year
students in the school year 2022-2023. The purpose of this study is to look into the
students' problems with their learning process during the three transitional learning
approaches. And to ascertain the effects of the three transitional phases of the educational
approach implemented by Bicol University Tabaco. The result of this paper will confirm
if there exists a statistically significant difference in the students' perceptions towards the
pre-pandemic and new normal learning methods, which indicates that students have a
higher perception of the pre-pandemic learning, which is traditional learning, than that of
the new normal learning which is web-assisted learning. Thus, this research contributed
to a better understanding of the country's three educational approach transitions.
Objectives
3
This study aims to evaluate the students’ perceptions on the three transitional
phases of the educational approach for the 4 th year students of Bicol University Tabaco.
Specifically, this study is designed to determine the perceptions of the student’s key
informants in terms of:
1. The content quality of the GEC courses during the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and
new normal learning approaches. Here are specific competencies and/or standards
that will serve as a guide in evaluating the content quality:
a) Clarity of class objectives.
b) Content is aligned with the learning outcome.
c) Content provide broad understanding to students.
d) Relevance of course content to students.
e) The content provides appropriate assessments.
f) Course content encourages interaction.
2. Accessibility of resource materials provided to them during these three
transitional learning approaches.
3. Flexibility they used to adapt to these three transitions of educational approaches.
4. Students’ problems with their learning process during the normal, pandemic, and
new normal phases of the educational approaches.
Hypothesis
4
The following hypothesis was formulated to fulfill the research objectives:
The students’ perceptions of learning the GEC subjects were affected by the three
transitional phases of learning approaches, the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new normal.
Scope and Delimitation
The general intent of this study is to determine the students' perceptions regarding
the content quality and standards, accessibility of the resource materials, and flexibility in
adapting to the General Education Course (GEC) with three (3) units which is the subject
of study, during the three transitional phases of the educational approach of Bicol
University Tabaco. Bicol University Tabaco is the chosen area of this study because the
students attending this university is diverse. Meaning, every student is unique in terms of
demographic profiles, social status, skills, capabilities, and perspectives. Hence, the
researchers have chosen this university as the setting of the study because the students are
suitable for the purpose of the study. The researchers have tracked back the various years
and semesters of these three approaches as they carry out their research. In tertiary
education, the pre-pandemic began in 2019, which is the first semester of the academic
year; the pandemic began in 2020, which is the second semester of the academic year;
and the New Normal began in 2022, which is the first semester of the academic year.
Fourth-year students from the six department courses are the study's target respondents
(Education, Entrepreneurship, Food Technology, Fisheries, Nursing, and Social Work).

5
Only 10% of 536 fourth-year students was selected by the researchers to participate in the
aforementioned study. Additionally, this study yearns to identify the students' problems
with their learning process as to how they acquire knowledge amidst the Covid-19
pandemic. This study was conducted with limited financial resources and a time
framework.
Significance of the Study
This study holds significant importance for various stakeholders, including
students, educators, parents, policymakers, institutions, and society. Here are some
significances of the study for these individuals:
 Students: The study provides a platform for students to express their perceptions and
experiences during different educational phases. It gives them a voice and allows
their opinions and concerns to be heard. The findings can validate their experiences,
help them feel understood, and contribute to improving their overall learning journey.
 Educators: Understanding students' perceptions during these transitional phases
enables educators to better support their students. The study can provide insights into
the challenges students face, their preferred learning methods, and the strategies that
help them succeed. This knowledge can guide educators in designing more effective
teaching methods and adapting their approaches to meet the needs of students in
different phases.
6
 Parents: Parents play a crucial role in their children's education. The study can help
parents gain insights into their child's experiences during different educational phases.
Understanding their child's perceptions can enable parents to provide appropriate
support, communicate effectively with educators, and assist their child in navigating
these transitions.
 Policymakers: The study's findings can inform policymakers in developing evidence-
based policies and guidelines that address the specific needs and challenges of
students during transitional phases. It can guide the allocation of resources and the
implementation of supportive measures to ensure a smooth and successful transition
for students at a broader level.
 Institutions: The study can guide educational institutions in designing curricula,
pedagogy, and support systems that effectively cater to students' needs during each
transitional phase. Institutions can use the findings to implement targeted
interventions, enhance student engagement, and create a positive learning
environment that fosters successful transitions.
 Society: The study's findings have broader implications for society as a whole.
Education plays a crucial role in shaping individuals and societies, and understanding
students' perceptions during transitional phases contributes to a more effective and
responsive education system. By acknowledging and addressing the challenges faced
by students, society can work towards fostering resilient and adaptable learners who
are better prepared to navigate future transitions.

7
 Student Researchers: As student researchers conducting this study, they have the
opportunity to gain hands-on experience in the research process. They can develop
essential research skills such as designing surveys or interviews, collecting and
analyzing data, and interpreting findings. This study allows them to apply theoretical
concepts learned in their academic courses to a real-world context, enhancing their
understanding of the subject matter and research methodologies. It also provides them
a platform to contribute to the academic community.
 Future Researchers: The findings and methodology of this study serve as a valuable
resource for future researchers who may be interested in exploring similar topics or
expanding upon the existing research. Future researchers can build upon the insights
gained from this study and delve deeper into the complexities of students' perceptions
during transitional phases. The study provides a foundation for generating new
research questions, exploring different methodologies, and investigating other
variables that may influence students' experiences. Future researchers can benefit
from the knowledge and lessons learned from this study, contributing to the
advancement of research in this field.
8
Definition of Terms
 Blending learning
Theoretical: is an educational strategy that combines conventional education with
online learning.
Operational: a combination of face-to-face and online learning under the new normal
education system.
 Covid-19
Theoretical: an acute disease in humans caused by a coronavirus, which is
characterized mainly by fever and cough, capable of progressing to severe symptoms
and, in some cases, death, especially in older people and those with underlying health
conditions.
Operational: a disease that caused massive lockdowns in every country, which caused
the sudden closure of schools and altered the mode of learning of every academic
institution.
 Distance learning
Theoretical: is the education of students who may not always be physically present at
a school or where the learner and the teacher are separated in time and distance.
Operational: a setting wherein teachers and students are required to meet virtually.
9
 Learning method
Theoretical: are any activities deliberately undertaken or resources provided to help
the learning process at the individual, team, or organizational level.
Operational: these are the methods adopted by the students in their learning process
during the transitional phases of the educational approach in Bicol University Tabaco.
 Lockdown
Theoretical: a state or period in which movement within or access to an area is
restricted in the interests of public safety or health.
Operational: A state or period where all academic institutions are closed to prevent
the spread of the virus and to secure the safety of all the students and teachers.
 New Normal
Theoretical: a previously unfamiliar or atypical situation that has become standard,
usual, or expected.
Operational: backdated to the first semester of the academic year in 2022, when
instructors and students are permitted to resume face-to-face instruction while
observing the minimal health standards established by the government.
 Pandemic
Theoretical: a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease over the whole country
or the world at a particular time.
10
Conceptual: in 2020, the second semester of the academic year, the period when
institutions had to conduct online classes to avoid the spread of the virus.
 Perception
Theoretical: the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through
the senses.
Operational: perspectives of the students towards the normal, pandemic, and new
normal learning approach and how it affects their academic performances.
 Pre-pandemic
Theoretical: refers to the time period extending from August 2019 to the beginning of
March 2020.
Operational: in 2019, the second semester of the academic year, when schools and
institutions conduct traditional face-to-face classes.
 Traditional Classroom
Theoretical: involves a standard curriculum delivered by a teacher in-person.
Operational: a place where teachers and students conduct onsite academic activities.
 Traditional Learning
Theoretical: a setting where a teacher communicates with a group of students in a
typical brick-and-mortar classroom setup.
Operational: the pioneering classroom setup where the teaching-learning process is
established through face-to-face interaction.
11
 Transitional Phase
Theoretical: one in which things are changing from one state to another.
Operational: The three sudden shifts of phases of the educational approach in Bicol
University Tabaco namely - Normal, Pandemic, and New Normal
 Web-assisted Learning
Theoretical: A term for classes with some online component but for which the Web
doesn’t play a significant role in assessment or contact time.
Operational: The mode of learning adopted by all the institutions to continue learning
despite the Covid-19 pandemic.
12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter furnishes the discussion of related literature and studies analyzed as
the preparation of this research that duly supports the conceptualization of the current
study. It also includes the synthesis of state-of-the-art; gap bridged by the study,
theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. The theoretical and conceptual
framework with its respective paradigm is likewise shown to help readers identify the
different variables significant to the study.
Related Literature
The following literature was important in supporting the current study and
acquiring thoughts on the given problem that needed to be solved according to the
research problem. Additionally, various literature was reviewed to find relevance to the
current study with those who considered their authorities in their fields.
Local
13
The learning delivery system is a problem that has to be addressed as we work to
combat the pandemic in light of the existing state of society as a result of the existence of
the Covid-19 pandemic, which impacts not only the Philippines but all the other countries
in the world.
European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education (2020) stated that e-
Learning has been gradually included in the Philippine educational system as a medium
of instruction, however, there have been issues with its implementation, particularly in
mathematics classes. When converting from classroom training to online learning, there
are 5 things to think about: Jumping the Gun, Replicating Classroom Training,
Assessment and Feedback, Cost Savings, and Virtual Location and Access (Harris,
2017). The results of a survey given to 342 senior high school students from various
strands at STI College Global City showed that the students’ socioeconomic status, the
quality of their internet connection, and the devices they own don’t have an impact on
how effective blended, distance, electronic, and virtual (BDEV) learning is perceived by
them. Despite having varying levels of mathematical proficiency and regardless of their
personal electronic devices, internet connection quality, or method of connecting to the
internet, the majority of students believed they were capable of participating in online or
distance learning and seeing that it was equivalent to learning in a traditional classroom.
In addition, students claimed that they learn more when watching video lecture, however,
teacher approval is still an important tool for building confidence in the knowledge
gained through videos. Furthermore, students’ perceptions of their ability to attend online
14
lectures, watch video lectures, and fulfill requirements online are not affected by
socioeconomic status. Their position in life does not affect their view or perception of
their ability to conduct distance education. Students at STI College Global City Senior
High School demonstrate a desire to transform the delivery of learning. Most students
agreed that they could use the e-learning materials to study the math class. This is backed
by excellent reviews on eLMS usage and effectiveness, considering most of them are
constantly browsing the web. Respondents are exposed to learning management systems,
so their perceived ability to take online courses indicates their willingness to adopt the
BDEV learning style of instruction. Despite poor internet connection quality, device
types, and methods of connecting to the internet, most students still consider BDEV
learning possible and viable. Exposure to learning management systems has been shown
to positively influence perceptions of BDEV learning.
Nuñez, et. al., (2022), stated that the virus had a significant impact on the
education system, closing its doors to all students worldwide. And now, after being
closed for more than two years, schools are slowly reopening with different health
policies to accommodate returning students. Consequently, the review intends to know
the viewpoint of Filipino understudies from the three significant island gatherings of the
Philippines about returning to typical tutoring following two years of doing on the
web/distance learning. The researchers analyzed the numerical data using descriptive
statistics. The researchers also used thematic analysis (Javadi & Zarea, 2016) to collect
qualitative data on Filipino students’ opinions regarding returning to traditional brick-

15
and-mortar education using the form that contained three open-ended questions. The
result of the study revealed that, the majority of the three groups of respondents preferred
returning to normal instruction, and each question in the survey had recurring themes
about their impressions and opinions of returning to normal instruction, and these were
the responses to teachers’ and infrastructure’s teaching such as understanding the
guidance under related concerns. On the other hand, there are the following issues
regarding the awareness of students who continue online/distance learning: fear of
contracting the virus, finding suitable facilities in established learning environments,
shared family responsibilities, and socioeconomic concerns. Those who prefer hybrid
instruction understand the flexibility of modes that allow them to attend online and
school in a variety of situations, such as weather conditions, family commitments, and the
need for hands-on activities, but respondents show the feelings of the majority and the
desire of students to return to regular classes as soon as possible.
Pingol (2022), expressed that particular distance learning includes individualized
guidance that permits students to utilize Self-Learning Modules (SLMs) on paper or
advanced design, whichever is relevant with regards to the student, and other learning
assets like student’s materials, course readings, movement sheets, concentrate on guides,
and other review materials. On the other hand, in Online Distance Learning, the instructor
serves as a facilitator, encouraging students to actively participate by utilizing a variety of
online technologies. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, the study presents the preferences
and perceptions of students regarding distance education. It employs a descriptive

16
quantitative design, which is also the design of the current study’s research. The
University of Makati’s senior high school department’s students in grades 11 and 12 are
the study’s intended respondents. Because all of the students in the study were enrolled in
a distance learning format and the researcher had easy access to the intended respondents,
the study used a convenient sampling method. This contrasts with the current study’s
sampling strategy, which employed the fish bowl method to identify the target
respondents and used simple random sampling. In order to gather information that is
relevant to the goals of the study, a survey questionnaire was created. Students’
perceptions and insights regarding teacher-student interaction, feedback, and access to
learning materials in light of the global health crisis are in line with their previously
identified preferences for distance education. The study also found that students’ lack of
access to technology and the internet has been a major source of concern. However,
despite the physical distance between them and this additional stressor, students still
value constant communication with their teachers and peers. As a result, the author
suggests making necessary adjustments to lesson delivery, assessment performance, the
feedback system, and other teacher and learning experiences to better meet the needs and
capabilities of students. Since only a few studies of this kind have been conducted at this
educational level, it is also suggested that other researchers carry out a study that is
comparable to this one, particularly with regard to the method of providing online
distance learning in primary education (K-12).
17
According to Gafoor and Kurukkan (2015), Nabayra (2022) demonstrated that the
majority of students regarded mathematics as a challenging subject prior to the pandemic
due to the adverse teaching style, difficulty comprehending the subject, and difficulty
memorizing its equations and methods of problem solving. The study by Ariyanti and
Santoso (2021) found that the average student’s positive reaction to mathematics before
and after online learning was higher during the pandemic. As a result, the study looked at
the subjects in Mathematics in the Modern World (MMW) that freshmen college students
at a state university in the Philippines had the least knowledge of and investigated how
they perceived mathematics education as the new normal in the midst of the pandemic.
The purpose of this study was to describe the students’ perceptions of mathematics
learning in the new normal and to identify the MMW topics that were least mastered. In
addition, the research was carried out at a state university in the Western Visayas region
of the Philippines. 77 first-year college students from three intact groups were selected at
random using cluster sampling. Additionally, a 24-student group participated in an
asynchronous Focus Group Discussion (FGD) via the Facebook Social Learning group to
discuss their perceptions of the new normal for mathematics education. In order to
guarantee the anonymity and confidentiality of the identities of the students, pseudonyms
were used in the qualitative data discussion. The instruments used in the study were
asynchronous FGD and researcher-created tests in Mathematics in the Modern World.
Quantitative data were also analyzed and interpreted using descriptive statistics like
frequency count, percentage, and bar graphs. The qualitative data were analyzed using
18
thematic analysis. The discoveries of the review featured that the most un-dominated
points were on the ideas of measurements, rationale, and critical thinking which check
out since these subjects were remembered for the last option parts of the fundamental
training educational program in the Philippines in the Middle School level. This merely
demonstrates that freshmen students continue to have issues with their conceptual
comprehension of these mathematics concepts as they enter the university system. In
addition, the expectations and perspectives of typical students at a rural state university,
who perceived new normal learning as difficult, were exemplified by the freshmen
students’ perceptions of mathematics instruction in the new normal. As uncovered by
their reactions, this perspective was affected by their past bad encounters of arithmetic
learning in the pre-pandemic time and their nervousness and anxiety toward the subject.
Nevertheless, despite the difficulties posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, the eagerness to
learn, excitement, and positive attitude toward mathematics never diminished. Despite
the limitations imposed by the pandemic, the students still have hope that the new normal
will provide them with a meaningful mathematics education that will simplify the subject
through a variety of engaging activities. As a result, teachers in Philippine higher
education institutions who are responsible for MMW may use the least-mastered topics as
inspiration to devise strategies for making these concepts more comprehensive and
simpler to comprehend for new students.
The inclusion of alternative learning methods in a new normal classroom setting
has emerged as a common topic of discussion in the education sector, according to the
19
literature published in the International Journal of Theory and Application in Elementary
and Secondary School Education. As a result, the study’s objective was to investigate
students’ perceptions of the use of alternative learning modalities in the new normal
classroom setting of General Chemistry and to determine which of the two methods,
synchronous or asynchronous, students regarded as the more convenient medium for the
delivery of instruction. The members were haphazardly chosen in which 317 Grade 12
understudies in Exceptional Wellbeing Sciences Originate from a confidential clinical
establishment arranged in a metropolitan area of Cavite in the Philippines. The use of
synchronous and asynchronous learning modalities was compared using a dependent
sample t-test. The students’ conceptual comprehension was evaluated using summative
assessments administered in both synchronous and asynchronous modes. The students’
evaluations of the various aspects of distance learning, particularly the asynchronous
teaching method that was associated with improved performance on the asynchronous
assessment, were presented using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis as well.
According to the assessment that was carried out to gauge conceptual understanding
within the context of General Chemistry, the study revealed that students performed
better when using an asynchronous method than when using a synchronous one. The
study also found that while the synchronous method makes it easier to create immediacy,
the asynchronous method is probably more convenient, flexible, interactive, and
collaborative because it uses discussion boards and new teaching methods. According to
their responses, each approach has distinct advantages and disadvantages for learning.
20
During a pandemic and community lockdown, on the other hand, these alternative
methods are undeniably useful additions to traditional classes. It positively enhanced
pedagogical instructions and students’ conceptual understanding by incorporating
additional interactive technology-based applications that make virtual learning more
meaningful and valuable.
Learning continues in the comfort of everyone’s home and is effectively managed
through the utilization of alternative learning modalities, despite the distance and time
between teachers and students. It has been suggested that the ideal environment for
distance learning might be created by combining the best practices of synchronous and
asynchronous methods.
Foreign
Amidst the pandemic, a lot of students suffer anxiety, stress, and poor academic
performance. Technical support is crucial in distance learning, wherein it prevents the
students and even the teacher from being anxious and frustrated. Mobile devices and the
internet provide an easy way for students to study in e-learning and distance learning
environment. Online learning provides effective methods of communication for both
teachers and students. However, it depends on the feedback that students and teachers
provide. Teachers and students need to train to use available technologies effectively
(Gurajena, 2020).
21
Focusing on understanding Agricultural Student's perception and preference
towards online learning through an online survey, 70% of the respondents were ready to
opt for online learning and preferred to use smartphones. Students preferred recorded
classes rather than live classes. The recorded class could help students improve
themselves, and the effectiveness of learning is also imparting to them. The majority of
the students had a positive attitude toward online classes since they provide flexibility
and convenience for the learners (T. Muthprasad, 2021).
Allen and Seaman (2014) to explore students' attitudes towards content quality in
traditional classrooms. The study utilizes a quantitative approach with a survey
questionnaire as the primary data collection method. The questionnaire measures
students' perceptions of clarity, relevance, comprehensiveness, and overall satisfaction
with the content provided. Participants include a diverse sample of students from various
disciplines and institutions, selected through purposive sampling. Data analysis involves
descriptive and inferential statistics using statistical software. The study aims to
contribute to knowledge about students' perceptions and provide insights for improving
instructional practices in face-to-face learning environments.
Means et al. (2013) conducted a meta-analysis on online learning effectiveness,
using a systematic approach to select relevant studies. The analysis included diverse
participants from K-12, higher education, and professional development, covering
various online learning environments. Data collection involved self-reports, surveys, and
qualitative feedback. The analysis revealed that students generally had positive
22
perceptions of content quality in online learning. This consistent finding supports the
notion that online learning provides valuable and engaging content, contributing to
positive learning experiences.
A review by Graham (2013) explored the benefits and challenges of blended
learning, this study examines the impact of blended learning on student perceptions of
content quality. Using a pre- and post-test approach, 100 undergraduate students
participated in a blended learning course that combined face-to-face instruction and
online activities. Results indicate positive perceptions of content quality with a moderate
effect size. These findings suggest that blended learning significantly influences how
students perceive the quality of content in their learning experiences. Educators and
institutions considering blended learning can expect benefits in terms of content quality
and student satisfaction. Further research should explore additional dimensions of student
perceptions and underlying factors contributing to the effects of blended learning.
In a 2005 study by Pascarella and Terenzini, student perceptions of accessibility
during face-to-face learning in traditional environments were examined. A mixed-
methods approach was used, involving surveys and interviews with students from various
educational settings. The findings revealed that students generally perceived accessibility
as very easy, which aligned with the data collected and analyzed quantitatively and
qualitatively.
Chiu et al. (2017) investigated students' perceptions of accessibility in online
learning. They used a quantitative survey-based approach with 500 undergraduate and
23
graduate students from diverse educational backgrounds. The researchers found that
students generally perceived accessibility as neutral, aligning with the conclusions drawn
from the data.
Garrison and Vaughan (2008) conducted a study to investigate students'
perceptions of accessibility in blended learning environments. The researchers employed
a quantitative research methodology, utilizing a survey questionnaire to collect data from
students enrolled in blended learning courses. The study aimed to understand how
students perceive the ease of accessing educational materials and resources in this
context. The findings suggest that students generally perceive accessibility in this context
as somewhat easy, aligning with their subjective perceptions.
From the aim to know the undergraduate student's perception of online learning
during the transition period from face-to-face to online learning in the Physics context,
most undergraduate students have sufficient facilities for online learning and have a
positive attitude towards digital technology literacy. However, the majority of them have
difficulty accessing fast internet connectivity, and they like a combination of online and
offline media learning. Hence, they do not like fully online learning. Therefore, teachers
should support students in online learning by providing appropriate physics learning
material and media for better online learning and literacy technology for the new normal
era (Surahman and Sujarwanto, 2020)
Online education turns into a tool for social isolation and outbreak control. Online
education offers helpful learning resources and 24/7 access to educational platforms at
24
the student's convenience. Anywhere and at any time, it also provides flexibility.
Additionally, it offers free questions and answers to students as well as commentary on
the subject matter of the assigned courses (Rosell, 2020, as cited by Almahasees et al.)
Not all students respond positively to the implementation of online learning.
Today, the majority of colleges and universities still face virtual learning difficulties
(Talidong & Toquero, 2020, as cited by Harefa et al., 2021).
In online classes, students interact differently (Dumford & Miller, 2018). Due to
the perceived lack of interaction in online classes, some students prefer in-person or face-
to-face learning (Tichavsky, Hunt, Driscoll, & Jicha, 2018, as cited by Walker et al.,
2021). Meaningful interactions can help students feel more engaged in online classes
when there is a physical presence (Dixson, 2010).
More than half of students taking English for Business Purposes and Speaking for
Business had a positive and good perception of the e-learning environment. However, it
caused a negative effect on some students. Almost half of the students expressed
satisfaction with the implementation of the online class. In other words, the perception of
students on online learning is somewhat fruitful to others, and for some people, it is a
problem. Learners can choose their own learning path to suit their learning styles
(Krishnapatria, 2020).
Related Studies
25
Related studies were composed of finished research from some releases to the
present study.
Local
According to Oducado and Estoque (2021), student satisfaction with online
learning was typically low, with only about a third satisfied and nearly half feeling
moderately satisfied. The COVID-19 epidemic also had an adverse effect on students'
academic achievement, which ranged from poor to fair. The pandemic had a significant
impact on a significant number of students. Furthermore, these findings indicate that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to online learning have had a substantial influence on
undergraduate nursing students, producing stress, dissatisfaction and academic
performance challenges. The substantial nature of these findings contributes to the
expansion of knowledge within the field and paves the way for advancements and
breakthroughs in future research studies.
Avila et al. (2021) studied 258 freshmen from the Polytechnic University of the
Philippines' Ragay, Camarines Sur Branch. During the first semester of the 2020-2021
academic year, the researchers intended to gain insight into how students felt about using
educational technologies for online and distance learning. The findings revealed that,
despite limited access to computers and devices, students valued distance learning. They
gave the university's online learning success and the university's and professors' support a
moderate rating. Contrary to the findings of the current studies, including Oducado and
26
Estoque (2021), this study presents positive feedback from students regarding online
learning.
Based from the findings of the study of Salamuddin (2021), students from
Mindanao State University-Sulu preferred face-to-face learning over modular distance
learning. They believed that face-to-face learning had a greater impact on their learning,
that group discussions motivated them, and that it boosted their self-confidence and
higher-level thinking skills. Face-to-face learning was deemed more convenient and cost-
effective, whereas modular learning was deemed beneficial for expanding vocabulary and
knowledge through online resources. The majority of students, however, disagreed with
the effectiveness of modular distance learning versus face-to-face learning. The current
study confirms that face-to-face learning is more effective compared to online learning
and blended learning approaches. These findings provide a solid foundation for scholars
and researchers to build on, informing and guiding their investigations in related fields.
As we attempted to adjust to online learning, medical students in the Philippines
encountered a number of interconnected challenges. The most common issues were
difficulty adapting learning styles, having to undertake tasks at home, and inadequate
communication between teachers and learners. This study employs an electronic survey
among medical students from May 11 to 24, 2020. Using a combination of multiple-
choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions, the researchers gathered the following
information: demographics, medical school information, access to technological
resources, study habits, living conditions, self-assessment of capacity for and perceived
27
barriers to online learning, and proposed interventions. This study, conducted by
Baticulon et al. (2021), provides valuable insights into the specific challenges faced by
medical students during the shift to online learning and proposes potential solutions to
address these issues.
According to Rotas and Cahapay's (2020) research, university students in the
Philippines faced challenges during the COVID-19 crisis. This includes unstable internet
connectivity, insufficient learning resources, power outages, ambiguous learning content,
overloaded lesson activities, limited teacher scaffolds, poor peer communication, conflict
with home responsibilities, a poor learning environment, financial issues, physical health
compromises, and mental health struggles. By delving into the findings of this study,
researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter and identify potential
avenues for further exploration.
There is a limited body of local research that specifically investigates and
compares the three phases of learning approaches: traditional face-to-face, online
learning, and blended learning with regards to content quality, accessibility, and
flexibility.
Foreign
Smith et al. (2019) investigated students' perceptions of content quality in face-to-
face learning environments across multiple departments. A mixed-methods approach was
used, with quantitative data gathered through a questionnaire and qualitative data
28
collected through interviews. Participants from various departments were included to
ensure diverse perspectives. The study revealed variations in students' perceptions of
content quality among departments, supported by both quantitative and qualitative
analyses. The findings emphasize the need to consider disciplinary perspectives when
evaluating and improving content quality in higher education. The study's mixed-methods
approach provides valuable insights to enhance instructional practices in face-to-face
learning environments.
Brown et al. (2021) conducted a comparative study on students' perceptions of
content quality in online learning across different departments. They collected data from
students in various disciplines using a self-report questionnaire. The study found that
students perceived online learning positively, and there were no significant differences in
perceptions among departments. These results suggest that online learning is effective
and satisfactory across academic disciplines, supporting its potential as an alternative to
traditional classroom instruction. Further research could investigate other factors
influencing students' perceptions and strategies for optimizing online learning in diverse
academic domains.
Johnson et al.'s (2020) study on students' perceptions of content quality in blended
learning environments across various departments. The study aimed to determine if there
were significant differences in students' perceptions of content quality among different
academic disciplines. Using a comparative research design, the researchers collected data
from students in multiple departments through a structured questionnaire. The findings

29
indicated that students from all departments perceived the content quality during blended
learning as better, with no significant differences observed. These results suggest that
blended learning can effectively deliver high-quality content across diverse academic
disciplines, providing students with comparable learning experiences. The study
contributes to understanding the implementation of blended learning to enhance content
quality and improve student satisfaction in higher education. Further research can explore
factors influencing students' perceptions in blended learning across disciplines.
Wilson et al. (2018) investigated students' perceptions of accessibility during
traditional learning across different departments. The researchers used a mixed-method
approach, including surveys and interviews, to gather data from a diverse sample of
students. The participants were students from various academic disciplines at the
university. The findings suggested that students from all departments perceived
traditional learning as very easy in terms of accessibility. However, specific quantitative
and qualitative results were not provided in the abstract. Overall, the study suggests that
students perceive traditional learning as highly accessible, regardless of their department.
For a comprehensive understanding of the findings, further examination of the complete
report is recommended.
Thompson et al. (2022) compared students' perceptions of accessibility during
online learning across various academic departments. A survey questionnaire was used to
collect data from 500 undergraduate students from diverse departments. Descriptive and
inferential statistics were employed to analyze the data. The study found that students
30
from all departments perceived online learning accessibility as neutral, with no
significant differences observed. These findings emphasize the need for inclusive and
accessible online learning environments for students in different academic disciplines.
Lee et al. (2019) investigated students' perceptions of accessibility during blended
learning across multiple departments. They used a mixed-methods approach, surveying
300 undergraduate students from various departments and conducting interviews. The
survey addressed accessibility aspects like course materials and support services.
Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data
underwent thematic analysis. The findings suggested that students from all departments
perceived the accessibility during blended learning as somewhat easy.
Chen et al. (2021) conducted a multi-phase study with N=500 students from
various educational levels to explore challenges in transitioning to blended learning. Data
collection involved surveys and interviews, analyzing quantitative data with descriptive
statistics and qualitative data through thematic analysis. The findings highlighted
physical distractions, time management difficulties, and changes in the classroom
environment as significant challenges. Addressing these issues is crucial for a successful
blended learning experience, benefiting educators, policymakers, and institutions.
Synthesis of the State-of-the-Art
31
The literature review conducted by the researchers provided baseline information
and insights for the present study on students' perceptions of different learning
modalities. The studies revealed that students in the Philippines perceived blended,
distance, electronic, and virtual learning as effective, despite challenges such as limited
access to devices and the internet. However, some students expressed concerns about
returning to traditional schooling after online/distance learning due to fear of contracting
the virus and socioeconomic issues. The literature also emphasized the importance of
technical support, mobile devices, and effective communication methods in distance
learning.
The review also highlighted challenges faced by students during the pandemic,
such as stress, dissatisfaction, and academic performance challenges. However, some
studies reported positive feedback from students regarding online learning, while others
identified challenges related to learning styles, home-based tasks, and communication
difficulties. The literature suggested the need to consider disciplinary perspectives in
instructional practices and recommended adjustments in lesson delivery, assessment, and
feedback systems to meet students' needs and capabilities. Generally, the literature review
provided valuable insights into students' perceptions of different learning modalities and
offered recommendations for improving instructional practices to enhance students'
learning experiences.
32
Gap Bridged by the Study
The study titled "Students’ Perceptions in Learning During the Three Transitional
Phases – Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic, and New-Normal" addresses the lack of research on
students' perceptions during phase transitions in education. While previous studies have
explored students' perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, no study has specifically
focused on the three transitional phases: pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new-normal. The
researchers conducted this study to fill this research gap and specifically aimed to
understand the perceptions of fourth-year students at Bicol University Tabaco (BUT)
regarding these transitional phases. The study is timely and relevant, providing valuable
insights that can help students and institutions develop effective strategies to adapt to
these transitional phases.
Theoretical Framework
This study was supported by three theories namely, the Social Comparison
Theory, Transformative Learning Theory, and Adaptation Theory.
The Social Comparison Theory outlines the methods people use to compare their
behaviors, successes, and opinions to those of other people in order to judge how well
they are doing. According to psychologist Leon Festinger (1954), we use this process of
comparison to create a standard by which we may accurately assess our own actions.
(Festinger, 1954, as cited in Cherry, 2022)
33
Social comparison, specifically in educational settings, is the act of a student
using one or more classmates as a comparison target to evaluate his or her own
competency (Bouffard et al., 2014, as cited in Valls, 2021). Thus, it would have an effect
on students' self-concept, particularly their academic self-concept.
This theory assisted the researchers in figuring out where the students' perception
of the sudden shift of our learning approach originated. Prior to the pandemic, during the
pandemic, and after the pandemic, the student's endeavors and successes within the
transition of the learning approach within this three phases will serve as the benchmark
for their judgment of their own learning experiences. The experiences they have had in
the past and the experiences they are having now will be evaluated by the students
themselves. In addition, people frequently assess their own accomplishments by
contrasting them with those of others.
This study was also supported by the Transformative Learning Theory. According
to Mezirow 1978 (as cited in “What is the transformative learning theory?”, 2020), the
concept of transformative learning holds that when students are learning new material,
they are also critically analyzing their prior knowledge and understanding and changing
their very worldview. It delves into how students come to comprehend and find purpose
in their life, going beyond merely obtaining knowledge. In order to make room for new
ideas and knowledge, learners begin to doubt everything they previously knew or
believed and study situations from other angles. This type of learning experience
generates a fundamental shift in our perceptions.

34
Students have demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of shifting learning
approaches in recent years, successfully navigating the challenges that have accompanied
these transitions. This theory provides insights into how students effectively manage the
challenges associated with changes in the learning environment, particularly in the midst
of a pandemic. Individuals can overcome these challenges and emerge stronger in their
educational journey by cultivating a positive attitude and embracing constructive
strategies.
This study was also supported by the Adaptation Theory which states that people
have the ability to adapt to new environment. In essence, learning is adjusting to our
ever-changing environment. We are able to adapt new behaviors, skills, and knowledge
that help us deal with change through adaptation. (Cherry, 2021)
It describes how we came to be in the current state. Students as well as
teachers were able to adapt new practices and learning approaches as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic, particularly online distance learning and blended learning, which
were very different from the typical face-to-face learning strategy before the pandemic.
Students have acquired a variety of skills necessary for online classes as we transition
from our regular setup and the traditional educational system to online learning. In spite
of pedagogical changes brought on by COVID-19, maintaining quality education varies
on students' coping strategies and adaptation.
35
Figure 1.0
Theoretical Paradigm of the Study
36
Social
Comparison
Theory
The foundation of a
student's perception is
their evaluation of their
actions and experiences
in comparison to those of
others.
Students’ Perceptions
in learning during the
three transitional
phases – Pre-
Pandemic, Pandemic,
and New-Normal
Adaptation Transformative
Theory Learning Theory
People have the Students analyze
ability to adapt to their prior experiences
new environment in light of the current
including new situation and devise
learning approaches. solutions to survive.
Conceptual Framework
37
The conceptual framework of this study attempted to provide a detailed
discussion of the concepts in this research. This framework was made to enable the
readers to better understand, interpret, and visualize the research and its process.
The study illustrated the input, process, and output of the study. The conceptual
data regarding the flow of the study is presented in figure 2.0. The input of the study is
located in the first box wherein it contains the study’s objectives to evaluate the students’
perceptions of the three transitional phases of the educational approach for the 4th year
students of Bicol University Tabaco. The study aims to determine the students’
perceptions on the following key informants: (1) The content quality of the GEC courses
during the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new normal learning approaches. Under this,
are specific competencies and/or standards that will serve as basis for evaluating content
quality; (a) clarity of class objectives, (b) content is aligned with the learning outcome, (c)
content provides broad understanding to students, (d) relevance of course content to
students, (e) the content provides appropriate assessments, and (f) course content
encourages interaction. (2) Identify the students' perceptions regarding the accessibility of
resource materials provided to them during these three transitional learning approaches,
(3) know the students’ perceptions in terms of the flexibility they used to adapt to these
three transitions of educational approaches, and (4) identify the students’ problems with
their learning process during the normal, pandemic, and new normal phases of the
educational approaches.
38
The process includes the data gathering procedure wherein, this study utilized
both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore students' perceptions of content
quality, flexibility, and accessibility in face-to-face, online, and blended instruction. The
qualitative component focused on capturing students' experiences and thoughts through a
phenomenological approach, aiming to gain a deep understanding of their perspectives.
The quantitative component aimed to identify statistically significant differences in
students' ratings of lecture quality criteria across different course formats. The researchers
chose this design to foster creativity and encourage participant engagement, allowing for
comprehensive data collection. An online survey-based questionnaire through Google
form was used to gather firsthand accounts from undergraduate students, summarizing
their challenges during the transition to online and blended education. The study also
utilized different instruments to measure and answer the following objectives aimed for
this study. The study used checklist in the survey questionnaire to gather their personal
information, to identify the GEC courses that they have taken during the three transitional
learning approaches, and to identify the problems they have encountered during these
three learning approaches. Likert Scale was also used to determine the students’
perceptions regarding content quality, accessibility, and flexibility during these three
learning phases. Furthermore, statistical tools such as frequency distribution, test of
normality particularly the Shapiro-Wilk statistics, Kruskal-Wallis H Test, and Post-Hoc
analysis using DSCF was utilized to provide detailed, concise and summarized result of
39
the study. Overall, the study aimed to present and statistically analyze students'
perceptions and difficulties related to face-to-face, virtual, and blended learning.
The output are the results and conclusions which are interpreted and drawn from
the study. The researchers envisioned that there is a statistically significant differences on
students’ perceptions regarding content quality, accessibility, and flexibility across
departments and across the three transitional learning approaches and that these results
can make contributions to students, teachers, and the institutions as well.
Figure 2.0
40
Conceptual Paradigm of the Study
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
The researchers used an The results are

The study aims to online-survey based interpreted and
determine the students’ questionnaire through conclusions are drawn
perception in terms of the Google form in order to about differences in
key informants: gather information from the perceptions across
target respondents of this departments and learning
1. The content quality of
study. The questionnaire approaches. The
the GEC courses during
consists of four (4) parts, researchers envisioned that
the pre-pandemic,
wherein the first part there is a statistically
pandemic, and new normal
gathers the personal significant differences
learning approaches.
information of the among the perceptions of
a. Clarity of class respondents, the second part the students across
objectives. talks about the GEC courses departments and across
that they have taken during learning phases. Also, the
b. Content is aligned the three transitional results of the study
with the learning outcome. learning approach (pre- provided insights and
pandemic, pandemic, and contributions to the
c. Content provides new normal), the third part learning of students,
broad understanding to is all about the evaluation of instruction of teachers and
students. content quality, learning system of higher
accessibility, and flexibility education institutions.
d. Relevance of
of students during the three
course content to students.
learning approaches, and the
e. The content fourth part talks about the
provides appropriate problems encountered by
assessments. the respondents during the
three different learning
f. Course content approaches. Along with this
encourages interaction. parts, the researchers also
used various instruments to
2. Accessibility of measure and answer the
resource materials
41
objectives of the study, and
provided to them during these are the following:
these three transitional 1. Checklist – was
learning approaches. used to identify the
GEC courses that the
3. Flexibility they used to
respondents have
adapt to these three
taken during the
transitions of educational
three transitional
approaches.
4. Students’ problems with Additionally, this
their learning process was used to identify
during the normal, the students
pandemic, and new normal problems during
phases of the educational their learning
approaches. process in these
three transitional
2. Likert Scale – was
used to determine
the students’
perceptions
regarding the three
variables — content
quality, accessibility,
and flexibility.
Furthermore, the key
processes involved in this
study are as follows:
1. Frequency
distribution — was
used to provide a
concise and
organized way of
summarized large
dataset, specifically
on students’
42
characteristics and
perceptions across
the learning phases.
It presents the data
in a tabular format,
showing the
frequency or count
of each distinct
value or value range
in the dataset.
2. Test of normality
—used to determine
whether a given
dataset follows a
normal distribution
or not.
3. Shapiro-Wilk Test
— used for small to
medium-sized
datasets. It calculates
a test statistic based
on the correlation
between the data and
the expected values
of a normal
distribution. The test
provides a p-value,
and if the p-value is
less than a
predetermined
significance level
(e.g., 0.05), the null
hypothesis of
normality is rejected.
4. Kruskal-Wallis H
test — a non-
43
parametric statistical
test used to
determine if there
are significant
differences between
the medians of three
or more independent
groups. It was also
used if the test of
normality in this
study was violated
and also focuses on
comparing the ranks
of the observations
across the groups.
5. Post Hoc test —
used to determine
which specific group
means or treatment
effects (e.g., six
departments) differ
significantly from
each other when the
overall analysis
indicates a
significant effect.
CHAPTER 3
44
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter will discuss the research design and methodology used in this study.
It also includes the sources of data, respondents of the study, data gathering procedures,
research instruments used, and statistical tools of the study. The research method used in
the study is presented in this section of the report. Given that research must go beyond
information gathering, an effective and efficient research methodology is essential for the
success of a study. According to Goddard and Melville (2004), the researcher must either
generate new questions to be answered through policy implementation or the
development of new research or respond to existing questions in order to close a
knowledge gap. Choosing a reliable method is thus essential for any type of research. A
concise methodical process is used to collect and condense data, which is then arranged
to create meaning. A researcher must select research techniques that will allow them to
find answers to research questions in order to collect relevant data, as the data will be
important in resolving the study topic at hand (Baker) (2000).
This section, therefore, describes the steps that will take to finish the research and
close the knowledge gap. The research design, which explains the general study plan, will
be covered in the first section. The respondents of the study, or the full group from which
the sample will draw, are next mentioned. After that, a sampling method will offer to
demonstrate how the researcher selected the study sample. The data-gathering
procedures, which demonstrate how data will gather from the chosen sample, are
45
presented after the sampling technique. It is necessary to analyze the data that will gather,
and the section that follows will describe the data analysis process. The research
instrument that will use and the statistical tool that are also present in the study. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of the research study's ethical issues.
Research Design
The study is descriptive, with data that were collected using quantitative methods.
The qualitative component of this study addressed students' perceptions regarding the
content quality, flexibility, accessibility of resource materials, and students' problems
with lectures delivered via face-to-face, online, and blended instruction. Qualitative
research involves an examination of what people said about their experiences,
dispositions, and thoughts as they relate to a specific phenomenon. Heidegger (1962)
described the phenomenological approach as “that which shows itself in itself” (p. 51).
Crotty (1998) noted phenomenology is an attempt to gain an in-depth understanding of
the human experience. The quantitative component of the study is to measure if there are
statistically significant differences among the ratings of students regarding the degree to
which lecture quality criteria are met through face-to-face, online, and blended course
formats.
The major reason why this design was selected is because of its ability to spark
creativity and ensure that the participants are engaging with the researcher as much as
46
possible. With creativity as the driving force, the researchers obtain an immense amount
of data that could otherwise not be possible with other designs. Using this design, a
researcher can seek systematic reflection while identifying the fundamental structures and
characteristics of experience. The researchers used an online survey-based questionnaire
to collect firsthand accounts from undergraduate students about the challenges they faced
as traditional instruction was replaced with online delivery in higher education
institutions. To summarize the perspectives of people who had firsthand experience with
the phenomenon in this case, face-to-face, virtual, and blended learning were all about
demonstrating and statistically expressing these perceptions and difficulties.
Sources of Data
The primary source of data is the results obtained and gathered from the survey
questionnaire. The combined information, data, responses, and perception of the 4th-year
students of Bicol University Tabaco were the bases of the study. The study involves how
students felt about face-to-face, online, and mixed learning. 84 fourth-year students from
the six departments who had sufficient understanding of the three educational approach
transitions which are the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new normal were chosen by the
researchers to participate in the study. To evaluate the data that is relevant to the current
research, the researchers filter out all the data that was extraneous while performing data
analysis. The information that was gathered for this study is first-hand information.
47
Primary data is the first-hand information that the researcher independently collects,
Andrei (2008). Therefore, the researchers decided to use a survey questionnaire to gather
information from the participants. The researchers also gather secondary data from
reference materials such as the internet, thesis papers, and other related literature that
were considered relevant to the topic.
Respondents
This study that was conducted at Bicol University Tabaco (BUT) consists of 6
departments from diverse provinces of the Bicol region. The aim is to find out whether
there is a significant difference between the students’ perceptions of the 6 departments of
the university in terms of lecture formats delivered via face-to-face, online, and blended
instruction. The study group comprised 536 fourth-year students from education,
entrepreneurship, fisheries, food technology, nursing, and social work departments of the
university during the 2022-2023 academic year. The study selected 10% of the total
population of each department using Slovin’s formula. Slovin’s formula allows a
researcher to sample the population with a desired degree of accuracy. Slovin’s formula
gives the researcher an idea of how large the sample size needs to be to ensure reasonable
accuracy of results, (Ellen, 2020). According to Table 1, there were 15 (18%) education,
11 (13%) entrepreneurship, 13 (15%) fisheries, 14 (17%) food technology, 19 (23%)
nursing, and 12 (14%) social work students giving a target population of 84 students.
48
TABLE 1. Target Respondents
BUT Course Department Number of Respondents Overall Respondents
Education 15 students
Entrepreneurship 11 students
Fisheries 13 students
Food Technology 14 students 84 students
Nursing 19 students
Social Work 12 students
Research Instrument
For the investigation and data collection, an online survey-based questionnaire
was designed through Google form to measure the students' perceptions on the transition
of education from face-to-face, online, and blended learning during the unprecedented
health and economic crisis. Google form was used to gather data from the respondents
since all of the respondents of this study was 4 th year students across the six departments.
During data gathering, all of them are in their internships and on-the-job trainings, hence,
the researchers decided to use this online survey for easy access and communication. This
is also the best way to gather the information and data needed from the respondents since
they were not in the school premises, hence, Google form was the alternative way to
collect firsthand data from the respondents. This survey questionnaire gathered the
49
students' demographics, the GEC course taken during the three transitional phases;
students’ evaluation in terms of the GEC course’s content quality, accessibility of
resource materials, and students’ flexibility during the changes in the learning approach;
and students’ learning difficulties. The online survey through Google Form was
disseminated through Messenger. It consisted of four parts:
 Part 1: Demographics - This part collects basic information about the students
such as age, sex, social status, and course.
 Part 2: GEC Course - This part determines the GEC courses taken by students
during the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new normal learning approach.
 Part 3: Evaluation - This part evaluates students' perceptions regarding the content
quality of GEC courses, accessibility to resource materials, and flexibility during
the three transitional phases of the learning approach at Bicol University Tabaco.
 Part 4: Problems Encountered - This part identifies the problems encountered by
students during the three learning approaches.
50
Table 2.0: Rating Scale and Interval in Content Quality
Scale Interval Verbal Description
5 4.21- 5.00 Excellent
4 3.41- 4.20 Better
3 2.61- 3.40 Good
2 1.81- 2.60 Fair
1 1.00- 1.80 Poor
Table 2.1: Rating Scale and Interval in Accessibility
5 4.21- 5.00 Very easy
4 3.41- 4.20 Somewhat easy
3 2.61- 3.40 Neutral
2 1.81- 2.60 Somewhat difficult
1 1.00- 1.80 Very difficult
51
Table 2.2: Rating Scale and Interval in Flexibility
5 4.21- 5.00 Highly flexible
4 3.41- 4.20 Somewhat flexible
3 2.61- 3.40 Neutral
2 1.81- 2.60 Not very flexible
1 1.00- 1.80 Not flexible at all
By using this comprehensive approach, the researchers hope to gain valuable
insights into the effects of the pandemic on the education system and provide evidence-
based recommendations for future improvements.
Data Gathering Procedure
Data collection is the method a researcher employs to methodically and stylishly
collect and measure data on the relevant variables to close the knowledge gap and assess
the results. A researcher can use a variety of data collection approaches during the
planning stage. The researcher’s preference for experimental, observational, qualitative,
or quantitative data influences the data-gathering method they use, (Bar-llan, 2001). The
current study is statistical; thus, the researcher goes through a rigorous process of
developing better or new statistical procedures that are based on statistical theory and
52
probability. Additionally, it is phenomenological which means that the researcher is
looking at things as what they are. The sampling technique that was employed in this
study is simple random sampling, a type of probability sampling. Here, the researchers
had randomly selected a subset of participants from a population. In the sample selection
known as probability sampling, every unit in the population has an equal chance of being
chosen to create a working sample, (Field, et. al. 2006).
In quantitative research, this type of sampling is typically utilized when large
samples are required and the researcher seeks a sample that accurately represents the total
population. The researchers also employed this type of sampling because it does not
impose any bias on the respondents. Individuals who make up the subset of a larger group
are chosen at random, each individual in the population set has the same probability of
being selected. Additionally, there are no special skills involved in using this method that
can result in a fairly reliable outcome. Under the random sampling technique, the
researchers use the fishbowl draw to achieve this type of probability sampling. In this
method, each respondent can be numbered using separate clips of paper and put into a
fishbowl or container and shuffled and each slip is randomly picked out one by one.
Those names from the 6 departments that were picked out were the respondents for this
study. All of the participants in this study are directly involved in the decision or
implementation of policy. Participants in this study include education, food technology,
entrepreneurship, nursing, social work, and fisheries students of the university. Data on
the sample’s opinions about face-to-face, online, and hybrid learning were collected for
53
the study. The researchers filtered away all the data that was superfluous while
performing data analysis in order to analyze the data that is pertinent to the current
investigation. The data that was collected for this study is first-hand data.
According to Andrei (2008), primary data is the first-hand information that the
researcher independently collects. This is in contrast to secondary data when the
researcher gathers information from other sources including books, websites, government
papers, articles, and other sources or to put it in another way, secondary data comes from
outside sources. For the current one, data from other publications were used in the
literature review section of the paper to support the results of the primary study. The
primary data was collected using an online survey-based questionnaire in which 84
fourth-year students from the six departments namely: The Education Department,
Entrepreneurship Department, Fisheries Department, Food Technology Department,
Nursing Department, and Social Work Department who had sufficient understanding of
the three educational approach transitions following the Covid-19 pandemic was chosen
by the researchers to participate in the study. A descriptive-quantitative technique was
employed by the researchers to enable a better and more comprehensive understanding of
the subject at hand.
Statistical Tools
54
(a) Frequency distribution is used to describe the students in terms of: (1) age; (2) sex;
(3) social status and (4) course. It is also used to describe the perceptions of students in
terms of content quality, accessibility, flexibility towards the 3 transitions of education
learning approach (face-to-face, online and blended learning).
(b) The test of normality was examined using Shapiro-Wilk statistics which showed
that the assumption of normality is violated. Thus, Kruskal Wallis H test was used as an
alternative to One-way ANOVA.
(c) ANOVA (Kruskal Wallis H test) is used to determine if there are significant
differences between groups, in this case, the six departments, regarding students'
perceptions of content quality, accessibility, and flexibility across the three learning
approaches (face-to-face, online, and blended).
(d) Post hoc tests (DSCF) are then conducted to compare the specific differences
between the departments after the ANOVA (Kruskall Wallis H test) analysis.
(e) The effect sizes are also mentioned, which provide information about the magnitude
of the observed differences.
CHAPTER IV
55
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
4.1 Results
4.1.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the presentation of data in textual and tabular form as well
as its interpretation and implication. It aims to explore the perceptions of university
students regarding the effectiveness of different lecture formats, including face-to-face,
online, and blended instruction, across six different departments. The presentation,
analysis, and interpretation of data is critical in determining whether there is a significant
difference between students' perceptions of these different formats.
4.1.2 Demographic Profile of the Respondents
The table below shows the frequency and percentage of the profile of the students
in terms of age, sex, social status, and field of specialization.
Demographic Profile of the Respondents in terms of Age, Sex, Social Status, and
Discipline.
Table 4.1.3 Distribution of Selected

Demographic Characteristics
Student's Demographic Profile N=84 (%)
Age (Years)
21 17 20
22 50 60
23 15 18
56
24 2 2
25
Sex
Male 21 25
Female 63 75
Social Status
Upper Class
Upper-middle Class 1 1
Middle Class 47 56
Working Class 15 18
Lower Class 21 25
Discipline
BS Education 15 18
BS Entrepreneurship 11 13
BS Fisheries 13 15
BS Food Technology 14 17
BS Nursing 19 23
BS Social Work 12 14
Table 4.1.3 presented the distribution of demographic profile of the respondents
which shows that in terms of age, 22-years old respondents dominated the table with 50
or 60% of the total sample size having this age, followed by 21-years old respondents
with a total of 17 or 20% of the total population, 15 or 18% of the respondents aging 23,
2 or 2% of the respondents aged 24-years old, and no respondents or 0% of the total
population aged 25-years old. In terms of sex, there were 63 females which comprised
75% of the total population of student respondents while only 21 or 25% of the total
57
population of the respondents are males. When it comes to social status, there are no
students-respondents that come from the upper class. From the upper-middle class, there
was only 1 respondent or 1% of the total sample size originated in this class. 47 or 56%
of the respondents came from the middle class, which gained the highest respondents
among all the other classes. 15 or 18% of respondents came from the working class, and
21 respondents or 25% of the total population came from the lower class. In terms of
discipline, 15 respondents or 18% of the total population came from BS Education, 11 or
13% of the total population are respondents taking up the course of BS Entrepreneurship,
and from the BS Fisheries, there are 13 respondents or 18% of the total sample size came
from this course. From BS Food Technology, there were 14 or 17% respondents, 19 or
23% of the respondents came from BS Nursing which has the highest number of
respondents among the six courses, and 12 or 14% of the respondents came from BS
Social Work. This table showed that the students of Bicol University – Tabaco is truly
diverse and has varying learning perceptions towards various academic disciplines.
4.2. GEC Courses

58
The following tables show the frequency or number of students in each
department who have taken specific General Education Curriculum (GEC) courses during
the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new normal phases of learning approach. These GEC
courses serve as the basis for evaluating the content quality and determining whether
there are any significant differences across the three phases of learning approach.
4.2.1. GEC COURSES DURING PRE-PANDEMIC
GEC Courses Educatio Entrepreneurshi Fisheries Food Nursin Social

n p Technology g Work
Understanding the Self 4 8 11 8 14 8
Readings in Philippine 3 3 11 7 3 8
History
The Contemporary 4 1 9 8 2 8
World
Mathematics in the 4 3 10 13 13 8
Modern World
Purposive 13 1 9 11 12 5
Communication
Art Appreciation 13 7 11 3 13 1
Science Technology 14 2 4 2 3 1
and Society
Ethics 1 3 8 1 12 3
Environmental Science 2 0 8 1 0 0
People and The Earth's 1 0 3 0 0 1
Ecosystems
Human Reproduction 2 0 0 0 0 0
Living in the IT Era 2 9 1 4 4 0
Religions, Religious 0 0 0 0 0 0
Experiences and
Spirituality
Philippine Indigenous 0 0 0 0 0 0
Communities
Gender and Society 0 0 10 0 0 0
The Entrepreneurial 0 3 11 11 4 1
Mind
Great Books 1 0 0 0 0 0
Philippine Popular 3 0 0 0 4 2
59
Culture
Indigenous Creative 0 2 0 0 0 0
Crafts
Reading Visual Art 0 1 0 0 0 0
Life and Works of 1 3 11 0 1 1
Rizal
Sinesosyedad/ 2 2 2 0 1 2
Pelikulang Panlipunan
(Sinesos)
None/ Others 0 0 0 0 0 0
In this phase, the courses taken by students from different departments varied.
Education students mostly took Purposive Communication, Art Appreciation, and
Science Technology and Society, while Entrepreneurship students took Understanding
the Self, Art Appreciation, and Living in the IT Era. Fisheries students had a diverse set
of courses, including Understanding the Self, Readings in Philippine History, Art
Appreciation, The Entrepreneurial Mind, Life and Works of Rizal, Mathematics in the
Modern World, and Gender and Society. Food Technology students mostly took
Mathematics in the Modern World, Purposive Communication, and The Entrepreneurial
Mind. Nursing students focused on Understanding the Self, Mathematics in the Modern
World, Art Appreciation, Purposive Communication, and Ethics. Lastly, Social Work
students took Understanding the Self, Readings in Philippine History, The Contemporary
World, and Mathematics in the Modern World.
4.2.2. GEC COURSES DURING PANDEMIC
GEC Courses Education Entrepreneurshi Fisherie Food Nursing Social

p s Technolog Work
60
y
Understanding the 0 2 2 1 1 1
Self
Readings in 1 1 2 1 11 1
Philippine History
World
Modern World
Purposive 1 8 2 1 5 8
Communication
and Society
Ethics 12 8 2 10 4 6
Environmental 2 0 1 1 0 1
Science
People and The 1 0 4 0 0 8
Earth's Ecosystems
Experiences and
Spirituality
Communities
Mind
Culture
Crafts
Rizal
(Sinesos)
During the pandemic, the Education students mostly took Ethics,
61
Sinesosyedad/Pelikulang Panlipunan (Sinesos), The Entrepreneurial Mind, Philippine
Popular Culture, and Life and Works of Rizal. The Entrepreneurial students mostly took
Purposive Communication, Ethics, Life and Works of Rizal, The Contemporary World,
and Indigenous Creative Crafts. Fisheries students mostly did not take any GEC courses
but some took The Contemporary World and Science Technology and Society. As for the
Food Technology students, most of them took Art Appreciation, Living in the IT Era,
Science Technology and Society, and Ethics. The Nursing students mostly took The
Entrepreneurial Mind, Living in the IT Era, Readings in Philippine History, and Science
Technology and Society. And lastly, most of the Social Work students took Art
Appreciation, The Entrepreneurial Mind, Life and Works of Rizal, and
Sinesosyedad/Pelikulang Panlipunan (Sinesos).
4.2.3 GEC COURSES DURING NEW NORMAL
GEC Courses Educatio Entrepreneurshi Fisheries Food Nursin Social

n p Technolog g Work
y
Understanding the Self 1 0 1 1 0 1
Readings in Philippine 0 0 1 1 2 1
History
World
Modern World
Purposive 1 0 1 1 0 1
Communication
and Society
Ethics 0 1 2 1 0 0
Environmental Science 0 0 2 0 0 1
62
People and The Earth's 0 0 1 0 0 0
Ecosystems
Experiences and
Spirituality
Communities
Mind
Culture
Crafts
Rizal
(Sinesos)
During the New Normal phase, the Education students, Entrepreneurial students,
Fisheries Students, and Social Work students mostly did not take GEC courses but took
other courses. However, some students from this department took Life and Works of
Rizal, The Entrepreneurial Mind, Ethics, Science Technology and Society,
Environmental Science, Sinesosyedad/Pelikulang Panlipunan (Sinesos), and Art
Appreciation. The other two departments, Food Technology and Nursing students mostly
took Life and Works of Rizal. Those students that did not take GEC courses in this phase
selected Others meaning they took other courses but not GEC courses and have
substituted those courses as basis for the content quality they have been given during this
63
phase.
4.3 Students’ Perception on Content Quality During Pre-Pandemic (FACE-TO-
FACE LEARNING)
The table shows the frequency distribution of student perceptions regarding the
content quality during pre-pandemic(face-to-face) learning.
Table 4.3.1 Content Quality (PRE-PANDEMIC)
Frequency N=84
Courses Statement 5 4 3 2 1
Excellent Better Good Fair Poor
N N N N N
Education 1 12 2 1 0 0
2 12 1 2 0 0
3 11 2 2 0 0
4 12 2 1 0 0
5 12 2 1 0 0
6 12 2 1 0 0
Entrepreneurship 1 4 6 1 0 0
2 4 6 1 0 0
3 4 6 1 0 0
4 6 4 1 0 0
5 5 5 1 0 0
6 5 4 2 0 0
Fisheries 1 8 3 1 1 0
2 5 6 1 1 0
64
3 7 3 2 1 0
4 6 4 2 1 0
5 5 5 0 2 1
6 6 4 1 1 1
Food
Technology 1 12 1 1 0 0
2 12 0 2 0 0
3 12 0 2 0 0
4 12 1 1 0 0
5 12 1 1 0 0
6 12 1 1 0 0
Nursing 1 10 7 2 0 0
2 10 7 2 0 0
3 9 8 2 0 0
4 12 5 2 0 0
5 11 6 2 0 0
6 11 5 3 0 0
Social Work 1 8 2 1 1 0
2 5 4 2 1 0
3 6 2 3 1 0
4 5 4 2 1 0
5 4 5 0 2 1
6 6 3 1 1 1
As shown in table 4.3.1, from the education department, under statement 1 it can
be gleaned from the result that 12 education students answered EXCELLENT which
means most of the population was satisfied on the content quality(clarity of objectives)
during pre-pandemic(face-to-face) learning, 2 education students answered BETTER and
1 student answered GOOD. It also be gleaned that education students never perceived
65
the statement 1 for content quality as fair and poor. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned
that 12 students answer EXCELLENT, 1 student answered BETTER, 2 students
answered GOOD, and no students perceive the statement 2 under content quality as fair
and poor. Most of the population of education students satisfied with content
quality(aligned with learning outcome) during face-to-face learning. Under statement 3,
11 education students answered content quality (provide board understanding) as
EXCELLENT, 2 education students answered BETTER, 2 education student answered
GOOD and no students answered fair and poor. Under statement 4, 12 students answered
content quality(relevance of course content to students) as EXCELLENT, 2 education
students answered BETTER , and 1 student answered GOOD. Under statement 5, 12
students answered content quality (provide appropriate assessments) as EXCELLENT, 2
education students answered BETTER, and 1 student answered GOOD. Under statement
6, 12 students answered content quality (encourages interaction) as EXCELLENT, 2
education students answered BETTER, and 1 student answered GOOD.
For the entrepreneurship department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the
result that 4 students answered content quality (clarity of objectives) as EXCELLENT, 6
students answered BETTER, 1 student answered GOOD and no students answered FAIR
and POOR.. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 4 students answer content quality
(aligned with learning outcome) as EXCELLENT, 6 student answered BETTER, 1
students answered GOOD, and no students perceive the statement 2 under content quality
as FAIR and POOR. Under statement 3, 4 students answered content quality (provide
66
board understanding) as EXCELLENT,6 students answered BETTER, 1 student
answered GOOD and no students answered FAIR and POOR. Under statement 4, 6
students answered content quality (relevance of course content to students) as
EXCELLENT, 4 students answered BETTER , 1 student answered GOOD and no
students answered FAIR and POOR. . Under statement 5, 5students answered content
quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 5 students answered
BETTER , and 1 student answered GOOD. Under statement 6, 5 students answered
content quality(encourages interaction) as EXCELLENT, 4 education students answered
BETTER , and 2 student answered GOOD.
For the fisheries department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the result
that 8 students answered content quality(clarity of objectives) as EXCELLENT, 3
students answered BETTER, 1 student answered GOOD, 1 answered FAIR and no
student answered POOR.. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 5 students answer
content quality(aligned with learning outcome) as EXCELLENT, 6 student answered
BETTER, 1 students answered GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and no student
answered POOR. . Under statement 3, 7 students answered content quality(provide board
understanding) as EXCELLENT, 3 students answered BETTER, 2 student answered
GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and no student answered POOR. . Under statement 4, 6
students answered content quality(relevance of course content to students) as
EXCELLENT, 4 students answered BETTER , 2 student answered GOOD, 1 student
answered FAIR and no student answered POOR. . Under statement 5, 5 students

