CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

This chapter will discuss the background and significance of this study, as well as

the researchers' reasons for conducting it and its primary objective. It will also provide

information regarding the most effective mode of instruction for this study.

The researchers study is entitled "Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of

Learning Modalities of BSIE students with the subject Basic Accounting in UC Main

Campus”. Learning modalities, also known as learning styles, are a way to identify the

main senses that influence learning so that learning environments can be created to suit

those needs. Understanding an individual's major learning type can be quite important for

their growth. In this study, we will determine the effectiveness of learning modalities of

BSIE students of University of Cebu Main Campus. The type of learning modality that

we will focus on is face to face learning method and online learning method.

This study will take place at University of Cebu Main Campus. The subjects for

this study will be the selected BSIE students and the subject matter for this study will be

their learning modality in the Basic Accounting subject.

Psychologist Daniel T. Willingham (2018) stated that all students, learn more

when content drives the choice of modality. Content refers to the material, or what the

student is learning. The modality that best fits the content is how the student learns. This

1
means that students learn best when the modality fits the content, or the subject matter to

be learned.

Dr. Phyllis Olmstead (2022) stated that learning styles or learning modalities

include; participatory, tactile, kinesthetic, visual, auditory. She and many learners she has

taught and met have indicated that they are participatory learners. Some people tend to

lean to one style or another and use other styles less.

The general objective of this study is to gather the accurate data and be tested

statistically, in order to attain the goal and to provide an answer to the statement of the

problem whether the comparative study would improve the effectiveness of learning

modalities of the selected respondents.

The general purpose of this study is to provide reliable and accurate data to be

gathered from the respondents on whether the comparative study would improve the

effectiveness of learning modalities of the selected respondents and also to give

clarification and to verify and justify its connections.

McGovern (2004) observed some key contrasts between learning online and in a

typical classroom setting. Online courses allow students to learn asynchronously rather

than requiring them to be present at a specific time and place.

Sipes and Ricciardi (2006) investigated the differences between online and

traditional education and concluded that the most significant distinction is that online

training is student-centered while traditional courses are instructor-centered. Sugar,

Martindale and Crawley (2007) investigated the difficulty of mode transitioning. Turball

2
(2002) described his experience converting an in-person education to an online format.

He emphasizes that the process transforms the instructor into a facilitator, making it

difficult to maintain active learning.

A student-centered approach is one method for fostering greater stability between

the teacher and the pupil, both of whom play a vital role in the learning process. While

teachers retain authority, they now function more as facilitators, coaching students and

supporting their learning (Lathan, 2021). For this technique to be effective, instructors

must consider the preferred learning styles of their students. Adapting to this method will

be simpler for students who recognize their learning styles.

According to Busilaoco et al. (2014), learning styles play a significant role in how

instructors demonstrate students' comprehension of the material. Rezaeinejad (2015)

conducted a study on learning styles and how they relate to academic success among

Iranian high school students, and he found that by being aware of the students' learning

preferences, teachers can deliver lessons in a way that makes them easier to comprehend,

use a variety of teaching techniques, and help students achieve academic success.

Sandro Bali and MC Liu (2018), the implications of online learning versus face-

to-face learning have been discussed for several years in higher education. This study

examined the issues of student perception toward online learning and face-to-face

learning in the context of social presence, social interaction, and satisfaction. The

comparison of the online group and the face-to-face group conducted to explore student-

learning perceptions regardless of the course delivery method and the online

environment. The result of this study indicate that face-to-face learning perception was

3
higher than online learning in term of social presence, social interaction, and satisfaction.

However, there is no statistically significant difference in learning preference found

among level of student. Meanwhile, some students were very comfortable in online

learning since it led them to the chance to being innovative by using computer

technology.

Manuela Paechter and Brigitte Maier (2010), the students completed a

questionnaire on their experiences attending an e-learning course, on their perceived

achievements, and on their preferences for online or face-to-face learning components.

Students appreciated online learning for its potential in providing a clear and coherent

structure of the learning material, in supporting self-regulated learning, and in

distributing information. They preferred face-to-face learning for communication

purposes in which a shared understanding has to be derived or in which interpersonal

relations are to be established. An especially important result concerns students'

perceptions of their learning achievements: When conceptual knowledge in the subject

matter or skills in the application of one's knowledge are to be acquired, students prefer

face-to-face learning. However, when skills in self-regulated learning are to be acquired,

students advocate online learning.

4
THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to address the gap in knowledge by conducting a comparative

analysis of the effectiveness of face-to-face classes and online learning in the context of

teaching Basic Accounting to BSIE students of University of Cebu Main Campus.

This study specifically addresses the following questions:

1. What are the differences between the learning outcomes of BSIE students who

took Basic Accounting face-to-face versus online?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face and online learning

for BSIE students learning Basic Accounting?

3. Which one is better preferred by the students online learning or traditional in-

person teaching or face-to-face setup?

5
Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: Students who attend traditional classroom lectures will have higher

academic performance in Basic Accounting subject compared to those who take online

classes.

Hypothesis 2: Students who take online classes for Basic Accounting subject will

have higher academic performance compared to those who attend traditional classroom

lectures.

Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in the academic performance of

BSIE students in Basic Accounting subject between those who attend traditional

classroom lectures and those who take online classes.

6
Significance of the Study

Our study entitled “Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Learning

Modalities of BSIE students with the subject Basic Accounting in UC Main Campus” we

will investigate to see if the BSIE students' Basic Accounting subject at UC Main

Campus can be learned effectively using face-to-face learning and online learning.

This study will benefit the following:

IE Department. It will help them analyze the effectiveness of learning modalities

of BSIE students on the subject of Basic Accounting.

School. It will help them realize if the comparative study of learning modalities is

effective with the subject Basic Accounting of BSIE students.

Teachers. It will help them to determine what approach to use when educating

their students about certain topics, as well as the effectiveness of the learning modalities

will have on BSIE students on Basic Accounting subject.

BSIE students. It will help them realize about their performances in school and

will help them determine if the learning modalities would be effective in their Basic

Accounting subject.

Researchers. It can help them to understand and realize the effectiveness of

learning modalities of BSIE students.

7
Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study focuses on comparing the efficacy of traditional classroom instruction

and online learning when it comes to teaching BSIE students the subject Basic

Accounting. A sample of BSIE students from the University of Cebu Main Campus will

participate in the study, and data will be collected through questionnaires and tests. The

study will also determine the effectiveness of the teaching strategies adopted in both

modalities.

