THE SPIRAL PROGRESSION IN TEACHING OF SCIENCE TO

JUNIOR CURRICULUM AT RIZAL NATIONAL SCHOOL OF ARTS

AND TRADES
(Michelle F. Bocarile)

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to assess the implementation of the spiral progression
in teaching science in Junior Curriculum at Rizal National School of Arts and
Trades according to its complexity, and ambiguity.

Methodology of Research:

Descriptive research design was employed in this study, and the total enumeration
technique was used to determine the respondents. A valid and reliable self-made
questionnaire was utilized in the conduct of the study.

Introduction
The Philippine education system went through several stages of development before
reaching the current education system. For a long time, the Philippine government
has been working hard to improve education programs to satisfy all Filipinos with
quality education. The goal of improving the education system provides the
appropriate tools to achieve national goals that can be attained through
appropriate reforms in educational programs. The professional world of education
has been considered a changing era and the needs of the students have been the
utmost focus of adapting to changes in the educational curriculum (Sharma et al.,
2019). As such, one of the major changes in Philippine education history to
ameliorate the quality of education was the implementation of K to12 reform
through Republic Act 10533 also known as the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.

Since the curriculum is considered to be the heart of the educational system.

Therefore, Republic Act 10533 ensures that the overall curriculum design for Grades
1-10 follows a spiral progressive approach between subjects based on the same
concepts developed with increasing complexity and completion from primary school
onwards (Reyes & Dizon, 2015). Also, teachers are expected to use a spiral
progression approach in teaching, and the development of topics in the subject
lessons should be interrelated each year especially, in teaching Science.

In terms of existing literature, there is a scarcity of studies that combines

education related to the spiral progression of teaching Science to students and
this research is trying to fill the gap. Consequently, assessing the spiral
progression in teaching of Science by determining its complexity, and ambiguity
provide a better understanding of its future effect particularly on students’
mastery that instead of progressing upward it may be a downward spiral considering
the increasing level of difficulty, new learning is related to previous learning
and competencies of students are expected to increase. (Harden & Stamper, 1999)
This study provides an opportunity to examine whether spiral progression in
teaching Science of the junior curriculum served its purpose and content. Hence, it
is imperative to look into the implementation and potholes of the spiral
progression approach as a way to create an approach the solution to cope with
complex conditions and the problems of complexity and ambiguity for
planning to take on a different approach of advantages like moving from complexity
to vision, from uncertainty to understanding, from complexity to clarity and
ambiguity to agility or adaptability.

For students and teachers alike to be of a greater level of understanding, more

clarity, and the ability to be agile and adapt to the new approach in the
curriculum using the spiral progression approach, it is with the utmost necessity
to look into the level of implementation, hand in hand, assessment of its
Complexity and ambiguity as perceived by the junior high school curriculum at Rizal
National School of Arts and Trades in the division of Kalinga, the school year
2023-2024.

Research questions
This study intends to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the assessment level of the spiral progression in teaching Science in
Junior Curriculum of K to 12 as perceived by Junior high school students based on
its complexities, and ambiguities?
2. What is the level of implementation of the spiral progression in teaching
Science in Junior Curriculum of K to 12 among Junior High School Science students
in terms of learning objectives and learning competencies?

Objectives of the Study

The study on the implementation of the spiral progression approach in teaching
science and its complexities, and ambiguities as perceived by junior high school
science students at Rizal National School of Arts and Trades in the division of
Kalinga, the school year 2023-2024 intended to:

1. Evaluate the level of implementation of the K to 12 spiral progression in

teaching Science in Junior Curriculum.
2. Investigate the level of the complexities, and ambiguities of the spiral
progression approach, specifically in teaching science.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Spiral Progression Approach

Spiral Progression Approach in curriculum comes from Bruner's spiral
curriculum model (de RamosSamala, 2018). Bruner emphasized that education should
always aim to stimulate cognitive development. Students will not understand a
concept if the teacher plans to teach it using only the teacher's level of
understanding. Programs should be arranged in a spiral so that the student is
continually building on what he or she has learned. Consistent with other findings,
Bruner views the teacher's role as translating information into a format
appropriate to each child's current state of understanding (Igcasama, 2021). Hilda
Taba also influences the design of a spiral curriculum that is organized around
concepts, skills, or values in the horizontal integration of learning (Davis,
2007).

Based on the arguments put forward, the effectiveness of the curriculum

depends on the teacher's knowledge of the curriculum, its teaching strategies, and
mastery of the subject (Duze, 2012).
The idea of the spiral progression approach is to expose students to various
concepts and/or topics and disciplines until they master them by studying them
over and over again, but at different depths.
Regarding the high school science curriculum, it consists of four fields:
integrated science, biology, chemistry, and physics. In the old curriculum,
integrated science was taught in the first year, the second year of biology, the
third year of chemistry, and the fourth year of physics (Raguindin, 2020).
However, in the high school science curriculum which was only implemented in 2012,
the concepts of these four main areas are taught simultaneously. Each year,
students are exposed to a spiral developmental approach, in which all four areas
are taught with assessment periods. In addition, integrated science has been
transformed into earth science.