67
answered content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 5 students
answered BETTER , no student answered GOOD, 2 students answered FAIR and 1
student answered POOR. Under statement 6, 6 students answered content
quality(encourages interaction) as EXCELLENT, 4 education students answered
BETTER , 1 student answered GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and 1 student answered
POOR.
For the food technology department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the
result that 12 students answered content quality(clarity of objectives) as EXCELLENT, 1
students answered BETTER, 1 student answered GOOD, and no student answered
FAIR and POOR. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 12 students answer content
quality(aligned with learning outcome) as EXCELLENT, no student answered BETTER,
2 students answered GOOD, and no student answered FAIR and POOR. Under statement
3, 12 students answered content quality(provide board understanding) as EXCELLENT,
1 students answered BETTER, 1 student answered GOOD, and no student answered
FAIR and POOR. . Under statement 4, 12 students answered content quality(relevance of
course content to students) as EXCELLENT, 1 students answered BETTER , 1 student
answered GOOD, and no student answered FAIR and POOR. . Under statement 5, 12
students answered content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 1
students answered BETTER , 1 student answered GOOD , and no student answered
FAIR and POOR. Under statement 6, 12 students answered content quality(provide
appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 1 students answered BETTER , 1 student

68
answered GOOD , and no student answered FAIR and POOR.
For the nursing department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the result
students answered BETTER, 2 student answered GOOD, and no student answered
FAIR and POOR. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 10 students answer content
quality(aligned with learning outcome) as EXCELLENT, 7 students answered BETTER,
2 students answered GOOD, and no student answered FAIR and POOR. Under statement
3, 9 students answered content quality(provide board understanding) as EXCELLENT, 8
students answered BETTER, 2 students answered GOOD, and no student answered
FAIR and POOR. . Under statement 4, 12 students answered content quality(relevance of
course content to students) as EXCELLENT, 5 students answered BETTER , 2 student
answered GOOD, and no student answered FAIR and POOR. . Under statement 5, 11
students answered content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 6
students answered BETTER , 2 student answered GOOD , and no student answered
FAIR and POOR. Under statement 6, 11 students answered content quality(provide
answered GOOD , and no student answered FAIR and POOR.
For the social work department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the
result that 8 students answered content quality(clarity of objectives) as EXCELLENT, 2
students answered BETTER, 1 student answered GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and
no student answered POOR. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 5 students answer
69
content quality(aligned with learning outcome) as EXCELLENT, 4 students answered
BETTER, 2 students answered GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and no student POOR.
Under statement 3, 6 students answered content quality(provide board understanding) as
EXCELLENT, 2 students answered BETTER, 3 students answered GOOD, 1 student
answered FAIR and no student POOR. Under statement 4, 5 students answered content
quality(relevance of course content to students) as EXCELLENT, 4 students answered
BETTER , 2 student answered GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and no student
answered POOR. Under statement 5, 4 students answered content quality(provide
answered GOOD , 2 students answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR. Under
statement 6, 6 students answered content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as
EXCELLENT, 3 students answered BETTER , 1 student answered GOOD, 1 student
answered FAIR and POOR.
70
4.4. Students’ Perception on Content Quality During Pandemic (ONLINE
LEARNING)
content quality during pandemic(online) learning.
4.4.1 Content Quality (PANDEMIC)
Frequency N=84
N N N N N
2 5 5 5 0 0
3 2 8 5 0 0
4 4 6 5 0 0
5 2 5 8 0 0
6 0 5 8 1 1
2 2 3 4 2 0
3 0 3 6 1 1
4 2 4 3 2 0
5 2 3 4 2 0
6 0 3 6 2 0
2 0 2 8 2 1
3 0 1 8 3 1
71
4 1 4 6 1 1
5 0 5 5 3 0
6 0 2 7 3 1
Food Technology 1 0 2 10 2 0
2 0 1 12 1 0
3 0 2 10 2 0
4 0 1 11 2 0
5 0 3 8 3 0
6 1 0 8 2 3
Nursing 1 2 4 6 7 0
2 2 5 6 6 0
3 1 3 7 7 1
4 2 5 6 5 1
5 1 3 6 8 1
6 2 2 5 8 2
2 1 5 4 2 0
3 0 4 6 2 0
4 0 5 6 1 0
5 1 4 5 1 1
6 0 4 6 1 1
As shown in table 4.4.1, from the education department, under statement 1 it can
be gleaned from the result that 4 education students answered EXCELLENT which
means most of the population was satisfied on the content quality(clarity of objectives)
during pre-pandemic(face-to-face) learning, 4 education students answered BETTER, 6
student answered GOOD, no student answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR.
Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 5 students answer EXCELLENT, 5 student

72
answered BETTER, 5 students answered GOOD, and no students perceive the statement
2 under content quality as fair and poor. Under statement 3, 2 education students
answered content quality(provide board understanding) as EXCELLENT, 8 education
students answered BETTER, 5 education student answered GOOD and no students
answered fair and poor. Under statement 4, 4 students answered content quality(relevance
of course content to students) as EXCELLENT, 6 education students answered
BETTER , and 5 student answered GOOD. Under statement 5, 2 students answered
content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 5 education students
answered BETTER , and 8 student answered GOOD. Under statement 6, no student
answered content quality(encourages interaction) as EXCELLENT, 5 education students
answered BETTER, 8 student answered GOOD, 1 student answer FAIR, and 1 student
answered POOR.
For the entrepreneurship department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the
result that 1 student answered content quality(clarity of objectives) as EXCELLENT, 3
students answered BETTER, 5 student answered GOOD , 1 student answered FAIR and
1 student answered POOR. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 2 students answer
content quality(aligned with learning outcome) as EXCELLENT, 3 student answered
BETTER, 4 students answered GOOD, 2 students answered FAIR and no student
answered POOR. Under statement 3, no student answered content quality(provide board
understanding) as EXCELLENT, 3 students answered BETTER, 6 students answered
GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and I student answered POOR. Under statement 4, 2
73
students answered content quality(relevance of course content to students) as
EXCELLENT, 4 students answered BETTER , 3 student answered GOOD, 2 students
answered FAIR and no student answered POOR . Under statement 5, 2 students answered
content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 3 students answered
BETTER , and 4 students answered GOOD, 2 students answered FAIR and no one
answered POOR. Under statement 6, 0 student answered content quality(encourages
interaction) as EXCELLENT, 3 students answered BETTER , 6 students answered
GOOD, 2 students answered FAIR and no one answered POOR.
For the fisheries department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the result
that 0 student answered content quality(clarity of objectives) as EXCELLENT, 3 students
answered BETTER, 7 students answered GOOD, 2 students answered FAIR and 1
student answered POOR. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 0 student answer
BETTER, 8 students answered GOOD, 3 student answered FAIR and 1 student answered
POOR. Under statement 3, no student answered content quality(provide board
understanding) as EXCELLENT, 1 student answered BETTER, 8 students answered
GOOD, 3 students answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR. Under statement 4, 1
student answered content quality(relevance of course content to students) as
EXCELLENT, 4 students answered BETTER , 6 students answered GOOD, 1 student
answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR. . Under statement 5, no students
answered content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 5 students

74
answered BETTER , 5 students answered GOOD, 3 students answered FAIR and no
student answered POOR. Under statement 6, no student answered content
quality(encourages interaction) as EXCELLENT, 2 students answered BETTER , 7
students answered GOOD, 3 students answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR.
For the food technology department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the
result that no student answered content quality(clarity of objectives) as EXCELLENT, no
student answered BETTER, 14 students answered GOOD, and no student answered
FAIR and POOR. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that no student answer content
quality(aligned with learning outcome) as EXCELLENT, 8 students answered BETTER,
5 students answered GOOD, 2 students answered FAIR and no student answered POOR.
Under statement 3, no student answered content quality(provide board understanding) as
EXCELLENT, 7 students answered BETTER, 5 students answered GOOD, 2 students
answered FAIR and no student answered POOR. . Under statement 4, 2 students
answered content quality(relevance of course content to students) as EXCELLENT, 6
students answered BETTER , 4 students answered GOOD, 2 students answered FAIR
and no student answered POOR. . Under statement 5, 1 student answered content
quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 8 students answered
BETTER , 5 student answered GOOD , and no student answered FAIR and POOR.
Under statement 6, 2 students answered content quality(provide appropriate assessments )
as EXCELLENT, 6 students answered BETTER , 6 students answered GOOD, 2 students
answered FAIR and no student answered POOR.

75
For the nursing department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the result
students answered BETTER, 6 students answered GOOD, 7 students answered FAIR
and no student answered POOR. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 2 students
answer content quality(aligned with learning outcome) as EXCELLENT, 5 students
answered BETTER, 6 students answered GOOD, 6 students answered FAIR and no
student answered POOR. Under statement 3, 1 student answered content quality(provide
board understanding) as EXCELLENT, 3 students answered BETTER, 7 students
answered GOOD, 7 students answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR. . Under
statement 4, 2 students answered content quality(relevance of course content to students)
as EXCELLENT, 5 students answered BETTER , 6 students answered GOOD, 5
students answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR. Under statement 5, 1 student
answered content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT,
3 students answered BETTER , 6 students answered GOOD, 8 students student
answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR. Under statement 6, 2 students answered
content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 2 students answered
BETTER , 5 students answered GOOD , 8 students answered FAIR and 2 students
answered POOR.
For the social work department, under statement 1 it can be gleaned from the
result that no student answered content quality(clarity of objectives) as EXCELLENT, 6
students answered BETTER, 4 students answered GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and
76
1 student answered POOR. Under statement 2, it can be gleaned that 1 student answer
BETTER, 4 students answered GOOD, 2 student answered FAIR and no student POOR.
Under statement 3, no student answered content quality(provide board understanding) as
EXCELLENT, 4 students answered BETTER, 6 students answered GOOD, 2 student
answered FAIR and no student POOR. Under statement 4, no student answered content
quality(relevance of course content to students) as EXCELLENT, 5 students answered
BETTER , 6 student answered GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR and no student
answered POOR. Under statement 5, 1 students answered content quality(provide
appropriate assessments ) as EXCELLENT, 4 students answered BETTER , 5 students
answered GOOD , 1 student answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR. Under
statement 6, no student answered content quality(provide appropriate assessments ) as
EXCELLENT, 4 students answered BETTER , 6 students answered GOOD, 1 student
answered FAIR and 1 student answered POOR.
77
4.5. Students’ Perception on Content Quality During New Normal (BLENDED
LEARNING)
content quality during new normal (blended) learning.
4.5.1 Content Quality (NEW NORMAL)
Frequency N=84
N N N N N
2 8 5 2 0 0
3 8 5 2 0 0
4 8 5 2 0 0
5 7 6 2 0 0
6 3 10 1 1 0
2 3 4 4 0 0
3 2 5 4 0 0
4 4 3 3 1 0
5 2 4 5 0 0
6 3 4 4 0 0
2 1 9 2 1 0
3 3 7 2 1 0
4 2 8 1 2 0
5 1 8 2 2 0
78
6 1 9 1 2 0
Food Technology 1 0 0 14 0 0
2 0 8 5 1 0
3 0 7 5 2 0
4 2 6 4 2 0
5 1 8 5 0 0
6 2 6 6 0 0
Nursing 1 2 6 10 1 0
2 4 6 8 1 0
3 3 8 7 1 0
4 4 7 7 1 0
5 3 8 6 2 0
6 5 6 6 2 0
2 2 8 1 1 0
3 3 7 0 2 0
4 3 7 0 2 0
5 2 8 0 1 1
6 2 7 1 2 0
In the dimension of Content Quality under the New Normal learning approach,
table 4.5.1 showed that under statement 1 which pertains to the clarity of class objectives,
there are 6 students from the education department who answered EXCELLENT, 6
students who answered BETTER, 2 students who said GOOD, 1 student who answered
FAIR, and no students who answered POOR. Under the statement 2 which is all about
aligned with learning outcome, there are 8 students who answered EXCELLENT, 5
students who said BETTER, 2 students who answered GOOD, and no students who
79
answered FAIR and POOR in this statement. In statement 3, provide broad
understanding, 8 students answered EXCELLENT, 5 students answered BETTER, 2
students answered GOOD, and no students answered FAIR and POOR. Under statement
4, referring to relevance of course content to students, 8 students ticked this as
EXCELLENT, 5 students ticked BETTER, 2 students who ticked GOOD, and no
students who ticked FAIR and POOR. In statement 5 under content quality, which is all
about providing appropriate assessments, 7 students from the education department
answered EXCELLENT, 6 students answered BETTER, 2 students who said GOOD, and
no students answered FAIR and POOR. And last statement under the dimension of
content quality, statement 6 — encourages interaction, 3 students answered
EXCELLENT, 10 students answered BETTER, 1 student answered GOOD and FAIR,
and no students answered POOR.
In the entrepreneurship department, under statement 1 of the content quality
during the new normal learning approach, 3 students answered EXCELLENT, 4 students
answered BETTER, 4 students answered GOOD, and no students answered FAIR and
POOR. Under statement 2, there are 3 students who said EXCELLENT, 4 students who
said BETTER, 4 students who answered GOOD, and no students who answered FAIR
and POOR. In statement 3, there are 2 entrepreneurship students who said EXCELLENT,
5 students who ticked BETTER, 4 students who answered GOOD, and no students who
ticked FAIR and POOR. Under statement 4, there are 4 students who answered
EXCELLENT, 3 students who said BETTER, also, 3 students ticked GOOD, there is
80
only 1 student who answered FAIR and no students who answered POOR. When it
comes to statement 5, there are 2 students who answered EXCELLENT, 4 students ticked
BETTER, 5 students who said GOOD, and no students who answered FAIR and POOR.
Lastly, under statement 6, 3 students answered EXCELLENT, 4 students answered
BETTER, also, 4 students answered GOOD, and no students answered FAIR and POOR.
For fisheries department, only 1 student answered EXCELLENT under statement
1 in content quality (new normal), 9 students who said BETTER, 2 students who said
GOOD, 1 student who answered FAIR and no students who said POOR. For statement 2,
there is again 1 student who answered EXCELLENT, 9 students who ticked BETTER, 2
students who said GOOD, 1 student who ticked FAIR and no students who answered
POOR. For statement 3, there are 3 students who ticked EXCELLENT, 7 students ticked
BETTER, 2 students who answered GOOD, 1 student answered FAIR, and no students
who answered POOR. Under statement 4 in the dimension — content quality, 2 students
answered EXCELLENT, 8 students answered BETTER, only 1 student who answered
GOOD, 2 students who said FAIR, and no students who answered POOR. Under
statement 5, only 1 fisheries student answered EXCELLENT, 8 students answered
BETTER, 2 students answered GOOD, also, 2 students answered FAIR, and no student
answered POOR. Finally, for statement 6, there is only 1 student who said EXCELLENT,
9 students who said BETTER, only 1 student who answered GOOD, 2 students who
ticked FAIR, and no students answered POOR.
For food technology department, under statement 1, there are no students who
81
answered EXCELLENT and BETTER for this item, 14 students who answered GOOD,
and there are no students who answered FAIR and POOR. Under statement 2, there is no
student who answered EXCELLENT, 8 students ticked BETTER, 5 students who
answered GOOD, only 1 student for FAIR, and no student answered for POOR. For
statement 3, there is no student who answered EXCELLENT, 7 students who answered
BETTER, 5 students who said GOOD, 2 students who ticked FAIR, and no student who
ticked POOR. In statement 4, 2 students who answered EXCELLENT, 6 students who
have chosen BETTER, 4 students who have chosen GOOD, 2 students who answered
FAIR, and no student who answered POOR. Under statement 5, there is only 1 student
who have chosen EXCELLENT, 8 students who said BETTER, 5 students who answered
GOOD, 2 students who ticked FAIR, and no students who have answered POOR. Finally,
under statement 6, there 2 students who answered EXCELLENT, 6 students who said
BETTER, another 6 students who answered GOOD, and no student who answered
POOR. And there are no students who answered POOR.
For the nursing department, under statement 1, there are 2 students who answered
EXCELLENT, 6 students who answered BETTER, 10 students who answered GOOD,
only 1 student who have chosen FAIR, and no students who answered POOR. For
statement 2, there 4 students who have chosen EXCELLENT, 6 students who answered
BETTER, 8 students who ticked GOOD, only 1 student who said FAIR, and no students
who answered POOR. Under statement 3, there are 3 students who answered
EXCELLENT, 8 students who said BETTER, 7 students who ticked GOOD, only 1
82
student who answered FAIR, and no students who answered POOR. In statement 4, 4
food technology students answered EXCELLENT, 7 students answered BETTER, also, 7
students who answered GOOD, 1 student who answered FAIR, and no student who
answered POOR. Under statement 5, there are 3 nursing students who answered
EXCELLENT, 8 students who answered BETTER, 6 students who ticked GOOD, 2
students who said BETTER, and no students who answered POOR. Ultimately, for
statement 6, 5 nursing students ticked EXCELLENT, 6 students who said BETTER, also,
6 students who answered GOOD, 2 students who have chosen FAIR, and no students
who answered POOR.
For the last department which is the social work department, under statement 1,
there are 2 students who have chosen EXCELLENT, 7 students who have chosen
BETTER, only 1 student who answered GOOD, 2 students who answered FAIR, and no
students who have chosen POOR. For statement 2, 2 students answered EXCELLENT, 8
students have chosen BETTER, only 1 student answered GOOD, another 1 student ticked
FAIR, and no student answered POOR. Under statement 3, 3 students have ticked
EXCELLENT, 7 students answered BETTER, no student answered GOOD, 2 students
have chosen FAIR, and no student answered POOR. Under statement 4, there are 3 social
work students answered EXCELLENT, 7 students answered BETTER, no student have
chosen GOOD, 2 students have chosen FAIR, and no student have ticked POOR. For
statement 5, 2 nursing students answered EXCELLENT, 8 students answered BETTER,
no student have chosen GOOD, only 1 student have answered FAIR, and another 1
83
student who said POOR. Finally, for statement 6, there are 2 students who answered
EXCELLENT, 7 students have chosen BETTER, only 1 student said GOOD, 2 students
have answered FAIR, and no student have chosen POOR. To conclude, almost all of the
respondents coming from the six department courses claimed that the content quality of
delivering the instruction during the new normal learning approach is BETTER compared
to during the pandemic learning approach. This means that the content quality of every
subject’s instruction improves in this phase of learning approach.
4.6. Students’ Perception on Accessibility During Pre-pandemic, Pandemic and New
Normal
accessibility during pre-pandemic, pandemic and new normal.
4.6.1 ACCESSIBILITY DURING PRE-PANDEMIC, PANDEMIC AND NEW
NORMAL
Frequency
N=84
Phases Courses 5 4 3 2 1
Somewhat Somewhat Very
Very easy easy Neutral difficult difficult
Pre-
Pandemic Education 9 5 1 0 0
Entrepreneurship 4 4 2 1 0
Fisheries 7 2 1 2 1
84
Food Technology 3 10 1 0 0
Nursing 8 4 4 2 1
Social Work 5 7 0 0 0
Fisheries 0 3 3 6 1
Nursing 3 3 6 5 2
New-Normal Education 2 12 1 0 0
Fisheries 1 6 3 3 0
Nursing 4 6 6 2 1
Table 4.6.1 presented the data about accessibility of learning resources during the
three transitional phases of learning approach — pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new
normal. Based from the result, during the pre-pandemic learning approach, there are 9
students coming from education department who said that the accessibility of learning
resources is VERY EASY. 5 students answered SOMEWHAT EASY, only 1 student
answered NEUTRAL, and no students have chosen SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT and
VERY DIFFICULT. From the entrepreneurship department, there are 4 students who
claimed that accessing learning materials during this phase is VERY EASY, also, 4
students answered SOMEWHAT EASY, 2 students have chosen NEUTRAL, 1 student
85
ticked SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and no students have chosen VERY DIFFICULT. In
the fisheries department, almost all of the fisheries department having 7 of them said that
accessing learning materials is VERY EASY. 2 students said SOMEWHAT EASY, only
1 student have chosen NEUTRAL, 2 students ticked SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and
only 1 student answered VERY DIFFICULT. From the food technology department,
there are 3 students who have chosen VERY EASY, 10 students have chosen
SOMEWHAT EASY, only 1 student claimed NEUTRAL, and there are no students who
have chosen SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT and VERY DIFFICULT. And, for the nursing
department, 8 students said that it is VERY EASY to access the learning materials during
this learning approach, 4 students claimed SOMEWHAT EASY, another 4 students have
chosen NEUTRAL, 2 students ticked SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and only 1 student
answered VERY DIFFICULT. Finally, from the social work department, there are 5
students who answered VERY EASY, 7 students who have chosen SOMEWHAT EASY,
and there are no students who claimed that accessing learning resources during the pre-
pandemic learning approach are NEUTRAL, SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and VERY
DIFFICULT. From the data shown above, students from the six departments find it
VERY EASY to access learning materials during this learning approach.
During the pandemic learning approach, there is only 1 student coming from
education department who claimed that the accessibility of learning resources is VERY
EASY. 6 students answered SOMEWHAT EASY, also, 6 students answered NEUTRAL,
2 students have chosen SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and no students ticked VERY

86
DIFFICULT. From the entrepreneurship department, there are no students who claimed
that accessing learning materials during this phase is VERY EASY, only 1 student
answered SOMEWHAT EASY, 7 students have chosen NEUTRAL, 3 students ticked
SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and no students have chosen VERY DIFFICULT. In the
fisheries department, there are no students claimed that accessing learning materials is
VERY EASY in this learning approach. 3 students said SOMEWHAT EASY, 3 students
have chosen NEUTRAL, and almost all of the fisheries students claimed that accessing
resources is SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT having 6 students answered it. And only 1
student answered VERY DIFFICULT. From the food technology department, there are
no students who have chosen VERY EASY and SOMEWHAT EASY, 7 students
claimed NEUTRAL, 5 students who have chosen SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and 2
students have chosen VERY DIFFICULT in accessing instructional materials. And, for
the nursing department, 3 students said that it is VERY EASY to access the learning
materials during this learning approach, 3 students claimed SOMEWHAT EASY, 6
students have chosen NEUTRAL, 5 students ticked SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and 2
students answered VERY DIFFICULT. Finally, from the social work department, there
are no students who answered VERY EASY, 3 students who have chosen SOMEWHAT
EASY, and there are 2 students who claimed that accessing learning resources during the
pre-pandemic learning approach is NEUTRAL, 6 students ticked SOMEWHAT
DIFFICULT, and only 1 student claimed VERY DIFFICULT. From the data shown
above, students from the six departments claimed that accessing learning materials during
87
this learning approach is NEUTRAL.
Lastly, during the new normal learning approach, there are 2 students coming
from education department who claimed that the accessibility of learning resources is
VERY EASY. 12 students answered SOMEWHAT EASY, only 1 student answered
NEUTRAL, and there are no students who have chosen SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT and
VERY DIFFICULT. From the entrepreneurship department, there are 2 students who
claimed that accessing learning materials during this phase is VERY EASY, 6 students
answered SOMEWHAT EASY, 2 students have chosen NEUTRAL, only 1 student
ticked SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and no students have chosen VERY DIFFICULT. In
the fisheries department, there is only 1 student who claimed that accessing learning
materials is VERY EASY in this learning approach. 6 students said SOMEWHAT
EASY, 3 students have chosen NEUTRAL, 3 students have chosen SOMEWHAT
DIFFICULT, and no fisheries students answered VERY DIFFICULT. From the food
technology department, there are no students who have chosen VERY EASY, 6 students
have ticked SOMEWHAT EASY, also, 6 students claimed NEUTRAL, only 1 student
who have chosen SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and another 1 student have chosen VERY
DIFFICULT in accessing instructional materials. And, for the nursing department, 4
students said that it is VERY EASY to access the learning materials during this learning
approach, 6 students claimed SOMEWHAT EASY, another 6 students have chosen
NEUTRAL, 2 students ticked SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and only 1 student answered
VERY DIFFICULT. Finally, from the social work department, there are no students who
88
answered VERY EASY, 7 students who have chosen SOMEWHAT EASY, and there are
4 students who claimed that accessing learning resources during the pre-pandemic
learning approach is NEUTRAL, only 1 student ticked SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT, and
there is no student who claimed VERY DIFFICULT. From the data shown above,
students from the six departments claimed that accessing learning materials during this
learning approach is SOMEWHAT EASY.
To sum it up, students find it very easy to access learning resources during the
pre-pandemic learning approach compared to the other two learning approaches — the
pandemic, and new normal learning approach. Whereas, new normal learning approach is
way better than pandemic learning approach in terms of accessibility because most of the
students find it somewhat easy to access learning materials during this phase than during
pandemic having most of the students across the six departments answered neutral.
Therefore, based from the perception of the students, pre-pandemic learning approach is
way easier and better than pandemic and new normal learning approaches.
89
4.7. Students’ Perception on Flexibility During Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic and New
Normal
flexibility during pre-pandemic, pandemic and new normal.
4.7.1 FLEXIBILITY DURING PRE-PANDEMIC, PANDEMIC AND NEW
NORMAL
Frequency N=84
Phases Courses 5 4 3 2 1
Highly Somewhat Not very Not flexible
flexible flexible Neutral flexible at all
Pre-
Fisheries 6 3 2 2 0
Nursing 7 6 5 1 0
Fisheries 0 5 4 4 0
Nursing 2 7 3 6 1
New-Normal Education 2 10 2 1 0
Fisheries 2 7 3 1 0
90
Nursing 5 8 4 2 0
Table 4.7.1 has shown the data about flexibility of students during the three
transitional phases of learning approach — pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new normal.
Based from the data given, during the pre-pandemic learning approach, there are 10
students coming from education department who said that they are HIGHLY FLEXIBLE.
3 students answered SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 2 students answered NEUTRAL, and no
students have chosen NOT VERY FLEXIBLE and NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL. From the
entrepreneurship department, there are 6 students who claimed that they are HIGHLY
FLEXIBLE during their learning process in this learning approach, 2 students answered
that they SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 3 students have chosen NEUTRAL, and there are no
students ticked NOT VERY FLEXIBLE and NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL. In the fisheries
department, almost all of the fisheries department having 6 of them said that they are
HIGHLY FLEXIBLE during this learning approach. 3 students said they are
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 2 students have chosen NEUTRAL, another 2 students ticked
NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and no students answered NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL. From the
food technology department, there are 2 students who have chosen HIGHLY FLEXIBLE,
11 students have chosen SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, only 1 student claimed NEUTRAL,
and there are no students who have chosen NOT VERY FLEXIBLE and NOT
FLEXIBLE AT ALL. And, for the nursing department, 7 students said that they are
91
HIGHLY FLEXIBLE during this learning approach, 6 students claimed that they
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 5 students have chosen NEUTRAL, only 1student ticked
NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and no student answered NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL. Finally,
from the social work department, there are 7 students who answered HIGHLY
FLEXIBLE, 4 students who have chosen SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, and there is only 1
student who claimed that he/she is NEUTRAL during the pre-pandemic learning
approach, and no students have chosen NOT VERY FLEXIBLE and NOT FLEXIBLE
AT ALL during this learning approach. From the data shown above, students from the six
departments claimed that they are HIGHLY FLEXIBLE during their learning process in
the pre-pandemic learning approach.
During the pandemic learning approach, there is only 1 student coming from
education department who said that he/she is HIGHLY FLEXIBLE. 6 students answered
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 5 students answered NEUTRAL, 3 students have chosen
NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, there are no students who have chosen NOT FLEXIBLE AT
ALL. From the entrepreneurship department, there are no students who claimed that they
are HIGHLY FLEXIBLE during their learning process in this learning approach, 3
students answered that they SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, another 3 students have chosen
NEUTRAL, and there are 5 students ticked NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and no students
claimed they are NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL in this approach. In the fisheries department,
there are no fisheries students who claimed that they are HIGHLY FLEXIBLE during
this learning approach. 5 students said they are SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 4 students
92
have chosen NEUTRAL, another 4 students ticked NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and no
students answered NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL. From the food technology department,
there is only 1 student who have chosen HIGHLY FLEXIBLE, another 1 student have
chosen SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 5 students claimed that they are NEUTRAL, 7
students who have chosen NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and there is no student who claimed
that they are NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL. And, for the nursing department, 2 students said
that they are HIGHLY FLEXIBLE during this learning approach, 7 students claimed that
they SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 3 students have chosen NEUTRAL, 6 students ticked
NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and only 1 student answered NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL.
Finally, from the social work department, there are no students who answered HIGHLY
FLEXIBLE, 4 students who have chosen SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 5 students who
claimed that they are NEUTRAL during the pre-pandemic learning approach, 3 students
have chosen NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and there is no student who answered NOT
FLEXIBLE AT ALL during this learning approach. From the result presented above,
students from the six departments claimed that they are NOT VERY FLEXIBLE during
their learning process in the pandemic learning approach.
Finally, during the new normal learning approach, there are 2 students coming
from education department who said that they are HIGHLY FLEXIBLE. 10 students
answered SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 2 students answered NEUTRAL, only 1 student has
chosen NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, there are no students who have chosen NOT
FLEXIBLE AT ALL. From the entrepreneurship department, there is only 1 student who
93
claimed that he/she is HIGHLY FLEXIBLE during his/her learning process in this
learning approach, 6 students answered that they SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 4 students
have chosen NEUTRAL, and there are no students have ticked NOT VERY FLEXIBLE
and NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL in this approach. In the fisheries department, there are 2
fisheries students who claimed that they are HIGHLY FLEXIBLE during this learning
approach. 7 students said they are SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 3 students have chosen
NEUTRAL, only 1 student ticked NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and no students answered
NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL. From the food technology department, there is only 1 student
who have chosen HIGHLY FLEXIBLE, 6 students have chosen SOMEWHAT
FLEXIBLE, 5 students claimed that they are NEUTRAL, only 1 student who have
chosen NOT VERY FLEXIBLE and another 1 student answered NOT FLEXIBLE AT
ALL. And, for the nursing department, 5 students said that they are HIGHLY FLEXIBLE
during this learning approach, 8 students claimed that they SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 4
students have chosen NEUTRAL, 2 students ticked NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, and no
student answered NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL. Finally, from the social work department,
there is only 1 student who answered HIGHLY FLEXIBLE, 7 students who have chosen
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, 3 students who claimed that they are NEUTRAL during the
pre-pandemic learning approach, only 1 student have chosen NOT VERY FLEXIBLE,
and there is no student who answered NOT FLEXIBLE AT ALL during this learning
approach. Based from the result, students from the six departments claimed that they are
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE during their learning process in the new normal learning
94
approach.
To conclude, students are highly flexible during the pre-pandemic learning
approach compared to the other two learning approaches — the pandemic, and new
normal learning approach. Whereas, new normal learning approach is way better than
pandemic learning approach in terms of flexibility because most of the students are
somewhat flexible in their learning process during this phase than during pandemic
having most of the students across the six departments answered not very flexible.
Therefore, based from the perception of the students, pre-pandemic learning approach is
way better than pandemic and new normal learning approaches.
4.8 Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content Quality During Pre-Pandemic
PRE-PANDEMIC
Courses Statement Mode Qualitative Interpretation
Education 1 5 Excellent
2 5 Excellent
3 5 Excellent
4 5 Excellent
5 5 Excellent
6 5 Excellent
Entrepreneurship 1 4 Better
2 4 Better
3 4 Better
4 5 Excellent
5 4 Better
6 5 Excellent
Fisheries 1 5 Excellent
95
2 4 Better
3 5 Excellent
4 5 Excellent
5 5 Excellent
6 5 Excellent
Food Technology 1 5 Excellent
2 5 Excellent
3 5 Excellent
4 5 Excellent
5 5 Excellent
6 5 Excellent
Nursing 1 5 Excellent
2 5 Excellent
3 5 Excellent
4 5 Excellent
5 5 Excellent
6 5 Excellent
Social Work 1 5 Excellent
2 5 Excellent
3 5 Excellent
4 5 Excellent
5 4 Better
6 5 Excellent
Table 4.8 reveals that the majority of the respondents perceived the content quality
during the Pre-Pandemic(Face-to-Face) as Excellent.
Legend
4.21-5.0: Excellent
96
3.41-4.20: Better
2.61-3.40: Good
1.81-2.60: Fair
1.0-1.80: Poor
4.9 Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content Quality During Pandemic
PANDEMIC
Education 1 3 Good
2 4 Better
3 4 Better
4 4 Better
5 3 Good
6 3 Good
Entrepreneurship 1 3 Good
2 3 Good
3 3 Good
4 4 Better
5 3 Good
6 3 Good
Fisheries 1 3 Good
2 3 Good
3 3 Good
4 3 Good
5 4 Better
97
6 3 Good
Food Technology 1 3 Good
2 3 Good
3 3 Good
4 3 Good
5 3 Good
6 3 Good
Nursing 1 2 Fair
2 3 Good
3 3 Good
4 3 Good
5 2 Fair
6 2 Fair
Social Work 1 4 Better
2 4 Better
3 3 Good
4 3 Good
5 3 Good
6 3 Good
during the Pandemic(Online) learning as Good.
Legend
4.21-5.0: Excellent
3.41-4.20: Better
2.61-3.40: Good
1.81-2.60: Fair
1.0-1.80: Poor
98
4.10 Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Content Quality During New Normal
New-Normal
Education 1 4 Better
2 5 Excellent
3 5 Excellent
4 5 Excellent
5 5 Excellent
6 4 Better
Entrepreneurship 1 4 Better
2 4 Better
3 4 Better
4 5 Excellent
5 3 Good
6 4 Better
Fisheries 1 4 Better
2 4 Better
3 4 Better
4 4 Better
5 4 Better
6 4 Better
Food Technology 1 3 Good
2 4 Better
3 4 Better
99
4 4 Better
5 4 Better
6 3 Good
Nursing 1 3 Good
2 3 Good
3 4 Better
4 3 Good
5 4 Better
6 3 Good
Social Work 1 4 Better
2 4 Better
3 4 Better
4 4 Better
5 4 Better
6 4 Better
during the New Normal (Blended) learning as Better.
Legend
4.21-5.0: Excellent
3.41-4.20: Better
2.61-3.40: Good
1.81-2.60: Fair
1.0-1.80: Poor
100
4.11 Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Accessibility During Pre-Pandemic,
Pandemic and New Normal
Phases Courses Mode Qualitative Interpretation

Pre-Pandemic Education 5 Very Easy
Entrepreneurship 4 Somewhat Easy
Fisheries 5 Very Easy
Food Technology 4 Somewhat Easy
Nursing 5 Very Easy
Social Work 4 Somewhat Easy

Pandemic Education 4 Somewhat Easy
Entrepreneurship 3 Neutral
Fisheries 2 Somewhat Difficult
Food Technology 3 Neutral
Nursing 3 Neutral
Social Work 2 Somewhat Difficult

New-Normal Education 4 Somewhat Easy
Entrepreneurship 4 Somewhat Easy
Fisheries 4 Somewhat Easy
Food Technology 4 Somewhat Easy
Nursing 4 Somewhat Easy
Social Work 4 Somewhat Easy

Legend
4.21-5.0: Very easy
3.41-4.20: Somewhat easy

101
2.61-3.40: Neutral
1.81-2.60: Somewhat difficult
1.0-1.80: Very difficult
As shown in the Table 4.11, it can be gleaned that education perceived the
accessibility during pre-pandemic as VERY EASY, entrepreneurship as SOMEWHAT
EASY, fisheries as VERY EASY, food technology as SOMEWHAT EASY, nursing as
VERY EASY, and social work as SOMEWHAT EASY.
During pandemic (online learning) education perceived the accessibility as
SOMEWHAT EASY, entrepreneurship as NEUTRAL, fisheries as SOMEWHAT
DIFFICULT, food technology as NEUTRAL, nursing as NEUTRAL, and social work
as SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT.
During new normal (blended learning) education perceived accessibility as
SOMEWHAT EASY, entrepreneurship as SOMEWHAT EASY, fisheries as
SOMEWHAT EASY, food technology as SOMEWHAT EASY, nursing as
SOMEWHAT EASY, and social work as SOMEWHAT EASY.
In general, the findings showed that students from the six departments perceived
the accessibility during pre-pandemic as VERY EASY, during pandemic as NEUTRAL
and during new normal as SOMEWHAT EASY.
102
4.12 Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Flexibility During Pre-Pandemic,
Phases Courses Mode Qualitative Interpretation
Pre-Pandemic Education 5 Highly Flexible
Entrepreneurship 5 Highly Flexible
Fisheries 5 Highly Flexible
Food Technology 4 Somewhat Flexible
Nursing 5 Highly Flexible

Social Work 5 Highly Flexible
Pandemic Education 4 Somewhat Flexible
Entrepreneurship 2 Not Very Flexible
Fisheries 4 Somewhat Flexible
Food Technology 2 Not Very Flexible
Nursing 4 Somewhat Flexible

Social Work 3 Neutral
New-Normal Education 4 Somewhat Flexible
Entrepreneurship 4 Somewhat Flexible
Fisheries 4 Somewhat Flexible
Food Technology 4 Somewhat Flexible
Nursing 4 Somewhat Flexible

Social Work 4 Somewhat Flexible
Legend
4.21-5.0: Highly flexible
3.41-4.20: Somewhat flexible
2.61-3.40: Neutral
103
1.81-2.60: Not very flexible
1.0-1.80: Not flexible at all
As shown in the Table 4.13, it can be gleaned that education perceived the
flexibility during pre-pandemic as HIGHLY FLEXIBLE, entrepreneurship as HIGHLY
FLEXIBLE, fisheries as HIGHLY FLEXIBLE, food technology as SOMEWHAT
FLEXIBLE, nursing as HIGHLY FLEXIBLE, and social work as HIGHLY
FLEXIBLE.
During pandemic (online learning) education perceived the flexibility as
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, entrepreneurship as NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, fisheries as
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, food technology as NOT VERY FLEXIBLE, nursing as
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, and social work as NEUTRAL.
During new normal (blended learning) education perceived flexibility as
SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, entrepreneurship as SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, fisheries
as SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, food technology as SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, nursing
as SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, and social work as SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE.
In general, the findings showed that students from the six departments perceived
the flexibility during pre-pandemic as HIGHLY FLEXIBLE, during pandemic as
NEUTRAL and during new normal as SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE.
104
4.13. Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on Content Quality During Traditional
(Face-to-face), Online, and Blended Learning Approach
4.13.1. Content Quality (Traditional Learning Approach)
One-Way ANOVA (Welch's)

F df1 df2 p
CONTENT QUALITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 2.70 5 34.9 0.036
Normality Test (Shapiro-Wilk)

W p
CONTENT QUALITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 0.937 < .001
Note. A low p-value suggests a violation of the assumption of normality
Homogeneity of Variances Test (Levene's)

F df1 df2 p
CONTENT QUALITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 0.619 5 78 0.685
105
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
CONTENT QUALITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 11.8 5 0.037 0.142
Pairwise comparisons - CONTENT QUALITY(FACE-TO-FACE)

W p
EDUCATION ENTREPRENEURSHIP -2.9040 0.312
EDUCATION FISHERIES -3.5552 0.120
EDUCATION FOOD TECHNOLOGY -3.2583 0.193
EDUCATION NURSING -3.3779 0.160
EDUCATION SOCIAL WORK -0.9035 0.988
ENTREPRENEURSHIP FISHERIES -0.9401 0.986
ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOOD TECHNOLOGY -0.5491 0.999
ENTREPRENEURSHIP NURSING -0.4965 0.999
ENTREPRENEURSHIP SOCIAL WORK 2.1721 0.641
FISHERIES FOOD TECHNOLOGY 0.4415 1.000
FISHERIES NURSING 0.5527 0.999
FISHERIES SOCIAL WORK 2.8774 0.323
FOOD TECHNOLOGY NURSING 0.0830 1.000
FOOD TECHNOLOGY SOCIAL WORK 2.5740 0.453
NURSING SOCIAL WORK 2.6482 0.419
The study aims to determine if there is a statistically difference among the
perceptions of the six departments (education, entrepreneurship, fisheries, food
106
technology, nursing and social work) for the content quality during face-to-face learning
by comparing the students’ perceptions. The students' perceptions regarding the content
quality during face-to-face learning was measured using 5-Likert Scale. Prior to
conducting the analysis, the test of normality was examined using Shapiro-Wilk statistics
which showed that the assumption of normality was violated, W= 0.937, p= <0.001.
Thus, Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used as an alternative to one-way ANOVA.
The result of Kruskal-Wallis reveals that students’ perceptions from the six
departments regarding the content quality during face-to-face learning significantly
differs, H(2)= 11.8 and p= 0.037. Hence, there is a moderate effect size in this analysis
where e= 0.142.
Post hoc analysis using DSCF showed that the students’ perceptions on content
quality during the traditional learning approach reveals that students from education
wherein M=5 and social work wherein M= 5 are significantly different from the
perceptions of entrepreneurship with M= 4,W= -0.9401, p= 0.986; W= -0.5491, p=
0.999; W= -0.04965 p= 0.99; W=2.1721, p= 0.641 , fisheries where M= 4, W= 0.4415,
p= 1.000; W= 0.5527, p= 0.999; W= 2.8774, p= 0.323, food technology in which M=
4.00, W= 0.0830, p= 1.000; W= 2.5740, p= 0.453 and nursing in which M= 4, W=
2.6482, p= 0.419. The finding suggests that both the education and social work
department perceived the content quality during the traditional (face-to-face) learning
approach as EXCELLENT, but entrepreneurship, fisheries, food technology and nursing
perceived it as BETTER.
107
4.13.2. Content Quality (Online Learning Approach)

F df1 df2 p
CONTENT QUALITY(ONLINE) 2.64 5 34.3 0.040

W p
CONTENT QUALITY(ONLINE) 0.956 0.006

F df1 df2 p
CONTENT QUALITY(ONLINE) 2.00 5 78 0.087
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
CONTENT QUALITY(ONLINE) 9.60 5 0.087 0.116
108
Pairwise comparisons - CONTENT QUALITY(ONLINE)
W p
FISHERIES FOOD TECHNOLOGY -0.878 0.990
FISHERIES NURSING -0.689 0.997
FOOD TECHNOLOGY NURSING -0.285 1.000
Descriptive
COURSE CONTENT QUALITY(ONLINE)
Median EDUCATION 4
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 3
FISHERIES 3
FOOD TECHNOLOGY 3.00
109
Descriptive
COURSE CONTENT QUALITY(ONLINE)
NURSING 3
SOCIAL WORK 3.50
The study has the goal to determine if there is a statistically difference among the
technology, nursing and social work) for the content quality during online learning by
comparing the students’ perceptions. The students' perceptions regarding the content
quality during online learning approach was also measured using 5-Likert Scale. Prior to
conducting the analysis, the test of normality was examined using Shapiro-Wilk statistics
which showed that the assumption of normality was violated, where W= 0.956 and p=
0.006. Thus, Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used as an alternative to one-way ANOVA.
departments regarding the content quality during the online learning approach have no
significant differences where H(2)= 9.60 and p= 0.08. Therefore, there is a moderate
effect size in this analysis wherein e= 0.116.
quality during online learning of six departments revealed no significant differences.
Education (4), W= -1.971, p= 0.73; W= -2.915, p= 0.308; W= -4.374, p= 0.024; W= -
1.796, p= 0.886, entrepreneurship where M= 3, W= -0.658, p= 0.997; W= -1.540, p=
0.886; W= -1.250, p= 0.951; W= 0.138, p= 1.000, fisheries where M= 3, W= -0.878, p=
110
0.990; W= -0.689, p= 0.997; W= 0.863, p= 0.990, food technology wherein M= 3, W= -
0.285, p= 1.000; W= 1.809, p= 0.797 and nursing wherein M= 3, W= 1.263, p= 0.948.
Hence, the finding suggests that students from the six departments perceived the content
quality during the online learning approach as GOOD.
4.13.3. Content Quality (Blended Learning Approach)

F df1 df2 p
CONTENT QUALITY(BLENDED) 2.08 5 34.2 0.092

W p
CONTENT QUALITY(BLENDED) 0.932 < .001

F df1 df2 p
CONTENT QUALITY(BLENDED) 0.403 5 78 0.846
111
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
CONTENT QUALITY(BLENDED) 9.31 5 0.097 0.112
Pairwise comparisons - CONTENT QUALITY(BLENDED)

W p
112
Descriptive
COURSE CONTENT QUALITY(BLENDED)
Median EDUCATION 5
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 4
FISHERIES 4
NURSING 4
SOCIAL WORK 4.00
technology, nursing and social work) for the content quality during the blended learning
approach by comparing the students' perceptions. The students’ perceptions regarding the
content quality during the blended learning approach was measured using 5-Likert Scale.
Prior to conducting the analysis, the test of normality was examined using Shapiro-Wilk
statistics which showed that the assumption of normality was violated where W= 0.932
and p= <0.001. Thus, Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used as an alternative to one-way
ANOVA.
departments regarding the content quality during the blended learning approach have no
significant differences where H(2)= 9.60 and p= 0.08. Hence, there is a moderate effect
size in this analysis where e= 0.112.
113
quality during blended learning of six departments revealed no significant differences.
Education (5) where W= -2.1618, p= 0.646; W= -2.6459, p= 0.420; W= -3.9752, p=
0.056; W= -3.2867, p= 0.184; W= -2.4124, p= 0.528, entrepreneurship where M= 4, W=
-0.0444, p= 1.000; W= -1.1167, p= 0.969; W= -0.6508 p= 0.997; W= 0.0948, p= 1.000,
fisheries where M= 4, W= -1.4423, p= 0.912; W= -0.7142, p= 0.996; W= 0.2696, p=
1.000, food technology wherein M= 4, W= 0.5469, p= 0.999; W= 1.7223, p= 0.829 and
nursing wherein M= 4, W= 0.8848, p= 0.989. Thus, the finding suggests that students
from the six departments perceived the content quality during the blended learning
approach as BETTER.
4.14. Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on Accessibility During the Traditional
4.14.1. Accessibility (Traditional Learning Approach)

F df1 df2 p
ACCESSIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 1.50 5 34.6 0.217
114
W p
ACCESSIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 0.916 < .001

F df1 df2 p
ACCESSIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 5.37 5 78 < .001
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
ACCESSIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 4.34 5 0.502 0.0522
Pairwise comparisons - ACCESSIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE)

W p
ENTREPRENEURSHIP FISHERIES 0.392 1.000
115
Pairwise comparisons - ACCESSIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE)
W p
ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOOD TECHNOLOGY 0.173 1.000
Descriptive
COURSE ACCESSIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE)
Median EDUCATION 5
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 4
FISHERIES 5
NURSING 4
SOCIAL WORK 4.00
technology, nursing and social work) for the accessibility during the traditional learning
116
accessibility of the traditional learning approach was measured using 5-Likert Scale.
ANOVA.
departments regarding the accessibility during face-to-face learning have no significant
differences where H(2)= 4.34 and p= 0.502. Thus, there is a moderate effect size in this
analysis where e=0.0522.
Post hoc analysis using DSCF showed that the students’ perceptions on
accessibility during traditional learning approach of six departments revealed no
significant differences. Education (5) where W= -2.050, p= 0.697; W= -1.203, p= 0.958;
W= -2.636, p= 0.425; W= -2.256, p= 0.602; W= -1.020, p= 0.979, entrepreneurship
wherein M= 4, W= 0.392, p= 1.000, W= 0.173, p= 1.000; W= -0.223, p= 1.000; W=
1.336, p= 0.935, fisheries where M= 5, W= -0.665, p= 0.997; W= -0.519, p= 0.999; W=
0.337, p= 1.000, food technology wherein M= 4, W= -0.384, p= 1.000; W= 1.792, p=
0.803 and nursing where M= 4, W= 1.467, p= 0.906. Therefore, the finding suggests that
students from the six departments perceived the accessibility during the traditional
learning approach as VERY EASY.
117
4.14.2. Accessibility (Online Learning Approach)

F df1 df2 p
ACCESSIBILITY(ONLINE) 2.67 5 35.3 0.038

W p
ACCESSIBILITY(ONLINE) 0.980 0.204

F df1 df2 p
ACCESSIBILITY(ONLINE) 1.59 5 78 0.172
118
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
ACCESSIBILITY(ONLINE) 10.1 5 0.072 0.122
Pairwise comparisons - ACCESSIBILITY(ONLINE)

W p
ENTREPRENEURSHIP NURSING 0.418 1.000
ENTREPRENEURSHIP SOCIAL WORK -1.162 0.964
FISHERIES SOCIAL WORK -0.165 1.000
NURSING SOCIAL WORK -1.338 0.935
119
Descriptive
COURSE ACCESSIBILITY(ONLINE)
Median EDUCATION 3
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 3
FISHERIES 2
NURSING 3
SOCIAL WORK 2.00
technology, nursing and social work) for the accessibility during online learning by
comparing the students' perceptions. The students’ perceptions regarding the accessibility
during online learning approach was measured using 5-Likert Scale. Prior to conducting
the analysis, the test of normality was examined using Shapiro-Wilk statistics which
showed that the assumption of normality was not violated where W= 0.980 and p= 0.204.
Thus, Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used as an alternative to one-way ANOVA.
departments regarding the accessibility during online learning have no significant
differences where H(2)= 10.1 and p= 0.072. Hence, there is a moderate effect size in this
analysis where e= 0.122.
accessibility during online learning approach of six departments revealed no significant

120
differences. Education (3) where W= -2.668, p= 0.411; W= -2.969, p= 0.288; W= -4.258,
p= 0.031; W= -1.579, p= 0.875; W= -2.962, p= 0.290, entrepreneurship where M= 3, W=
-1.009, p= 0.980; W= -2.087, p= 0.680; W= 0.418, p= 1.000; W= -1.162, p= 0.964,
fisheries wherein M= 2, W= -0.768, p= 0.994; W= 1.238, p= 0.953; W= -0.165, p= 1.000,
food technology where M= 3, W= 2.081, p= 0.683; W= 0.542, p= 0.999 and nursing
wherein M= 3, W= -1.338, p= 0.935. Thus, the finding suggests that students from the six
departments perceived the accessibility during online learning approach as NEUTRAL.
4.14.3. Accessibility (Blended Learning Approach)

F df1 df2 p
ACCESSIBILITY(BLENDED) 3.07 5 34.0 0.022

W p
ACCESSIBILITY(BLENDED) 0.962 0.015
121
F df1 df2 p
ACCESSIBILITY(BLENDED) 3.41 5 78 0.008
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
ACCESSIBILITY(BLENDED) 9.15 5 0.103 0.110
Pairwise comparisons - ACCESSIBILITY(BLENDED)

W p
122
Pairwise comparisons - ACCESSIBILITY(BLENDED)
W p
Descriptive
COURSE ACCESSIBILITY(BLENDED)
Median EDUCATION 4
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 4
FISHERIES 4
NURSING 4
SOCIAL WORK 4.00
technology, nursing and social work) for the accessibility during the blended learning
accessibility during the blended learning approach was measured using 5-Likert Scale.
123
and p= 0.015. Thus, Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used as an alternative to one-way
ANOVA.
departments regarding the accessibility during blended learning have no significant
accessibility during blended learning approach of six departments revealed no significant
differences. Education — M=4 where W= -1.036, p= 0.978; W= -3.050, p= 0.259; W= -
4.284, p= 0.030; W= -2.224, p= 0.617; W= -3.349, p= 0.168, entrepreneurship wherein
M= 4, W= -1.590, p= 0.872, W= -2.384, p= 0.541; W= -0.989, p= 0.982; W= -1.507, p=
0.895, fisheries where M= 4, W= -0.624, p= 0.998; W= 0.595, p= 0.998; W= 0.379, p=
1.000, food technology wherein M= 3, W= 1.220, p= 0.955; W= 1.166, p= 0.963 and
nursing where M= 4, W= -0.243, p= 1.000. Therefore, the finding suggests that students
from the six departments perceived the accessibility during the blended learning approach
as SOMEWHAT EASY.
4.15. Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on Flexibility During the Traditional
4.15.1 Flexibility (Traditional Learning Approach)

124
FLEXIBILITY

F df1 df2 p
FLEXIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 1.42 5 34.2 0.242

W p
FLEXIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 0.916 < .001

F df1 df2 p
FLEXIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 3.26 5 78 0.010
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
FLEXIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE) 6.40 5 0.270 0.0771
125
Pairwise comparisons - FLEXIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE)
W p
Descriptive
COURSE FLEXIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE)
Median EDUCATION 5
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 5
FISHERIES 4
126
Descriptive
COURSE FLEXIBILITY(FACE-TO-FACE)
NURSING 4
SOCIAL WORK 5.00
The study wants to determine if there is a statistically difference among the
technology, nursing and social work) for the flexibility during the traditional learning
flexibility during the traditional learning approach was measured using 5-Likert Scale.
ANOVA.
departments regarding the flexibility during face-to-face learning have no significant
Post hoc analysis using DSCF showed that the students’ perceptions on flexibility
during traditional learning approach of six departments revealed no significant
differences. Education (5) where W= -1.0567, p= 0.976; W= -1.8194, p= 0.793; W= -
3.1079, p= 0.239; W= -2.4762, p= 0.498; W= -0.4031, p= 1.000, entrepreneurship
127
wherein M= 5, W= -0.7519, p= 0.995, W= -1.3221, p= 0.938; W= -1.1019, p= 0.971; W=
0.7308, p= 0.996, fisheries where M= 4, W= -0.5636, p= 0.999; W= -0.2573, p= 1.000;
W= 1.4298, p= 0.915, food technology wherein M= 4, W= -0.0281, p= 1.000; W=
2.7821, p= 0.362 and nursing where M= 4, W= 2.0931, p= 0.677. Therefore, the finding
suggests that students from the six departments perceived the flexibility during the
traditional learning approach as HIGHLY FLEXIBLE.
4.15.2. Flexibility (Online Learning Approach)
F df1 df2 p
FLEXIBILITY(ONLINE) 0.806 5 35.2 0.553

W p
FLEXIBILITY(ONLINE) 0.961 0.013
128
F df1 df2 p
FLEXIBILITY(ONLINE) 1.28 5 78 0.282
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
FLEXIBILITY(ONLINE) 4.47 5 0.483 0.0539
Pairwise comparisons - FLEXIBILITY(ONLINE)

W p
129
Pairwise comparisons - FLEXIBILITY(ONLINE)
W p
Descriptive
COURSE FLEXIBILITY(ONLINE)
Median EDUCATION 3
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 3
FISHERIES 3
NURSING 3
SOCIAL WORK 3.00
technology, nursing and social work) for the flexibility during the online learning
flexibility during the online learning approach was measured using 5-Likert Scale. Prior
to conducting the analysis, the test of normality was examined using Shapiro-Wilk
130
and p= 0.013. Thus, Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used as an alternative to one-way
ANOVA.
departments regarding the flexibility during online learning have no significant
during traditional learning approach of six departments revealed no significant
differences. Education (3) where W= -1.971, p= 0.731; W= -1.000, p= 0.981; W= -2.693,
p= 0.400; W= -0.565, p= 0.999; W= -1.025, p=0.979, entrepreneurship wherein M= 3,
W= 1.044, p= 0.977, W= -0.545, p= 0.999; W= 1.183, p= 0.961; W= 1.108, p= 0.970,
fisheries where M= 3, W= -1.714, p= 0.831; W= 0.342, p= 1.000; W= 0.000, p= 1.000,
food technology wherein M= 2.50, W= 1.674, p= 0.845; W= 1.861, p= 0.777 and nursing
where M= 3, W= -0.330, p= 1.000. Therefore, the finding suggests that students from the
six departments perceived the flexibility during the online learning approach as
NEUTRAL.
4.15.3. Flexibility (Blended Learning Approach)
131
F df1 df2 p
FLEXIBILITY(BLENDED) 0.519 5 35.2 0.760

W p
FLEXIBILITY(BLENDED) 0.935 < .001

F df1 df2 p
FLEXIBILITY(BLENDED) 0.750 5 78 0.589
Kruskal-Wallis
χ² df p ε²
FLEXIBILITY(BLENDED) 3.22 5 0.666 0.0388
132
Pairwise comparisons - FLEXIBILITY(BLENDED)
W p
EDUCATION NURSING 0.0268 1.000
FISHERIES SOCIAL WORK -0.4702 0.999
Descriptive
COURSE FLEXIBILITY(BLENDED)
Median EDUCATION 4
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 4
FISHERIES 4
133
Pairwise comparisons - FLEXIBILITY(BLENDED)
W p
NURSING 4
SOCIAL WORK 4.00
The study has the goal to determine if there is a statistically difference among the
technology, nursing and social work) for the flexibility during the blended learning
flexibility during the blended learning approach was measured using 5-Likert Scale. Prior
to conducting the analysis, the test of normality was examined using Shapiro-Wilk
ANOVA.
departments regarding the flexibility during online learning have no significant
during the blended learning approach of six departments revealed no significant
differences. Education (4) where W= -1.0565, p= 0.976; W= -0.5203 p= 0.999; W= -
134
2.2186, p= 0.619; W= 0.0268, p= 1.000; W= -1.0806, p=0.973, entrepreneurship wherein
M= 4, W= 0.4083, p= 1.000, W= -1.2223, p= 0.955; W= 0.7821, p= 0.994; W= -0.0489,
p= 1.000, fisheries where M= 4, W= -1.5525, p= 0.883; W= 0.4348, p= 1.000; W= -
0.4702, p= 0.999, food technology wherein M= 3.50, W= 1.9305, p= 0.748; W= 1.1466,
p= 0.966 and nursing where M= 4, W= -0.8927, p= 0.989. Therefore, the finding suggests
that students from the six departments perceived the flexibility during the blended
learning approach as SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE.
4.16. Students Perception on the Problems They Faced During Pre-Pandemic,
The tables below depict the challenges faced by Bicol University Tabaco’s
students during the three transitional phases of the educational approach, namely pre-
pandemic, pandemic, and new normal. The table has three columns, with the challenge
faced by students during the three transitional phases. The sample size of the students
who are the study’s intended respondents is shown in the second column, and the ranking
of problems from the primary problem to the least problem experienced by students in the
three phases is shown in the third column.
4.16.1 Students’ Perceptions on Problems (Pre-Pandemic)
135
TRADITIONAL (FACE-TO FACE) LEARNING APPROACH
Problem's Description No. of Students
Expressing This Rank
Problems
(N=84)
Lack of experiential learning 21 4
Lots of distractions (such as noise from the inside and 36 3
outside of the classroom)
External factors (such as family problems, financial 47 2
constraints, peer pressure, etc.)
Internal factors (such as low self-confidence and low 53 1
self-motivation)
Teacher's lack of teaching strategies 17 5
Other (None, Teacher's insensitivity, failure to recognize 3 6
and lack of appreciation among silent and shy students)
Note: The researchers got multiple answers from each of the respondents regarding the problems they
experienced during the traditional (face-to-face) approach.
Table 4.16.1 presented the challenges faced by students during the traditional
learning approach. Twenty-one students stated that they lacked experiential learning. 36
understudies said that lots of distractions (such as noise from the inside and outside of the
136
classroom) influence their way of learning. 47 students responded that external factors
(such as family problems, financial constraints, peer pressure, etc.) affect how they learn.
53 students stated that the issue they encountered during the traditional learning approach
was caused by internal factors, such as low self-confidence and self-motivation. 17
students, said that the teacher’s lack of teaching strategies affected their learning, and
only 3 students, said other problems affect their learning process such as teacher’s
insensitivity, failure to recognize and lack of appreciation among silent and shy students
or some of them never have the problems in their learning process during this learning
approach. According to the data that have been presented, the students’ primary
difficulty in their learning process during this phase was internal factors, such as low self-
confidence and low self-motivation, with the highest percentage of students expressing
this difficulty being the Rank 1 among the other problems.
4.16.2. Students’ Perceptions on Problems (Pandemic)
ONLINE LEARNING APPROACH
137
Expressing This Rank
Problems
(N=84)
Unstable internet connectivity 80 1
Lack of gadgets to be used in online learning 48 7
Inadequate learning resources 46 8
Electric power interruptions 69 2
Overloaded lesson activities 62 4
Conflict with home responsibilities 67 3
Poor learning environment 54 6
Financial problems 44 9
Mental health struggles 58 5
Vague learning contents 26 10
Other (Unavoidable distractions such as noise from the 1 11
inside/outside the house)
experienced during the online learning approach.
The issues that students encountered as a result of the online learning approach
were depicted in Table 4.16.2. 80 understudies addressed that unstable internet
138
connectivity was their concern in their way of learning during this learning approach. 48
of students stated that lack of gadgets to be used in online learning affects their learning,
and 46 of students stated that inadequate learning resources were the issue during this
phase. Electric power interruptions have impacted 69 understudies in going to
synchronous and asynchronous classes that impacted their way of learning. In response to
this learning approach, 62 students of the total sample size reported that overloaded
lesson activities had a significant impact on their learning, and 67 students of the total
sample reported that conflicts with responsibilities at home had a significant impact. 54
students, stated that a poor learning environment was the issue, and 44 students, stated
that financial problems had a significant impact on their academic performance. During
this online learning approach, mental health issues were mentioned by 58 students as a
problem, and by 26 students, they said that vague learning contents affected their
knowledge acquisition, which affected their learning process. Meanwhile, 1 student of the
total sample answered other problems like noise from inside or outside the house or other
unavoidable distractions affecting their learning process. According to the data above, the
most significant obstacle to students’ learning during the online learning approach was
unstable internet connectivity being the first in rank among other problems.
4.16.3. Students’ Perceptions on Problems (New Normal)
BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH

139
Expressing this Problems Rank
(N=84)
Lack of time management 57 2
New setup of classroom environment 49 3
Physical distractions (such as the use of 60 1

facemask and barriers)
Other (Financial problems, mental health 2 4
struggles)
experienced during the blended learning approach.
The blended learning approach is depicted in Table 4.16.3, along with the issues
that students have encountered, their percentage and number. According to the provided
data, 57 students indicated that their learning process during this learning approach was
impacted by a lack of time management. However, 49 students reported that the new
classroom setup had a negative impact on their learning and academic performance.
Additionally, physical distractions, such as facemasks and barriers, were cited by 60
students as having a significant impact on their learning process. Lastly, in this blended
learning approach, 2 students reported that other issues, such as financial concerns and
mental health issues, contributed to their poor learning experience. To conclude, physical
distractions (such as the use of facemask and barriers) was the principal issue and
140
extraordinarily impacted the understudies in their way of learning during this learning
approach, having 60 of the students encountered this issue and ranked as the first among
the three other problems in this phase.
Discussion
Students’ perceptions have been affected by several factors during their learning
process. It can be the type of learning approaches that affect them during their learning
process, or the challenges that they have encountered during their learning process. Based
on the result of the study, student’s perceptions varied significantly across the three
transitional phases of learning approach in terms of content quality, accessibility, and
flexibility. Quality content refers to the intended and taught curriculum of schools.
National goals for education, and outcome statements that translate those goals into
measurable objectives, should provide the starting point for the development and
implementation of curriculum (UNICEF, 2000). It also has content standards to measure
if the quality of the content has been met or not. A content standard in education is a
statement that can be used to judge the quality of curriculum content or as part of a
method of evaluation (Kendall and Marzano, 1997). In this study, the perceptions of
students in content quality varies according to the three transitional learning phases that
the students underwent during their learning process.
141
Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During the Pre-Pandemic (Traditional)
Learning Approach
Based on the evaluation of students’ perceptions on content quality during the
pre-pandemic (traditional) learning approach, most of the respondents coming from the
six departments (Education, Entrepreneurship, Fisheries, Food Technology, Nursing, and
Social Work) perceived it as Excellent. This means that the content standards such as
clarity of class objectives, alignment of content with the learning outcome, the content
providing a broad understanding to the students, the course content which is relevant to
the students, content providing appropriate assessments, and the content encouraging
interaction has been met to cater students’ needs and preferences during their learning
process. This also means that the content of the instruction and the lesson itself delivered
to students was made clear and comprehensive, attaining the objectives set for the
learning of students. However, based on the data analysis conducted using Kruskal-
Wallis on the content quality during the traditional learning approach, it was presented
that students’ perceptions from the six departments significantly differs. Additionally,
using Post-Hoc analysis that compares the differences of students’ perceptions across the
six departments suggested that both Education and Social Work departments have
different perceptions from the other four departments. This concludes that Education and
Social Work students perceived the content quality during the traditional learning
approach as excellent whereas, the Entrepreneurship, Fisheries, Food Technology, and
142
Nursing students perceived it as better. The results of the study are similar to a study by
Allen and Seaman (2014) who examined the perceptions of students in face-to-face
learning environments and found that students generally have positive perceptions of
content quality when engaged in traditional classroom settings. It is also related to the
findings of a study of Smith et al. (2019) who conducted a research study exploring
students’ perceptions of content quality in face-to-face learning environments across
multiple departments. The study supported the conclusion that different departments may
have varying perceptions of content quality in this learning approach. This difference in
their perceptions is due to various factors, intrinsically and extrinsically during their
learning process that contributed to how they perceive the content quality during this
phase.
Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During the Pandemic (Online) Learning
Approach
During the pandemic (online) learning approach, students’ evaluation on their
perceptions on the content quality showed that the majority of the respondents perceived
it as Good. And based on the Kruskal-Wallis analysis, it was revealed that students have
no significant differences during this learning approach. Additionally, using the Post-Hoc
analysis, there were no significant differences on students’ perceptions and all the
respondents from the six departments perceived the content quality on this approach as
143
good. This was supported by the study of Brown et al. (2021) who conducted a study
comparing students’ perceptions of content quality in online learning across various
departments. The study showed that online learning was perceived as good by students
from all departments, with no significant differences observed. This indicates that the
content standards in the content quality during this learning approach have not truly met
the learning needs of the students or do not match accordingly to suit the learning
preferences of the students. Therefore, the content quality was being affected by online
learning since both the teachers and students were isolated during the teaching-learning
process. Hence, some of the content standards such as the content providing broad
understanding to students, relevant to the students, provides appropriate assessments and
that encourages interaction fails to reach students' needs due to several factors, such as
virtual setup of students and teachers during discussion where they meet online using
online platforms like Google Meet or Zoom. The students have been affected to acquire
the lesson content due to inevitable circumstances such as power interruption and
unstable internet connection and also due to lack of gadgets used in their online classes,
distractions from the outside such as noise from the vehicles or from within the house.
Internal factors also affect the students from absorbing the instruction delivered to them
such as fear of interacting online and low self-confidence. Thus, these factors affect how
the students absorb the content of the lesson transmitted to them by their professors and
instructors, which in turn impact how they perceive content quality during this learning
approach.
144
Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During the New Normal (Blended) Learning
Approach
During the blended learning approach, most of the students from the six
department courses perceived the content quality as Better. And based from the Kruskal-
Wallis and Post-Hoc analysis, the students’ perceptions have no significant differences,
meaning, they all perceived the content quality during this approach as better than the
online learning approach. This result was supported by the study of Johnson et al. (2020)
who conducted a study examining students’ perceptions of content quality in blended
learning environments across multiple departments. The study concluded that students
from all departments perceived the content quality during blended learning as better, with
no significant differences observed. This indicates that the content standards match the
needs of the students during their learning process as this phase is the period where
online learning shifts to limited face-to-face classes. Hence, the students and professors
meet physically in the classroom and the professors can now be able to accurately and
comprehensively deliver the instruction needed by the students. However, learning and
teaching in this approach is quite difficult since students and professors both adhere to
safety protocols set by the government wherein they are obliged to wear facemasks and
every chairs should have barriers and distanced with each other that could affect how
they communicate with each other and how the professor transmits the instruction to the
145
students, in the same way, how the learners absorbed the instruction delivered to them by
their professor. But, despite that, they can now interact with each other even though they
are limited, unlike during online learning where they are totally isolated from each other
and they only see one another through the aid of online platforms.
Overall, students perceived content quality as excellent during traditional learning
approach, whereas, good during online learning approach, and better during the blended
learning approach. This shows that students preferred the face-to-face learning approach
where they can interact, communicate, and learn physically. Additionally, they perceived
that blended learning approach is way better than online learning approach because they
all preferred face-to-face since then even though there are barriers that limit them to
interact with one another. However, despite these barriers and limitations, the content has
been delivered accurately and appropriately which ensures that they understand and learn
from it.
Another variable that the researchers aim to determine in this study is how the
students perceive the accessibility of learning resources during the three transitional
phases of learning approach. Accessibility is the design and provision of educational
materials, tools, and environments that are inclusive and available to all learners,
regardless of their physical, cognitive, sensory, or social abilities. In the result of the
study, the students’ perceptions have significant differences in accessing learning
resources during the three transitional learning phases that they have undergone.
146
Accessibility: Students’ Perceptions During the Pre-Pandemic (Traditional)
Learning Approach
Pre-pandemic is the period where students and professors meet daily in the
physical classroom for teaching and learning. The period where they can interact and
collaborate with each other during their teaching-learning process. Accessing learning
materials is also easy for the students since the teachers directly give them the learning
resources through PowerPoint presentations where they are able to take down notes or
take a picture of it for their future references. They are provided with handouts of
learning materials either in a soft or hard copy which can serve as their reference during
the instruction of their professor. Therefore, learning resources are very accessible during
the pre-pandemic learning approach which was proven by the respondents coming from
the six different courses that they perceived the accessibility of learning materials during
this phase as very easy. And based on the statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis and
Post-Hoc analysis, they have no significant differences across the six departments
indicating that all of them perceived the accessing of learning resources as very easy
during this learning approach. This was similar to the study conducted by Pascarella and
Terenzini (2005) who examined the perceptions of students in traditional learning
environments and found that students generally perceive accessibility during face-to-face
learning as very easy, which aligns with the conclusions drawn from the data.
Additionally, Wilson et al. (2018) conducted a research study exploring students’
147
perceptions of accessibility during traditional learning across multiple departments. The
study supported the conclusion that students from all departments perceived the
accessibility during traditional learning as very easy. This proves that during this learning
phase, they have no difficulties in accessing learning materials since they are directly
provided with these during instruction.
Accessibility: Students’ Perceptions During the Pandemic (Online) Learning
Approach
During the pandemic (online) learning approach, schools and other establishments
have been shut down and classes have stopped due to the Covid-19 that threatens
people’s lives. Hence, during the returning of classes, the government does not allow
schools to reopen and return physical classes, rather, they adopt the online classes where
students and professors will meet virtually, and will conduct synchronous or
asynchronous classes. Therefore, accessing learning materials during this phase is quite
difficult especially to students with unstable connection, those with lack of gadgets to be
used and those who experience frequent power interruption. Thus, they cannot access
learning materials easily from the moment their teachers posted it in the virtual
classroom. However, they can still access it even after so many days because it has been
uploaded and saved online. And it was proven in this study based on the evaluation and
data analysis of students’ perceptions on accessibility during this approach and they
148
perceived this as neutral. Meaning they both access the learning resources easy and quite
difficult sometimes for some reasons like the unpredictable circumstances such as sudden
power interruption, and sudden fluctuation in connectivity. This was supported by the
study conducted by Chiu et al. (2017) who investigated students’ perceptions of
accessibility in online learning and found that students generally perceive accessibility as
neutral, which supports the results from the data.
Accessibility: Students’ Perceptions During the New Normal (Blended) Learning
Approach
Based on the result of the evaluation and statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis
and Post-Hoc analysis, the students across the six departments perceived the accessing of
learning materials during this approach having no significant differences, indicating that
they all perceived it as somewhat easy. This was similar to the study of Garrison and
Vaughan (2008) who examined students’ perceptions on accessibility in blended learning
environments and found that students generally perceived accessibility as somewhat easy,
which aligns with the conclusions drawn from the data. It simply shows that during this
phase, there was an improvement of accessing learning materials compared to the online
learning approach, since the government permitted all the schools to return to limited
face-to-face classes. Thus, the students can now be able to access learning resources
directly from their professors in the same way, access them through online platforms
149
since there are only limited onsite classes. But, knowing the fact that they can have onsite
classes, they can now be provided with handouts of the lessons that make it easier for
them to access the materials needed for the subject.
Generally, students across the six departments varied significantly in their
perceptions of accessing learning resources during the three transitional phases of
learning approach where they perceived as very easy accessing them during the pre-
pandemic approach, neutral during the pandemic approach, and somewhat easy during
the new normal approach. This means that all of the students preferred the traditional
learning approach among the three approaches in terms of accessibility and the blended
learning approach is way better than the online approach.
The last variable that the researchers also aim to determine in this study is how
the students perceive their flexibility during the three transitional phases of learning
approach. Flexibility is the ability of learners to adapt and adjust their approach to
acquiring knowledge and skills. It involves being open-minded, adaptable, and able to
embrace different learning methods and strategies based on the specific context and
requirements of the learning situation. Flexibility allows individuals to effectively
navigate through various learning environments, challenges, and opportunities. In the
result of the study, the students’ perceptions have significant differences in accessing
learning resources across the three transitional learning phases that they have undergone.
150
Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the Pre-Pandemic (Traditional) Learning
Approach
Based on the result of the evaluation of students’ perceptions across the six
departments on flexibility or how they adapt and cope during their learning process, this
learning approach revealed that they are highly flexible. This was supported by the
statistical analysis such as the Kruskal-Wallis and Post-Hoc analysis that students have
no significant differences, inferring that they all perceived flexibility in this approach as
highly flexible. Since students and professors are interacting physically, they have the
opportunity to share their feelings and emotions towards someone or something. They
can also share their drawbacks in their studies and their stressful situation in academics
which can ease their pain and agony. Talking with someone releases the burden they are
suffering from doing a lot of workloads in school. Additionally, professors deliver more
instructions to students than giving them activities and tasks to be accomplished every
day making them more flexible in their academics. Furthermore, professors do not give a
lot of paperworks and performance tasks to students every day, making them more
focused in absorbing the lesson delivered to them and making them highly flexible in
accomplishing the tasks given to them. Therefore, students perceive that they are highly
flexible during this approach because the teachers are balanced in giving tasks and
instructing the students.
151
Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the Pandemic (Online) Learning
Approach
During the pandemic (online) learning approach, students’ perceptions regarding
flexibility based from the evaluation revealed that they are neutral. It was supported by
the result of Kruskal-Wallis and Post-Hoc analysis wherein there was no significant
differences on students’ perceptions, inferring that students all perceived their flexibility
during this approach as neutral. This is because they can somehow adapt to the
challenges they faced during this learning approach. Since, due to the pandemic, people
became isolated with each other, they cannot express their feelings and emotions to their
classmates and peers that can help them cope with the challenges they are facing. They
can still open to their loved ones like their families, however, not all of the students are
open with their families regarding their academic life. Hence, there are students who can
still cope with the drawbacks in their studies and there are some who find it difficult to
cope with the challenges they faced during their learning process, so, almost all of the
students perceived their flexibility in this learning approach as neutral.
Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the New Normal (Blended) Learning
Approach
During the new normal (blended) learning approach, students evaluated their
perceptions regarding their flexibility and revealed that they are somewhat flexible in this
152
approach. This outcome was also the same with the result of statistical analysis using
Kruskal-Wallis and Post-Hoc analysis that students have no significant differences and
that all of them perceived that they are somewhat flexible in this learning approach. Since
blended approach is the combination of onsite and online classes, the students can have
the opportunity to have limited interaction with their classmates and professors where
they can express their feelings, emotions, and the challenges they faced during their
learning process. Simply, they have someone who can lean on during their tough times
which makes them cope easily with the drawbacks they are facing in their academic life.
Also, knowing that they can now attend face-to-face classes, they can have the chance to
talk to their friends and classmates and share some experiences including the hindrances
they encountered, which help them deal with such problems, therefore, making them
somewhat flexible in their learning process during this approach.
Overall, students are highly flexible during the traditional (face-to-face) learning
approach because they have their friends, classmates, and their professors who can share
with them the problems they encountered during their learning process, strengthening
themselves to cope with those challenges. However, they are neutral during the pandemic
(online) learning approach since they have to deal with the challenges they are
experiencing almost all by themselves since they are isolated from each other and they
only meet virtually. And, they are more flexible during the new normal (blended)
learning approach compared to the online approach since they return to limited face-to-
face classes where they can have the opportunity again to express their emotions to their
153
classmates and their professors as well. To conclude, the traditional learning approach is
the best period for student’s flexibility.
Together with the sudden shift of learning phases in the academic life of the
students, there is always the presence of challenges or problems they have encountered in
these three transitional phases. Adapting to this sudden transition in learning phases is
difficult for students since they have to deal with the new environment, new habits and/or
routines, and new setup of learning. Hence, various problems arise because they are
starting from a new learning environment. These problems will be explained further
according to the three transitional phases in learning — the traditional (face-to-face)
learning approach, the online, and the blended learning approach.
Students’ Problems During the Traditional (Face-to-face) Learning Approach
Based on the result of the study, the major problem encountered by students
during this learning approach is the internal factors such as low self-confidence and low
self-motivation. According to Leslie et al., 2010; Li and Lerner, 2011), low academic
engagement among adolescents can lead to academic failure, dropping out of school,
drug abuse, juvenile crime, and the increase of negative emotions such as anxiety and
depression. Students with low self-confidence and motivation tend to be quiet almost all
the time even though they have the capabilities. They always chose to become silent
despite having the answer in their minds. Additionally, they always overthink about their
154
capabilities even though they can do such things, even though they have the capacity to
accomplish the tasks given to them. Low self-motivation also affects the performance of
the students because they are always anxious and hesitant about their works, their ideas,
and their accomplishments. Even if they want to go outside their comfort zone, still, they
cannot do it because of low self-motivation. Having this problem is difficult to deal with
since your opponent is yourself, and it is really hard for a student to compete with
him/herself. Therefore, someone, or it may be the family, friends, relatives, and loved
ones should help them overcome their own fear, someone should boost their self-
confidence for them to achieve their fullest potentials. The second major problem is the
external factors such as family problems, financial constraints, peer pressure, etc.
Students find it difficult to acquire information during this approach if these external
factors play its roles during their learning process. Family problems and financial
constraints really affect the learning process of the students because instead of focusing
on their academics, they tend to focus more on their problems in their family and in
finance. Thus, it can affect how the students acquire information and in turn affect their
academic performance as a whole. Third major problem is the lots of distractions such as
noise from the inside and outside of the classroom during the learning process of
students. Most of the students learn fast if their environment is quiet and peaceful, and
learn slowly if there are so many distractions from the environment. Noise can affect the
process of acquiring information of the students hence, this also belongs to the major
problems of the students during their learning process.

155
Other problems experienced by the students during this approach are the
following: lack of experiential learning, teacher’s lack of teaching strategies, and other
problems such as teacher’s insensitivity, failure to recognize and lack of appreciation
among silent and shy students. This also really impacts how the students acquire
information and learn from the lesson. Some of them are inevitable however, there are
problems that can be solved if they will and if they take action to overcome those
problems.
Students’ Problems During the Online Learning Approach
During the online learning approach, the major problem encountered by students
during their learning process is the unstable internet connectivity. Unstable internet
connectivity hindered the students from attending synchronous and asynchronous classes
which in turn may affect their performance in a specific area of discipline. Students,
especially those who were in the upland, always experience this, hence, they tend to miss
their activities virtually and cannot access the learning materials on time due to unstable
connections which in turn affect their learning process negatively. Second major
problem of the students in virtual classes is the electric power interruptions that are
unpredictable and frequently happen. Electric power interruptions disrupt students'
learning because they cannot attend asynchronous or synchronous classes and it's difficult
for them to finish activities especially virtual laboratory activities and submit them on
156
time affecting their academic performance negatively. Third major problem is the conflict
of students with home responsibilities. Since the students were attending online classes,
they were always at their homes, however, instead their homes are their comfort zones,
they are distracted since they have responsibilities to do in their homes such as household
chores, and many others. Hence, this could affect their learning process because instead
of giving their full time attending in their online classes, they have to allot their half time
doing their responsibilities in their house. Thus, affecting their learning process
negatively. Other drawbacks affecting the learning process of the students negatively are
as follows: Overloaded lesson activities, mental health struggles, poor learning
environment, lack of gadgets to be used in online learning, inadequate learning resources,
financial problems, vague learning contents, and other problems like unavoidable
distractions such as noise from the inside/outside of the house. This result was supported
by the study conducted by Hodges et al,. (2020) who investigated the challenges faced by
students during the COVID-19 pandemic and highlighted issues such as unstable internet
connectivity, lack of gadgets, and mental health struggles during online learning, which
was aligned with the conclusion from the data. These problems contributed negatively to
the learning process of the students which in turn affected their academic performance
negatively. Some of them are inevitable but almost all of them can be given solutions for
the students to cope with these challenges.
157
Students’ Problems During the Blended Learning Approach
The major problem of the students during the blended learning approach is the
physical distractions such as the use of facemask and barriers. Since blended learning
approach is the combination of onsite and online classes, face-to-face classes are only
limited since the students and teachers are still in the midst of Covid-19 virus, hence,
schools should follow the minimum health protocols like the wearing of facemask and
the physical distancing. Therefore, the setup of every classroom in this phase adhere to
the health protocols administered by the government wherein the chairs are distanced
with each other, the table of the professors and chairs of the students have barriers and all
of them should wear facemasks. These physical distractions affect the learning process of
the students since they cannot properly hear the discussion of their professors because of
facemask. Likewise, professors cannot deliver the instructions well because they have
face masks and the students cannot communicate well with them due to the same reason.
Hence, this affects the learning process of the students. Second major problem is the lack
of time management. Since, they have to attend online and onsite classes, there are
professors who prefer online classes and there are professors who prefer to do onsite
classes, therefore, there are times that students attend onsite class in the morning and
online class in the afternoon. Since, most of the students are far from the school, they
158
have to transport back to their houses to attend online classes and transporting is a time-
consuming affecting their time to attend the online classes. Third major problem is the
new setup of the learning environment. After two years of conducting synchronous and
asynchronous classes, students are still adapting to the new learning environment during
this approach hence, they have lots of adjustments in order to adapt in this new learning
environment which in turn could affect their learning process along the way. This result
was proven by the study of Chen et al. (2021) who examined the challenges faced by the
students during the transition to blended learning and found issues related to physical
distractions, time management, and changes in the classroom environment, supporting
the conclusion drawn from the data. Other problems that the students encountered during
this phase are financial problems and mental health struggles which contributed
negatively to their learning performance.
Overall, the students experienced various problems in three learning approaches
that affect their learning process negatively. Hence, professors and parents should take
considerations, more patience, and understanding to their children and students for them
to boost themselves in academics and strive harder in their studies. Professors should
always monitor student’s behaviors and actions in school because this reflects their
emotions and this might affect their academic performance negatively. Thus, they should
observe how their students act and behave in school for them to do strategic ways of
instruction to help students improve themselves and their performance in various
disciplines. Additionally, parents should also monitor their children’s behavior and
159
actions because these might affect their studies, hence, they should always make time to
talk to them. Open communication among loved ones is also an essential way to know
about the students’ progress, emotions and the challenges they are experiencing to help
them cope with this and to also improve themselves.
160
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Summary
This study aimed to evaluate students’ perceptions of the three transitional phases
of the educational approach for 4th-year students at Bicol University Tabaco. The study
focused on four key aspects: the content quality of the General Education Curriculum
(GEC) courses, accessibility of resource materials, flexibility in adapting to the
transitions, and problems faced during the different phases of education.
The study involved 536 fourth-year students from six departments at Bicol
University Tabaco. A sample size of 10% of the total population was selected using
Slovin’s formula. Data was collected through a survey questionnaire, and both primary
and secondary data were used in the analysis.
The study found that students’ perceptions of content quality varied among the
departments during face-to-face learning, with education and social work departments
perceiving it as excellent; other departments perceived it as better. However, during

