IMPLEMENTATION OF FLEXIBLE LEARNING AT ILOILO CITY COMMUNITY

COLLEGE: BASIS FOR AN ENHANCED LEARNING DELIVERY

Harold F. Cartagena, PhD

Rezlie L. Martinez, MM

Leny V. Gaintano, MHM

Iloilo City Community College

Tiolas- M.H. del Pilar Street, Molo, Iloilo City

2021

Keywords: Flexible learning, learning delivery

 ABSTRACT

This descriptive study aimed to determine the level of implementation of flexible learning at
Iloilo City Community College (ICCC) during the 1st semester of AY 2020 – 2021. The study was
conducted in April of 2021 involving 499 of the 575 students enrolled in the college. A
researcher-made questionnaire was used and was administered using Google forms. Frequency
count, mean, standard deviation, t-test, and one-way ANOVA were the involved statistical tools.
The data showed that the level of implementation of flexible learning at ICCC “very good.”
Students identified the appropriateness of course design, the relevance of course content,
schedule of activities, development of skills, and changes in attitude through enhancing decision
making as the top-quality indicators in the implementation. Students from both courses rated the
implementation similarly while students from different year levels have a different observation of
the implementation of the new approach. The ICCC may provide an enhancement program to its
faculty members to improve the learning delivery through the flexible learning approach. More
attention may be given to the clarity of the presentation of the lesson, feedback mechanisms,
assessment of learnings, students’ engagement, and acquisition of the Learning Management
System.

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed and created a major disruption within

the educational system. Many educational institutions have temporarily closed to prevent the

spread of the virus. UNESCO stated forty-six countries in five different continents have

announced school closures to contain the spread of COVID-19 as of March 12, 2020 (Huang,

R.H., Liu, D.J., Tlili, A., Yang, J.F., Wang, H.H., et al.,2020). In the Philippines, a state of public

health emergency was declared through Proclamation No. 922 on March 8, 2020, because of the

pandemic. Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) was imposed instructing all residents to stay

at home and ordered the closure of non-essential establishments including educational

institutions.

As a result, colleges and universities across the country needed to accommodate the new

situation since face-to-face interactions and mass gatherings are not permitted. Amidst the

difficult situation, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have to fulfill their mandate.

2
 “From the confines of their homes, teachers and administrators were put to

the task of revising and adapting course syllabi and requirements as they shifted

to alternative or remote teaching modalities, both synchronous and asynchronous.

Where students and teachers had access to electronic devices and reliable Internet

connections, learning management systems such as Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard,

and applications like Google Hangouts, Zoom and Skype, were used. But where

students had limited access to computers or unreliable access to the web, teachers

and students used smartphones to exchange messages, notes, and materials,

through text messaging, e-mail, Facebook Messenger, and Twitter” (Simbulan,

2020). Colleges and Universities have moved from the usual face-to-face

classroom encounter to online class to continue pursuit for education. Online

learning, distance, and continuing education became a panacea for this

unprecedented global pandemic (Pokhrel S & Chhetri R, 2020).

This was a huge leap that caused difficulty to various education stakeholders, especially

teachers and students.

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) issued Memo no. 4 Series of 2020

(Guidelines on the Implementation of Flexible Learning) which provides general guidelines on

the implementation of flexible and teaching options, approaches, strategies, systems, pedagogies,

and modalities in the higher education program.

According to Cassidy et al. (2016) as indicated in CHED Memo no. 4 s. 2020, flexible

learning is a pedagogical approach allowing flexibility of time, place, and audience including,

3
but not solely focused on the utilization of technology. Flexible learning approaches are often

designed using a full range of teaching and learning theories, philosophies, and methods to

supply students with opportunities to access information and expertise, contribute ideas and

opinions, and correspond with other learners and mentors. This may occur through the

employment of internet-based tools such as Virtual Learning Environments or Learning

Management Systems (LMS), discussion boards or chat rooms; and may be designed as a

blended approach, with content available electronically and remotely, as well as "face-to-face"

classroom tutorials and lecture” (Joan, 2013).

Flexible learning, a 21st-century digital learning space, is timely during this time of the

pandemic. It does not require a face-to-face learning environment and offers learners various

learning options. It is characterized to be flexible and student-centered and relies on technology

in meeting learning outcomes to include assessment (Huang, R.H., Liu, D.J., Tlili, A., Yang, J.F.,

Wang, H.H., et al.,2020). It requires learners to be more skilled at self-regulation in terms of

goal-setting, self-monitoring, and making adjustments; and for instructors to promote active

learning so that learning in such situations can be engaging and effective. Flexible learning is

classified into various learning modalities – offline, blended, and online.

Flexible learning is anchored in various theories like connectivism, behaviorism, and

constructivism. According to Siemens (2005), connectivism presents a model of learning that

acknowledges the tectonic shifts in society where learning is no longer an internal, individualistic

activity. /e added that learning is a process that happens within nebulous environments of

shifting core elements. Learning can reside outside of ourselves and is focused on connecting

specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important

than our current state of knowing. In this global society, teachers should become collaborative

4
and integrated as a resource for educational support to students. With the high level of

information accessed through the internet and social media platforms, students could also be

given complete independence to connect to the numerous information resources and personalities

to achieve accurate information even during the time of restricted movement. On the other hand,

the essential principle of behaviorism is that learning is the result of an individual’s response to a

stimulus. The student does not work independently within the environment but on the contrary,

the behavior is controlled by environmental factors, thus not having control of the learning or the

time it takes to realize it (Karageorgalis, 2018). While the “constructivist theory is based around

the concept that learners are active participants in their learning journey; knowledge is

constructed based on experiences. As events occur, each person reflects on their experience and

incorporates the new ideas with their prior knowledge” (Kurt, 2021). These theories stem from

the creation and the need to utilize a technological approach to online learning. It becomes a

challenge to educators to combine pedagogical approaches and technological applications

effectively as they design an authentic learning environment, through online learning, that

benefit the learners the foremost.

Iloilo City Community College (ICCC) as a higher education institution has implemented

flexible learning starting 1st semester AY 2020 – 2021. A learning continuity plan (LCP) was

designed to indicate the framework, system, approaches, preparedness, and intervention needed

to ensure continuity of learning even at this time of the pandemic. Since flexible learning is a

new pedagogical approach for many universities and colleges, including ICCC, its effectiveness

must be monitored and evaluated.

In addition, students' observation in the implementation should also be given importance.

Hence, this study was proposed to determine the level of the implementation of flexible learning

5
at ICCC as observed by students. The results of this study would be used as the basis to improve

the quality of instruction through flexible learning.

Course
Year Level

Figure 1. Paradigm of the Study

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What are the top 5 quality indicators in the implementation of flexible learning at ICCC

during the 1st semester of AY 2020-2021?

2. What is the level of implementation of flexible learning during the 1st semester of AY

2020-2021 as observed by ICCC students when grouped according to course, year level,

and when taken as a whole?

3. Is there a significant difference in the level of implementation of flexible learning during

the 1st semester of AY 2020-2021 as observed by ICCC students when grouped according

to the course and year level?

METHODOLOGY

This descriptive study involved 499 of 575 students enrolled in the 1st Semester of AY

2020 – 2021 with a 1.60 confidence interval at a 95% confidence level. A researcher-made

questionnaire was used and was administered through Google Forms. It has two parts. Part 1

determined the profile of the respondents. Part 2 is a 12-item rating questionnaire where

respondents had to rate the level of the implementation of Flexible Learning, where 1 was the
6
lowest to 5 is the highest. The questionnaire was validated and pilot tested with 0.96 Cronbach

alpha. The survey was conducted in April 2021. Frequency count, mean, standard deviation, t-

test, and one-way ANOVA were the involved statistical tools.

Table 1.

Profile of Respondents
Category Frequency Percent

A. Entire Group 499 100.00%

B. Course

BSTM 184 36.90%

BSOA 315 63.10%

C. Year Level

1st Year 143 28.70%

2nd Year 179 35.90%

3rd Year 132 26.50%

4th Year 45 9.00%

RESULTS, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION

The quality indicators were the different areas considered in the teaching and learning

process. Table 2 shows the rank of these quality indicators. Data shows that students valued a)

course design, b) course content, c) schedule, d) skills increase and e) attitude change. These

were the top five quality indicators in the implementation of Flexible Learning.

Course design ranked highest (M=4.12, SD =0.71). ICCC faculty members were trained in

designing course guides based on the Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning Plan (OBTLP)

which plots all the topics, activities, grading system, and other pertinent details of the course

7
before the opening of the school year. Guidelines per section of the course guide were discussed

as to the target competency, strategy to be used, treatment of the subject matter, assessment, and

evaluation appropriate for remote learning in this time of the pandemic. As a result, the course

design was considered to be appropriate, systematic, and well-organized. Indeed, teacher

training is positively related to effective teaching (Rahman et al., 2011).

Second in line was course content (M=4.10, SD=0.72) which includes the relevance of the

information included in the lesson. Faculty members focused on essentials concepts that should

have practical application following the constructivist approach. Learning should be made

meaningful and illustrative for learners by including examples and use cases for theoretical

information (Alzaghoul, 2012). In addition, the faculty in charge were trained to link the course

content, strategies, and evaluation to the program's intended learning outcomes. This way, the

course content was aligned to the specifications and requirements of the course and the program.

It is important to align learning objectives with instructional strategies and assessments to ensure

that everyone involved is aware of the expectations. Both instructors and students should have a

consistent understanding of what is going to be taught and how it will be evaluated (Kurt, 2020).

Schedule (M=3.97, SD = 0.81) is third. The schedule refers to course activities that were

plotted accordingly. Students are aware of the schedule of all their classes and each course has its

schedule of topics and activities to be discussed and submitted. The faculty members ensured

that each student secured a copy of the course guide. This course guide directed students to the

specific date and time each teaching and learning activity shall take place. This also emphasized

punctuality in compliance with their course requirements. Effective time management of class

activities allows students to complete their work on time, stay engaged, and will have more time

8
pursuing activities maximizing all their abilities, and enjoy the satisfaction of the

accomplishment (Australian Christian College, 2020)

Fourth in rank is skills increases (M=3.93, SD=0.83) wherein the students might have seen

that the flexible learning helped them increase their skills bank relevant to their course. Some

skills, soft and hard, could be related to the course, and some must had been taught and learned

as supplements to their ability to improve different aspects of their student life and personal life

as well. Since the college is implementing outcomes-based education through flexible learning,

students were required to produce outcomes that were competency-based which provide

opportunities for students to practice and develop the desired skills. To allow students to

develop these skills a flexible learning environment is needed (Brand-Gruwel et al, 2014).

Ranked fifth is attitude changes (M=3.96, SD = 0.82) in which students must have realized

that they have personally applied the concepts they learned from their course to their current

situations and life decisions. This awareness and motivation to applying their knowledge led to

good decision making thus changing their attitude.

When a person is motivated and able to invest high effort in making a judgment about an

issue or object, attitude change can occur due to characteristics of his or her thoughts (e.g.,

whether the thoughts are favorable or unfavorable), his or her estimation that good or bad

outcomes will be tied to the attitude object or the person’s realization that he or she holds

conflicting beliefs about a set of attitude objects (Psychology Research & Reference, n.d).

On the other hand, those that were not included in the top five were: a) clarity in

presentations of the lesson, b) feedback mechanisms, c) assessment of learning, d) students’

participation, facilities, and e) knowledge gained.

9
 Flexible learning as an approach provides students the opportunity to determine what, when,

and how to learn. In this case, understanding the lesson might be challenging for some students.

Also, learning materials were developed abruptly thus requiring testing of their effectiveness.

The faculty member might have some difficulties in providing timely feedback to students

as well as providing consultations due to different time schedules and poor internet connectivity.

Some students were also working and might have viewed or read the learning materials late.

They might have also consulted with the teachers during their free time that does not coincide

with the consultation period indicated by the subject teacher in the course guide. Students might

have also difficulties in managing multiple activities and assessment tasks given in different

courses which affected their participation. They might have found it difficult to use the facilities

in the college due to health protocols and movement restrictions.

Also, access to technology and related equipment and gadgets were difficult for most

students since it requires them to spend on purchasing the gadgets and internet load. The college

had also issues with the internet connectivity of the faculty members making it difficult for these

teachers to conduct online classes or to upload and download learning materials and outputs.

These make them less efficient.

The learning materials prioritize the application of the lesson, thus leaving behind concepts

that are usually discussed in the traditional setup. Although they ranked skills increases third on

the list of indicators, they consider Knowledge as a separate area and found it the least relevant

among the ten indicators.

Both teachers and students are adapting to flexible learning as a new approach. There are

numerous concerns, issues, and challenges that need to be addressed. However, strategies should

be established to improve the implementation of flexible learning especially to quality indicators

10
with a mean lower the 4.00. According to Pokhrel S & Chhetri R (2020), suitable pedagogy and

platform should be explored, accessibility and affordability of Internet must be adequate,

creation of new education policy must be developed, and investment in the professional

development of teachers to make learning creative, innovative and interactive in this time of

COVID-19 pandemic and to prepare the educational system for uncertainties in the future.

Table 2.

Top Five Quality Indicators in the Level of Implementation of Flexible Learning at ICCC
Rank Indicator Mean SD Description
1st Course The course designs were appropriate, 4.12 0.71 Very Good
Design systematic, and well-organized
2nd Course Course contents were informative and 4.10 0.72 Very Good
Content relevant
3rd Schedule The schedule of course activities was 3.97 0.81 Very Good
plotted accordingly
4th Skills Students learned new skills relevant to 3.97 0.83 Very Good
Increases their course
5th Attitude Students learned how to apply their 3.96 0.82 Very Good
Changes learnings in real life and become more
aware of their decisions
6th Instructional Presentations were clear and easy to 3.95 0.79 Very Good
Method understand
7th Feedback The teachers provided helpful responses 3.93 0.93 Very Good
to questions and clarification
8th Assessment Assessments of learning (activities, 3.90 0.80 Very Good
tasks, etc.)
9th Students’ Students were actively engaged in 3.88 0.82 Very Good
Participation activities or task and submit them on
time
10th Facilities The technology used was appropriate 3.85 0.82 Very Good
and accessible to students
11th Knowledge Students gained relevant and useful 3.85 0.84 Very Good
Increases information
Origin: 4.20 – 5.00 (Excellent); 3.40 – 4.19 (Very Good); 2.60 – 3.39 (Good); 1.80 – 2.59 (Fair); 1.00 – 1.79 (Poor)

11
 Table 3 illustrates the observation of ICCC students on the implementation of flexible

learning when group according to course, year level, and when taken as a whole. Data revealed

that generally, ICCC students rated the implementation of flexible learning as “Very Good”

(M=3.95, SD =0.72). A similar rating on the implementation came out when students were

grouped according to their course and year level.

For ICCC students, the teachers of ICCC successfully implemented flexible learning

during the 1st semester, AY 2020 -2021. This is a manifestation of the efforts of the college and

its faculty members to provide education and continue teaching and learning amidst the

pandemic. For its first semester of implementation, the teachers performed well in delivering

their lessons, both online and offline, even though they have encountered challenges such as

limited exposure to online teaching, competency in modular course design, access to the internet,

and education policies. However, it cannot be denied that the faculty needed to be more

capacitated in delivering the lesson through flexible learning. The challenge is for the faculty to

gain competence in the use of the Learning Management System (LMS) and develop creative

innovations to address the challenges and limitations of virtual teaching.

Table 3 illustrates that when grouped according to the course Bachelor of Science in

Office Administration (BSOA) got a higher mean compared to Bachelor of Science in Tourism

Management (BSTM) with means of 3.96 and 3.94, respectively. The 1st year had the highest

rating when grouped according to year level with a mean of 4.18 while the 3rd year had the

lowest mean of 3.79. There were differences in the mean scores although they are all found to be

very good. This significant difference in the means is to be determined in Tables 4 and 5.

12
Table 3

Level of Implementation of Flexible Learning at ICCC

Category Mean SD Description

A. Entire Group 3. 95 0.72 Very Good

B. Course
BSTM 3.94 0.72 Very Good
BSOA 3.96 0.60 Very Good
C. Year Level
1st Year 4.18 0.60 Very Good
2nd Year 3.90 0.73 Very Good
3rd Year 3.79 0.53 Very Good
4th Year 3.88 0.63 Very Good
Origin: 4.20 – 5.00 (Excellent); 3.40 – 4.19 (Very Good); 2.60 – 3.39 (Good); 1.80 – 2.59 (Fair); 1.00 – 1.79 (Poor)

Figure 2 shows the rating of ICCC students on the implementation of flexible learning on

General Education, PE, and NSTP subjects offered in the 1st semester of AY 2020-2021. The

mean ranged from 3.59 to 4.46 which can be described as “Very Good” to “Excellent”. Seven

(44%) of the 16 subjects in this area were rated “excellent” and 9 (56%) were rated “very good.”

13
 Origin: 4.20 – 5.00 (Excellent) ; 3.40 – 4.19 (Very Good); 2.60 – 3.39 (Good); 1.80 – 2.59 (Fair); 1.00 – 1.79 (Poor)
Figure 2. Rating of ICCC Students on the Implementation of Flexible learning for General
Education, PE, NSTP Subjects

Figure 3 illustrates that out of 12 subjects under the office administration and

management subjects 10 (83%) was rated as “very good”, one (8%) was rated “excellent”, and

also one(8%) rated “good” as observed by BSOA students.

14
 Origin: 4.20 – 5.00 (Excellent) ; 3.40 – 4.19 (Very Good); 2.60 – 3.39 (Good); 1.80 – 2.59 (Fair); 1.00 – 1.79 (Poor)

Figure 3. Rating of ICCC Students on the Implementation of Flexible learning for OA and
Management Subjects

Figure 4 presents the observation of BSTM students in the implementation of flexible

learning on their tourism and management subjects that were offered in the 1st semester of AY

2020-2021. Generally, the students rated the implementation at least Very Good. Out of 16

subject offerings, five (31%) were rated “excellent” while 11 (69%) were rated “very good.”

15
 Origin: 4.20 – 5.00 (Excellent) ; 3.40 – 4.19 (Very Good); 2.60 – 3.39 (Good); 1.80 – 2.59 (Fair); 1.00 – 1.79 (Poor)

Figure 4. Rating of ICCC Students on the Implementation of Flexible learning for Tourism and
Management Subjects

Table 4 shows that there is no significant difference in the mean of BSTM (M= 3.94,SD

= 0.72) and BSOA (M =3.96, SD = 60); t(497) = -0.29 , p=.78. The experience of ICCC students

in the implementation of flexible learning during the 1st Semester AY 2020 – 2021 from both

courses (BSTM and BSOA) was similar. This is an indicator that ICCC faculty handling subjects

from different courses have implemented flexible learning uniformly the standards and

guidelines set by the college.

16
Table 4.

T-Test Result for Significant Difference in the Level of Implementation Of Flexible Learning
at ICCC when Grouped According To The Course
Category Mean df t-value p-value Remarks

Course

BSTM 3.94 497 -0.29 0.78 Not

Significant
BSOA 3.96

Table 5 shows that there is a significant difference in the mean level implementation of

flexible learning at ICCC when grouped according to year level with F(3, 495) = 9.66 and p =

0.00. Students from different year levels rated the implementation of flexible learning

differently.