This investigation has limitations that should be noted. Participation is limited to

BSIE students from the University of Cebu Main Campus, which may limit the

generalization of the results. Other Allied Engineering programs are not within the scope

of this study. Second, the research will rely on self-reported survey data. Thirdly, the

study will only evaluate the subject Basic Accounting, and the results may not be

pertinent to other subjects in the BSIE curriculum. Lastly, the study may not have been

able to account for all external factors that may affect learning outcomes, such as

individual differences in learning styles and motivation.

8
Definition of Terms

In order to establish a common understanding of the study, the following

terminologies were operationally defined.

Basic Accounting. An IE subject which is offered in the first semester in the

University of Cebu Main Campus. Basic Accounting refers to the process of recording a

company's financial transactions. It involves analyzing, summarizing and reporting these

transactions to regulators, oversight agencies and tax collection entities.

Face to Face Classes. Face-to-face learning is an instructional method where

course content and learning material are taught in person to a group of students. This

allows for a live interaction between a learner and an instructor. It is the most traditional

type of learning instruction.

Industrial Engineering. An engineering profession offered at University of Cebu

which applies science, mathematics, and engineering methods to optimize complex

system operations in an efficient and effective ways.

Learning Modality. Learning modality describes how (delivery mode) and when

(convening method) your class will meet. The delivery mode will tell you whether the

class will meet only online, in-person, or a mix of both.

Learning Outcome. Learning outcomes are measurable statements that articulate

at the beginning what students should know, be able to do, or value as a result of taking a

course or completing a program.

9
 Online Classes. An online class is a course conducted over the internet.

Profile of the Respondents. This refers to the respondent’s age, gender, strand

taken during senior high school, and specialized subjects.

University of Cebu. This refers to the locale of the study.

10
 CHAPTER 2

THEORITICAL BACKGROUND

Review of Related Literature

Online learning is a type of distance education that is mostly based on internet-

based education. Courses are either taught in real time (synchronously) or at the students

own pace (asynchronously), which is more like traditional distance education. In contrast,

traditional face-to-face learning is synchronous or real-time learning. In a physical

classroom, instructors interact with students in real time, whereas online instructors can

offer real time lectures through learning management systems (such as Blackboard

Collaborate) or capture the lectures for students to view later. Blended learning

incorporates traditional face-to-face classes with online learning and learning supported

by other technologies. purely online courses are offered exclusively online.

(Nguyen, 2015).

Moreover, designing online courses necessitates a number of factors. Examples

include the quality of the learning environment, the usability of the learning platform, the

intended learning outcomes, instructor support to assist and motivate students to engage

with the course material, peer interaction, class participation, and the nature of the

assessments. (Paechter & Maier, 2010), not to mention training for instructors to adopt

and implement new online education methods (Lundberg et al., 2008). Instructors

perform a larger role as learning facilitators in online education. Traditional face-to-face

classes, on the other hand, are structured so that the instructor can better assess students'

11
comprehension and interest, engage in class activities, and provide immediate feedback

on clarifying questions posed during class. In addition, traditional face-to-face seminars

may require less time to develop than online courses (Navarro, 2000).

Online education is also ideally suited for nontraditional students who require

flexibility due to employment or family obligations and who are not typically found in

the undergraduate student population (Arias et al., 2018). Initially, nontraditional students

belonged to the senior adult age group; however, as blended learning has become more

prevalent in high schools, colleges, and universities, online learning has begun to

encompass a broader age range. Traditional face-to-face classes are still preferable for

learners who lack self-reliance and the discipline to complete course material within the

required time frame (Arias et al., 2018).

Pure online and blended learning are deemed online learning for the purposes of

this review because the majority of the evidence compares these two categories to

traditional face-to-face learning. In academic literature, the debate between online

learning and face-to-face instruction remains contentious. Comparing the efficacy of

online learning on student performance versus the traditional F2F medium of instruction,

the literature reveals conflicting results (Lundberg et al., 2008; Nguyen, 2015). Several

studies conducted prior to the turn of the millennium reveal the phenomenon known

today in empirical literature as "No Significant Difference" [Russell & International

Distance Education Certificate Center (IDECC), 1999]. Russell and IDECC (1999)

conducted more than 350 comparative studies on online/distance learning vs. face-to-face

learning dating back to 1928. Overall, the author finds no significant difference between

12
online and traditional face-to-face classroom outcomes. In subsequent studies, similar "no

significant difference" findings are observed (Arbaugh, 2000; Fallah & Ubell, 2000;

Freeman & Capper, 1999; Johnson et al., 2000; Neuhauser, 2002). While Bernard et al.

(2004) also conclude that there is no significant difference in achievement between online

and face-to-face education, the study reveals significant heterogeneity in pupil

performance for different activities. The performance of students in face-to-face classes is

superior to that of students in synchronous online courses (i.e., courses that require online

students to partake in live sessions at specific times). However, asynchronous online

classes (classes in which students can access course materials at their own leisure)

perform better than face-to-face classes..

There is a correlation between the outcomes of online and in-person learning,

according to recent research. On the one hand, Shachar and Yoram (2003) and Shachar

and Neumann (2010) conduct a meta-analysis of studies from 1990 to 2009 and find that,

in 70% of instances, students enrolled in online education courses performed better than

students enrolled in traditionally instructed courses (i.e. lectures). Moreover, Navarro and

Shoemaker (2000) note that the learning outcomes of online learners are comparable to or

even superior to those of face-to-face learners, irrespective of their background

characteristics. Dutton et al. (2002) found in a study of computer science students that

online students perform significantly better than on-campus students taking the same

course. A meta-analysis conducted by the U.S. Department of Education reveals that, on

average, students who completed all or part of their course online outperformed those

who completed the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction. Means et al.

13
(2010) found that collaborative or instructor-led online learning produced larger effect

sizes than independent online learning.

In contrast, Brown and Liedholm (2002) found, based on the test scores of

American macroeconomics students, that F2F students tend to outperform online

students. Coates et al. (2004), who based their study on macroeconomics students in the

United States, and Xu and Jaggars (2014), who found negative effects for online students

using a data set of approximately 500,000 courses taken by more than 40,000 students in

Washington, support these findings. In addition, Almatra et al. (2015) compare the

aggregate course grades of online and face-to-face students in a Telecommunications

course and find that face-to-face students perform significantly better. In an experimental

study in which students are randomly assigned to attend live lectures or view the same

lectures online, Figlio et al. (2013) find some evidence that the traditional format is

superior to the online format. Intriguingly, Callister and Love (2016) explicitly compare

the learning outcomes of online versus face-to-face skills-based courses and find that,

despite using the same technology, F2F learners earned better outcomes than online

learners. This study demonstrates that the nature of the course may influence some of the

distinctions between online and face-to-face learning: theory-based courses may be less

influenced by in-person interaction than skills-based courses.

Most of the reviewed studies on the effects of face-to-face versus online learning

on student performance were conducted in developed countries, indicating that similar

research is scarce in developing countries. This gap in the literature may also highlight an

essential point: online education in developing nations is still understudied. Therefore,

14
the closure in South Africa affords us the opportunity to contribute to the existing

literature within the context of a developing country.

Theoretical Framework

The argument of this study is what second year and third year BSIE students

preferred learning modalities. This research can be strongly supported by two theories:

Digital Learning Theory and Social Constructivism Theory.

Rebecca Koenig's Digital Learning Theory, the majority of college students and

academic staff appear to favor in-person instruction over online learning. According to

the students, that they prefer face-to-face learning situations largely or entirely. The

instructors, also preferred in-person instruction even more.

According to the Social Constructivism Theory, students are prioritized over

teachers. When students actively construct their own understanding through face-to-face

social engagement with their peers, they learn most effectively. They are encouraged to

come up with their own answers and test out theories. Facilitating the process of the

students' learning about a specific topic is the instructor's role. Students should be able to

practice their skills in knowledge development through the design and structuring of

learning activities by instructors.

These theoretical frameworks established that college students, learn more, are

more motivated, and feel more confident in a face-to-face learning. When such abilities

15
and environments are developed, they frequently interact. There can be a range of

activities available for pupils to take part in.

Conceptual Framework

ONLINE
BACKGROUND
CLASS

INTEREST

EFFECTIVENESS OF
LEARNING
LEVEL OF
STUDY HABITS MODALITIES FOR PERFORMANCE IN
BSIE STUDENS IN BASIC
ACCOUNTING
THE SUJECT BASIC
ACCOUNTING

PERSONALITY TRAITS

FACE-TO-FACE

TEACHING SKILLS CLASS

INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework

16
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Environment

The researchers chose University of Cebu Main Campus located at Sanciangko

St., Cebu City, 6000 Philippines as their research setting due to its accessibility.

University of Cebu is a non-profit private higher education institution founded in 1964

and was owned by a well-known and well-respected attorney. It currently has four urban

campuses.

University of Cebu undergraduate has eight colleges, namely: College of

Engineering, College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, College of Computer

Studies, College of Criminal Justice, College of Business and Accountancy, College of

Customs Administration, College of Liberal Arts, and College of Teacher Education. It

also provides free internet access to everyone for limited duration of thirty minutes only.

Appendix C shows the demographic location of the institution.

Research Respondents

The researchers’ respondents were second and third year BSIE students of the

University of Cebu Main Campus who had their Basic Accounting through face to face

classes and online classes, respectively. The researchers chose these respondents because

they could easily coordinate with them since they came from the same institution.

Researchers went personally to the classroom of the respondents to explain briefly the

17
content of the questionnaire for them to better understand and answer the questions

accurately, and provide some instructions for those who answered via email in google

docs.

The respondents of the study were the second and third year BSIE students who

were able to enroll and finish the subject Basic Accounting. There were twenty (20)

second year respondents and twenty (20) third year respondents with the total of forty

(40) respondents. The respondents were selected were those who are easily accessible or

readily available to participate in the study. In this case, the researchers have chosen 20

students from each year level who were enrolled in the respective learning modalities

(face-to-face and online classes).

Research Instruments

In this study, the researchers used printed questionnaires that were provided to the

respondents. The questionnaire is composed of different sets of questions that is

answerable by 5 - strongly agree, 4 - disagree, 3 - neutral, 2 - agree , 1 - strongly agree.

Research Procedure

The flow of this research focuses on three steps:

Step 1. Two learning modalities which are online class and face to face class and

what is the more preferred on the second year and third year BSIE students on the subject

Basic Accounting.

18
 Step 2. Through the Letter of Approval, the respondents were specifically asked

for their consent.

Step 3. The researchers then proceeded on giving out the questionnaires. After

collecting the answered questionnaire and data needed, the researchers tabulated the data

to determine what is the preferred learning modality and what is the most effective

between face to face class and online class.

Model Specification

The level of academic performance in the subject Basic Accounting in the context

of Learning Modalities may it through online and face-to-face is being measured by the

researchers. To make them analyzed, these variables were then presented in a systematic

way, clear and concise manner along with a discussions of the limitations and

implications of the findings. The data was then entered for analysis, where a quantitative

data analysis will be conducted to examine the correlations between online and face-to-

face learning modalities.

19
Treatment of Data

Table 1: Interpretation of the Weighted Mean Scores

SCALE RANGE VERBAL INTERPRETATION

5 4.01-5.00 Strongly Disagree

4 3.01-4.00 Disagree

3 2.01-3.00 Neutral

2 1.01-2.00 Agree

1 0.01-1.00 Strongly Agree

Statistical Treatment

Data analysis was made after tallying and tabulating the responses of the

respondents to the questionnaires. The treatment of data was done through the use of the

following:

Frequency Distribution. Used to determine the student’s academic performance

in Basic Accounting and it was also used to determine the level of academic performance

of the respondents.

Simple Percentage. Used to determine the profile of the respondents in terms of

age, gender and learning modality.

Scoring Procedure. After the administration of the instrument, the frequency of

the responses was tallied and tabulated. To determine the level of academic performance

of the respondents in Basic Accounting through Online Class and Face-to-Face, five

20
categories were applied to each performance test namely Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral,

Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.

Weighted Mean. This formula was used to compute the student-related factor,

teacher-related factor, and level of academic performance.

Profile of the Respondents

The profile of the respondents under this study consists of age, gender, and

learning modality. Table 2 shows the distribution of the respondents’ profile according

to: age, gender, and learning modality. Frequencies are shown with their corresponding

proportions in percentage.

21
 Table 2: Profile of the Respondents

Age f %

18 1 2.50

19 2 5

20 5 12.5

21 12 30

22 15 37.5

23 5 12.5

TOTAL 40 100.00

Gender F %

Male 15 37.5

Female 25 62.5

TOTAL 40 100.00

Learning Modality f %

Online Class 20 50

Face-to-Face 20 50

TOTAL 40 100.00

Based on the table above, it shows that of the forty (40) respondents, fifteen (15)

respondents or thirty-seven point five percent (37.5%) belongs to age 22 who got the

highest number of respondents which was followed by age 21 with twelve (12)

respondents (30%), and then age 19 with two (2) respondents (5%), while only one (1)

respondent or two point five percent (2.5%) belongs to age 18 who was the least number

22
of respondent. It depicts that the majority of the respondents belong to the expected age

22 at University of Cebu taking Bachelor of Scince in Industrial Engineering.

It reveals that the respondents of this study were dominated by females. It shows

that twenty-five respondents with percent (62.5%) were female respondents while fifteen

(15) respondents with thirty-seven point five percent (37.5%) were male respondents. It

depicts that most of the respondents were females.

23
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As per data below in Table 3, the strongest indicator in Interest of Student Related

Factors (Online Class) was “I seek individual help from my instructor when I get

confused with the lessons” with average weighted mean of two point eighty-five (2.95).

The overall weighted mean was two point seventy-seven (2.65) that was interpreted as

“neutral”.

Table 3: Student Related Factor (Online Class)

A. Interest

Indicator Weighted Rank

Mean

1. I make myself prepared for Basic Accounting 2.75 3

subject.

2. I understand the purpose and objectives of learning 2.50 3

Basic Accounting.

3. I listen attentively and showed genuine interest 2.45 3

during the lecture.

4. I assure to have good and passing grade on 2.60 3

seatworks, assignments, quizzes, and major exams.

5. I seek individual help from my instructor when I get 2.95 3

confused with the lessons.

Overall Weighted Mean 2.65 Neutral

24
 As per data below in Table 4, the strongest indicator in Interest of Student Related

Factors (Face to Face Class) were “I understand the purpose and objectives of learning

Basic Accounting and I listen attentively and showed genuine interest during lecture”

with average weighted mean of two point eighty-five (2.85). The overall weighted mean

was two point seventy-seven (2.77) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 4: Student Related Factor (Face to Face Class)

A. Interest

Indicator Weighted Rank

Mean

1.I make myself prepared for Basic Accounting 2.70 3

subject.

2. I understand the purpose and objectives of learning 2.85 3

Basic Accounting.

3. I listen attentively and showed genuine interest 2.85 3

during the lecture.

4. I assure to have good and passing grade on 2.80 3

seatworks, assignments, quizzes, and major exams.

5. I seek individual help from my instructor when I get 2.65 3

confused with the lessons.

Overall Weighted Mean 2.77 Neutral

25
 As per data below in Table 5, the strongest indicator in Learning Skills of Student

Related Factors (Online Class) was “I easily cope up during the start of discussion in

Basic Accounting” with average weighted mean of three point zero five (3.05). The

overall weighted mean was two point sixty-two (2.62) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 5: Student Related Factor (Online Class)

B. Learning Skills

Indicator Weighted Rank

Mean

1. I easily cope up during the start of discussion in 3.05 4

Basic Accounting

2. I can easily understand the lessons. 2.50 3

3 I devote sufficient study time to the subject 2.55 3

4. I learn with the intention of remembering. 2.65 3

5. I understand the lecture and classroom discussion 2.35 3

while I am taking notes

Overall Weighted Mean 2.62 Neutral

26
 As per data below in Table 6, the strongest indicator in Learning Skills of Student

Related Factors (Face to Face Class) was “I can easily understand the lessons” with

average weighted mean of two point ninety (2.90). The overall weighted mean was two

point sixty-eight (2.68) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 6: Student Related Factor (Face to Face Class)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

B. Learning Skills

1. I easily cope up during the start of discussion in 2.80 3

Basic Accounting.

2. I can easily understand the lessons. 2.90 3

3. I devote sufficient study time to the subject 2.55 3

4. I learn with the intention of remembering. 2.60 3

5. I understand the lecture and classroom discussion 2.55 3

while I am taking notes

Overall Weighted Mean 2.68 Neutral

27
 As per data below in Table 7, the strongest indicator in Study Habit of Student

Related Factors (Online Class) was “I can make sure my vacant time will be utilized in

studying my lessons” with average weighted mean of two point seventy (2.70). The

overall weighted mean was two fifty (2.50) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 7: Student Related Factor (Online Class)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

C. Study Habit

1. I do assignments, projects, and activities regularly. 2.35 3

2. I exert more effort when I do difficult assignments or 2.35 3

activities.

3. I make sure my vacant time will be utilized in studying 2.70 3

my lessons.

4. I study in advance and the study the missed lessons 2.65 3

whenever I am absent.

5. I study harder to improve my performance when I get 2.45 3

low grades.

Overall Weighted Mean 2.50 Neutral

28
 Based on the data shown below in Table 8, “I study in advance and study the

missed lesson whenever I am absent” were rated as the strongest indicator in this

category with two point eighty (2.80) weighted mean and the overall weighted mean two

point sixty-four (2.64), that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 8: Student Related Factor (Face to Face)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

C. Study Habit

1. I do assignments, projects, and activities regularly. 2.55 3

2. I exert more effort when I do difficult assignments or 2.50 3

activities.

3. I make sure my vacant time will be utilized in studying 2.75 3

my lessons.

4. I study in advance and the study the missed lessons 2.80 3

whenever I am absent.

5. I study harder to improve my performance when I get 2.60 3

low grades.

Overall Weighted Mean 2.64 Neutral

29
 As per data below in Table 9, the strongest indicator in Study Environment of

Student Related Factors (Online Class) was “Our classroom is free from noise and other

visual distractions during class hours” with average weighted mean of three point twenty

(3.20). The overall weighted mean was two point eighty-two (2.82) that was interpreted

as “neutral”.

Table 9: Student Related Factor (Online Class)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

D. Study Environment

1. I study in a place free from auditory and visual 2.45 3

distractions.

2. I have a peaceful environment at home while learning 2.60 3

3. Our classroom is free from noise and other visual 3.20 4

distractions during class hours.

4. I was provided with many opportunities to interact 3.00 3

with fellow students and share and share our thoughts,

ask questions, etc.

5. Online classes makes it difficult for me to study since 2.85 3

I don’t have direct contact with my classmates and

teachers

Overall Weighted Mean 2.82 Neutral

30
 As per data below in Table 10, the strongest indicator in Study Environment of

Student Related Factors (Face to Face Class) was “Our classroom is free from noise and

other visual distractions during class hours” with average weighted mean of three point

ten (3.10). The overall weighted mean was two point seventy-one (2.71) that was

interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 10: Student Related Factor (Face to Face)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

D. Study Environment

1. I study in a place free from auditory and visual

2.65 3
distractions.

2. I have a peaceful environment at home while

2.65 3
learning

3. Our classroom is free from noise and other visual

3.10 3
distractions during class hours.

4. I was provided with many opportunities to interact

with fellow students and share and share our thoughts, 2.70 3

ask questions, etc.

5. Online classes makes it difficult for me to study

since I don’t have direct contact with my classmates 2.45 3

and teachers

Overall Weighted Mean 2.71 Neutral

31
 As per data below in Table 11, the strongest indicator in Learning Material Used

of Student Related Factors (Online Class) was “We have wifi/data/stable internet

connection for my online classes and we are provided textbooks or handouts in our face

to face discussions” with average weighted mean of two point eighty (2.80). The overall

weighted mean was two point sixty-eight (2.68) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 11: Student Related Factor (Online Class)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

E. Learning Material Used

1. I have my own cellphone/laptop that I can use in

2.55 3
my online classes(please specify gadget used)

2. We have wifi/ data / stable internet connection for

2.80 3
my online classes

3. We are provided textbooks or handouts in our face

2.80 3
to face discussions

4. I usually bring my notebooks for note taking 2.60 3

5. Others: (please specify)

Overall Weighted Mean 2.68 Neutral

32
 As per data below in Table 12, the strongest indicator in Learning Material Used

of Student Related Factors (Face to Face Class) was “We have wifi/data/stable internet

connection for my online classes” with average weighted mean of two point ninety

(2.90). The overall weighted mean was two point sixty-three (2.63) that was interpreted

as “neutral”.

Table 12: Student Related Factor (Face to Face)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

E. Learning material used

1. I have my own cellphone/laptop that I can use in

2.60 3
my online classes(please specify gadget used)

2. We have wifi/ data / stable internet connection for

2.90 3
my online classes

3. We are provided textbooks or handouts in our face

2.60 3
to face discussions

4. I usually bring my notebooks for note taking 2.45 3

5. Others: (please specify)

Overall Weighted Mean 2.63 Neutral

33
 As per data below in Table 13, the strongest indicator in Personality Traits of

Teacher Related Factor (Online Class) was “Has an appealing personality with good

sense of humor” with average weighted mean of two point foty-five (2.45). The overall

weighted mean was two point twenty-six (2.26) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 13: Teacher Related Factor (Online Class)

Indicator Weighted
Rank
Mean

F. Personality Traits

1.Has an appealing personality with good sense of humor. 2.45 3

2. Has a harmonious student-teacher relationship. 2.30 3

3. Imposes proper discipline and is not lenient in following

2.20 3
the prescribed rules.

4. Shows smartness, confidence and firmness in making

2.20 3
decisions.

5. Is open to suggestions and opinions and is worthy of

2.15 3
praise.

Overall Weighted Mean 2.26 Neutral

34
 As per data below in Table 14, the strongest indicator in Personality Traits of

Teacher Related Factor (Face to Face Class) was “Shows smartness confidence, and

firmness in making decisions” with average weighted mean of two point eighty-five

(2.65). The overall weighted mean was two point seventy-seven (2.50) that was

interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 14: Teacher Related Factor (Face to Face)

Indicator Weighted
Rank
Mean

F. Personality Traits

1.Has an appealing personality with good sense of humor. 2.50 3

2. Has a harmonious student-teacher relationship. 2.45 3

3. Imposes proper discipline and is not lenient in following

2.50 3
the prescribed rules.

4. Shows smartness, confidence and firmness in making

2.65 3
decisions.

5. Is open to suggestions and opinions and is worthy of

2.40 3
praise.

Overall Weighted Mean 2.50 Neutral

35
 As per data below in Table 15, the strongest indicator in Teaching Skills of

Teacher Related Factor (Online Class) was “Well prepared before teaching” with average

weighted mean of two point forty-five (2.45). The overall weighted mean was two point

thirty-eight (2.38) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 15: Teacher Related Factor (Online Class)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

G. Teaching Skills

1. Briefly explains the objectives of the lesson at the 2.35 3

start of each period.

2. Is confident and has mastery of the subject matter. 2.40 3

3. Well prepared before teaching 2.45 3

4. Able to make the subject interesting and motivate 2.35 3

students

5. Uses various strategies, teaching aids/devices, and 2.35 3

techniques in presenting the lessons.

Overall Weighted Mean 2.38 Neutral

36
 As per data below in Table 16, the strongest indicator in Teaching Skills of

Teacher Related Factor (Face to Face Class) were “Briefly explains the objective of the

lesson at the start of each period, Is confident and has mastery of the subject matter, and

Uses various strategies, teaching aids, devices, and techniques in presenting the lessons”

with average weighted mean of two point seventy-five (2.75). The overall weighted mean

was two point seventy (2.70) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 16: Teacher Related Factor (Face to Face)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

G. Teaching Skills

1. Briefly explains the objectives of the lesson at the 2.75 3

start of each period.

2. Is confident and has mastery of the subject matter. 2.75 3

3. Well prepared before teaching 2.60 3

4. Able to make the subject interesting and motivate 2.65 3

students

5. Uses various strategies, teaching aids/devices, and 2.75 3

techniques in presenting the lessons.

Overall Weighted Mean 2.70 Neutral

37
 As per data below in Table 17, the strongest indicator in Instructional Material of

Teacher Related Factor (Online Class) was “Chalk- talk technique is being applied” with

average weighted mean of two point eighty-five (2.85). The overall weighted mean was

two point sixty-five (2.65) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 17: Teacher Related Factor (Online Class)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

H. Instructional Material

1. Chalk-talk technique is being applied. 2.85 3

2. Workbooks/Textbooks 2.50 3

3. PowerPoint presentations (visual aids) 2.65 3

4. Scholarly articles 2.75 3

5. Provide adequate notes and study materials 2.50 3

Overall Weighted Mean 2.65 Neutral

38
 As per data below in Table 18, the strongest indicator in Instructional Material of

Teacher Related Factor (Face to Face Class) was “Workbooks/ textbooks” with average

weighted mean of two point fifty-five (2.55). The overall weighted mean was two point

thirty-four (2.34) that was interpreted as “neutral”.