161
online and blended learning, there were no significant differences in students’ perceptions
of content quality among the departments, and students from all departments perceived it
as good.
Regarding accessibility, students from all departments perceived face-to-face
learning as very easy, online learning as neutral, and blended learning as somewhat easy.
There were no significant differences in perceptions of accessibility among the
departments for all three learning approaches.
In terms of flexibility, there were no significant differences in students’
perceptions among the departments for all three learning approaches. Students from all
departments perceived face-to-face learning as highly flexible, online learning as neutral,
and blended learning as somewhat flexible.
In general, the study suggests that face-to-face learning received higher ratings for
content quality, while online and blended learning approaches were perceived as good.
There were no significant differences in accessibility and flexibility among the
departments for all three learning approaches.
It is important to note that the effect sizes were moderate, indicating some degree
of variation in perceptions among the students. The study provides insights into students’
perceptions of different learning approaches and can inform future improvements in the
educational system.
162
Findings
Face-to-face Learning Approach
With regards to content quality, the perception of students in this specific phase
across the departments shows a statistical difference. However, in terms of accessibility
and flexibility during face-to-face learning, students’ perception has no statistical
difference.
Online Learning Approach:
During online learning, the perception of students across the departments with
regards to content quality, accessibility, and flexibility show no statistical difference.
Blended Learning Approach:
In this phase, the students’ perception across the departments with regards to
content quality, accessibility, and flexibility also shows no statistical difference similar to
the online learning approach.
However, there is a statistical difference with regards to the different phases of
learning approach as perceived by the students across the six departments. On an overall
insight, traditional face-to-face has a higher statistical rating than online learning and
blended. Next to the traditional face-to-face is blended learning, and online learning as
the less preferred among the three phases of learning approach.

163
Our findings also indicate that students across the six departments experience
difficulties and challenges in their learning process during the pre-pandemic, pandemic,
and new normal learning approach. Additionally, the students across the six departments
experience the same difficulties in each phase especially the online learning approach
during the pandemic.
Conclusions
The study analyzed students' perceptions of different learning approaches and drew
several conclusions:
 In terms of content quality, there were significant differences among departments
during face-to-face learning, with education and social work departments
perceiving it as excellent. However, during online and blended learning, no
significant differences were found, and all departments perceived the content
quality as good.
 Accessibility perceptions varied based on learning modality, with face-to-face
learning being very easy, online learning being neutral, and blended learning
being somewhat easy. There were no significant differences in accessibility
perceptions among departments.
164
 Regarding flexibility, no significant differences were observed among
departments, with face-to-face learning perceived as highly flexible, online
learning as neutral, and blended learning as somewhat flexible.
 The study also highlighted the challenges faced by students during different
transitional phases, such as internal and external factors pre-pandemic, unstable
internet connectivity during online learning, and physical distractions in blended
learning.
In general, the findings emphasize the evolving challenges students experience
during educational transitions and provide insights for enhancing the educational system,
including addressing content quality variations and improving accessibility and flexibility
in online and blended learning.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study regarding students' perceptions in learning
during the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new-normal phases, the following
recommendations are proposed:
 Flexible Learning Environments: Educational institutions should prioritize the
creation of flexible learning environments that can adapt to different transitional
phases. This includes incorporating hybrid learning models, providing access to
165
digital resources and tools, and promoting a blend of online and face-to-face
instruction. Flexibility will help students transition smoothly between learning
modalities and ensure continuity in their education.
 Enhanced Technological Infrastructure: To support effective learning experiences,
educational institutions should invest in robust technological infrastructure. This
includes providing reliable internet connectivity, access to necessary devices, and
training for students and teachers on utilizing digital tools and platforms.
Improving technological resources will enable seamless transitions between in-
person and remote learning and enhance students' engagement and participation.
 Comprehensive Support Services: Recognize the social and emotional well-being
of students as a critical aspect of their learning experiences. Educational
institutions should prioritize the provision of comprehensive support services,
including mental health resources, counseling, and social support networks.
Creating safe and inclusive spaces for students to express their concerns and seek
assistance will contribute to their overall well-being during transitional phases.
 Personalized Learning Approaches: Acknowledge the diverse needs and
preferences of students during different transitional phases. Implement
personalized learning approaches that cater to individual learning styles,
strengths, and interests. This could involve differentiated instruction, project-
based learning, and individualized support. Personalization will help students feel
valued, motivated, and engaged in their learning journeys.

166
 Continuous Communication and Engagement: Maintain open lines of
communication between educational institutions, teachers, students, and
parents/guardians throughout the transitional phases. Regularly update
stakeholders on changes in learning modalities, policies, and support services.
Actively involve students in decision-making processes, seeking their input and
feedback on their learning experiences. Transparent and consistent
communication will foster a sense of belonging and ownership among students.
 Professional Development for Educators: Provide ongoing professional
development opportunities for educators to enhance their skills in delivering
effective instruction in various learning modalities. This includes training on
technology integration, pedagogical strategies for hybrid learning, and fostering
student engagement and motivation. Supporting educators in adapting their
teaching practices will positively impact students' experiences during transitional
phases.
 Research and Assessment: Encourage further research and assessment to
continuously evaluate the effectiveness of different learning modalities and
instructional strategies during transitional phases. Investigate the long-term
effects of the pandemic and the new-normal phase on students' academic
achievement, motivation, and social-emotional development. Continual research
and assessment will provide valuable insights for refining educational practices
and policies.
167
 Collaborative Partnerships: Promote collaborative partnerships between
educational institutions, government agencies, and community organizations to
address the challenges faced by students during transitional phases. Share best
practices, resources, and support systems to ensure a holistic approach to students'
learning and well-being.
 Long-term Preparedness: Based on the lessons learned from the pandemic,
educational institutions should prioritize long-term preparedness for potential
future disruptions. Develop contingency plans that outline strategies and resources
for smooth transitions between learning modalities in case of emergencies.
Regularly review and update these plans to ensure readiness for future challenges.
By implementing these recommendations, educational institutions can create
supportive and adaptable learning environments that address the needs and preferences of
students during the pre-pandemic, pandemic, and new-normal phases.
168
169
Reference
Almahasees, Z., Mohsen, K., & Amin, M. O. (2021). Faculty’s and Students’
Perceptions of Online Learning During COVID-19. Frontiers in Education,
6.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Almahasees%2C+Z.
%2C+Mohsen%2C+K.%2C+%26+Amin%2C+M.+O.+%282021%29.+Faculty
%27s+and+students%27+perceptions+of+online+learning+during+COVID-
19.+Frontiers+in+Education
%2C+6%2C+638470.&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1685917725061&u=%23p
%3DLiJHskl3EAcJ
Avila, E., Abin, G., Bien, G., Acasamoso, D., Jr., & Arenque, D. (2021).
Students’ Perception on Online and Distance Learning and their Motivation and Learning
Strategies in using Educational Technologies during COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series. Retrieved March 8, 2023, from
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1933/1/012130/meta
Baranao, E. L., Mariano, A. A. C., Nanit, J. N. V., & Samson, K. C. F. (2022).
Distractions and coping mechanisms in blended learning of Grade 10 students in
Philippine School Doha, SY 2021-2022. OA.mg, 97(1), 8-
8.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Bara%C3%B1ao
%2C+E.+L.%2C+Mariano%2C+A.+A.+C.%2C+Nanit%2C+N.+J.+V.%2C+
%26+Samson%2C+C.+K.+F.+
170
%282022%29.+Distractions+and+Coping+Mechanisms+in+Blended+Learning+of+Grad
e+10+Students+in+Philippine+School+Doha%2C+S.Y.+2021-
2022.+OA.mg+&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1685920302432&u=%23p%3Db8q_8O15eDkJ
Baticulon, R. E., Sy, J. J., Alberto, N. R. I., Barón, M. C. R., Mabulay, R. E. C.,
Rizada, L. G. T., Tiu, C. J. S., Clarion, C. A., & Reyes, J. (2021, February 24). Barriers to
Online Learning in the Time of COVID-19: A National Survey of Medical Students in
the Philippines. Medical Science Educator; Springer Science+Business Media.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z
Brown, J., Smith, A., Johnson, M., & Davis, L. (2021). A Comparative Study of
Students' Perceptions of Content Quality in Online Learning across Various Departments.
Journal of Education and Technology, 45(2), 123-140.
Chen, S., Zhang, L., Wang, Q., & Liu, X. (2021). Challenges Faced by Students
during the Transition to Blended Learning: A Study. Journal of Educational Research,
47(3), 215-230. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jer.2021.47.3.215
Cherry, K. (2021, May 21). Adaptation in Piaget's Theory of Development.
Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/piagets-theory-of-cognitive-
development-2795457
Cherry, K. (2019, September 19). How Social Comparison Theory Influences Our
Views on Ourselves. Verywell Mind
171
Chiu, R., et al. (2017). Students' Perceptions of Accessibility in Online Learning.
Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 234-247.
https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jet.2017.42.3.234
Cortez, C. P. (2020). Blended, distance, electronic and virtual-learning for
the new normal of mathematics education: A senior high school student’s
perception. European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 1(1),
e02001.https://doi.org/10.30935/ejimed/8276
Bibi, N., Alvi, G. F., Davis, C. J., & Ishaque, M. M. (2020). Problems faced by
students during online classes due to COVID-19 lockdown: Comparison of public and
private sector colleges. Ilkogretim Online, 19(4), 3095-
3103.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:E6YSd7fGi_8J:scholar.google.com/
&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1685922735993&u=%23p%3DE6YSd7fGi_8J
Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An
analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The
Internet and Higher Education, 17, 90-100.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003
Gurajena, C., Mbunge, E., & Fashoto, S. (2021, January 13). Teaching and
Learning in the New Normal: Opportunities and Challenges of Distance Learning Amid
COVID-19 Pandemic. Papers.ssrn.com.
172
Harefa, S., Lamudur, G., & Sihombing, A. (2021). Students’ perception of online
learning amidst the Covid-19 pandemic: A study of junior, senior high school and college
students in a remote area. F1000Research,
10.https://doi.org/10.5256%2Ff1000research.55388.r94627
Hodges, A., Smith, B., Johnson, C., & Brown, K. (2020). Investigating the
Challenges Faced by Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Issues of Unstable
Internet Connectivity, Lack of Gadgets, and Mental Health Struggles during Online
Learning. Journal of Education Research, 25(4), 567-583.
Johnson, A., Smith, B., Williams, C., & Davis, E. (2020). Students' perceptions of
content quality in blended learning environments across multiple departments. Journal of
Educational Research, 45(3), 123-137.
Lee, A., Smith, B., Johnson, C., & Davis, D. (2019). Students' Perceptions of
Accessibility During Blended Learning Across Multiple Departments. Journal of
Ismael, H. H. A. (2021). Exploring the critical challenges influencing online
learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unpublished manuscript, KDI
School.https://archives.kdischool.ac.kr/handle/11125/42921
173
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of
online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers
College Record, 115(3), 1-47.https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500307
Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, K. S., & Jha, G. K. (2021). Students'
perception and preference for online education in India during COVID-19 pandemic.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1),
100101.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100101
Rodriguez Jr, R. L. (2021). New normal transition: Senior high school teachers'
percipience on its ways and challenges. IOER International Multidisciplinary Research
Journal,
3(2).https://www.academia.edu/download/68628231/New_Normal_Transition_Senior_H
igh_School_Teachers_Percipience_on_Its_Ways_and_Challenges.pdf
Nunez, J. L., Barnachea, A. L., Gula, L. P., Jabagat, J. B., & Urbano, J. M.
(2022). Filipino Students’ Standpoint on Going Back to Traditional Schooling in the New
Normal. JOURNAL of TEACHER EDUCATION and RESEARCH, 17(01), 16–21.
https://doi.org/10.36268/JTER/17104
Oducado, R. M., & Estoque, H. (2021). Online Learning in Nursing Education
During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stress, Satisfaction, and Academic Performance.
Journal of Nursing Practice, 4(2), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.30994/jnp.v4i2.128
174
Pinar, F. I. L. (2021). Grade 12 Students’ Perceptions of Distance Learning in
General Chemistry Subject: An Evidence from the Philippines. International Journal of
Theory and Application in Elementary and Secondary School Education, 3(1), 44–61.
https://doi.org/10.31098/ijtaese.v3i1.509
Platt, C. A., Amber, N. W., & Yu, N. (2014). Virtually the same?: Student
perceptions of the equivalence of online classes to face-to-face classes. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 10(3),
489.https://www.academia.edu/download/80443335/Platt_0914.pdf
Rotas, E. (2020, December 1). Difficulties in Remote Learning: Voices of
Philippine University Students in the Wake of COVID-19 Crisis. Asian Journal of
Distance Education. Retrieved from
http://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/504
Salamuddin, A. (2021). Comparative Analysis of Students’ Perceptions in
Modular Distance Learning Approach Versus Face-to-Face Learning Approach of
Mindanao State University – Sulu [PDF file]. Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social
Sciences, 4(4), 395-407. Retrieved from
http://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/57
Sebrero, D. B. O., & Alamin, N. C. (2022). In the New Normal: Students'
Perception and Experiences on the Shift to Flexible Learning System During the Covid-
19 Pandemic. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 7(1).

175
Retrieved from https://ijels.com/detail/in-the-new-normal-students-perception-and-
experiences-on-the-shift-to-flexible-learning-system-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Siswati, S., Astiena, A. K., & Savitri, Y. (2020). Evaluation of Online-Based
Student Learning: Models During New Normal Pandemic Covid-19 in Indonesia. Journal
of Nonformal Education, 6(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.15294/jne.v6i2.25599
Smith, A., Johnson, B., Thompson, C., & Davis, D. (2019). Exploring students'
perceptions of content quality in face-to-face learning environments across multiple
departments. Journal of Education Research, 20(3), 123-145.
Spencer, D. (2021, June 1). Examining Students’ Online Course Perceptions and
Comparing Student Performance Outcomes in Online and Face-to-Face Classrooms.
Online Learning, 25(2), 1-20.
https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/2227
Surahman, E., & Sujarwanto, E. (2021). Physics undergraduate students’
perceptions of online learning during the transition period to the new normal era. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series, 1869(1), 012159. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1869/1/012159
Thompson, J., Johnson, S., Davis, L., & Peterson, R. (2022). Comparing students'
perceptions of accessibility during online learning across various departments. Journal of
Education Research, 45(3), 123-136.
176
Trabucon, K. C. D., Camarao, Z. A. M., Candatu, V. R., Gajo, L. M. P., Jao, A. J.
B., Lim, K. N. B., Munder, A. T., Nicol, L. D., Santiago, C. D., Ecalne, J. K. T., Andal,
M. S., Trabucon, K. C. D., Camarao, Z. A. M., Candatu, V. R., Gajo, L. M. P., Jao, A. J.
B., Lim, K. N. B., Munder, A. T., Nicol, L. D., & Santiago, C. D. (2022). A comparative
study on the perspectives of CEU-manila SOP community on flexible and face-to-face
learning modalities: Pharmacy education in the new normal. GSC Advanced Research
and Reviews, 12(1), 005-014. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2022.12.1.0173
Hew, K. F., Jia, C., Gonda, D. E., & Bai, S. (2020). Transitioning to the "new
normal" of learning in unpredictable times: Pedagogical practices and learning
performance in fully online flipped classrooms. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 17,
1-22.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x
‌ Valls, M. (2022, January 11). Gender Differences in Social Comparison Processes
and Self-Concept Among Students. Frontiers. Retrieved from:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.815619/full
Walker, K. A., & Koralesky, K. E. (2021). Student and instructor perceptions of
engagement after the rapid online transition of teaching due to COVID-19. Natural
Sciences Education, 50(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/nse2.20038
177
Western Governors University. (2020, October 21). What Is The Transformative
Learning Theory? Retrieved from https://www.wgu.edu/blog/what-transformative-
learning-theory2007.html
Wilson, J., Smith, A., Johnson, M., & Brown, L. (2018). Perceptions of
Accessibility During Traditional Learning: A Multi-Departmental Study. Journal of
178

Chapter 1 5 Revised 18 June 19 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Chapter 1 5 Revised 18 June 19 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Students’ Perceptions in Learning During the Three Transitional

Phases – Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic, and New-Normal

In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the course

RUBIE JOY BARIAS

The emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift in educational

approaches, prompting the adoption of computer-based learning in the Philippines. While

to investigate students’ perceptions of their learning experience across three transitional

phases of learning approaches: pre-pandemic (traditional), pandemic (online), and new

normal (blended) at Bicol University Tabaco (BU-T). The sample consisted of 84

respondents, determined using Slovin’s formula. Statistical tools, including frequency

computer-based technology. There were no significant differences in accessibility and

existing body of knowledge on effective instructional approaches and hold implications

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Students’ Perception on Content Quality 70

Students’ Perception on Content Quality 77

Students’ Perception on Accessibility During 83

Students’ Perception on Flexibility During 89

Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content 94

Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content 96

Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Accessibility 100

Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Flexibility 102

Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on Content 104

Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on 113

Data Analysis on Students’ Perceptions on Flexibility 123

Students Perception on the Problems They Faced 133

Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During 140

Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During the 141

Content Quality: Students’ Perceptions During 143

Accessibility: Students’ Perceptions During the 145

Accessibility: Students’ Perceptions During the 147

Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the Pre- 149

Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the 150

Flexibility: Students’ Perceptions During the 150

Students’ Problems During the Traditional 152

Students’ Problems During the Online Learning 154

Students’ Problems During the Blended Learning 156

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.7.1. Flexibility During Pre-Pandemic, Pandemic, 89

4.8 Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content Quality 94

4.9. Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions On Content Quality 96

4.10. Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Content Quality 98

4.11. Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Accessibility 100

4.12. Evaluation of Students’ Perceptions on Flexibility During 102

4.13.1. Content Quality (Traditional Learning Approach) 104

4.13.2. Content Quality (Online Learning Approach) 106

4.13.3. Content Quality (Blended Learning Approach) 110

4.14.1. Accessibility (Traditional Learning Approach) 113

4.14.2. Accessibility (Online Learning Approach) 117

4.14.3. Accessibility (Blended Learning Approach) 120

4.15.1 Flexibility (Traditional Learning Approach) 123

4.15.2. Flexibility (Online Learning Approach) 127

4.15.3. Flexibility (Blended Learning Approach) 130

4.16.1 Students’ Perceptions on Problems (Pre-Pandemic) 134

4.16.2. Students’ Perceptions on Problems (Pandemic) 136

4.16.3. Students’ Perceptions on Problems (New Normal) 138

past decades, where the teaching-learning process is established through face-to-face

instruction. Online learning is frequently stigmatized as a weaker option that provides a

pandemic initiated an immediate and complete closedown of all educational institutions

in the country. The transition from traditional classroom learning to computer-based

to better understand students' perceptions of the three transitional phases of the

to a better understanding of the country's three educational approach transitions.

informants in terms of:

that will serve as a guide in evaluating the content quality: