Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 4290 Download : 2864

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This convergent-parallel mixed-methods study was conducted to examine students' readiness on flexible learning modality established in the local context based on Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order No. 04 series of 2020 or the "Guidelines on the Implementation "Flexible Learning in the Philippines." A sample of  408 students participated in the study. The self-determination theory model and contextual approach to e-learning delivery (learning flexibility, online learning, study management, technology, modular learning, and online interaction) were used as theoretical underpinnings. Data collected using electronic surveys and information from semi-structured interviews were analyzed. The application of a descriptive survey confirms the low level of readiness among students. When compared across the population, the results provided no significant difference in the level of readiness among students when grouped according to sex and provided significant difference according to year level and Course. Interpreting the results together with qualitative analysis parallels the notion of difficulties among students in all dimensions of flexible learning. This research places the thrust of improving curriculum delivery by addressing flexible learning policies in the local context.

Keywords

flexible learning readiness of students Covid-19 Pandemic convergent parallel mixed-methods study Philippines

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Licayan, R. J., Angelli B, H., Michelle S, B., & Rocris Glenn R, I. (2021). Readiness of Students in Flexible Learning Modality: A Convergent Parallel Mixed-Methods Study. International Journal of Asian Education, 2(4), 514–530. https://doi.org/10.46966/ijae.v2i4.118
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Adams, R. & Blair, E. (2019). Impact of time management behaviors on undergraduate engineering students' performance. SAGE Journals https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244018824506
  2. Asibur Rahman, M.,H., Uddin, M. S., & Dey, A. (2021). Investigating the mediating role of online learning motivation in the COVID‐19 pandemic situation in Bangladesh. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12535
  3. Aytaç, T. (2020). The influence of blended learning model on developing leadership skills of the school administrator. https://www.ubicc.org/files/pdf/1_355.pdf
  4. Barrera, Kenneth & Jaminal, Beverly & Arcilla Jr, Felix. (2020). Readiness for Flexible Learning amidst COVID-19 Pandemic of Saint Michael College of Caraga, Philippines. 2. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.18868/cte.02.060120.01
  5. Beaudoin, M. (2001). Learning or lurking? Tracking the 'invisible' online student. Orlando, FL: Paper delivered at the 7th Sloan-C International Conference on Asynchronous Learning Networks.
  6. Catyanadika, P. E., & Isfianadewi, D. (2021). Development of risk breakdown structure for online learning project during COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 10(1), 174-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i1.1001
  7. Challenges and experiences of online evaluation in courses of civil engineering during the lockdown learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (2021). Education Sciences, 11(2), 59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020059
  8. Commission on Higher Education (2020). CHED memorandum 04 series of 2020 or the guidelines on the implementation of flexible learning. www.ched.gov.ph
  9. Coomey, M., and Stephenson, J. (2001). According to the research, online learning is all about dialogue, involvement, support, and control. Teach. Learn. Online Pedagogies New Technol. 37–52. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.4620&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  10. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  12. Damerji, H. (2020). Technology readiness impact on artificial intelligence technology adoption by accounting students (Order No. 27547476). Available from ProQuest Central. (2318672479). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/2318672479?accountid=31259
  13. Deed, C., Blake, D., Henriksen, J. et al. (2020). Teacher adaptation to flexible learning environments. Learning Environ Res 23, 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09302-0
  14. Delaney, Y., McCarthy, J., & Beecham, S. (2017). Convergent parallel design mixed-methods case study in problem-based learning. Kidmore End: Academic Conferences International Limited. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/conference-papers-proceedings/convergent-parallel-design-mixed-methods-case/docview/1967313989/se-2?accountid=31259
  15. Edmonds, W.A. & Kennedy, T. (2017). An applied guide to research designs: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.
  16. Friestad-Tate, J., Schubert, C., & McCoy, C. (2014). Understanding modular learning - developing a strategic plan to embrace change. I-Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 9(4), 32-44. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/1544384104?accountid=31259
  17. Goodson, P. (2012). Becoming an academic writer: 50 Exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  18. Greener, I. (2011). Designing social research: A guide for the bewildered. Los Angeles: SAGE.
  19. HERGÜNER, G., SON, S. B., SON, S. H. E. R. G. E. R., & DÖNMEZ, A. (2020). The effect of online learning attitudes of university students on their online learning readiness. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 19(4) Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effect-online-learning-attitudes-university/docview/2451759720/se-2?accountid=31259
  20. Johnson, J. B., Pritika, R., Ronil, C., & Mani, N. (2021). Attitudes and awareness of regional pacific island students towards e-learning: Revista de universidad y sociedad del conocimiento. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1) http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00248-z
  21. Karatas, K., & Arpaci, I. (2021). The role of self-directed learning, metacognition, and 21st-century skills predicting the readiness for online learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(3) http://dx.doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10786
  22. Kolakowski, M., Hackbarth, G., Ebrahim, S., & Walker,Edward D.,,II. (2020). A contextual approach to E-learning delivery in higher educational institution learning organizations. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(11), 12-24. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/contextual-approach-e-learning-delivery-higher/docview/2492325406/se-2?accountid=31259
  23. Kolloff, M. (2011). Strategies for effective student/student interaction in online courses. 17th annual conference on distance teaching and learning
  24. Lai, M. L. (2008). Technology readiness, internet self-efficacy, and computing experience of professional accounting students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(1),18-29. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740810849061
  25. Lassoued, Z., Alhendawi, M., & Bashitialshaaer, R. (2020). An exploratory study of the obstacles for achieving quality in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 10(9), 232. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090232
  26. Law, K. M. Y., Sandnes, F. E., Jian, H.-L., Huang, Y.-P. (2009). A comparative study of learning motivation among engineering students in South East Asia and beyond. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 144-151.
  27. McKenzie, K., Gow, K. (2004). Exploring the first-year academic achievement of school leavers and mature-age students through structural equation modeling. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 107-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2003.10.002
  28. Mishra, S. (2020). Blended learning is the way forward after the pandemic. University world news. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200528134934520
  29. Moore, M. G., and Kearskey, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
  30. Mukherjee, D., & Hasan, K. K. (2020). Challenges in learning continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic: A methodological and thematic review. South Asian Journal of Management, 27(3), 56-78. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/challenges-learning-continuity-during-covid-19/docview/2476337454/se-2?accountid=31259
  31. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  32. O'Dwyer, L. M., & Bernauer, J. A. (2014). Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher. Los Angeles: SAGE.
  33. Online teaching and learning in higher education during the coronavirus pandemic: Students' perspective. (2020). Sustainability, 12(24), 10367. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su122410367
  34. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research,2(4), 307-320.
  35. Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. (2015). An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730.
  36. Rizun, M., & Strzelecki, A. (2020). Students' acceptance of the COVID-19 impact on shifting higher education to distance learning in Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6468. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186468
  37. Slovin, E. (1960). Slovin's formula for sampling technique. Retrieved on January 10, 2021.
  38. Smith, H. (2019). Attitudes of emergency medical services stakeholders in Barbados: A convergent parallel mixed-methods study (Order No. 13805641). Available from ProQuest Central. (2193721957). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/attitudes-emergency-medical-services-stakeholders/docview/2193721957/se-2?accountid=31259
  39. Stewart, B. L., Miertschin, S., & Goodson, C. (2020). COVID-19 transitions to online formats and pre-pandemic foundations for student success: Time management and lifestyle variables. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(10), 173-189. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/covid-19-transitions-online-formats-pre-pandemic/docview/2491986186/se-2?accountid=31259
  40. Suppan, M., Stuby, L., C.A.S., Carrera, E., M.D., Cottet, P., M.D., Koka, A., M.D., Assal, F., M.D., . . . Suppan, L., M.D. (2021). Asynchronous distance learning of the national institutes of health stroke scale during the COVID-19 pandemic (E-learning vs. video): Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1) http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/23594
  41. Tartavulea, C. V., Albu, C. N., Albu, N., Dieaconescu, R. I., & Petre, S. (2020). ONLINE TEACHING PRACTICES AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS IN THE WAKE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. Amfiteatru Economic, 22(55), 920-936. http://dx.doi.org/10.24818/EA/2020/55/920
  42. Tseng, S., Su, J., Hwang, G., Hwang, G., Tsai, C., Tsai, C. (2008). An Object-Oriented Course Framework for Developing Adaptive Learning Systems. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 171-191.
  43. Velichová, Ľ., Orbánová, D., & Kúbeková, A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Unique opportunity to develop online learning. TEM Journal, 9(4), 1633-1639. http://dx.doi.org/10.18421/TEM94-40
  44. Willis, J. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.