Table 18: Teacher Related Factor (Face to Face)

Indicator Weighted Mean Rank

H. Instructional Material

1. Chalk-talk technique is being applied. 2.30 3

2. Workbooks/Textbooks 2.55 3

3. PowerPoint presentations (visual aids) 2.25 3

4. Scholarly articles 2.30 3

5. Provide adequate notes and study materials 2.30 3

Overall Weighted Mean 2.34 Neutral

39
 Chart 1 below, presents the preferences of third-year BSIE (Bachelor of Science

in Industrial Engineering) students specifically for their Basic Accounting course who

experience online classes in the said subject. The chart consists of two sections: "Online

Classes" and "Face-to-Face Classes."

The "Online Classes" section of the chart indicates that five out of the twenty

surveyed students (third-year BSIE students) preferred to take their Basic Accounting

course through online classes. This implies that these five students showed a preference

for accessing the course material, lectures, and assignments online, using virtual learning

platforms.

On the other hand, the "Face-to-Face Classes" section of the chart demonstrates

that the majority of the surveyed students, specifically fifteen students, preferred to have

their Basic Accounting course in a face-to-face setting. This suggests that these fifteen

students expressed a desire to attend traditional in-person classes for their Basic

Accounting course, where they can interact directly with the instructor and fellow

classmates in a physical classroom environment.

Based on the given data, it is evident that a larger proportion of third-year BSIE

students, specifically three times as many, preferred face-to-face classes for their Basic

Accounting course compared to online classes.

40
 Chart 1: Preferred Learning Modality (Third Year BSIE Students)

Preferred Learning Modality (Third Year Students)

Online Classes Face to Face Classes

Chart 2 below, presents the preferences of second-year BSIE (Bachelor of Science

in Industrial Engineering) students specifically for their Basic Accounting course who

experienced face to face classes in the said subject. The chart consists of two sections:

"Online Classes" and "Face-to-Face Classes."

The "Online Classes" section of the chart indicates that one out of the twenty

surveyed students (second-year BSIE students) preferred to take their Basic Accounting

course through online classes. This implies that this particular student showed a

preference for accessing the course material, lectures, and assignments online, using

virtual learning platforms.

41
 On the other hand, the "Face-to-Face Classes" section of the chart demonstrates

that the majority of the surveyed students, precisely nineteen students, preferred to have

their Basic Accounting course in a face-to-face setting. This suggests that these nineteen

students expressed a desire to attend traditional in-person classes for their Basic

Accounting course, where they can interact directly with the instructor and fellow

classmates in a physical classroom environment.

Based on the given data, it is evident that a significant majority of second-year

BSIE students (nineteen out of twenty) preferred face-to-face classes for their Basic

Accounting course.

Chart 2: Preferred Learning Modality (Second Year BSIE Students)

Preferred Learning Modality (Second Year Students)

Online Classes Face to Face Classes

42
 CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The findings from the evaluation of student-related factors and teacher-related

factors in online classes and face-to-face classes were summarized as follows:

For student-related factors in the interest section, the indicator with the highest

average weighted mean in both online and face-to-face classes was seeking individual

help from the instructor when confused, with averages of 2.95 and 2.85, respectively. In

the learning skills section, coping up easily during the start of discussions was the

highest-rated indicator for online classes (average weighted mean of 3.05), while easily

understanding the lessons received the highest rating for face-to-face classes (average

weighted mean of 2.90). In the study habit section, making sure vacant time is utilized for

studying scored highest for online classes (average weighted mean of 2.70), while

studying missed lessons when absent was rated highest for face-to-face classes (average

weighted mean of 2.80). Regarding the study environment section, both online and face-

to-face classes had similar indicators with slightly higher ratings for online classes (3.20

and 3.10, respectively). In the learning material used section, having a stable internet

connection and being provided with textbooks or handouts received the highest rating for

face-to-face classes (average weighted mean of 2.80), while having a stable internet

connection was the highest-rated indicator for online classes (average weighted mean of

2.90).

43
 For teacher-related factors in the personality traits section, having an appealing

personality with a good sense of humor received the highest rating for online classes

(average weighted mean of 2.45), while showing smartness, confidence, and firmness in

decision-making scored highest for face-to-face classes (average weighted mean of 2.65).

In the teaching skills section, being well-prepared before teaching was the highest-rated

indicator for online classes (average weighted mean of 2.45), while briefly explaining

lesson objectives, having confidence and mastery of the subject matter, and using various

teaching strategies and aids were the highest-rated indicators for face-to-face classes

(average weighted mean of 2.75). In the instructional material section, the chalk-talk

technique was rated highest for online classes (average weighted mean of 2.85), while

workbooks and textbooks were rated highest for face-to-face classes (average weighted

mean of 2.55).

The weighted means for these factors were interpreted as "neutral" in both modes

of instruction.

For the third-year BSIE students experiencing online classes, out of the twenty

surveyed students, five preferred the online format. This indicates their inclination

towards accessing course material, lectures, and assignments through virtual platforms.

Conversely, the majority of fifteen students favored face-to-face classes, expressing a

desire for in-person interaction with instructors and peers in a traditional classroom

setting.

44
 In the case of second-year BSIE students who had face-to-face classes, it shows

that out of twenty surveyed students, only one student preferred online classes. This

suggests a preference for accessing course material virtually. However, a significant

majority of nineteen students favored face-to-face classes, demonstrating a strong desire

for in-person interaction and engagement within a physical classroom environment.

Overall, the data reveals that a larger proportion of both third-year and second-

year BSIE students preferred face-to-face classes for their Basic Accounting course,

highlighting the importance they place on direct interaction and engagement with

instructors and peers in a traditional classroom setting.

Conclusion

Based on the findings and the results that are drawn the respondents preferred

face to face class over online class. In our study, it shows that face to face class has more

advantages than online class. The respondents claim that since there won't be as many

distractions as there would be at home, they would be able to focus more intently on their

studies. Teachers and other students can provide the respondents with further

information, examples from real life. They could feel more at ease and pick things up

more quickly in a routine, typical classroom setting. can access more details and a deeper

comprehension through the voice and body language of the teacher and other students

Additionally, they may get the chance to interact with, work out issues with, and network

with other students from a variety of backgrounds.

45
 To support the researcher's conclusion, the following research were presented: It

differs when a teacher and classmates are present. It touches on the students mental and

emotional well-being. Within a group of people learning together, students can develop

more. Without any obstructions or barriers, students can interact with one another. Since

students can support one another in class, questions are not very challenging to answer.

