Home⇛Health Sciences Journal⇛vol. 15 no. 1 (2026)

Factors Associated with Preference for Online Learning Modality Among Medical Students of a Private Medical School in Quezon City, Philippines: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study

Malory Nicole Aluad | Ymarleigh Andal | Christopher Angelo Domingo | Joshua Caesar Añes | Michelle Marie Angara | Nicole Del Rosario | Karen Hannah Deriquito | Franzes Angienette Dizon | Rhinalyne Jashtine Dy Yaco | Clarissa Angela Layusa | Maria Peñafrancia Adversario

Discipline: medicine by specialism

 

Abstract:

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of alternative instructional approaches, including distance and online learning. This study aimed to determine factors associated with preference for online learning modality among medical students at a private medical school in the National Capital Region (NCR). Methods An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted among 367 medical students using convenience sampling. Participants completed an online survey assessing preferred learning modality, general anxiety, self-efficacy, and satisfaction with online learning. Factors associated with preference for online learning were identified using logistic regression analysis. Results Most respondents (79.3%) preferred traditional face-to-face learning, whereas 20.7% preferred online learning. Male students were more likely to prefer online learning than female students (OR = 2.19, p = 0.003). Married students were more likely to prefer online learning than unmarried students (OR = 9.71, p = 0.021). Students who reported greater satisfaction with their online learning experience were more likely to prefer online learning (OR = 2.28, p = 0.024). Self-efficacy demonstrated a borderline association with preference for online learning (OR = 0.42, p = 0.053). Conclusion Sex, civil status, and satisfaction with online learning were significantly associated with preference for online learning modality. Self-efficacy demonstrated a borderline association. Despite the increased use of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, most respondents continued to prefer traditional face-to-face instruction.



References:

  1. Baticulon RE, Sy JJ, Alberto NR, et al. Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: a national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Med Sci Educ 2021;31(2):615-26.
  2. Gherhes V, Stoian CE, Farcasiu MA, Stanici M. E-learning vs. face-to-face learning: analyzing students’ preferences and behaviors. Sustainability 2021;13(8):4381.
  3. Commission on Higher Education. Updated guidelines on the implementation of face-to-face classes to prevent and mitigate COVID-19 infections in higher education [Internet]. Quezon City (PH): Commission on Higher Education; 2022 [cited 2023 May 22]. Available from: https://chedro3.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/CMO%20No.%209%20S.%202022.pdf
  4. Ahmed MS, Soltani A, Zahra D, Allouch S, Al Saady RM, Nasr A, et al. Remote online learning reimagined: perceptions and experiences of medical students in a post- pandemic world. BMC Med Educ 2025;25:215.
  5. Tlais S, Hamdan R, HajjHussein H, Alkhatib A, Hallal K. Post-COVID student preferences: shaping higher education’s future. Soc Sci Humanit Open 2025;11:101582. doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101582.
  6. Compton S, Sarraf-Yazdi S, Rustandy F, Krishna LKR. Medical students’ preference for returning to the clinical setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Educ 2020;54(10):943-50. doi:10.1111/medu.14268.
  7. Artino AR. Online or face-to-face learning? Exploring the personal factors that predict students’ choice of instructional format. Internet High Educ 2010;13(4):272-6.
  8. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder. Arch Intern Med 2006;166(10):1092-7.
  9. Atwa H, Shehata MH, Al-Ansari A, et al. Online, face-to- face, or blended learning? Faculty and medical students’ perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed- method study. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:791352. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.791352.
  10. Keis O, Grab C, Schneider A, Öchsner W. Online or face-to-face instruction? A qualitative study on the electrocardiogram course at the University of Ulm to examine why students choose a particular format. BMC Med Educ 2017;17(1):194. doi:10.1186/s12909-017-1053- 6.
  11. Lashley PM, Sobers NP, Campbell MH, et al. Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a novel online clinical clerkship curriculum delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adv Med Educ Pract 2022;13:1029-38. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S374133.
  12. Hasanah N. Online learning and face-to-face learning: students’ preferences and perspectives. J Teach Engl Foreign Lang Appl Linguist 2022;3(2):56-68. doi:10.35747/tefla.v3i2.872.
  13. Islam MA, Abdul Rahim A, Tan CL, Momtaz H. Effect of demographic factors on e-learning effectiveness in a higher learning institution in Malaysia. Int Educ Stud 2011;4(1):112-21. doi:10.5539/ies.v4n1p112.
  14. Boyte-Eckis L, Minadeo DF, Bailey SS, Bailey WC. Age, gender, and race as predictors of opting for a midterm retest: a statistical analysis of online economics students. J Bus Divers2018;18(1). doi:10.33423/jbd.v18i1.515.
  15. Cai Z, Fan X, Du J. Gender and attitudes toward technology use: a meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2017;105:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003.
  16. Saddik B, Hussein A, Sharif-Askari FS, et al. Increased levels of anxiety among medical and non-medical university students during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Arab Emirates. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2020;13:2395-406. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S273333.
  17. Arain SA, Ali M, Arbili L, et al. Medical students and faculty perceptions about online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Alfaisal University experience. Front Public Health 2022;10:880835. doi:10.3389/ fpubh.2022.880835.
  18. Arbaugh JB. What might online delivery teach us about blended management education? Prior perspectives and future directions. J Manag Educ 2014;38(6):784-817. doi:10.1177/1052562914534244.
  19. Riddle E, Gier E. Flipped classroom improves student engagement, student performance, and sense of community in a nutritional sciences course (P07-007-19). Curr Dev Nutr 2019;3(Suppl 1):657-9. doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz032.P07-007-19.
  20. Pickering JD, Swinnerton BJ. Exploring the dimensions of medical student engagement with technology-enhanced learning resources and assessing the impact on assessment outcomes. Anat Sci Educ 2019;12(2):117-28. doi:10.1002/ase.1810.
  21. Nuryakin N, Rakotoarizaka N, Musa H. The effect of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on student satisfaction: the mediating role of attitude to use online learning. Asia Pac Manag Bus Appl 2023;11(3):323-36. doi:10.21776/ub.apmba.2023.011.03.5.
  22. Barche A, Nayak V, Pandey A, Bhandarkar A, Nayak SG, Nayak K. Student perceptions towards online learning in medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study. F1000Res 2022;11:979.
  23. AlQhtani A, AlSwedan N, Almulhim A, et al. Online versus classroom teaching for medical students during COVID-19: measuring effectiveness and satisfaction. BMC Med Educ 2021;21:452. doi:10.1186/s12909-021-02888-1.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic