INTRODUCTION

II. Context and Rationale

Many countries today are seeking to develop their education systems through the use of

these technologies and methods of modern learning (such as blended learning in the field of

education) in order to keep pace with technological developments and to achieve satisfactory

results, as education is considered a real investment for any country and its people. These invites

make good use of the technology in preparing students, teachers, curriculum development and the

diversity of teaching methods, in an attempt to develop the educational process and to provide

better learning and education of pupils even experiencing difficulties in this time of pandemic stage.

Blended learning really needs courage and decisive decisions to adopt a strategy like this to

improve the quality of education in our world in this new normal. Teachers should start educating

themselves and learning information technology skills to part of the process rather than resisting it

for no good reasons. School administrators should take serious steps in facilitating teachers’ mission

in improving their information technology skills. Adopting blended learning strategy can be effective

if given moral support of DepEd and Local Government unit and stakeholders and parents to support

the the learning needs and progress of pupils in the new delivery system.

Our Country, the Philippines affected by school closures most especially for some private

schools affecting COVID -19 issues. The Department of Health (DOH) of the Philippines reported the

first case of COVID -19 in the country with a 38-year old female Chinese national on January 30,

2020. The first local transmission was confirmed on March 7, 2020 (WHO, Western Pacific

Philippines).

One of the sectors affected tremendously by covid-19 pandemic in the country is education.

In order to contain the spread of the virus in schools the Department of Education (DepEd)

implemented throughout the country a distance learning approach starting October 05, 2020.

1
 Distance learning is a kind of learning mode wherein interaction takes place between

teachers and students who are geographically distant from one another. This means that lessons will

be delivered outside the usual face-to face setup into the comfort and convenience of the respective

homes of the students. This modality is known as online learning wherein computers, laptops and

tablets may be used.

Aside from online setup, DepEd is also keen on implementing a combination of online

distant learning and in person delivery of printed materials known as modules. This kind of modality

is called blended / hybrid learning.

In a blended learning Flex model, students spend more time in an online setup at their own

pace, as well as direct instruction of the teacher in their classroom. This model allows teachers to

spend more time helping students in challenging areas or going deeper in content areas a student

has mastered. Teachers may help students understand the lessons better with small group activities,

project-based learning, or one- on- one tutoring.

The A La Carte Blended learning model is a learning modality wherein learners take online

course together with prescribe curriculum. (Humper, 2019). On the other hand, Enriched Virtual is a

kind blended learning approach wherein students are required to take a subject with face –to face

sessions with teacher and then are free to complete the remaining requirements of the curse/

subject online. (Hunsinger, 2019)

In this study, the Deped definition of blended learning using Rotation model will be adopted.

The researchers are interested to find out how effective the use of blended learning on the academic

achievement of Elementary Grade pupils in Cluster 9 in the City Schools in the Division of Taguig

City

and Pateros and the school operations.

2
III. Literature Review

Most of the definitions of blended learning point out that this learning modality is a

combination of virtual and physical environments.

Blended learning cannot be introduced as the flawless strategy that can solve all the

problems of educational practices. But, it proves to be far better than the traditional strategies. Its

negative aspects are far less than its positive ones. Educators should take serious steps towards

applying technology in their classes and learning environments as it forms the link between the

students’ inner world and the outside world. Technology gives learners the chance to experience the

real world gradually and smoothly. (Jackson, 2014).

The term blended learning is also defined by Morgan (2002) as a strategy that is adapted to

combine the best aspects of online learning and face to face learning. Bersin, et. al. (2003) see that:

Blended learning in order to be more effective should take in

consideration all educational media that is available inside the
classroom, training on the network, the already decisions
placed, the available videos, simulations in addition to other
means such as telephone communications. (p. 254)

Smythe (2011) refers to blended learning as a practical framework that comprises a variety

of operative methods of learning and teaching. It supports the use of computer technologies to

facilitate learning and make use of various approaches to motivate students for more engagement.

However, the researcher tends to define blended learning as a teaching method which blends the

use of technology in the learning environment with the traditional learning setting and tools to

maximize learning as it turns the setting from teacher centered class into student centered class.

This helps in improving the quality of teaching-learning process, by enhancing its outputs, creating

new potentials for self-learning as well as lifelong learning.

3
 Akharov (2018) and Valchenkova (2016) define blended learning as a learning strategy that

combines various models of traditional face- to- face instruction and distant learning that utilizes

multiple forms of technology such as internet and similar digital platforms. This learning modality is

employed to activate learning outcomes by the interaction between the student and the teacher.

Austria and others (2013) view blended learning where learning via web and face-to-face

teaching is combined. It follows a rotation model where students move back and forth between

face-to -face and online sessions.