Attending school never gets monotonous. A greater range of thought is available in a

classroom context. Students are encouraged to reflect on their studies more than they

would if they were just at home. (Avril, Helpline PH, 2018)

Face-to-face education enhances mental health and well-being, academic

performance, and social interaction skills. Additionally, many of our talented but

disadvantaged pupils struggle to afford devices and Internet access. (Department of

Health - Republic of The Philippines, 2022)

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are

recommended:

1. Long-Term Evaluation of Learning Modalities

Additional research is advised to investigate the long-term effects of various

learning modalities on the academic performance and professional success of BSIE

46
students. This may entail monitoring students' performance in subsequent accounting

courses or assessing their performance in internships or job placements involving

accounting and finance.

2.Emphasis on Peer Interaction and Immediate Feedback

While online asynchronous learning demonstrated positive results, it lacked the

ability to cultivate peer interaction and immediate feedback. Educators should design

assignments and activities that promote student collaboration, such as virtual group

projects, peer evaluations, and discussion forums. In addition, students should receive

timely and constructive feedback to facilitate their learning.

3. Flexible and Accessible Online Resources

Given the optimistic results of online asynchronous learning, educators should

provide BSIE students with flexible and accessible online resources such as recorded

lectures, interactive quizzes, and online forums. This allows students to review and

reinforce their understanding of the concepts of Basic Accounting at their own tempo and

convenience.

4. Professional Development and Training

As the implementation of various learning modalities requires specific skills and

strategies, it is advised that educators receive professional development and training on

effective instructional practices for each modality. This will ensure that they have the

necessary pedagogical skills and digital literacy to create engaging and interactive

learning environments.

47
5. Integration of Blended Learning

The research emphasizes the benefits of blended learning for enhancing

knowledge retention and student engagement. Educators and institutions should therefore

consider incorporating integrated learning strategies into BSIE students' Basic

Accounting courses. This could entail a combination of face-to-face instruction and

online modules, discussion boards, and virtual simulations.

6. Flexible and Accessible Online Resources Given

The optimistic results of online asynchronous learning, educators should provide

BSIE students with flexible and accessible online resources such as recorded lectures,

interactive quizzes, and online forums. This allows students to review and reinforce their

understanding of the concepts of Basic Accounting at their own tempo and convenience.

48
Bibliography

Chisadza, C., Clance, M., Mthembu, T., Nicholls, N., & Yitbarek, E. (2021). Online and

face‐to‐face learning: Evidence from students’ performance during the Covid‐19

pandemic. African Development Review, 33(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-

8268.12520

Learning Modality Type. (2022, December 12). Wisconsin Department of Public

Instruction. https://dpi.wi.gov/wise/data-elements/learning-modality

Cooke, G. (2023b). Online learning vs face to face training. Elucidat.

https://www.elucidat.com/blog/online-learning-vs-face-to-face-learning/

What you can do with Forms - Google Workspace Learning Center. (n.d.).

https://support.google.com/a/users/answer/9302965?hl=en%20https://zapier.com/

blog/how-to-use-google-forms/

Helplineph. (2022, November 7). Top 10 reasons why face-to-face learning is still much

better compared to online /modular learning |. Helpline PH.

https://helplineph.com/opinion/face-to-face-learning-is-still-much-better/

Sato, M., & Sato, M. (2022, July 17). Which is better, online class or face-to-face class? -

cue media. cue media. https://onstarplus.com/archives/3866

Cooke, G. (2023c). Online learning vs face to face training. Elucidat.

https://www.elucidat.com/blog/online-learning-vs-face-to-face-

learning/#:~:text=Face%20to%20face%20learning,-

Online%20learning%20opens&text=Face%20to%20face%20interaction%20with,

to%20motivate%2C%20inspire%20and%20engage.

49
Koenig, R. (2019, December 12). Most Students and Faculty Prefer Face-To-Face

Instruction, EDUCAUSE Surveys Find. EdSurge.

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-12-11-most-students-and-faculty-prefer-

face-to-face-instruction-educause-surveys-find

Nair, M. (2022). Facts: Is Online Learning As Good As Face-To-Face Learning?

University of the People. https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/online-learning-good-

as-face-to-face-learning/

Paechter, M. , & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face‐to‐face? Students' experiences and

preferences in e‐learning. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–297.

[Google Scholar]

Lundberg, J. , Merino, D. , & Dahmani, M. (2008). Do online students perform better

than face‐to‐face students? Reflections and a short review of some empirical

findings. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 5(1), 35–44.

[Google Scholar]

Navarro, P. , & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners

in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15–35. [Google

Scholar]

Arias, J. J. , Swinton, J. , & Anderson, K. (2018). On‐line vs. face‐to‐face: A comparison

of student outcomes with random assignment. e‐Journal of Business Education

and Scholarship of Teaching,, 12(2), 1–23. [Google Scholar]

50
Russell, T. L. , & International Distance Education Certificate Center (IDECC) (1999).

The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated

bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research

reports, summaries and papers. North Carolina State University. [Google Scholar]

Means, B. , Toyama, Y. , Murphy, R. , Bakia, M. , & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of

evidence‐based practices in online learning: A meta‐analysis and review of online

learning studies (Report No. ed‐04‐co‐0040 task 0006). U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Washington

DC.

Brown, B. , & Liedholm, C. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles

of microeconomics? American Economic Review, 92(2), 444–448. [Google

Scholar]

Almatra, O. , Johri, A. , Nagappan, K. , & Modanlu, A. (2015). An empirical study of

face‐to‐face and distance learning sections of a core telecommunication course

(Conference Proceedings Paper No. 12944). 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and

Exposition, Seattle, Washington State.

Figlio, D. , Rush, M. , & Yin, L. (2013). Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates

of the effects of online instruction on student learning. Journal of Labor

Economics, 31(4), 763–784. [Google Scholar]

51
APPENDICES

Appendix A

TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO THE CHAIR

52
May 2, 2023

Dear Engr. Clofer Suson,

I am writing to request your approval for a research study that our group intends

to conduct in the Industrial Engineering department. We would like to conduct a research

study in the Industrial Engineering department as part of our course requirements.

Our proposed study aims to address this knowledge gap by conducting a

comparative analysis of the effectiveness of face-to-face classes and online learning in

the context of teaching Basic Accounting to BSIE students at the University of Cebu

Main Campus. We believe our research will make a substantial contribution to the corpus

of knowledge in industrial engineering. We intend to collect data through surveys, and

we assure you that all data collected will be kept strictly confidential and used only for

academic purposes.

As students of your prestigious department, we request permission to conduct our

research within the department. We are willing to adhere to all guidelines and procedures

established by the department to ensure the successful completion of our research.

Thank you for taking our request into account. We anticipate your favorable response.

Sincerely,

JOMELL C. REDONDIEZ

GROUP REPRESENTATIVE

Noted by:

ENGR. SERGE JUDE BARGAYO

RESEARCH ADVISER

53
Appendix B

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

54
General Direction: Good day! We, the 3nd year BSIE students, would like to conduct a

brief survey regarding the Effectiveness of Learning Modalities (Face to Face and Online

Class) of BSIE students with the subject Basic Accounting in UC Main. We appreciate

your time and effort. Thank you!

PART 1: Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Name:____________________Course & Year: _____________ Final Grade: ______

Age: Gender: ______ Learning Modality: Face to Face: Online Class:

Instruction: Please check () and rate yourself honestly based on what you actually do

given the statements using the following scales

5 – Strong Disagree 4 – Disagree 3 – Neutral 2 – Agree 1 – Strongly Agree

PART 2: Level of Academic Performance of students having Face to Face classes and

Online classes

Part 2.1: Student-Related Factors

A. Interest 5 4 3 2 1

1. I make myself prepared for the Basic Accounting subject.

2. I understand the purpose and objectives of learning Basic Accounting.

3. I listen attentively and showed genuine interest during the lecture.

4. I assure to have good and passing grade on seatworks, assignments,

quizzes, and major exams.

5. I seek individual help from my instructor when I get confused with the

lessons.

B. Learning Skills 5 4 3 2 1

55
1. I easily cope up during the start of discussion in Basic Accounting.

2. I can easily understand the lessons.

3. I devote sufficient study time to the subject

4. I learn with the intention of remembering.

5. I understand the lecture and classroom discussion while I am taking

notes

C. Study Habits 5 4 3 2 1

1.I do assignments, projects, and activities regularly.

2. I exert more effort when I do difficult assignments or activities.

3.I make sure my vacant time will be utilized in studying my lessons.

4. I study in advance and study the missed lessons whenever I am absent.

5. I study harder to improve my performance when I get low grades.

Study Environment

1. I study in a place free from auditory and visual distractions.

2. I have a peaceful environment at home while learning

3. Our classroom is free from noise and other visual distractions during

class hours.

4. I was provided with many opportunities to interact with fellow

students and share and share our thoughts, ask questions, etc.

5. Online classes makes it difficult for me to study since I don’t have

direct contact with my classmates and teachers

Learning Material used

56
1. I have my own cellphone/laptop that I can use in my online

classes(please specify gadget used)

2. We have wifi/ data / stable internet connection for my online classes

3. We are provided textbooks or handouts in our face to face discussions

4. I usually bring my notebooks for note taking

5. Others: (please specify)

Part 3: Teacher-Related Factors

E. Personality Traits 5 4 3 2 1

1. Has an appealing personality with good sense of humor.

2. Has a harmonious student-teacher relationship.

3. Imposes proper discipline and is not lenient in following the prescribed

rules.

4. Shows smartness, confidence and firmness in making decisions.

5. Is open to suggestions and opinions and is worthy of praise.

F. Teaching Skills 5 4 3 2 1

1. Briefly explains the objectives of the lesson at the start of each period.

2. Is confident and has mastery of the subject matter.

3. Well prepared before teaching

57
4. Able to make the subject interesting and motivate students

5. Uses various strategies, teaching aids/devices, and techniques in

presenting the lessons.

G. Instructional Materials 5 4 3 2 1

1. Chalk-talk technique is being applied.

2. Workbooks/Textbooks

3. PowerPoint presentations (visual aids)

4. Scholarly articles

5. Provide adequate notes and study materials

Which do you prefer most Online Classes or Face to Face classes?

58
Appendix B

LOCALE OF THE STUDY

59
CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL DATA

Name : Archival, Khaye T.

City Address : Brgy. San Jose Purok 2, Cebu City

Date of Birth : March 21, 2002

Place of Birth : Talamban, Cebu City

Email Address : tudtudkhaye@gmail.com

Mobile Number : 09918580267

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

College : University of Cebu– Main Campus

Sanciangko St., Cebu City

2021-Present

Senior High School : Talamban Senior High School

Borbajo St., Talamban Cebu City

2020

Junior High School : Talamban National High School

Borbajo St., Talamban Cebu City

2018

Elementary : Talamban Elementary School

Borbajo St., Talamban Cebu City

2014

60
PERSONAL DATA

Name : Bancog, Sharah Hannah L.

City Address : San Roque, Mambaling, Cebu City

Date of Birth : June 21, 1999

Place of Birth : Mangoto, Pinamungajan, Cebu

Email Address : bancogsharahhannah@gmail.com

Mobile Number : 09300492066

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

College : University of Cebu– Main Campus

Sanciangko St., Cebu City

2018-Present

Senior High School : Pinamungajan National High School

Pandacan, Pinamungajan, Cebu

2016-2018

Junior High School : Pinamungajan National High School

Pandacan, Pinamungajan, Cebu

2012-2016

Elementary : Pinamungajan Central Elementary School

Poblacion, Pinamungajan, Cebu

2006-2012

61
PERSONAL DATA

Name : Redondiez, Jomell C.

City Address : 253 A Del Rosario St, Mantuyong,

Mandaue City, Cebu

Date of Birth : January 7, 2000

Place of Birth : Mandaue City

Email Address : jomellredondiez@gmail.com

Mobile Number : 09758037879

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

College : University of Cebu– Main Campus

Sanciangko St., Cebu City

2019-Present

Senior High School : Mandaue City Comprehensive National High School

Jose L. Briones, Mandaue City, 6014 Cebu

2016-2018

Junior High School : Mandaue City Comprehensive National High School

Jose L. Briones, Mandaue City, 6014 Cebu

2012-2016

Elementary : Mandaue City Central School

C. Ouano Street, Mandaue City, 6014 Cebu

2006-2012

62
PERSONAL DATA

Name : Villanueva, Shena P.

City Address : Joseville Subdivision Bacayan, Cebu City

Date of Birth : January 29, 2001

Place of Birth : Cebu City

Email Address : villashena01@gmail.com

Mobile Number : 09286218441

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

College : University of Cebu– Main Campus

Sanciangko St., Cebu City

2019-Present

Senior High School : Apas Integrated Senior High School

Omega St., Apas Cebu City

2017-2019

Junior High School : Apas National High School

Omega St., Apas Cebu City

2013-2017

Elementary : Barrio Luz Elementary School

Archbishop Reyes Avenue, Cebu City

2007-2013

63