Learning delivery modalities and academic performance at this time of pandemic among selected psychology students of st. dominic college of Asia: a comparative study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the academic performance of selected Psychology students of St. Dominic College of Asia based on the learning modalities deployed during the lockdown period due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. A total of 50 respondents participated in this study. Based on academic practice, the institution has 3 academic periods as Prelim, Midterm and Final Period. The prelim period deployed full Face-to-Face Learning Modality while the Midterm Period used a Blended Learning Modality which is a combination of Face-to-Face Learning Modality and Online Learning Modality. Weighted average per period was used as the basis in the Academic Performance. Results showed that a Blended Learning Modality and Full Online Learning Modality is significantly higher in terms of a weighted average than Face-to-Face Learning Modality. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Specifically, a T-test for Independent Samples was used to check significant differences between two groups and One-Way Analysis of Variance for more than two groups and It also resulted that demographic profiles such as sex(female), number of units and subjects enrolled has nothing to do with academic performance across all types of learning modalities. Lower year levels significantly performed better than higher year levels across all types of learning modalities.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
- for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
References
Article entitled "Pandemic school closures: risks and opportunities". The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. Retrieved from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30105-X/fulltext.
Article entitled "748 private schools suspend operations this school year, DepEd says". CNN Philippines. Retrieved from: https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/9/9/Private-schools-temporary-closure-DepEd-.html
Article entitled "Face-to-Face Learning". Retrieved from: https://www.colleges.co.za/face-to-face-learning
Kemp, N., & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. Online learning. Vol. 5. Article 1278. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., and Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Res. High. Educ. 47, 1–29. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9"
Bonk, C., Kim, K., & Zeng, T., (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In C. Bonk & C. Graham (Eds). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer: San Francisco, 550-565
Whitelock, D., & Jelfs, A. (2003). Editorial for special issue on blended learning: blending the issues and concerns of staff and students. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 99-100
Osguthorpe, R., & Graham, C., (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
Alismail, H. A. (2015). 21st Century Standards and Curriculum: Current Research and Practice. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(6), 150-155.
Ituma, A. (2011). An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus-based university. Active Learn. High. Educ.12, 57–68. doi: 10.1177/1469787410387722.
Chen, P.-S., Lambert, A. D., and Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Comput. Educ. 54, 1222–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
Evans, C., Gibbons, N. J., Shah, K., and Griffin, D. K. (2004). Virtual learning in the biological sciences: pitfalls of simply “putting notes on the web” Comput. Educ. 43, 49–61. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.004.
Robinson, C. C., and Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. J. Educ. Bus. 84, 101–109. doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109.
Salamat, L., Ahmad, G., Bakht, I., & Saifi, I. L. (2018). Effects of E–Learning on Students’ Academic learning at university Level. Asian Innovative Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(2), 1-12.
Baskin, C. (2001). The Titanic, Volkswagens and collaborative group work: Remaking old favourites with new learning technologies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 17(3), pp. 265-278.
Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2006). Teaching for blended learning. How is ICT impacting on distance and on campus education? In D. Kumar & J. Turner (Eds). Education for the 21st century: Impact of ICT and digital resources. WCC 2006 Santiago, Chile. New York: Springer, 225-234.
Alducin-Ochoa, Juan & Vazquez-Martinez, Ana (2016). Academic Performance in Blended-Learning and Face-to-Face University Teaching. Asian Social Science.
Ladyshewsky, R. (2004). E-learning compared with face-to-face: Differences in the academic achievement of postgraduate business students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(3), 316-336.
Davies, J., and Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 36, 657– 663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x.
Holley, D., and Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: portraits of risk. Comput. Educ. 54, 693–700. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.035
Helms, Jeffrey L. (2014). Comparing Student Performance in Online and Face-to-Face Delivery Modalities. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Retrieved from: https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/348/93
Imel, S. (2002). E-learning—Trends and Issues Alert. (Report No-40). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Otter, R. R., Seipel, S., Graeff, T., Alexander, B., Boraiko, C., Gray, J., et al. (2013). Comparing student and faculty perceptions of online and traditional courses. Internet High. Educ. 19, 27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.08.001
Paul, Jasmine & Jefferson, Felicia (2019). A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007/full
Sussman, Stephen & Dutter Lee (2010). Comparing Student Learning Outcomes in Face-To-Face and Online Course Delivery. Retrieved from: https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter134/sussman_dutter134.html
Van Schaik, P., Barker, P., & Beckstrand, S. (2003). Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 40(1), 5-15.
Chen, N., & Zimitat, C. (2004). Differences in the quality of learning outcomes in a F2F blended versus wholly online course. Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth, 175-179.