Cherry (2014) added that behaviorism is another philosophy under the said
approach. According to her, it is a theory of learning based upon the idea that
all behaviors are acquired through conditioning. Conditioning occurs through
interaction with the environment. Behaviorists believe that our responses to
environmental stimuli shape our
behaviors. Other than that, spiral progression can also be anchored to discovery-
based learning. This type of learning requires longer hours and fails without
sufficient guidance (Clark, et al., 2009). The
discovery-based learning method is also called inquiry method or problem solving
method.

Corpuz (2011) explained that the teacher guides the students as they
explore and discover. As stated by a science teacher, “We will never be able to
help children learn if we tell them everything they need to know. Rather, we must
provide them with opportunities to explore, inquire and discover new leanings.
Houtz (2010),emphasized inquiry method as all hands-on activities, no textbooks,
and few or no directions from the teacher.

Many problems in life involve scientific explanations and processes. For this
reason, understanding science and a scientific approach are very important for
making smart decisions (Resurreccion & Adanza, 2015). In this regard, Science
subjects diverge into separate disciplines in secondary education. Thus, there is
a need for teachers with sufficient knowledge in all these areas.

Spiral Progression Approach in the Philippine Context

The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, made legal by R.A. No. 10533 brought a
lot of innovations. Among the different disciplines, Science is one of the
subjects which has undergone major revisions. As stated in the Standards and
Principles under Curriculum (R.A. No. 10533, Rule II Section 10.2g), the
curriculum shall use a spiral progression approach to ensure the mastery of the
subject. This ensures that the learning competencies were decongested and the same
fields shall be taught but with increasing complexity and sophistication (Valin
and Janer, 2018).

The days the Philippine education had general science in science 7, biology in
science 8, chemistry in science 9, and physics in science 10 had been long gone
(Sanchez et al., 2014). This is due to the shifting of the new curriculum as
mandated in the Republic Act No. 10533 which aims to put an end to the congestion
of the Philippine basic education curriculum. Before the introduction of this
enhanced curriculum, the Basic Education Curriculum (2002) and Secondary Education
Curriculum (2010) were described as too congested and equipped with numerous
knowledge and skills for the learners to be learned for a limited time (Gonzales,
2019).

Moreover, students’ failure to learn the competencies essential for life

skills were the drawbacks of fragmented and disintegrated learning based on the
framework of the former curriculum (Orbe, Espinosa, and Datukan, 2018). Science
teaching's spiral progression brought different reactions to some. Before the K to
12, science subjects have linear progression where each year level is specialized
and focused on a single field of Science (Gonzales, 2019). This offers an avenue
for seasoned teachers to teach better because of their field of specialization
(Cabansag, 2014). Though the implementation of spiral progression brought positive
opinions from other teachers, some who are more focused on their specialization
prefer to have ample time preparing for the activities they have long mastered
compared to the ones they have just learned from supplementary training conducted
by the Department of Education.

It is revealed that the understanding of teachers and students toward the spiral
progression approach revolves around the concept of vertical and horizontal
articulation of the curriculum (de Ramos-Samala, 2018). Data from her study showed
that the majority of the teachers have the same thought that both vertical and
horizontal articulation of the Spiral Progression Approach is very hard to trace in
the learning competencies. The reason lies in the diversity of the learners.
Students with varying levels of understanding tend to have difficulty remembering
the previous lesson forcing the teacher to review first before the start of the new
lesson.

Though every teacher believes that the spiral progression approach simply follows
the idea that learning flows smoothly when it is vertically aligned and having
prior knowledge will easily open a bigger chance to develop a more complex idea.
However, students in a higher grade level have difficulty connecting more complex
topics like chemistry and physics since not all students can
remember past lessons (Tapang, 2012).

Moreover, the difficulty of remembering was one of the effects of the gap between
the same principle in the different year levels. After tackling a specific field
of Science in the first quarter, as proposed in the spiral progression approach
curriculum, the next quarter will discuss another field of science, another in the
next quarter, and so on. This pattern brought gaps in the learning continuity of
the students and is believed to be the cause of students’ difficulty connecting
their previous learning with the new one.

As the curriculum shifted from a conventional to a spiral progression approach,

considering the drawbacks and downsides is very vital as the program progresses.
This study covers specifically the spiral progression approach in teaching Science.
Complexity and Ambiguity are the nature and dynamics of change or it refers to the
speed of change in the world in general. The Philippine educational system evolved
a lot, from its oldest name Superior Commission of Primary Instruction which was
legalized by the Educational decree of 1863 to the 2001’s Department of Education
with legal order RA 9155 of Governance of Basic Education Act (Bodenhausen &
Peery, 2009). Furthermore, the volatilities of the education world have made these
changes and the shift from the old to the new curriculum has placed stress on the
educational system to a broad extent, ranging from the continuous change in the
medium of instructions, curriculum, frameworks, models, necessary strategies,
instructional materials and involvement of the administration (Redelinghuis,
2012).

The rise of a certain curriculum aims to address the existing problems and
prepares for future challenges. The current Spiral Progression in Teaching Science
of K-12 covers all the weak points of its older versions – the BEC and DECS
(Urlanda, 2018). Though no predestined curriculum ensures its effectiveness, in
the end, utilizing all the factors present and devising a framework that would
address the probable grey areas are the least that the educational system can do
(Seymour, 2017). On the other hand, uncertainty refers to the incapability of
someone or a group of people to understand what is going on (Kraaijenbrink,
2018). It describes the unpredictability of a certain event that would happen or
be associated with the future. In the present curriculum mandated by RA 10533, the
sole focus of the shift of paradigm is to produce learners who are locally and
globally competitive.

The implementation of this new curriculum gained several reactions from

some, especially from teachers. Some do not agree that the shift was timely and
some pointed out that frequent changes in curriculum just brought vagueness and
difficulty both to teachers and to students (Cabansag,
2014). The planned learning activities, the delivery mode of instruction with the
use of technology, the intricacy of lessons, the availability of instructional
materials, modules, least mastered competencies, teachers’ field of
specialization, lesson gaps, and vertical articulations are just some of the
complexities brought by the Spiral Progression Approach of K-12 Curriculum.

Complexity is the number of considerations that one needs to consider,

their variety, and the relationships between them. Variety is affected by the
factors involved which are interconnected. The more connections, the more complex
environment is particularly in place (Kraaijenbrink, 2018).Teaching materials refer
to the resources used by the teacher to deliver instruction with ease and greater
effectiveness. These materials aid students’ learning and secure an increase in
scholastic achievement (Basilan, 2018). The vast collection of teaching materials
aims to guide both teachers and learners in teaching-learning instruction and to
support teachers and students in the teaching-learning process.

Ambiguity refers to a lack of clarity on how to interpret something based

on incomplete, contradictory, or inaccurate information; more generally refers to
the vagueness and ambiguity of ideas and terminology (Bennett and Lemoine 2014).
Furthermore, the presence of instructional materials reinforces the extent of
learning the depth and implements tangible material for assessment and evaluation.
They are developed to help the teachers facilitate learners’ prior knowledge,
assist them to process and understand the new learning, and eventually aid them to
apply newly acquired knowledge to their practical lives (Smith, 2010).

The need to provide instructional materials which are suited for generation x
learners is to be considered. As practiced, the conventional learning process
simply refers to face-toface learning instruction inside the four-walled classroom
where all exercises are to be facilitated by the teachers and learning will not
happen in the absence of a teacher. Today, education and training
have taken on a whole new meaning (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007).

Research methodology

The study on the complexities and ambiguities of the spiral progression approach in
the context of teaching Science was conducted in the public secondary school in the
Municipality of Rizal, Division of Kalinga Province namely; Rizal National School
of Arts and Trades.

Methods and materials

This study used a descriptive design of research. Since it is descriptive it will
provide a detailed discussion to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
phenomenon under investigation. To obtain the necessary data for the study, valid
and reliable self-made questionnaires were used in the study to gauge the extent
level of the implementation of the spiral progression approach and the level of
complexities, and ambiguities.

Respondents of the study

One hundred (100) Junior High School Science students at Rizal National High
School,
Division of Kalinga served as the respondents of the study.

Sampling technique
Since the study was comprised of small population size, the total enumeration
technique was applied which constituted the entire population of Junior High School
respondents.

Research instrument
The study was carried out using self-made questionnaires that were further
validated by experts in the field of curriculum and instruction. The provided
instruments were tested on a reliability platform with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.7407
indicating that the instruments were considered reliable and
acceptable.

The survey questionnaires were composed of two parts, Part I focused on the
assessment level of the Spiral Progression Approach of K to 12 as perceived by
Science teachers comprising (2) indicators namely: complexities, and ambiguities.
Part II survey questionnaire gauged the level of the implementation of the Spiral
Progression Approach for K to 12 among Science teachers based on learning
objectives and learning competencies.

Data gathering procedure

After receiving consent from the administrators of the participating schools, the
survey questionnaire was distributed to participants. The questionnaires were
administered by the researcher, who also provided instructions on how to complete
them. Additionally, the nature and goal of the study were described. The
respondents' completed questionnaires were obtained by the researcher right away
for statistical analysis. The researcher ensures that the data gathered were
treated with utmost confidentiality as a means to protect the privacy of all
junior high school respondents.

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES:
Level of Complexities of the Spiral Progression Approach in Teaching
Science

Complexities Description
1. The progression of -Often
learning - More often
competencies of Science -Sometimes
does not cater - Maybe
-Never
to learners’ needs for
a particular period.
2. The continuity of
lessons in all
grade levels does not
provide a concrete
link between concepts.

3. The topics discussed

in the previous
years are not needed in
the present year.
4. The lessons are not
easy to
understand since there
are no
interconnected topics
at varying levels of
complexity.

5. The gap between

connected topics is
not too short to recall
the details of the
previous lesson.

6. Students do not have

the chance to
apply and develop their
skills and
understanding in an
increasingly
challenging situation.

7. No integrative and
multidisciplinary
approach enables
learners to connect
disciplines.

8. The progression of
concept does not
structure experiences
and sufficient
challenge in a
recognizable curricular
landscape.

Level of Ambiguity of the Spiral Progression Approach in Teaching Science

Ambiguities Description
1. It does not provide relevance and -Often
real-world experience to create - More often
stronger -Sometimes
connections to the content that is - Maybe
-Never
to be
covered.

2. There is no fixed assessment

method
to gather authentic learning from
students.
3. The lessons are not extended in a
more elaborate and comprehensive
teaching style.

4. Teaching strategies do not help

learners appreciate the connections
among the different content
standards.
5. The presentations of the lessons
are
not broadened and deepened each time
a
concept is revisited.

6. Students do not learn the subject

matter in their phase.

7. Teachers do not have expertise on

all
topics. Hence, allowed out-of-field
teachers to teach Science.
8. Lessons are not presented starting
from abstract rather than a concrete
construct of domains.

Level of Science Teachers’ Implementation of Spiral Progression Approach

Learning Objectives Learning Competencies

Overall Level of the Spiral Progression in Teaching Science of Junior High

School Students
Complexity Ambuiguity

References
Aldossari, A. T. (2018). The Challenges of Using the Differentiated Instruction
Strategy: A Case Study in the General Education Stages in Saudi Arabia.
International Education Studies
Adeyemi, B. A. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning and problem-solving
strategies on junior secondary school students' achievement in social studies.
Basilan, M.L. (2018)
Scantiness of Instructional Materials in Senior High School: Basis for a Proposed
Digital Instructional Archive. Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014).
What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA
world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311-317.
Bhattacharya, S., Trehan, G., & Kaur, K. (2018).
Factors determining psychological contract of IT
employees in India.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Peery, D. (2009). Social categorization and stereotyping in
vivo: The VUCA challenges. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(2), 133-
151.
Cabansag, M. (2014).
Impact Statements on the K-12 Program in the Enhanced Basic Education
Curriculum in Provincial Schools.
Corpuz, B. B. (2013). The spiral progression approach in the K to 12 curricula.
Davis, Edith G. (2007). A Study of the Effects of an Experimental Spiral Physics
Curriculum Taught to Sixth Grade Girls and Boys. de Ramos-Samala, H. (2018). Spiral
progression approach in teaching Science:
Downie, S., & McCartney, S. (2013). Constructing schools that inspire: How to
connect sustainable initiatives with the curriculum. Leader School, 44(2).
Duze, C. O. (2012).
Gonzales, N. J. (2019). Narrative experience of seasoned teachers in teaching
science using spiral
progression curriculum.
Igcasama, R. M. (2021). Teachers and Students Perceptions on the Implementation of
K-12 Spiral Progression Approach.Kraaijenbrink, J. (2018).
Laukkonen, R. E., Biddel, H., & Gallagher, R. (2019).
Preparing humanity for change and artificial intelligence: learning to learn as a
safeguard against volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.Matzen, N. J.,
& Edmunds, J. A. (2007).
Raguindin, P. Z. J. (2020). Integrating Concepts and Expressions of Inclusion in
the K-Curriculum:
Redelinghuis, H. (2018). Storytelling as a mechanism for driving the employee
engagement of knowledge workers in a VUCA environment (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Pretoria).
Resurreccion, J. A., & Adanza, J. (2015).
Spiral progression approach in teaching science in selected
private and public schools in Cavite.Reyes, E., and Dizon, E. (2015). Curriculum
Development. Quezon City. Adriana Publication Co. Inc.
Sánchez, F., Soler, A., López, D., Martín, C., Ageno, A., Belanche, L., & Marés, P.
(2014).
Schema Theory and Reading Comprehension NETRC (2015). The 2015
Sharma, U., Armstrong, A. C., Merumeru, L., Simi, J., & Yared, H. (2019).
Shkedi, A. (2009).
Smith, G. (2010) Student Perceptions of Technology in the Classroom:
Tapang, G. (2012). Don’t teach maths and science in English. SciDevNet.
Tsybulsky, D., Dodick, J., & Camhi, J. (2018)

ASSESSMENT OF FLEXIBLE LEARNING IN A HIGHER EDUCATION

INSTITUTION OF KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY, SLCB and ISAP
(Sheryl De los Santos)

ABSTRACT

Assessments of Flexible learning in a higher education

institution are becoming increasingly important for the planning and
delivery of information systems curricula. Despite the significance
and importance of these new learning environments, little has been
done to empirically assess their impact on student learning outcomes
in higher institutions . In this study, the researcher assesses the
effectiveness of using a technology-centric flexible learning
environment to teach a tertiary level introductory information
systems course.

The subjects for the study were students who were enrolled in
different similar courses: (1) a group using traditional teaching and
learning methods only, and (2) a group using a flexible learning
approach incorporating extensive use of web technology. The course
content, lecturer, textbook and assessment were the same for each
group. The results will show that the technology-centric flexible
learning course provided an effective learning environment for
students. However significant differences in academic performance
within individual assessment items indicate that particular
assessment strategies are more suited to a flexible learning context
than others. Student tertiary entrance scores and computer
playfulness were identified as important overall predictors of
academic performance.

INTRODUCTION

State Colleges and Universities are under increasing pressure

to provide responsive and relevant business education systems in
relation to assessing the flexible learning approaches in higher
education that produce self-reliant individuals with the ability to
apply advanced problem-solving skills. These demands along with
competitive pressures and reductions in educational funding are
forcing many business educators to rethink delivery.

Many Universities are adopting strategies centered in assessing

flexible learning and computer-based technologies. Much of the
research into the use of flexible learning approaches revolves around
the question of whether or not they provide a pedagogically sound
foundation on which to provide educational programs. That is, do
flexible learning approaches, particularly those employing the use of
Internet technologies result in learning outcomes equivalent to that
of traditional education. Further, do web-based flexible learning
environments provide adequate reward for the extra development effort
required? This paper focuses on flexible learning as an alternative
to traditional teaching methods.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Flexible Learning- when considering flexibility, each course

planner needs to identify the aspects of the program or course that
will become flexible. Flexibility is generally understood to mean
offering choices in the learning environment so that a course of
study better meets the individual needs of students. Several aspects
of the learning environment can offer flexibility including class
times, course content, instructional approach, learning resources,
location, technology use, entry/completion dates and communication
medium (Collis et al. 1997).

From a student’s perspective, Collis (1998) identified several forms

of flexibility that were of particular importance; these included
location, class times, assignment completion times, course content,
amount of communication required and assignments relevant to their
workplace. However, in offering flexibility, educators must recognize
and understand who their students are and where their experience and
interests lie (Gaies 1989).

Educators must also balance this autonomy with the need to

provide opportunities for stimulating learning and fostering
interaction and collaboration between the students themselves and the
teacher. Flexible learning is an educational approach that uses a
range of student-centered teaching and learning methods and resources
(GIHE 2000). This educational approach is responsive to the needs of
a diverse student population. That is, students are personally and
socially motivated to achieve and learn (Taylor and Joughlin 1997).
Further, the introduction of flexibility encourages greater self-
reliance and the development of lifelong learning skills (Harasim et
al. 1995).

Although the use of information and telecommunications

technology is not a requirement for flexible learning, it is
generally seen as an important element in supporting studentcentered
learning and improving the quality of education (Hobbs and Judge
1992; McComb 1994; Santoro 1995). Internet technologies can be used
to enhance student independence and control over access to course
content and other resources.
These technologies can significantly reduce the required amount
of formal face-to-face contact and allow students to progress through
key course milestones at different rates. Several researchers have
undertaken reviews of the surfeit of research that exists on the use
of web-based technologies in teaching and learning settings. Landauer
(1995) reported that many studies did not have any scientific rigor
and provided little support for the claims made while Chen and Rada
(1996) found only 18 experimental studies of note. Analyses conducted
in both studies revealed little advantage for web technologies over
other media in general information tasks. A more recent analysis
conducted by Dillon and Gabbard (1998) extended Landauer’s work into
the learning domain and attempted to provide a baseline review of
experimental findings on the quantitative effects of
hypertext/hypermedia on learning outcomes.

Dillon and Gabbard found that the use of hypermedia did not lead
directly to significant gains in comprehension, nor do media
characteristics or interface features impact gains. One interesting
point revealed in the literature is that low-ability learners benefit
from the use of hypermedia and that the high-ability learners are
seemingly indifferent. This suggests that hypermedia learning
environments should be designed with low-ability students in mind.
While the research tends to support the contention that web-
based technologies have potential for supporting an effective
teaching and learning environment, its use must be carefully balanced
against the desired learning outcomes.

Further, much of the reviewed research has focused on gains and

performance improvement through the use of hypermedia, but little
attention has been focused on the use of this technology for specific
learning areas such as information systems. In an attempt to address
this issue, this study explores the effectiveness of using web-based
technology for teaching an introductory information systems course to
students undertaking a business degree.

The Use of Technology in Flexible Learning Newman (1990)

proposed a framework for implementing and using technology in
education. The framework consists of four steps, which are preceded
by the establishment of the goals for the educational unit. Newman's
framework consists of: 1) The identification of strategies that
create effective teaching and learning environment; 2) Analysis of
how technology can support the strategies; 3) Exploring new
technologies to improve teaching and learning environments; and 4)
Proposing areas for research.
The objective of any learning environment should be to ensure
there are prospects for learners to develop competencies in the
material being taught. Subsequent improvements must also support this
goal. Strategies for creating an efficient and effective learning
environment must be established to identify how computers can best
support learning before the technological infrastructure required to
support them can be devised. Egbert (1993) identified several
strategies that can be applied to almost any classroom situation to
create an effective learning environment.

Egbert’s strategies are: 1) Providing occasions for learners

to interact; 2) Providing an authentic audience and opportunities to
negotiate meaning; 3) Creating and using real tasks; 4) Promoting
exposure to and production of rich language; 5) Providing learners
opportunities to formulate ideas and thoughts; 6) Promoting
intentional cognition; 7) Creating an atmosphere with optimal stress
and anxiety; and 8) Creating a learner-centered classroom. However,
Egbert (1993) identified several benefits and limitations of these
strategies when she applied them to teaching English as second
language students.

While Egbert focused specifically on the use of group support system

software, this study employed Internet technologies, such as
hypermedia, chat rooms and bulletin boards. These technologies can
provide beneficial learning and teaching environments (Carter 2002;
Stout, Villegas and Kim 2001; Machart and Silverthorn 2000).
Hypermedia can provide opportunities for interaction and negotiation
amongst learners by supporting real-time interaction. Further, the
technology can also support task-processes so that the users can
create and use tasks that have practical applications, thus
increasing knowledge Hypermedia can expose learners to a rich and
varied language via a range of real-life tasks and information from
other applications. Time spent on tasks is enhanced as learners can
view and reply to ideas input by other students during chat
sessions .

Hypermedia permits students to work at their own pace and in

their preferred manner thereby increasing participant comfort levels
and reducing stress and anxiety to an acceptable level for each
student. Control of the hypermedia learning environment is given to
the learners. However, several potential disadvantages can also
occur. Constrained social interactions may limit outcomes and the
attainment of lesson goals and reduce participation . Applications of
real tasks may be discarded due to a student’s lack of creativity or
failure to perceive the relevance to external environments such as
the workplace Increased comfort may promote the use of informal or
common language . Learners may not fully comprehend comments due to
time constraints or they may be unable to obtain adequate feedback .
Learners who are hesitant in taking control may resort to more
traditional delivery methods.

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The research question in this study is: What impact does a

flexible learning mode of delivery have on the academic performance
of students studying information systems and in the field of
education specifically? In technology-centric flexible learning
environments, a student’s ability and disposition to using
microcomputers should be strongly associated with academic
performance. Therefore, student preferences relating to these factors
must be taken into consideration when assessing flexible teaching and
learning environments that are highly reliant on technology.

Although learning style has been the focus of a large body of

research, there does not seem to be any consensus on which measure is
most appropriate (Pillay 1998). Learning styles reflect the
learner’s position on a continuum of traits such as holistic and
analytic, verbal and spatial, reflective and impulsive or exploratory
or passive. The difficulty that researchers face is that learning
style cannot be isolated from personal characteristics of the learner
and other influences such as prior knowledge, prior experience with
higher learning environments and other aspects of learning (Biggs
1991). Several measures of learning style have been proposed
including field independence/field dependence construct (Witkin et
al. 1971), passive versus active learners (Entwistle 1981), and deep
versus shallow processors (Marton and Säljö 1976). However, each
measure focuses on a different aspect of the learning dimension, thus
no single measure has been accepted as definitive. In contrast, the
microcomputer playfulness measure is designed to incorporate a
mixture of attitude, anxiety, competence and efficacy (Webster and
Martocchio 1992) and is, as a consequence, a more appropriate measure
than learning style. Hackbarth et al. (2002) studied computer
playfulness and computer anxiety separately but still concluded that
both constructs were significant mediators of computer experience and
perceived ease of use in a presentation format, and communication
methods (Campbell 2000).

The course provides a teaching/learning approach that reduces the

complexity of an introductory course in information systems by using
a conceptual framework that organizes the knowledge needed by
managers into five key modules.

A range of teaching methods was used to deliver core concepts

in flexible mode. Teaching materials included the use of texts,
workbooks, videos, computer-based interactive multimedia software,
and a comprehensive course Web site. Teaching and learning activities
were structured around three types of formal class: plenary or
keynote presentations (large group), tutorials (small groups) and
computer-laboratories (small groups). Each module was introduced by a
two-hour plenary session that provided an overview of the module and
an outline of the key concepts. These sessions were also used to
expand upon points covered in readings and to provide a group focal
point for providing information about course administration and
assessment items. Face to face contact occurred in tutorials and
computerlabs that were scheduled on alternate weeks with the students
attending a two-hour tutorial in one week and a two-hour computer-lab
the next. The tutorial sessions involved an hour of discussion and
activities relating to the key concepts and one hour of student group
discussions. The computer workshops involved handson computer-based
activities using Microsoft Excel and Access.

Students had the option of attending the computer-labs depending on

their level of experience with the software applications. The web
site for BIS-F was established to support the student-centered
learning approach.

An overview of assessment activities including topics, due

dates, criteria and models. Resources including material located on
this web site, links/references to other relevant web sites,
bibliographies, and information on accessing resources from the
library. Self assessment tests for each topic areas within each
Module. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) facility where the answers
to common questions asked by the students were provided; Forum or
chat facility through which students could interact with each other,
and the teaching staff, to exchange ideas and seek help on any
problems they may have encountered; and Noticeboard on which the
lecturer could announce events of interest, the availability of
assessment material, and provide feedback on assessment items.

Students were provided with a printed version of some of the

study material available on the web site. The provision of a hard
copy of this material ensured those students, who preferred not to
use the technology extensively were not disadvantaged. This material
included a study guide containing a course overview, general
assessment details, keynote presentation schedule, workshop schedule
and outline, as well as the learning activities for the semester. In
order to facilitate informal interaction and enhance their learning,
students were encouraged to form small study groups of up to four to
five of their peers.

While the course web site provided a degree of independence and

control for the students, they were also able to discuss and analyze
study materials and assessment items during workshops. The workshops
were run on a regular basis and, although attendance was optional,
they facilitated the interaction of students with the teaching staff
in a small group context. Students were set exercises that could be
completed in their own time and, if problems or questions were
encountered, these were then handled most effectively during the
tutorial or computer-laboratory sessions. The tutorial exercises were
structured to ensure appropriate coverage of the theoretical aspects
of each topic in the first instance, and then the application of the
theory to case examples in the second. Students had access to
teaching staff outside formal class times at regular set consultation
times and at other times by appointment. E-mail access could be
gained at any time with staff usually responding within a 24-hour
period. Students were provided with a forum or chat facility through
which they could exchange ideas and provoke creative thought although
they generally preferred to use informal face-to-face study groups.

The electronic noticeboard was used as a means of

communication, motivation and providing feedback on assessment items.
Since students were able to download topic summaries from the web
site, the focus of the lectures was in providing appropriate examples
of how the theory was applied in a business environment rather than
as a means of disseminating information. The students also had access
to self-assessment quizzes to test and verify their understanding of
each topic in the course. The only element in the course that was
outside the student’s control was the assessment items and the dates
on which they were due.

Respondents of the study

Three hundred (300) University students in three (3) tertiary level
namely; KSU, SLCB, and ISAP in the Municipality of Tabuk City,
division of Kalinga served as the respondents of the study.
 Sampling technique
Since the study was comprised of a quite large population size, the total
enumeration technique was applied which constituted the entire population of
University students taking up Education degree namely; Kalinga State University,
St. Louis College of Bulanao and International School of Asia Pacific as
respondents.

Research instrument
The study was carried out using self-made questionnaires that were further
validated by experts in the field of curriculum and instruction. The provided
instruments were tested on a reliability platform with Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA), Likert scale, weighted mean and Standard Deviation indicating that the
instruments were considered reliable and
acceptable.

ASSESSMENT OF FLEXIBLE LEARNING IN A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

STUDENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Interview number Interviewer Phone number

Date: School:
Gender: Time commenced:
Flexible classifications:
1. Fully online
2. Web dependent
educational content
3. Web dependent
communications
4. Web supported
5. Videoconferencing
6. Audio conferencing
7. Flexible scheduling
8. Resourced based
teaching and learning
9. Flexible access
10. Web dependent
educational content and
communications

1. Flexible learning comes in a variety of forms. I am going to read to you an list

and ask you which of these forms that you (may) have experienced while studying in
your current year. The first group involves teaching and learning using the web to
a greater and a lesser extent.
1.1 FULLY ONLINE LEARNING. (The subjects are taught fully online.)
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
1.2 WEB DEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL CONTENT AND COMMUNICATIONS
The subjects are taught face to face but I have access to content resources and use
communications tools such as discussion boards, on-line.
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
1.3 WEB DEPENDENT-EDUCATIONAL CONTENT
The subjects are taught face to face but I have to use resources on-line.
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
1.4 WEB DEPENDENT -COMMUNICATIONS
The subjects are taught face to face but I have to use communication tools such as
discussion boards on-line.
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
1.5 WEB SUPPORTED
The subjects are taught face to face teaching methods but supplementary resources
are available on the web.
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
OTHER METHODS OF FLEXIBLE LEARNING YOU MAY HAVE EXPEXPERIENCED DURING THE CURRENT
YEAR ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1.6 VIDEOCONFERENCING
This unit uses Videoconferencing as one of its teaching methods.
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
1.7 AUDIOCONFERENCING
This unit uses audio-conferencing as one of its teaching methods
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
1.8 FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING
I have the opportunity in this unit to attend some classes of normal teaching
hours, e.g. weekend blocks, summer schools.
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE

1.9 RESOURCE BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING

In this unit, I have to study independently using study resources such as CD’s,
book of readings etc.
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
1.10 FLEXIBLE ACCESS
In this unit, lecturers are available on audio or videoconferencing and are
streamed from the web for access at any time.

2. ARE THERE ANY REASONS WHY YOU HAVEN’T ENROLLED IN ANY OF YOUR SUBJECTS THAT
USED ANY OF THESE FLEXIBLE LEARNING METHODS?
A. YES
B. NO
If Yes, please state your answer:

3. WHAT DEGREE COURSE OR PROGRAM ARE YOU CURRENTLY ENROLLED FOR?

________________________________________________________________

4. HOW MANY YEARS , INCLUDING THIS YEAR THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ENROLLED AS A STUDENT IN
THIS COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY?
_____________________

5. FROM WHICH SUBJECT OR SUBJECTS HAVE YOU ACCESSED FLEXIBLE LEARNING AND LEARNING
DURING THIS CURRENT YEAR?
________________________

6. HOW OLD ARE YOU?

________________________
7. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES YOUR SITUATION? ARE YOU…
A. A full time student
B. A full time student with part time employment
C. A part time student with full time employment
D. A part time student with part time employment
E. A part time student with home duties
F. Others (Please specify)
2. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE FLEXIBLE TEACHING AND LEARNING DELIVERY
METHODS YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS YEAR.

