FACTORS AFFECTING STUDENTS’ DECISION TO DROP OUT IN

DISTANCE LEARNING DURING THE PANDEMIC

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Volume: 31
Issue 2
Pages: 228-234
Document ID: 2025PEMJ2953
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14729423
Manuscript Accepted: 12-31-2024
 Psych Educ, 2025, 31(2): 228-234, Document ID:2025PEMJ2953, doi:10.5281/zenodo.14729423, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Factors Affecting Students’ Decision to Drop Out in Distance Learning during the Pandemic
Real A. Baguin,* Ryan L. Cañedo, Richie P. Digal, Joan B. Gaudicos, Jolie Mae M. Gudelosao, Sheila
Mae N. Bojos, Miramar M. Serrion, Jovelyn M. Cantina, Mahal B. Rosel,
Abraham B. Bayron Jr., Mark Kevin E. Mayuga
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.
Abstract
In direct response to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable
quality education and promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all, this investigation assesses the contributing
factors to student attrition in distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic at Bohol Island State University-
Bilar Campus across the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 academic years. Recognizing education as a crucial lifeline,
particularly in crisis situations as emphasized by the United Nations Statistics Division, and its central role in economic
and social advancement, this study addresses pressing challenges such as increased dropout rates exacerbated by the
pandemic, especially in developing countries. The research objectives are threefold: to gauge the extent of
technological, familial, personal, and course-related factors influencing students' decision to discontinue distance
learning; to examine the variance in these factors relative to student demographics; and to determine the predictive
significance of student profiles on these dimensions. Methodologically, the study utilizes a rigorously pilot-tested
survey, analyzing the data through a combination of descriptive and inferential statistics—including weighted means
and MANOVA—to uncover that technological constraints and familial issues are predominant determinants for
dropout, whereas personal inclinations and course-related factors hold moderate significance. Results indicate that
factors such as unreliable internet connectivity, economic hardships, and a preference for traditional classroom settings
were prevalent among respondents who also experienced heightened stress and anxiety. The study reveals no
predictive relationship between age or gender and the likelihood of dropout, thereby reinforcing the necessity for more
nuanced, multidimensional strategies to mitigate educational disruption and uphold the ideals set by SDG 4.
Keywords: multivariate analysis, technological factors, family factors, course-related factors

Introduction
Amidst the backdrop of the United Nations' ambitious Sustainable Development Goal 4, which champions the cause of providing
equitable and quality education to ensure lifelong learning opportunities for all, the global educational fabric faced an unprecedented
test with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. As education stands as a lifeline for children in crisis, per the United Nations
Statistics Division, and serves as a keystone for economic and social development, the pandemic has significantly magnified the already
critical issue of school dropouts, particularly in developing nations. The abrupt transition to online classes, or the "new normal," has
proven challenging for many college students at Bohol Island State University-
Bilar Campus, leading to a noticeable trend in their unwillingness to adapt to the new learning milieu and culminating in heightened
dropout rates. Understanding the nuances behind these dropout decisions is critical—it provides insights into the students' psyche
during a crisis, helps stakeholders comprehend the barriers to education, and enables the design of interventions that address these
challenges within our educational systems, remaining faithful to the global commitment of SDG 4.
The current means of accessing education is virtual via online classes, or the new normal. This strategy may be reasonably new to the
current situation—the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the researchers observed that many college students struggled with how to
adjust to and adopt their new learning environment and became unwilling to enroll, which led them to drop out amidst the pandemic.
The need to address these emerging circumstances is essential. It lets us know the reasons behind the student’s decision to drop out,
will help us understand their disposition, and might help in defying grounds for this problem in our society.
Dropout is one of the most analyzed topics in higher education institutions (HEIs), which is a concern for the continuity of online
courses (Mubarak, Cao, & Zhang, 2022). The expected high drop-out rates would highlight the difference between students who can
afford devices like laptops, cellular phones, and a reliable internet connection compared to other students who cannot afford equipment
suitable for online classes.
According to the survey conducted by Desire 2 Learn (D2L), more than half of the learners in the Philippines are likely to drop out of
school until the coronavirus pandemic ends, mostly due to the problems and difficulties with technology for distance learning. It reveals
that 51% of respondents decided to postpone their education until face-to-face instruction is allowed. The primary concerns of students
with distance learning were: internet connectivity (78%), concentration and lack of motivation to learn (66%), finding a suitable home
learning environment (58%), managing learning with other commitments (47%), and problems with mental health and wellness (43%).
As previously mentioned, college students have been dropping out or refusing to enroll in distance learning. The present study aims to
identify the technological, family, personal, and course-related factors that can influence students' decisions to drop out of distance

Baguin et al. 228/234

 Psych Educ, 2025, 31(2): 228-234, Document ID:2025PEMJ2953, doi:10.5281/zenodo.14729423, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

learning during the pandemic. The result of the study may serve as a basis for teachers if they have plans to develop drop-out
intervention and prevention strategies or programs to address the different challenges faced by students during online classes, as well
as to provide recommendations based on the data gathered.
Research Questions
The primary goal of this study was to identify the factors that led students at Bohol Island State University-Bilar Campus to drop out
of their distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic in the academic years 2020–2021 and 2021–2022. Specifically, this study
answered the following research objectives:
1. Determine the level of the factors affecting students’ decision to drop out of distance learning in terms of:
1.1. technological
1.2. family
1.3. personal
1.4. course-related factors
2. Determine the test of the difference of the four-dimension factors when grouped according to the student’s profile.
3. Identify which of the students’ profiles significantly affect the four-dimension factors.
Methodology
Research Design
The study utilized a descriptive survey design.
Respondents
The study's respondents were 52 dropped-out BISU Bilar-Campus students during the academic years 2020–2021 and 2021–2022. The
selection of these respondents was done using purposive sampling, focusing specifically on students who had discontinued their studies
during the aforementioned periods. This method ensured that the participants were directly relevant to the study's objectives.
Instrument
The study employed a modified survey questionnaire designed to identify the factors influencing students' decisions to drop out of
distance learning during the pandemic. These factors were categorized into: (a) technological factors; (b) family factors; (c) personal
factors; and (d) course-related factors. The survey instrument underwent pilot testing at BISU Bilar Campus to assess its reliability and
validity. The Cronbach's Alpha results for each section of the questionnaire were as follows: Technological factors (α=0.838), Family
factors (α=0.872), Personal factors (α=0.843), and Course-related factors (α=0.845). These results indicate a high level of internal
consistency for the questionnaire.
Procedure
After conducting the pre-test and validating the instrument, the researchers sent a letter of request to the chairperson and dean of the
College of Teacher Education. And after that, the researchers sent a letter to all the class mayors requesting the list of dropped-out
students from their section. Next, the researchers administered the research instrument through Google Forms to the target respondents.
The gathered data was processed systematically to assure its validity and reliability.
Data Analysis
A simple percentage formula, mode and multivariate analysis were used to treat the gathered data.
Ethical Considerations
Respondents were provided with voluntary and informed consent to participate in the study. They were provided with all relevant
information about the study, including its purpose, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time. Their personal information and
data collected during the study should be kept confidential and stored securely. Researchers should ensure that respondents' privacy is
protected, and data should be anonymized.
Results and Discussion
Table 1 shows the factors that influenced students' decisions to drop out of distance learning during the pandemic. The survey findings
indicate that technological factors have a significant impact on distance learning participation. The strongest agreements were observed
for the lack of internet connection and the inability to adapt to the distance learning system, both rated as "strongly agree." Additionally,
issues such as insufficient computer knowledge and skills, unsuitable gadgets, infrastructure problems, and technical difficulties were
predominantly agreed upon, with an overall rating of "high" for the impact of technological challenges. These findings suggest that
addressing these barriers is crucial for improving the effectiveness and accessibility of distance education programs.
This further implies that during the implementation of online learning, respondents' primary concern is the lack of high-speed internet

