Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 21 no. 3 (2024)

Students’ Performance in an Online and Face-to-Face Learning Modalities: A Comparative Analysis

Alfred Gabato

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The study explores the usefulness of Fitness Health and Wellness at the University of the Visayas in implementation of the Hyflex learning. This study utilized the descriptive comparative research design. Anchored with the community of inquiry which will help the study of online learning and face to face learning Moreover, it has been recognized as having considerable potential to support higher order and deep learning through the interaction of social, cognitive, and teaching presences. All of these offer a useful structure to examine students’ learning experience from the perspectives of collaboration, critical thinking, and knowledge construction. The lived experiences of the teachers have a greater impact on the lives of the students. Moreover, the results of the study reveals that there is a relationship in the different learning modalities the online learning and face-to-face learning in Physical Education Fitness Health and Wellness. This implies that the Hyflex Learning were implemented successfully through the unending support and cooperation among school administrators, teachers, students, and other stakeholders. However, it is a fact that students in online and face-to-face learning is highly recommended to reach out to the teacher if they have difficulties in performing the physical activities.



References:

  1. Ali, S., Haider, Z., Munir, F., Khan, H., & Ahmed, A. (2013). Factors contributing to the students’ academic performance: A case study  of Islamia University Sub- Campus. American journal of educational research, 1(8), 283-289. https://doiorg/10.12691/education-1-8-
  2. Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context.  https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/handle/2149/725/assess?sequence=1
  3. Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2012). The importance of being in school: A report on absenteeism in the nation’s public schools. The  Education Digest, 78(2), 4. https://www.proquest.com/openview/6e6ba9dea848f85e594e867e7f4921a9/1.pdf?pq origsite=gscholar&cbl=25066
  4. Bursztyn, L., Fujiwara, T., & Pallais, A. (2017). ‘Acting wife’: Marriage market incentives and labor market investments. American  Economic Review, 107(11), 3288-3319.  https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Faer.20170029&utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Ameri can_Economic_Review_TrendMD_1
  5. Caro, D. H., McDonald, J. T., & Willms, J. D. (2009). Socio-economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood  to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 32(3),558-590.  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ859263.pdf
  6. Calvó-Armengol, A., & Jackson, M. O. (2009). Like father, like son: social network externalities and parent-child correlation in  behavior. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 1(1), 124-150. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mic.1.1.124
  7. Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of interactive online learning, 8(3). https://rkenny.org/shared_media/social_online_learning.pdf
  8. Considine, G., & Zappalà, G. (2002, April). Factors influencing the educational performance of students from disadvantaged  backgrounds. In Competing visions: Refereed proceedings of the national social policy conference (Vol. 2001, pp. 91- 107).  https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30724476/NSPC01_RefereedProceedings-libre.pdf?1392854719=&response
  9. Dzemidzic Kristiansen, S., Burner, T., & Johnsen, B. H. (2019). Face-to-face promotive interaction leading to successful cooperative  learning: A review study. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1674067. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2019.1674067
  10. Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting influences on the academic achievement of Latino  young adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence, 34, 163-174. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-005-3214-x
  11. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance  education. American Journal of distance education, 15(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
  12. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley  &Sons. https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2iaR5FOsoMcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Blended+learning+in+higher+ed ucation:+Framework,+principles,+and+guidelines.+John+Wiley+%26+Sons.+&ots=4Ffgn0LKnH&sig=xKwfhrL6H_yE9c6O0ZFHe i70UC8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Blended%20learning%20in%20higher%20education%3A%20Framework%2C%20principles
  13. Gurley, L. E. (2018). Educators’ Preparation to Teach, Perceived Teaching Presence, and Perceived Teaching Presence Behaviors in  Blended and Online Learning Environments. Online learning, 22(2), 197-220. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1181399.pdf
  14. Havik, T., & Westergård, E. (2020). Do teachers matter? Students’ perceptions of classroom interactions and student engagement.  Scandinavian journal of educational research, 64(4), 488-507. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00313831.2019.1577754
  15. Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation: Student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence. Educational Media International, 49(3),217-229.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738014
  16. Jimenez, E. C. (2020). Motivating Factors of Teachers in Developing Supplementary Learning Materials (SLMs). Online Submission, 8(5), 108-113. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED605723.pdf
  17. Kaufmann, R., & Vallade, J. I. (2022). Exploring connections in the online learning environment: student perceptions of rapport,  climate, and loneliness. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(10), 1794-1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1749670
  18. Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class,  and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50, 437-459. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-009-9127-x
  19. Korir, D. K., & Kipkemboi, F. (2014). The impact of school environment and peer influences on students’ academic performance in  Vihiga County, Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(5). https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/34230397/The_Impact_of_School_Environment_and_Peer_Influences_on_Students_Academic_Performance_in_Vihiga_CountyKenya-libre.pdf?1405648559=&responsecontentdisposition=inline%3B+filename%3DIISTE_international_journals_2014_editio.pdf&Expires=1706513428&Signature=
  20. Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). New exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis insights into the community of inquiry  survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.06.002
  21. Laffey, J., Lin, G. Y., & Lin, Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning  Research, 17(2), 163-177. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/5981/
  22. Lutter, M. (2015). Do women suffer from network closure? The moderating effect of social capital on gender inequality in a project based labor market, 1929 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 80(2), 329-358.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122414568788
  23. Martin, Florence, and Doris U. Bolliger. “Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the  online learning environment.” Online learning 22, no. 1 (2018): 205-222. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1179659
  24. Mayr, A., & Oppl, S. (2023). Higher education at the margins–success criteria for blended learning systems for marginalized  communities. Education and Information Technologies, 28(3), 2579-2617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11282-3
  25. Mehic, A., & Olofsson, C. (2021). Get Rich or Fail Your Exam Tryin’: Gender, Socioeconomic Status and Spillover Effects of Blended  Learning (No. 2021: 8). Working Paper. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/260328
  26. Mengel, F. (2020). Gender differences in networking. The Economic Journal, 130(630), 1842-1873. https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-abstract/130/630/1842/5810657
  27. Rivard, J. (2013). The effects of an intervention program on tardiness, absenteeism, and academic achievement of at-risk high school  students (Doctoral dissertation). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48504263.pdf
  28. Salas‐Pilco, S. Z., Yang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during  the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 593-619.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190
  29. Sherman, J., Rasmussen, C., & Baydala, L. (2008). The impact of teacher factors on achievement and behavioural outcomes of children with Attention
  30. So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning  environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & education, 51(1), 318-336.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
  31. Sugino, T. (2010). Teacher demotivational factors in the Japanese language teaching context. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences,  3, 216-226. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042810014102
  32. Tong, J., Han, J., Liu, J., Yang, F., & Chen, S. (2012). The Analysis of influencing factors of college students’ learning effect in face to-face, online and blended learning. In Network Computing and Information Security: Second International Conference, NCIS 2012, Shanghai, China, December 7-9, 2012. Proceedings (pp. 528-538). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642- 35211
  33. Tu, C. H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E learning, 1(2), 34-45. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/10820/
  34. Umar, S. S., Shaib, I. O., Aituisi, D. N., Yakubu, N. A., & Bada, O. (2010). The effect of social factors on students’ academic  performance in Nigerian tertiary institutions. Library philosophy and practice, 2010, 1-19. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/188041212.pdf.
  35. Warne, M., Svensson, Å., Tirén, L., & Wall, E. (2020). On time: a qualitative study of Swedish students’, parents’ and teachers’ views  on school attendance, with a focus on tardiness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1430.  https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1430

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic