Grade 12 Students’ Perceptions of Distance Learning in General Chemistry Subject: An Evidence from the Philippines

Authors

  • Fredyrose Ivan L. Pinar Science Education Department, De La Salle University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31098/ijtaese.v3i1.509

Keywords:

Alternative learning modalities, distance learning, synchronous learning, asynchronous learning, new normal education, perceptions

Abstract

The onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic forces institution to close face-to-face classes, thereby resulting to a paradigm shift towards remote learning. Unconventional learning strategies were reinforced to continuously provide education amidst the crisis. This led to the conversion of classroom-oriented learning resources into learning resources adapted to distance learning. At present, the placement of alternative learning modalities in a new normal classroom setting has become a mainstream point of discussion in the education sector. In light of the new trend in education brought by the pandemic or other similar circumstances, this study aims to identify students’ perceptions regarding the utilization of synchronous and asynchronous distance learning resources in Grade 12 level.  It also highlighted students’ preferences regarding the synchronous and asynchronous mode of delivering instructions.  The participants were randomly selected 317 Grade 12 students enrolled in Special Health Sciences STEM track from a private medical institution situated in an urban area of Cavite in the Philippines. These Grade 12 students had immersed experience in synchronous online classes along with asynchronous learning activities. A dependent sample t-test was used to find out difference between the use of synchronous and asynchronous learning modalities. Conceptual understanding of students was measured based on their performance on summative assessments both in synchronous and asynchronous modalities. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were also used to present students’ evaluation on the different distance learning aspects particularly on the teaching approach, learning materials and instructions, activities, and assessments. Results revealed that students have high interest on the teaching approach in asynchronous modality consistent with obtaining better performance in the asynchronous assessment. Students valued the asynchronous threaded discussions, the availability of relevant learning materials, and teacher’s guidance and scaffolding on the learning process as essential components of distance learning (synchronous or asynchronous).

References

Berge, Z., & Muilenberg, L. (2005). Survey of student barriers to e-learning. Distance Education Journal, 26(1), 29-48.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory.

Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International journal of educational technology in Higher education, 15(1), 1-16.

Fairlie, R. (2004). Race and the digital divide. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0645.1263

Garrison, R., et al. (2000). Critical Inquiry in Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), p. 88

Hidi S, Renninger KA (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist.; 41:111–127. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4.

Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2009). Virtual world teaching, experiential learning, and assessment: An interdisciplinary communication course in Second Life. Computers & Education, 53(1), 169-182.

Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Pérez, F. S. (2009). U.S. college students’ internet use: Race, gender and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 244–264 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01439.x.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.

MacKinnon, P. J., Hine, D., & Barnard, R. T. (2013). Interdisciplinary science research and education. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(3), 407–419. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.686482

Malik, M., & Fatima, G. (2017). E-Learning: Students' Perspectives about Asynchronous and Synchronous Resources at Higher Education Level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 39(2), 183-195.

Masic I. (2008). E-Learning as New Method of Medical Education. Acta Inform Med. 2008, 16(2), 102–117.

Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85–103, ISSN 1042–1629.

Olson, J. S., & McCracken, F. E. (2015). Is it worth the effort? The impact of incorporating synchronous lectures into an online course. Online Learning, 19(2), n2.

Parlakk?l?ç, A. (2015) E-Learning Readiness in Medicine: Turkish Family Medicine (FM) Physicians Case. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 3(3), 21-25

Pena R. (2012). Top Universities Test the Online Appeal of Free. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/education/top-universities-test-the-online-appeal-of-free.html?_r=0

Pillay, H., Irving, K., & Tones, M. (2007). Validation of the diagnostic tool for assessing tertiary students’ readiness for online learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 217-234.

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. Handbook of self-determination research, 2, 183-204.

Rosenfeld, R. A. (1978). Anxiety and Learning. Teaching Sociology, 5(2), 151. doi:10.2307/1317061

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001a). Assessing social presence in screen text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14. Available online http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html.

Ryan, R.M. et al. (2017). Self-determination theory. In Development of self-determination through the life-course, pp. 47-54.

Shi, S., & Morrow, B., V. (2006). E-Conferencing for instruction: What works? EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(4), 42-49.

Spielberger CD, O'Neil HF Jr, Hansen D.N. (1972). Anxiety, drive theory, and computer-assisted learning. Prog Exp Pers Res.; 6:109-48. PMID: 4651695.

Taplin, R. H., Kerr, R., & Brown, A. M. (2013). Who pays for blended learning? A cost–benefit analysis. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 61–68. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.002

Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309-328.

Downloads

Published

2021-04-30

How to Cite

L. Pinar, F. I. . (2021). Grade 12 Students’ Perceptions of Distance Learning in General Chemistry Subject: An Evidence from the Philippines. International Journal of Theory and Application in Elementary and Secondary School Education, 3(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.31098/ijtaese.v3i1.509

Issue

Section

Articles