Table 5.

One-Way ANOVA Test Result for Significant Difference in Level Implementation Of Flexible
Learning at ICCC when Grouped According To Year Level
Source df SS MS F p Remarks

Between Groups 3 11.65 3.88 9.66 0.00 Significant

Within Groups 495 199.07 .40

Total 498 210.72

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The implementation of flexible learning during the 1st semester of AY 2020 – 2021 is

“very good.” Students identified the appropriateness of course design, and the relevance of

course content, schedule of course activities, development of skills, and changes in attitude

through enhancing decision making as the top-quality indicators in the implementation of

17
flexible learning. Students from both courses regarded the implementation similarly while

students from different year levels differ in their observation towards the implementation of the

new approach.

The ICCC may provide an enhancement program to the faculty to improve the learning

delivery through a flexible learning approach. More attention may be given to clarity in the

presentation of the lesson, feedback mechanisms, assessment of learnings, student engagement,

and acquisition of the Learning Management System.

18
 REFERENCE

Alzaghoul A. (2012). The implication of learning theories on implementing e-learning courses. Retrieved

from http://ijj.acm.org/volumes/volume2/issue2/ijjvol2no5.pdf

Australian Christian College. (2020). Time management skills that improve student learning. Retrieved

from https://www.acc.edu.au/blog/time-management-skills-student-learning/

Brand-Gruwel S., Kester L., Kicken W., Kirschner P.A. (2014). Learning ability development

in flexible learning environments. In: Spector J., Merrill M., Elen J., Bishop M. (eds)

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer,

New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_29

Commission on Higher Education. (2020). Guidelines on the implementation of flexible learning. Retrieved

from https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMO-No.-4-s.-2020-Guidelines-on-the-

Implementation-of-Flexible-Learning.pdf.

Cassidy, A., Fu, G., Valley, W., Lomas, C., Jovel, E., Riseman, A. (2016). Flexible learning strategies in first

through fourth-year course. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1104490

Ferdinand-James, D. (2015). Flexible learning environments: Theories, trends, and issues. Retrieved from

https://uwispace.sta.uwi.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2139/41394/Ferninand%20Flexible

%20Learning%20Environments.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Huang, R.H., Liu, D.J., Tlili, A., Yang, J.F., Wang, H.H., et al. (2020). Handbook on facilitating flexible

learning during educational disruption. Retrieved from

https://iite.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Handbook-on-Facilitating-Flexible-Learning-

in-COVID-19-Outbreak-SLIBNU-V1.2-20200315.pdf

Joan, R. (2013). Flexible learning as new learning design in classroom process to promote quality

education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098325.pdf

19
Karageorgalis, T. (2018). Constructivism and behaviorism in designing online learning programs.

Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/designing-online-learning-programs-constructivism-

behaviorism

Kurt, S. (2020). How can we align learning objectives, instructional strategies, and assessments? Retrieved

from https://educationaltechnology.net/how-can-we-align-learning-objectives-instructional-

strategies-and-assessments/#:~:text=Alignment%20is%20when%20there%20is,is%20aware

%20of%20the%20expectations.

Kurt, S. (2021). Constructivist learning theory. Retrieved from

https://educationaltechnology.net/constructivist-learning-theory/.

Pokhrel, S. & Chhetri, R. (2020). A literature review on impact of covid-19 pandemic on teaching and

learning. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2347631120983481.

Psychology Research & Reference (n.d). Attitude change. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3gtr8FX

Rahman F, Jumani N.B., Akhater Y., Chisthi S.H., Ajmal M. (2011). Relationship between training of

teachers and effectiveness teaching. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3q14QyP

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for digital age. International Journal of Instructional

Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/

Simbulan N. (2020). The Philippines – COVID-19 and its impact on higher education in the

Philippines. Retrieved from https://headfoundation.org/2020/06/04/covid-19-and-its-impact-

on-higher-education-in-the-philippines/

20