Baguin et al. 229/234

 Psych Educ, 2025, 31(2): 228-234, Document ID:2025PEMJ2953, doi:10.5281/zenodo.14729423, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

to attend online classes, particularly those students living in rural areas. It demonstrates how students with poor internet connections
are left behind in online learning, which may cause them to stop attending classes. Lack of access to technology is just one reason
students are struggling with distance learning.
This finding is supported by the study of Agung, Surtikanti, and Quinones (2020), in which they stated that teachers and students faced
challenges in online classes and identified one of the various reasons, which is a lack of internet connection. Challenges in learning
technology are the key challenges not only faced by students but also by teachers on how to use technology for teaching (Rasheed,
Kamsin, and Abdullah, 2020).
Table 1. Factors Affecting Students’ Decision to Drop out in Distance Learning during the Pandemic:
Technological factors
Technological Factors 5 4 3 2 1 Mode DI
1. Lack of internet connection 22 18 7 3 2 5 SA
2. I don’t have enough computer knowledge and skills 12 18 14 5 3 4 A
3. Unsuitable gadgets (e.g. laptop, tablet, computer) or other technologies to use to 16 23 5 4 4 4 A
complete the course.
4. Problem of infrastructure to participate online class 11 21 13 6 1 4 A
5. I experienced too many technical issues/difficulties 11 27 9 4 1 4 A
6. I couldn’t adapt the distance learning education system 18 17 6 7 1 5 SA
Overall 4 H
Legend: 5 – Strongly Agree (SA), Very High (VH); 4 – Agree (A), High (H); 3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree (NanD), Average (Ave); 2 – Disagree (D), Low (L);
1 – Strongly Disagree (SD), Very Low (VL)

The family factors survey result in Table 2 indicates that various familial challenges significantly impact individuals' ability to engage
in their education. The respondents largely agreed that financial problems, lack of parental support or encouragement, responsibilities
at home leading to leaving education, and the need to find employment to support their families were prevalent issues, with a
particularly strong agreement on the need to find a job. Additionally, respondents agreed that family problems and interruptions from
family members during online classes were common occurrences. The overall rating of "high" for the impact of family factors suggests
that these challenges are substantial and pervasive.
These findings highlight the importance of considering family dynamics and responsibilities when designing educational programs and
support systems. Addressing these challenges may require interventions such as financial assistance, parental education and
involvement initiatives, flexible learning options, and strategies to minimize interruptions during remote learning sessions. Overall,
recognizing and addressing these family-related barriers is essential for promoting equitable access to education and supporting students
in achieving their academic goals despite familial challenges. The study by Heublein (2014) supported the result, which claims that
one of the reasons why students drop out of higher education is that they have a financial problem in their studies.
Table 2. Factors Affecting Students’ Decision to Drop out in Distance Learning during the Pandemic:
Family factors
Family Factors 5 4 3 2 1 Mode DI
1. I had financial problems 16 26 5 3 2 4 SA
2. Lack of support/encouragement from parents. 7 15 10 13 7 4 A
3. I had to leave because of responsibilities at home. 12 22 7 7 4 4 A
4. I need to find job to support my family 14 12 12 10 4 5 SA
5. My family did not give me enough time to complete my school activities at 7 13 16 10 6 3 NAnD
home.
6. Family problems. 13 14 10 8 7 4 A
7. At home, there is interruption of family members during online class 12 17 11 5 7 4 A
Overall 4 H
Legend: 5 – Strongly Agree (SA), Very High (VH); 4 – Agree (A), High (H); 3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree (NanD), Average (Ave); 2 – Disagree (D), Low (L);
1 – Strongly Disagree (SD), Very Low (VL)

While respondents strongly disagreed with factors such as getting pregnant or impregnating someone and stopping education due to
marriage, they largely agreed that stress and anxiety, lack of personal motivation, being consistently late with assignments, leaving due
to learning difficulties, lack of time, and feeling isolated were prevalent issues, all rated as "Agree" or "Strongly Agree." Additionally,
there was a neutral stance regarding liking the home learning environment. The overall rating of "High" for the impact of personal
factors indicates that these challenges are substantial and impactful, as depicted in Table 3.
This means that personal factors have a moderate impact on students' decisions to drop out of distance learning during the pandemic.
It shows that during online learning, students' levels of stress and anxiety increase, which has a significant impact on their overall
performance as well as their physical and mental health. Due to the increase in academic workload, isolation, lack of engagement in
social activities, etc., the students are at risk of dropping out of the university if they can’t manage and handle their time.

Baguin et al. 230/234

 Psych Educ, 2025, 31(2): 228-234, Document ID:2025PEMJ2953, doi:10.5281/zenodo.14729423, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

These findings underscore the importance of addressing personal well-being and motivation in educational settings. Interventions such
as providing mental health support, motivation enhancement programs, time management strategies, and creating a supportive learning
environment are crucial for helping students overcome personal barriers to education. By recognizing and addressing these personal
challenges, educators and policymakers can create a more inclusive and supportive educational environment that fosters student success
and well- being. It was supported by the study of Sifat (2020), which claims that some psychological problems such as anxiety,
depression, frustration, and trauma affect students’ academic performance due to the strict implementation of physical distancing and
isolation during the pandemic.
Table 3. Factors Affecting Students’ Decision to Drop out in Distance Learning during the
Pandemic: Personal factors
Personal Factors 5 4 3 2 1 Mode DI
1. I got pregnant/I impregnated someone. 3 2 1 4 42 1 SD
2. I feel stress and anxious 16 19 9 5 3 4 A
3. Lack of personal motivation 14 16 12 5 5 4 A
4. I’m always late submitting my activities/assignment 15 10 10 11 6 5 SA
5. I left because I had learning difficulties. 9 16 12 8 7 4 A
6. I need to stop since I got married 4 1 4 2 42 1 SD
7. Lack of time 14 17 9 6 6 4 A
8. Feeling isolated 12 13 11 10 6 4 A
9. I don’t like my home learning environment 13 13 14 7 5 3 NAnD
Overall 4 H
Legend: 5 – Strongly Agree (SA), Very High (VH); 4 – Agree (A), High (H); 3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree (NanD), Average (Ave); 2 – Disagree (D), Low (L);
1 – Strongly Disagree (SD), Very Low (VL)

The fourth-dimension factor is course-related concerns. As displayed in Table 4, respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with
statements regarding the lack of social interactions between teachers and students, the lack of instructions or information from
instructors, the lack of feedback or communication from instructors, the instructor's teaching style, and the instructor's time allocation
for completing activities or tasks. This suggests that there is a sense of uncertainty among the participants regarding these factors.
However, there were strong agreements on preferring face-to-face classes and dissatisfaction with online learning modality, both rated
as "strongly agree." This indicates a clear preference for traditional classroom settings over online instruction.
These findings underscore the importance of considering student preferences and feedback when designing and delivering courses,
particularly in online learning environments. Addressing issues such as social interaction, clear instructions, feedback mechanisms,
and instructional styles may help improve student satisfaction and engagement in both online and face-to-face learning settings. This
implies that course-related factors moderately influenced students' decisions to drop out of distance learning during the pandemic. The
result shows that the majority of the respondents preferred face-to-face classes to online classes. Face-to-face interactions between
teachers and students are more likely to be successful because they provide instant feedback. Many research studies have found that
face-to-face learning is more efficient and effective than other modes of teaching.
The result was supported by the study by Yunfei, Amir, Hani, Miranda, and Montgomery (2022), which stated that the students taking
the face-to-face course were generally more satisfied with the course in several dimensions than their online counterparts. Students’
level of satisfaction with face-to-face learning was significantly higher than online learning on all criteria. However, this may be in
conflict with the findings of Landrum's (2020) study, which revealed that students' confidence to learn online was the strongest positive
predictor of satisfaction and usefulness of online classes.
Table 4. Factors Affecting Students’ Decision to Drop out in Distance Learning during the Pandemic:
Course-related factors
Course-related Factors 5 4 3 2 1 Mode DI
1. Less of social interactions between teacher and students 10 13 20 6 3 3 NAnD
2. Lack of instructions/information from 10 15 17 7 3 3 NAnD
instructors
3. Lack of feedback/communication from instructors. 11 15 16 9 1 3 NAnD
4. I prefer face to face classes 30 11 8 2 1 5 SA
5. I am not satisfied in online learning modality 20 13 13 6 0 5 SA
6. My instructor did not give me enough time to complete my activities/tasks 3 5 20 15 9 3 NAnD
7. I don’t like the instructor’s teaching style. 5 7 14 13 13 3 NAnD
Overall 3 Ave
Legend: 5 – Strongly Agree (SA), Very High (VH); 4 – Agree (A), High (H); 3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree (NanD), Average (Ave); 2 – Disagree (D), Low (L);
1 – Strongly Disagree (SD), Very Low (VL)

Table 5 reflects the summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) results across ages. MANOVA was conducted to
determine whether there is a difference on technological, family, personal and course-related factors based on students’ ages. There is

Baguin et al. 231/234

 Psych Educ, 2025, 31(2): 228-234, Document ID:2025PEMJ2953, doi:10.5281/zenodo.14729423, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

no significant difference on the mentioned factors based on student ages (F(32, 149.108) =1.457, p = 0.070; Wilk’s lambda = 0.367,
partial eta squared = 0.222).
Furthermore, there is a significant effect of students’ age on technological and family factor, F(1, 43) = 2.778, p = 0.014, partial eta
squared = 0.341 and F(1, 43) = 3.916, p = 0.002, partial eta squared = 0.421. However, there is no significant effect of student’s age
on personal and course-related factor, F(1, 43) = 1.822, p = 0.099, partial eta squared = 0.253 and F(1, 43) = 1.970, p = 0.074, partial
eta squared = 0.268.
Thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no difference in technological, family, personal, or course-related
factors based on students’ ages. According to the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), there is no significant difference in
technological, family, personal, or course-related factors based on students' ages. However, age does have a significant effect on
technological and family factors, while there is no significant impact on personal or course-related factors. In conclusion, while age
affects some factors, overall, it doesn't lead to significant differences in students' perceptions.
In the 2014 study by Simonds, T. A., and Brock, B. L., findings revealed distinct age-related preferences in learning modalities among
online learners. The study showed that older students exhibited a pronounced preference for viewing pre-recorded video lectures. This
preference suggests that older learners favor a more conventional, structured educational approach, possibly because these methods
mirror the traditional classroom environment, which they may find more reassuring and effective. This indicates a perception that
newer, less traditional online learning modalities may lack the structured learning framework they value. Conversely, younger students
displayed a strong inclination towards interactive learning strategies. This preference highlights younger learners' need for dynamic
and immersive online educational experiences that actively engage them. The study suggests that current online courses might not
consistently offer the level of interactivity and engagement necessary to meet the expectations and educational needs of younger
students. This discrepancy could impact the efficacy of online learning environments in catering to this demographic’s educational
preferences and requirements.
Table 5. Summary of MANOVA results across age
Independent Variables Dependent Variables Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Partial Eta Squared
Technological 11.029a 8 1.379 2.778 0.014 0.341
Corrected Model Family 18.879b 8 2.360 3.916 0.002 0.421
Personal 9.159c 8 1.145 1.822 0.099 0.253
Course-related 8.635d 8 1.079 1.970 0.074 0.268
Technological 337.145 1 337.145 679.230 0.000 0.940
Intercept Family 289.163 1 289.163 479.801 0.000 0.918
Personal 231.008 1 231.008 367.576 0.000 0.895
Course-related 263.756 1 263.756 481.268 0.000 0.918
Technological 11.029 8 1.379 2.778 0.014* 0.341
Age Family 18.879 8 2.360 3.916 0.002* 0.421
Personal 9.159 8 1.145 1.822 0.099 0.253
Course-related 8.635 8 1.079 1.970 0.074 0.268
Technological 21.344 43 0.496
Error Family 25.915 43 0.603
Personal 27.024 43 0.628
Course-related 23.566 43 0.548
Technological 785.078 52
Total Family 654.033 52
Personal 508.935 52
Course-related 628.029 52
*p-value is significant @ 0.05

Table 6 depicts the summary of MANOVA results between male and female. MANOVA was conducted to determine whether there is
a difference between male and female on technological, family, personal and course-related factors. Based on the result, there is no
significant difference between male and female on the mentioned factors (F(4, 47) =1.426, p= 0.240; Wilk’s lambda = 0.892, partial
eta squared = 0.108). In addition, there is a significant effect of sex on technological factor, F(1, 50) = 5.675, p = 0.021, partial eta
squared = 0.102. However, there is no significant effect of sex on family, personal and course-related factor, F(1, 50) = 3.124, p =
0.083, partial eta squared = 0.059; F(1, 50) = 3.744, p = 0.059, partial eta squared = 0.070 and F(1,50) = 1.660, p = 0.204, partial eta
squared = 0.032.
Thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no difference between males and females in technological, family,
personal, or course-related factors. The MANOVA analysis between male and female students indicates that there is no significant
difference in technological, family, personal, or course-related factors overall. However, the technological factor alone makes a
significant difference. This suggests that while male and female students differ in their perceptions of technology, they do not

Baguin et al. 232/234

 Psych Educ, 2025, 31(2): 228-234, Document ID:2025PEMJ2953, doi:10.5281/zenodo.14729423, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

significantly differ in other areas. Consequently, the null hypothesis is retained, indicating no substantial difference between male and
female students across the examined factors.
Table 6. Summary of MANOVA results across sex
Independent Variables Dependent Variables Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Partial Eta Squared
Technological 3.300a 1 3.300 5.675 0.021 0.102
Corrected Model Family 2.634b 1 2.634 3.124 0.083 0.059
Personal 2.521c 1 2.521 3.744 0.059 0.070
Course-related 1.035d 1 1.035 1.660 0.204 0.032
Technological 755.427 1 755.427 1299.17 0.000 0.963
Intercept Family 611.421 1 611.421 725.131 0.000 0.935
Personal 474.710 1 474.710 705.100 0.000 0.934
Course-related 596.856 1 596.856 957.540 0.000 0.950
Technological 3.300 1 3.300 5.675 0.021* 0.102
Sex Family 2.634 1 2.634 3.124 0.083 0.059
Personal 2.521 1 2.521 3.744 0.059 0.070
Course-related 1.035 1 1.035 1.660 0.204 0.032
Technological 29.073 50 0.581
Error Family 42.159 50 0.843
Personal 33.663 50 0.673
Course-related 31.166 50 0.623
Technological 785.078 52
Total Family 654.033 52
Personal 508.935 52
Course-related 628.029 52
*p-value is significant @ 0.05

A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to determine whether age and sex predicted the outcome variable. In table 7, the
result indicated that age and sex were not a predictor of students’ decisions to drop out of distance learning during the pandemic. Both
variables were determined to not significantly contribute to the predictive model.
These findings suggest that neither age nor sex significantly impacts the dependent variable in this context. This implies that other
variables not included in the model may be more influential predictors. Researchers and practitioners should explore additional factors
or consider broader contextual influences to better understand the outcomes under investigation. Moreover, the lack of significant
results highlights the need for further studies with larger, more diverse samples to verify these findings and uncover meaningful
relationships.
Table 7. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis examining age and sex as predictors of
students’ decisions to drop out of distance learning during the pandemic
Model Unstandardized Coefficient Standardized T P-value Remarks
Coefficient
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.965 1.532 1.283 0.206
Age 0.096 0.066 0.223 1.453 0.153 Not
Sex -0.205 0.227 -0.133 -0.906 0.370 Predictors
*p-value is significant @ 0.05