Lawless (2019) describes blended learning which involves (1) a portion of learning takes
place

online, with the students being able to manage their own pace of learning and (2) teacher- led
usually

conducted through digital means like webinars allowing remote students to engage more easily.

Theoretical Framework

This study is contemplated and anchored on the theory of Dr. Marti Cleveland-Innes and Dan

Wilton chose to focus on two models/frameworks:

1. Complex Adaptive Blended Learning System (CABLS)

2. Community of Inquiry (CoI)

In their Guide to Blended Learning, Dr. Marti Cleveland-Innes and Dan Wilton chose to focus on two

models/frameworks:

Complex Adaptive Blended Learning System (CABLS)

4
 This framework, developed specifically for blended learning, has six key elements that are all

in relationship with one another. The learner is at the center of the model and the other five

elements surround the learner:

1. Learner – changing from passive to active

2. Teacher – acting as facilitator, mentor, advisor, moderator
3. Technology – part of the learning, includes all elements working together
4. Content – subject matter and material elements, potential for deep learning
5. Learning Support – scaffolding, skills, tech, troubleshooting, access, communication
6. Institution – the tech infrastructure

The technologies we select create new roles for both the learner and the teacher, while also

changing the way we work with the content and the learning supports we may require. The CABLS

framework is a very dynamic and interactive model.

Dr. Cleveland-Innes Community of Inquiry Framework

Originally developed by

Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), this framework has grown to become one of the most useful

in blended learning. Its roots draw from educational thinkers such as Dewey (1938) and Vygotsky

(1997). Focus: Create deep and meaningful learning and higher-order thinking skills through inquiry-

based teaching and learning. The framework describes learning as the convergence of three

“presences” cognitive presence, teaching presence, and social presence – all of which, again,

5
 interact with each other to set an appropriate climate and regulate learning as well as supporting

discourse between learners and teachers.

Conceptual Framework

This study made use of the I.P.O. Model or the Input –Process-Output Model designed by

Stoner (2001) as an approach to system assessment of a program or mode of action of an

organization

Input Process Output

Effectiveness of blended
learning to the students
and the schools
implementing it in terms
of the following:

Learners  Survey
. learning convenience Questionnaire
and flexibility
. interaction with  Data Gathering
teachers Action Plan
. reducing risk of COVID-  Tallying of data
19 infection
 Analyzing and
Schools interpreting the
. reducing cost of school data
operations
. accessibility to a larger
number of learners

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the IPO Of the study, in input, the researchers include The effectiveness of

blended learning to the students and the schools implementing it in terms of the following: for the

learners , 2.1 learning convenience and flexibility 2.2 interaction with teachers 2.3 reducing risk of

6
Covid-19 infection, for the schools, 2.4 reducing cost of school operations 2.5 accessibility of larger

number of learners. Researchers want to know the performance of pupils in their academic subjects

of elementary grade pupils. In process, the researchers used a survey questionnaire to gather data

from the respondents. After gathering the data, the researchers were able to tally the data and the

final step analyzing and interpreting the data. Lastly the expected outcome of this study is to know

the know the effectiveness of blended learning for academic performances of pupils in Cluster 9 in

the City Schools, Division of Taguig City and Pateros

Research Hypothesis

A null hypothesis was formulated to test problem no.1.

HO1: There is no significant difference in the pretest – posttest mean scores between the treatment

group who were exposed to blended learning and the comparison group who were taught the

modular instruction modality.

Significance of the Study

The generalization of this present study would be a great contribution to the vast

knowledge in relation to academic performances and the school operations. Vital results of this

investigation could be significant and beneficial specifically to the following:

Teachers. Through this study, they may improve their teaching style, methods, and approaches in

the implementation of learning modalities of Deped and the schools’ performance an enhance policy

program in the new normal.

Schools. The concepts and strategies revealed in this study could enhance the performance of

schools.

School Administrators. The findings of the study may be of great help towards the planning of the

school in achieving the best performance of the students.

7
Parents. Like the teachers, the parents too will understand the situation on the new normal set up of

adopting the new learning modalities where they are involved in the schooling of their children.

Curriculum Planners. The findings of the study maybe a good basis towards the curriculum planner

for them to be able to plan for interventions for the problems encountered.

Future Researchers. The future researchers also can gain significance in this study. It may serve as

their guidance to gather information and it may serve them as building blocks to have a bigger study.

The findings may serve as basis and as inputs if and when there will be other researcher to do the

same research.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study focused and delimited to the level of academic performances of pupils regarding

the implementation of Blended Learning. Pre- test and post- test are the basis to determine the

academic performances both groups online and modular. On the other side of assessment, survey

questionnaire was administered to teachers using Google forms examining their hands-on

experiences of monitoring blended learning in the new normal. The study limiting on the variables

of determining the level of implementation of blended learning like:

2.1 learning convenience and flexibility

2.2interaction with teachers

2.3reducing risk of COVID-19 infection

Schools

2.4reducing cost of school operations

2.5 accessibility to a larger number of learners

IV. Action Research Questions

1. Is there a significant difference in the pretest- posttest mean scores between the treatment

group who were exposed to blended learning and the comparison group who were taught the

modular instruction modality?

8
 2. How effective is blended learning to the students and the schools implementing it in terms

of the following:

Learners

2.1 learning convenience and flexibility

2.2 interaction with teachers
2.3 reducing risk of COVID-19 infection

Schools

2.4 reducing cost of school operations

2.5 accessibility to a larger number of learners

3. What action plan maybe designed towards the implementation of 3-day 2-day weekly class

schedule using blended learning as the learning modality?

V. Action Research Methods

A. Research Design

In order to have a comprehensive understanding and view of the effectiveness of blended

learning on academic achievement of Grade pupils in various subject and school operations during

COVID-19 pandemic at Clusters VIII & IX schools, quasi-experimental design was used. According to

Abraham and Macdonald (2011), quasi-experimental research is similar to experimental research in

that there is manipulation of an independent variable. It differs from experimental research because

either there is no control group, no random selection, no random assignment, and/or no active

manipulation. In this research, researchers used pretest and posttest for both treatment and

comparison group that were not randomly selected. Since this study employed quasi – experimental

research design intact classes were utilized to determine the effect of blended learning to academic

achievement in English, Math, Science, Filipino, and Araling Panlipunan and school operations of

schools in Clusters VIII and IX as well. No random sampling of the participants was used.

9
B. Population and Sample of the Study

This research is a quasi-experimental research, random sampling would not be possible. But

to obtain the appropriate results, intact classes for both modular and online classes were used. The

participants were pupils of schools at Clusters VIII & IX enrolled during the school year 2020-2021.

There were Fifty (50) pupils that were enrolled in modular class (comparison group) and Fifty

(50) pupils that were enrolled in online class (treatment group) per grade level that were part of this

research.

Table 1

Population and Sample of the Learner-Respondents

Schools Number of Samples Percent

CARDONES 700 14.90
GABES 560 11.92
KERIS 700 14.90
MAHARLIKA 638 13.58
PALAR 700 14.90
SILANGAN 700 14.90
TENEMENT 700 14.90
Total 4,698 100%

Table 1 shows that the schools like CARDONES, KERIS, PALAR, SILANGAN, and TENEMENT

had the most number of learner-respondents with 700 students both online and modular learners

who served as the respondents of the study. These schools were able to complete the agreed

number of respondents which is 50 learners for online and 50 learners for modular per grade level;

followed by Maharlika Integrated School who had 638 number of respondents or 13.58% of the

respondents because Grade 1 was not able to have 50 learners for online learners because only few

students from this grade level preferred online learning modality. On the other hand, the school who

had the least number of respondents was GABES with 560 or 11.92% of the respondents because

Grade 6 students had a very few learners who preferred online learning modality.

10
 Table 2

Population and Sample of the Teacher-Respondents

Schools Number of Samples Percent

CARDONES 124 13.82
GABES 52 5.80
KERIS 195 21.74
MAHARLIKA 80 8.92
PALAR 63 7.02
SILANGAN 143 15.94
TENEMENT 240 26.76
Total 897 100%

It can be gleaned in Table 2 that Tenement had the most number of teacher-respondents

with 240 or 26.76% of the total respondents; followed by KERIS with 195 teachers or 21.74%;

SILANGAN with 143 or 15.94%; CARDONES with 124 or 13.82%; Maharlika had 80 teachers or 8.92%

of the respondents; Palar with 63 or 7.02%; and GABES with 52 or 5.80% of the teacher-respondents.

It is important to note that the number of samples include the school head because they also

responded to the survey questionnaire.

C. Research Instruments

This study will use pretest and posttest multiple – choice items covering learning

competencies in a particular subject in the first quarter specifically topics included in week 4 and 5.

The tests will have 30 items with three options for Grades 1 – 3 and four options for Grades 4-10.

The questionnaire consisting of 30 items/indicators will cover such topics as learning

convenience and flexibility (6 items/indicators), interaction with teachers and fellow learners (6

indicators), reducing cost of school operations and accessibility to a large number of learners (6

indicators). It will have 5 options using the Likert 5 – point rating scale, to wit: Very Effective (5

points), Effective (4 points), Moderately Effective (3 points), Slightly Effective (2 points), and Not

Effective (1 point).