WHICH FLEXIBLE LEARNING METHOD IS THE MAIN METHOD YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS YEAR?
A. FULLY ONLINE
B. Web dependent-Educ.+Communication
C. Web dependent-Communication only
D. Web dependent to Education only
E. Web supported
F. Video conferencing
G. Audio conferencing
H. Flexible scheduling
I. Resource based teaching and learning
J. Flexible access to lectures
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU TO GET TO THE NEAREST CAMPUS OF YOUR UNIVERSITY? Is it…
A. Under 15 minutes
B. 15 but under 30 minutes
C. 30 minutes but less than an hour
D. 1 hour but less than 2 hours
E. More than 2 hours
WHAT DIFFICULTIES OR BARRIERS HAVE YOU FACED USING THIS METHOD LEARNING?
______________________________________________________________________

Thinking about your situation, has flexible delivery of this type provided you with
opportunities for study that would have been possible through traditional method?
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
Has having this opportunity to study in this way made any difference to your
enrolment? If so, in what ways?
A. NO CHANGE
B. SUBJECT SELECTION
C. COURSE SELECTION
D. TIMING OF ENROLMENT
E. Others (Please specify)

Have you made enrolling for your course or subject more attractive, less attractive
or has it made no difference?
A. More attractive
B. Less Attractive
C. Made no difference
D. Unsure
Do you have access to a computer off campus, which you use in your studies?
A. YES
B. NO
C. I have my own laptop
Does the course you have been talking about requires you to use the web?
A. YES
B. NO
C. UNSURE
Where do you access the web? Is it..
A. At home
B. At work
C. On-line access center
D. State Library
E. University Campus
F. Personal mobilephone
When do you commonly access the web for your studies? Is it..
A. WEEKDAYS DAYTIME
B. WEEKDAYS EVENING
C. WEEKENDS DAYTIME
D. WEEKEND EVENINGS
E. AT ANY TIME -it varies
How seriously do network outages affect your ability to study? Are you affected…
A. VERY SERIOUSLY
B. QUITE SERIOUSLY
C. A LITTLE
D. NOT AT ALL
E. UNSURE
Overall how satisfied are you with the arrangements the State College/University
has made for you to access quality learning and teaching? Are you…
A. Very satisfied
B. Quite satisfied
C. Not very satisfied
D. Very dissatisfied
E. Unsure
WHAT SUGGESTIONS BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, DO YOU HAVE ABOUT THE COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COULD IMPROVE ACCESS FOR STUDENTS TO FLEXIBLE LEARNING?
 REFERENCES

Egbert, J. [1993], "Group support systems for computer assisted

language learning", in L.M. Jessup & J.S. Valacich (eds), Group
Support Systems: New Perspectives. Macmillan, New York, pp. 294-310.
Entwistle, N. [1981]
Styles of Learning and Teaching. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Gaies, S. [1989]
Foreword, in D. Johnson and D. Roen (eds.), Richness in Writing:
Empowering ESL Students. Longman Publishing, White Plains, pp. xi-
xii. GIHE. [2000]
Flexible Learning. Griffith Institute of Higher Education,
http://www5.gu.edu.au/gihe/ index.cfm/fl_gu, accessed 30 September
2001.
Hackbarth, G., V. Grover and M.Y. Yi [in press], "Computer
playfulness and anxiety: positive and negative mediators of the
system experience effect on perceived ease of use", Information &
Management, pp. 1-12. Harasim, L., S.R. Hiltz, L. Teles and M. Turoff
[1995]
Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning. MIT Press,
Cambridge. Hobbs, P. and P. Judge [1992],
"Computers as a Tool for Teaching Economics." Computers in Education,
Vol. 19, pp. 67-72. Landauer, T. [1995], The Trouble with Computers.
MIT Press, Cambridge. Machart, J.M. and D.U. Silverthorn [2000],
"Mailing lists are preferred to newsgroups as teaching tools for
undergraduate biology classes" Advances in Physiology Education, Vol.
23, No. 1, pp 67-71 Martocchio, J. and J. Webster, [1992],
"Effect of Feedback and Cognitive Playfulness on Performance in
Microcomputer Software Training." Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45, No.
3, pp. 553-570. Marton, F. and R. Säljö [1976], "On Qualitative
Differences in Learning - 1: Outcome and Process." British Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 4-11. McComb, M. [1994],
"Benefits of Computer-Mediated Communications in College Courses."
Communication Education, Vol. 43, pp. 159-169. Newman, D. [1990],
Opportunities for Research on the Organizational Impact of School
Computers." Educational Researcher, April, pp. 8-13. Pillay, H.,
[1998],
"An Investigation of the Effect of Individual Cognitive Preferences
on Learning Through Computer-based Instruction." Educational
Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 171-182.