Conclusions
The study's findings suggest that a significant portion of respondents encountered various challenges contributing to their decision to
drop out of distance learning during the pandemic. These challenges encompassed technological barriers such as inadequate internet
connectivity, familial issues such as financial constraints, personal struggles including stress and anxiety, and course-related factors
such as a preference for face-to-face instruction. The prevalence of these challenges highlights the significant obstacles that dropout
students face in striving to complete their higher education through distance learning.
To address these challenges, several key recommendations emerge from the study: Enhancing technological infrastructure and offering
technical training programs are crucial to overcoming the technological barriers students face. Financial and family support systems,
along with mental health and counseling services, should be strengthened to assist students in managing financial difficulties and
personal struggles. Increasing flexibility in learning options and improving course design and delivery can make distance learning more
accessible and engaging. Finally, fostering community and social interaction among students can alleviate feelings of isolation and
enhance their overall learning experience. These recommendations are essential steps in reducing dropout rates and supporting students
in successfully completing their education through distance learning.

Baguin et al. 233/234

 Psych Educ, 2025, 31(2): 228-234, Document ID:2025PEMJ2953, doi:10.5281/zenodo.14729423, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

References
Adnan, M., Habib, A., Ashraf, J., & Khan, S. U. (2021). Predicting at-risk students at different percentages of course length for early
intervention using machine learning models. IEEE Access, 9, 4167-4178. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3049446
Agung, A. S. N., Surtikanti, M. W., & Quinones, C. A. (2020). Students' perception of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A
case study on the English students of STKIP Pamane Talino. Soshum: Jurnal Sosial Dan Humaniora, 10(2), 225-235.
https://doi.org/10.31940/soshum.v10i2.1316
Akuratiya, D. A., & Meddage, D. N. R. (2020). Students' perception of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A survey study
of IT students. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 4(9), 755.
Aldowah, H., Al-Samarraie, H., Alzahrani, A. I., & Aldawan, N. (2020). Factors affecting student dropout in MOOCs: A cause-and-
effect decision-making model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32, 429-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019- 09241-y
Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., & del Rosario, L. S. (2021). Students' online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope
with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7321-7338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
021-10589-x
Cherry, K. (2021). Self-determination theory and motivation. Very Well Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-self-
determination-theory-2795387
Mubarak, A. A., Cao, H., & Zhang, W. (2020). Prediction of students' early dropout based on their interaction logs in online learning
environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1414-1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1727529
Philippine Star. (2021, June 23). Half of PHL students consider putting off school amid pandemic. https://www.bworldonline.com/the-
nation/2021/06/23/377499/half-of-phl- students-consider-putting-off-school-amid-pandemic/
Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review.
Computers & Education, 144, Article 103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701
Simonds, T. A., & Brock, B. L. (2014). Relationship between age, experience, and student preference for types of learning activities
in online courses. The Journal of Educators Online, 11(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2014.1.3
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Real A. Baguin
Bohol Island State University – Philippines
Ryan L. Cañedo
Bohol Island State University – Philippines
Richie P. Digal
Bohol Island State University – Philippines
Joan B. Gaudicos
Bohol Island State University – Philippines
Jolie Mae M. Gudelosao
Bohol Island State University – Philippines
Sheila Mae N. Bojos
Bohol Island State University– Philippines
Miramar M. Serrion
Biliran Province State University – Philippines
Jovelyn M. Cantina
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – Philippines
Mahal B. Rosel
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – Philippines
Abraham B. Bayron Jr.
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – Philippines
Mark Kevin E. Mayuga
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – Philippines

Baguin et al. 234/234