11
 The research instruments consisting of pretest, posttest, and survey questionnaire will be

subjected to content validation to – master teachers. Comments and suggestions of the validators

will be elicited. Then the final revised copies of the instruments will be reproduced after

incorporating the suggestions of the master teachers concerned.

D. Data Collection

The researchers secured permission from the Division Superintendent, and the principal of

each school of Clusters VIII and IX to undertake the study and administer the questionnaire as the

first step to conform the study to the standard practice. In addition, the researchers gave a consent

form to the parents of the respondents (students), upon approval, the researchers then

administered the 30 items pretest and posttest to the respondents for online and modular class. For

online class, the researcher used google forms and power point presentation while for modular

class, researchers had sent soft copy through messengers. Other questionnaires were distributed

through hard copy. Pictures of the answer of pupils were sent through messenger.

VI. Discussion of Results and Reflection

A. Discussion of Results

The data gathered through the test results and questionnaires are now presented,

interpreted and analyzed following the specific questions that the study tried to answer.

Table 3

Significant Difference in the Pretest-Posttest Mean Scores of Treatment Group who were exposed
to Blended Learning in Araling Panlipunan

12
 SCHOOL CARDONES GABES KERIS MAHARLIKA PALAR SILANGAN TENEMENT

Variables
compared
N 350 280 350 319 350 350 350

Mean
ARALING PANLIPUNAN

Pre 23.46 25.57 16.64 25.04 15.26 20.06 20.78

Post 25.52 29.73 20.62 23.34 18.94 22.8 24.42

SD

Pre 2.27 1.74 3.39 4.63 4.31 4.05 3.91

Post 2.32 2.77 5.29 4.72 4.24 4.28 3.71
Significant 0.036 0.021 0.035 0.028 0.031 0.022 0.031
Value

Interpretation There is There is There is There is There is There is There is

statistically statistically statistically statistically statistically statistically statistically
significant significant significant significant significant significant significant
difference difference difference difference difference difference difference

Legend:t to be significant at 5% level should be lower than 0.05

N = The total number of pupil- respondents

M = The mean of pretest and posttest

SD = The standard deviation of the pretest and posttest

Sig Value = The significant value of the pretest over posttest

The data reflected in Table 3 indicate the significant difference in the Pretest-Posttest mean

scores of treatment group who were exposed to blended learning in Araling Panlipunan. It can be

gleaned in Table 3 that the difference in the pretest-posttest mean scores of treatment group who

were exposed to blended learning was tested using the SPSS. The result manifests the sig value of

0.036 for Captain Jose Cardones Integrated School; 0.035 for Kapitan Eddie T. Reyes Integrated

School; 0.031 for both Palar Integrated School and Tenement Elementary School; 0.028 for

Maharlika Integrated School; 0.022 for Silangan Elementary School; and 0.021 for Gat Andres

Bonifacio Elementary School which are all interpreted as ‘There is statistically significant difference.’

This means that the mean scores of the pretest and post test of the Grade 4 pupils who were

13
 exposed to blended learning for the subject Araling Panlipunan have significant effect to both the

academic achievement and school operations.

Table 4

Significant Difference in the Pretest-Posttest Mean Scores of Control Group who were exposed to
Blended Learning in Araling Panlipunan
SCHOOL CARDONES GABES KERIS MAHARLIKA PALAR SILANGAN TENEMENT

Variables
compared
N 350 280 350 319 350 350 350

Mean
ARALING PANLIPUNAN

Pre 21.64 21.60 19.62 17.36 16.56 18.52 21.22

Post 23.46 24.15 20.62 20.72 22.36 22.42 25.96

SD

Pre 4.23 3.35 4.43 3.03 3.55 4.06 3.32

Post 2.27 3.89 5.29 5.72 3.63 3.62 2.55
Significant 0.031 0.032 0.029 0.034 0.028 0.029 0.033
Value

Interpretation There is There is There is There is There is There is There is

statistically statistically statistically statistically statistically statistically statistically
significant significant significant significant significant significant significant
difference difference difference difference difference difference difference

Legend:t to be significant at 5% level should be lower than 0.05

N = The total number of pupil- respondents

M = The mean of pretest and posttest

SD = The standard deviation of the pretest and posttest

Sig Value = The significant value of the pretest over posttest

The data reflected in Table 4 indicate the significant difference in the Pretest-Posttest mean

scores of treatment group who were exposed to blended learning in English. It can be gleaned in

Table 4 that the difference in the pretest-posttest mean scores of treatment group who were

exposed to blended learning was tested using the SPSS. The result manifests the highest sig value of

0.034 obtained by Maharlika Integrated School; followed by 0.033 gained by Tenement Elementary

14
School; 0.032 obtained by Gat Andres Bonifacio Elementary School; 0.031 obtained by Captain Jose

Cardones Integrated School; 0.029 obtained both by Kapitan Eddie T. Reyes Integrated School and

Silangan Elementary School; and finally a sig value of 0.028 obtained by Palar Integrated School

which can all be interpreted as ‘There is statistically significant difference.’ This means that the

implementation of blended learning to the control group or those who were not exposed to blended

learning has significant effect both on their academic performance and the school operations.

Table 5

Effectiveness of Blended Learning to Learners in terms of Learning Convenience and Flexibility

Composite Weighted Descriptive Level

Item Weighted Mean Rating
Score
1. Blended learning brings
convenience at the pupil’s home. 3276 3.65 Effective High

2. Blended learning gives safety to

pupils to learn at their home. 3701 4.13 Effective High
3. Blended learning enables the
pupil to access the materials from 3325 3.71 Effective High
anywhere at any time.
4. Blended learning provides more
time to learners to study the 3468 3.86 Effective High
material.
5. Blended learning can increase
retention rates among pupils. 3182 3.55 Effective High
Total 16950 3.78 Effective High
Legend: 4.5-5-Very Effective 3.50-4.49 - Effective 2.50-3.49-Moderately Effective 1.50-2.49-Slightly effective 1.0-1.49-Not Effective

Table 5 shows that in terms of effectiveness of blended leaning to learners if we talk about

learning convenience and flexibility, the over-all composite score is 16950 interpreted as ‘Effective’.

This indicates that teachers perceived the implementation of blended learning as effective to

learners because it provides convenience and flexibility among learners. Meanwhile, the indicator

blended learning gives safety to pupils to learn at their home ranked first with a composite score of

3701 with a weighted mean of 4.13 interpreted as ‘Effective.’ The second in the rank is the indicator

blended learning provides more time to learners to study the material with a composite score of

3468 with a weighted mean of 3.86 interpreted as ‘Effective’; followed by blended learning enables

15
the pupil to access the materials from anywhere at any time with a composite score of 3325 with a

weighted mean of 3.71 which is also ‘Effective’. Next is blended learning brings convenience at the

pupil’s home with a composite score of 3276 with a weighted mean of 3.65 interpreted as ‘Effective’.

Lastly, blended learning can increase retention rates among pupils had a composite score of 3182

having a weighted mean of 3.55 interpreted as ‘Effective’. The data carries the interpretation that

blended learning promotes both convenience and flexibility to the learners.

Table 6

Effectiveness of Blended Learning to Learners in terms of Interaction with Teachers and Fellow
Learners
Composite Weighted Descriptive Level
Item Weighted Mean Rating
Score
6. Blended learning enables pupils
to make connections with other 3198 3.57 Effective High
pupils in a new way.
7. Blended learning encourages
self-learning by asking other pupils 3212 3.58 Effective High
online.
8. Blended learning provides
opportunities to teachers to 3264 3.64 Effective High
interact with their pupils.
9. Blended learning allows
teachers to interact with pupils 3148 3.51 Effective High
one-by-one.
10. Blended learning gives shy
pupils opportunity to interact with 3097 3.45 Moderately Moderate
the teacher and other pupils. Effective
Total 15919 3.55 Effective High
Legend: 4.5-5-Very Effective 3.50-4.49 - Effective 2.50-3.49-Moderately Effective 1.50-2.49-Slightly effective 1.0-1.49-Not Effective

It can be analyzed based on the data from Table 6 that the over-all mean of effectiveness of

blended learning to learners in terms of interaction with teachers and fellow learners is 3.55

interpreted as ‘Effective’. This is an indication that the implementation of blended learning to

learners is viewed as ‘effective’ by teacher-respondents because it promotes ‘less’ interaction with

teachers and fellow students leading to decontamination of the possible spread of COVID-19 virus.

Furthermore, the indicator blended learning provides opportunities to teachers to interact with their

pupils got the highest composite score of 3264 with a weighted mean of 3.64 interpreted as

16
‘Effective’. Followed by blended learning encourages self-learning by asking other pupils online

having a composite score of 3212 with a weighted mean of 3.58 interpreted as ‘Effective’. The

indicator blended learning enables pupils to make connections with other pupils in a new way had a

composite score of 3198 with a weighted mean of 3.57 interpreted also as ‘Effective’. Meanwhile,

the indicator blended learning allows teachers to interact with pupils one-by-one had a composite

score of 3148 with a weighted mean 3.51 interpreted as ‘Effective’. Finally, the indicator blended

learning gives shy pupils opportunity to interact with the teacher and other pupils had the least

composite score of 3097 with a weighted mean of 3.45 interpreted as ‘Effective.’ This encompasses

the idea that blended learning in terms of interaction with teachers and fellow learners is effective

considering the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 7

Effectiveness of Blended Learning to Learners in terms of Reducing Risk of COVID -19 Infection

Composite Weighted Descriptive Level

Item Weighted Mean Rating
Score
11. Blended learning prevents
face-to-face contact with others. 3997 4.46 Effective High
12. Blended learning promotes
social distancing to avoid COVID – 4070 4.54 Very Effective Very High
19 infection.
13. Blended learning can prevent
touching surfaces in school which 4016 4.48 Effective High
may get infected with the virus.
14. Blended learning avoids
unnecessary travel to school and 3973 4.43 Effective High
contact with other people.
15. Blended learning can avoid
being infected if someone coughs 3992 4.45 Effective High
or sneezes.
Total 20048 4.47 Effective High
Legend: 4.5-5-Very Effective 3.50-4.49 - Effective 2.50-3.49-Moderately Effective 1.50-2.49-Slightly effective 1.0-1.49-Not Effective

It can be discerned from Table 7 that in terms of reducing risk of COVID-19 Infection,

implementation of blended learning is interpreted as ‘Effective’ with a weighted mean of ‘Effective.’

This adjectival rating means that the implementation of blended learning to learners is perceived by

17
teacher-respondents as ‘Effective’ because it reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection. Furthermore,

the indicator blended learning promotes social distancing to avoid COVID – 19 infection had a

composite score of 4070 with a weighted mean 4.54 interpreted as ‘Effective’ ranked first; blended

learning can prevent touching surfaces in school which may get infected with the virus ranked

second with a composite score of 4016 interpreted as ‘Effective’; blended learning prevents face-to-

face contact with others which had a composite score of 3997 ranked third with a weighted mean of

4.46 interpreted as ‘Effective’; blended learning can avoid being infected if someone coughs or

sneezes ranked fourth with a composite score of 3992 with a weighted mean of 4.45 interpreted as

‘Effective’; and blended learning avoids unnecessary travel to school and contact with other people

ranked fifth with a composite score of 3973 with a weighted mean of 4.43 interpreted as ‘Effective’.

This further implicates that the implementation of blended learning to learners in terms of reducing

risk of COVID-19 infection is effective.

Table 8

Effectiveness of Blended Learning to Learners in terms of Relations with Family Members

Composite Weighted Descriptive Level

Item Weighted Mean Rating
Score
16. Blended learning gives
parents/siblings to help the 3676 4.10 Effective High
pupil do the task in the
material.
17. Blended learning provides
parents/siblings to give moral 3727 4.15 Effective High
support with the pupil.
18. Blended learning can
strengthen close-family ties. 3777 4.21 Effective High
19. Blended learning can
foster love and concern 3733 4.16 Effective High
among each other in the
family.
20. Blended learning provides
strong presence of parents or 3714 4.14 Effective High
sibling while the pupil is
engage in the activities
Total 18627 4.15 Effective High
Legend: 4.5-5-Very Effective 3.50-4.49 - Effective 2.50-3.49-Moderately Effective 1.50-2.49-Slightly effective 1.0-1.49-Not Effective

18
 Table 8 shows that the implementation of blended learning to learners in terms of

relations with family members is ‘Effective’ with an over-all weighted mean of 4.15. This means that

blended learning makes learners and their parents closer together because it served as their bonding

time as well because the learners are contained in their houses where they complete the learning

tasks together. Furthermore, the indicator which had the highest composite score of 3777 is blended

learning can strengthen close-family ties with a weighted mean of 4.21 interpreted as ‘Effective’. It is

followed by blended learning can foster love and concern among each other in the family with a

composite score of 3733 with a weighted mean of 4.16 interpreted as ‘Effective’. Third is blended

learning provides parents/siblings to give moral support with the pupil with a composite score of

3727 with a weighted mean of 4.15 interpreted also as ‘Effective’. Fourth is blended learning

provides strong presence of parents or sibling while the pupil is engaged in the activities with a

composite score of 3714 with a weighted mean of 4.14 interpreted as ‘Effective’. Lastly, blended

learning gives parents/siblings to help the pupil do the task in the material had a composite score of

3676 with a weighted mean of 4.10 interpreted as ‘Effective.’ The data can be concluded that

blended learning allows students and their parents to bond together in a meaningful way because

the learners are being assisted by their parents in completing the learning tasks thus, their

relationship is being strengthened.

Table 9

Summary of the Components of the Effectiveness of Blended Learning to Learners

Components Composite Weighted Descriptive Level

Weighted Score Mean Rating
Learning Convenience and 16950 3.78 Effective High

19
Flexibility
Interaction with Teachers 15919 3.55 Effective High
and Fellow Learners
Reducing Risk of COVID -19 20048 4.47 Effective High
Infection
Relations with Family 18627 4.15 Effective High
Members
Total 71544 3.99 Effective High

It can be learned from Table 9 that in terms of effectiveness of blended learning to learners,

all the indicators are perceived as ‘Effective’ by teacher-respondents which they think is effective.

The indicator reducing risk of COVID-19 Infection is perceived as the most effective which had the

highest composite score of 20048 interpreted as ‘Effective’ followed by relations with family

members with a weighted mean of 41.15 which is also effective; then learning convenience and

flexibility with a weighted mean of 3.78 then lastly, interaction with teachers and fellow learners

with a weighted mean of 3.55.

Table 10

Effectiveness of Blended Learning in terms of Reducing Cost of School Operations

Item (Aytem) Composite Weighted Descriptive Level

Weighted Mean Rating
Score
21. Blended learning can reduce transportation cost 3797 4.23 Effective High
of teachers.
22. Blended learning helps reduce electricity cost to 3843 4.28 Effective High
school.
23. Blended learning can reduce maintenance cost 3854 4.30 Effective High
of toilets.
24. Blended learning can help reduce repair costs of 3924 4.37 Effective High
chairs, desk or tables due to the absence of pupils.
25. Blended learning saves time for teachers by 3651 4.07 Effective High
reducing frequency of reporting to school.
Total 19069 4.25 Effective High

Table 10 shows that teachers perceived effectiveness of blended learning in terms of

reducing cost of school operations as effective with a weighted mean of 4.25 interpreted as

‘effective’. The indicator blended learning can help reduce repair costs of chairs, desk or tables due

to the absence of pupils as the highest with a composite score od 3924 with a weighted mean of 4.7

20
interpreted as ‘effective’; followed by blended learning can reduce maintenance cost of toilets with

a composite score of 3924 with a weighted mean of 4.30 interpreted as ‘effective mean; the

indicator blended learning helps reduce electricity cost to school having a composite score of 3843

with a weighted mean of 4.28 is also interpreted as ‘effective’. Meanwhile, the indicator blended

learning can reduce transportation cost of teachers having a composite score of 3797 with a

weighted mean 4.23 is also interpreted as ‘effective’. Finally, blended learning saves time for

teachers by reducing frequency of reporting to school having a composite score of 3651 is

interpreted as ‘effective’. These interpretations are conclusive of the effectiveness of blended

learning in terms of reducing cost of school operations for both teachers and the school.

Table 11

Summary of Components of Effectiveness of Blended Learning to Teacher-Respondents

Composite
Descriptive Descriptive
Components Weighted Level
Rating Rating
Mean
Reducing Cost of School Operations 19069 4.25 Effective High
Accessibility to a Larger Number of 17726 3.95 Effective High
Learners

Table 11 displays the summary of components of effectiveness of blended learning to the

teacher-respondents. It can be gleaned from table 9 that both the components reducing cost of

school operations and accessibility to a larger number of learners are both perceived by teachers as

effective. This further implicates that the implementation of blended learning is effective in lessening

expenses of school operations and further contacts with the learners which helped in the

decontamination and spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Table 12

Effectiveness of Blended Learning in terms of Accessibility to a Larger Number of Learners

Item (Aytem) Composite Weighted Descriptive Level

Weighted Mean Rating
Score
26. Blended learning can allow larger enrolment of 3641 4.06 Effective High

21
pupils despite limited classrooms in the school
27. Blended learning can allow large enrolment of 3630 4.05 Effective High
pupils despite the lack of chairs or desks.
28. Blended learning can allow larger enrolment of 3581 3.99 Effective High
pupils despite lack of textbooks and other
references.
29. Blended learning can allow larger enrolment 3419 3.81 Effective High
that can make online connections with others.
30. Blended learning can allow larger enrolment to 3455 3.85 Effective High
have access to materials when there is no school
library.
Total 17726 3.95 Effective High

Table 12 explicates the effectiveness of blended learning in terms of accessibility to a larger

number of learners. It shows in the table that the over-all weighted mean is 3.95 interpreted as

‘effective’. The indicator blended learning can allow larger enrolment of pupils despite limited

classrooms in the school ranked first with a composite score of 3641 with a weighted mean of 4.06

interpreted as ‘effective’ followed by blended learning can allow large enrolment of pupils despite

the lack of chairs or desks having a composite score of 3630 with a weighted mean of 4.05; the

indicator blended learning can allow larger enrolment of pupils despite lack of textbooks and other

references had a composite score of 3581 with a weighted mean 3.99; blended learning can allow

larger enrolment to have access to materials when there is no school library; and finally, the

indicator blended learning can allow larger enrolment that can make online connections with others

had a composite score of 3455 with a weighted mean 3.85.

B. Reflection

Based on the results of the study, the following are the accumulated reflections of all the

research coordinators encompassing all their views after the results have been gathered:

1. Blended learning affects students’ views and perspectives about their learning convenience and

their flexibility i.e. they’re more safe and convenient learning in their homes with their parents;

22
 2. Blended learning limits students’ interaction with their peers and teachers however, in light of the

protocols to avoid further contamination of COVID-19 virus, interaction with their classmates and

with their teachers is strictly encouraged by having remote learning instead of face to face

interaction;

3. Blended learning greatly and highly reduces risk of COVID 19 infection because ‘normal’ activities

like school activities conducted in school level are avoided thus, all school-related activities are

conducted virtually, leading to a safer and healthier conduct of activities;

4. In terms of relations with family members, blended learning helps strengthened students’ relation

with their parents and other family members by accomplishing tasks cooperatively;

5. Blended learning is also really in favor of school operations because having blended learning

reduces transportation costs of teachers and the school head as well. In addition, electricity costs,

maintenance, repair costs, and other school-related operations’ costs are reduced;

6. Teachers’ time are saved reducing their time to travel, report and visit school thereby lessening

their costs as well; and

7. Blended learning encourages less accessibility to a larger number of students thus teachers’ effort

to discipline, scold, and reprimand students is reduced.

VII. Action Plan

In order to ensure the full implementation of the results of the study, the following

enhancement activities which shall be called here as ‘action plan’ is hereby formulated which also

serves as the output of the study.

Objectives STRATEGIES/ Persons Materials / Timeline Success Indicators

ACTIVITIES Involved Equipment
Needed

23
To Disseminate . Conduct of . Principal Power point Middle of Number of teachers
the results of seminar on Action Presentation January 2021 participated in the
action research Research: its . Teachers Laptop seminar
conducted relevance to Copies of action
improve instruction research flyers No. of flyers
. Distribution of Middle of distributed to teachers
flyers January 2021
Orient teachers Virtual orientation . Principal Power point Third week of Number of teachers
regarding the disseminating the Presentation January 2021 participated in the
results conducted results of action . Teachers Laptop orientation
research Attendance
conducted
Conduct Seminars Virtual seminars .Principal Power point Last week of Number of teachers
or LAC SESSIONS conducted to Presentation January 2021 participated in
on capacitating capacitate teachers . Teachers Laptop seminars during LAC
teachers on the importance Attendance session
of research. Rubrics
Evaluation tool

VIII. References

24
Adas, D. & Abu Shmais, W. (2011). Students’ perceptions towards blended learning environment
using
the OCC. An-Najah University Journal for Research Humanities, 25(6), 1681-1710.

Al-Qahtani, A. A. Y., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e-learning on students'
achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234.

Anoba, J. L. D. & Cahapay, M. B. (2020). The Readiness of Teachers on Blended Learning Transition
for
Post-COVID-19 Period: An Assessment Using Parallel Mixed Method.

Blended Learning: A K to 12 Strategy to Improve the Academic Performance of Grade V Pupils in

Science.

Custodio, A. (2020, July 24). Blended learning is the new normal in Philippine education. The Manila
Times.

Krakow, Poland. Ayanda, D., Eludiora, S., Amassoma, D., & Ashiru, M. (2011). Effectiveness of
Blended
Learning in Selected Elementary Schools.

Romero, P. (2020, September 26). 24.5 million students enrolled for blended learning – DepEd. The
Philippine Star.

Skar, P. Altun, A., & Ilgaz, H. (2008). Learner satisfaction on blended learning. E-Leader conference,
(2016) Effectiveness of Blended E-Learning Approach in a Flipped Classroom Environment.

Tayag, A. R. (2020). Pedagogical Support for Blended Learning Classrooms: Interfacing Teacher and
Student Perspectives. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(6), 2536 - 2541. DOI:
10.13189/ujer.2020.080637.

Tayag, R. (2020). Universal Journal of Educational Research Vol. 8(6), pp. 2536 – 2541.

Tupas, F. P., & Linas-Laguda, M. (2020). Blended Learning–An Approach in Philippine Basic Education
Curriculum in New Normal: A Review of. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11),
5505-5512.

25
APPENDICES

26
 Letter of consent

Validated pretest & posttest

Survey questionnaire

27