糖心原创

Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 26 no. 6 (2024)

Assessment Of Junior High School Students’ Satisfaction Towards School Facilities And Services During The Transition To Single Shift Face-to-face And Blended Classes

Luviminda Cordero

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study made use of the mixed method study utilizing the quanti – quali approach in gathering the needed data for the study which included 295 students that constitutes to 10% of the total population of learners under the Junior High School Department of Bambang National High School. Finding revealed that respondents of the study claim that they are satisfied with the school facilities and services during the transition to single shift face -to- face classes. The indicators school facilities and services along tangibles, responsiveness, empathy, assurance, and reliability do not differ significantly on the assessment of the Grade 8 respondents. However, significant differences were found among the Grade 7, 9, and 10 respondents. In terms of the experiences of the learners, motivation and patience became the dominant theme for their responses which indicate what they feel during the implementation of single shift face -to- face classes.



References:

  1. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 65-83.
  2. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
  3. Bloemer, W., & Swan, K. (2015). Investigating informal blending at the University of Illinois Springfield. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning research perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 52–69). New York, NY: Routledge.
  4. Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001
  5. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9066-6
  6. JMA Carpena (2016). The Validity and Reliability of Brief Assessment of Cognition for Schizophrenia Filipino Version- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY.
  7. Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
  8. Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! 2010: The status of professional development and unique needs of K-12 online teachers. Retrieved from http://edtech.boiseState.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual1.pdf
  9. DepEd Order No. 037, series of 2022
  10. Delialioglu, Ö. (2012). Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 310–322.
  11. Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). Analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. Internet and Higher Education, 17(1), 90–100. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031
  12. Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., Cavanagh, T. B., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). Blended courses as drivers of institutional transformation. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation (pp. 17-37). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  13. Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 236–241. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.003
  14. Fetters, M. L., & Duby, T. G. (2011). Faculty development: A stage model matched to blended learning maturation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(1), 77-83.
  15. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education, 18(3), 24–28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.001
  16. Ginsberg, A. P., & Ciabocchi, E. (2015). Growing your own blended faculty: A review of current faculty development practices in traditional, not-for-profit higher education institutions. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning research perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 190–202). New York, NY: Routledge.
  17. Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
  18. Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, (Vol. 2 pp. 13–33). New York, NY: Routledge.
  19. Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18(3), 4–14. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
  20. Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012). An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33(3), 381–413. http://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.723166
  21. Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004
  22. Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2012, in press). Everybody is their own island: Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. International review of research in open and distance learning.
  23. Hawkins, A., Barbour, M. K., & Graham, C. R. (2011). Strictly business: Teacher perceptions of interaction in virtual schooling. Journal of Distance Education, 25(2). Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/726/1241
  24. Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K. C., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Exploring intensive longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 131–155. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2015/3386
  25. Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
  26. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  27. Kennedy, E., Laurillard, D., Horan, B., & Charlton, P. (2015). Making meaningful decisions about time, workload and pedagogy in the digital age: The course resource appraisal model. Distance Education, 36(2), 177–195. http://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1055920.
  28. Kineshanko, M. K. (2016). A thematic synthesis of community of inquiry research 2000 to 2014 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada. Standards for face-to-face, online, and blended settings. City, ST: Information Age Publishing.
  29. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. F., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library.
  30. Moskal, P., Thompson, K., & Futch, L. (2015). Enrollment, engagement, and satisfaction in the BlendKit faculty development open, online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 19(4).
  31. Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207-216. doi:10.1108/10748121111163913
  32. Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers & Education, 56(3), 689–699. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.011
  33. Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class connections: High school reform and the role of online learning. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/classconnections.pdf
  34. Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 127–135. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.004
  35. Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748–762. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12269
  36. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Bodily, R., & Sandberg, D. (2016). A qualitative analysis of institutional drivers and barriers to blended learning adoption in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 28(1), 17–27. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.003
  37. Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
  38. Powell, A., Rabbitt, B., & Kennedy, K. (2014). iNACOL blended learning teacher competency framework. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/iNACOLBlended-Learning-Teacher-Competency-Framework.pdf
  39. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Springer.
  40. Ryan, Y., Tynan, B., & Lamont-Mills, A. (2015). Out of hours: Online and blended learning workload in Australian universities. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning research perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 268–283). New York, NY: Routledge.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  糖心原创 Exclusively distributed by