Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Impact of blended learning instruction in academic performance of grade

10 students in a selected private high school in San Juan City,
Philippines
To cite this article: A I Hipol et al 2020 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1470 012052

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 212.119.44.176 on 17/09/2020 at 17:04

The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

Impact of blended learning instruction in academic

performance of grade 10 students in a selected private high
school in San Juan City, Philippines

A I Hipol1,2, R Cabahug1 and R Bongon1

1
ELMD Bro. Andrew Gonzales College of Education, De La Salle University,
Philippines
2
HS Science Faculty, Xavier School, Philippines

Email: [email protected]

Abstract. The study aimed to determine if blended learning instruction positively affected
students’ academic performance in a specific Science topic. Furthermore, it tried to determine
if there was a difference in students' academic performance who were subjected to 20%
blended learning instruction and 60% blended learning instruction. The study made use of a
pre-test and post-test which were based on standardized tests. After asking permission from
Xavier School and upon the approval to conduct the study, the researcher personally conducted
the study to a controlled and an experimental group. After which, data were collected, checked
and tallied. These were encoded and analyzed using Stata. T-test and ANOVA were used to
determine the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the two groups. Evaluation
of the blended learning lesson plan was also done through Google forms to verify the results.
The study revealed that there is a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test
scores of the classes. This implied that the BLP helped the students comprehend the lesson.
Furthermore, the findings showed that there is a significant difference between the post-test
scores of the experimental and controlled group in favor of the experimental group. This
implied that 60% blended learning instruction is more effective than 20% blended learning
instruction.

1. Introduction
One educator from India said that “teachers will not be replaced by technology, but teachers who do
not use technology will be replaced by those who do.” Indeed, the rise of technology as an innate part
of globalization has revolutionized the teaching-learning process. It has significantly empowered the
learners and broaden their repertoire of learning experiences. Hence, the challenge for teachers to keep
up with this paradigm shift remains unabated.
The demand for 21st century teaching approaches continue to escalate as the Department of
Education in the Philippines work for the attainment of outcomes-based education — producing
graduates who are competitive and equipped with knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will make them
productive in the workplaces. Concomitant to this, are instructional approaches and strategies which
will allow students to communicate, collaborate, and explore beyond the knowledge that the books and
the teachers are able to transfer. It is veering away from the completely traditional approaches of
teaching where the only resources available are the teachers, the books, and the chalkboard. Thus, the
adoption of blended learning.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

Blended learning has been defined in many but similar ways. The Ultranet and Digital Learning
Branch of the Department of Education in Melbourne defines it as “the planned implementation of a
learning model that integrates student-centered, traditional in-class learning with other flexible
learning methodologies using mobile and web-based online (especially collaborative) approaches in
order to realize strategic advantages for the education system.” [1] The Glossary of Education Reform
(2013) cites that blended learning is “generally applied to the practice of using both online and in-
person learning experiences when teaching students.” [6] These definitions suggest that in a blended-
learning course, students might attend a class taught by a teacher in a traditional classroom setting,
while also independently completing online components of the course outside of the classroom.
For the purpose of our brief experimental study, the blended learning which will be implemented in
the experimental group will utilize a combination of traditional and ICT-integrated strategies to teach a
lesson in Science. The ICT-integration may either be online or offline which includes multimedia
presentations for discussions and activities and as springboards for formative assessments. Whereas,
the control or intact group shall not be completely subjected to a traditional approach; twenty percent
(20%) of the entire teaching-learning activities will also be ICT-integrated. This is in consideration of
the academic culture of the school, where the use of computers and ipads has been deeply and
extensively rooted in the teaching-learning process. Some repercussions of a completely traditional
approach for the specific school the researchers have chosen might include complaints from parents
and an intentional underperformance of students. Hence, the researchers opted to just significantly
diminish the amount of time for ICT-integration in the intact group.
It is hoped that the results of this brief experiment would give light to the questions about the
assumed contrasting effects of the traditional teaching approach and the blended learning on the
academic performance of students, which will be measured in this study through pre-test and post-test.

2. Review of Literature
Blended learning has been interpreted and understood in various ways. It is an educational concept
that “first appeared around 2000 . . . associated with simply supplementing traditional classroom
learning with self-study e-learning activities . . . Today blended learning can refer to any combination
of different methods of learning, different learning environments, different learning styles” [3] It could
well be described that the latter use of the term expresses its general meaning while the former is the
articulation of the concept in a more specific and restricted sense. Authors, like Singh and Reed,
emphasized its general meaning by asserting “blended learning is the transfer of “right” skills to the
“right” person at the “right” time by matching the “right” learning technologies with the “right”
learning style for the purpose of achieving the learning objectives.”
On the other hand, authors like Horton, Osguthorpe and Graham stressed its strict definition as
“combining the strong and advantageous aspects of web-based learning with those of face-to-face
learning.” To avoid any confusion in the interchanging use of the term “blended learning,” Brunner
proposes that it will be wise to use “hybrid learning” in referring to its restricted application with an
emphasis that it has “more online learning and less seat time (when students are seated in a classroom)
than a traditional course.” [2]
Aside from maximizing the benefits from traditional and online classes, blended learning also seeks
to minimize the disadvantages that arise from the sole use of either traditional or online sessions.
Amidst the proliferation of online courses, face to face classes still do not lose its value because they
provide venues for immediate and personal teacher-student interactions and responses. Face to face
meetings also allow teachers to perform direct supervision and control on learning processes and
activities. However, classroom meetings are always limited by time constraints. Hence, learning from
such sessions tends to emphasize on the explanation and the clarification of inputs over its reflection
and application. To reduce this deficiency, blended learning encourages students not just to study
beforehand the topics to be discussed but to browse the course contents and the planned proceedings
for the next class. [10] In this manner, students may be able to look up on the topics beforehand and
deepen his or her understanding on them afterwards through the internet.

2
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

On the other hand, distant online teaching, when it is used well, is found to develop more the
“written communication skills of students, whereas the face-to-face experience can give students more
practice in speaking and listening skills”. However, the former provides less venues for students to
practice their speaking and listening skills. Moreover, Moore states that online courses usually only
makes use of one tool of instruction: the computer. Furthermore, Carr as cited by Brunner found out
that “dropout rates for online courses are sometimes 10-20 percent higher than for comparable
traditional courses.” Nonetheless, three scholars Dziuban, Segment and Vlllanti as cited by Brunner, in
their separate studies, conclude that “hybrid courses improve retention considerably over online
courses and have at least equivalent retention to face-to-face courses.” [2]
The higher dropout rates among purely online classes may also be caused by the fear and
difficulties encountered by students in online education. Besides, there are also students and even
teachers who arrive at discoveries where they realize that they are not suited for purely online
educational environments. This is even true if synchronous discussions are integrated in online
courses. Listed below are some of the findings why there are lower passing rates for those who only
receive synchronous online classes compared to those who receive both synchronous and
asynchronous.
1. It “discouraged some participants who were less confident about their technological expertise, their
ability to engage actively to synchronous cognitive discourse or the purpose of the web-
videoconferences in general”
2. “Offering extra amount of rich communication tools may have drawn students’ attention away from
the content and toward the workings of the technology”
3. Wegge found out that, “seeing one’s own image in videoconferencing relates to individual
emotional dispositions and can decrease performance.”
4. It is a relief that synchronous online sessions are used less in blended learning (if ever it is used). It
is because the use of online platforms outside the classroom are usually reserved for asynchronous
discussions and fora. Besides, synchronous classes become redundant and unnecessary when
blended classes also make use of face to face sessions. [5]

2.1 Advantages to Students

Students of blended classes have greater access to resources and can receive learning supervision from
their teachers whether inside or outside the classroom. This can be done “by creating discussion
forums via which they can discuss with each other and with their teachers, interaction can be achieved
in online environment”. This may entail more time and sacrifices from teachers though. It is also
observed that students’ intellectual capacities and social skills are known and assessed by their
teachers from the way they interact in the academic platforms outside the classroom (Brunner, 2006).
This gives teachers some hints on how they may enhance their students’ strengths and perform
remedies on areas where they are weak.
The use of educational digital applications and networking tools known as Web 2.0 engages
students to learn collaboratively through virtual 3D environments, peer networking, social networks,
and interactive games. From such platforms, a community of inquiry can be formed where students
can serve as collaborators and co-constructors of knowledge. [9] A community of inquiry is
established when cognitive, social, and teaching presences are evident among the interaction of
students in online educational tasks. Cognitive presence is associated with meaning-making, social
presence is found when students interact to form personal relationships among themselves, and
teaching presence is the facilitation of the cognitive and social presence to teach other members of the
group.
The aforementioned literature is just few of the numerous researches and studies on educational
technology that prove its effectiveness in and out of the classroom. It has been shown that given the
right orientation and proper methodology, blended learning in the 21st century classrooms can bring
significant changes in students’ academic performance.

3
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

Our brief experimental study will also attempt to contribute in this body of research as we deliver
traditional teaching strategies in one class and a blended learning in another class to a school where
students have been enculturated to an extensive ICT-integrated learning environment.

3. Methodology
The researchers gave a pre-test to the students before the actual lesson and gave a post-test after
discussing the lesson through EDMODO, an educational application. The questions came from
standardized tests. The Pre-test and post-test are appropriate to evaluate if the students understood the
topic. Data were checked and tallied. These were encoded and analyzed using Stata. Students also
gave evaluation about the lesson through Google forms.

3.1 The Context

Xavier School is known as a premiere institution well-known for its innovative ICT-integrated lessons.
Some of their facilities include wide Wi-Fi coverage in each classroom as well an in-house Apple
service center. The school implements One2One Program which requires each student from Grades 9
to 12 to have their own Ipads that they can use in their classes. Moreover, the school has a good
number of Macbook computers that may be reserved for class activities and discussions. In light of
this, the researchers want to find out how technology integration through blended learning instruction
helps in improving the students’ academic performance in Science among Grade 10 students.

3.2 Participants
The study was conducted among selected Grade 10 sections. The Grade 10 classes are generally
heterogeneous except the first three sections. Sections A, B, and C are known to be the cream classes
because most of the students take in advance some Math and Chinese courses. The batch is generally
technologically equipped because they have been using Ipads since Grade 9.

3.3 Data Analysis

For the research questions, the T-test and ANOVA were used to determine whether there is a
difference in the pre-test and post-test scores of each class as well as the post-test scores of the
experimental and the controlled group. The formula is: [4]

where
ƩX is the sum of the scores or measures
n is the number of cases
Ʃ(X-X)2 is the summation of squared scores
P-values represent the degree to which a difference is statistically significant. Values at or
below .05 are statistically significant and would be expected to occur by chance at or below 5 percent.
[8]

4. Results and Discussion

Table 1. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10B (Experimental Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10B Pre-test 4.53 1.65 -3 -8.29 0.00
Students Post-test 7.53 1.63

4
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

Table 1 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10B. Grade 10B students who
studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 7.53, SD = 1.65) than pre-test scores
(M = 4.53, SD = 1.63), t(31) = -8.29, p = 0.00. This means that there is sufficient evidence to prove
that the scores of 10B students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able to
grasp the concepts that they are expected to learn.

Table 2. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10G (Controlled Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10G Pre-test 3.94 1.82 -2.18 -5.19 0.00
Students Post-test 6.12 2.26

Table 2 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10G. Grade 10G students
who studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 6.12, SD = 1.82) than pre-test
scores (M = 3.94, SD = 1.82), t(31) = -5.19, p = 0.00. This means that there is sufficient evidence to
prove that the scores of 10G students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able
to grasp the concepts that they are expected to learn.

Table 3. Difference of the pre-test scores of grade of 10B and 10G

Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Pre-test scores 10B 4.53 1.65 0.66 1.50 0.14
10G 3.88 1.81

Table 3 presents the difference of the pre-test scores of 10B and 10G. Grade 10B students (M =
4.53, SD = 1.65) and Grade 10G students (M = 3.88, SD = 1.81) who studied about protein synthesis
did not differ significantly in their pre-test scores t(31) = 1.502, p = 0.143. This means that there is no
sufficient evidence to prove that one of the sections is more knowledgeable about the topic. This
would also imply that both of the sections are at par in their level of understanding about the topic.

Table 4. Differences of the post-test scores of grade of 10B and 10G

Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Post-test scores 10B 7.53 1.63 1.5 3.28 0.00
10G 6.03 2.24

Table 4 presents the difference of the post-test scores of 10B and 10G. Grade 10B students
who studied about protein synthesis using 60% ICT-integrated teaching approach had higher post-test
scores (M = 7.53, SD = 1.63) than those students from 10G who studied the same lesson but with only
20% ICT-integration (M = 6.03, SD = 2.24), t(31) = 3.276, p = 0.00. This means that there is
sufficient evidence to prove that using 60% blended instruction might have been more effective than
20% blended instruction.

Table 5. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10C (Experimental Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10C Pre-test 3.63 1.81 -3.63 -13.14 0.00
Students Post-test 7.25 1.48

5
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

Table 5 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10C. Grade 10C students who
studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 7.25, SD = 1.48) than pre-test scores
(M = 3.63, SD = 1.81), t(31) = -13.14, p = 0.00. This means that there is sufficient evidence to prove
that the scores of 10C students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able to
grasp the concepts that they are expected to learn regarding protein synthesis.

Table 6. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10H (Controlled Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10H Pre-test 3.47 1.25 -2.7 -6.72 0.00
Students Post-test 6.17 2.80

Table 6 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10H. Grade 10H students who
studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 6.17, SD = 2.80) than pre-test scores
(M = 3.47, SD = 1.25), t(29) = -6.72, p = 0.00. This means that there is sufficient evidence to prove
that the scores of 10H students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able to
grasp the concepts that they are expected to learn about protein synthesis.

Table 7. Difference of the pre-test scores of grade of 10C and 10H

Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Pre-test scores 10C 3.63 1.83 0.17 0.37 0.71
10H 3.47 1.25

Table 7 presents the difference of the pre-test scores of 10C and 10H. Grade 10C students (M =
3.63, SD = 1.83) and Grade 10H students (M = 3.47, SD = 1.25) who studied about protein synthesis
did not differ significantly in their pre-test scores t(29) = 0.37, p = 0.71. This means that there is no
sufficient evidence to prove that one of the sections is more knowledgeable about the topic. This
would also imply that both of the sections are at the same level of understanding about the topic.

Table 8. Differences of the post-test scores of grade of 10C and 10H

Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Post-test scores 10C 7.20 1.52 1.03 2.53 0.02
10H 6.17 1.80

Table 8 presents the difference of the post-test scores of 10C and 10H. Grade 10C students who
studied about protein synthesis using 60% ICT-integrated teaching approach had higher post-test
scores (M = 7.20, SD = 1.52) than those students from 10H who studied the same lesson but with only
20% ICT-integration (M = 6.17, SD = 1.80), t29) = 2.53, p = 0.02. This means that there is sufficient
evidence to prove that using 60% blended instruction might have been more effective than 20%
blended instruction.

Table 9. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10A (Experimental Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10A Pre-test 3.45 1.86 -2.85 -7.50 0.00
Students Post-test 6.30 1.76

6
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

Table 9 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10A. Grade 10A students who
studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 6.30, SD = 1.76) than pre-test scores
(M = 3.45, SD = 1.86), t(32) = -7.50, p = 0.00. This means that there is sufficient evidence to prove
that the scores of 10A students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able to take
hold of the concepts that they are expected to learn regarding protein synthesis.

Table 10. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10I (Controlled Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10I Students Pre-test 4.03 1.64 -1.17 -2.67 0.01
Post-test 5.20 1.90

Table 10 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10I. Grade 10I students who
studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 5.20, SD = 1.90) than pre-test scores
(M = 4.03, SD = 1.64), t(34) = -2.67, p = 0.01. This means that there is sufficient evidence to prove
that the scores of 10I students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able to grasp
the concepts that they are expected to learn about protein synthesis.

Table 11. Difference of the pre-test scores of grade of 10A and 10I
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Pre-test scores 10A 3.45 1.85 -0.52 -1.27 0.21
10I 3.97 1.64

Table 11 presents the difference of the pre-test scores of 10A and 10I. Grade 10A students (M =
3.45, SD = 1.85) and Grade 10I students (M = 3.97, SD = 1.64) who studied about protein synthesis
did not differ significantly in their pre-test scores t(32) = -1.27, p = 0.21. This means that there is no
sufficient evidence to prove that one of the sections is more knowledgeable about the topic. This
would also imply that both of the sections are at the same level of understanding about the topic.

Table 12. Differences of the post-test scores of grade of 10A and 10I
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Post-test scores 10A 6.30 1.76 1.03 2.18 0.04
10I 5.27 1.94

Table 12 presents the difference of the post-test scores of 10A and 10I. Grade 10A students who
studied about protein synthesis using 60% ICT-integrated teaching approach had higher post-test
scores (M = 6.30, SD = 1.76) than those students who studied the same lesson but with only 20% ICT-
integration (M = 5.27, SD = 1.94), t(32) = 2.18, p = 0.04. This means that there is sufficient evidence
to prove that using 60% blended instruction might have been more effective than 20% blended
instruction.

Table 13. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10D (Controlled Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10D Pre-test 3.42 1.93 -2.31 -4.76 0.00
Students Post-test 5.72 2.46

7
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

Table 13 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10D. Grade 10D students
who studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 5.72, SD = 2.46) than pre-test
scores (M = 3.42, SD = 1.93), t(35) = -4.76, p = 0.00. This means that there is sufficient evidence to
prove that the scores of 10D students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able
to learn the concepts that they are expected to learn regarding protein synthesis.

Table 14. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10E (Controlled Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10E Pre-test 3.59 2.03 -1.38 -2.88 0.01
Students Post-test 4.97 2.20

Table 14 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10E. Grade 10E students
who studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 4.97, SD = 2.20) than pre-test
scores (M = 3.59, SD = 2.03), t(33) = -2.88, p = 0.01. This means that there is sufficient evidence to
prove that the scores of 10E students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able
to grasp the concepts that they are expected to learn regarding protein synthesis.

Table 15. Difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of grade 10F (Experimental Group)
Variable Test Mean Standard Mean T value Sig
Deviation Difference
Grade 10F Pre-test 3.71 1.45 -2.60 -7.31 0.00
Students Post-test 6.31 1.73

Table 15 presents the difference of the pre-test and post-test scores of 10E. Grade 10F students who
studied about protein synthesis had a higher post-test scores (M = 6.31, SD = 1.73) than pre-test scores
(M = 3.71, SD = 1.45), t(34) = -7.31, p = 0.00. This means that there is sufficient evidence to prove
that the scores of 10F students significantly increased. This may also imply that they were able to
grasp the concepts that they are expected to learn regarding protein synthesis.

Table 16. Difference on pre-test scores of sections D, E, F. df = 104

Variable Sum of Squares F Value Sig
Pre-test Scores of 339.71 0.24 0.79
Sections D, E, F

Table 16 shows that there is no significant difference in the pre-test scores among the students from
Scetions D, E, and F. The F value of 0.24 with the corresponding probability value of 0.79 is not
significant at alpha = 0.05. This means that the students did not differ in terms of their pre-test scores
when they are grouped based on their sections. Furthermore, post hoc analysis via Bonferroni was
executed and it showed that there is no significant difference between the different sections.

Table 17. Difference on post-test scores of Sections D, E, F. df = 104

Variable Sum of Squares F Value Sig
Post-test Scores Scores 504.99 3.36 0.04
of Sections D, E, F

Table 17 shows that there is a significant difference in the post-test scores among the students from
Sections D, E, and F. The F value of 3.36 with the corresponding probability value of 0.04 is
significant at alpha = 0.05. This means that the students differed in terms of their post-test scores when

8
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

they are grouped based on their sections. Furthermore, post hoc analysis via Bonferroni was executed
and it showed that the significant difference lies between Sections E and F. This further implies that
students from Section F got a higher post-test score compared to Section E.

5. Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1 Conclusion
Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that in general there is a significant difference
between the pre-test and post-test scores of each class, as well as a significant difference between the
pre-test score and the post-test scores of the controlled and experimental group.

5.2 Implications and Recommendations

The following are implications and recommendations of the study based from the findings:
Since there is a significant difference for both of the classes which used blended learning at
different levels, teachers can provide online interactive activities that would allow the students to
understand better the concepts that are discussed in class.
Since there is a significant difference between the post-test scores of the controlled and
experimental group, teachers can structure their lesson plans in such a way that students could be
given more time to learn independently through interactive and collaborative activities and strategies.
Administrators and subject chairpersons can encourage the teachers to incorporate blended learning
in their respective unit plans. Further, they may encourage their teachers to do team teaching. Team
teaching in technology integration should be encouraged as to warrant collaboration among teachers. It
has been observed that students learn better from teachers who are willing to collaborate and learn
from each other. Through team teaching, teachers can share best practices with each other in terms of
exhausting the use of technology to the learning advantage of students.
Administrators may want to provide a workshop that will allow the teachers to deepen their
understanding about what blended instruction is and how it can be implemented. A sustainable
professional development program focusing on ICT-integration in teaching should be put in place. It
has been noticed that even if the school has made it part of its culture to use technology in teaching,
some teachers limit technology integration in PowerPoint presentations and film clips. Hence, the
researchers, recommend a continuous enhancement of teachers’ skills in deepening the use of
technology in the classroom become part of in-service trainings and learning sessions.
Since the researcher found limited literature and studies related to blended learning in Xavier
School, replication studies on different sets of population such as different science topics or other
grade levels may be done. A replication study may also be made by faculty members from other
schools to strengthen the results of the study.

References
[1] Ultranet and Digital Learning Branch. Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development March 2012 Blended Learning A Synthesis of Research Findings in Victorian
Education 2006-2011 (Melbourne: Neals)
[2] Brunner D L 2006 The potential of the Hybrid Course Vis-a-Vis Online and Traditional Courses
Faculty Publications – George Fox Evangelical Seminary 23 229-35
[3] Militaru G, Deselnicu D and Pollifroni M 2015 An exploratory study of student satisfaction: the
moderating role of digital technologies Proceedings of the 9th International Management
Conference 234–41
[4] Downie N M and Heath R H 1984 Basic Statistical Methods (New York: Harper and Bothers)
[5] Giesbers B, Rienties B, Tempelaar D T and Gijselaers W 2014 Why increased social presence
through web videoconferencing does not automatically lead to improved learning E-
Learning and Digital Media 11 31–45 https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.31
[6] Anon 2013 Definition of Blended Learning The Glossary of Education Reform
[7] S Abbott 2015 Hidden Curriculum The Glossary of Education Reform

9
The 7th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (SEADRIC 2019) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1470 (2020) 012052 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1470/1/012052

[8] Perrin C, Daniels S, Jefferson K, Blauth C, et al 2010 Developing the 21st Century Leader
(Florida: AchieveGlobal Incorporated)
[9] Pifarré M, Guijosa A and Argelagós E 2014 Using a blog to create and support a Community of
inquiry in secondary education E-Learning and Digital Media 11 72–87
https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.72
[10] Shehla M 2015 Blended Learning vs Traditional Classroom Settings International Journal of
Nursing 2 158–61 https://doi.org/10.15640/ijn.v2n1a17inquiry in secondary education E-
Learning and Digital Media 11 72–87 https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.72
[11] Shehla M 2015 Blended Learning vs Traditional Classroom Settings International Journal of
Nursing 2 158–61 https://doi.org/10.15640/ijn.v2n1a17

10